The Hollywood 7

[William Kelly]

Exactly what does Craig Lamson do, or has he done, that qualifies him as a preeminent expert in photography? He sneers at those who have worked in this area in Hollywood for a long time. He sneers at Jack White, who was once universally considered THE assassination film expert. He sneers at anyone cited by an alterationist in one of their posts, as he has done here to Homer McMahon (and Bill isn't really an alterationist).

Craig boasts of "not caring about" the assassination. What kind of person spends the hours he does, posting prolifically about a subject that supposedly doesn't matter to him? Shockingly, all his posts are criticisms of a pro-conspiracy position. Apparently, his extremely critical personality finds nothing to criticize in the official lone assassin thesis.

Craig doesn't seem to offend the likes of Josiah Thompson, who quotes him favorably quite frequently on this forum. As I've noted before, all these alteration discussions invariably boil down to shouting matches over how someone interprets a particular photo or film frame. I was a long time agnostic on the subject of Z-film alteration, but the work of Doug Horne, especially that of the experts from Hollywood, has persuaded me that, at the very least, the Zapruder film we have come to know all too well is not completely legitimate.

I can't understand why the findings of true experts in the film business don't impress Josiah, Barb, Jerry, etc., but the predictable postings of Craig Lamson-whose expertise in this area cannot possibly be any more impressive-are lauded by the same people and quoted favorably.

Don, some very basic principles of photography are at play here. Solid, long proven principles. When someone says this or that can't happen, and it goes against the very basics of the process, you can test it and see who is correct and who is not.

Thats what I do. I'm so sorry it steps on the toes of your heros. But maybe you need to vet your heros a bit better. Trusting the untrustworthy is not a good way to go through life Don.

So what is it that the Hollywood experts have done that has "persuaded' you Don? Was it them not telling Horne that his sign edge stuff was just standard motion blur? Good stuff there eh, failure at photo 101. (please note, thats not an "interpretation", I actually did and posted a proof of concept experiment)

Or is it that they LOOKED at a frame and said Yep...Painted that in. Good stuff eh...convincing too [/sacrasm]

Tell you what, when the H7 actually releases some TECHINAL data we can all judge the actual results. They had an epic fail on the sign edge stuff...and thats where I have been critical...on yea and on using a 5th generation copy simply because they wanted to use a negative....

So what "findings" have the "true experts" in the business put out there for us to be "impressed by' Don?

Don believes...lordy lordy...Don BELIEVES

Forget the Z-film for a second. Can we learn anything at all from the photos of the assassination?

If so, what do the comparative analysis of the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Sniper's window say?

To those photo experts who have examined them, inculding those for the HSCA, concluded that these pictures indicate that the boxes have been moved around between a minute and a half and two minutes after the assassination, when the accused Lone-Patsy is verifiably on the second floor.

And this interpretation of these photos is supported by the statement made by the court clerk from across the street who observed a man in the window moving around the Sniper's Nest three to four minutes after the last shot.

So what does Craig Lamson, photo expert have to say about this case study?

Does he agree with the other photo experts or does he disagree, and if so, why?

Thanks Craig

Bill Kelly

[Craig Lamson]

Forget the Z-film for a second. Can we learn anything at all from the photos of the assassination?

If so, what do the comparative analysis of the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Sniper's window say?

To those photo experts who have examined them, inculding those for the HSCA, concluded that these pictures indicate that the boxes have been moved around between a minute and a half and two minutes after the assassination, when the accused Lone-Patsy is verifiably on the second floor.

And this interpretation of these photos is supported by the statement made by the court clerk from across the street who observed a man in the window moving around the Sniper's Nest three to four minutes after the last shot.

So what does Craig Lamson, photo expert have to say about this case study?

Does he agree with the other photo experts or does he disagree, and if so, why?

Thanks Craig

Bill Kelly

I've not studied it. Can't say one way or the other, and quite frankly it holds little interest to me.

But feel free to post the detailed analysis if it makes you feel better.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[William Kelly]

Forget the Z-film for a second. Can we learn anything at all from the photos of the assassination?

