Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack

[Jerry Logan]

So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?

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 January 10, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jerry Logan]

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

So why do you think Doug and Sydney are confused about the issue? Does that mean they don't know what they're talking about?

Doug said Sydney wanted the 5th generation and Doug said the MPI 4x5 would be better.

You're not trying to walk away from the 4x5's are you?

We're not going to have a situation where the 16mm film trumps the 4x5 are we?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Jack White]

Logan pontificates:

"So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?"

Now just what does THAT mean? The standard reference for WHAT?

For starters, I do not trust anything about MPI. They made many mistakes and alterations.

The "best reference" is the ALLEGED camera "original"...but it has been proved fraudulent.

Logan is trying to put words in the mouths of those who have proved the fabrication of the film,

to later be used against us as agreeing that the 4x5s are "real".

Logan is right up there with Tink, Lamson, and Colby as an "obstructionist."

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

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.

That would be embarrassing!

[Craig Lamson]

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

Sorry Jack, but if it passes through a lens the quality degrades, simple as that. The z film at the archives was bumped directly to 35mm, passing through TWO lens systems in the process. Lets not even consider the degrading effects transference to different film stocks, contact or otherwise, the copies cannot have the same level of image resolution as the original.

So Jack, is it a first generation copy or a zero generation copy?

You have been stating for days ttat Horne has all the answers, so I guess he trumps you, by your own admission.

".....Counting the extant film as zero, she had obtained a fifth generation copy (as explained earlier in this chapter)."

Edited January 10, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jerry Logan]

Logan pontificates:

"So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?"

Now just what does THAT mean? The standard reference for WHAT?

For starters, I do not trust anything about MPI. They made many mistakes and alterations.

The "best reference" is the ALLEGED camera "original"...but it has been proved fraudulent.

Logan is trying to put words in the mouths of those who have proved the fabrication of the film,

to later be used against us as agreeing that the 4x5s are "real".

Logan is right up there with Tink, Lamson, and Colby as an "obstructionist."

Jack

No, I'm just having trouble following you. First you and Jim said the 16mm 5th generation was the best.

Then Jim announced that Mantik had looked at the 4x5's and they're the best.

Now you seem to be saying they might not be the best, after all.

It's starting to sound like if you see something you like on the 16mm then 16mm is the best.

If you see something you like on the 4x5 then 4x5 is the best.

So are we just gonna wait and see which one looks altered and that's the best?

[Jack White]

Logan pontificates:

"So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?"

Now just what does THAT mean? The standard reference for WHAT?

For starters, I do not trust anything about MPI. They made many mistakes and alterations.

The "best reference" is the ALLEGED camera "original"...but it has been proved fraudulent.

Logan is trying to put words in the mouths of those who have proved the fabrication of the film,

to later be used against us as agreeing that the 4x5s are "real".

Logan is right up there with Tink, Lamson, and Colby as an "obstructionist."

Jack

No, I'm just having trouble following you. First you and Jim said the 16mm 5th generation was the best.

Then Jim announced that Mantik had looked at the 4x5's and they're the best.

Now you seem to be saying they might not be the best, after all.

It's starting to sound like if you see something you like on the 16mm then 16mm is the best.

If you see something you like on the 4x5 then 4x5 is the best.

So are we just gonna wait and see which one looks altered and that's the best?

Best for what?

What is best for looking at a fabricated film?

Since you insist of specifics, the best thing for looking at regarding the fabricated "extant film"

is the EXTANT FILM. But that is withheld although the public paid a $16,000,000 ransom for it.

I cannot be more specific than that.

However, see my comments about film generations. Subsequent generations are NOT necessarily inferior

to previous generations or even the original; in fact subsequent generations can actually be enhancements

of previous generations.

When you go to a movie theater and watch a feature movie on a huge screen, do you know or care

what generation you are viewing? Of course not! Movie film releases are done on special LOW CONTRAST

duplicating film so there is little or no loss from the camera originals.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?

Why Jerry? The extant Zapruder film at NARA and the 4x5 trannies that LIFE made are available, yes?

