Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Present State of Doug Horne's Evidence


Recommended Posts

Now might be a good time to look around at where we are after about a week of discussing Doug Horne’s evidence.

(1) In a book published in 2003, David Lifton advanced the claim that the Zapruder film displayed something called “full frame left image penetration” [fflip]. By this he meant that in the Zapruder film the intersprocket image goes full flush left, and, in some cases a trifle even further left. Rollie Zavada made various tests with cameras of the same make and model. It was Lifton’s claim in this 2003 book that Zavada was never able with these other cameras to achieve fflip. The obvious point was that this feature of the Zapruder film branded it as a fake. He used Doug Horne as a source for information about Rollie Zavada’s tests. Lifton wrote: “What Doug Horne noticed was that in not one instance — not a single one — could Rollie Zavada get the image to go full flush left. It couldn’t be done because the camera just isn’t designed that way.”

Lifton published in the 2003 book a photo drawn from Rollie Zavada’s tests and stated that “in none of the tests (shown here) could he replicate the continuous ‘full flush left’ phenomenon seen on the previous two pages.” Zavada pointed out that this was just plain wrong. He had in fact actually published in his studies instances where a camera like Zapruder’s camera produced fflip. In fact, one of these instances was the very one used by Lifton to prove the opposite. When a copy of this photo was posted (it shows a red pickup truck driving in Dealey Plaza) the editor of the book said he published whatever Lifton gave him. Lifton said he had never before seen the photo in color and in good resolution although the photo was copied from Zavada’s Study #3.

Lifton and Horne’s present position has shifted from where it was before. Now their claim is that only the Zapruder film shows continuous fflip. This claim itself is made problematic by the fact that three or four years ago Rick Janowitz, a research associate of David Healey’s, sent to Horne a DVD of an 8 mm film shot in Dealey Plaza with a camera of the same make and model as Zapruder’s. It showed continuous fflip.

Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum provided information to Duncan MacRae that NARA has custody of additional 8 mm films shot through Zapruder’s camera. Duncan posted the information on this site. One film was shot through Zapruder's camera in Dealey Plaza during the reconstruction of the crime in the spring of 1964. Another was shot even earlier by the FBI of a clock to establish the speed of the Zapruder camera. Yet another film shot by Bell and Howell through Zapruder’s camera may well be at NARA. Examination of these films my finally resolve satisfactorily this claim.

(2) During early discussions much was made of the fact that NARA copies of the Zapruder film were being examined in Hollywood by a group of film preservationists. Then I found the following paragraph in Horne’s study:

“On August 26th, one day after my Hollywood epiphany, David Mantik emailed Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum and asked him if he knew the whereabouts of the large format 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome transparencies of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video Image of an Assassination. Gary Mack replied by email on August 28th that the Ektachrome transparencies were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing if a request was made through proper channels on the museum’s website.. This was very important news... Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were ever declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than the dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.” (page 1362)

Why, if the best copies of the Zapruder film are the 4" by 5" transparencies at the Sixth Floor Mueum, are Horne’s Hollywood preservationists working there rather than in Dallas? Their 6,000 mp scans are being made from fourth or fifth generation copies while the MPI transparencies were made from the original film. First, Horne states that the experts will come up with a report in the future. Then he says they’ve already determined the Zapruder film has been altered. Finally, a claim is made that David Mantik has viewed the 4" by 5" transparencies and also concludes that the Zapruder film has been altered. The only trouble is that the hearsay report of reasons offered by Mantik are not the same reasons as the hearsay report of what is offered by the Hollywood preservationists. Given this presentation of what ought to be quite simple, some scepticism is in order.

(3) Doug Horne interviewed Ben Hunter on 6/17/97 and wrote up the interview the next day. Hunter was a technician who actually worked on the film brought to NPIC. One paragraph stands out. Horne wrote:

“His [Hunter’s] impression is that the film was probably in 16 mm format but was not an unslit double 8 mm film. It was his strong impression that they were working with the original but when asked whether there were images present between the sprocket holes, he said it was his reasonably strong impression today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at NPIC. At one point he described the film as ‘not high resolution.’”

The importance of these remarks from Hunter is that they are consistent with him working on the first day copy of the Zapruder film flown to Washington by the Secret Service on Friday night. I would have thought Horne would want to comment on this important report of Hunter but I can find no mention of it in Horne’s 194 page chapter.

