Costella's Review of Horne's IARRB

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

The point of my critique was that it is based upon a blunder in supposing that Homer McMahon was viewing the film brought to the NPIC on Saturday night rather than Sunday. The former appears to have been "the original" developed in Dallas (the 8mm split film for which they had to purchase a projector), the latter an altered version brought from Rochester (the 16mm unsplit film processed by Hawkeyeworks). Not only did he apparently believe that Homer was viewing the original (at least ten times), but he assumed that Homer meant "6 to 8 impacts on JFK", when, since he was directed to prepare a briefing board for impacts on occupants of the limo, it is far more reasonable to suppose that the "6 to 8 impacts" were on occupants of the limo, where JFK, we know, was hit at least four times (in the back from behind, in the throat from in front, and in the head from behind and from in front), while Connally was hit as many as three times (all from the side), where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between 6 and 8. Perhaps I didn't spell this out sufficiently, but John, who believes the reconstruction of the film required a longer temporal interval than having been done by Sunday, seems to have missed that one of Homer's briefing boards survived, which shows frames from the film that correspond to frames in the extant (altered) film, which means that at least that much of the recreation of the film had already been done by Sunday. In all of these respects, Costella blundered, which is why I observed that a very smart man did a very dumb thing (by basing his criticism on false premises). On the other hand, I believe Doug was too strident and personal in his rebuttal, which includes at least two paragraphs it would be much better without, which I have suggested removing from his comments. In any case, my introduction to Doug's work, especially on the film, was just published by Online Journal, "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml , and appears to be making its way into the public domain. I also regard you with respect and hope that you will stick around, even if, as in this case, I think you didn't know quite enough about some of the specifics to understand why my appraisal of Costella's critique was actually right on target. But then, that appears to have been the case for others here, too, which is a good reason for not holding that against you. So I also hope that you will stick around, my friend. None of us makes no mistakes and you have more to contribute than most of those who post the most. So I encourage you to remain on the forum to comment as often as you like. The exchange of rational criticism is crucial to advance research here and elsewhere.

Jim

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

That is idiotic.

My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth.

IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions.

Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all.

Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take.

GO_SECURE

monk

====

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

Edited April 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

The point is, Costella, over the course of the two months between the time it was announced he was going to write a review and when we got the review, he didn't bother to actually read any of Horne's books.

He especially missed Chapter 14, the only one that he admits to having the ability to properly critique, that he was only interested in what Horne had to say about him and his previous work on the Z-film, that his "review" was the rant of a scorned scholar whose conclusion that the Zapruder film wasn't even filmed by Zapruder is contested by Horne's research. His questioning of Horne's post ARRB employment by the Holocaust Museum betrays Costella's Jewish phobia, whatever it is, and the branding Horne as a government man intent on continuing the Warren Commission confusion and coverup is wrong about the continuation of the coverup but correct about Horne being a government man.

It is extremely significant the the Official Chief Analysist for Military Records of the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) - came to the conclusion that the official records indicate to him that the assassination of President Kennedy was not only a conspiracy but a coup d'etat by those who took over the government.

Among those official records that led the Chief Analysist for Military Records of the ARRB to conclude it was a coup, was the recorded interview with former NPIC technician Homer McMahon, the oral history interviews by Peter Janney of NPIC deputy chief Dino Brugioni, and the chronology, content and provenance of the Zapruder film, ths subject of Chapter 14 of Horne's work.

Although he has a CD recording of the McMahon interview, which he posted on his web site, and my transcript to go along with it, and he claimed to have read Chapter 14 twice, Costella mistakenly attributes things to McMahon that actually occured during the first visit the Zapruder film made to NPIC on Saturday, the day after the assassination.

This event was officially requested by DCIA McCone, and carried out by Dino Brugioni's crew, and utilized an 8mm copy of the Zapruder film (though it could have been the original, as we should soon learn). On Sunday mornining, November 24, Art Lundahl, the director of NPIC and the primary presidential briefer on all NPIC matters, utilizing the Brugioni briefing boards, briefed McCone.

While we don't know what Lindahl told McCone, we do know that LBJ refused to allow McCone to brief him about anything - and waved him off - and when he did see McCone, limited the briefing to international matters.

