Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack

[Jack White]

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?

First, the BLOB is the WHITE shape on the right side of the head...NOT the ORANGE spray into the air!

Second, you are totally ignorant regarding duplication of color reversal film. I have made no PROTESTS;

I have attempted to educate the ignorant by explaining how duplicate copies are made and regarding

the irrelevance of generations.

You still don't GET IT.

Jack

[John Dolva]

How can it be known that a ''scratch'' is a scratch? Is it possible that some of what was registered on the original film is removed by this process?

Given that the original was broken and respliced, (quite apart from having been run through a projector numerous times) couldn't it be that the copy sent to the SS in Washington (the other SS copy retained in Dallas for some time (to be thumbed through by Sorells and Holmes (Vince P.?))) being the best source to have been used by Weitzman? Has anyone ever seen this copy, or copies of it?

[Josiah Thompson]

Fascinating David! Is there any chance that Bob Richter might still have the internegative you mentioned that was made from the camera original? Aside from spitting out copies from your 2004 scan of the 1990 interpositive you obtained from Richter, do you have any other way of turning out copies?

I sure would like to work with you in finding, once and for all, the very best copy in existence of the Zapruder film. It's clear now that copies from the Archives are fourth or fifth generation. I, of course, have my 35 mm slides made in 1966 from LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies. I don't have a clue where LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies are? Do you?

Tink

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

[Josiah Thompson]

Pat, I'm having a bit of a problem following Fetzer's argument here. No surprise. For days we've been talking about the "blacked out back of the head." Now we learn that David Mantik went to the Sixth Floor Musuem in November and looked at the MPI transparencies. Doug Horne points out that he and his Hollywood crew see these MPI transparencies as superior to fourth or fifth genereation copies they are working on in Hollywood. So why are they doing what they are doing in Hollywood and not in Dallas? Secondly, we hear not a word about Mantik's observations concerning the socalled "blacked out back of the head." All we hear about is an obscure "discovery" Mantik has made 130 frames later. Clearly, Mantik must have studied intensely the whole back of the head issue. What did he find? I emailed David to find out and will let everyone know what I found out. What do you think, Pat? Is this maybe some sort of "bait and switch?"

Tink

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?

[Jack White]

How can it be known that a ''scratch'' is a scratch? Is it possible that some of what was registered on the original film is removed by this process?

Given that the original was broken and respliced, (quite apart from having been run through a projector numerous times) couldn't it be that the copy sent to the SS in Washington (the other SS copy retained in Dallas for some time (to be thumbed through by Sorells and Holmes (Vince P.?))) being the best source to have been used by Weitzman? Has anyone ever seen this copy, or copies of it?

Scratches are removed by using a WET GATE film holder. As I understand it,

Weitzman manufactured his own special wet gate film holder. The film is immersed

in a clear harmless liquid as each frame is exposed. The liquid fills in scratches

so that they refract/reflect NO light. The scratches disappear. This is another

process by which DUPLICATES can be made SUPERIOR TO ORIGINALS.

Jack

[John Dolva]

Thank you, Jack. Does this liquid in any way diffuse the frames?

[Dean Hagerman]

Fascinating David! Is there any chance that Bob Richter might still have the internegative you mentioned that was made from the camera original? Aside from spitting out copies from your 2004 scan of the 1990 interpositive you obtained from Richter, do you have any other way of turning out copies?

I sure would like to work with you in finding, once and for all, the very best copy in existence of the Zapruder film. It's clear now that copies from the Archives are fourth or fifth generation. I, of course, have my 35 mm slides made in 1966 from LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies. I don't have a clue where LIFE's 4" by 5" transparencies are? Do you?

Tink

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

Tink

Would you be kind enough to scan some of those 35mm slides (You are talking about the ones you took with your own camera when no one was looking correct?)

If you could post them here that would be great, or if you could Email them to me that would work also, either way I would love to see them

I would like to see the frames 312-316, but it really does not matter I just want to see how they turned out

And I would also like to see them as I know you took them when you were not supposed to, and I very much admire that you took the risk to do that

Thank you

Dean

Edited January 11, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Jack White]

Thank you, Jack. Does this liquid in any way diffuse the frames?

I have no experience with wet gate exposures. All I know was explained

to me by Robert Groden and David Lifton.

The liquid is completely clear and if anything makes for a clearer image.

Maybe David will see your question and give a better description than I

can.

Jack

[Jack White]

From the internet...a description of WET-GATE EXPOSURE.