(4) Horne makes the claim in a two page section that “Undeniable Differences Exist Between the Zapruder Film and other Dealey Plaza Films.” He gives the following instances of discrepancies:

(i) “Both the Muchmore film and the Bronson slide show Moorman and Hill standing not in the grass but below the level of the grass, in the street.... Jack White has conslusively demonstrated that the shoes they [Hill and Moorman] were wearing the day of the assassination are not shown in the Zapruder film.” [emphasis in original on page 1318-1319]

(ii) “Jack White provided another separate proof that Mary Moorman was really standing in the street and not in the grass, when she took her famous Polaroid photograph (Figure 76 in this book) immediately after the headshot(s), by conducting line of sight experiments using a surveyor’s transit, with the assistance of Jim Fetzer and David Mantik... These scientific proofs — based on line of sight studies — that Mary Moorman must have been standing in the street when she took her Polaroid picture, constitute additional dispositive evidence that the Zapruder film, which shows Mary Moorman in the grass, has been altered.” (page 1319)

(iii) [i’ll just summarize] Jack White’s argument about what the “Babushka lady” is wearing in the Zapruder film and then in the Bronson slide and Bond slide number 4. (page 1319-1320)

The fact that Doug Horne adopts these arguments tells us a lot about both the reliability of the rest of his chapter on the Zapruder film. I hope to finish it soon and will be interested in your comments concerning the evidence produced thus far.

Josiah Thompson

Edited by Josiah Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery

I find myself in the rather ironic position of writing about the likely alteration of the Zapruder film, even though I was the point man for the ARRB in its commissioning of an authenticity study which concluded that the film exhibits many features consistent with authenticity. As stated previously many times in this book, there is uncertainty and conflict within virtually all of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and the Zapruder film, the pre-eminent home movie taken of the assassination in Dealey Plaza, is no exception to this general rule. In fact, the uncertainties about its provenance—once deemed unquestionable—are now more problematic than ever, and are not mere hairsplitting arguments over minutiae. There are substantial and responsible reasons to doubt the authenticity of the film because of: (1) serious irregularities in its chain of custody; (2) irregularities in its appearance inconsistent with its processing; (3) photographic inconsistencies between the extant film (the presumed ‘original’) and ‘control’ films shot during the authenticity study; and (4) major inconsistencies between eyewitness recollections of both the head wound(s) and events in the motorcade, and the image content seen in the extant film.

There is also probably more emotion, more Sturm und Drang, associated with arguments about the Zapruder film’s authenticity than with any other evidentiary issue currently under debate within the research community.1 The first generation of JFK researchers assumed without question that the film was authentic; and that it was furthermore purchased, and then suppressed, by LIFE magazine (acting on behalf of the CIA) for that very reason—to withhold from the public the actual events of the assassination that took place in Dealey Plaza, because the film would have contradicted the lone assassin conclusion sponsored by the Warren Commission. Researchers who are convinced the film is authentic believe it to be ‘ground truth’ for the actual events in Dealey Plaza, a virtual ‘time clock’ of the assassination. While they acknowledge that interpretation of the events depicted in the film is subjective, they firmly believe that the Zapruder film is the baseline from which any true understanding of the assassination must proceed. To them, questioning the film’s authenticity is the equivalent of heresy within the critical research community, and those who do so are viewed as apostates. Gary Mack is a researcher who once openly espoused a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination, but who now works for the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, which officially proclaims Oswald’s guilt.

The strongest epithet that Gary Mack (who was hired as the museum’s archivist, and who is commonly referred to today as its ‘curator’) can use to describe a researcher who is persuaded that the autopsy photos and x-rays are in some way dishonest, or that the Zapruder film in the Archives is not the camera original, is to call them ‘alterationists.’ As used by him (and others), the term ‘alterationist’ connotes someone who is beyond the pale, who has discredited himself by adhering to and sponsoring heretical beliefs. The reason for all of this emotion is readily apparent: for if the extant film has truly been tampered with, if it is really a re-creation—a film with altered image content assembled in an optics lab to mimic a camera-original movie and thereby deceive history—then it means that the first generation researchers who have assumed the film is authentic have wasted literally decades of research studying the ‘timing of the shots’ in Dealey Plaza (or rather, the subjective and debatable reactions of the limousine’s occupants to being impacted by bullets). No one would greet with equanimity being told that his approach to researching a subject has been incorrect—based on a false foundation—and that his life’s work has essentially been awaste of time. This characterizes all fields of scientific and historical research, and explains the virulent passions aroused within academia whenever a new paradigm is introduced which calls into question the accepted research methodology for a given discipline. The more central the subject matter, the more those emotions are on display whenever the fundamental bases for a given approach are challenged. Thomas Kuhn’s seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, readily reveals this, as discussed previously in the Preface to this book.

