Jump to content
The Education Forum

The JFK "Head Shot" Paradox


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chambers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

Chambers’ discussions of the Zapruder film, whose authenticity he endorses, and of the medical evidence, which he disregards as corrupt, are especially interesting. Perhaps if he had read Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which are devoted to taking rumor and speculation out of the case and placing its study on an objective and scientific foundation, he might have a different outlook on both. Not the least puzzling aspect of this book is that, while his credentials as a physicist are advanced as the reason we should believe him (based upon his analysis of the motion of JFK’s head under the impact of the bullet), no one who has ever observed the film could have any serious doubt that it was fired from the right-front. The back-and-to-the-left motion of his body, which was accentuated in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, makes that much obvious. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. in physics to notice.

Indeed, it is precisely because the back-and-to-the-left motion of his body provides such a simple proof of a shot fired from the right-front that those who have written extensively about it, such as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson, have been adamantly opposed to acknowledging that the film is a fabrication, which was recreated using original footage which was subjected to sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. A brilliant tutorial concerning how we know this was done has been presented by John P. Costella, another Ph.D. in physics with electromagnetism, the physics of moving objects and properties of light, among his areas of specialization. Previous arguments of David Wrone and Rollie Zavada, which Chambers presents, have been refuted by the publication of Inside the ARRB (2009) by Douglas Horne, whose key arguments about the film are summarized in an article of mine for those who may not have time for all five volumes!

As Horne has explained, there are five physical features that distinguish the original film, which was developed in Dallas, from the film that is available to us today. As he also remarks, the original was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and processed by one team of experts, while a second film was brought to the NPIC the following day, Sunday, 24 November 1963, and processed by a different team of experts. We not only know that the films are different based upon their physical properties but from the occurrence of content anomalies found in the extant film. Some the most revealing content features that indicate it is a fabrication include the driver’s head turns (looking back toward JFK and then forward after he has been killed), which, as Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), has reported, occur twice as fast as humanly possible; that no witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the extant film; and that Secret Service agents were nauseated to see JFK’s brains and blood across the trunk of the limousine in Washington, which has been “tidied” up in the film.

Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert on special effects whom Noel consulted about the blow-out to the right-front, explained to him that it and the blood spray had been painted in. A new group of Hollywood experts has now concluded that the blow-out itself was painted over in black to conceal the massive defect, as Horne explains in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB. But while there are many indications that the film is a fabrication, the most important proof is the inconsistency between the impact damage to the cranium, which is the film's most stunning feature, showing brains and gore bulging out to JFK's right-front, and the medical evidence, which shows a massive defect at the back of his head just to the right of center. Indeed, Escort Motorcycle Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. Jackie told the Warren Commission that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. The question thus becomes how a massive blow-out of brains and gore to the left-rear could be shown bulging out to the right-front in the film.

Recent research by another physicist, David W. Mantik, who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology, has demonstrated that the JFK autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of the head. The alteration of the film and the alteration of the X-rays thus constitute mutually reinforcing deceptions complemented by the publication of frame 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front—a caption that was rewritten twice after breaking the plates, an event unique in the history of American journalism—and the televised appearance by Abraham Zapruder the very evening of the assassination, during which he placed his hand to his right forehead to described a blow-out to the right-front, which did not occur. By dismissing the medical evidence as corrupt and endorsing the authenticity of the film, Chambers violated the requirement of total evidence, which insists that reasoning in science must be based upon all the available relevant evidence.

No doubt, most of us would have a difficult time mastering the use of the technique of optical densitometry, which Mantik borrowed from physics and applied to the X-rays when he studied them at the National Archives. Since David’s report of his research, which established that the X-rays are fabrications and that there was a second shot to the head, were published in Assassination Science (1998), which Chambers cites, I have a hard time understanding why he did not discuss it in this book. He does cite Mantik twice (on pages 188 and 192), but does so in relation to his article on the Zapruder film and not in relation to his work on the medical evidence. Rather than addressing Mantik’s work on the Zapruder film directly, as would be typical for disagreements between physicists, Chambers instead simply accepts the verdict of an historian on the work of a physicist—which may be another unique event. He claims the medical evidence forms an “unstable data set”, which was true before Mantik sorted out the authentic from the inauthentic, as he has done in a brilliant synthesis that was published in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). Indeed, there are no indications here that Chambers is familiar with the most important objective and scientific studies of the medical evidence or of the fabrication of the film, especially in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) and in Horne’s multiple volumes.