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 January 10, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, Haven't you been benched? You came in to tidy things up, but that's not how it has played out, is it? Are you now planning to create new transparencies at The Museum to replace those that show these artifacts even more clearly? Using the 16mm and 6k version is called an "experiment", Jerry, which enables viewers to detect features that may be difficult to discern or opaque on the 4x5 transparencies. Observation, measurement, and experiment are fundamental to science, Jerry. Why don't you give it a rest? You have never responded to Mary-in-the-Street, Chaney motoring forward, or the inconsistency between the medical evidence of the blow-out to the left and rear as opposed to the bulging out to the right-front seen in the film. Nor have you ever addressed the other anomalies I have presented in the Prologue to HOAX (2003). Why should anyone take you seriously? You are no more of a student of JFK than your buddy, Tink. Well, you blew it, Jerry. You stand exposed for all the world to see. You have been caught with your trousers at your ankles, as Josiah has remarked to me on so many occasions. The problem for you and him is that it ACTUALLY FITS the two of you! There's no where to go, Jerry. Don't even THINK about substituting transparencies. You've been blown out the park. Give it a rest. No one is going to be affected by anything you have to say from this point on. The Tink & Jerry Show has had its run. Good riddance!

So just to be clear Jim, you now agree that the MPI 4x5 transparencies constitute the best evidence available to us correct?

And you agree to accept them as the standard reference in the future, correct?

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 January 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

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....

Uh david, run it through a lens or a set of them, (think aerial imaging dude) and the resolution goes right down the tubes. And even with fine grains and contacts, you add layers of new grain and loss of resolution with each pass. And lets not forget we started with arguablly the most contrasty reversal fim around...

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Good one, Michael! This has turned into such a fascinating exchange that I

hope everyone will have a good chance to study it before the page changes!

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.

[Pat Speer]

From my perspective as a layman not entirely familiar with the photographic issues, this thread seems to have run aground. Despite Jack's protests, Tink and Jerry's observation that the film studied by the Hollywood group is a fifth generation image undoubtedly undermines the group's observation that the back of the head appears painted in. When one watches Groden's assasination films DVD, one can see several different copies of the Z-film, copies of copies, or even copies of copies of copies. On several of these the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 looks like an orange blob. On his best copy, however, this blob is less orange and less blobbish. The MPI DVD, moreover, shows this "blob" not to be orange, and not to be a blob, but a spray of blood and brain in most every direction.

This thread is also confusing in that Dr. Fetzer keeps bringing up activities he believes the Z-film should show, should it be authentic, that it doesn't show. This is a completely unrelated argument, as I understand it. While he is correct if he is trying to make the point that the clarity of the film is beside the point if what it shows never happened, he is incorrect if he thinks this supports that what the Hollywood group thought was an altered image was indeed an altered image, and not just an artifact created through what is in essence photographing a photograph.

I mean, no one is suggesting that the film fails to show Chaney's drive for glory because it's just too blurry, are they?

[David Lifton]

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968.

Two factors are critical:

1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies.

2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty).

I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one.

Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies."

In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter.

Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film.

So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense.

What I produced:

1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative

2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements.

The film in "my" camera was positive film.

In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive.

(From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints).

The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video.

All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality.

Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes.

One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990.

Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968.

Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337.

Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer.

In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York.

Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68.

One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look.

The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged.

DSL

1/10/2010 7:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Craig Lamson]

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968.

Two factors are critical:

1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies.

2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty).

I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one.

Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies."

In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter.

Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film.

So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense.

What I produced:

1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative

2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements.

The film in "my" camera was positive film.

In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive.

(From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints).

The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video.

All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality.

Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes.

One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990.

Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968.

Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337.

Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer.

In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York.

Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68.

One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look.

The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged.

DSL

1/10/2010 7:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

So, how did you define "blacked out" from bloody?

[Dean Hagerman]

Let me weigh in here with my own opinion about the best source of imagery to view the Zapruder frames: the answer is the 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film made by Moses Weitzman, circa 1968.

Two factors are critical:

1. Weitzman did the work in 1967-68 (I do not know the exact year)--but this means that any degradation of the Zapruder original that has occured, over time, is not on his 35 mm copies.

2. Weitzman used an Oxberry Optical printer with a wetgate, so scratches, etc. were eliminated. (As I understand it, the NARA original has become scratched and dirty).

I assume that the Sixth Floor Museum has at least one of the Weitzman 35 mm copies--if not more than one.

