Doug Horne blows Rollie Zavada out of the water

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Rollie Zavada on the strip of celluloid:

INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), p. 1292:

Conclusions

In his long essay published in 2007 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, Josiah Thompson told us we should all truth Rollie Zavada's judgment and defer to his authority:

"Roland Zavada has a towering reputation in the field and no conceivable reason for cooking his conclusions."

Now that we have concluded examining his report and Zavada's changes of mind since that time, it is clear that he has cooked his conclusions. In particular, he has ignored--trashed--key testimony:

* That the exposures were not bracketed at the Jamieson lab when the three 'first day copies' were struck, meaning that the three 'first generation' copies today should not be bracketed copies;

* That a 'full frame' aperture (picture plus soundtrack) was used when duplicating the Zapruder film, meaning that the intersprocket images should be present on the 'first generation copies';

* That the edge printer light was turned off when the original film was developed, meaning that there a double registration of processing edge prints in the family scenes on the extant 'first generation' copies; and,

* That the camera original film was slit at the Kodak plant in Dallas, meaning that the 16 mm wide, unslit black-and-white copies in existence today cannot have originated from the camera original film, and are instead indirect evidence that a new 'original' was created as an unslit 16 mm, double 8 movie (just as Homer McMahon's expert testimony to the ARRB indicates).

Furthermore, Zavada's opposition to the shooting of a control film in Zapruder's actual camera in Dealey Plaza--which was inexplicable and extremely frustrating when it occurred in 1997--now takes on a very different taint, one of possibly intentional sabotage of the authentication effort by the ARRB staff. An incredible charge, you say? Not necessarily.

Read more on pages 1292 through 1294 as well as 1243 to 1292. And this does not take into account that the numbers on the extant film are not punched in the same location as the original. Read Horne to appreciate the depth of Zavada's deception.

Al, You have it exactly right! For now, I am only going to address Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery. This is an

astonishing achievement. For Horne to have assimilated and synthesized such a complicated and technical assortment of

arguments and evidence impresses me beyond words. This chapter alone is worth the price of the whole. No matter what

reservations or differences I may have with any other parts of his work, what he has done on the film is extraordinary. He

was my featured guest on "The Real Deal" on Wednesday, 13 January 2010, and I have had the program archived on my new

blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/do...b-part-iii.html as part of a three-part blog on Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB.

The Zapruder Film - Doug Horne interviewed on "The Real Deal" with Jim Fetzer (13 January 2010) in four 25-minute segments:

Part I: Rollie Zavada and the strip of celluloid

Part II: David Wrone and the chain of possession

Part III: Josiah Thompson and the other JFK films

Part IV: The function of the film in the cover-up

Doug has asked me to add the following note of clarification about the "6k" scan being studied by the Hollywood film experts:

Each "6K" scan was a scan of a 35 mm dupe negative frame, on which was recorded an image of the 8 mm extant film, with empty space on either side of it. (In other words, the 8 mm film frame, by its very nature, could never fill the image frame of a 35 mm strip of film, even after it was magnified in an optical printer by Monaco film lab, the Archives contractor in San Francisco.)

The Hollywood group scanned the entire 35 mm film frame at 6K, but then cropped the image so that the extra space is not shown--so that only the full frame of the Z film is shown. Each cropped 6K image is 4096 x 3112 pixels (along the horizontal and vertical axes), which means that in its cropped form, it approximates a "4K" scan in terms of the number of pixels actually composing the useful image content.

Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)! And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size. (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.)

To focus only on the medical evidence.

I do not think that Horne's work is "same old...same old" theorizing at all.

I think that Horne demonstrates once and for all, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence. No longer "theorizing"; now once and for all demonstrated as fact.

I think that Horne demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Humes and Boswell are perjurors and have never told the truth about the autopsy. I also think that he demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the autopsy photographs in the National Archives are fraudulent, meant to deceive rather than clarify, and that the actual autopsy photographs taken are not in the record. He demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the brain exam on record in the photographic record and in the supplemental autopsy report is fraudulent.

He also puts forth a very compelling case that the autopsy report and its conclusions went through revisions based on the need to match the other evidence against Oswald rather than the need to be truthful in describing JFK's wounds, and that Humes must have been cognizant of this.

Doug Horne has provided us all with an incredible contribution: he was the driving force in obtaining on the record, under oath statements from several of the major players in the Bethesda autopsy. Especially important are the statements of Sibert and O'Neill under oath that the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs do not match their observations made from one foot away in the Bethesda morgue.