I championed, and welcomed, the ARRB’s sponsorship of an authenticity study of the Zapruder film by Kodak, because like all other researchers, I recognized its centrality to our present-day understanding of what happened in Dealey Plaza; indeed, study of the film has framed 4 decades of debate about what really did or did not happen during the assassination. My whole objective in going to work for the ARRB was to gain a better understanding of what had really happened during the assassination, and assessing the authenticity (or inauthenticity) of the Zapruder film was central to this goal—as important as studying the autopsy photographs and x-rays.

In late September of 1998, when the authenticity study was completed, I was simply grateful that Kodak had agreed to perform this task for the ARRB, and that we had been successful in getting them to do it on a pro bono basis. Physically and intellectually exhausted at the end of my frenetic three-year ARRB experience, I placed my copy of the report on the shelf, and didn’t even begin to study it in any detail until May of 1999.2 What I began to find then, and continue to find today, is evidence within the report itself that casts doubt upon the film’s authenticity. The author of the report, Roland Zavada, began with an obvious bias—he presumed that the film was authentic. I began my interaction with him with my own bias—I had nagging doubts about the film’sauthenticity. Neither of us, however, was firm enough in our own biases to call them beliefs; we both considered ourselves empiricists who were willing to go wherever the data led us. This situation was actually beneficial to the whole process, since the purpose of the study was to examine the film’s authenticity in light of the doubts expressed by some in the research community. I played the constructive role of devil’s advocate with Rollie throughout the period of his authenticity study.

Although there was no final conclusion in the report which summarized Zavada’s findings in one paragraph, he noted throughout his study numerous ways in which the film’s characteristics were consistent with authenticity. Since beginning to study Zavada’s report, I have noted significant caveats to some of his conclusions which seriously weaken them, and other evidence that he published in his own report which I find dispositive in nature—which implies that the extant film in the National Archives—the purported ‘original’—cannot be a camera original film.

The arguments for and against authenticity, based upon the contents of Zavada’s report, will be covered later in this chapter. Today, when interviewed and asked whether he believes the Zapruder film is authentic or not, Rollie unambiguously says “it is.” But he was more cautious in his report and never made any simplistic or outright declaration to that effect in its text. At one time in 1998, as the report was nearing completion, and as I was receiving frequent status reports from Rollie about his progress, he almost had me convinced that it was authentic. But since I began to study his report in detail in May of 1999, I have modified my position and now firmly suspect the extant film in the National Archives is a forgery, created from the true original in a sophisticated CIA photo lab at the Kodak main industrial plant in Rochester, New York. That’s right: I just said that I believe that the presumed ‘original’ of the Zapruder film in the National Archives today was not exposed inside Abe Zapruder’s Bell and Howell movie camera, but rather was created in a photo lab run for the CIA by Kodak, at its main industrial site and corporate headquarters, in Rochester, New York (using Abe Zapruder’s camera-original film, of course, as the baseline). Astronomer Carl Sagan once said:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Fair enough. I intend to provide that evidence in this chapter. Before I proceed I wish to make one thing perfectly clear: during the period 1996-1998, I had the highest respect and admiration for Rollie Zavada, and I did not believe, at that time, that he was part of any attempt by Kodak to ‘cover up the truth.’ The Rollie Zavada with whom I worked so closely for over two years, from 1996-1998, was in my judgment at that time a man of sterling integrity, and an honest actor in all respects. We just happened to disagree about whether or not the Zapruder film was likely authentic, I reasoned, because each of us honestly and independently imbued selected aspects of the evidence with differing levels of importance.

