Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Jack,

I'm very familiar with the various statements and testimonies of Hargis - I'm unaware of him EVER saying anything about making any "U-turns".

The Weigman film shows (blurred) Hargis parking his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street. Other films and photos (Bell, , Darnell, Couch, Bond, Bothun, Atkins, etc.) show that he then ran over to the lightpost near the Newmans before running back to his cycle and continuing down Elm.

Todd

I remember Mary Ferrell telling me that, and a few nights ago I read it in HORNE IV. I will

try to find the page. I believe it was Mary who used the word U-turn.

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

[Jack White]

I just spent about 30 minutes leafing through HORNE IV looking for the

statement I remember about a motorcycle making a Uturn, but I cannot

find it, though I remember reading it. Therefore I am unable to confirm

what I said.

I did find a Hargis statement that "he stopped" when the limo stopped,

and "racked his bike" by the curb.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

[David Lifton]

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

"So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same."

Mary Ferrell said CIRCLING AROUND IN THE STREET".

I thought I remember in Horne IV...MADE A U-TURN.

Take your pick.

Jack

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem.

The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?)

If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day.

So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check.

Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11.

Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference.

YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY?

Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed.

Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process.

This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle.

Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter.

[Dean Hagerman]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Mr White

I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops.

I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome.

Lee

What happened to your profile picture? Are you trying to make your self look sick by coloring your face green?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

With all due respect, Duncan, why don't these people post themselves if they expect to have a voice in this forum? Otherwise, it just looks as though you are being used by apologists to post their excuses.

David Von Pein is banned from this forum, Pamela, and therefore could not post the information here.

I asked Gary for permission to post his thoughts as relayed to Mr Von Pein. I thought everyone, especially alterationists, would be interested in reading and considering the information furbished by him.

The forum used to enforce a rule that NO BANNED MEMBER can use a surrogate to post

messages. What happened to that rule? Duane Daman was banished by Burton, and I

was admonished for posting something from Duane. Why doe the same not apply to

VonPain?

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

The multiple alterations to DP films have never been adequately catalogued. In most, the alterations

just excised relevant frames. Some, like Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and several others underwent

extensive alteration.

And just think, Dan Rather said he was on the west side of the underpass waiting for a "film drop".

Do you believe Rather or the Daniel film?

;-)

Jack

[Jack White]

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Mr White

I’m sure you are more than aware that there are no movies that detail precisely what you describe (faked or otherwise). The Mark Bell film shows hints of what you outline (concerning Bobby Hargis parking next to Jean Hill and Mary Moorman) and the Wilma Bond photos document Clyde Haygood parked at the curb in front of the knoll (after unsuccessfully attempting to get his motorcycle up over the north curb – which I believe witnesses interpreted as him “trying” to drive up the knoll). The films and photos that you have been studying for 40+ years demonstrate no U-Turns, no circling, no wheel spins and no driving through fiery hoops.

I would also like to thank you for the condescending slant of your response. I understand fully, after reading your posts on the Education Forum for the last 2 years, that you consider this site somewhat of a personal fiefdom but may I respectfully remind you that it is a forum that many “non-members” read regularly for information (I myself only becoming a member yesterday). These individuals will have varying degrees of knowledge on the assassination. They, unlike you, may not have seen some of the photographs taken of Dealey Plaza in the aftermath of the shooting and I felt including it would give some context to your discussions of MOVIE alteration. It would have been as easy for you to ignore my attached photograph as it was to take it as a personal attack on your JFK research longevity and act in such a childish manner by giving me a spelling lesson on my first ever post. Thanks for the welcome.

Lee

Lee....

My apologies if I did something to offend you. I know of no "childish manner" in which I have acted. This website

is populated by many provocateurs and jerks who cause much wear and tear on an 83-year old. I have no idea

why you perceive that this forum is "my personal fiefdom". I find that quite amusing, since the contrary is true.

I do not recall any "condescending slant" in responding to you. If you perceive that, I apologize.

I have studied this baffling case for 45 years and it gets irritating when some come along disputing known facts

as if they have just discovered them.

And consider this...if you made a spelling error (?), what is wrong with correcting it? And about sarcasm, I do

recognize that when I see it, and have duly noted it.

Your humble servant,

Jack

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem.

The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?)

If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day.

So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check.

Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11.

Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference.

YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY?

Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed.

Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process.

This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle.

Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter.

I am forced to agree with Lamson on his final statement. Too many researchers DO NOT UNDERSTAND PHOTOGRAPHY.

Lamson is wrong to include Lifton, but many others make comments displaying a basic ignorance of the most basic

fundamentals. In recent discussions of duplicate film generations, some demonstrated no grasp at all that Kodachrome

film is a color reversal film and requires no negative. Its negative is "built in" and is removed in the reversal process

which exposes the color dyes. Therefore a Kodachrome film (1st generation) when copied to another Kodachrome

film creates a SECOND GENERATION copy...not a third generation.

In Lamson's demonstration, he shows that many factors can affect exposure; the one he demonstrates (aperture)

is certainly a factor in image coverage of the film plane. Despite his other faults, Lamson DOES understand photography.

However...it is UNKNOWN whether in the B&H camera Lamson's demonstration would be a factor.

Jack