A careful reading of Horne's work is necessary by everyone, I think. You and I may disagree with Horne on some of his speculations. And no theory of the assassination will ever tie together every witness statement. However, as to the medical evidence, in my opinion there can now be no disagreement on his basic conclusion: there was a cover-up in the medical evidence meant to implicate Oswald as the only shooter. The cover-up is now established as fact, plain and simple.

[Len Colby]

BS Fetzer all you have is the uncorroborated memories of men, some quite aged, 34 - 45 years after the fact. You chose to assume their recollections are 100% accurate for no other reason than they support your POV. McMahon and Hunter disagreed on some facts Horne and you decide that one or the other was right on specific points as it suits your needs.

[William Kelly]

It does seem that Professor Fetzer is using Doug Horne's work in order to win some internet arguments, while Doug aspires to more serious ambition, like imagining what a real forensic autopsy would reveal.

Nor do I understand the need to start multiple threads on issues that are already well under discussion.

It is not a good strategy to use someone like DH to attack others, knowing that he won't join the fray.

Nor would it be wise for Prof. Fetzer, regardless of how much Horne's book has called attention to his own anthologies, to become a spokesman for Horne.

While we are all still digesting Horne's work, which took him ten years to put together, it does no good to attack anybody, especially in the title of the thread, using someone else as the spear, and not being able to follow through on it.

Although I too like to spark action, there's enough going on across the board right now, that you picking a fight with Zavada or anyone is not going to help anybody.

If Horne is right, Zavada was hoodwinked as much as anybody, so hold on to your horses, and just take it all in for awhile and maybe we'll be able to see what it all means real soon, without insulting everybody needlessly.

Bill Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are not representing Doug's point of view vis a vis Zavada--and certainly not mine! You have not even lifted your least digit in support of my challenge to Gary Mack to post crucial frames they are keeping under wraps to preserve the illusion that nothing can be know for certain until they are decided on the basis of their 4x5 slides. So why have you not joined in insisting that they be published here, even if in cropped versions? What is the point of having them if they are not being used to settle questions where they are relevant? I think you have missed several based here, Bill. Why not try to make more of a difference by supporting my challenge? Why not? All you have to do is to add a post to the thread.

It does seem that Professor Fetzer is using Doug Horne's work in order to win some internet arguments, while Doug aspires to more serious ambition, like imagining what a real forensic autopsy would reveal.

Nor do I understand the need to start multiple threads on issues that are already well under discussion.

It is not a good strategy to use someone like DH to attack others, knowing that he won't join the fray.

Nor would it be wise for Prof. Fetzer, regardless of how much Horne's book has called attention to his own anthologies, to become a spokesman for Horne.

While we are all still digesting Horne's work, which took him ten years to put together, it does no good to attack anybody, especially in the title of the thread, using someone else as the spear, and not being able to follow through on it.

Although I too like to spark action, there's enough going on across the board right now, that you picking a fight with Zavada or anyone is not going to help anybody.

If Horne is right, Zavada was hoodwinked as much as anybody, so hold on to your horses, and just take it all in for awhile and maybe we'll be able to see what it all means real soon, without insulting everybody needlessly.

Bill Kelly

Edited January 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

You are not representing Doug's point of view vis a vis Zavada--and certainly not mine! You have not even lifted your least digit in support of my challenge to Gary Mack to post crucial frames they are keeping under wraps to preserve the illusion that nothing can be know for certain until they are decided on the basis of their 4x5 slides. So why have you not jointed in insisting that they be published here, even if in cropped versions? What is the point of having them if they are not being used to settle questions where they are relevant? I think you have missed several based here, Bill. Why not try to make more of a difference by supporting my challenge? Why not? All you have to do is to add a post to the thread.

Because if you ask Gary politely I'm pretty sure he will give you what you want.

BK

It does seem that Professor Fetzer is using Doug Horne's work in order to win some internet arguments, while Doug aspires to more serious ambition, like imagining what a real forensic autopsy would reveal.

Nor do I understand the need to start multiple threads on issues that are already well under discussion.

It is not a good strategy to use someone like DH to attack others, knowing that he won't join the fray.

Nor would it be wise for Prof. Fetzer, regardless of how much Horne's book has called attention to his own anthologies, to become a spokesman for Horne.