.........

Wet-Gate Printing

One of the most troublesome problems encountered by motion picture laboratory personnel are scratches (digs, abrasions, cinch marks, etc.) sometimes encountered on film from which prints must be made. These scratches print through to the release print and degrade the quality of the projected picture by introducing image elements that have no relationship to the originally photographed scene.

A scratch on the support of a negative film acts as a diffuser that scatters light. Light from the printer passes essentially in straight lines through the undamaged portion of the support and emulsion of the original. When light strikes the scratch, it is scattered and displaced from the straight-line path, reducing the light on the receiving emulsion.

Scratches on the support of a negative film printed onto positive film usually produce more objectionable effects on the screen than scratches on reversal originals printed onto reversal print films. This is because scratches on the support of negative films appear white on the positive film and are generally of lower density than any other white in the picture. In reversal printing, scratches on the support of the original appear black on the screen print and generally tend to blend in better with the picture.

Scratches on the emulsion side of negative films present another situation. Shallow emulsion scratches on a black-and-white negative will appear white on the positive film. Emulsion scratches that penetrate to the support on a black-and-white negative will print black. Scratches on the emulsion side of color negative films may appear colored on the print, depending upon how deep the scratch is and whether image-bearing layers have been disturbed.

When base scratches exist, a "wet" or "liquid" gate is used to minimize or eliminate their effect, depending on severity. In a wet gate, liquid having a refractive index close to that of the film base is applied to the original. The liquid fills in the scratches and reduces the light scatter. Wet-gate printing is applicable to any of the printing configurations, step or continuous, contact or optical. Wet printing is of little or no benefit to emulsion-side scratches.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are playing games, Jerry, which comes as no surprise. The forensic copy of the Zapruder film from the National Archives obviously has special standing. Presumably, it is a copy of sufficient quality to be admissible as evidence in courts of law. Using it as the basis for experiments, such as creating, on that basis, a digital 6k version, is entirely appropriate. Some features of the contents of the film are going to be more readily discernible on that basis than viewing in other ways. This is quite analogous to using telescopes, microscopes, and radio telescopes for making more precise and detailed observations of the very large (astronomical objects) and the very small (microscopic objects). The point I made about David Mantik's study of the 4x5 transparencies is that they also show the same artifacts -- the painting over of the massive blow-out to the back of the head in black and the painting in of the bulging brains (the "blob") and the blood spray. Far from not having considering the MPI transparencies, David has already studied them and confirmed the Hollywood findings.

Perhaps you do not know, but the fact of the matter is that MPI did not do a perfect job, where I discussed what was wrong with the MPI version during the Duluth conference, which Rich DellaRosa has posted on YouTube, and in HOAX (2003), which published studies by the contributors to the conference. Indeed, for various purposes, I am sure that John Costella's "combined cut" would be better than the MPI version. His version, for example, has corrections for aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, which other versions lack. So, for at least some purposes, the Costella version will be superior. For examining minute details with great precision, of course, the 6k version is ideal. Since there are missing frames and other problems with the MPI version, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It may be closer in generation to the "original", but that does not mean it is therefore "the best available version". In some respects, Costella's version is better and in others the 6k version is better. You have asked an open-ended question that has no unique answer, as I'm sure you know.

Indeed, your emphasis upon the MPI version is simply absurd. With frames out of order, with three missing frames, and with two series of two and four missing frames, respectively, it becomes rather difficult to appreciate any depiction of the MPI version as "state of the art". Because its frames encompass more information than other versions of the film -- Lifton's "Z film", the Macmillan CD, "JFK Assassination: A Visual Investigation", and Robert Groden's "The Assassination Films" (which includes several versions) -- the obvious prospect deserving investigation is (1) correcting the order of frames 331 and 332, (2) restoring those three missing frames, 341, 350, and 486, (3) restoring frames 155 and 156 and (4) restoring frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 -- the blatant "edits" in the film -- to create a substantially improved version. But Costella has done that in his "combined cut", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free. Unless the museum has fixed the problems that I explained in HOAX (2003), the MPI version is inferior in all of these respects.

