Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Jack White]

Thanks for your list Jack.

1. I am not yet up to speed on this point because I'm only on Volume II of Doug's books and have only skimmed through the discussion's on here between the likes of yourself and Bill Kelly because I didn't want to spoil reading the books at my own pace. But I'm interested in the opinions of the individuals who feel 313 is a paint job.

2. An issue that has been discussed ad-infinitum for quite a number of years now with belief required rather than nailed-on proof whilst using some witnesses at the exclusion of others

3. I agree with this one and although "belief" is somewhat required it is one that would make sense to most people if you gave the right context to it and reasons for its removal.

4. Witness testimony required and brings up the debate regarding altering the film frames themselves and would turn people off in my opinion

5. The one that has cause so much fuss and if raised in any public forum would be the easiest to make counter-claims against and has been the main point that the "anti-alterationists" have used as a stick with which to beat the "alterationists" with.

Taken as whole I don't think this area of the debate (alteration) would be the best one to use as a device to buy members of the general public in with.

Lee

I posted a reply to Lee (NO OFFENSE INTENDED) which failed to show up after I clicked ADD REPLY.

I suggested that he is underinformed on the Z fim and should check this website:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/

...to become informed. It does not require BELIEFS. It only presents facts.

I especially recommend: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/index.html

Jack

Edited January 13, 2010 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

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

Jack

Jack, it MUST be a factor. Sharpening and changes in the width of the vignette as the F-Stop decreases in size is a basic photographic fact, it is not subject to speculation. That the vignette will change on B&H wth changes in F-Stop is a given. A comparison of images taken at two different setting is meaningless.

The area of lens coverage IN ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA at various apertures is not known.

Jack

Nope. The APERTURE has NO BEARING on the size of the circle of illuimination. It remains the same regardless. It's a constant.

What APERTURE does effect is the size and density of the vignette, and this influences the USABLE circle of illumination.

Wanna try again?

[Dean Hagerman]

Hi there Jack

I disagree somewhat. I've read and watched John Costella's articles and videos before. I don't purport to be an expert in anything scientific regarding this aspect of the case - science and math have never been a forte of mine although I do try - but your claim that the website only presents facts is a little off the mark in my opinion.

The whole Chaney riding forward incident is detailed in Jim Fetzer's article where the issue is supported by the eyewitness testimony of five people. Once we get into eyewitness testimony we are not dealing with facts - we are dealing with an individual's retrospective subjective interpretation of their own reality.

Bobby Hargis is the only witness who claimed that Chaney rode "immediately" to the lead car. In his Warren Commission testimony he also claimed "...everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would have noticed them." Hargis's testimony can be used to fit any argument in the issue of "alteration" and "non-alteration".

But let me again refer to my point I was trying to make - it is all too complicated for Joe Six-Pack to swallow and John Costella's website proves my point. Only someone with an obsessive attraction to the case (like me and you) would read his website. But we both know already there was a conspiracy and a massive cover-up (without Z-film debates) so what are we going to do about it in the short time between now and 2013?

Lee

Why do you keep trying to make the point of proving alteration to John Q. Citizen?

If the lay person wants to learn about alteration they first need to learn the basics of the assassination

All they then have to do is read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" to learn about alteration

You seem hell bent on asking us to prove alteration to people who have no clue about the JFK assassination

Why is that so important to you?

[Jack White]

Hi there Jack

I disagree somewhat. I've read and watched John Costella's articles and videos before. I don't purport to be an expert in anything scientific regarding this aspect of the case - science and math have never been a forte of mine although I do try - but your claim that the website only presents facts is a little off the mark in my opinion.

The whole Chaney riding forward incident is detailed in Jim Fetzer's article where the issue is supported by the eyewitness testimony of five people. Once we get into eyewitness testimony we are not dealing with facts - we are dealing with an individual's retrospective subjective interpretation of their own reality.

Bobby Hargis is the only witness who claimed that Chaney rode "immediately" to the lead car. In his Warren Commission testimony he also claimed "...everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would have noticed them." Hargis's testimony can be used to fit any argument in the issue of "alteration" and "non-alteration".

