Well, here's something to chew on.

[Jack White]

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Man no kidding, don't you just hate the the way the alterationists do this all the time. Just look at the full flush left silliness...

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

[Josiah Thompson]

My answers are in boldface.

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) [No. This never came up. Any pressure I was under came from teaching full-time and also working on the LIFE investigation. What's the relevance in any case?] and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? [The interposed object is Kennedy's head! Just as the shadow that hides part of Connally is caused by Connally's head. Do you mean you really don't grasp this incredibly elementary point?] (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame. [so you say. Is your opinion evidence? For evidence, why don't you and Horne produce a scan of 317 and let us see the evidence or not for what you are claiming.]

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow." [since the position of the sun that day would cast a shadow.. not from a bird flying over (laugh out loud)... but from Kennedy's head right where we see it, I guess you have to go a little further to explain why this isn't an "explanation."]

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic. [it's the simplest explanation and one that is confirmed by other shadows in the frame. And I guess we shouldn't mention your "strongly held belief" since neither your belief nor mine has anything to do with the evidence for and against.]

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head [that you and Horne claim is quite apparent in Z317 but for some reason you won't post a scan that shows it] happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. [You must be kidding! Next we're going to be hearing about "Moorman-in-the Street" or "the Seven Foot Woman]And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . . [Thanks for a long paragraph of rehetoric... but evidence, well that's not very apparent].

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example. [so publish a scan of 317 so we can see what you're claiming. What's the problem?]

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. [it may be there in what Horne published from a 5th generation print with God knows what digital manipution and printing artifacts. I know it's not there because I've been looking at a better copy and there is no trapezoidal contour or "patch" there. Post a TIFF on some site like Pando and let us see what you are talking about.] When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm. [Cool. Show it to us instead of talking about it... endlessly.]

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there. [Then please show it to us. Just post frame 317 and let us have a look.]

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible. [Fine. They we can trust our own eyes to see what you say is there.]

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious. [You've hit the nail on the head there. Show us a TIFF of 317 and explain where it came from and what was done to it. Then each of us can be our own expert. Why isn't this crushingly obvious. We've all heard you say again and again how obvious it is. Cool. Let us take a gander at it.]

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? [Like the ad says, "Show me the beef! Make a TIFF of Z 317 available and I'll let you know if I see it.] You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question. [The question is whether you are blowing smoke here. Simple solution to the question: Show us Z 317 in a TIFF file and specify its provenance.]

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Horne and Marrs are INSIDERS. You are an OUTSIDER. It is a work in progress. An unfinished unedited manuscript is not

published to the public until it is finished. Patience is a virtue you lack.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Horne and Marrs are INSIDERS. You are an OUTSIDER. It is a work in progress. An unfinished unedited manuscript is not

published to the public until it is finished. Patience is a virtue you lack.

Jack

You seem to have missed the point. Horne and you and Jim have erased the insider/outsider distinction by making public claims now about what's in the scans. Jim has written about how the burden of proof has now shifted and he's demanding that people produce proof now based on what the scans show. Doug Horne is telling us now what the scans show. Since you're all making those claims now, it's hardly unreasonable to ask to see the scans now. You're suggesting that people change their minds and behavior now based on something that may or may not be delivered sometime real soon. It's you who lack the virtue of patience because you simply had to announce your conclusions before you were willing to produce your evidence. If you've got the evidence show it. Otherwise, drop it until you do.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Listen, Jerry, you obviously have resources that are far beyond me, including close connections with Tink and, no doubt, with Gary Mack. So why don't you shoulder your burden of disproof and have those two slides from the 6th Floor Museum's collection posted here? That way we can see what others may have seen, even if it is not a 6k copy. That would not only be appropriate from a logical point of view but offer a modicum of proof that you are not here simply to obfuscate and mislead.

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's really very simple, Jerry. Those of us who have studied the case have long known that the Zapruder film is not consistent with more than forty witnesses who reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head but no blow-out to the right-front. It is not rocket science to infer that the reason we don't see it is that it has been obscured. When Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), reported that Roderick Ryan had concluded that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, none of us was surprised. And when David Mantik discovered that the lateral cranial X-rays had been "patched" to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head, we did not have to draw the inference we had already drawn that the back of his head in the film had to have been obfuscated. That was something we already knew. And when I noticed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head in frame 374, none of us had to infer that the blow-out at the back of the head had been obscured in earlier frames--we were looking at the real blow-out! So I really find it tedious to hear you offering shallow, sarcastic remarks. You are the one who does not understand the case, not us. So if you want to continue with this charade, then assume your logical and moral obligation to attempt to refute what we have found. I suggest the best way to do that is for you to arrange for copies of the 6th Floor Muesum's scans to be made accessible for us to view. We already know what they will show, since David has been there before us. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not going to accept any source as authoritative except for the MPI 4x5 transparencies, even though there are serious problems with them, which I discussed in my chapter in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). So if you want to be counted in this conversation, then assume your burden of proof like a real man and arrange to have those slides made available. Otherwise, everyone here will know you are a fraud. I figured that out a long time ago, Jerry, shortly after you showed up. But it's one more form of proof.