Several dimensions of the film experts' studies are important. One is that the observations they have made -- which Mantik has already verified using the MPI slides at the museum -- of the painting over of the blow-out to the back of the head, for example, are so simple and direct that no one should be unable to understand them. As I have observed, in frame 374, the blow-out at the back of the head -- and the skull flap described by Tom Robinson -- are both clearly visible. So frame 374 by itself already creates an inconsistency in the film: if frame 374 is authentic, then we know that frames 314 to 327 are not. They can't both be authentic, which means their inconsistency by itself proves the film is a fake. From Jackie's testimony, the Parkland doctors' reports, and dozens of witnesses, we know that the blow out was at the back of the head, not the right front. And I have discussed the mutually-reinforcing deceptions involved here in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". But you already know that. You appear to be here because it is your task to obfuscate it.

There are other inconsistencies that are internal to the frames of the film that show the "blob" is an artifact and that the back of the head has been painted over in black. I have already pointed out that frame 374, for example, shows the blow-out to the back of the head and the skull flap that Tom Robinson described. And, when frames 456 and 466 are viewed in the 6k version, a wound behind the right ear is visible, but no large blow-out of the right-front. That is a perfect example of how experiments like this one can reveal details that are not obvious without gaining greater access to its contents, as the 6k has done. And, as Doug has explained, the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames -- even apart from Jackie's testimony, the medical evidence, and more than 40 witnesses reports -- is an additional proof that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314 through 327 is a fabrication. It can't be present in those frames but missing from later ones. The beauty of these proofs is that they are simple and direct -- and have been confirmed by eight experts on film and David Mantik, too!

Mary and Jean were there together in taking Mary's Polaroids, yet they appear as "frozen turkeys" in the film. Jean is not even looking at JFK, even though she has explained that she called out to him to get his attention so Mary could take his photograph. Officer Chaney, on the right side of the limousine, motored forward, which is substantiated by the testimony of Forrest Sorrels, Chief Curry, and other official sources. It took place before the lead car entered the Triple Underpass, but it's not in the film. But you know all of this already. You know the film is a fake, so you could care less about the multiple proofs that prove it, because your role is obfuscation. I really don't know who you think you are fooling. There are a dozen proofs of film fakery in the Prologue to HOAX (2003) alone! But you don't want to talk about them. No, you want to deceive and mislead by suggesting that only those 4x5 transparencies count, when, as I explain in HOAX (2003), they are not even a complete set! But we have been there and done that already! The artifacts in the 6k version are in the 4x5s as well.

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?

[Pat Speer]

There are other inconsistencies that are internal to the frames of the film that show the "blob" is an artifact and that the back of the head has been painted over in black. I have already pointed out that frame 374, for example, shows the blow-out to the back of the head and the skull flap that Tom Robinson described. And, when frames 456 and 466 are viewed in the 6k version, a wound behind the right ear is visible, but no large blow-out of the right-front. That is a perfect example of how experiments like this one can reveal details that are not obvious without gaining greater access to its contents, as the 6k has done. And, as Doug has explained, the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames -- even apart from Jackie's testimony, the medical evidence, and more than 40 witnesses reports -- is an additional proof that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314 through 327 is a fabrication. It can't be present in those frames but missing from later ones. The beauty of these proofs is that they are simple and direct -- and have been confirmed by eight experts on film and David Mantik, too!

Wait. I thought the eight experts said they thought the back of the head had been painted in. Now you have them agreeing with your opinion there's a blow-out on the back of the head in 374 that isn't seen earlier, etc. Is there a list of all their findings? Can you post a quality version of 374 showing this blow-out?

And, I hesitate to ask, can you post an image of the "blob"? I assumed your references to the "blob" were to the orange blob in the degraded versions of Z-313. Now Jack says it's a white blob. Is it seen in the frame below?

Because I don't see a "blob"; I see the underside of a piece of skull broken and flipped forward and still hanging by a thread of scalp on the side of Kennedy's head. The shape of this skull fragment, moreover, matches precisely the shape of the fragment shown in the right lateral autopsy photo.

From patspeer.com chapter 18:

Another aspect of the medical evidence which has convinced many of fakery or deception is the “wing” of bone visible in the autopsy photos. It seemed to move from photo to photo and change shape. After much thought, however, I developed an explanation for these changes.