The study of the assassination has drawn the attention of physicists at least since David S. Lifton’s Best Evidence (1980). As Lifton explains, he showed photos of Zapruder frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech in 1965, where the Nobel Prize laureate pointed out that there is forward movement from frames 312 to 313, which, when the back-and-to-the-left motion observed in the film is taken as proof of a shot from in front, implies that JFK was hit at least twice in the head—once from behind and once from in front—a double-hit that was meticulously diagrammed in Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas (1967). Chambers dismisses JFK’s forward movement as an effect of William Greer, the driver, slowing the vehicle. More than 60 witnesses have reported that Greer slowed the vehicle dramatically or actually brought it to a halt, which is not seen in the film, but only he moves slightly forward at that point in time. The vehicle is shown as accelerating immediately thereafter, making it anomalous that the occupants’ bodies—Governor and Nellie Connally and the Secret Service agents—are thrown forward following frame 313.

Since we know that, if the shot was fired from the right-front, then his brains should have been blown-out to the left-rear and not to the right-front, which is what we observe in the film, the conclusion that the film has been faked clearly follows. Chambers cites work by Wrone and Zavada that has been refuted in books with which he should be familiar, but does not report that proof of something wrong with the film is present in the film itself. It occurred to me that those who were falsifying the film might have paid so much time and attention to the head shot and its effects—as we see them now in frames 313-316—that they might have overlooked the head wound in later frames. And, indeed, I found that it is visible in frame 374, among others, where its cashew-nut-like shape corresponds very closely to “Area P” (for “patched”) in Mantik’s analysis of the lateral cranial X-ray, as I have explained and demonstrated in “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”

Perhaps if he had read more of Assassination Science (1998), which he cites, Chambers might have learned that Robert B. Livingston, M.D. —a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, having supervised an emergency medical hospital for injured Okinawans and for Japanese prisoners of war during the Battle of Okinawa—had concluded that the diagrams and photographs of the brain stored at the National Archives cannot be authentic photographs and diagrams of the brain of John F. Kennedy. He compared the multiple reports from experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital of cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the blow-out at the back of the head with the photographs and diagrams at the National Archives—the brain itself is mysteriously missing—which show a wholly intact cerebellum. Since Chambers does not know the medical evidence any better than he knows the photographic, he precluded drawing inferences about those who were involved in the cover-up and the crime itself.

The mafia, for example, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to falsify X-rays that were under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, agents of the Secret Service, or the president’s personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted another brain for that of JFK. And the KGB, which may have had an ability to fabricate films comparable to that of the CIA and of Hollywood, would have had no opportunity to gain access to the original Zapruder film. Once we know the breadth and depth of the cover-up, which was implemented in great detail to effect mutually-reinforcing forms of deception, we begin to appreciate that those who had the motive, the means and the opportunity to bring them about were at the highest levels of our own government, as James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), explains.

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chambers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

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

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dr. Fetzer,

I believe the man's name is Chambers.

Anyway, Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne:

"I had dinner with Rod, Richard Trask and Chuck Bard. Part of our

conversation centered on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and Rod’s

comments published by Twyman.

Rod mentioned that he was quite uncomfortable with Twyman’s reporting,

but that when presented with black and white prints of selected scenes he

reported what he believed he saw. He acknowledged it would be very

difficult to alter the film at that time.

At lunch break of the sub group had an opportunity to view the original

Zapruder 8mm film. This was my fourth “hands-on” viewing and Rod’s

first. We both carefully examined the film including microscopically. I

challenged Rod to identify any evidence of alteration. Essentially he

accepted that the film appeared authentic and that he would not challenge

NARA’s position that it was."

Pg.14, The Zavada response

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

He also brought it up again at the Lancer conference this last week.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

Chalmers’ discussions of the Zapruder film, whose authenticity he endorses, and of the medical evidence, which he disregards as corrupt, are especially interesting. Perhaps if he had read Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which are devoted to taking rumor and speculation out of the case and placing its study on an objective and scientific foundation, he might have a different outlook on both. Not the least puzzling aspect of this book is that, while his credentials as a physicist are advanced as the reason we should believe him (based upon his analysis of the motion of JFK’s head under the impact of the bullet), no one who has ever observed the film could have any serious doubt that it was fired from the right-front. The back-and-to-the-left motion of his body, which was accentuated in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, makes that much obvious. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. in physics to notice.