If so, what do the comparative analysis of the Dillard and Powell photos of the Sixth Floor Sniper's window say?

To those photo experts who have examined them, inculding those for the HSCA, concluded that these pictures indicate that the boxes have been moved around between a minute and a half and two minutes after the assassination, when the accused Lone-Patsy is verifiably on the second floor.

And this interpretation of these photos is supported by the statement made by the court clerk from across the street who observed a man in the window moving around the Sniper's Nest three to four minutes after the last shot.

So what does Craig Lamson, photo expert have to say about this case study?

Does he agree with the other photo experts or does he disagree, and if so, why?

Thanks Craig

Bill Kelly

I've not studied it. Can't say one way or the other, and quite frankly it holds little interest to me.

But feel free to post the detailed analysis if it makes you feel better.

No, that's all right.

You convinced me.

I'm no longer interested in your opinions, and think you should keep them to yourself.

BK

[Craig Lamson]

No, that's all right.

You convinced me.

I'm no longer interested in your opinions, and think you should keep them to yourself.

BK

No problem Bill, do as you please. I'll do the same.

[Craig Lamson]

Do me one additional favor...and leave this Forum voluntarily. No one - repeat - on one -not even Len [a close second] - disrupts the flow of this forum, the pretension of information and evidence, keeps the better researchers off this Forum to not be involved in the contrived mud-slinging, nor disrupts threads, and makes most spin their 'wheels' for naught, as you Craig. I don't think, IMO, this is by accident - but by design. The 'Grand' design of which, IMO, you are but a cog.

Hey, why don't YOU leave? I'm not going anywhere...

Don't worry , I'll make sure the second shift Craig and the third shift Craig aware of your request. I don't think they will want to leave either. [/sacrasm]

Edited February 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

Boys, go to your rooms right now! Peter, you give extra thought to your role in this...not another word. Go!

[David G. Healy]

Do me one additional favor...and leave this Forum voluntarily. No one - repeat - on one -not even Len [a close second] - disrupts the flow of this forum, the pretension of information and evidence, keeps the better researchers off this Forum to not be involved in the contrived mud-slinging, nor disrupts threads, and makes most spin their 'wheels' for naught, as you Craig. I don't think, IMO, this is by accident - but by design. The 'Grand' design of which, IMO, you are but a cog.

Hey, why don't YOU leave? I'm not going anywhere...

...

LMAO, of course you're not going to leave. Hell, what would the 6th floor do, IF you DID? Perhaps a better proposition would be, prepare a new alias, find a Ph.D in Physics, one that can act like he/she understands optics then overwhelm us with nonsense as to how authentic the alleged Zapruder film is.... now THAT would be worth the price of admission (or in Ed Forum jargon, keeping the view numbers up, eh?)!

Edited February 1, 2010 by David G. Healy

[John Dolva]

Sigh

[Craig Lamson]

I'll take that as a pledge Craig that you'll no longer be posting on this Forum. It will be a great relief to most all here and to the civil pursuit of truth and justice. IMO, Your presence here was to disrupt threads, divert progress towards truth, create distension and hate [which I believe seethes in you as in the Nation's polity], make the Forum a food-fight and mud-slinging child's hate-fest, so the best researchers wouldn't dare put their post here. IMO, you are a no-nothing average commercial photographer, with no experience of American history, polity or photographic manipulation - but present yourself as an expert......self appointed or front-man for the Borg...time will tell.

Wow, got you wound up ....wonderful!

[Craig Lamson]

LMAO, of course you're not going to leave. Hell, what would the 6th floor do, IF you DID? Perhaps a better proposition would be, prepare a new alias, find a Ph.D in Physics, one that can act like he/she understands optics then overwhelm us with nonsense as to how authentic the alleged Zapruder film is.... now THAT would be worth the price of admission (or in Ed Forum jargon, keeping the view numbers up, eh?)!

If nothing else, I must say watching you squirm is a wonderful thing.