When one looks at the Zapruder film, one can’t help but notice the large opening on Kennedy’s skull apparent in the frames after 313. This opening appears to begin just in front of his ear. When one looks at the right lateral autopsy photo one sees exposed bone behind his ear, however, and in a location where there was reportedly no missing bone or scalp. This is a clear indication that this bone was dislodged from someplace else. And yet it’s still attached to scalp. After some consideration I realized that when the scalp exploded downwards in frame 313 the skull bones that were attached to the scalp were suddenly upside down, and began to peel away from the scalp from the bottom (which was formally the top) down. The large fragment found on the floor of the limo by Sam Kinney peeled all the way and fell to the floor. It can be seen flying downwards in the frames after 313. A section of bone lower down on Kennedy’s skull, possibly including his sphenoid bone, didn’t finish peeling away from the scalp, however. It was left dangling by a thread. The shape of this bone can be seen in shadow in frame 323. When Jackie Kennedy tried to close her husband’s head wound, she failed to flip this “wing” of bone back around to match up with the scalp, and left this “wing” dangling back behind Kennedy’s ear. This is apparent in the right almost-lateral autopsy photo. Not surprisingly, the shape of this wing matches the shape of the shadow in frame 323.

When one looks at the back of the head photo, obviously taken a few minutes later, as Kennedy is now lying on his side, one can see that the “wing” of bone has suddenly changed. It is now far forward of the ear and of different proportions. I believe this is because it’s no longer a “wing” of bone, but a “wing” of scalp, the stubborn scalp that held the wing in place for so long. The dimensions of this scalp flap can be seen in frame 337. Possibly the wing fell off when the doctors moved Kennedy onto his side or possibly they removed it deliberately to better observe the large defect.

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, before we enter into another long, drawn out dance, can we get one thing straight that you (and I suppose Jack) are repeatedly misstating. Horne does not have the forensic copy of the Zapruder film. The forensic copy is the first generation copy which the Archives printed directly from the original film. Horne's film is in fact a 5th generation copy. Do you agree or disagree?

You are playing games, Jerry, which comes as no surprise. The forensic copy of the Zapruder film from the National Archives obviously has special standing. Presumably, it is a copy of sufficient quality to be admissible as evidence in courts of law. Using it as the basis for experiments, such as creating, on that basis, a digital 6k version, is entirely appropriate. Some features of the contents of the film are going to be more readily discernible on that basis than viewing in other ways. This is quite analogous to using telescopes, microscopes, and radio telescopes for making more precise and detailed observations of the very large (astronomical objects) and the very small (microscopic objects). The point I made about David Mantik's study of the 4x5 transparencies is that they also show the same artifacts -- the painting over of the massive blow-out to the back of the head in black and the painting in of the bulging brains (the "blob") and the blood spray. Far from not having considering the MPI transparencies, David has already studied them and confirmed the Hollywood findings.

Perhaps you do not know, but the fact of the matter is that MPI did not do a perfect job, where I discussed what was wrong with the MPI version during the Duluth conference, which Rich DellaRosa has posted on YouTube, and in HOAX (2003), which published studies by the contributors to the conference. Indeed, for various purposes, I am sure that John Costella's "combined cut" would be better than the MPI version. His version, for example, has corrections for aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, which other versions lack. So, for at least some purposes, the Costella version will be superior. For examining minute details with great precision, of course, the 6k version is ideal. Since there are missing frames and other problems with the MPI version, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It may be closer in generation to the "original", but that does not mean it is therefore "the best available version". In some respects, Costella's version is better and in others the 6k version is better. You have asked an open-ended question that has no unique answer, as I'm sure you know.

Indeed, your emphasis upon the MPI version is simply absurd. With frames out of order, with three missing frames, and with two series of two and four missing frames, respectively, it becomes rather difficult to appreciate any depiction of the MPI version as "state of the art". Because its frames encompass more information than other versions of the film -- Lifton's "Z film", the Macmillan CD, "JFK Assassination: A Visual Investigation", and Robert Groden's "The Assassination Films" (which includes several versions) -- the obvious prospect deserving investigation is (1) correcting the order of frames 331 and 332, (2) restoring those three missing frames, 341, 350, and 486, (3) restoring frames 155 and 156 and (4) restoring frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 -- the blatant "edits" in the film -- to create a substantially improved version. But Costella has done that in his "combined cut", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free. Unless the museum has fixed the problems that I explained in HOAX (2003), the MPI version is inferior in all of these respects.

Several dimensions of the film experts' studies are important. One is that the observations they have made -- which Mantik has already verified using the MPI slides at the museum -- of the painting over of the blow-out to the back of the head, for example, are so simple and direct that no one should be unable to understand them. As I have observed, in frame 374, the blow-out at the back of the head -- and the skull flap described by Tom Robinson -- are both clearly visible. So frame 374 by itself already creates an inconsistency in the film: if frame 374 is authentic, then we know that frames 314 to 327 are not. They can't both be authentic, which means their inconsistency by itself proves the film is a fake. From Jackie's testimony, the Parkland doctors' reports, and dozens of witnesses, we know that the blow out was at the back of the head, not the right front. And I have discussed the mutually-reinforcing deceptions involved here in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". But you already know that. You appear to be here because it is your task to obfuscate it.