However, new revelations in 2009 about the handling of the Zapruder film at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) the very weekend of the assassination—which will be discussed extensively later in this chapter—have caused me, in retrospect, to reevaluate the possible role of Kodak in preparing an authenticity study of the Zapruder film for the ARRB. As will be revealed later in this chapter, in June of 1997 the ARRB staff became aware of evidence that pointed toward the possible creation of a modified version of the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination at Kodak’s main industrial plant in Rochester, New York. Beginning in June of 1997, and throughout that summer, I became painfully aware that asking Kodak to perform an authenticity study of the Zapruder film for the ARRB (and the fact that Kodak agreed to do so on a pro bono basis, free of charge!) constituted a potential conflict of interest of major proportions. I knew that Jeremy Gunn, our General Counsel, was similarly not unaware of this potential or apparent conflict of interest. Was Kodak, as an institution, helping the Review Board study the Zapruder film’s authenticity out of a genuine public-spirited desire to help better explain an important episode in American history, and because to do so would help Kodak’s image and improve its troubled business profile? Or was Kodak merely pretending to play the role of an altruistic, neutral arbiter and judge, while actually covering up its involvement in helping the CIA create an altered film which has been misrepresented, both in 1963, and for decades, as the ‘camera-original’ film? Whether it was right or wrong, wise or foolish, Jeremy Gunn and I decided not to inform Rollie Zavada, the individual called out of retirement and selected by Kodak to perform the authenticity study, about the allegation we were privy to that the 16 mm wide unslit double 8 film handled and analyzed by Homer McMahon at NPIC the weekend of the assassination had actually been developed at Rochester, and not in Dallas, as the known paper trail indicated. David Marwell, the Executive Director, concurred.

We decided to let Rollie Zavada’s authenticity study proceed on its own merits, based solely upon the basis of the film’s contents, without prejudicing him or his company with knowledge of the allegation to which we were privy. After all, the allegation was based upon one man’s memory of what the film he worked with at NPIC had looked like, and upon what another man had said to him about its provenance, and was not (at that time) supported by any other testimony or corroborating physical evidence. The film’s authenticity, we hoped, was something that would be easily proven or disproved by scientific evidence, in an unambiguous manner, by Zavada’s technical study. If there was strong scientific evidence that it was not authentic, or that even cast doubt upon its authenticity, we reasoned, we could then pursue the allegation that the film in the Archives today was developed in Rochester (instead of Dallas) with both the CIA and with Kodak, at a future date, if merited. To do so prematurely, we reasoned, would probably be perceived as an insult by the corporation that was providing us with free goods and services, and would, at the very least, create mutual suspicion and distrust. Furthermore, the cash-strapped ARRB did not want to ‘kill the goose that was about to lay the golden eggs.’

There were two problems with this strategy, however, that were not readily apparent to us at the time.

First, Rollie would not finish his report until September 25, 1998, five days before the ARRB ceased operations, which allowed us no time to pursue any further evidentiary leads when the report was received in Washington on or about September 28, 1998, the same day as our ‘sunset’ press conference at the National Archives. Second, the technical report did not contain any clearly stated conclusions that the film was authentic or not authentic. And although it listed several overt and easily identifiable characteristics that were consistent with authenticity, buried in the report’s technical language and its exhibits was evidence that (in my opinion) actually cast doubt upon its authenticity. This was based upon differences between test film exposed in the same make and model home movie cameras in 1997 and 1998, and reproduced in 1963-era contact printers, and what is seen in the extant film, and the purported ‘first generation’ copies, today. Because the report was received and opened at the ARRB offices just two full days prior to shutdown, there was no time for me or anyone else on the staff to read it and carefully scrutinize its contents until months later, well after there was no longer an ARRB to take any follow-up action with either the CIA, or Kodak.

In 2009 an elaborate deception operation (explained in the Epilogue) was carried out against me by an intelligence operative who was obviously working for the U.S. government. Its sole purpose was to contaminate and discredit the contents of this book. In retrospect, therefore, I now look quite differently at the effort Kodak put into the creation of the Zavada report, and at the decisions that conducted). It is not entirely clear, at this stage, whether or not Kodak was the disinterested party in 1996-1998 that we had hoped, in regard to its analysis of the Zapruder film. I will explain in detail what I mean by this later in this chapter, and shall let each reader judge for himself.

Learning the Territory: Essential References Necessary for a Detailed Understanding of

Zapruder Film Issues

In a book such as this that is already quite lengthy, the reader must understand that I have chosen to restrict my discussion of the Zapruder film solely to the major highlights germane to authenticity—that is, to what I personally view as the principal issues related to whether the extant film is authentic or a forgery. After all, this is only a chapter on the Zapruder film, and not a book about the subject. Hopefully, for most readers, the issues presented in this chapter will suffice for the purposes of this book, which is primarily about the medical evidence.