Instead of throwing bricks, why not just prove me wrong David? How tough can that be for a man of your skills?

While you are at it maybe you can rescue Costella...and Lifton...and White...and Fetzer....

Edited February 1, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

LMAO, of course you're not going to leave. Hell, what would the 6th floor do, IF you DID? Perhaps a better proposition would be, prepare a new alias, find a Ph.D in Physics, one that can act like he/she understands optics then overwhelm us with nonsense as to how authentic the alleged Zapruder film is.... now THAT would be worth the price of admission (or in Ed Forum jargon, keeping the view numbers up, eh?)!

If nothing else, I must say watching you squirm is a wonderful thing.

Instead of throwing bricks, why not just prove me wrong David? How tough can that be for a man of your skills?

While you are at it maybe you can rescue Costella...and Lifton...and White...and Fetzer....

son, its quite simple, you can even understand, no one, or body has verified the Zapruder film content as original, you're simply throwing your support behind unverified film. Of course, that's fine by me, whatever toots your lone nut horn. You certainly waste no time of mine, nor anyone elses time that I know.... what you have provided for me and others, is a certain kind of entertainment-humor. How? By building excuses out of nonsense, then framing it as argument -- LMAO... So please keep on trucking...

Throwing bricks? hell Craig, I've thrown nothing yet, simply post and published my *informed* opinions.... The Zapruder film trolls have been fumbling around for near on 10 years dealing with an article I wrote once upon a time. As to proving you wrong? Hell son, ya can't verify the images you speak to here, so there's absolutely nothing to prove.... others may be impressed with your (and others) film/photo nonsense here, I'm not. Simple as that! Frankly, to quote a Broadway term, "Much Ado about Nothing"

But your right about one thing, for a change I've never mastered shooting a row of metal chairs or boats! Somehow that kind of photo project (shooting for catalogs?) slipped my mind while down at Montorey doing those Ansel Adams interviews.... Shame I never got around to asking him about that kind of project, perhaps I should give an Ansel's 20 year print guru a call and ask for his insight, eh?

Hi Todd..... LMFAO

Edited February 1, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Will Emaus]

• It seems apparent that Wainwright was simply incorrect—off by one day—in regard to when the activity at the Chicago printing plant took place. (If Cartha DeLoach can be off by one day in his memoirs, so can Loudon Wainwright, who after all, was writing about events [/font]

Bill, Doug Horne needs to realize that there were also 10,000 potential witnesses in the RR Donnelley complex that could attest to production having started on Saturday night, not Sunday.

http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/webexhibits/...ingMoments.html

In fairness though, he obviously did a lot of thinking about the likely scenarios to go along with the NPIC sessions; one possibility that doesn't rule out altered stills showing up on Sunday is the fact that the presses did shut down again Sunday afternoon after Oswald died. If new stills happened to get inserted on Sunday evening when the Ruby -> Oswald material was inserted then it could have happened as something resembling his assertion...

I was all set to write something of a refutation to the timing portion of this, but to be honest the Sunday-Oswald scenario is a legit option so I don't think the door is closed on Doug's theory and the fact that no one from Life has apparently ever bothered to explain what happened to the film beyond Saturday night keeps this possibility on the table.

Understand though that everyone being "off by a day" isn't really much of an option. There are many people from RRD that took their little piece of history seriously and kept bedsheets and/or timecards from that weekend; there stands a pretty good chance that hardcopy proof still exists today of the start to production of the November 29th Life issue vs. relying on simple recollections.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Another fake poster here is this woman, who has no idea what she is talking about. That several Hollywood experts involved in the study of the film--Roderick Ryan, who received the Academy Award for his contributions to special effects cinema in 2000; Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood; Paul R. Rutan, Jr., the President and chief technician for Triage Motion Picture Services; and Ned Price, an accomplished fim restoration expert with 24 years of experience--have been named does not matter to her! She doesn't care if Horne has found five features that distinguish the current copy from the original! She doesn't care that the chain of custody was broken and a second film brought to the NPIC on Sunday! She doesn't care if there are inconsistencies between the Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza films! She doesn't care if there are inconsistencies between different frames of the film itself! The facts simply do not matter to her. And since she doesn't care about any of this, why in God's name should any of us care about her opinions on any of this? The answer: there is no reason on God's green earth to care the least about Barb Junkkarinen! NOT A ONE!

Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/098...1/mbookshop1-20

a five-volume study of the efforts to the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK. As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gearld Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is know about the assassination of our 35th President, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new piece of mine, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law” (OpEdNews), http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-...100121-980.html

Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:

I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy's brain -- they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else's brain.

Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne – in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), he has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film” – and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films – have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kenney. Three major arguments in defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film -- (1) that the features of the extant film correspond to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed; and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have been faked if the others had been as well – have finally been refuted.

The following extracts from INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that differ from \those of the original and (2) that different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic! Horne’s new studies thus confirm the previous research that has been reported in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (2007), and “Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid” (2008).

(1) Five features of the original do not match the extant film

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:

Conclusions

In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson [NOTE: the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study based on the Zapruder film] told us we should all trust Rollie Zavada's judgment and defer to his authority:

"Roland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions."

Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavada's changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignored--trashed--key testimony:

* That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three 'first day copies' were struck, meaning that the three 'first generation' copies today should not be bracketed copies;

* That a 'full frame' aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the 'first generation copies';

* That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant 'first generation' copies; and,

* That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new 'original' was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahon's expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Furthermore, Zavada's opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder's actual camera in Dealey Plaza--which was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997--now takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.

Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavada's deception.

(2) Different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days

Not only has Doug Horne demonstrated that the strips of film--the actual celluloid -- of the film that was processed in Dallas and the extant "Zapruder film" are not the same, but he has demonstrated that David Wrone has misled his audience and distorted the evidence about the chain-of-custody, where one film--apparently the original, was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, 23 November 1963, which was an 8mm, slit version, the processing of which Bruno Brugioni, Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, supervised, which even required opening a camera store to purchase an 8mm projector, which the NPIC did not possess, while a second, 16mm unslit version, was brought to the NPIC on Sunday, 24 December 1963, by Secret Service Agent "William Smith", which was handled by Homer McMahon and by Ben Hunter, who had not been present the night before, and a very different film.

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:

Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon's rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie -- and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester -- implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as 'the original'. I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that 'Bill Smith' told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester -- after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruder's camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated 'original' created with an optical printer at the CIA's secret film lab in Rochester.

The critical information published in the ARRB call and meeting reports about our interviews with McMahon and Hunter in 1997 was published in full by Jim Fetzer in the year 2000 in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, but was subsequently ignored by Josiah Thompson in a 2007 essay posted on the Mary Ferrell website (note 14) and was intentionally under-reported and misrepresented by David Wrone in his 2003 book on the Zapruder film. This is what many advocates of a specific hypothesis or a historical position resort to when the heat is on and their longstanding positions on key issues are threatened by new evidence: all too often they either ignore the argument of their opponents as if they do not exist, or they will misrepresent them, intentionally setting up a false 'straw man', and then knock it down. In the case of the serious chain-of-custody implications of the McMahon interviews, Thompson chose to ignore the problem in 2005 and again in 2007, while David Wrone has not only misreported/misrepresented their import, but he has overstated the case for authenticity, as I shall demonstrate below.

In his 2003 book THE ZAPRUDER FILM: REFRAMING JFK’S ASSASSINATION, Wrone fails to report the specific content of the Homer McMahon interviews (nor does McMahon's name even appear in Wrone's index), and then completely misreports what I have said about them (on page 127), as follows:

Similarly spurious is Douglas Orme's charge (yes, he misspelled my name, too) that Time, Inc. allowed the film to be altered. In MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, Horne argues that Time, Inc. permitted the film to be taken by Federal Officials for doctoring. [This statement was followed by endnote 36, which simply refers to page 319 of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, without telling the reader what is on page 319. Page 319 is the interview report I wrote of the Homer McMahon interview of July 14, 1997 at the National Archives.] Like Zapruder, however, Time knew it had a treasure in the Zapruder film, and it would do nothing to endanger the flow of revenue it expected from those 26 seconds of film. [boldface added by author]