According to former JFK advisor Arthur Schlesinger, when he did have an opportunity to talk privately with RFK, and ask him about the assassination, Schlesinger recorded in his Journal that RFK replied that the FBI says it was Oswald alone, but the CIA says there was more than one shooter.

For RFK to say that, he must have been informed by McCone that the original NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film was that there was more than one shooter, and that's what Lindahl concluded and briefed him on, but this conclusion was squelched by the administration and official conclusion that Oswald did it alone.

The following day, Sunday, November 25, another, unslit 16 mm version of the Zapruder film arrived at NPIC and a totally different team was put together to make enlargements and prints for briefing boards to brief, not McCone or the President, or the JCOS, or any of the usual classified agencies McMahon said he worked for, it was a different group he said, and his boss - the head of his department at NPIC, was not even allowed in the room.

Who were the second set of briefing boards ment for? And who used them to brief this secret group of men who were higher than the department heads of NPIC or the CIA or Joint Chiefs of Staff?

We know that Brugioni and Lindahl briefed McCone, and then McCone told RFK the CIA thought there were two shooters, but who was briefed by the second set of briefing boards made from the unslit 16 mm film "Bill Smith" brought to NPIC from Rochester's KODAK HQ Top Secret "Hawkeye Works" plant where it was processed?

These are some of the boards that exist today, but what happened to the original briefing boards Dino B made and Lindahl used to brief McCone? And what did Lindahl tell McCone?

So Horne conclusively documents that there were two brain exams as part of the official autopsy, and two different brains used for each, as well as two different caskets, along with a planned deception operation with an ambulance and hearse which fooled the official honor guard, and two different autopsy photographers who didn't know about each other.

And he also demonstrates there were two different Zapruder film events at NPIC, one on Saturday and one on Sunday, involving two different types of film (one 8 mm one 16 mm) and two different NPIC teams working on them.

We also know that Lindahl briefed McCone with the first set of briefing boards, but we don't know who the second set was for, except that it was taken away to brief them by either Capt. Sands or "Bill Smith," reportedly though questionably attached to the Secret Service. (No William or Bill Smith worked for them at this time) And while it is immediately suspect by Doug Horne and others that "Bill Smith" is an alias used by the person who had the film, it is now believed that Bill Smith is a real person and that is his real name, is still alive and may be able to tell us who the second set of briefing boards were made for.

So it isn't a small mistake that Costella makes, though understandable, in attributing to McMahon, the briefing boards that Brugioni made.

And it isn't a small accusation that Horne is a government agent intent on confusing things and maintaining the Warren Commission coverup.

I do agree with Costella and his apparent primary source Jones Harris, that the ten years it has been since we've had the McMahon interview and info on NPIC and this sudden realization of its signifiacne, is in part Doug Horne's fault for not calling attention to it sooner.

But Paul Hoch also had the NPIC documents over a decade ago and he also had the Sibert and O'Neill report and noticed their quoting the autopsy doctor as saying there had already been "surgery to the head," but he didn't bother to call attention to it in order to see if anybody else noticed it. Well now Paul, we've noticed it.

But that doesn't make Hoch and Horne part of the coverup because they noticed significant items that change the game but didn't bother to blow the whistle for us to take notice. Or does it?

Well now we know.

And now John Costella knows, and shouldn't be confused if he has read Chapter 14 a third time and had his wife Sally explain it to him, so we're all on the same page.

But my biggest beef with John Costella is the fact that he once worked for the USA Department of Defense in some capacity, probably a research consultant on his scientific speciality in physics, and he acknowledges that he kept his JFK Assassination and Z-film research secret from them. That's acceptable, as it's clear that anyone who wants a job with the US government, the mainstream media, academia, fortune 5 corporate or anyone who pays well, shoudn't let it be know that they are remoteley interested in finding out who killed JFK or - you won't get the job, will get fired from the job or be placed in permenant professional exile.

So what is Costella trying to do then when he announces that he has come privy to the generally unknown fact that Doug Horne not only was in the Navy for 20 years and "reeks" of military intelligence, but posts the fact that he works for the governemnt today in a sensitive department? Is Costella trying to sturr up trouble for Horne, either with his employers or with those who would like to utilize his sensitive position to get him fired?

