ZAPRUDER FRAME # 374 & a few others

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So Raymond's reponse to this reply to his bizarre post is to DISCOUNT the reports of more than forty witnesses, the physicians and Parkland, including McClelland and Crenshaw, and Mantik's studies of the X-rays? Surely no one will take him seriously now, if, indeed, anyone has in the past. That is despicable.

Of course, Raymond! That's why more than forty witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head, including the physicians at Parkland, as Gary Aguiilar, M.D.--who is a buddy of Tink, by the way--explained in his chapter in MURDER (2000). And of course the McClelland diagram and the Crenshaw diagrams show a massive blow out in the same location. And David Mantik's meticulous study of the cranial X-ray defines an area with the same general features--looking rather like a cashew--which corresponds almost exactly to the blow out seen in the frame! That there are other frames, such as 372, in which it can also be seen is further confirmation.

According to you, J. Raymond Carroll, however, this is just sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. So what were all these witnesses reporting? They were not in the position to observe sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. Indeed, they were reporting their own observations of the massive defect at the back of his head. That includes the physicians at Parkland. McClelland and Crenshaw were not drawing diagrams of sunlight reflected off the back of his head! And Manitk's studies confirmed it! The blow out to the left/rear that hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot was not sunlight either. Your position, alas, verges on absurdity.

more than forty witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head

That may well be, and a dozen witnesses may claim they remember seeing Lee Oswald shooting Tippit. As Charles Sandrers Peirce pointed out, and as experiments now prove, witnesses may ALL be mistaken in their memories, and for the same reasons.

The blow out to the left/rear that hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot was not sunlight either.

Agreed that Hargis was hit by more than sunlight. He was hit by the brain matter blown out by the exploding bullet to the right temple that splattered back to the left as JFK was thrown backwards by the force.

I submit that no one has so far offered a CREDIBLE challenge to Lamson's SUNLIGHT explanation for the so-called "gaping wound" in the BACK of the head seen in this ZFILM frame.

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

So what is it now Jim? The "blowout" at 374 or is it the "blowout" at 335? Can't both be the same "blowout"...different places on the head....

gonna need to choose ONE....

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So Raymond's response..... is to DISCOUNT the reports of more than forty witnesses

Actually my response was to cite Charles Sanders Peirce, and experiments proving he was right.

Since you hold yourself out as a teacher of Peircean thought, why not show us why Peirce was wrong in warning against witness memory in THE LOGIC OF DRAWING HISTORY....

See Page 79.

The same circumstances which lead one witness into error are likely to deceive another.

http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...;q=&f=false

[John Dolva]

Jim, my q was indeed sincere.

I trust yours were as well. Somehow, like your reply, I doubt it. (afa your obsession (here repeated after a couple of years) I'll lay your mind at rest: I'm me.)

So, in spite of the removal and changing of data in the Z film (alteration) (plus the smoothing and color changes which you fail to mention) Costellas frames are the best available. Or rather: free, sorted (which anyone can do), and including missing frames, these altered frames are, or rather, to quote you, ''appear'' ''for most general purposes'', to be the best. Thank you.

When I use my nailgun, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have touched it, which is why I keep it inside out of reach with my other precicion tools. Is that smart and shallow enough for you, Jim?

[Bernice Moore]

So Raymond's response..... is to DISCOUNT the reports of more than forty witnesses

Actually my response was to cite Charles Sanders Peirce, and experiments proving he was right.

Since you hold yourself out as a teacher of Peircean thought, why not show us why Peirce was wrong in warning against witness memory in THE LOGIC OF DRAWING HISTORY....

See Page 79.