Shame on you David Wrone! There are so many things wrong with this short paragraph that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, and most importantly, Wrone never mentioned in his text that the Head of the Color Lab at NPIC, the world's pre-eminent photo interpretation lab in 1963, claimed that he had [had] delivered to him by the Secret Service, prior to the President's funeral, a 16 mm wide, unslit original double 8 film of the Kennedy assassination that was developed in Rochester, the location from which the courier brought him the film!!! So David Wrone's first sin is that of intellectual dishonesty -- hiding facts from his readers which might have contradicted his own thesis that the extant film in the Archives today is authentic and unaltered. His second sin is that of putting words in my mouth: it is simply not true that I said anywhere in Fetzer's book that Time, Inc. had allowed the film to be altered! The editor of the anthology, Jim Fetzer, published only my call reports and meeting reports of what the witnesses told the ARRB staff, and no one used that language in their interviews with us. So Wrone set up a straw man here which he attempted to knock down with a private enterprise profit motive, while all the time ignoring facts about C.D. Jackson's long standing associations with the CIA and the national security establishment during the decade of the 1960s. If Wrone had been intellectually above-board, he would have talked honestly about the content of the McMahon/Hunter interviews, and then stated why he did not find these eyewitness recollections persuasive, if that was the case; instead, he took the coward's way out and intentionally failed to report what McMahon had said. . . .

Note 14: The name of the lengthy 3-part essay is "Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination", and is based upon a somewhat shorter version delivered by Thompson on November 19, 2005 at a conference sponsored by Jim Lesar's Assassination Archives and Research Center (ARRC) and the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

(3) The Zapruder film displays inconsistencies with other films and with itself

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1336 to 1337:

The Alteration of the Zapruder Film was Rushed and Imperfect

Because there are physical limitations to what can be altered in a film -- particularly on a tight schedule and when faced with time pressure--the alteration of the Zapruder film was imperfect, and it therefore had to be suppressed as a motion picture even after its gross alteration to conceal what the forgers had been unable to remove. My working hypothesis postulates that because the cabal that killed the president (and which was feverishly covering up the crime that weekend) did not yet know, on the weekend of the assassination, what type of investigation(s) would be conducted of the crime, or by which governmental bodies, speed was of the essence. By late Sunday afternoon -- after discussing the limitations to the film's alteration with the technicians at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester -- they would have known that while the car stop had been removed from the film, and the exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy's skull had also been removed, that a serious problem remained: the so-called 'head snap', or violent movement of the President's head and upper body to the left and rear, in response to the frontal head shots. This was a simple and persuasive demonstration of the law of conservation of momentum that even a layperson without a physics degree could viscerally understand, and the public could not be permitted to see it, or the lone assassination cover story would not sell. . . . .

The film's imperfect alteration was revealed in other ways aside from the 'headsnap'. As later discovered by Josiah Thompson, Ray Marcus, and other researchers, and as written about in scores of books now and as mentioned in hundreds of lectures, the extant film contains evidence of a very serious 'timing problem': President Kennedy and Governor Connally react to separate shots that occur too close together to have been fired in succession by the rather slow mechanism of the alleged murder weapon. The Warren Commission staff expressed great concern about this internally, and ultimately dealt with it dishonestly by concluding that the same bullet had hit both men, and that Connally had unaccountably exhibited a 'delayed reaction' to this very severe and painful wounds. What we do not know today is whether the 'timing problem' is an artifact of frame removal, or whether those frames of the film prior to the headshot were not tampered with, and reflected the true reality of the assassination farther up Elm Street in the vicinity of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Either possibility is [better: could be] true. Given what we know about the robust evidence in favor of alteration of the Zapruder film, it would be imprudent for JFK researchers to continue to claim that the 'timing problem' is the primary evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. It isn't. Given the overwhelming evidence that the camera original has been altered, the 'timing problem' should now be demoted to simply being 'possible evidence' of conspiracy. Eyewitness and earwitness testimony from Dealey Plaza alone, and the behavior of the impact debris after the head shots, are the true 'bedrock evidence' that proves conspiracy, not the 'timing problem', which is inevitably suspect now, because of the overwhelming evidence that the camera original Zapruder film was altered on Sunday, November 24, 1963.