Now I want to know what John Costella did for the US government DOD? But now I want to know. What did he work on? Was it secret? What was an Aussie doing working on a secret US project? Did he do for the DOD what he did to Horne in his "review" of his work?

It isn't Horne we have to worry about doing a good job in a sensitive position, it's someone like John Costella we should worry about working in a sensitive US DoD position.

WTF?

WTF is he doing working for the DOD?

WTF is Costella really saying in his "review."

BK

Monk,

The point of my critique was that it is based upon a blunder in supposing that Homer McMahon was viewing the film brought to the NPIC on Saturday night rather than Sunday. The former appears to have been "the original" developed in Dallas (the 8mm split film for which they had to purchase a projector), the latter an altered version brought from Rochester (the 16mm unsplit film processed by Hawkeyeworks). Not only did he apparently believe that Homer was viewing the original (at least ten times), but he assumed that Homer meant "6 to 8 impacts on JFK", when, since he was directed to prepare a briefing board for impacts on occupants of the limo, it is far more reasonable to suppose that the "6 to 8 impacts" were on occupants of the limo, where JFK, we know, was hit at least four times (in the back from behind, in the throat from in front, and in the head from behind and from in front), while Connally was hit as many as three times (all from the side), where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between 6 and 8. Perhaps I didn't spell this out sufficiently, but John, who believes the reconstruction of the film required a longer temporal interval than having been done by Sunday, seems to have missed that one of Homer's briefing boards survived, which shows frames from the film that correspond to frames in the extant (altered) film, which means that at least that much of the recreation of the film had already been done by Sunday. In all of these respects, Costella blundered, which is why I observed that a very smart man did a very dumb thing (by basing his criticism on false premises). On the other hand, I believe Doug was too strident and personal in his rebuttal, which includes at least two paragraphs it would be much better without, which I have suggested removing from his comments. In any case, my introduction to Doug's work, especially on the film, was just published by Online Journal, "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml , and appears to be making its way into the public domain. I also regard you with respect and hope that you will stick around, even if, as in this case, I think you didn't know quite enough about some of the specifics to understand why my appraisal of Costella's critique was actually right on target. But then, that appears to have been the case for others here, too, which is a good reason for not holding that against you. So I also hope that you will stick around, my friend. None of us makes no mistakes and you have more to contribute than most of those who post the most. So I encourage you to remain on the forum to comment as often as you like. The exchange of rational criticism is crucial to advance research here and elsewhere.

Jim

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

That is idiotic.

My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth.

IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions.

Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all.

Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take.

GO_SECURE

monk

====

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

Edited April 10, 2010 by William Kelly

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let me state categorically I agree with Bill Kelly on this important point about Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009):

It is extremely significant the the Official Chief Analysist for Military Records of the Assassinations Records

Review Board (ARRB) - came to the conclusion that the official records indicate to him that the assassination

of President Kennedy was not only a conspiracy but a coup d'etat by those who took over the government

Let me also state categorically that John Costella and Doug Horne are both men of exceptional intelligence, enormous

integrity, and fierce dedication to truth. I consider it simply absurd to suggest there was some "hidden agenda" involved

in John's review. It was a matter of believing that he had conducted research on the fabrication of the film that was

superior to what was being reported in Doug's book, which he considered to be a giant step backwards. I know this to

be the case, because he and I exchanged emails about his negative reaction to a work I was praising. My opinion is

that John's work on the film is scientifically superior in various respects, but that what Doug has presented is more

accessible to the public and therefore probably capable of making a greater impact. They are both enormously proud

and strong willed, which means that, for me, alas, it came as no surprise that there would be a clash between these

titans. I regret it occurred, but there it is. Making more of it, as Bill does here, is not only an insult to their character

but a disservice to the research community. I do not mean thereby to imply he did this intentionally, but his reasoning

here is seriously flawed and unworthy of belief. No one should take these speculations as appropriate or well-founded.

The point is, Costella, over the course of the two months between the time it was announced he was going to write a review and when we got the review, he didn't bother to actually read any of Horne's books.