There are other inconsistencies that are internal to the frames of the film that show the "blob" is an artifact and that the back of the head has been painted over in black. I have already pointed out that frame 374, for example, shows the blow-out to the back of the head and the skull flap that Tom Robinson described. And, when frames 456 and 466 are viewed in the 6k version, a wound behind the right ear is visible, but no large blow-out of the right-front. That is a perfect example of how experiments like this one can reveal details that are not obvious without gaining greater access to its contents, as the 6k has done. And, as Doug has explained, the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames -- even apart from Jackie's testimony, the medical evidence, and more than 40 witnesses reports -- is an additional proof that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314 through 327 is a fabrication. It can't be present in those frames but missing from later ones. The beauty of these proofs is that they are simple and direct -- and have been confirmed by eight experts on film and David Mantik, too!

Mary and Jean were there together in taking Mary's Polaroids, yet they appear as "frozen turkeys" in the film. Jean is not even looking at JFK, even though she has explained that she called out to him to get his attention so Mary could take his photograph. Officer Chaney, on the right side of the limousine, motored forward, which is substantiated by the testimony of Forrest Sorrels, Chief Curry, and other official sources. It took place before the lead car entered the Triple Underpass, but it's not in the film. But you know all of this already. You know the film is a fake, so you could care less about the multiple proofs that prove it, because your role is obfuscation. I really don't know who you think you are fooling. There are a dozen proofs of film fakery in the Prologue to HOAX (2003) alone! But you don't want to talk about them. No, you want to deceive and mislead by suggesting that only those 4x5 transparencies count, when, as I explain in HOAX (2003), they are not even a complete set! But we have been there and done that already! The artifacts in the 6k version are in the 4x5s as well.

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?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, sometimes I worry about you. Don't you have HOAX (2003)? If you are serious about these things, then you have to have the best studies of the subjects that interest you the most. I published good-quality images of frame 374 in HOAX but I also have it in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", which you can find on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com or can download to study from http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ It will take you about five minutes to download and then (possibly) we will be able to understand one another better. Egad! I don't even know if you have read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)! The "blob" is the bulging out of brains to the right front, not the skull flap. Go back to the HSCA photo and Ida Dox diagram, where the skull flap is shown. The "blob" is not. In frame 374, the blow-out to the back of the head is visible AND so is the skull flap, but the "blob" is not. The fact that the blow-out at the back of the head is visible in frame 374 is already proof of the blackening out of the wound in earlier frames. When the film was recreated, they overlooked that you can actually see the blow out in later frames. And of course you need to obtain INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), especially Vol. IV.

You say, Wait. I thought the eight experts said they thought the back of the head had been painted in. Now you have them agreeing with your opinion there's a blow-out on the back of the head in 374 that isn't seen earlier, etc. Is there a list of all their findings? Can you post a quality version of 374 showing this blow-out? I don't know if they have even seen frame 374, Pat. But they have seen loads of other frames where the wound that is visible in 374 has been painted over in black. The "blob" can be seen across a lengthy series of frames, from 314 to 327, for example, and can be seen in frame 323, where (Jack and John and David M. and David L. could say more) you appear to be confounding the "blob" and the skull flap, where the "blob" is painted in but the skull flap is real. The "blob" was added to these frames to create the impression that he had been shot from behind, where a high-velocity missile would (with high probability) have brought about a blow-out to the right front, which it represents. (I should probably add that there is a white piece of something that moves across some frames in the background that has, on occasion, been referred to as a "blob". But that is not what I am talking about. It is the bulging out of brains to the right front that appears across the series of frames, where you are conflating the skull flap, which is real, with the "blob", which is not.)

It is one part of a four-way mutually-supporting deception involving the missing mass to the right-front of the skull X-rays, the caption in LIFE that accompanies the publication of frame 313, and Zapruder's television appearance that evening, where he used his right hand to illustrate the bulging out to the right-front, which actually did not occur. We know that from eyewitness reports of the blow out to the back of the head, which was attested to by more than 40 witnesses; from Jackie's testimony that, from the front, he looked just fine; and from the doctors non-observation of any blow-out at that location--apart from the skull flap, which, when it was blown open, briefly exposed his brains and damaged his right ear. It was the observation of this phenomenon by the Newmans, who apparently did not see the blow out of brains to the left rear, that has captivated your attention. But of course there was no blow-out to the right front, even though there was damage to the side of the head, where the skull flap was created when the frangible bullet exploded. Does any of this make sense to you? Let me know. Sometimes I think we are connecting, other times I am at a complete loss. This is one of those.