But let me again refer to my point I was trying to make - it is all too complicated for Joe Six-Pack to swallow and John Costella's website proves my point. Only someone with an obsessive attraction to the case (like me and you) would read his website. But we both know already there was a conspiracy and a massive cover-up (without Z-film debates) so what are we going to do about it in the short time between now and 2013?

Lee

I do not comprehend your hangup on the unreliability of witnesses.

You "may" be right concerning a SINGLE witness. But you seem unaware that the CONCURRENCE of multiple

witnesses increases their reliability exponentially!

For instance, Dr. Aguilar wrote, regarding 44 medical witnesses:

QUOTE:

If, as has been argued, the error rate in the determination of entrance from exit in single, perforating wounds is 37% among emergency physicians (Randall T. Clinicians' forensic interpretations of fatal gunshot wounds often miss the mark. JAMA. 1993; 269:2058- 2061), and, accepting for the sake of argument that the determining of the location of a skull defect is as troublesome as determining entrance from exit in perforating bullet wounds (it should not be, of course), the likelihood of error by 44 witnesses from two facilities is 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power, or 1 in 4,294,967,296. The likelihood that 44 of 44 erroneous witnesses would agree (excepting Giesecke and Salyer) among themselves to the same "wrong" location is considerably less than 1 divided by 2 to the 44th power. Critics of the Warren Commission's conclusions are chary to embrace such odds and are troubled that loyalists seem to be unaware of this problem.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE MORE WITNESSES WHO REPORT THE SAME EVENT IN THE SAME MANNER INCREASES

THE RELIABILITY OF THEIR TESTIMONY!

All witnesses are NOT unreliable. In fact, in court, witness testimony under oath takes precedence over physical

evidence like photos. For a photo to be admitted, its provenance must be testified to by a witness.

NO OFFENSE INTENDED.

Jack

[Jack White]

The COINCIDENCE THEORISTS keep talking irrelevancies regarding the Z film. How about concentrating on just these 5 things:

1. Doug Horne's discovery of fakery in the film provenance at Hawkeyeworks.

2. The redaction of the limo stop on Elm.

3. The removal of the early Z frames showing the wide turn

4. The redaction of Officer Chaney speeding forward to the Curry car.

5. Moorman/Hill on the grass instead of in the street.

Jack

[David Lifton]

:

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[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

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.

DSL REPLY (posted on 1/14/10, at 3:45 AM PST):

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[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

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.

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[David Lifton]

REPLYING DIRECTLY TO YOUR POST:

Craig Lamson:

I notice the clear difference between your argument and that of Gary Mack. Gary was claiming that test films were ALREADY shot; ergo, no need to shoot new test films. Now that sounded promising, did it not? But here we are, and your argument is quite different.

Your argument: the test films are useless because they were not shot on a full sun day.

Now which is it?

Rollie Zavada recognized that if enough light was blasted through the lens, AND it was on full zoom, one might get full penetration of the inter sprocket area. Apparently, he got it on one frame with the red truck.

But that's not what the Zapruder film frames show--just about every single frame (read that again, Mr. Lamson, "every single frame") is "full flush left" and many of them (if not just about all of them) are "BEYOND full full left."

Now what are we to make of that?

What is the problem here--my knowledge of photography, or your lack of logic?

This is not about my ignorance of the interplay of these various factors, but rather your unwillingness to face the fact that there is good reason to suspect that what is called the "original Zapruder film" was not the film made by Abraham Zapruder, but rather an optically edited copy made on an optical printer, and then reduction printed to Kodachrome II.

There is enough difference in "image content" (car stop, wounds that are on JFK's head, but were not seen 4 minutes later at Parkland, etc.) to suspect optical forgery. And one simple way to see if that is in fact the case is this matter of full flush left.

An accurate test would include BOTH full zoom setting of the lens AS WELL AS the lighting conditions on 11/22/63.