He especially missed Chapter 14, the only one that he admits to having the ability to properly critique, that he was only interested in what Horne had to say about him and his previous work on the Z-film, that his "review" was the rant of a scorned scholar whose conclusion that the Zapruder film wasn't even filmed by Zapruder is contested by Horne's research. His questioning of Horne's post ARRB employment by the Holocaust Museum betrays Costella's Jewish phobia, whatever it is, and the branding Horne as a government man intent on continuing the Warren Commission confusion and coverup is wrong about the continuation of the coverup but correct about Horne being a government man.

It is extremely significant the the Official Chief Analysist for Military Records of the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) - came to the conclusion that the official records indicate to him that the assassination of President Kennedy was not only a conspiracy but a coup d'etat by those who took over the government.

Among those official records that led the Chief Analysist for Military Records of the ARRB to conclude it was a coup, was the recorded interview with former NPIC technician Homer McMahon, the oral history interviews by Peter Janney of NPIC deputy chief Dino Brugioni, and the chronology, content and provenance of the Zapruder film, ths subject of Chapter 14 of Horne's work.

Although he has a CD recording of the McMahon interview, which he posted on his web site, and my transcript to go along with it, and he claimed to have read Chapter 14 twice, Costella mistakenly attributes things to McMahon that actually occured during the first visit the Zapruder film made to NPIC on Saturday, the day after the assassination.

This event was officially requested by DCIA McCone, and carried out by Dino Brugioni's crew, and utilized an 8mm copy of the Zapruder film (though it could have been the original, as we should soon learn). On Sunday mornining, November 24, Art Lundahl, the director of NPIC and the primary presidential briefer on all NPIC matters, utilizing the Brugioni briefing boards, briefed McCone.

While we don't know what Lindahl told McCone, we do know that LBJ refused to allow McCone to brief him about anything - and waved him off - and when he did see McCone, limited the briefing to international matters.

According to former JFK advisor Arthur Schlesinger, when he did have an opportunity to talk privately with RFK, and ask him about the assassination, Schlesinger recorded in his Journal that RFK replied that the FBI says it was Oswald alone, but the CIA says there was more than one shooter.

For RFK to say that, he must have been informed by McCone that the original NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film was that there was more than one shooter, and that's what Lindahl concluded and briefed him on, but this conclusion was squelched by the administration and official conclusion that Oswald did it alone.

The following day, Sunday, November 25, another, unslit 16 mm version of the Zapruder film arrived at NPIC and a totally different team was put together to make enlargements and prints for briefing boards to brief, not McCone or the President, or the JCOS, or any of the usual classified agencies McMahon said he worked for, it was a different group he said, and his boss - the head of his department at NPIC, was not even allowed in the room.

Who were the second set of briefing boards ment for? And who used them to brief this secret group of men who were higher than the department heads of NPIC or the CIA or Joint Chiefs of Staff?

We know that Brugioni and Lindahl briefed McCone, and then McCone told RFK the CIA thought there were two shooters, but who was briefed by the second set of briefing boards made from the unslit 16 mm film "Bill Smith" brought to NPIC from Rochester's KODAK HQ Top Secret "Hawkeye Works" plant where it was processed?

These are some of the boards that exist today, but what happened to the original briefing boards Dino B made and Lindahl used to brief McCone? And what did Lindahl tell McCone?

So Horne conclusively documents that there were two brain exams as part of the official autopsy, and two different brains used for each, as well as two different caskets, along with a planned deception operation with an ambulance and hearse which fooled the official honor guard, and two different autopsy photographers who didn't know about each other.

And he also demonstrates there were two different Zapruder film events at NPIC, one on Saturday and one on Sunday, involving two different types of film (one 8 mm one 16 mm) and two different NPIC teams working on them.

We also know that Lindahl briefed McCone with the first set of briefing boards, but we don't know who the second set was for, except that it was taken away to brief them by either Capt. Sands or "Bill Smith," reportedly though questionably attached to the Secret Service. (No William or Bill Smith worked for them at this time) And while it is immediately suspect by Doug Horne and others that "Bill Smith" is an alias used by the person who had the film, it is now believed that Bill Smith is a real person and that is his real name, is still alive and may be able to tell us who the second set of briefing boards were made for.

So it isn't a small mistake that Costella makes, though understandable, in attributing to McMahon, the briefing boards that Brugioni made.

