The "double-hit" theory and Zapruder authenticity

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Kathy. I can see that it is Jerry who introduced this refinement, but then appears to have exaggerated what it means:

Jerry, Just to be sure I understand, the original negative would be the first generation, a print made from it the second, a negative from that print the third, and a print made from that the fourth. So if Sydney obtained the Forensic Copy from the National Archives, we know what negative it was: not the original and not the first but the second negative copy. I am a bit perplexed at your casual suggestion that it may be "a copy of a copy of a copy". Actually, we KNOW that is not the case. She has a copy of a copy, which the National Archives itself designates as "the Forensic copy of the National Archives". Not to make too fine a point of it, but you seem to be making its order just a bit less certain than it is. And that strikes me as the least bit odd. Best to you, Jim

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=177651

Kathy

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

People citing photographic information need to know the territory.

Copies of transparency images can be made in various ways. Some of these ways result in GENERATION misinterpretation.

The Z film WAS A TRANSPARENCY (in movie form). It was KODACHROME.

Now, a transparency can be copied multiple ways...in addition to contact or aerial imaging.

It CAN be copied to NEGATIVE STOCK, and then positive duplicates made. The duplicate is then THIRD GENERATION.

But it can also be copied TRANSPARENCY TO TRANSPARENCY. The resulting duplicate is then SECOND GENERATION.

In the case of the Z film, the Kodachrome was sent to Jamieson, because Kodak allegedly had no capability of

copying transparency to transparency. Jamieson then made COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL onto Kodachrome stock,

which was then returned to Kodak for processing (only Kodak could process Kodachrome). So the Jamieson

copies were SECOND GENERATION...not third generation as some of you seem to think.

People talking 3rd, 4th, 5th generations do not understand photography and the principle of color reversal

film, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVES.

Therefore, were the film genuine, here is the generational family tree.

Camera original....FIRST generation

3 Jamieson copies...SECOND generation

Other transparencies made from camera original...SECOND generation

Other transparencies made from copy negatives...THIRD generation

Other copies made from Jamieson copies...THIRD or FOURTH generation, depending on copy method.

etc.

What the lay person (non photographer) does not understand is the COLOR REVERSAL PROCESS of

films like Kodachrome, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVE.

I have never read of any copies made using negative film, since this requires one additional generation.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent, Jack! This is simply one more illustration of why I have been so fortunate to collaborate with persons like you, David Mantik, Bob Livingston, Chuck Crenshaw, David Healy, and John Costella, not to mention Noel Twyman and David Lifton, among others. But am I not correct that, when Josiah Thompson and Jerry Logan make much of the film that Sydney obtained for study by the Hollywood experts by denigating its "generation" when it was obtained from the National Archives as the National Archives' designated "forensic copy" of the Zapruder film, they are pulling our chain? This appears to me to be simply one more attempt to add a degree of uncertainty to what we can know when there is no justification for doing so. They are using the forensic copy of the Zapruder film from the National Archives! And, I take it, that is the right copy of the film for conducting their research.

People citing photographic information need to know the territory.

Copies of transparency images can be made in various ways. Some of these ways result in GENERATION misinterpretation.

The Z film WAS A TRANSPARENCY (in movie form). It was KODACHROME.

Now, a transparency can be copied multiple ways...in addition to contact or aerial imaging.

It CAN be copied to NEGATIVE STOCK, and then positive duplicates made. The duplicate is then THIRD GENERATION.

But it can also be copied TRANSPARENCY TO TRANSPARENCY. The resulting duplicate is then SECOND GENERATION.

In the case of the Z film, the Kodachrome was sent to Jamieson, because Kodak allegedly had no capability of

copying transparency to transparency. Jamieson then made COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL onto Kodachrome stock,

which was then returned to Kodak for processing (only Kodak could process Kodachrome). So the Jamieson

copies were SECOND GENERATION...not third generation as some of you seem to think.

People talking 3rd, 4th, 5th generations do not understand photography and the principle of color reversal

film, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVES.

Therefore, were the film genuine, here is the generational family tree.

Camera original....FIRST generation

3 Jamieson copies...SECOND generation

Other transparencies made from camera original...SECOND generation

Other transparencies made from copy negatives...THIRD generation

Other copies made from Jamieson copies...THIRD or FOURTH generation, depending on copy method.

etc.

What the lay person (non photographer) does not understand is the COLOR REVERSAL PROCESS of

films like Kodachrome, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVE.

I have never read of any copies made using negative film, since this requires one additional generation.

Jack

Edited January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

Forensic means that it can be introduced into a court of law.

That's where we have to go to determine the truth - the real chain of custody of the film and a determination of whether the film belongs to the Sixth Floor or the American people, who paid millions of dollars for it.

Forensic Autopsy is also what is needed to determine the truth about the medical evidence, creating new evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury that will investigate and determine if there is anyone who can be indicted for crimes related to the assassination - including destruction of evidence, tampering with evidence, perjury, and homicide, as well as conspiracy.

BK

[Dean Hagerman]

I think Dean just appears disappointed in Thompson's change of heart. He hasn't debunked anything.

That depends on how you define debunked

I guess you missed the GIFs I posted showing no motion blur or nobody inside the limo sliding forward starting at frame 308 as Tink has said

What more do I have to do to "debunk" Tinks crazy reasons for changing his mind?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For Kathy and her friends! From the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread. From here, it looks like, "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

It seems to me important to ask whether these film restoration experts in Hollywood will be looking at the best copies available of Zapruder frames. Last August, David Mantik emailed Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum and asked him if he knew the whereabouts of the large format 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome transparencies of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video Image of an Assassination. Gary Mack replied by email that the Ektachrome transparencies were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing if a request was made through proper channels on the museum’s website. This was very important news. Whereas the dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were ever declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than the dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove whether or not the Hollywood team had digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

No one is feeding me anything. I recalled reading this, and found it, and it is from Horne--I'll go back and get the link.