You're setting up a straw man. I never suggested that the lighting conditions should not be duplicated. If the FBI test films were not shot on a full sun day, then new test films would have to be shot. (But please don't reason circularly and tell me that because the U-Tube videos are of such poor quality, that means the test films were not shot on a full sun day. Apparently, Gary Mack believed those test films were fine, thankyou. Now maybe he is wrong; maybe he didn't bother to look up the weather on that day--and candidly, I have not done so.) Have you concluded it was not a sunny day because the U-tube videos are so lousy? Or because you checked with the records kept by the U.S.Weather Bureau. (That would make a difference, I hope you know).

So let's dispense with the straw man argument(s), and try to reign in your compulsion to display your erudition when it comes to lenses and light.

The simple question is this: when the Zapruder camera is used, and when lens is set at full zoom, and when the light is at a level comparable to 11/22/63, will the camera produce--repeatedly, frame after frame--a sequence of frames that are full flush left, and in fact "beyond full flush left"--such as we see on the frames from the supposedly "original Zapruder film"?

That's the test that must be conducted--and ought to have been conducted--before the taxpayers forked over $16 million for what may well be a forgery, an optically edited film that is supposedly "camera original."

Sure, I know, Lamson. You will now respond to this post with another effusion of words, designed to advertise your erudition, but it will be lacking in logic, and steeped in denial.

You seem not to comprehend that your prediction(s) about what such a test will show are not equivalent to actually conducting the test and examining the results.

At the track, do you bet on horses, and then go and try to collect at the betting window, BEFORE the race is run?

Are you so ego-centric that you genuinely believe that your knowledge (and predictions) about "how things work" are a substitute for actually conducting the appropriate test(s)?

And yes, I'd love to conduct an "indoor test" with the camera (at full zoom) facing a clock, and the minute hand going round and round--and then increasing the light levels, a notch at a time, to see just when (and if) full flush penetration occurs. And when (and if) "beyond full flush" is even possible.

Eventually, with enough light blasting through, it will happen. But when will that be, Lamson--after the camera has melted??

We're dealing with the Zapruder camera--this is not the test of a laser weapon. (Do you understand?)

So please: stop erecting straw men, and stop using your knowledge of photography to invent excuses to avoid proper testing.

And one other thing: should you attend the test, do bring some heavy dark goggles, and be sure to wear them during the test. I know, you'd prefer not to because you may look like a character in a Peanuts cartoon, but I'm afraid you may need the protection, since those may well be the light levels that are going to be needed before "beyond full flush left" penetration is achieved.

DSL

1/13/2010; 1 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Dean Hagerman]

Hi there Jack

I disagree somewhat. I've read and watched John Costella's articles and videos before. I don't purport to be an expert in anything scientific regarding this aspect of the case - science and math have never been a forte of mine although I do try - but your claim that the website only presents facts is a little off the mark in my opinion.

The whole Chaney riding forward incident is detailed in Jim Fetzer's article where the issue is supported by the eyewitness testimony of five people. Once we get into eyewitness testimony we are not dealing with facts - we are dealing with an individual's retrospective subjective interpretation of their own reality.

Bobby Hargis is the only witness who claimed that Chaney rode "immediately" to the lead car. In his Warren Commission testimony he also claimed "...everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would have noticed them." Hargis's testimony can be used to fit any argument in the issue of "alteration" and "non-alteration".

But let me again refer to my point I was trying to make - it is all too complicated for Joe Six-Pack to swallow and John Costella's website proves my point. Only someone with an obsessive attraction to the case (like me and you) would read his website. But we both know already there was a conspiracy and a massive cover-up (without Z-film debates) so what are we going to do about it in the short time between now and 2013?

Lee

Why do you keep trying to make the point of proving alteration to John Q. Citizen?

If the lay person wants to learn about alteration they first need to learn the basics of the assassination

All they then have to do is read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" to learn about alteration

You seem hell bent on asking us to prove alteration to people who have no clue about the JFK assassination

Why is that so important to you?

Dean

I've had to read your comments and questions quite a number of times for them to actually sink in. Wow!

First off: I'm not asking you to "do" anything.