And it isn't a small accusation that Horne is a government agent intent on confusing things and maintaining the Warren Commission coverup.

I do agree with Costella and his apparent primary source Jones Harris, that the ten years it has been since we've had the McMahon interview and info on NPIC and this sudden realization of its signifiacne, is in part Doug Horne's fault for not calling attention to it sooner.

But Paul Hoch also had the NPIC documents over a decade ago and he also had the Sibert and O'Neill report and noticed their quoting the autopsy doctor as saying there had already been "surgery to the head," but he didn't bother to call attention to it in order to see if anybody else noticed it. Well now Paul, we've noticed it.

But that doesn't make Hoch and Horne part of the coverup because they noticed significant items that change the game but didn't bother to blow the whistle for us to take notice. Or does it?

Well now we know.

And now John Costella knows, and shouldn't be confused if he has read Chapter 14 a third time and had his wife Sally explain it to him, so we're all on the same page.

But my biggest beef with John Costella is the fact that he once worked for the USA Department of Defense in some capacity, probably a research consultant on his scientific speciality in physics, and he acknowledges that he kept his JFK Assassination and Z-film research secret from them. That's acceptable, as it's clear that anyone who wants a job with the US government, the mainstream media, academia, fortune 5 corporate or anyone who pays well, shoudn't let it be know that they are remoteley interested in finding out who killed JFK or - you won't get the job, will get fired from the job or be placed in permenant professional exile.

So what is Costella trying to do then when he announces that he has come privy to the generally unknown fact that Doug Horne not only was in the Navy for 20 years and "reeks" of military intelligence, but posts the fact that he works for the governemnt today in a sensitive department? Is Costella trying to sturr up trouble for Horne, either with his employers or with those who would like to utilize his sensitive position to get him fired?

Now I want to know what John Costella did for the US government DOD? But now I want to know. What did he work on? Was it secret? What was an Aussie doing working on a secret US project? Did he do for the DOD what he did to Horne in his "review" of his work?

It isn't Horne we have to worry about doing a good job in a sensitive position, it's someone like John Costella we should worry about working in a sensitive US DoD position.

WTF?

WTF is he doing working for the DOD?

WTF is Costella really saying in his "review."

BK

Monk,

The point of my critique was that it is based upon a blunder in supposing that Homer McMahon was viewing the film brought to the NPIC on Saturday night rather than Sunday. The former appears to have been "the original" developed in Dallas (the 8mm split film for which they had to purchase a projector), the latter an altered version brought from Rochester (the 16mm unsplit film processed by Hawkeyeworks). Not only did he apparently believe that Homer was viewing the original (at least ten times), but he assumed that Homer meant "6 to 8 impacts on JFK", when, since he was directed to prepare a briefing board for impacts on occupants of the limo, it is far more reasonable to suppose that the "6 to 8 impacts" were on occupants of the limo, where JFK, we know, was hit at least four times (in the back from behind, in the throat from in front, and in the head from behind and from in front), while Connally was hit as many as three times (all from the side), where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between 6 and 8. Perhaps I didn't spell this out sufficiently, but John, who believes the reconstruction of the film required a longer temporal interval than having been done by Sunday, seems to have missed that one of Homer's briefing boards survived, which shows frames from the film that correspond to frames in the extant (altered) film, which means that at least that much of the recreation of the film had already been done by Sunday. In all of these respects, Costella blundered, which is why I observed that a very smart man did a very dumb thing (by basing his criticism on false premises). On the other hand, I believe Doug was too strident and personal in his rebuttal, which includes at least two paragraphs it would be much better without, which I have suggested removing from his comments. In any case, my introduction to Doug's work, especially on the film, was just published by Online Journal, "U.S. Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml , and appears to be making its way into the public domain. I also regard you with respect and hope that you will stick around, even if, as in this case, I think you didn't know quite enough about some of the specifics to understand why my appraisal of Costella's critique was actually right on target. But then, that appears to have been the case for others here, too, which is a good reason for not holding that against you. So I also hope that you will stick around, my friend. None of us makes no mistakes and you have more to contribute than most of those who post the most. So I encourage you to remain on the forum to comment as often as you like. The exchange of rational criticism is crucial to advance research here and elsewhere.