Many anomalies noted in the film by other researchers, and considered persuasive by them, will not be discussed in this chapter. For those who wish to learn all they can about the ongoing debate about both the film’s image content (i.e., what it tells us about the assassination) and its authenticity, I recommend the following major articles and works (listed chronologically):

Six Seconds in Dallas, 1967, by Josiah Thompson

The HSCA, The Zapruder Film, and the Single Bullet Theory, 1992, by Ray Marcus

Assassination Science, Edited by Jim Fetzer, 1998: contains five articles about theZapruder film (on pages 207-342)

Kodak Technical Report: Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence, September 1998, by Roland J. Zavada; 2 volumes: Studies 1-4, and

Attachments 1-4 (available for viewing at Archives II in College Park, Maryland)

Murder in Dealey Plaza, Edited by Jim Fetzer, 2000: contains one 16 page photoinsert by Jack White; ARRB interview reports of NPIC employees (pages 311-324); and an article by David Mantik titled: “The Zapruder Film Controversy” (pages 325-360

The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK, 2003,Edited by Jim Fetzer

The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, 2003, by David R. Wrone

The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film, 2004, by

Harrison E. Livingstone

National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film: Mr. Zapruder’s Home Movie and the

• Essay posted on the Mary Ferrell Foundation Website (in 3 parts) in 2007: “Bedrock

Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination,” by Josiah Thompson

Now, before we begin to explore the evidence related to whether or not the Zapruder film in the

National Archives today is, or is not, the authentic camera original film, let us examine the prime

importance of the Zapruder film to first-generation researchers who are convinced that it is authentic.

The Centrality of the Zapruder Film to First Generation Researchers—And the Pitfalls

Inherent in Attempting to Interpret Events in the Limousine

In his book Six Seconds in Dallas, author Josiah Thompson called the Zapruder film “...the nearest thing to ‘absolute truth’ about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza.” And yet even his analysis, back in 1967, demonstrated a considerable amount of subjectivity based upon which external evidence he chose to believe, and which external evidence he chose to discard. In his analysis of the Zapruder film, Thompson concluded that President Kennedy was first hit (in the back) between frames 210-224; that Governor Connally was then hit (in the back also) by a different bullet between frames 234-238; and he also hypothesized that the President was shot in the head from both behind (at frame 312) and again from the front (at frame 313). This conclusion followed from his measurements of JFK’s head position: it moved forward for one frame interval (Z312-Z313), and then sharply backwards, and to the left, immediately afterwards (from Z313-Z316). Thompson trusted the autopsy report’s finding that there was no bullet entry wound in the throat (and chose not to believe the Dallas doctors on that score), but distrusted the autopsy report’s finding—actually, an after-the-fact inference—that a bullet transited the President’s body from its point of entry in the back to a point of presumed exit at the site of the tracheostomy. He preferred the no-transit conclusion witnessed by FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill at the autopsy (over the transit conclusions in CE 387), and chose to believe that the bullet which purportedly caused the shallow back wound was forced out of the President’s body during external cardiac massage at Parkland hospital, just as the autopsy pathologists tentatively concluded the evening of November 22nd—even though

Thompson, unlike the autopsy pathologists, knew with certainty in 1967 that there was no evidence whatsoever that such a bullet was found or seen anywhere in Trauma Room One, where JFK was treated. Thompson then theorized that the small puncture wound in the throat, which the Dallas treatment physicians all described as a bullet entrance wound, was instead the site of exit for a fragment from the head shot. As a result of these judgments, Josiah Thompson interpreted the Zapruder film images of the President’s raised fists in front of his neck, and the upward splay of his elbows (see frame 237), as an involuntary reaction to being shot in the back. Since I am convinced that President Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front (just as the Dallas doctors said he was), I have interpreted the President’s raised arms, the upward splay of his elbows, and his two clenched fists in front of his neck in frame 237 as an involuntary reaction to being shot in the throat from the front. [For me, this is confirmed by the fact that President Kennedy reaches for his throat with the index finger of his left hand in frame 260—and does not attempt to reach for his back. Thompson ignores the question: “Why would JFK probe his throat with his index finger if he was shot in the back and that bullet did not transit the body?”] Furthermore, Thompson chose to believe that the earliest time JFK could have been shot in the back was at frame 210, since that was the earliest that he would have been visible to a Book Depository shooter in the 6th floor southeast corner window after emerging from behind a tree on Elm Street. However, both the HSCA and other researchers see evidence of JFK reacting to a shot which likely impacted his body as early as frame 189 or 190, just before he disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Like Raymond Marcus in his self-published 1992 book The HSCA, the Zapruder Film, and the Single Bullet Theory, I interpret JFK’s actions in frames 196-206 as his initial responses to a frontal shot which likely struck him at about frame 189 or 190. [The HSCA, intent upon upholding the single bullet theory, claimed a back shot at frame 190. I disagree with this, because the Parkland medical staff described an entry wound in JFK’s throat and suggested that a bullet had ranged downward in his chest without exiting.