Secondly: I thought I'd given a reasonable explanation in my direct reply to you yesterday.

Third: If you're happy to leave the "education" of John Q. Citizen to the Sixth Floor Museum then knock yourself out - take your kids there, it's only $13.50 for adults, $12.50 for youths and free for the under 5's.

May I ask you a question? What is all this about? What are we all doing this for? Bill Kelly has the right idea by framing his own education and research around gaining a future Grand Jury trial. Doug Horne writes of his experiences of working inside the ARRB after performing a public service to the citizen's of the U.S. by releasing millions of pages of documents. John Judge organises COPA events several times a year. Jim DiEugenio goes on the airwaves to give a balanced interpretation of the evidence each week. Jim Marrs is working with Alex Jones on a new assassination documentary.

If you're more interested in spending all your spare time looking at shadows and blades of grass that shouldn't be where they are in the Zapruder film and then high fiving people of the same persuasion and beliefs then fine - if the forum is still running I'll check in with you in 47 years to discover what new anomoly you are discussing.

If you can't read my posts properly and ask questions that relate to the content of what I have written then I can't force you to. I'm not arguing for you "to prove" alteration of the DP films to John Q. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing "against" trying to "prove "alteration" to John Q. Citizen. It's an issue that is over complicated. Pat Speer mentioned yesterday in a separate post that in the event of a spokesperson being selected to talk to the media in 2013 you have to be incredibly careful as to what content/issues are used so as to not be torn a new one. You want to keep calling yourself an "alterationist" so be it. You want to give the Gary Mack's of this world the perfect opportunity to label you as a "kook" then that's your choice. It simply enables Mr Mack to lump anyone who thinks ANY aspect of the Zapruder film has been altered into the "alterationist" pot. Even if we are talking about frame removal or provenance of the film we all get lumped together as "alterationists". You want to be painted into a corner? To be labelled in such a way? To have this label attached to you that limits people's perceptions of you? To encourage and support the plan that has been enacted to encourage a pavlovian response when the word is used? You have created a microcosm of partisan party politics within the research by labelling yourself, and allowing others to label you, in this way.

If this is not about getting the general public on board at some point in the future then I don't know what this is all about. To argue with each other as to who knows more about a topic than someone else? The homeless guys running around Dealey Plaza doing improptu tours for $5 are providing more of a public service than you are Dean.

I intend to start work on a grassroots campaign in the next twelve months over this side of the pond after having already been in touch with some smaller campaign groups in my local area. I will make very effort to present to university students on the more compelling (and easily proveable) aspects of the case. I will write letters to my local and national newspapers requesting a balanced approach to the reporting in (November) 2013. I will make copies of public domain DVD's and give them out in my local city centre. I will ask friends and colleagues to do the same in London, Birmingham and some other major cities. I will fund this out of my own pocket. That's my pledge Dean.

What's your pledge? What will you do for your country?

Regards

Lee

My pledge is to find out who killed JFK

That has always been my pledge

If you think the fact that I believe in alteration paints me into a corner with other alterationists then thats fine with me, I have much confidence in my fellow alterationists

You get hung up on the fact that I study the anomolies in the Z-film, of course I do that and will keep on doing that with all the films and photos, I have been doing that since 1997, and while I have studied all aspects of the case this has been my main drive over the past 13 years

What you are doing is trying to get researchers like my self and Jack White to stop claiming alteration and stop looking for alteration in the Z and other films

Why would you suggest such a thing? So we are not labled by Gary Mack? Like I give two snits what Gary Mack thinks about or says about me or any other alterationists

Im proud to back the other researchers who believe in alteration, its people like you who think if a person claims alteration then they are a kook

If thats what you think, or thats what you think others think about alterationists then thats your problem, not mine, I will not change my views as to not be labeled a kook by the likes of Gary Mack and other LNers

[Jack White]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

[John Dolva]

Thats great ( I first posted on this intentional blindness a few years ago) One can now view various movies with a new eye. Some people just kinda do the gorilla thing. One that comes to mind is about the middle of a poor res Hughes film from memory where people are rushing across the main-houston intersection. Then there's that chaotic Bell too where just a few frames show something really wierd (the unidentified cop and lady and the cop approaching, then passing by Bell and in the next next part Bell is in what seems to be Harry Holmes office, but quite some time later (shadows, thank you Gary))

EDIT : add, and typos

Edited January 14, 2010 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Being ANTI-alteration is a state of mind. Those of that persuasion do NOT WANT to believe. For many year I was one of them.

