Jump to content
The Education Forum

Challenge to Gary Mack


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

From "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?":

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

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.

From "Replying to Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack":

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

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

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

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

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

Where is the 6k Horne scan? Has he yet to figure out he was wrong about no being able to share it via the internet? Whats being hidden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Since I anticipate the excuse that these slides are too dense for posting, all we need are cropped versions of JFK and Jackie. None of us doubts that you can arrange this. We would be grateful if you would. Thanks very much!

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

From "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?":

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

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.

From "Replying to Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack":

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

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

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

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

Since I anticipate the excuse that these slides are too dense for posting, all we need are cropped versions of JFK and Jackie. None of us doubts that you can arrange this. We would be grateful if you would. Thanks very much!

(Bold mine)

Dense???

(please Lord, grant me the wisdom to let this free one pass...)

First, is it POSSIBLE for you to make a post without quoting everything ever written on this forum?

And second, WHERE ARE THE SCANS FROM THE H7?????

You make claims and fail to provide the work that backs your claims then you DEMAND others supply you with data? Wazmatta? Finding a "patch" that needs filled?

Simply amazing and (nope..don't go there ...)

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

If you don't know how, invite Jack to drive over from Ft. Worth to do it. What's the point of these slides if we never use them?

Since I anticipate the excuse that these slides are too dense for posting, all we need are cropped versions of JFK and Jackie. None of us doubts that you can arrange this. We would be grateful if you would. Thanks very much!
Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

From "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?":

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

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.

From "Replying to Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack":

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

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

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

So why aren't Josiah, Jerry, Lamson and the rest of the gang clamoring for slides they claim disprove alteration to be shown?

If you don't know how, invite Jack to drive over from Ft. Worth to do it. What's the point of these slides if we never use them?
Since I anticipate the excuse that these slides are too dense for posting, all we need are cropped versions of JFK and Jackie. None of us doubts that you can arrange this. We would be grateful if you would. Thanks very much!
Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

From "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?":

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

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.

From "Replying to Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack":

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

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

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

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

Well Jim, you are quite apt at posting quotes in this forum, perhaps you can show us the quotes that back this claim:

"So why aren't Josiah, Jerry, Lamson and the rest of the gang clamoring for slides they claim disprove alteration to be shown?"

I've never seen them, so please show me the direct quote.

If you are unable to supply the quote, a public retraction is in order.

Might I remind you of theis forum rule:

"Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. "

BTW, why the seeming URGENT NEED for the files? Trouble in Hollywood?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

So why, in relation to The Simkin Forum, does it not acknowledge this new topic, "Challenge to Gary Mack"? I find this very odd. The "McAdam's melts down" thread is an older one. Why is "Challenge to Gary Mack" not showing up? And notice how there has been not a peep of response from those who appeal to the 4x5 slide set as the ultimate authority! Their hypocrisy could not be more manifest. It's all been a charade. What total frauds!

The Education Forum -> JFK Assassination Debate

26, John Simkin, 33005, 27th October 2007 - 03:57 PM Last post by: John Simkin. Forum Topics. No new. McAdams melts down · * ...

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum... - 7 hours ago - Cached - Similar -

So why aren't Josiah, Jerry, Lamson and the rest of the gang clamoring for slides they claim disprove alteration to be shown? Could it be because posting them would expose their corruption, leaving them no place to hide?

If you don't know how, invite Jack to drive over from Ft. Worth to do it. What's the point of these slides if we never use them?
Since I anticipate the excuse that these slides are too dense for posting, all we need are cropped versions of JFK and Jackie. None of us doubts that you can arrange this. We would be grateful if you would. Thanks very much!
Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

From "SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS: Truth or Obfuscation?":

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

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.

From "Replying to Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack":

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

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

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

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

Didn't LIFE have at least three sets of 4x5 slides made? Aren't they different? Have they all been accounted for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

The 4x5 slides that you tout as the ultimate authority on the film are what's being hidden--by Mack, by Josiah, by you and the rest of the gang. Why am I not surprised? If you had the evidence, you would have produced it long ago. We have already demonstrated, over and over again, that the film is a fabrication. Jack has shown the "black patch", I have show frame 374, Robin has shown frame 372. We all know the score. What is the purpose of having these slides if they are not used to resolve issues involving them? What a farce! This is reprehensible. You and Mack and Tink are the clowns at the 6th floor circus!

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

Where is the 6k Horne scan? Has he yet to figure out he was wrong about no being able to share it via the internet? Whats being hidden?

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

Jim,Jim,Jim....I'm away less than 24 hours and I return to find you've launched another distraction in the hope that no one will notice your failure to deliver on a basic promise.

So, first things first. Of course the Sixth Floor Museum should scan the MPI slides and make them available to anyone who wants them. Everyone should have access to all the information and be able to reach their own judgments. You've made an impressive cry for the obvious.

However, it would be very sad if you tried to use what the Sixth Floor Museum should do as an excuse not to publish the Horne scans now.

The Horne scans exist now and are available to a privileged few now.

Thanks to your informative post we know that they are of a size that allows for full publication on the internet.

We know that the Horne scans can be distributed free to anyone who cares to see them.