Indeed, it is precisely because the back-and-to-the-left motion of his body provides such a simple proof of a shot fired from the right-front that those who have written extensively about it, such as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson, have been adamantly opposed to acknowledging that the film is a fabrication, which was recreated using original footage which was subjected to sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. A brilliant tutorial concerning how we know this was done has been presented by John P. Costella, another Ph.D. in physics with electromagnetism, the physics of moving objects and properties of light, among his areas of specialization. Previous arguments of David Wrone and Rollie Zavada, which Chalmers presents, have been refuted by the publication of Inside the ARRB (2009) by Douglas Horne, whose key arguments about the film are summarized in an article of mine for those who may not have time for all five volumes!

As Horne has explained, there are five physical features that distinguish the original film, which was developed in Dallas, from the film that is available to us today. As he also remarks, the original was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and processed by one team of experts, while a second film was brought to the NPIC the following day, Sunday, 24 November 1963, and processed by a different team of experts. We not only know that the films are different based upon their physical properties but from the occurrence of content anomalies found in the extant film. Some the most revealing content features that indicate it is a fabrication include the driver’s head turns (looking back toward JFK and then forward after he has been killed), which, as Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), has reported, occur twice as fast as humanly possible; that no witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the extant film; and that Secret Service agents were nauseated to see JFK’s brains and blood across the trunk of the limousine in Washington, which has been “tidied” up in the film.

Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert on special effects whom Noel consulted about the blow-out to the right-front, explained to him that it and the blood spray had been painted in. A new group of Hollywood experts has now concluded that the blow-out itself was painted over in black to conceal the massive defect, as Horne explains in Volume IV of Inside the ARRB. But while there are many indications that the film is a fabrication, the most important proof is the inconsistency between the impact damage to the cranium, which is the film's most stunning feature, showing brains and gore bulging out to JFK's right-front, and the medical evidence, which shows a massive defect at the back of his head just to the right of center. Indeed, Escort Motorcycle Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. Jackie told the Warren Commission that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. The question thus becomes how a massive blow-out of brains and gore to the left-rear could be shown bulging out to the right-front in the film.

Recent research by another physicist, David W. Mantik, who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology, has demonstrated that the JFK autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal the blow-out to the back of the head. The alteration of the film and the alteration of the X-rays thus constitute mutually reinforcing deceptions complemented by the publication of frame 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front—a caption that was rewritten twice after breaking the plates, an event unique in the history of American journalism—and the televised appearance by Abraham Zapruder the very evening of the assassination, during which he placed his hand to his right forehead to described a blow-out to the right-front, which did not occur. By dismissing the medical evidence as corrupt and endorsing the authenticity of the film, Chalmers violated the requirement of total evidence, which insists that reasoning in science must be based upon all the available relevant evidence.

No doubt, most of us would have a difficult time mastering the use of the technique of optical densitometry, which Mantik borrowed from physics and applied to the X-rays when he studied them at the National Archives. Since David’s report of his research, which established that the X-rays are fabrications and that there was a second shot to the head, were published in Assassination Science (1998), which Chalmers cites, I have a hard time understanding why he did not discuss it in this book. He does cite Mantik twice (on pages 188 and 192), but does so in relation to his article on the Zapruder film and not in relation to his work on the medical evidence. Rather than addressing Mantik’s work on the Zapruder film directly, as would be typical for disagreements between physicists, Chalmers instead simply accepts the verdict of an historian on the work of a physicist—which may be another unique event. He claims the medical evidence forms an “unstable data set”, which was true before Mantik sorted out the authentic from the inauthentic, as he has done in a brilliant synthesis that was published in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). Indeed, there are no indications here that Chalmers is familiar with the most important objective and scientific studies of the medical evidence or of the fabrication of the film, especially in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) and in Horne’s multiple volumes.

The study of the assassination has drawn the attention of physicists at least since David S. Lifton’s Best Evidence (1980). As Lifton explains, he showed photos of Zapruder frames to Richard Feynman at CalTech in 1965, where the Nobel Prize laureate pointed out that there is forward movement from frames 312 to 313, which, when the back-and-to-the-left motion observed in the film is taken as proof of a shot from in front, implies that JFK was hit at least twice in the head—once from behind and once from in front—a double-hit that was meticulously diagrammed in Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas (1967). Chalmers dismisses JFK’s forward movement as an effect of William Greer, the driver, slowing the vehicle. More than 60 witnesses have reported that Greer slowed the vehicle dramatically or actually brought it to a halt, which is not seen in the film, but only he moves slightly forward at that point in time. The vehicle is shown as accelerating immediately thereafter, making it anomalous that the occupants’ bodies—Governor and Nellie Connally and the Secret Service agents—are thrown forward following frame 313.