The same circumstances which lead one witness into error are likely to deceive another.

http://books.google.com/books?id=grYAoECfZ...;q=&f=false

A widely-held belief holds that eyewitness testimony tends to be unreliable. It was one of the remarkable aspects of Mantik's research, therefore, that he discovered a strikingly high degree of agreement among multiple witnesses about shots that hit the President's head. This led him to a review of the current literature on the reliability of witnesses, including a book by Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1996). On Table 3.1, he discovered a summary of research with 151 subjects, which reported that, when subjects consider what they were observing to be salient (or significant), they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations—reinforcing their importance as evidence and offering one more indication that popular opinions are not always true.

http://jfkresearch.com/Moorman....B

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/

Edited January 31, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Martin Hinrichs]

I'm quite aware of what I have done Martin, I did as you asked.

So far so good.

I outlined the shape of JFK''s head (worrying about only the back since that is the area in question).

Ah, i see that you realize the problems.

So I take it you have a problem.

I don't have a problem, i see only errors in your sketch.

Why not just get on with it.

I do. Step by step.

You afraid for some reason? (that backyard thing would make me afraid if I was you...)

I can ensure you, i'am not afraid. Please stay on Topic.

There is another Topic where your last point belongs to. Ask over there.

So Craig, next step.

Pay attention to the red arrow.

What do we see in the area, where you see parts of JFK's head?

Raymond, i will come back to your questions.

The reason i did not yet, is Craig Lamson's divertion tactics (as we can see all over here).

I hope you understand.

Thanks for your patience.

Martin

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Why am I not surprised that you did not include my post #62 in your reply? That would have exposed its irrelevance.

Jim, my q was indeed sincere.

I trust yours were as well. Somehow, like your reply, I doubt it. (afa your obsession (here repeated after a couple of years) I'll lay your mind at rest: I'm me.)

So, in spite of the removal and changing of data in the Z film (alteration) (plus the smoothing and color changes which you fail to mention) Costellas frames are the best available. Or rather: free, sorted (which anyone can do), and including missing frames, these altered frames are, or rather, to quote you, ''appear'' ''for most general purposes'', to be the best. Thank you.

When I use my nailgun, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have touched it, which is why I keep it inside out of reach with my other precicion tools. Is that smart and shallow enough for you, Jim?

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Raymond, are you cognitively impaired? How much sunlight was there in Trauma Room 1? You really are off the deep end.

Over exposure to the Sun? That's why more than forty witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head, including the physicians at Parkland, as Gary Aguiilar, M.D.--who is a buddy of Tink, by the way--explained in his chapter in MURDER (2000). And of course the McClelland diagram and the Crenshaw diagrams show a massive blow out in the same location. And David Mantik's meticulous study of the cranial X-ray defines an area with the same general features--looking rather like a cashew--which corresponds almost exactly to the blow out seen in the frame! That there are other frames, such as 372, in which it can also be seen is further confirmation.

According to you, J. Raymond Carroll, however, this is just sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. So what were all these witnesses reporting? They were not in the position to observe sunlight reflecting off the back of the head. Indeed, they were reporting their own observations of the massive defect at the back of his head. That includes the physicians at Parkland. McClelland and Crenshaw were not drawing diagrams of sunlight reflected off the back of his head! And Manitk's studies confirmed it! The blow out to the left/rear that hit Officer Hargis so hard he thought he himself had been shot was not sunlight either. Your position, alas, verges on absurdity.

The premise of the original argument was that THIS FRAME had escaped the alterationists' attention, and that this ONE GENUINE FRAME seems to show a massive defect in the back of the head. This genuine frame, supposedly, PROVES THAT THE REST OF THE FILM is faked, Dr. Fetzer assured us earlier.

Now he hums a different tune: We can't see blood or brain tissue because THIS FRAME TOO WAS ALTERED. Just that they messed up the alteration by painting out ONLY the blood and brain tissue, but leaving the "gaping wound" behind

for all to see in broad daylight.

Why can't anyone offer a CREDIBLE challenge to Craig's claim that the blowout is only sunlight?

Because sunlight is all it is.

Craig has proven, by simply adding an outline round JFK's head, that THE BLOWOUT IS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION.