Robert Groden has some half dozen of the others. In fact, he has all of the ones that Weitzman had retained--what he called "technician copies."

In 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter was loaned one of the 35 mm copies--and that is the copy that I worked with at a New York City film lab. This is described in "Pig on a Leash" under the sub-head "At the New York Optical Lab." In brief, I spent several days working with the 35 mm item that was provided by Richter.

Please note: it was a 35 mm internegative, made DIRECTLY FROM Zapruder's (supposed) original 8mm film.

So what was in my hands, and what I was working with, represented just "one pass" through a lense.

What I produced:

1. a number of 35 mm copies, made directly from Weitzman's 35 mm Internegative

2. Using the lense, I enlarged the view, and focused in on the occupants of the car, and specifically the head wounds, creating passes that are cropped frame by frame enlargements.

The film in "my" camera was positive film.

In addition: I had the Weitzman 35 mm internegative sent out to another lap for a 35 mm timed contact interpositive.

(From that interpositive, I could then make a negative, and from the negative, I could make prints).

The key results of my work were transferred to 1" video.

All these materials were (and still are) of the highest quality.

Because they were made from the Weitzman Internegative, they had been masked on the far left, and so do not have any image between the sprocket holes.

One of those timed contact interpsotives is what I donated to the National Archives when I testified on 9/17/96. It is part of my Deed of Gift, and-I believe--is still under seal. But its there, at NARA, and represents the work I did in New York City in July, 1990.

Personal Observation: In my opinion, the materials I produced in 1990 are of higher quality than anything produced, in 1997, from the refrigerated Zapruder original, because the original had deteriorated with time; whereas I was working off a very fine 35 mm internegative produced by Moses Weitzman himself back in 1967 or 1968.

Personal Observation and Opinion: Based on what I saw, and I studied this for days, it seemed pretty obvious that the back of the head had been "blacked out", continuously, after the fatal shot. That is visible in all the frames after 313, but is most obvious in frames 321, and 323, because those happen to be particularly clear frames. Similarly, the best frames for viewing the "painted on" large head wound are frames 335 and 337.

Another note: Back in 1998, in connection with my appearance at JFK Lancer, I prepared--for demonstration purposes--a "color reversal" copy of the head sequence, step printed, and made specifically to show the blacked out area. I did this in "color reversal" so that, when projected, the blacked out area would be a "whited out" area--and I then had this transferred to video, and presented it in a talk I gave at Lancer.

In summary, the very obviously blacked out "back of the head" appears in numerous frames after the fatal shot. The best source to view it, in my opinion, is on the 35 mm Weitzman materials (made decades ago); I had that privilege--first, in 1970, at the Time Life office in Beverly Hills (see Pig on a Leash) and then again in June, 1990, in New York.

Of course, one can go (and should go) to the Sixth Floor Museum and examine transparencies made in 1997, but --given the passage of time--I would think the sharpest images come from materials created by Weitzman back in 1967/68.

One other fact: I had one of my 1990 IP's scanned--I don't know whether it was at 4k or 6k--back around 2004, and I can retrieve that from storage and take a look.

The fact is: we should all be grateful to Moses Weitzman for the work he did back in 1967/68, when he utilized Zapruder's 8mm film in an Oxberry Optical Printer and went from 8mm to 35mm in one fell swoop. Although the blacked out back of the head is particularly clear in the Weitzman 35 mm films, I believe that the "blacked out" back of the head is probably visible on all versions. I am most familiar with how it appears on the Weitzman materials. And let me assure everyone: it wasn't put there by Weitzman--it was there on the so-called "original Zapruder film" which he so nicely enlarged.

DSL

1/10/2010 7:45 PM

Los Angeles, CA

David

Is the Weitzman 35mm copy the one that is shown in the NOVA progam "Who Shot President Kennedy?" (Im sure it is the program you were refering to as you have a nice part in the program and it seems to be the one described by you in POAL in TGZFH)

Here is the link to the video

"Who Shot President Kennedy?" 1988

Tink also has a part in the program

This was the first program that I watched on the JFK case, I enjoyed it back in 1988 and still enjoy it to this day

The Z-film in this program looks good and sharp

Is this the Weitzman 35mm Z-film that is seen in the NOVA Program?

Thanks David

Dean