One final and undeniable mistake by the forgers was their failure to black out the real exit wound(s) in the posterior skull in all frames. I believe one of two exit wounds can been seen today, with proper magnification, in frames 335 and 337 of the extant film [NOTE: and in frames 372 and 374, where a comparison between David Mantik's study of "Area P" in the lateral cranial X-rays and the blow-out to the back of the head can be viewed in "Dealey Plaza Revisited", Chapter 30 of JOHN F. KENNEDY: HISTORY, MEMORY, LEGACY (2009), which can be downloaded from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/] The best images of this to date have been published in HIGH TREASON (the color plate in the cloth edition, opposite page 387), in [Harrison Livingston's] THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY: DECODING THE FORGERY OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM (on page 264) and in [Robert Groden's] THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (on page 38). While the forgers were 'successful' in superimposing rather poor aerial imaging artwork of an enormous head wound on the top and right side of President Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film -- a head wound which is grossly inconsistent with the localized posterior blowout observed at Parkland Hospital, and only roughly consistent with the autopsy photos taken after clandestine post mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital -- they failed to properly execute their most basic task, which was to hide all evidence of posterior exit wounds in the back of JFK's head. Persons in the government were clearly aware of this problem, for the last frame of the Zapruder film published in volume XVIII of the Warren Commission's 26 supporting volumes was frame 334, the frame immediately prior to those which show one of the two exit defects in the back of the head. 'Coincidences' like this are not worthy of belief, and the fact that the Warren Commission stopped publishing at frame 334 strongly implies that someone on the staff--presumably Specter and Rankin--knew they had a problem in frames 335 and 337, and so simply decided not to publish those frames. For them, discretion was the better part of valor. . . .

INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, pages 1317 to 1320 (in part):

If the Zapruder Film is an Alteration, Doesn't This Mean That Other Films of the Assassination Must Have Been Altered Also? Also, Are There Inconsistencies Between Other Films and the Zapruder Film?

Absolutely--alteration of the Zapruder film does indeed imply that in a perfect conspiracy, that other films would have been altered also, and in the same way as the Zapruder film. If they were not altered and the Zapruder film was, this would have left undeniable evidence in the photographic record that "the" pre-eminent record of the assassination is indeed an alteration. In fact, what we do find in the evidence is one suggestion of identical altration; and numerous indications of disagreement between various Dealey Plaza films and the Zapruder film.

The Turn from Houston Onto Elm May Have Been Removed from the Zapruder Film, the Nix Film, and the Muchmore Film

First, let us examine the suggested identical alteration of the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. Neither the Nix film, the Muchmore film, nor the Zapruder film show the Presidential limousine turning left from Houston Street onto Elm Street. Orville Nix told Mark Lane (on film) in 1966 that his film has initially been 'lost' by the processing plant and that when the FBI returned his film to him, some of the frames had been 'damaged' and were missing. The originals of both the Nix film and the Muchmore film (taken from the opposite side of thje plaza from which Zapruder was shooting his film, and from much farther away) are missing today. How convenient. The absence of first-frame overexposure in frame 133 of the Zapruder film suggests, but in my view does not prove, that the limousine's turn from Houston onto Elm was removed when the film was altered and recreated, using an optical printer. The fact that the originals of the Nix and Muchmore films are missing is extremely suspicious; they may have been removed from circulation to prevent detection of their alteration -- specifically, removal of the limousine's turn onto Elm from Houston and of the car stop during the assassination. If ever found, one of the first things that should be checked is to see if the limousine's turn onto Elm Street in these two films has been excised--either crudely, with splices, or via reprinting those films in an optical printer.