We also know, thanks again to your informative posts, that the Horne scans are the very best scans possible. Far superior in your view to the MPI images.

So Jim, why aren't you and Horne willing to share the best with all of us?

You can twist and turn and point fingers and shift around all you like. The simple fact is that you and Horne have what you believe to be the best evidence and you're not willing to show it to us. Why?

Is it because they don't really show what you've repeatedly said they show? Is it because the Hollywood Seven is afraid to show their materials to Lamson? Honestly Jim, I can't think of any principled reason to hide this from the assassination research community.

Oh, and here's my post that you clipped when you changed threads. I'm sure dropping it was inadvertent.

Well I have to say that you're a remarkable fellow Jim. Now, you not only know what Doug Horne is going to do, you also know what I'm going to do in the future. Search back carefully Jim. I've said absolutely nothing about the black patch. I have nothing to prove because I haven't asserted anything about the patch. You've told us there's a patch there and I've said nothing about that. I've only asked you to show the scans so everyone can judge for themselves. So I should put up or shut up? To prove...nothing? You made the claim and your refusal to show the evidence is disturbing.

I did comment on the blonde babushka woman because that was obviously absurd and neither you or Jack want to continue with that hot potato - I guess you're content to leave Horne holding the fries.

On the 4x5s v. the scans I wrote nothing more or less than what Horne wrote about their reliability. In fact, I wrote exactly what Horne wrote. The fact that Horne is imprecise and you didn't read his work carefully isn't really my problem. You have no idea what I may or may not make of your confusion but you might wait until I've actually asserted something before asking me to prove it. Since I haven't had the honor of seeing the scans I have no idea of their quality so it would be silly of me to automatically conclude they're inferior without seeing them. It is true that I'm unwilling to agree that they're superior just because you say so but that's because I have reservations about your objectivity and photographic judgment, not because I think the 4x5s are somehow inherently superior.

It has nothing to do with me or what I may or may not do once you produce your evidence. You told everyone what the scans showed. You extended your word to everyone here. You're not going to discharge your debt to them by trying to make the discussion about me and what you imagine I may do. You claimed the scans show something. Let's see the scans. What were your words? "Put up or shut up."

quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Jan 17 2010, 11:41 AM' post='179409']

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Geez, Jerry, I thought we'd never see the likes of you again. Since we have already established a prima facie case, Jerry, you know the burden of proof has fallen on your and Tink's and Mack's shoulders to refute us. No more diddling around, Jerry. If you have the goods, then produce them. Let's get those 6th Floor scans on the forum. You appear to be on excellent terms with Tink and Mack, so let's make it The Tink & Mack & Jerry Show. I've listed the frames that we should begin with. And you yourself have made many posts pointing out that they are FIRST GENERATION while even the "Forensic Copy" from the National Archives is FIFTH GENERATION. So you have given us the best reason to use them as a point of reference. And you can explain to Gary that we don't need WHOLE SCANS. CROPPED SCANS with JFK and Jackie are all we really need. Jack has already shown that what we have reveals the black out to the back of the head. And I and Robin have observed that frames 372 and 374, among others, show the blow-out rather clearly, as you undoubedly know. So cease the smooth talk, Jerry. I know you can beat around the bush forever. That's why you are here. Let's cut to the chase and post those scans. If you get that done, I might even question my conviction (you are up to no good). Do it, Jerry. Make a contribution. Post those scans!

Jim,Jim,Jim....I'm away less than 24 hours and I return to find you've launched another distraction in the hope that no one will notice your failure to deliver on a basic promise.

So, first things first. Of course the Sixth Floor Museum should scan the MPI slides and make them available to anyone who wants them. Everyone should have access to all the information and be able to reach their own judgments. You've made an impressive cry for the obvious.

However, it would be very sad if you tried to use what the Sixth Floor Museum should do as an excuse not to publish the Horne scans now.

The Horne scans exist now and are available to a privileged few now.

Thanks to your informative post we know that they are of a size that allows for full publication on the internet.

We know that the Horne scans can be distributed free to anyone who cares to see them.

We also know, thanks again to your informative posts, that the Horne scans are the very best scans possible. Far superior in your view to the MPI images.

So Jim, why aren't you and Horne willing to share the best with all of us?

You can twist and turn and point fingers and shift around all you like. The simple fact is that you and Horne have what you believe to be the best evidence and you're not willing to show it to us. Why?

Is it because they don't really show what you've repeatedly said they show? Is it because the Hollywood Seven is afraid to show their materials to Lamson? Honestly Jim, I can't think of any principled reason to hide this from the assassination research community.

Oh, and here's my post that you clipped when you changed threads. I'm sure dropping it was inadvertent.

Well I have to say that you're a remarkable fellow Jim. Now, you not only know what Doug Horne is going to do, you also know what I'm going to do in the future. Search back carefully Jim. I've said absolutely nothing about the black patch. I have nothing to prove because I haven't asserted anything about the patch. You've told us there's a patch there and I've said nothing about that. I've only asked you to show the scans so everyone can judge for themselves. So I should put up or shut up? To prove...nothing? You made the claim and your refusal to show the evidence is disturbing.