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Horne and Marrs are INSIDERS. You are an OUTSIDER. It is a work in progress. An unfinished unedited manuscript is not

published to the public until it is finished. Patience is a virtue you lack.

Jack

You seem to have missed the point. Horne and you and Jim have erased the insider/outsider distinction by making public claims now about what's in the scans. Jim has written about how the burden of proof has now shifted and he's demanding that people produce proof now based on what the scans show. Doug Horne is telling us now what the scans show. Since you're all making those claims now, it's hardly unreasonable to ask to see the scans now. You're suggesting that people change their minds and behavior now based on something that may or may not be delivered sometime real soon. It's you who lack the virtue of patience because you simply had to announce your conclusions before you were willing to produce your evidence. If you've got the evidence show it. Otherwise, drop it until you do.

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

I suggest the best way to do that is for you to arrange for copies of the 6th Floor Muesum's scans to be made accessible for us to view. We already know what they will show, since David has been there before us.

Simply amazing! You tell us that the 6k scans are the ultimate proof for Z film alteration. Then you channel Horne ( a member here who could have easily posted himself I might add) and inform us that the evidecnce used to make this astounding proof is just too big to share, so take our word for it.

When informed that the scan IS NOT too big, can be shared for free over the internet and a copy is requested to verify your claims we are met with, no...do your own!

WHAT? Are you and the hollywood gang afraid show your work as well as the base data if was produce from? Is this science or a shell game?

The suggestion to produce your own is simply beyond belief and indicitive of people with much to hide.

What is Horne afraid of? His claim being shown lacking like the sign edge stuiff, of the silly full flush left argument.

And more to the point what are YOU afraid of?

Edited January 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jerry Logan]

That's an excellent attempt Jim! Perhaps some readers will miss the fact that you haven't actually proven anything. You've certainly said that the scans show such and such and you've said that Dr. Mantik says the scans show some of such and such. But you've yet to show us anything. There can hardly be a burden of disproof where no proof has been offered. In fact, if you check this thread carefully, you'll see that the only new information about frame 317 has been posted by Josiah. So, if I were inclined to play semantic, lawyer games I'd say that burden is on you to show us something that disproves Josiah's image and analysis.

However, I believe that would only obscure the basic facts. I have not said anything positive or negative about the head patch. I've not tried to prove anything about it one way or the other. You've said the patch is in the scans and I would like to see your evidence for that. I believe everyone else would like to see it as well. I've suggested inexpensive and cost free ways to make that possible. There is absolutely no barrier to sharing the scans except your and Doug's refusal to do so. You can twist and turn all you like, but everyone can see you're not producing the images you say are there. You've announced that you have the evidence. You want everyone to believe and act now, but you're unwilling to produce the evidence now. Why?

Listen, Jerry, you obviously have resources that are far beyond me, including close connections with Tink and, no doubt, with Gary Mack. So why don't you shoulder your burden of disproof and have those two slides from the 6th Floor Museum's collection posted here? That way we can see what others may have seen, even if it is not a 6k copy. That would not only be appropriate from a logical point of view but offer a modicum of proof that you are not here simply to obfuscate and mislead.

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

[Craig Lamson]

In all of the frames below, i see a distinct blowout to the back of the head.

Just for the record, can you poitj us to the area you consider the "blowout" to the back of the head Thanks

Just for the record

It's the greyish looking curved area at the back of the head, approx in line with the right ear.

Robin, how can you discern that the greyish area is not blood and brain matter from the large wound spreading downward past the ear, from a "rear blowout"?

Others say this area was painted out in prior frames but how can it be known that it was not just a a matter of the time it took for the debris to flow into this area?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, I have enumerated numerous proofs that the back of the head has been obfuscated. I have published most of these proofs in HOAX and Noel has published others in BLOODY TREASON. I laid out the proof in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". We know the score, Jerry, and we know your game. Keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole (or, alternatively, keep piling it up higher and higher). No one really cares about what you think, especially since you have the ideal opportunity to show you are a real man and attempt to disprove what has been proven right on this forum! Go back and look at Robin Unger's images. View Bernice's nice gifs. Study what Jack has posted. Read my pages 359 and 360. That is real evidence that proves our case. All we have from you is a preference for a slide set that suffers from aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, is missing many frames, and has others in the wrong order! What kind of defense is that? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, you are not worth the bother. Produce a rebuttal or remain silent. The burden is on you, Jerry. Let's start with 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, and 374.

That's an excellent attempt Jim! Perhaps some readers will miss the fact that you haven't actually proven anything. You've certainly said that the scans show such and such and you've said that Dr. Mantik says the scans show some of such and such. But you've yet to show us anything. There can hardly be a burden of disproof where no proof has been offered. In fact, if you check this thread carefully, you'll see that the only new information about frame 317 has been posted by Josiah. So, if I were inclined to play semantic, lawyer games I'd say that burden is on you to show us something that disproves Josiah's image and analysis.