Clint Hill's Interactions with Jackie Kennedy on the Trunk of the Limousine Appear to be Inconsistent in the Nix Film and the Zapruder Film

There is also significant disagreement between the Nix film and the Zapruder film. In Harry Livingstone’s 2004 book about the Zapruder film, he discusses differences between the images of Clint Hall and Jackie Kennedy on the trunk of the limousine in the Nix film, versus what is shown in the Zapruder film. Livingstone correctly points out that in the Nix Film, Clint Hill appears to place his left arm around Jackie Kennedy’s right shoulder and push her back into her seat – where as in the Zapruder film, he barely touches her with his right hand, and is not seen embracing her with his left arm at all. (See pages 250-251 of Livingstone for the pertinent Nix frames, and the MPI video of the Zapruder film for comparison. A projected version of the portion of the Nix film showing Clint Hill on the trunk of the limousine can been seen in the 1973 film "Executive Action", and it can be seen in its entirety in the Groden DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.)

Is the “Headsnap” Different in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films?

The 'headsnap" in the Nix film appears to be slightly slower, and less violent than in the Zapruder film; in the Muchmore film, there appears to be no 'headsnap' visible at all, but this may be inconclusive because of the camera angle at the time of the headshot(s) and because the line of sight to the President's head is obstructed by Dealey Plaza bystanders immediately afterwards. (See episode 3 of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" for footage oft he headshot(s) in both the Nix and the Muchmore films; both films can also been seen in their entirety in Robert Groden's DVD JFK Assassination Films: The Case for Conspiracy.) The perceived differences between the headshot(s) in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films suggests that when debris exiting from the back of President Kennedy's head was removed from the three films, that it was not done uniformly, resulting in three slightly different versions of the motion of the President's head caused by the fatal shot(s). This has not been conclusively proven, but is worthy of further investigation. . . .

Concluding Reflections

There is much more, but the Addendum, "The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood", pages 1352 to 1363, is of special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains -- called the "blob"--and the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization was special effects.

As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts -- eight, if we include Ryan -- have agreed that the fakery used to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4x5 slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film -- which are archived at The 6th Floor Museum – the inadequacies of which are explained in “Which Film is ‘the Zapruder Film’?”, by me and Scott Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31. The creation of this visual deception was an elaborate undertaking, but it contained the elements of its own refutation.

“Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery” is an astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of arguments and evidence impresses me beyond words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what reservations or differences I may have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He was my featured guest on "The Real Deal" on Wednesday, 13 January 2010, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. It is also archived http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do...b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). Those who want to pursue this historic development in JFK assassination research are welcome to pursue these leads.

I can't understand why the findings of true experts in the film business don't impress Josiah, Barb, Jerry, etc., but the predictable postings of Craig Lamson-whose expertise in this area cannot possibly be any more impressive-are lauded by the same people and quoted favorably.

I can only speak for myself, Don, but I find it impossible to be impressed by findings that, from what we

keep hearing, have not been completed or released yet by experts not yet named, whose expertise is not yet known.

All we have so far are a lot of airy claims about what they are going to find, or what Doug Horne (or Jack White or Fetzer or Healy) says they are

going to find. One cannot evaluate something that has not yet been produced for review.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited February 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Paul Rigby]

Another fake poster here is this woman, who has no idea what she is talking about. That several Hollywood experts involved in the study of the film--Roderick Ryan, who received the Academy Award for his contributions to special effects cinema in 2000; Sydney Wilkinson, an accomplished professional in film and video post-production in Hollywood; Paul R. Rutan, Jr., the President and chief technician for Triage Motion Picture Services; and Ned Price, an accomplished fim restoration expert with 24 years of experience--have been named does not matter to her! She doesn't care if Horne has found five features that distinguish the current copy from the original! She doesn't care that the chain of custody was broken and a second film brought to the NPIC on Sunday! She doesn't care if there are inconsistencies between the Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza films! She doesn't care if there are inconsistencies between different frames of the film itself! The facts simply do not matter to her. And since she doesn't care about any of this, why in God's name should any of us care about her opinions on any of this? The answer: there is no reason on God's green earth to care the least about Barb Junkkarinen! NOT A ONE!

