Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Horne interviewed by Jim Fetzer on "The Real Deal"

Guest James H. Fetzer

By Guest James H. Fetzer
in JFK Assassination Debate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted
Posted

When are you going to acknowledge the power of the proof of alteration?

How many times are you going to post this Fetzer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted
Posted

You are a complete fraud. Post the passages that I read to Horne during our conversation, if you have the nerve.

When are you going to acknowledge the power of the proof of alteration?
How many times are you going to post this Fetzer?

When some actual PROOF is posted....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pamela Brown Proficient

Pamela Brown

Posted
Posted
When are you going to acknowledge the power of the proof of alteration?
How many times are you going to post this Fetzer?

When some actual PROOF is posted....

Are you able to at least look objectively at the lack of provenance of the Z-films? Is it even starting to dawn on you that there was a handy script provided for the public (only 3 copies that were held in secure custody while being suppressed from the general public), and that the facts show that there were additional copies made and early bootlegging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Craig Lamson Newbie

Craig Lamson

Posted
Posted
When are you going to acknowledge the power of the proof of alteration?
How many times are you going to post this Fetzer?

When some actual PROOF is posted....

Are you able to at least look objectively at the lack of provenance of the Z-films? Is it even starting to dawn on you that there was a handy script provided for the public (only 3 copies that were held in secure custody while being suppressed from the general public), and that the facts show that there were additional copies made and early bootlegging?

I'm not the least bit concerned with the provenance of the z film. Like pretty much everything in the case speculation abounds. I'm not interested in speculation or proofs based on one speculation grafted to the next speculation. You can play around and argue that until the end of time. I'm simply not interested.

I prefer the black and white, true or false...items that be proven or disproven via empirtical study.

No maybe's , thank you very much.

Given all of that, please show me proof the Z film has been altered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted
Posted (edited)

The guy is gutless, Pamela. He doesn't have the nerve to post the passages Doug and I were discussing during the interview!

When are you going to acknowledge the power of the proof of alteration?
How many times are you going to post this Fetzer?

When some actual PROOF is posted....

Are you able to at least look objectively at the lack of provenance of the Z-films? Is it even starting to dawn on you that there was a handy script provided for the public (only 3 copies that were held in secure custody while being suppressed from the general public), and that the facts show that there were additional copies made and early bootlegging?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Guest James H. Fetzer

Posted
Posted

Why aren't you supporting my challenge to Gary Mack to post copies of the 4x5 slides at The 6th Floor Mueseum?

You can thank me later

Dean

PROOF Dean...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...