Seeing that the film is altered is NOT COMPLICATED.

There are many things that happened in Dealey Plaza that NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE said happened. The film does

not show these things. Why should the film be believed instead of the people?

A few SIMPLE thing are sufficient.

1. Zapruder said he filmed the limo turn onto Elm. The film does not show it.

2. People who were there said the limo made a wide turn, so it is not seen since the limo turn is not seen.

3. Connally said he turned to his LEFT when he heard a shot, then to his right. His left turn is not seen.

4. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill both said they STEPPED OFF THE CURB to shoot a Polaroid, but they are seen on the grass.

5. Jean Hill said she stepped into the street and waved and hollered at JFK; this is not seen as she stands motionless.

6. Dozens of people said the limo stopped. No limo stop is seen.

7. Numerous credible witnesses said Officer Chaney rode forward to the lead car. The lead car is seen, but no Chaney.

What is complicated about looking at the film and making these observations? Any child could do it, contrary to what

Lee and Kathy say.

Jack

Jack, Being PRO-ALTERATION is also a state of mind. The alteration argument that the film must have been altered because there are things in the film people don't remember, and things people remember that are not in the film, will NEVER hold water with historians, legal scholars, and the media. Those who've studied human cognition are more than aware we are flawed in our recollections. Horribly flawed.

Here is a link to a much discussed video.

Basketball video

This video was created to demonstrate just how flawed we are as recording devices. This video has been shown thousands of times to rooms full of students, etc. Before the showing, the professor will ask the students to count how many times the basketball is passed in the video, or whether the ball is touched more by the boys or the girls, etc. This gives them something to focus on.

Halfway through the video, however, a man in a gorilla suit walks across the room and stands in the middle of those passing the ball. And that's the whole point of the video. After the showing is over, when asked about the man in the gorilla suit, only a minority of the audience has ANY recollection of the man in the gorilla suit. The professor then replays the video, and the bulk of the audience gasps in amazement at their inability to recollect something as strange as a man in a gorilla suit walking across the room.

When given the choice of believing "people's memories are often incorrect" or believing "the film must have been faked because so many people couldn't be wrong" the vast majority of people are gonna go with the first. And be correct to do so.

Now, that doesn't mean you or anyone else who wants to study the film should stop doing so. There are several issues--including whether or not the back of the head was painted in--that, if clearly demonstrated--could make a substantial impact on the public's attitude towards alteration. But saying the film must have been faked because is doesn't show what we think it should isn't gonna pass the average person's smell test. IMHO.

This is a total non-sequitur used by those in general who want to discredit witness testimony,

and I think the relevance of the experiment is subject to various interpretations.

MURDER IN DEALY PLAZA is not a man in a gorilla suit at a basketball game. In Dealey Plaza

all attention was focused on the President and his activities in the motorcade. Hundreds of

people's eyes were riveted on JFK or Jackie and the limo. Even if a herd of gorillas had been

dancing down Main Street, nobody would have been able to tell you whether the gorillas had

been doing a waltz or polka...BUT EVERYONE COULD TELL YOU ABOUT JACKIE'S PINK HAT

AND WHITE GLOVES. So your gorilla argument falls flat, because nobody cared about gorillas

but everybody cared about JFK and Jackie.

If the limo stopped, they could report that accurately. If the gorillas stopped dancing and

started cartwheeling, most would not notice. So memories would depend on what the witness

interest was, not whether some irrelevance was happening.

Jack

[Jack White]

Hi there Jack

I disagree somewhat. I've read and watched John Costella's articles and videos before. I don't purport to be an expert in anything scientific regarding this aspect of the case - science and math have never been a forte of mine although I do try - but your claim that the website only presents facts is a little off the mark in my opinion.