There are other inconsistencies that are internal to the frames of the film that show the "blob" is an artifact and that the back of the head has been painted over in black. I have already pointed out that frame 374, for example, shows the blow-out to the back of the head and the skull flap that Tom Robinson described. And, when frames 456 and 466 are viewed in the 6k version, a wound behind the right ear is visible, but no large blow-out of the right-front. That is a perfect example of how experiments like this one can reveal details that are not obvious without gaining greater access to its contents, as the 6k has done. And, as Doug has explained, the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames -- even apart from Jackie's testimony, the medical evidence, and more than 40 witnesses reports -- is an additional proof that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314 through 327 is a fabrication. It can't be present in those frames but missing from later ones. The beauty of these proofs is that they are simple and direct -- and have been confirmed by eight experts on film and David Mantik, too!

Wait. I thought the eight experts said they thought the back of the head had been painted in. Now you have them agreeing with your opinion there's a blow-out on the back of the head in 374 that isn't seen earlier, etc. Is there a list of all their findings? Can you post a quality version of 374 showing this blow-out?

And, I hesitate to ask, can you post an image of the "blob"? I assumed your references to the "blob" were to the orange blob in the degraded versions of Z-313. Now Jack says it's a white blob. Is it seen in the frame below?

Because I don't see a "blob"; I see the underside of a piece of skull broken and flipped forward and still hanging by a thread of scalp on the side of Kennedy's head. The shape of this skull fragment, moreover, matches precisely the shape of the fragment shown in the right lateral autopsy photo.

From patspeer.com chapter 18:

Another aspect of the medical evidence which has convinced many of fakery or deception is the “wing” of bone visible in the autopsy photos. It seemed to move from photo to photo and change shape. After much thought, however, I developed an explanation for these changes.

When one looks at the Zapruder film, one can’t help but notice the large opening on Kennedy’s skull apparent in the frames after 313. This opening appears to begin just in front of his ear. When one looks at the right lateral autopsy photo one sees exposed bone behind his ear, however, and in a location where there was reportedly no missing bone or scalp. This is a clear indication that this bone was dislodged from someplace else. And yet it’s still attached to scalp. After some consideration I realized that when the scalp exploded downwards in frame 313 the skull bones that were attached to the scalp were suddenly upside down, and began to peel away from the scalp from the bottom (which was formally the top) down. The large fragment found on the floor of the limo by Sam Kinney peeled all the way and fell to the floor. It can be seen flying downwards in the frames after 313. A section of bone lower down on Kennedy’s skull, possibly including his sphenoid bone, didn’t finish peeling away from the scalp, however. It was left dangling by a thread. The shape of this bone can be seen in shadow in frame 323. When Jackie Kennedy tried to close her husband’s head wound, she failed to flip this “wing” of bone back around to match up with the scalp, and left this “wing” dangling back behind Kennedy’s ear. This is apparent in the right almost-lateral autopsy photo. Not surprisingly, the shape of this wing matches the shape of the shadow in frame 323.

When one looks at the back of the head photo, obviously taken a few minutes later, as Kennedy is now lying on his side, one can see that the “wing” of bone has suddenly changed. It is now far forward of the ear and of different proportions. I believe this is because it’s no longer a “wing” of bone, but a “wing” of scalp, the stubborn scalp that held the wing in place for so long. The dimensions of this scalp flap can be seen in frame 337. Possibly the wing fell off when the doctors moved Kennedy onto his side or possibly they removed it deliberately to better observe the large defect.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, Jerry. When I came on-line this morning, it was to add a clarification to what I had said about the "forensic copy". There are several ambiguities that deserve clarification. On pages 1352 and 1353, we learn that Sydney Wilkerson obtained "the Forensic Copy of the Zapruder film from the National Archives". On page 1353, for example, he writes, "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." And he identifies it as "fifth generation".

Doug has explained that, if Sydney "had requested a projection print (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." So, yes, I take it, the forensic copy of the Zapruder film she obtained from the National Archives is a fifth generation copy. (I presume we both have Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB. Do you also have HOAX, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and ASSASSINATION SCIENCE?)