And so lacking in wit and logic that good old Barb's even raised the Specter of an entirely different film landing at the NPIC. Now what does that do for the anti-alterationist argument?

Answers on a postcard, please, to Langley, Virginia. Usual terms and conditions apply.

[Craig Lamson]

son, its quite simple, you can even understand, no one, or body has verified the Zapruder film content as original, you're simply throwing your support behind unverified film. Of course, that's fine by me, whatever toots your lone nut horn. You certainly waste no time of mine, nor anyone elses time that I know.... what you have provided for me and others, is a certain kind of entertainment-humor. How? By building excuses out of nonsense, then framing it as argument -- LMAO... So please keep on trucking...

Throwing bricks? hell Craig, I've thrown nothing yet, simply post and published my *informed* opinions.... The Zapruder film trolls have been fumbling around for near on 10 years dealing with an article I wrote once upon a time. As to proving you wrong? Hell son, ya can't verify the images you speak to here, so there's absolutely nothing to prove.... others may be impressed with your (and others) film/photo nonsense here, I'm not. Simple as that! Frankly, to quote a Broadway term, "Much Ado about Nothing"

But your right about one thing, for a change I've never mastered shooting a row of metal chairs or boats! Somehow that kind of photo project (shooting for catalogs?) slipped my mind while down at Montorey doing those Ansel Adams interviews.... Shame I never got around to asking him about that kind of project, perhaps I should give an Ansel's 20 year print guru a call and ask for his insight, eh?

Hi Todd..... LMFAO

Come on David I THINK you are smarter than this..or maybe not.

I'm not supporting the film , I checking the claims that people use to SAY is altered.

What exactly was it you wrote? Oh yes...That Hollywood does special effects! Wow! Thats important news! I'm sure there was not a single soul who would have ever consider that.

AS far as phots go, I can verify the ones in this study, and I tell you how to do them yourself so you don't need to take anyones word for it.. Empirical as all get out. Plenty of very solid proof...care to knock it down...if you can?

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

I'm not suprised you never mastered the fine art of creative lighting..not that much need for it shooting corp training videos or the 6 OClock news or the local rodeo. But I'm happy you found your life's work fullfilling. I know I mine has been and I have no regrets.

I know a bit about the Carmel area. My in-laws have property there. Perhaps you have heard of a guy by the name of Edward Weston? He spent some time with Ansel...good friends they were. He shot a lot of very cool stuff at Point Lobos...he was one of my early heros and I have shot there many times myself.. Anyways his granddaughter is my brothers wife...have an original Weston right over my head..and Lamson's hang next to Weston's at a very nice private gallery....but I digress.

Maybe you should have asked Adams about commercial work, you see he was a very fine commercial and portrait photographer..thats how he paid his bills...kind of...and if you had asked him (or prepared properly for the interview) you might not have stuck your foot deep in your mouth...

Recognition, however, did not alleviate Adams's financial pressures. In a letter dated 6 August 1935 he wrote Weston, "I have been busy, but broke. Can't seem to climb over the financial fence." Adams was compelled to spend much of his time as a commercial photographer. Clients ran the gamut, including the Yosemite concessionaire, the National Park Service, Kodak, Zeiss, IBM, AT&T, a small women's college, a dried fruit company, and Life, Fortune, and Arizona Highways magazines — in short, everything from portraits to catalogues to Coloramas. On 2 July 1938 he wrote to friend David McAlpin, "I have to do something in the relatively near future to regain the right track in photography. I am literally swamped with "commercial" work — necessary for practical reasons, but very restraining to my creative work." Although Adams became an unusually skilled commercial photographer, the work was intermittent, and he constantly worried about paying the next month's bills. His financial situation remained precarious and a source of considerable stress until late in life.