Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack


Jerry Logan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jim Fetzer and Jack White have treated us to a real show on the The Zapruder Film Provenance, Chain of Custody thread. You can check it for yourselves but I've included the highlights below. As you can see, the Professor and the photo expert have decided to flex their muscles and teach Josiah Thompson and myself a thing or two about photography and what kind of copies Doug Horne's Hollywood group is working with. And we'd expect this type of knowledgeable lashing from the foremost authority on the Zapruder film and an expert photo advisor like Jack White.

Apparently Tink and I don't know how to number film generations, and we definitely don't realize that the Hollywood group is working with the best available copy there is - perhaps even better than the original! The only problem with this telling criticism from the acknowledged authorities is that Tink and I are well aware of our limitations. We would never dare to assert our limited opinions as authority on such a complex and technical subject.

It's true we didn't check with Ansel Adams. No, we've just been citing from Doug Horne's work. You see, Jim and Jack don't really have a problem with Tink and Jerry. Their problem is with Doug Horne himself. Because of course it's Horne who tells us the group is using a 5th generation copy......

Sydney revealed to me in short order that she had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives.....Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter). If she had requested a projection print (i.e., a positive) she would have purchased a fourth generation copy; but the preferred medium for studying film characteristics in Hollywood is a motion picture negative, so she settled for a dupe negative of a fourth generation projection print.

And it's Horne who tells us that the 5th generation copy is inferior to the 1st generation copies at the Sixth floor Museum.....

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..

In addition to Jack and Jim not knowing what they're talking about, they've taken it upon themselves to lecture others on what they don't know....all the while not even reading the information they're presenting and supposedly defending. I know Doug Horne has to be able to do a better job than these two so thank God someone who knows what they're talking about is ready to take the wheel.

And yes Jack, we have read Horne. Closely.

Fetzer and White Quotes

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

Jerry, Since Sydney obtained a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film created by the National Archives are you implying that the National Archives doesn't know what it's doing in using this version as "the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film"? Because if that's your position--impugning the archives' integrity--I would like to know why. Thanks.

Not to draw away from the "Tink & Jerry Show", isn't the count off? The original negative is 1st generation and the first print is 2nd. A negative from the first print is 3rd and a print from that is 4th. The one that Sydney obtained is a negative from the 4th, which the National Archives calls "the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film". Maybe I've missed it, but are you two slyly insinuating that the Archives doesn't know what it is doing? And I've noticed some cute remarks from Jerry about how, no matter how strong the proof, I -- Jim Fetzer -- am not going to have a moment where I concede, "Wow! I had it wrong!" The burden of proof, however, is on the other side, given the massive available evidence that the film is a fake. You should know better, Jerry. I expect this kind of nonsense from Tink.

Thanks, Jack. But I am puzzled that Tink is suggesting what the National Archives provides as

"the Forensic copy" of the Zapruder film is not suitable for forensic purposes. I want to know

why the National Archives would offer a forensic copy that is not suitable for forensic purposes.

Regardless of the generational count, what "Tink & Jerry" are saying doesn't make any sense.

Jim...I agree with you that any copy labeled by National Archives as FORENSIC COPY is the best possible

copy, regardless of GENERATION.

While on that subject again, I should add one more important consideration:

SECOND GENERATION (or third, etc.) does NOT MEAN INFERIOR.

It is possible, IN FACT USUAL among photographers, that following generations may be SUPERIOR

to the first generation! For instance, I can shoot a negative (first generation) that is imperfect...BUT I CAN

PRODUCE FROM THAT IMPERFECT NEGATIVE a PERFECT PRINT (second generation).

Among means of doing this on the second generation print are:

1. exposure control

2. contrast control

3. dodging

4. burning in

5. selective focus

6. perspective correction

7. filters

etc,etc,etc. ALL RESULTING IN A SUPERIOR SECOND GENERATION!

If you ever read books about the great photographer Ansel Adams, you often will find pages of

explanation about how his negatives were exposed, and even greater illustrations of precise

instructions for dodging, burning in, etc. to achieve a perfect print FAR SUPERIOR TO HIS NEGATIVE.

Jack

Thanks, Jack. I appreciate this. I thought there was something funny about the "Tink & Jerry" show--and I was right!

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'''RESULTING IN'' an altered image...

which Costella then alters twice more with digital in/ex terpolation ie removing and adding data, in lens distortion ''correction'' using a uniform algorithm which necessarily, as maths based, is ''stepped'', quite apart from not being derived from a laser scan of the Z camera lens which as all man made lenses are imperfect to some degree, then makes those available as examples of the Z film frames.

Probably the MOST altered images available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot help but appreciate the practice of starting a new thread with a catchy title in order

to respond to an existing one. It certainly makes things much easier to follow.

The added attention to the poster is just a bonus.

Michael

You crack me up man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!......

See, I knew we'd be treated to yet another classic Jim and Jack show. Just a little mistake, and Jack set me right last night so all it well. Followed by a quick change of subject. That's a very nice try Jim and if you really think that gets you off the hook then I suggest some quality time with Ansel Adams and Doug Horne.