I did comment on the blonde babushka woman because that was obviously absurd and neither you or Jack want to continue with that hot potato - I guess you're content to leave Horne holding the fries.

On the 4x5s v. the scans I wrote nothing more or less than what Horne wrote about their reliability. In fact, I wrote exactly what Horne wrote. The fact that Horne is imprecise and you didn't read his work carefully isn't really my problem. You have no idea what I may or may not make of your confusion but you might wait until I've actually asserted something before asking me to prove it. Since I haven't had the honor of seeing the scans I have no idea of their quality so it would be silly of me to automatically conclude they're inferior without seeing them. It is true that I'm unwilling to agree that they're superior just because you say so but that's because I have reservations about your objectivity and photographic judgment, not because I think the 4x5s are somehow inherently superior.

It has nothing to do with me or what I may or may not do once you produce your evidence. You told everyone what the scans showed. You extended your word to everyone here. You're not going to discharge your debt to them by trying to make the discussion about me and what you imagine I may do. You claimed the scans show something. Let's see the scans. What were your words? "Put up or shut up."

quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Jan 17 2010, 11:41 AM' post='179409']

Gary, As you can see from these sample posts--and there are many more with the same theme--Josiah and Jerry and Lamson and others are hiding behind the skirts of the 4x5 slides at the museum of which you serve as curator. They seem oblivious of the defects of the MPI scans, which do not correct for pincushion or for aspect ratio distortion and has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332 and does not include (what should be) frames 341, 350, and 496, not to mention the "splice" frames 155 and 156 and frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. For most purposes, the "Costella combined edit", which is archived at http://assassinationscience.com, is more complete and less distorted than the 6th Floor Museum's set. However, defenders of the faith are unwilling to accept any evidence of alteration unless is has been confirmed based upon the slides that you control. Consequently, unlike most of your contributions, which are typically insignificant and rather insubstantial, it would be real benefit to discussion on the forum if you were to provide scans of some of the key posts under discussion here, including 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466. If you are unaware of their importance, then read through the following posts and it should become clear to you. Since you have access to these slides and the rest of us do not, I hereby request you post them in the interest of truth. You will thereby earn the appreciation of the entire forum.

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

Geez, Jerry, I thought we'd never see the likes of you again. Since we have already established a prima facie case, Jerry, you know the burden of proof has fallen on your and Tink's and Mack's shoulders to refute us. No more diddling around, Jerry. If you have the goods, then produce them. Let's get those 6th Floor scans on the forum. You appear to be on excellent terms with Tink and Mack, so let's make it The Tink & Mack & Jerry Show. I've listed the frames that we should begin with. And you yourself have made many posts pointing out that they are FIRST GENERATION while even the "Forensic Copy" from the National Archives is FIFTH GENERATION. So you have given us the best reason to use them as a point of reference. And you can explain to Gary that we don't need WHOLE SCANS. CROPPED SCANS with JFK and Jackie are all we really need. Jack has already shown that what we have reveals the black out to the back of the head. And I and Robin have observed that frames 372 and 374, among others, show the blow-out rather clearly, as you undoubedly know. So cease the smooth talk, Jerry. I know you can beat around the bush forever. That's why you are here. Let's cut to the chase and post those scans. If you get that done, I might even question my conviction (you are up to no good). Do it, Jerry. Make a contribution. Post those scans!

Well actually Jim, You have established nothing at this point. The H7 is handwaving, along with Horne. They ( and you) say, LOOK, this is what we THINK we see, believe us. and oh here is a very poor eproduction in a book to back us up.

Sorry Jim But no case has been made, and we STILL can't see the material used to make the claim.

Then White hacks around on his Imac and says, look, the black patch. But upon inspection and measurement of the the image using the info tool in photoshop we find the RGB values prove the so called patch is not pure black, and is in fact not as "black" as portions of JfK's jacket. In addition the "patch" does not have sharp edges and is not opaque and does in fact show gradation from the edges to the center, all claiims made by Horne, Lifton and the H7

Unknown to White at the time, his works shows the H7 incorrect.

Which brings us back to the scans. First WHERE IS THE H7 scan. Still waiting for your evidence.

Second. Why the sudden and frantic NEED for the 4x5's? Trouble in Hollywoood????

I'll get to your "rear blowout" (which I had addressed but you ignored once before) in my next post, gotta run to an assignemnt now.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like (have wanted for a few years now) un''enhanced'', full dynamic range, full size bitmaps of 312, 313 and 314, please. (pretty please, even!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, is it POSSIBLE for you to make a post without quoting everything ever written on this forum?

Bravo Craig.

How can anyone take Dr. Fetzer seriously on technical matters when it so painfully obvious that he doesn't even know how to use the DELETE BUTTON on his computer?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=15256&st=0

And second, WHERE ARE THE SCANS FROM THE H7?????

You make claims and fail to provide the work that backs your claims

And then tries to lecture Jerry Logan on the burden of proof.

One thing at a time professor. First learn how to use the delete button, then learn how the burden of proof works. If you claim to have scans that prove alteration, then the burden is on you to produce them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...