Since we know that, if the shot was fired from the right-front, then his brains should have been blown-out to the left-rear and not to the right-front, which is what we observe in the film, the conclusion that the film has been faked clearly follows. Chalmers cites work by Wrone and Zavada that has been refuted in books with which he should be familiar, but does not report that proof of something wrong with the film is present in the film itself. It occurred to me that those who were falsifying the film might have paid so much time and attention to the head shot and its effects—as we see them now in frames 313-316—that they might have overlooked the head wound in later frames. And, indeed, I found that it is visible in frame 374, among others, where its cashew-nut-like shape corresponds very closely to “Area P” (for “patched”) in Mantik’s analysis of the lateral cranial X-ray, as I have explained and demonstrated in “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?”

Perhaps if he had read more of Assassination Science (1998), which he cites, Chalmers might have learned that Robert B. Livingston, M.D. —a world authority on the human brain and also an expert on wound ballistics, having supervised an emergency medical hospital for injured Okinawans and for Japanese prisoners of war during the Battle of Okinawa—had concluded that the diagrams and photographs of the brain stored at the National Archives cannot be authentic photographs and diagrams of the brain of John F. Kennedy. He compared the multiple reports from experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital of cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the blow-out at the back of the head with the photographs and diagrams at the National Archives—the brain itself is mysteriously missing—which show a wholly intact cerebellum. Since Chalmers does not know the medical evidence any better than he knows the photographic, he precluded drawing inferences about those who were involved in the cover-up and the crime itself.

The mafia, for example, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to falsify X-rays that were under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, agents of the Secret Service, or the president’s personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted another brain for that of JFK. And the KGB, which may have had an ability to fabricate films comparable to that of the CIA and of Hollywood, would have had no opportunity to gain access to the original Zapruder film. Once we know the breadth and depth of the cover-up, which was implemented in great detail to effect mutually-reinforcing forms of deception, we begin to appreciate that those who had the motive, the means and the opportunity to bring them about were at the highest levels of our own government, as James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), explains.

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

blasts2.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Kathy,

Thanks for catching the name. I reviewed a book by a fellow named

Chalmers a long time ago and it just stuck! I think what you relate

here is a nice example of trying to excuse letting the cat out of the

bag. Noel reported what Roderick told him. I recall having talked

with him about it. The new work of the Hollywood experts has also

confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head was painted

over in black. Anyone who wants to catch-up on the state of play

regarding the film should read my summary of Doug Horn's work

which I have published here: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

The faking of the film is settled. Just compare the blowout as seen

in frame 374 with the blowout NOT SEEN in frames 314-316. QED

Jim

Dr. Fetzer,

I believe the man's name is Chambers.

Anyway, Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne:

"I had dinner with Rod, Richard Trask and Chuck Bard. Part of our

conversation centered on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and Rod’s

comments published by Twyman.

Rod mentioned that he was quite uncomfortable with Twyman’s reporting,

but that when presented with black and white prints of selected scenes he

reported what he believed he saw. He acknowledged it would be very

difficult to alter the film at that time.

At lunch break of the sub group had an opportunity to view the original

Zapruder 8mm film. This was my fourth “hands-on” viewing and Rod’s

first. We both carefully examined the film including microscopically. I

challenged Rod to identify any evidence of alteration. Essentially he

accepted that the film appeared authentic and that he would not challenge

NARA’s position that it was."

Pg.14, The Zavada response

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

He also brought it up again at the Lancer conference this last week.

Kathy

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

blasts2.jpg

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

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

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

blasts2.jpg

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chambers talked about this issue, that is the directionality, as did Sherry Fiester at Lancer.

They mentioned the issue of cavitation, that is the skull break up due to a pressure build up. This phenomenon would not betray where the shot came from.

Both Kathy and Jim quote participants from last weekend's Lancer confernce.

Can we get a report on what happened there?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

This tells me you have never read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which features color copies of frame 374 quite prominently in the color-photo section. You should have no trouble seeing those, where I am just the least bit astonished that you claim to be unable to see them in this presentation.

It is not a DARK AREA but a BLUISH-GRAY AREA where his brains are actually exposed. In addition, the pink shape beside it is the blown out flap described by Tom Robinson, which you have ofter mentioned in your own work. Something is very wrong. You see black, when you should be seeing blue-gray.

Go to http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf Go to page 360. Zoom in to see better. Then go to page 359. Compare the shape of the blow-out seen with "Area P" of Mantik's analysis. It should be obvious that they have a similar shape. Use the ear bone to correlate. Repeat as needed.