The whole Chaney riding forward incident is detailed in Jim Fetzer's article where the issue is supported by the eyewitness testimony of five people. Once we get into eyewitness testimony we are not dealing with facts - we are dealing with an individual's retrospective subjective interpretation of their own reality.

Bobby Hargis is the only witness who claimed that Chaney rode "immediately" to the lead car. In his Warren Commission testimony he also claimed "...everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would have noticed them." Hargis's testimony can be used to fit any argument in the issue of "alteration" and "non-alteration".

But let me again refer to my point I was trying to make - it is all too complicated for Joe Six-Pack to swallow and John Costella's website proves my point. Only someone with an obsessive attraction to the case (like me and you) would read his website. But we both know already there was a conspiracy and a massive cover-up (without Z-film debates) so what are we going to do about it in the short time between now and 2013?

Lee

Why do you keep trying to make the point of proving alteration to John Q. Citizen?

If the lay person wants to learn about alteration they first need to learn the basics of the assassination

All they then have to do is read "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" to learn about alteration

You seem hell bent on asking us to prove alteration to people who have no clue about the JFK assassination

Why is that so important to you?

Dean

I've had to read your comments and questions quite a number of times for them to actually sink in. Wow!

First off: I'm not asking you to "do" anything.

Secondly: I thought I'd given a reasonable explanation in my direct reply to you yesterday.

Third: If you're happy to leave the "education" of John Q. Citizen to the Sixth Floor Museum then knock yourself out - take your kids there, it's only $13.50 for adults, $12.50 for youths and free for the under 5's.

May I ask you a question? What is all this about? What are we all doing this for? Bill Kelly has the right idea by framing his own education and research around gaining a future Grand Jury trial. Doug Horne writes of his experiences of working inside the ARRB after performing a public service to the citizen's of the U.S. by releasing millions of pages of documents. John Judge organises COPA events several times a year. Jim DiEugenio goes on the airwaves to give a balanced interpretation of the evidence each week. Jim Marrs is working with Alex Jones on a new assassination documentary.

If you're more interested in spending all your spare time looking at shadows and blades of grass that shouldn't be where they are in the Zapruder film and then high fiving people of the same persuasion and beliefs then fine - if the forum is still running I'll check in with you in 47 years to discover what new anomoly you are discussing.

If you can't read my posts properly and ask questions that relate to the content of what I have written then I can't force you to. I'm not arguing for you "to prove" alteration of the DP films to John Q. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing "against" trying to "prove "alteration" to John Q. Citizen. It's an issue that is over complicated. Pat Speer mentioned yesterday in a separate post that in the event of a spokesperson being selected to talk to the media in 2013 you have to be incredibly careful as to what content/issues are used so as to not be torn a new one. You want to keep calling yourself an "alterationist" so be it. You want to give the Gary Mack's of this world the perfect opportunity to label you as a "kook" then that's your choice. It simply enables Mr Mack to lump anyone who thinks ANY aspect of the Zapruder film has been altered into the "alterationist" pot. Even if we are talking about frame removal or provenance of the film we all get lumped together as "alterationists". You want to be painted into a corner? To be labelled in such a way? To have this label attached to you that limits people's perceptions of you? To encourage and support the plan that has been enacted to encourage a pavlovian response when the word is used? You have created a microcosm of partisan party politics within the research by labelling yourself, and allowing others to label you, in this way.

If this is not about getting the general public on board at some point in the future then I don't know what this is all about. To argue with each other as to who knows more about a topic than someone else? The homeless guys running around Dealey Plaza doing improptu tours for $5 are providing more of a public service than you are Dean.

I intend to start work on a grassroots campaign in the next twelve months over this side of the pond after having already been in touch with some smaller campaign groups in my local area. I will make very effort to present to university students on the more compelling (and easily proveable) aspects of the case. I will write letters to my local and national newspapers requesting a balanced approach to the reporting in (November) 2013. I will make copies of public domain DVD's and give them out in my local city centre. I will ask friends and colleagues to do the same in London, Birmingham and some other major cities. I will fund this out of my own pocket. That's my pledge Dean.