1) Jack "set you right" with nonsense. He wrote "People talking 3rd, 4th, 5th generations do not understand photography and the principle of color reversal film, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVES. (his emphasis)."

First, you still have exactly the same problem which is Doug Horne writes about 4th and 5th generation copies and Sydney is using a fifth generation copy. So apparently Sydney and Doug "do not understand photography" the way that you and Jack do. And of course, Sydney used an inter-negative to produce the final copy so Jack's lecture about transparency to transparency copies in very interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with with the Hollywood group copy of the Zapruder film.

2) You seem to have completely overlooked the long discussion that you and Jack both had about the quality of the copies involved. You both assured everyone that the Hollywood copies would be first rate, perhaps exceed the original in quality and lectured me and Tink for suggesting otherwise. Jack didn't set you straight about that, did he? And there's strangely no mention of it this morning on your part. No last minute corrections, right? So just to be clear, you and Jack were wrong about that and haven't made any effort to correct that error. Unless, of course, you think Sydney and Doug "don't know anything about photography".

3) It's clever to try to brush this off with a casual reference to forensic copies. While I appreciate Bill's explanation of the legal system, that had absolutely nothing to do with our objections which related to generation numbers and quality - not legal status.

So let's summarize - you still haven't got the generation numbers right, you've still haven't addressed the quality issue, and you think Bill explaining the rules of evidence is somehow relevant.

Right! It's definitely time to discuss Moorman in the street because things are looking kind of bleak on this front.

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

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

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!......

See, I knew we'd be treated to yet another classic Jim and Jack show. Just a little mistake, and Jack set me right last night so all it well. Followed by a quick change of subject. That's a very nice try Jim and if you really think that gets you off the hook then I suggest some quality time with Ansel Adams and Doug Horne.

1) Jack "set you right" with nonsense. He wrote "People talking 3rd, 4th, 5th generations do not understand photography and the principle of color reversal film, WHICH REQUIRES NO NEGATIVES. (his emphasis)."

First, you still have exactly the same problem which is Doug Horne writes about 4th and 5th generation copies and Sydney is using a fifth generation copy. So apparently Sydney and Doug "do not understand photography" the way that you and Jack do. And of course, Sydney used an inter-negative to produce the final copy so Jack's lecture about transparency to transparency copies in very interesting but has absolutely nothing to do with with the Hollywood group copy of the Zapruder film.

2) You seem to have completely overlooked the long discussion that you and Jack both had about the quality of the copies involved. You both assured everyone that the Hollywood copies would be first rate, perhaps exceed the original in quality and lectured me and Tink for suggesting otherwise. Jack didn't set you straight about that, did he? And there's strangely no mention of it this morning on your part. No last minute corrections, right? So just to be clear, you and Jack were wrong about that and haven't made any effort to correct that error. Unless, of course, you think Sydney and Doug "don't know anything about photography".

3) It's clever to try to brush this off with a casual reference to forensic copies. While I appreciate Bill's explanation of the legal system, that had absolutely nothing to do with our objections which related to generation numbers and quality - not legal status.

So let's summarize - you still haven't got the generation numbers right, you've still haven't addressed the quality issue, and you think Bill explaining the rules of evidence is somehow relevant.

Right! It's definitely time to discuss Moorman in the street because things are looking kind of bleak on this front.

Jerry displays his ignorance of film generations again.

I do not care whether it is Jerry or Jim or Doug or Tink who misunderstands about film generations, it is a

common layman's misconception. I am certain that on film generations both Lamson and Healy agree with

me. All COLOR REVERSAL TRANSPARENCY FILM is FIRST GENERATION. It requires NO separate negative.

Accordingly, any duplicate copy of a transparency on color reversal film is a SECOND GENERATION....NOT

THIRD GENERATION!

However, it is possible to duplicate a transparency (like Kodachrome) by copying with with negative film

and then making a positive transparency from the negative, in which case the resulting transparency would

be third generation. Additionally, added generations are NOT NECESSARILY INFERIOR, since improved

quality is ROUTINELY achieved in the second generation by numerous methods.

People who do not understand photographic basics should not be making photographic pronouncements.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Josiah,

Excellent Post! I appreciate your insights. By the way, it seems that the Professor still disagrees with Doug and Sydney:

"You are of course correct, Jack. And on page 1353, I discovered that Sydney W.

had purchased a dupe negative on 35 mm film of the Forensic Copy of the

Zapruder film created by the National Archives. Can't do better than that!

So they were using "the best possible copy" of the Zapruder film -- the very best!

"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."

I'm not sure why Jim and Jack don't agree with Doug Horne and the Hollywood professionals - but Jim and Jack are the experts. I just wish they'd stop blaming us for Doug and Sydney's mistake.

My very best regards to you Tink,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I suggest that discussion of FILM GENERATIONS cease. Obviously many otherwise informed laymen (non-photographic professionals)

have perpetuated MISCONCEPTIONS by inaccurate labeling of generations as if they knew what they were talking about, and

as if it were a matter of great significance.