The drawing on page 359/top has long been attributed to Dr. McClelland. See, for example, Tink on page 107, who offers it as "a pictorial representation of the President Kennedy's head wound as described by Dr. Robert McClelland of Parkland Hospital". Give me the Horne reference to check. Whether or not it derived from this source, it's know by that name.

It take it that everyone knows the Ida Dox drawing is a fraudulent misrepresentation, since JFK had his brains blown out the back his head, from which cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding. See, for example, the summary on page 360/bottom. No one I know believes there was an entry wound there except for the revised testimony of Humes and Boswell before the HSCA. Do you agree with them? Do you think the photograph is genuine?

Jim

This article is archived here with active links, photos and film clips:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-head-shot-paradox.html

The JFK “Head Shot” Paradox*

by Jim Fetzer

Recently by Jim Fetzer: The Place of Probability in Science

As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chalmers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion—that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front (“the grassy knoll”)—which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.

. . .

It not only troubles me profoundly that Chalmers violates a basic principle of scientific reasoning and that evidence internal to the extant film refutes his presumption that the film is authentic but that Jefferson Morley endorses the book with the following claim: “He dismantles the bad science at the core of Vincent Bugliosi’s flabby Reclaiming History [2007] and politely punts the fantasy that the Zapruder film was altered.” While I agree that Bugliosi’s work is indefensible, to the best of my knowledge, Morley has never studied the film and is not in a position to know whether it is authentic or not. This is not the first time Morley has proven to be unequal to the demands of serious research about the assassination of one of the Kennedys. Science, as we have seen, can enable us to sort out authentic from inauthentic evidence, but we have to think things through and not let ourselves be misled by pseudo-science masquerading as genuine in the search for truth.

* Thanks to David W. Mantik, John Costella, and Morgan Reynolds for their feedback.

Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.

A couple of quick comments.

1) You inaccurately attribute your belief the x-rays have been altered to hide a blow-out in the back of the head to Dr. Mantik. In his most recent comments he acknowledged that the white patch on the x-rays does not overlay the area on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment was dislodged. He also claimed that it does not conceal missing bone, but missing brain. If researchers (not just yourself but Doug Horne, Jim Douglass, and others) are gonna cite Mantik as an expert supporting there was a blow-out to the back of the head, they should present his conclusions accurately, correct? If so, you should acknowledge that Mantik believes brain is missing from the back of the head, but thinks (strangely, in my opinion) that the x-rays fail to reveal missing bone.

2) Your assertion that the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 suggests a shot from behind...is not as true as most (including until recently myself) believe. As shown in the following slide, blood spatter experts have confirmed that the explosion of blood and matter from a skull is not an indication of bullet direction. As a result, frame 313 could very well suggest the knoll shot so many suspect... (Keep in mind I write this even though I no longer suspect such a shot.)

blasts2.jpg

Pat,

David Mantik is preparing a detailed response to your claims, which we await with

great interest. Since we can actually SEE the blow-out to the back of the head

in frame 374 and can actually SEE that it corresponds to what he calls "Area P"

in his study of the lateral cranial X-ray, which also obviously does NOT show

it, how can you persist with allegations that it was NOT patched over? Take a

look at http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf where I have presented them

nearly side-by-side. I have made this point repeatedly and you have never, to

my knowledge, acknowledged it. Yet it blows your claim right out of the water!

The point of my piece was to observe the paradox between the back-and-to-the

-left motion of his body and the brains bulging out to the right-front, which was

painted in, as Ryan observed, to created the impression of a shot from behind.

I have no idea why you contest it, since that was the reason for this fabrication.

Jim

I don't see a blow-out in frame 374. I see a dark area at the back of the head. Probably shadow. Now I can't say for sure that this shadow is on the up and up, in that, if a series of actual experts were to look at the film and conclude this area had been painted in, I might believe them.

But I just don't see a hole in that image in your article.

FWIW, while looking back through your article I noticed a few mistakes. On page 357, for example, you compare the wrong part of the skull in the black and white back of the head photo to the cowlick area in the Dox drawing. On page 359, for further example, you credit Dr. McClelland for the so-called McClelland drawing, when, as pointed out by Doug Horne in his book, he had nothing to do with it, and actually disputed its representation of the wounds.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

So you can judge whether the man is speaking the truth from his demeanor? I hate to say it, Jim, but that is not very plausible, especially when you have previously conceded that you have had no interest in the question of alteration. Have you studied John's introductory tutorial to the fabrication of the film? You can find it http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ Precisely how do you account for the five physical features that distinguish the original from the extant version? Do you also contest the violation in the chain of custody that occurred when the original was brought to the NIPC from Dallas on Saturday night and the extant version from Rochester on Sunday? Here is a summary of Doug's findings, http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml, where I would be interesting to have your rebuttals to these findings, not to mention the discovery by another group of Hollywood restoration experts that the back of the head wound had been painted over in black. And of course you can follow the routine for looking at the wound as it can be seen in frame 374. You can zoom in as I suggest or take a look at HOAX.