Now, since this copy was created by the National Archives and not by MPI, presumably it does not have the defects that I have listed in relation to the MPI version, which, of course, are present in the 4x5 slide set at The Sixth Floor Museum, unless there have been changes to the slides since MPI prepared them. Are you aware of any such changes? Given the problems that I have noted, I find it odd that you continue to insist that the MPI set is "the best". It may be an earlier generation, but its deficiencies are manifest. For many purposes, the Costella "combined cut" is superior.

As I explained in HOAX (2003), pages 30 and 31, if we take the visual field of the frames in the MPI version as 100% -- 79% in the frame, 21% in the sprocket area -- then Groden's represents 73.9%, Macmillan's 69.8%, and Lifton's only 54.3% as much information. That weighs in favor of the MPI version for research purposes. But since it is missing frames and has others out of sequence, if you wanted a complete set in the right order, the MPI version would not be "the best" available. Indeed, there are many contexts in which the Constella "combined cut" would be far better.

I certainly agree, however, that it is useful to have "first generation" slides available for study, even if some frames are missing and others out of sequence. Then, when specific hypotheses about the film require further study, they are available. In this case, as it happens, the discoveries of the Hollywood experts were confirmed by David Mantik, who visited The Sixth Floor Museum and examined them, confirming that the same artifacts they had noticed--the painting over of the back of the head defect in black and the painting in of the "blob" and blood spray--were also visible in them.

Bill Kelly made a nice point earlier, when he noted the ambiguity between the use of the term "forensic copy" in legal contexts and "forensic copy" in research contexts. While I wrote, "Presumably, it is a copy of sufficient quality to be admissible as evidence in courts of law", the Zapruder film, even in the "forensic" version created by the ARRB, does not appear to meet the requirements of legal admissibility, since (a) the chain of custody of the film has been broken and ( it would require witness corroboration of the authenticity of the film, as I explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

Zapruder himself, at the Clay Shaw trial, for example, fumbled around about whether this was the film he took, as I suppose you know. While it was admitted into evidence on that occasion, questions about its authenticity would make that impossible today. I would appreciate your stating that you agree with this point and the deficiencies in the 4x5 slides at the museum. If not, please explain why not. And, since you know all about me, but I know nothing about you, please fill me in. Who is Jerry Logan? Why are you here? What is your background? I would appreciate knowing more.

Jim, before we enter into another long, drawn out dance, can we get one thing straight that you (and I suppose Jack) are repeatedly misstating. Horne does not have the forensic copy of the Zapruder film. The forensic copy is the first generation copy which the Archives printed directly from the original film. Horne's film is in fact a 5th generation copy. Do you agree or disagree?

You are playing games, Jerry, which comes as no surprise. The forensic copy of the Zapruder film from the National Archives obviously has special standing. Presumably, it is a copy of sufficient quality to be admissible as evidence in courts of law. Using it as the basis for experiments, such as creating, on that basis, a digital 6k version, is entirely appropriate. Some features of the contents of the film are going to be more readily discernible on that basis than viewing in other ways. This is quite analogous to using telescopes, microscopes, and radio telescopes for making more precise and detailed observations of the very large (astronomical objects) and the very small (microscopic objects). The point I made about David Mantik's study of the 4x5 transparencies is that they also show the same artifacts -- the painting over of the massive blow-out to the back of the head in black and the painting in of the bulging brains (the "blob") and the blood spray. Far from not having considering the MPI transparencies, David has already studied them and confirmed the Hollywood findings.

Perhaps you do not know, but the fact of the matter is that MPI did not do a perfect job, where I discussed what was wrong with the MPI version during the Duluth conference, which Rich DellaRosa has posted on YouTube, and in HOAX (2003), which published studies by the contributors to the conference. Indeed, for various purposes, I am sure that John Costella's "combined cut" would be better than the MPI version. His version, for example, has corrections for aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, which other versions lack. So, for at least some purposes, the Costella version will be superior. For examining minute details with great precision, of course, the 6k version is ideal. Since there are missing frames and other problems with the MPI version, you are simply barking up the wrong tree. It may be closer in generation to the "original", but that does not mean it is therefore "the best available version". In some respects, Costella's version is better and in others the 6k version is better. You have asked an open-ended question that has no unique answer, as I'm sure you know.