Most laymen do not understand COLOR REVERSAL FILM. It requires NO NEGATIVE, and therefore requires only ONE GENERATION,

not two. Also, most laymen do not understand that SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS are not necessarily degraded, but instead can

actually be superior. As I was reading HORNE IV I noted that frequent mention was made of bracketing exposure times and filter packs

in the duplicating of the Z film. These are methods of IMPROVING the subsequent copies.

It is counter productive to keep discussing FILM GENERATIONS when nobody seems to know what they are talking about, even

going back into records of documents in years past when misinformation was recorded.

I suggest that Healy and Lamson confirm what I am saying. At least both of them know photography.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I think this situation is more than a little embarrassing for the "custodians" of the film, who have defended its authenticity for decades now. On what basis? If Tink and Jerry and Mack know no more than this about the film, then their whole defense for all these years has been a charade! Perhaps they didn't find these artifacts because they didn't bother to look! Their defense of authenticity is a farce.

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

I suggest that discussion of FILM GENERATIONS cease. Obviously many otherwise informed laymen (non-photographic professionals)

have perpetuated MISCONCEPTIONS by inaccurate labeling of generations as if they knew what they were talking about, and

as if it were a matter of great significance.

Most laymen do not understand COLOR REVERSAL FILM. It requires NO NEGATIVE, and therefore requires only ONE GENERATION,

not two. Also, most laymen do not understand that SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS are not necessarily degraded, but instead can

actually be superior. As I was reading HORNE IV I noted that frequent mention was made of bracketing exposure times and filter packs

in the duplicating of the Z film. These are methods of IMPROVING the subsequent copies.

It is counter productive to keep discussing FILM GENERATIONS when nobody seems to know what they are talking about, even

going back into records of documents in years past when misinformation was recorded.

I suggest that Healy and Lamson confirm what I am saying. At least both of them know photography.

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I suggest that discussion of FILM GENERATIONS cease. Obviously many otherwise informed laymen (non-photographic professionals)

have perpetuated MISCONCEPTIONS by inaccurate labeling of generations as if they knew what they were talking about, and

as if it were a matter of great significance.

Most laymen do not understand COLOR REVERSAL FILM. It requires NO NEGATIVE, and therefore requires only ONE GENERATION,

not two. Also, most laymen do not understand that SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS are not necessarily degraded, but instead can

actually be superior. As I was reading HORNE IV I noted that frequent mention was made of bracketing exposure times and filter packs

in the duplicating of the Z film. These are methods of IMPROVING the subsequent copies.

It is counter productive to keep discussing FILM GENERATIONS when nobody seems to know what they are talking about, even

going back into records of documents in years past when misinformation was recorded.

I suggest that Healy and Lamson confirm what I am saying. At least both of them know photography.

Jack

well, someone on the other side is fishin'.... essentially Jack, you're correct when aerial/optical film printing techniques are employed, process camera film type is critical to the equation also. However, in general, contact printing, which is another form of duplicating a film (copying) may create a certain level of image softness and is apparent).

IMHO debating film generations is best saved for a formal investigation (if it ever gets there). Regarding any further discussion concerning "Zapruder film and generation issue", would necessitate extant Z-film authentication and said films' provenance. I seriously doubt the defenders of the Dealey Plaza film/photo record are ready to go there.

Although I haven't read earlier postings in this particluar thread, I suspect there's whole lot of the faithful doing the regular lone nut-SBT shuffle about now....

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I suggest that discussion of FILM GENERATIONS cease. Obviously many otherwise informed laymen (non-photographic professionals)

have perpetuated MISCONCEPTIONS by inaccurate labeling of generations as if they knew what they were talking about, and

as if it were a matter of great significance.

Most laymen do not understand COLOR REVERSAL FILM. It requires NO NEGATIVE, and therefore requires only ONE GENERATION,

not two. Also, most laymen do not understand that SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS are not necessarily degraded, but instead can

actually be superior. As I was reading HORNE IV I noted that frequent mention was made of bracketing exposure times and filter packs

in the duplicating of the Z film. These are methods of IMPROVING the subsequent copies.

It is counter productive to keep discussing FILM GENERATIONS when nobody seems to know what they are talking about, even

going back into records of documents in years past when misinformation was recorded.

I suggest that Healy and Lamson confirm what I am saying. At least both of them know photography.

Jack

well, someone on the other side is fishin'.... essentially Jack, you're correct when aerial/optical film printing techniques are employed, process camera film type is critical to the equation also. However, in general, contact printing may create a certain level of image softness is apparent).

IMHO debating film generations is best saved for a formal investigation (if it ever gets there). Regarding any further discussion concerning "Zapruder film and generation issue", would necessitate extant Z-film authentication and said films' provenance. I seriously doubt the defenders of the Dealey Plaza film/photo record are ready to go there.

Although I haven't read earlier postings in this particluar thread, I suspect there's whole lot of the faithful doing the regular lone nut-SBT shuffle about now....

Thanks, David, for the technical expertise. I agree that it is TOO TECHNICAL for those too ill-informed to discuss.

I agree that contact duplication CAN result in degraded copies, especially if the exposure is emulsion to base instead

of emulsion to emulsion. This is an example of the many copying variables that laymen are unaware of.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...