However, I believe that would only obscure the basic facts. I have not said anything positive or negative about the head patch. I've not tried to prove anything about it one way or the other. You've said the patch is in the scans and I would like to see your evidence for that. I believe everyone else would like to see it as well. I've suggested inexpensive and cost free ways to make that possible. There is absolutely no barrier to sharing the scans except your and Doug's refusal to do so. You can twist and turn all you like, but everyone can see you're not producing the images you say are there. You've announced that you have the evidence. You want everyone to believe and act now, but you're unwilling to produce the evidence now. Why?

Listen, Jerry, you obviously have resources that are far beyond me, including close connections with Tink and, no doubt, with Gary Mack. So why don't you shoulder your burden of disproof and have those two slides from the 6th Floor Museum's collection posted here? That way we can see what others may have seen, even if it is not a 6k copy. That would not only be appropriate from a logical point of view but offer a modicum of proof that you are not here simply to obfuscate and mislead.

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What have you missed, Kathy? Those of us who have studied the case have long known that the Zapruder film is not consistent with more than forty witnesses who reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head but no blow-out to the right-front. It is not rocket science to infer that the reason we don't see it is that it has been obscured. When Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), reported that Roderick Ryan had concluded that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, none of us was surprised. And when David Mantik discovered that the lateral cranial X-rays had been "patched" to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head, we did not have to drawn the inference we had already drawn that the back of his head in the film had to have been obfuscated. That was something we already knew. And when I noticed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head in frame 374, none of us had to infer that the blow-out at the back of the head had been obscured in earlier frames--we were looking at the real blow-out! We already know the score across the film!

Professor, I am surprised that you want them to make conclusions based on what you saw or what you know.

We should all wait until the study comes out.

Kathy

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

That's an excellent attempt Jim! Perhaps some readers will miss the fact that you haven't actually proven anything. You've certainly said that the scans show such and such and you've said that Dr. Mantik says the scans show some of such and such. But you've yet to show us anything. There can hardly be a burden of disproof where no proof has been offered. In fact, if you check this thread carefully, you'll see that the only new information about frame 317 has been posted by Josiah. So, if I were inclined to play semantic, lawyer games I'd say that burden is on you to show us something that disproves Josiah's image and analysis.

However, I believe that would only obscure the basic facts. I have not said anything positive or negative about the head patch. I've not tried to prove anything about it one way or the other. You've said the patch is in the scans and I would like to see your evidence for that. I believe everyone else would like to see it as well. I've suggested inexpensive and cost free ways to make that possible. There is absolutely no barrier to sharing the scans except your and Doug's refusal to do so. You can twist and turn all you like, but everyone can see you're not producing the images you say are there. You've announced that you have the evidence. You want everyone to believe and act now, but you're unwilling to produce the evidence now. Why?

Listen, Jerry, you obviously have resources that are far beyond me, including close connections with Tink and, no doubt, with Gary Mack. So why don't you shoulder your burden of disproof and have those two slides from the 6th Floor Museum's collection posted here? That way we can see what others may have seen, even if it is not a 6k copy. That would not only be appropriate from a logical point of view but offer a modicum of proof that you are not here simply to obfuscate and mislead.

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

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.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

This is nonsense. You have not read HORNE IV. It says that WHEN THE HOLLYWOOD SEVEN COMPLETES THEIR STUDIES,

they will be released. I have talked to Jim Marrs who worked with Horne and the Hollywood experts. Jim says that

their work will be amazing and finish off the anti-altertionists. But NO, YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YET

AVAILABLE, and say that Jim is guilty of failing to share what he does not yet have.

I am tired of nonsense from people with seeming credentials of intelligence.

Jack

Well Doug hasn't waited to show his scans to Jim Marrs and Dr. Mantik. So they're obviously available before the H7 conclusions are presented. He apparently thought things were sufficiently well enough along to announce a definite conclusion about the back of the head patch. If he's going to wait until they complete their studies then I suggest he should wait until they complete their studies. You can't have it both ways Jack. You can't trumpet your proof that there's a head patch and then say well we don't really have the proof, won't be able to prove it until later. If you have the evidence, present it. If you don't have the evidence then remain quiet until you do.

More importantly, why do we have to wait to see the scans? Presumably they're not going to change, are they? So let's see one or two. Who knows? Maybe the research community could make the groups conclusions even stronger. Why would Horne be so afraid of showing what he's working with? Why is it nonsense for everyone to ask for the scans that Horne has already shared freely with a few friends? They didn't have to wait, why do we?

Guided by the remarks of the Hollywood 7 quoted by Horne, I did my OWN STUDY to see if I could

replicate what they did. I slapped the image on my iMac screened, clicked a few control buttons,

and there it was...THE BLACK PATCH ON THE OCCIPUT.

We do NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE H7 RESULTS. Any fool with a computer can do this same

study if they have a graphics program that can subtract colors. All I did was instruct the Mac

to remove all color hues except black. The Mac did it all. I do not take credit...when all colors

are removed, all that is left is the BLACK PATCH. But Jerry wants MORE! Why?????

Please comment on iMac's graphic. We don't know when the H7 group study will be released,

but the iMac study is ready and available. Please direct your attention to IT.

Jack

[Jack White]

You too, Kathy. Direct your attention to the iMac study. The H7 study is not yet available.

Jack