I thought Rollie Zavada was the most interesting speaker.

Not so much for what he said, which I thought was fine, but for his presence and demeanor.

Doug Horne has a problem now since people have seen Rollie. If you recall all the slurs Doug hurled at him, ending with a combination of him being a compulsive xxxx and CIA agent, Zavada does not come off anything like that at all.

He comes off about as evil and as dissembling as your Uncle Willie. Really, he is like Ozzie Nelson in that regard: simple, straightforward, unpretentious.

I asked him some questions in public and private, and he answered them simply and directly. And when he gave an answer that was not hundred per cent rock solid, he said why. THere was only one question that he did not answer and this is because I think he did not understand it completely.

I also talked to two members of Horne's Hollywood Group.

This was also interesting. As they do not buy into the charges of wholesale Z film alteration that say Lifton and Fetzer beleive in. They have two areas of concern: the blacked out back of the head and "the blob". The former they feel is patched in,the latter they think is embellished.

And that is it.

Interesting what Zavada said about the extensive optical effects that some claim about the film. He said:

1. These could not be done on 8mm film.

2. One would have to blow it up to at least 16 mm or preferably 35 mm.

3. The problem is on the way back down. He said that the pin registration on the B and H camera would be a dead giveaway. You simply could not compare that with what professional cameras have in order to prepare for optical effects.

Having gone to film school, I understood what "pin registration" meant. When the film passes through the film gate and is exposed to the light coming in the lens, the film has to be held steady and this is done by the mechanism which pulls the film through. Zavada said that this mechanism is simply not solid enough or steady enough in the B and Howell camera. Therefore, the positioning of the film would be different in these altered frames than in say the family scenes, which Zavada uses as a baseline. And this would be detectable to someone like him, although few others.

I am not sure about how definitive or all encompassing this is. I will explore it later to see how categorical it is. It does seem quite sensible though.

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

I'm getting the sick feeling in my stomach that you have never studied the reports of the physicians

from Parkland Hospital. Do you understand the location of the cerebellum? Do you understand what

it means when the physicians--uniformly, I might add, and in considerable number--describe the

wound at the back of the head from which cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding? Haven't

you ever read Gary Aguilar's article in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), which demonstrates the

consistency of the descriptions of the back of the head wound EXCEPT by Humes and Boswell? I

am sensing that the reason your position on these matters is so strange is that you missed all this.

Jim

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

This is very disappointing. Surely you can't pretend to know who is right about Zavada merely by hearing him speak. If what his gentle demeanor conceals is a massive misrepresentation of what we know about the film, do you still fault Doug for saying so? You obviously do not know the evidence in this case. I like these sentences (as far as they go):

I also talked to two members of Horne's Hollywood Group.

This was also interesting. As they do not buy into the charges of wholesale Z film alteration that say Lifton and Fetzer beleive in. They have two areas of concern: the blacked out back of the head and "the blob". The former they feel is patched in, the latter they think is embellished.

So, during this conversation, did you point out that the blow-out to the back of the head that was "patched" (by being painted over in black) can actually be seen in frame 374? Did you mention that the passengers are thrown forward instead of back in frames 314-316? Did you mention that Greer's head turns are twice as fast as humanly possible? These are all found in the film.

What you obviously do not understand is that they are only looking at the film and are therefore not detecting content problems, where, for example, many witnesses reported the limo had come to a halt; none reported the back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the film; and Secret Service agents who saw the limousine in Washington were nauseated at the brains strewn across the trunk.

If you are going to take stands on issues like this, then you have to know the evidence. Here's a simple test: How many proofs of fakery do I set forth in the Prologue to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? How many of them are internal to the film? how many require comparing witness reports to the content of the film? The problem is they don't know all of this yet--and neither do you!

These Hollywood experts have the excuse that they are new to the study of the assassination and are only looking at the film. You, by comparison, have been around a long time and can't use that excuse. Costella has explained that it is technically very well done. He has provided an introductory tutorial to the faking of the film. Why do I have the awful feeling that you haven't studied it, either?