I am absolutely convinced the shot at Z190 came from the front.] Amateur photographer Phil Willis took his famous ‘Willis slide # 5’ immediately after hearing a shot; the noise made him click the shutter on his camera. The sound of the firing of the shot which impacted the President at frame 189 or 190 would have reached Willis after the bullet struck President Kennedy; that is why his shutter closed afterwards, sometime between Zapruder frames 205-225.3 Thompson believes Willis reacted to a shot that impacted between frames 215 and 225; I believe he reacted to a shot which impacted the President at frame 189 or 190. The difference here is not insignificant because it is pregnant with implication: a shot fired before frame 210 is unlikely to have been fired from behind because the tree on the Elm Street extension would have blocked the view of a TSBD shooter; a shot impacting at frames 189 or 190 must have originated from the front, since the tree was still blocking the view from the Book Depository ‘sniper’s nest.’ Furthermore, Ray Marcus, who (like me) has concluded that the shot which impacted the President at frame 189 came from the front, believes JFK was also hit by a second shot—in the back—at frame 225, which drove him forward, and to his left. [i believe Marcus is almost certainly correct about this.] In 1967, since Josiah Thompson did not believe the throat wound was caused by a frontal bullet, but rather by a (later) fragment from the head shot, he did not subscribe to such a double body hit. The point here is that there are countless possibilities and variations which reasonable people can propose as explanations for the movements President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the Zapruder film. So much for the claim that the extant Zapruder film is ‘absolute truth’ in the Kennedy assassination. Even if it is an unaltered and camera-original film, it remains an ambiguous record of the reactions of the limousine’s occupants to external stimuli—bullets, bullet fragments, and the sounds of bullets—whose precise numbers and points of origin, as well as the exact times of impact, are not revealed by the extant film alone, and are subject to widely varying interpretation, based upon which outside factors are considered most important by the analyst interpreting the film.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, on 3 page 34, Thompson cites Warren Commission volume15 (pages 696-697) as the source for this determination. I believe that frame 205 is muchmore likely the moment when Willis snapped the shutter on his camera than frame 225, sinceby Zapruder frame 225 the President’s right arm is involuntarily moving sharply upward toprotect his face and throat, and this abrupt movement is not seen in Willis slide # 5. TheWillis slide can be seen in startling clarity on pages 190-191of Groden’s The Killing of a President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Jerry, you know that using the lowest quality images is part of Jack's MO. The pictures he posts are often so degraded they are essentially Rorschach tests. Here are two even better quality images and he can hardly complain about their providence they are from Costella's stabilization as posted on Fetzer's site. I believe they are the best quality Z frames on the net.

The coat is clearly tan, the blue cast seems to be some sort of artifact and can be seen on the boy's shoulder and seemingly the limo though the latter could be a reflection of the sky. Elsewhere on this forum Jack claimed a black building was really white.

z287.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z287.jpg

z288.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z288.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Jerry, you know that using the lowest quality images is part of Jack's MO.

...

relax Len, simply refute, deny or obfuscate will ya? There's only 5 volumes, the lone nut contingent could be busy for the next 3-5 years.... no sense getting personal.

p.s. Bill Miller made a career out of using lousey imagery... ever see those gif animations.....

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

A couple of minutes Googling = Another blunder of Jack White's debunked

However, the most common problem when scanning Kodachrome is a blue cast. The scanner does not "see" the dyes exactly the same way as us humans, and the dyes used in Kodachrome are a little funky - newer films are designed for better response in scanners.

http://kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224

Anyone working with Kodachrome scans without adjusting the scanner to the special film material properly knows the problem of the nasty bluecast. Some scanner manufacturer's software may have a Kodachrome mode for selection, which usually isn't very helpfull though, because a device specific calibration is lacking. It needs a color calibration with a Kodachrome target to avoid the bluecast problem completely. Unfortunately Kodak has stopped producing Kodachrome Q60 targets in 1999.