Jim

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

That is idiotic.

My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth.

IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions.

Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all.

Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take.

GO_SECURE

monk

====

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

[Jack White]

Bill...Costella is Australian, and worked for a while for the Australian DoD, not the US.

And you brush off too lightly Costella's complaints that the CONTENT of the film is

important, but ignored by Horne.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Bill...Costella is Australian, and worked for a while for the Australian DoD, not the US.

And you brush off too lightly Costella's complaints that the CONTENT of the film is

important, but ignored by Horne.

Jack

Okay Jack, so he hid his interest in the JFK assassination and research on the Z-film from the Australian DOD. That makes me feel a lot safer.

But its still not cool that despite covering his own ass, he thinks its okay to tell the world Horne has a sensitive government job today and intentionally and unnecessarily expose him to the same threats he was afraid of. That'll teach Horne not to scorn another scholar.

And I understand the fascination with the content of the Z-film, but people have been talking, arguing and debating the conent of the Z-film for over twenty years now, and it hasn't gotten anywhere. At least in the end there's nothing you can take to court.

Horne doesn't ignore the conent of the film since he does talk about the lack of a stop and turn onto Elm and the anamolies of the sign and others, but he recognizes that the anamolies in the conent can be explained away by different analysis. Costella is only upset because his analysis and pet theories aren't endorsed or mentioned.

But now we're talking about the type and size of the films being examined and their provenance/chain of possession, where the film was and how it got there and who has it - things that everyone agrees on - and finding amazing things that are giving us a real diffferent understanding of the film and what it means. Enough new information that there are at least two new FOIA cases awaiting responses.

And the whole NPIC connection gives us a new perspective, not only on the Z-film, the assassination and Kennedy, but the NPIC role in the cold war that has not been properly, historically or accurately reported.

You and Costella and Fetzer and Thompson and whoever else wants to can engage in an endless debate over the anamolies and the conent of the Z-film, and whether or not Zapruder himself actually shot the Zapruder film, but keep that argument separate from the chain of possession / provenance issue because one is really clear and undebateable and can be taken to court while the other is a black hole that drags everybody down.

BK

[Greg Parker]

Bill...Costella is Australian, and worked for a while for the Australian DoD, not the US.

And you brush off too lightly Costella's complaints that the CONTENT of the film is

important, but ignored by Horne.

Jack

Okay Jack, so he hid his interest in the JFK assassination and research on the Z-film from the Australian DOD. That makes me feel a lot safer.

I think any confusion was understandable. If memory serves JC had said or hinted that his employment with the Australian Defence Department precluded him from working on the Z film. This might be expected if you worked for the DoD, but can be viewed only as either downright bizarre, or just another indicator of our (Australian) subservience to the US - take your pick.

But its still not cool that despite covering his own ass, he thinks its okay to tell the world Horne has a sensitive government job today and intentionally and unnecessarily expose him to the same threats he was afraid of. That'll teach Horne not to scorn another scholar.

And I understand the fascination with the content of the Z-film, but people have been talking, arguing and debating the conent of the Z-film for over twenty years now, and it hasn't gotten anywhere. At least in the end there's nothing you can take to court.

Horne doesn't ignore the conent of the film since he does talk about the lack of a stop and turn onto Elm and the anamolies of the sign and others, but he recognizes that the anamolies in the conent can be explained away by different analysis. Costella is only upset because his analysis and pet theories aren't endorsed or mentioned.

But now we're talking about the type and size of the films being examined and their provenance/chain of possession, where the film was and how it got there and who has it - things that everyone agrees on - and finding amazing things that are giving us a real diffferent understanding of the film and what it means. Enough new information that there are at least two new FOIA cases awaiting responses.

And the whole NPIC connection gives us a new perspective, not only on the Z-film, the assassination and Kennedy, but the NPIC role in the cold war that has not been properly, historically or accurately reported.

You and Costella and Fetzer and Thompson and whoever else wants to can engage in an endless debate over the anamolies and the conent of the Z-film, and whether or not Zapruder himself actually shot the Zapruder film, but keep that argument separate from the chain of possession / provenance issue because one is really clear and undebateable and can be taken to court while the other is a black hole that drags everybody down.

BK