I am sorry, Jim. You have too much prominence in the community to be this ignorant about aspects of the case that you don't know as well as you should. Humor me. Respond to the questions I have raised and then I will feel better about you. My concern is that too many others, who know even less about the film, are going to take your remarks about it as though you knew more than you do.

You act insulted when I make observations like this. I am not "smearing" you. I am pointing out that you are basing your opinions on only part of the evidence which you do not fully understand. You do not even seem to have read the chapters on the Zapruder film that appeared in books of 1998 and 2000 nor the many articles I have written about this issue. That is not a smear. That is the simple truth.

You know Jim, you are getting to be almost predictable in your use of rhetorical technique in order to smear any adversary, real or imagined.

Now, are you really going to plead that you did not know what I meant by my description of Zavada's presence and demeanor.

Well, you can I guess because you carefully left out the key sentence: what Horne describes him as. And how this is not borne out in reality. Why did you do that?

So you could unfairly slam me?

Why else.

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

Which version of the film did they use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Kathy,

That Roderick Ryan may have felt "uncomfortable" about Noel's citing him

is not surprising. Many experts have not wanted to become involved lest

they become subject to attacks from persons like some of those on this

forum. Moreover, Rollie's suggestion that "Rod" did not on that occasion

cite features that were indicative of forgery is obviously self-serving and

cannot be taken for granted. (1) Ryan may not even have said it, since it

contradicts his previous findings. And (2) even if he had said it, that would

not show that his previous findings were false. In fact, we know that they

are true. Read "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid",

if you haven't already, to see how we know the blob and spray were faked.

I am reading Zavada's response to Horne, where I accent this part thereof:

Zavada’s Open Letter Response to Doug Horne’s Chapter (14 May 26, 2010)

10. [HORNE] His expertise is very limited: he is a retired film chemist

who expended considerable effort to become self-taught in how the

Zapruder camera operated--but he was not, and is not, an expert in special

effects, and he did not conduct an investigation into image content in the

Zapruder film. (p1290)

You are well aware that my motion picture expertise extends well beyond

emulsion chemistry. You may not know that I have knowledge of film

dimensions and printer gates and movements; and also the tools needed

for in-camera and optical effects. FYI, you may wish to review my article

on the fundamental film dimensional technology requirements for

potentially using 16mm films for special effects production in “Challenges to

the Concept of Cancellation" SMPTE Journal, December 1981, Vol 90, pages

1173-1183.

You criticize that I did not conduct an image content evaluation of the

Zapruder film. However, it is not until your parenthetical addendum

comment (p1353) that you inform your readers that the omission was an

initial and specific contractual constraint in the work agreement developed

between Kodak and the ARRB. (Also confirmed in your interview on Black

OP Radio, 12/10/09.)

So Horne observes that Rollie Zavada did not undertaken an image-content

analysis of the film--which would have revealed additional evidence that

what we have today cannot possibly be the camera original--and he rebuts

that by saying that he wasn't asked to perform an image-content analysis?

Obviously, you cannot DEFEAT the observation that he didn't do an image-

content analysis by observing that, according to the terms of his contract,

HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO AN IMAGE-CONTENT ANALYSIS. But this

means that any reference to Zavada as supporting the authenticity of the

film should carry the caveat that, since he did not undertake an image-

content analysis, it remains entirely possible that proof of the fabrication

of the film might derive from that process, which we know is indeed the case.

As I have explained in my response to Jim DiEugenio, this confirms the point

that, merely by looking at the strip of celluloid, you cannot determine what

content anomalies may exist. What is even more troubling, therefore, is that

we know this new group of Hollywood experts confirmed that the blow-out to the

back of the head has been painted over in black. You can actually see what was

covered up by looking at frame 374, where you can see the blow-out; and that

the blob and the blood spray were painted in, as we know from the reasoning I

outline in the article I have just cited and as John Costella has verified in his

tutorial about the fabrication of the film. But, since these are features internal

to the film, how could someone of Zavada's status possibly have missed them?

Jim

Dr. Fetzer,

I believe the man's name is Chambers.

Anyway, Rollie Zavada talked about Rod Ryan in his response to Doug Horne:

"I had dinner with Rod, Richard Trask and Chuck Bard. Part of our

conversation centered on the authenticity of the Zapruder film and Rod’s

comments published by Twyman.

Rod mentioned that he was quite uncomfortable with Twyman’s reporting,

but that when presented with black and white prints of selected scenes he

reported what he believed he saw. He acknowledged it would be very

difficult to alter the film at that time.

