Todd W. Vaughan Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 "Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble rounds." What's the source for this claim? From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit: (quote on) Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. (quote off) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's 1978 HSCA sworn affidavit: (quote on) The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). (quote off) Completely-fragment/dissolve-after-contact = blood soluble. If you want to nit pick, "water soluble" would also work. “Completely-fragment” does not “=blood soluble”, in any way shape or form. A “soft-nosed bullet” and “bullet which fragments completely” are not “blood soluble” – those type of bullets fragment in smaller pieces, they don’t dissolve. As for a "plastic" bullet, plastic is also not “blood soluble”. That leaves an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact”. What exactly is your definition of an “Ice” bullet? One made out of ice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) "Immediately after the autopsy HBF speculated about blood soluble rounds." What's the source for this claim? From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit: (quote on) Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. (quote off) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's 1978 HSCA sworn affidavit: (quote on) The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic). (quote off) Completely-fragment/dissolve-after-contact = blood soluble. If you want to nit pick, "water soluble" would also work. “Completely-fragment” does not “=blood soluble”, in any way shape or form. A “soft-nosed bullet” and “bullet which fragments completely” are not “blood soluble” – those type of bullets fragment in smaller pieces, they don’t dissolve. Correct! The prosectors used the wrong terminology. But what they were clearly describing was a round that "disintegrated, "fragmented completely," "completely fragmentized," "dissolved." Do we need to inventory the correct definitions of those words, Todd? Those descriptions do not fit either "soft-nosed" or "plastic" bullets, which clearly do not "completely fragmentize." As for a "plastic" bullet, plastic is also not “blood soluble”.That leaves an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact”. What exactly is your definition of an “Ice” bullet? One made out of ice? No, one that dissolves after contact. It isn't up to me to define what these people said. Your nit-picking over their choice of words doesn't change their words, Todd. A round that dissolves after contact is blood/water soluble. They came to this conclusion because they had two wounds with no bullets and no exits. They could look at the neck x-ray and see the clear front to back path with no bullet and no exit. The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed circa Z190 to Z230, consistent with being struck by a blood soluble paralytic developed for the Central Intelligence Agency, originally to silence guard dogs. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt All of which is consistent with this: http://www.ctka.net/forbidden.html Edited January 15, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) Al, You have it exactly right! For now, I am only going to address Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery. This 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, and I have had the program archived on my new blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do...b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB. The Zapruder Film - Doug Horne interviewed on "The Real Deal" with Jim Fetzer (13 January 2010) in four 25-minute segments: Part I: Rollie Zavada and the strip of celluloid Part II: David Wrone and the chain of possession Part III: Josiah Thompson and the other JFK films Part IV: The function of the film in the cover-up Doug has asked me to add the following note of clarification about the "6k" scan being studied by the Hollywood film experts: Each "6K" scan was a scan of a 35 mm dupe negative frame, on which was recorded an image of the 8 mm extant film, with empty space on either side of it. (In other words, the 8 mm film frame, by its very nature, could never fill the image frame of a 35 mm strip of film, even after it was magnified in an optical printer by Monaco film lab, the Archives contractor in San Francisco.) The Hollywood group scanned the entire 35 mm film frame at 6K, but then cropped the image so that the extra space is not shown--so that only the full frame of the Z film is shown. Each cropped 6K image is 4096 x 3112 pixels (along the horizontal and vertical axes), which means that in its cropped form, it approximates a "4K" scan in terms of the number of pixels actually composing the useful image content. Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) To focus only on the medical evidence.I do not think that Horne's work is "same old...same old" theorizing at all. I think that Horne demonstrates once and for all, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence. No longer "theorizing"; now once and for all demonstrated as fact. I think that Horne demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Humes and Boswell are perjurors and have never told the truth about the autopsy. I also think that he demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the autopsy photographs in the National Archives are fraudulent, meant to deceive rather than clarify, and that the actual autopsy photographs taken are not in the record. He demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the brain exam on record in the photographic record and in the supplemental autopsy report is fraudulent. He also puts forth a very compelling case that the autopsy report and its conclusions went through revisions based on the need to match the other evidence against Oswald rather than the need to be truthful in describing JFK's wounds, and that Humes must have been cognizant of this. Doug Horne has provided us all with an incredible contribution: he was the driving force in obtaining on the record, under oath statements from several of the major players in the Bethesda autopsy. Especially important are the statements of Sibert and O'Neill under oath that the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs do not match their observations made from one foot away in the Bethesda morgue. A careful reading of Horne's work is necessary by everyone, I think. You and I may disagree with Horne on some of his speculations. And no theory of the assassination will ever tie together every witness statement. However, as to the medical evidence, in my opinion there can now be no disagreement on his basic conclusion: there was a cover-up in the medical evidence meant to implicate Oswald as the only shooter. The cover-up is now established as fact, plain and simple. Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 15, 2010 Share Posted January 15, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress I believe 512mb is the max for transmission, BUT MOST ISPs DO NOT ALLOW A FILE THAT LARGE. For instance, I have problems sending large images to AOL subscribers, because AOL will not deliver large image files by email. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Emaus Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress I believe 512mb is the max for transmission, BUT MOST ISPs DO NOT ALLOW A FILE THAT LARGE. For instance, I have problems sending large images to AOL subscribers, because AOL will not deliver large image files by email. Jack If you use FTP you won't have those limitations... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress Yes Craig transfered his Moorman Drum Scan to my computer via an FTP website It takes a little while to download the image, and if you dont know what you are doing or have never used or have an FTP website downloaded you would have to have someone help you set it up and explain how it works Edited January 16, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress Yes Craig transfered his Moorman Drum Scan to my computer via an FTP website It takes a little while to download the image, and if you dont know what you are doing or have never used or have an FTP website downloaded you would have to have someone help you set it up and explain how it works The Thompson/Lamson DRUM SCAN is a FARCE. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress I believe 512mb is the max for transmission, BUT MOST ISPs DO NOT ALLOW A FILE THAT LARGE. For instance, I have problems sending large images to AOL subscribers, because AOL will not deliver large image files by email. Jack If you use FTP you won't have those limitations... I haven't the slightest idea what FTP means. Sound like a floral delivery service. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Horne says...Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.) Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed! Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet? Horne continues to unimpress I believe 512mb is the max for transmission, BUT MOST ISPs DO NOT ALLOW A FILE THAT LARGE. For instance, I have problems sending large images to AOL subscribers, because AOL will not deliver large image files by email. Jack If you use FTP you won't have those limitations... I haven't the slightest idea what FTP means. Sound like a floral delivery service. Jack File transfer protocol. I dump my big files in my FTP server and my clients download them. We do it every day as do millions of others. I guess Hollywood and Doug Horne missed that movie. The 6k scan cropped is a 10"x13" at 300dpi file. Not that big at all by commercial photography standards. If its 72mb, it's a 16 bit file. Even if it is kept at 16 bit (best) it can be saved in LZW Tiff compression and be cut somewhere near half. LZW is LOSSLESS so there is no image degradation. That gets the file to about 36mb. Drop it to 8 bits and its now a pretty puny 18mb file. So, putting the file up for everyone is simply not a problem, unless these guys are afraid to share, and that would be sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 james quote;....'' 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.'' i realize that this zapruder frame photo isn't the one that doug haS USED that you speak of...BUT TO SHOW YOU THAT THE SAME BLACK BLOB IS THERE WITHIN THE COLOURED FRAMEs OF 337..THIS BELOW IS ROBERT GRODEN'S coloured WHICH HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE FORUM WHICH SHoW IT IS THERE WITHIN THE COLOURED VERSIONS...B.. PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.BK years back James Gordon was Bill Millers aide de-camp re the Moorman 5 debate and timing as to when the Moorman 5 matched up to what Z-film frame.... appears old lone nut comrades seem to REappear when needed (James Gordon is alleged to be a math teacher from Scotland). I take Mr. Gordon with a grain of salt. Edited January 21, 2010 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda.BK years back James Gordon was Bill Millers aide de-camp re the Moorman 5 debate and timing as to when the Moorman 5 matched up to what Z-film frame.... appears old lone nut comrades seem to REappear when needed (James Gordon is alleged to be a math teacher from Scotland). I take Mr. Gordon with a grain of salt. Hi David, I don't know that he is a disinformation agent, but if you read Horne from front to back you start to look at documents and testimony like an analysist, and weigh what you know, and he even gives you various sides to an argument before coming up with his own conclusions, most of which I agree with. Gordon zoomed right in on the Greer with a gun issue just as others disagree over his endorsement of Madelyne Brown's party, and he misstated Hornes own statements about the issue. You can disagree with a dozen or more of the thousand or so items that Doug Horne uses to reach his conclusion that the military records of the assassination support the probability it was a coup without disagreeing with his conclusions. The way I am beginning to look at it, if Oswald was framed, as all the evidence seems to indicate, and those who really killed JFK did control the body, AF1, the autopsy and the Z-film, and altered the evidence to indicate there was only one assassin, then following the false trail should lead you to the real killers. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I take Mr. Gordon with a grain of salt. Well David, that is considerably more than I would take you for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Gordon zoomed right in on the Greer with a gun issue just as others disagree over his endorsement of Madelyne Brown's party, and he misstated Hornes own statements about the issue. You can disagree with a dozen or more of the thousand or so items that Doug Horne uses to reach his conclusion that the military records of the assassination support the probability it was a coup without disagreeing with his conclusions. The way I am beginning to look at it, if Oswald was framed, as all the evidence seems to indicate, and those who really killed JFK did control the body, AF1, the autopsy and the Z-film, and altered the evidence to indicate there was only one assassin, then following the false trail should lead you to the real killers. BK Bill, Either I expressed myself poorly, or my posts were not correctly read. It is true that I do not agree with the alteration of the Zapruder film and Greer was just one example. Nor does Horne suggest this is a possible theory (although he does state that in Vol 4 ) because in Vol 5 he explains why the Greer point is just one example of proof that the film was indeed altered. That aside, I have made it very clear, in earlier on this topic, that I find the medical evidence persuasive and thought provoking. For me these chapters, which comprise four volumes of the books, are well worth the cost of purchasing the set. I would not want people to think I am anti Inside the ARRB, just because I am critical of the theory on the alteration of the Zapruder film. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now