If you disagree ask your kids, parents, brothers sisters, friends, aunts and uncles.

Edited January 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

Because your mind works in mysterious ways?

EDIT ADD : However...

" Jim : Dolva (or whoever you are), the question of good/better/best is relative to some objective or standard and the available alternative options. A hammer, for example, might be best for driving nails, not so good as a doorstop, and functional as a paperweight. If a nailgun were available, however, and there were many nails to drive, then it might not be the best, since time and effort could be saved by using the nailgun instead. Are you following me?

Apart from "inside baseball", for most purposes of viewing a version of the Zapruder film--and, in case you don't know it, there are several, which I discuss in "Which Film is 'the Zapruder Film'?" in HOAX (2003), where I shall assume that, like most others on this forum, you have never read it--if I grant you the benefit of the doubt, which you have not earned, then the differences between them for most general purposes favor the Costella version.

The reasons include that he has restored missing frames, corrected the order of those in the wrong sequence, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, which means that, for most purposes, the Costella combined cut is the best version available for public viewing. Moreover, it has the additional advantage of being available on a public web site at no charge at http://assassinationscience.com. It appears to be the best available alternative.

That is, of course, if you want to view the best available version which is available free for viewing. The 4x5 slide transparencies, for example, are incomplete (have missing frames), are not sequential (since some of them are in the wrong order), and have not been corrected for pincushion or aspect ratio distortion. That makes the 4x5 set at The 6th Floor Museum a poor choice for public viewing. In fact, they are not generally available for viewing.

Now if someone is doing research on technical aspects of the film, then, since the 4x5 transparencies are closer in generation to the "original"--which appears to have been fabricated at Hawkeye Works in Rochester--then the 4x5 transparencies may be highly useful for research purposes. When the Hollywood experts observed that the blow out at the back of the head had been painted in, it was useful for David Mantik to confirm their finding using them.

Since I doubt that your question was sincere, I am harboring no illusions that you will not come back with some shallow, smart remark. That appears implicit in the question as you phrased it. The fact of the matter is that one version of the film may be better for some purposes and others for other. The 6k version, for example, appears to have been the best for the Hollywood experts to study, given their objectives. So that's my answer to your query.

QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 30 2010, 02:27 PM) *

That definitely needs logging.

post Today, 02:02 PM

Post #40

(Jim)

Advanced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 621

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

Given the meaning of the term "alteration" in this context, which has to be known to you, you are combing a trivial truth (the new images are not the same as the originals) with a significant falsehood (they are thereby enhanced rather than distorted). I take exception to your untoward remark that you "don't think" it was Costella's' intent to deliberately falsify the film. Since he included the ghost images, restored the missing frames, and corrected for pincushion and aspect ratio distortion, that much is obvious. In light of the missing frames, out of sequence frames, and other problems with the MPI 4x5 scans (which are addressed in other threads, but with which I assume you are familiar), I take it that the Costella combined edit is the best version of the Zapruder film available--even though, for specific purposes, the MPI scans can be useful in corroborating discoveries such as those made by the Hollywood experts, who observed that the blow-out to the back of the head had been painted over in black, which David Mantik confirmed using the 4x5 scans. If we agree on all of these points, then fine. But your use of the word is highly inappropriate, in my view. I recommend using the term "corrected" as more accurate terminology.

QUOTE (John Dolva @ Jan 30 2010, 06:33 AM) *

That's ok Jim, we haven't communicated for a coupla years I think.

You mean deliberately falsify? I don't think that was Costellas intent. However strictly they are false for the reasons I mentioned, ie altered. It doesn't make the images, except in a gross sense, closer to the original subject. So I suppose in that sense they are enhanced but the massive data loss, creation, in the process, takes them further away from the original film of the original subject. Detail loss cannot be denied.

duh.. I almost take exception to your exception, Jim.

So, in your opinion Costellas distorted/altered images are the best Z frames available? Correct? QUOTE

This post has been edited by James H. Fetzer: Today, 08:44 AM"

"John : Jim, my q was indeed sincere.