At lunch break of the sub group had an opportunity to view the original

Zapruder 8mm film. This was my fourth “hands-on” viewing and Rod’s

first. We both carefully examined the film including microscopically. I

challenged Rod to identify any evidence of alteration. Essentially he

accepted that the film appeared authentic and that he would not challenge

NARA’s position that it was."

Pg.14, The Zavada response

http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

He also brought it up again at the Lancer conference this last week.

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

John,

Good question. They (the new group of film restoration experts) obtained the so-called "forensic version" from the National Archives and have created a 6k copy,which Lamson once criticized for being flimsy (assuming the 6k was the total number of pixels). When I visited her and viewed their version with Sydney Wilkinson, however, she explained to me that it is 6k on the horizontal dimension (as I recall), meaning it is overwhelmingly greater in its pixel density than Lamson assumed. The copy itself strikes me as an odd one for the National Archives to provide as "the forensic version", since it is very scratched and (I would say) rather dirty as a strip of celluloid. Mike Pincher, an attorney who co-authored an article about the film for ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), accompanied me for the viewing, and we have discussed this point more than once. Since there are far superior versions, such as (what I call) the "Costella Combined Cut" archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free, I infer that (i) they wanted a copy obtained from the National Archives and (ii) that the scratches and dirt don't adversely affect the studies they are undertaking. I am glad that they have already established the faking of the film by painting over the blow-out to the back of the head in black, but there are many other indications of fakery internal to the film, as I have explained in several previous posts.

Jim

From "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Concluding Reflections

There is much more, but the Addendum, “The Zapruder Film Goes to Hollywood,” pages 1352 to 1363, is of special interest, where highly qualified experts on film restoration viewed a digital version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives and found that the massive blow out at the back of the head had been painted over in black, which was a stunning confirmation of the observation of Roderick Ryan, reported in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), that the bulging out of brains -- called the “blob”—and the blood spray visible in frames 314 and thereafter had also been painted in, where Ryan would receive the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to cinematography, where his area of specialization was special effects.

As of this date, seven Hollywood film experts -- eight, if we include Ryan -- have agreed that the fakery used to cover up the blow out to the back of the head by painting it over in black was very primitive and highly amateurish, a finding that they have based upon a 6k version of the forensic copy of the Zapruder film obtained from the National Archives. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has verified these artifacts using the 4x5 slides created by MPI when it produced a digital version of the film -- which are archived at The 6th Floor Museum -- the inadequacies of which are explained in “Which Film is ‘the Zapruder Film’?,” by me and Scott Lederer, THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), page 31. The creation of this visual deception was an elaborate undertaking, but it contained the elements of its own refutation.

Which version of the film did they use?

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

John,

Good question. They (the new group of film restoration experts) obtained the so-called "forensic version" from the National Archives and have created a 6k copy,which Lamson once criticized for being flimsy (assuming the 6k was the total number of pixels). When I visited her and viewed their version with Sydney Wilkinson, however, she explained to me that it is 6k on the horizontal dimension (as I recall), meaning it is overwhelmingly greater in its pixel density than Lamson assumed. The copy itself strikes me as an odd one for the National Archives to provide as "the forensic version", since it is very scratched and (I would say) rather dirty as a strip of celluloid. Mike Pincher, an attorney who co-authored an article about the film for ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), accompanied me for the viewing, and we have discussed this point more than once. Since there are far superior versions, such as the "Costella Combined Cut" archived at http://assassinationscience.com and available to the public for free, I infer that (i) they wanted a copy obtained from the National Archives and (ii) that the scratches and dirt don't adversely affect the studies they are undertaking. I am glad that they have already established the faking of the film by painting over the blow-out to the back of the head in black, but there are many other indications of fakery internal to the film, as I have explained in several previous posts.

Jim

Uh Jim, you really should know what you are talking about before banging your keyboard.

YOUR exact words as posted on this forum: (my bolding)

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 which I correctly replied:

Wow! the scan is equal to the pixel count of a 160 dollar point and shoot digital camera. Color me impressed!

Can't transmit via the internet? How silly, I do it every day. Ask Dean Hagerman if he can get a 107 mb digital file via the internet?

Horne continues to unimpress.[/1]

I know EXACTLY what a 6k scan entails, digital imaging is my PROFESSION. Is it yours? In any case the ACTUAL z frame image area is far less than 6000 pixels wide. As I sgated then and now, this leaves an image area thats about the equal of a standard Point and Shoot digital camera. The question is why this august group use a 6k scan instead of something more accurate like a drum scan? Why stop at half way? And of course that was always the point, even if your ignorace of the subject matter made it impossible for you to understand.

Edited by Craig Lamson
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...