Indeed, your emphasis upon the MPI version is simply absurd. With frames out of order, with three missing frames, and with two series of two and four missing frames, respectively, it becomes rather difficult to appreciate any depiction of the MPI version as "state of the art". Because its frames encompass more information than other versions of the film -- Lifton's "Z film", the Macmillan CD, "JFK Assassination: A Visual Investigation", and Robert Groden's "The Assassination Films" (which includes several versions) -- the obvious prospect deserving investigation is (1) correcting the order of frames 331 and 332, (2) restoring those three missing frames, 341, 350, and 486, (3) restoring frames 155 and 156 and (4) restoring frames 208, 209, 210, and 211 -- the blatant "edits" in the film -- to create a substantially improved version. But Costella has done that in his "combined cut", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free. Unless the museum has fixed the problems that I explained in HOAX (2003), the MPI version is inferior in all of these respects.

Several dimensions of the film experts' studies are important. One is that the observations they have made -- which Mantik has already verified using the MPI slides at the museum -- of the painting over of the blow-out to the back of the head, for example, are so simple and direct that no one should be unable to understand them. As I have observed, in frame 374, the blow-out at the back of the head -- and the skull flap described by Tom Robinson -- are both clearly visible. So frame 374 by itself already creates an inconsistency in the film: if frame 374 is authentic, then we know that frames 314 to 327 are not. They can't both be authentic, which means their inconsistency by itself proves the film is a fake. From Jackie's testimony, the Parkland doctors' reports, and dozens of witnesses, we know that the blow out was at the back of the head, not the right front. And I have discussed the mutually-reinforcing deceptions involved here in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". But you already know that. You appear to be here because it is your task to obfuscate it.

There are other inconsistencies that are internal to the frames of the film that show the "blob" is an artifact and that the back of the head has been painted over in black. I have already pointed out that frame 374, for example, shows the blow-out to the back of the head and the skull flap that Tom Robinson described. And, when frames 456 and 466 are viewed in the 6k version, a wound behind the right ear is visible, but no large blow-out of the right-front. That is a perfect example of how experiments like this one can reveal details that are not obvious without gaining greater access to its contents, as the 6k has done. And, as Doug has explained, the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames -- even apart from Jackie's testimony, the medical evidence, and more than 40 witnesses reports -- is an additional proof that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314 through 327 is a fabrication. It can't be present in those frames but missing from later ones. The beauty of these proofs is that they are simple and direct -- and have been confirmed by eight experts on film and David Mantik, too!

Mary and Jean were there together in taking Mary's Polaroids, yet they appear as "frozen turkeys" in the film. Jean is not even looking at JFK, even though she has explained that she called out to him to get his attention so Mary could take his photograph. Officer Chaney, on the right side of the limousine, motored forward, which is substantiated by the testimony of Forrest Sorrels, Chief Curry, and other official sources. It took place before the lead car entered the Triple Underpass, but it's not in the film. But you know all of this already. You know the film is a fake, so you could care less about the multiple proofs that prove it, because your role is obfuscation. I really don't know who you think you are fooling. There are a dozen proofs of film fakery in the Prologue to HOAX (2003) alone! But you don't want to talk about them. No, you want to deceive and mislead by suggesting that only those 4x5 transparencies count, when, as I explain in HOAX (2003), they are not even a complete set! But we have been there and done that already! The artifacts in the 6k version are in the 4x5s as well.

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]

Jim and I seem to have a slight disagreement about what constitutes THE BLOB.

I think I can take credit for the name, since I first started using it in slide lectures

in the 1980s, using Groden Z slide frames. Groden's slides showed it as a WHITE

"blob" on the right side of JFK's head which changed size and shape from frame

to frame. I referred to the artifact as "the blob".

I have always contended that there was NO BLOWOUT OF THE RIGHT TEMPLE

and that the blob was painted in.

Jim has now said that "the blob" is brains bulging out, but he agrees that the

"white thing" represents the "bone flap". I think that the bone flap was created

by the SURGERY TO THE SKULL of Lifton and Horne...at a later time than Dealey

Plaza. Even if the Z film were real, there would be no BONE FLAP, since IT DID

NOT OCCUR IN THE PLAZA. Since I believe that the blob is one of the artifacts

of alteration, I do not understand Jim saying it is some sort of real effect. Or

perhaps I have misunderstood him.

I believe, as I have since the 1980s, that ANY DEFECT of the right temple is

an alteration and does not represent a bone flap OR brains bulging out.

Perhaps Jim can clarify or reconcile our differing opinions.

Jack