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/kodachrome/en.html

Scanning Kodachrome transparencies can be problematic because of the film's tendency to scan with a blue color cast. Some software producers deliver special ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

Flickr: Discussing Kodachrome scanning - blue tinge to scanned ...

21 Aug 2009 ... The bluecast is a typical problem encountered, when scanning Kodachromes. Adjusting the scanner using special kodachrome ICC profiles should ...

www.flickr.com/groups/.../discuss/72157621975557019/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Jerry, you know that using the lowest quality images is part of Jack's MO.

...

relax Len, simply refute, deny or obfuscate will ya? There's only 5 volumes, the lone nut contingent could be busy for the next 3-5 years.... no sense getting personal.

p.s. Bill Miller made a career out of using lousey imagery... ever see those gif animations.....

No need to go through every claim he makes, as with the other Alterationists enough errors have been discovered already that his claims can not be taken at face value and need independent confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Jerry, you know that using the lowest quality images is part of Jack's MO.

...

relax Len, simply refute, deny or obfuscate will ya? There's only 5 volumes, the lone nut contingent could be busy for the next 3-5 years.... no sense getting personal.

p.s. Bill Miller made a career out of using lousey imagery... ever see those gif animations.....

No need to go through every claim he makes, as with the other Alterationists enough errors have been discovered already that his claims can not be taken at face value and need independent confirmation.

Oh really?

So because I discovered that Tinks reversal of his double head shot theory was dead wrong means that now I should throw out all the rest of anything Tink has ever done in his life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of minutes Googling = Another blunder of Jack White's debunked

However, the most common problem when scanning Kodachrome is a blue cast. The scanner does not "see" the dyes exactly the same way as us humans, and the dyes used in Kodachrome are a little funky - newer films are designed for better response in scanners.

http://kodachromeproject.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224

Anyone working with Kodachrome scans without adjusting the scanner to the special film material properly knows the problem of the nasty bluecast. Some scanner manufacturer's software may have a Kodachrome mode for selection, which usually isn't very helpfull though, because a device specific calibration is lacking. It needs a color calibration with a Kodachrome target to avoid the bluecast problem completely. Unfortunately Kodak has stopped producing Kodachrome Q60 targets in 1999.

http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/kodachrome/en.html

Scanning Kodachrome transparencies can be problematic because of the film's tendency to scan with a blue color cast. Some software producers deliver special ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

Flickr: Discussing Kodachrome scanning - blue tinge to scanned ...

21 Aug 2009 ... The bluecast is a typical problem encountered, when scanning Kodachromes. Adjusting the scanner using special kodachrome ICC profiles should ...

www.flickr.com/groups/.../discuss/72157621975557019/

Len,

That's interesting information about the bluish color - we shouldn't automatically think she's got a blue dress, thanks.

Whatever the specific color of her dress, it's important to remember that the front of BL is going to be a different color than her back because her coat has billowed open and of course we see her dress from the front (Zapruder) and her coat from the back (Muchmore). We expect to see two different colors! The real concern is that this type of thing is specifically cited by Horne when it's so obviously misdirected.

Best to you,

Jerry

Flapping.png

Edited by Jerry Logan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess nobody really wants to discuss what Doug Horne has to say.

Bill I am on my second run through of Vol 4 (in case I missed anything as I am a speed reader)

But I think you and I will have alot to talk about after I get your Email

I think McMahon is a huge deal and I am very interested

One thing that Doug Horne does well is put up simple graphs with names and places of events along with the source

These are very nice as it lists lots of info in one small simple graph instead of searching all over the chapter for the names and source info

I enjoyed Volume 4 very much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O’Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK’s head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don’t know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer’s hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer’s head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne’s account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton’s “Best Evidence”, especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can’t find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne’s metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch!!! What you say is extremely troubling. My take on Doug Horne up to now has been basically positive. After all, he was a line officer in the Navy like me standing watches on surface ships. He surely was there when all this medical evidence came in. It seems almost automatic that the medical evidence is where all sort of things were buried. The only part I've looked at is the chapter on the Zapruder film and that is whoppingly troubling. I keep asking myself, "Where's the beef!"