I trust yours were as well. Somehow, like your reply, I doubt it. (afa your obsession (here repeated after a couple of years) I'll lay your mind at rest: I'm me.)

So, in spite of the removal and changing of data in the Z film (alteration) (plus the smoothing and color changes which you fail to mention) Costellas frames are the best available. Or rather: free, sorted (which anyone can do), and including missing frames, these altered frames are, or rather, to quote you, ''appear'' ''for most general purposes'', to be the best. Thank you.

When I use my nailgun, I certainly wouldn't want anyone to have touched it, which is why I keep it inside out of reach with my other precicion tools. Is that smart and shallow enough for you, Jim? "

Edited January 31, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

I'm quite aware of what I have done Martin, I did as you asked.

So far so good.

Yes, it is.

I outlined the shape of JFK''s head (worrying about only the back since that is the area in question).

Ah, i see that you realize the problems.

What are those problems again? I don't see any problems. We are talking about the back and top of JFK's head. You asked for an outline. Thats what I gave you. Now you say thats a problem? This should be very interesting. Don your flame retardant underware...

So I take it you have a problem.

I don't have a problem, i see only errors in your sketch.

Errors you say? Have at it Martin, I'm quaking in my boots!

Why not just get on with it.

I do. Step by step.

Step by step? Sheesh, lets just get on with it, no need to drag it out over a bunch of posts. Post it all and be done with it.

You afraid for some reason? (that backyard thing would make me afraid if I was you...)

I can ensure you, i'am not afraid. Please stay on Topic.

There is another Topic where your last point belongs to. Ask over there.

Great, so post it all Martin...

So Craig, next step.

Pay attention to the red arrow.

What do we see in the area, where you see parts of JFK's head?

I see the shape of JFK's head. Thats what you asked for, correct?

Raymond, i will come back to your questions.

The reason i did not yet, is Craig Lamson's divertion tactics (as we can see all over here).

I hope you understand.

Thanks for your patience.

I hope Ray has some patience, I have very little for you. Post your stuff and get on with it...

Martin

Edited January 31, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond, are you cognitively impaired? ..... You really are off the deep end.

Dr. Fetzer: Do you think the great logician/scientist CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE was COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED and off the deep end?

The same circumstances which lead one witness into error are likely to deceive another.

I have not yet seen anyone refute Pat Speer:

those who saw Kennedy BEFORE he arrived at Parkland thought his large head wound was above and in front of his ear. The Parkland witnesses tended to claim it was behind his ear. Now, what changed? The body? No, well then how about the position of the body and the angle from which it was viewed? SURE ENOUGH, numerous studies have demonstrated and discussed the difficulty people have when interpreting faces rotated from the position in which they are normally viewed.

So, in short, I think the rotation of Kennedy on the stretcher caused some of those viewing him to misinterpret the location of his head wound, and their recollections colored those of their colleagues.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...0&start=150

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond, i will come back to your questions.

Thank you Martin (I DO have more patience than Craig).

Earlier I asked: How come, if this is a blowout wound, we see NO SIGN of blood or brain tissue?

Let me also add another question: If this is a REAL blowout wound, how come it is nowhere near where the Parkland witnesses remembered seeing a wound?

[Dean Hagerman]

How much sunlight was there in Trauma Room 1?

Good call Jim, how can anyone say that the Parkland doctors were wrong?

[Craig Lamson]

How much sunlight was there in Trauma Room 1?

Good call Jim, how can anyone say that the Parkland doctors were wrong?

Just curious dean, Which "blowout" is the correct one? 337 or 374. Jim seems to find this question too hot to handle. Maybe you can answer it.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

How much sunlight was there in Trauma Room 1?

Good call Jim, how can anyone say that the Parkland doctors were wrong?

Dean,

You act like all of the Parkland Doctors are always right about everything they claim.

Todd