What's your pledge? What will you do for your country?

Regards

Lee

My pledge is to find out who killed JFK

That has always been my pledge

If you think the fact that I believe in alteration paints me into a corner with other alterationists then thats fine with me, I have much confidence in my fellow alterationists

You get hung up on the fact that I study the anomolies in the Z-film, of course I do that and will keep on doing that with all the films and photos, I have been doing that since 1997, and while I have studied all aspects of the case this has been my main drive over the past 13 years

What you are doing is trying to get researchers like my self and Jack White to stop claiming alteration and stop looking for alteration in the Z and other films

Why would you suggest such a thing? So we are not labled by Gary Mack? Like I give two snits what Gary Mack thinks about or says about me or any other alterationists

Im proud to back the other researchers who believe in alteration, its people like you who think if a person claims alteration then they are a kook

If thats what you think, or thats what you think others think about alterationists then thats your problem, not mine, I will not change my views as to not be labeled a kook by the likes of Gary Mack and other LNers

I am not "trying" to get you to stop from doing what you quite obviously enjoy and believe in. My point has now been consumed by your emotional reaction to what I have written. Jeez, Jack said I was over sensitive.

When have I said you were a "kook"?

If there's one thing you are not it is a kook. You are an intelligent and bright researcher. Your posts have been very informative to me over the years. You have such an incredible knowledge of the case. However...

I simply claim that if this assassination issue gets out into the public discourse during the lead-up to the anniversary then Gary Mack and the "other-side" have already laid the groundwork to label, as an "alterationist", anyone who questions ANY aspect of the Zapruder film, from provenence to frame removal. By default, if I were to claim the wide-turn has been removed I will be called an "alterationist" and be placed in with those who "believe" that Mary Moorman was moved. The linguistic "frame" having been created by the other-side.

This all started from me stating that it is definitely NOT going to be an assassination issue that I use to try to gain any public interest in the case. It simply isn't needed. The success I've had trying to influence 30-40 close friends into the concept of alteration has been completely negative.

Jack claims a child can detect it. I've shown it to my 2 year old...guess what? Jack claims it is not over-complicated then guides me to John Costella's website that has over 50 videos, presentations and articles in an effort to explain it. John's work is fantastic by the way - I just don't fully and 100% agree with many of the conclusions he makes. My question is this - are you going to direct members of the public in 2013 to John Costella's website to prove your case for alteration?

Please understand one important point in all of this Dean. It is not about Gary Mack labelling you...it is the end-game of getting the same results regarding the term "alteration" as has been achieved when "conspiracy theorist" is mentioned to the general public.

I want to know who killed JFK too Dean. I'm sick of it if I'm honest with. It keeps me awake at night. It's the first thing I think about when I wake up and the last thing at night. It takes time away from my daughters. My wife hates the obsession. I keep telling her "It'll be sorted in 2013...I promise".

Don't think I'm getting down on you Dean or your research. I think you're a cool guy. I'd just like to know there's an element of organisation in the "team" over the coming years so I can contribute more fully and to some well defined strategy and plan. At the moment - there doesn't seem to be one.

Lee

Lee's focus is on "the general public". The sad truth is that "the general public" is apathetic.

Nobody cares any more.

At least 80% of "the general public" was born after 1963. To them this is "ancient history".

It is very similar to the Lincoln assassination at the time I was born. People still talked about

it and studied it, but the attitude was "there is nothing we can do about it."

I have no hope of any perpetrators ever being brought to justice. My sole aim in keeping

study of it alive is to provide A TRUE VERSION OF HISTORY. I am an avid historian. I deplore

that the history books say a lone nut malcontent killed JFK. That is untrue.

I deplore that in Austin Texas there is a large LBJ memorial library proclaiming the greatness

of the murderer of his predecessor. Some of us know this truth, but the history of it still is

in the books as a lie.

Jack