Up to now, I've thought of Horne sort of like David Mantik. Many years ago I cautioned Mantik about getting ensnarled in the claims about the Zapruder film. I told him that he could easily get his tail caught in the door there because he didn't know his ass from his elbow about movie cameras and movie film. I said that his misadventures there might very well shadow his credibility with respect to the x-rays where he's done significant work. So what happens. Mantik confirms my prediction as we've seen. Up to now, I've been thinking that Doug Horne is pretty much the same, that he can be trusted on the medical evidence but will make wild and unproven claims in the Zapruder arena. It would be a shame if that happened and really good work on the medical evidence was undermined by sloppy work on the Zapruder question. Mr. Carroll mentioned this possibility at the very beginning of our discussions. I wonder if he's right.

I've got all five volumes. I guess I'd better start reading. Thanks for your heads up.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

I feel that your point that some of the weak positions adopted by Doug Horne does indeed colour the reliability of what he has to say.

I have the complete set and I have skimmed through the set. Although I like some chapters like, for example, Chapter 8 on Sibbert and O’Neil in Volume 3 or a good portion of chapter 16 in volume 5 on inconvenient truths or chapter 2 on the medical evidence in volume 1, I have come away from this quick reading quite troubled.

First. This five volume set is around 2,000 pages. Yet, and this I still find difficult to believe, there is no index to this set. Who, on earth, would write a 2,000 page set with very detailed cross referencing and provide no index? It would not be so bad if the table of contents was detailed, but for each of the chapters it simply has a single line sentence. And some chapters are around 300 to 400 pages long.

Second. As this and other threads demonstrate an important aspect of this work is the Zapruder film. In Volume 1 the images, which are all annotated, are all in black and white. And the Zapruder images are so blurred as to be incomprehensible. It is really difficult to see what he is referring to. In Figure 87 + 88, which is a copy of Z317, we are pointed to a solid black patch on the back of JFK’s head. In the colour version of this same frame such a black blob is not to be seen in that frame. I suspect it is a consequence having the frame printed in B & W, but the annotation suggests that what we are seeing is an example of tampering with the Zapruder film. If these frames are so fundamental to his view of the manipulation of the Zapruder film then I would have expected better images.

Third. In Volume 4 P. 1150 we are told that between Z 312 and Z 313 four shots struck JFK in the head. One of those shots was fired by the driver Bill Greer. I don’t know what the odds are for four shots to simultaneously hit an object and at same time. In volume 5 p. 1416 Horne comments that because we cannot see the gun in Greer’s hand that is evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered. On the same page we are informed that in Moorman #5 Bill Greer has been washed out of the picture. In volume 1, figure 76, he provides a poor copy of the image which is very washed. In some of the copies of Moorman #5 that I have I believe you can see a small portion of the back of Greer’s head in the bottom left hand corner. The reason why Greer is not in the picture is because he is not in the frame.

Fourth. In Volume 5 pages 1429-1431 Horne describes the Murchison party as a statement of fact. He comments that J Edgar Hoover was present at the party. I believe there is clear evidence that Hoover had appointments that Thursday evening and was very early into his office. Thus making it impossible to attend, even if the party ever existed.

Fifth. One of the main bad guys in Horne’s account of the assassination and its coverup is Roy Kellerman. Maybe I am not as informed as others, but I was not aware that Kellerman was involved in preparation of the assassination and its subsequent coverup. However in this set of books he plays a very significant part in covering up the assassination.

Sixth. The basis for much of the theory of what medically happened is based on David Lifton’s “Best Evidence”, especially the moving of the body into the shipping casket. (At the moment I can’t find the page reference for this. This is one of the problems of a book this size not being indexed) He is no more clear than David Lifton is as to how this happened. I recollect that his understanding is that as soon as the ceremonial casket was taken on board the body was quickly moved and, I think, stored in the forward loading bay. I am sure that immediately the coffin was loaded on the plane that Jackie boarded the plane So I don’t know how there would be time to change the body.

In addition, Horne states that the damage to the ceremonial casket was not done in Dallas loading it onto the plane. It was actually done in Bethesda when the body was moved back into the ceremonial casket after the pre-autopsy.

In another thread we were introduced to Horne’s metaphor of the jigsaw. That is appropriate for this set of books, because it appears to me, the reader, that everything is part of the conspiracy. And so Josiah I agree, in your initial post in this thread, although there is much I found interesting in the set, these above points (and I could have listed many more) make me uneasy of the reliability of other areas in the books.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...