While we are all still digesting Horne's work, which took him ten years to put together, it does no good to attack anybody, especially in the title of the thread, using someone else as the spear, and not being able to follow through on it.

Although I too like to spark action, there's enough going on across the board right now, that you picking a fight with Zavada or anyone is not going to help anybody.

If Horne is right, Zavada was hoodwinked as much as anybody, so hold on to your horses, and just take it all in for awhile and maybe we'll be able to see what it all means real soon, without insulting everybody needlessly.

Bill Kelly

[Jack White]

You are not representing Doug's point of view vis a vis Zavada--and certainly not mine! You have not even lifted your least digit in support of my challenge to Gary Mack to post crucial frames they are keeping under wraps to preserve the illusion that nothing can be know for certain until they are decided on the basis of their 4x5 slides. So why have you not jointed in insisting that they be published here, even if in cropped versions? What is the point of having them if they are not being used to settle questions where they are relevant? I think you have missed several based here, Bill. Why not try to make more of a difference by supporting my challenge? Why not? All you have to do is to add a post to the thread.

Because if you ask Gary politely I'm pretty sure he will give you what you want.

BK

It does seem that Professor Fetzer is using Doug Horne's work in order to win some internet arguments, while Doug aspires to more serious ambition, like imagining what a real forensic autopsy would reveal.

Nor do I understand the need to start multiple threads on issues that are already well under discussion.

It is not a good strategy to use someone like DH to attack others, knowing that he won't join the fray.

Nor would it be wise for Prof. Fetzer, regardless of how much Horne's book has called attention to his own anthologies, to become a spokesman for Horne.

While we are all still digesting Horne's work, which took him ten years to put together, it does no good to attack anybody, especially in the title of the thread, using someone else as the spear, and not being able to follow through on it.

Although I too like to spark action, there's enough going on across the board right now, that you picking a fight with Zavada or anyone is not going to help anybody.

If Horne is right, Zavada was hoodwinked as much as anybody, so hold on to your horses, and just take it all in for awhile and maybe we'll be able to see what it all means real soon, without insulting everybody needlessly.

Bill Kelly

Zavada was a qualified expert on film manufacture and chemistry. HE WAS NOT AN EXPERT ON PHOTOGRAPHY

NOR FILM CONTENT. He was hoodwinked into trying to be an expert on EVERYTHING, instead of a specialist.

Compounding that error, his supporters mistakenly use his "findings" to support Z authenticity. All his study

proved that the film was shot on Kodachrome, which was not in dispute.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill,

Was there anything impolite about my request in an earlier threat, where I posed my request as follows--or do you think that I should repost it and instead rephrase it as an "invitation? I'd be glad to repost it.

Jim

Challenge to Gary Mack, Post scans of 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, 374, 456 and 466

James H. Fetzer

Jan 17 2010, 08:41 PM

Post #1

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 578

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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.

You are not representing Doug's point of view vis a vis Zavada--and certainly not mine! You have not even lifted your least digit in support of my challenge to Gary Mack to post crucial frames they are keeping under wraps to preserve the illusion that nothing can be know for certain until they are decided on the basis of their 4x5 slides. So why have you not jointed in insisting that they be published here, even if in cropped versions? What is the point of having them if they are not being used to settle questions where they are relevant? I think you have missed several based here, Bill. Why not try to make more of a difference by supporting my challenge? Why not? All you have to do is to add a post to the thread.

Because if you ask Gary politely I'm pretty sure he will give you what you want.

BK

It does seem that Professor Fetzer is using Doug Horne's work in order to win some internet arguments, while Doug aspires to more serious ambition, like imagining what a real forensic autopsy would reveal.

Nor do I understand the need to start multiple threads on issues that are already well under discussion.

It is not a good strategy to use someone like DH to attack others, knowing that he won't join the fray.

Nor would it be wise for Prof. Fetzer, regardless of how much Horne's book has called attention to his own anthologies, to become a spokesman for Horne.

While we are all still digesting Horne's work, which took him ten years to put together, it does no good to attack anybody, especially in the title of the thread, using someone else as the spear, and not being able to follow through on it.

Although I too like to spark action, there's enough going on across the board right now, that you picking a fight with Zavada or anyone is not going to help anybody.

If Horne is right, Zavada was hoodwinked as much as anybody, so hold on to your horses, and just take it all in for awhile and maybe we'll be able to see what it all means real soon, without insulting everybody needlessly.

Bill Kelly

Edited January 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer