The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Craig Lamson]

Beyond funny! Oh sure I'm going to the archives for the original? Hahaha

How do you as a advertising 'professional' have the CV to even state such?

So sorry you don't. Others have viewed the other film independently, their description corroborates each other. PERIOD.

What you are saying is that the film that they witnessed had been faked? Things were added to it!?! That is ridiculous Craig. You are the one saying the "Original" could not be faked in such a manner yet the other was by adding more information, extra frames, things that don't exist on the reported 'original'...PLEASE. Things are getting sillier and sillier the longer you post. How did they do this Craig? Were special effects used to make these excised 'frames' appear?

Or is it more likely the extant film has been excised to remove frames? Remove frames from the ORIGINAL OTHER FILM.

Craig, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness.

Greg Burnham is a WITNESS.

Your talking to him, thus it is not hearsay. You have received DIRECT TESTIMONY.

Wanna try again spin doctor Lamson?

Have you no clue Lamson?

Maybe if you listened YOU might learn something in regards to Kennedy's murder and the evidence.

Why would you care though, unless this is a print assignment for a publication.

CATASTROPHIC FAIL

Ed

No Ed, it's HEARSAY. YOU claimed that Burnham viewed the other film. Shall we scroll back to that post???

"While I agree with Craig that the sources used need to be comparable, I have to respect the statements by Mr. Burnham regarding seeing the other film. That MUST be kept in mind when discussing 'this' Z film. To not do so is a disservice to Greg and the others whom have viewed it.

Where did Burnham see this film? When? With whom? You have any ANSWERS ED?

You don't KNOW they viewed a film Ed and that's the problem. No evidence of this film exists yet you "believe" Talk about silly! You can't prove if Burnham is telling the truth. The same for the rest of these VERY FEW PEOPLE who claim to have seen this film. Heck you can't even show us the point where the camera might have been placed. You can't show us ANYTHING...just EMPTY words and your "belief".

And this so called film is so explosive and yet is is shown to these people? You actually BELIEVE that happened? Can't wait to see you attempt to spin this nonsense. Sheesh. You wanna buy a bridge? ROFLMAO!

So show us the FILM Ed. It's really simple.

You have a very few people saying something but not a SINGLE one of then can offer any TANGIBLE proof this film exists.

You can't corroborate their words because you have NO FILM to back them up. You can't prove if they are telling the truth or not. All you have is BLIND TRUST!

That is NOT evidence.

Burnham nor the others offer direct ANYTHING. JUST EMPTY WORDS. And you say, heck just TRUST them. Right. [/sarcasm]

You claim to want to talk about evidence and you point us to empty words.

Talk about CATASTROPHIC FAIL...you just committed it Ed.

What a complete joke.

Show us the film....

Edited January 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Jim,

Why not take a look at the final version of the film I just supplied.

Then go ahead and tell me that you knew the original was shot at 48fps.

Then let me know the process by which you came to that conclusion.

Do you know what frame rates were available back in 63 via the US government?

Frame removal at what camera speeds?

Please don't bother me with ghost image explanations, I'm fully aware of what they are and where they belong.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/FD71E/GHOST_IMAGE.gif

chris

You think that frankenmovie looks normal?

[Daniel Gallup]

So Roderick Ryan is wrong and you are right? Ryan received the Academy Award for his contributions to cinematography in 2000. Why in the world do you think your opinion would outweigh his? Moreover, where did this "blob" come from

I never said anything about Ryan, except for what Zavada wrote. And I believe him. And I am not so full of myself that I think my opinion would change anything. I never asked that it would. I just knew when I posted that, you would go off.

I believe the "blob" is SHADOW, the same type of SHADOW I see on Jackie. As for the Hollywood 7, I haven't seen anything from them.

There is a difference between a limo stop, and a motorcade stop. Also with respect to Toni Foster, I believe somewhere on Lancer, I saw a close up, and her head seems to be turned, ie, she was not looking at the limo at the time of the "stop". I'll see if I can find it for you tomorrow.

Kathy, I first noticed Toni Foster's comments years ago in the 2000 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, which Dr. Fetzer reproduced in part. I also know the film you are making reference to. You are correct: it shows Toni jerking her head to the right. The problems with your analysis as I see it: although in the film where we see Toni look right, we don't know why she is doing so. The obvious reason to me is her own explantion: "the spray went behind him," which if so destroys the value of the extant film, which shows no ejecta exiting the back of Kennedy's head. She may be following the bloody spray. I believe Bill Miller told us at Lancer that Toni was some 30 ft from Kennedy when his head exploded. Mark of 30 ft and imagine a massive amount of blood and brains blown out the back of Kennedy's head. Would that draw your attention? Secondly, your argument suggests you know the time of the "stop," and that Toni's head is turned so that she couldn't see the stop. But that assumes that a "stop" (in quotes) existed, and Toni missed it. But when exactly, based on the Z-film, did such a "stop" occur? Such a time cannot be identified, so it is no use in claiming Toni's face was turned and she missed the "stop." The one thing that strikes me about Toni's testimony, and I have repeated this at Lancer and on this forum previously, as it has the quality of genuinenes to it, in that it does not appear that she had seen the extant film to color her memory. When Lifton interviewed some of those closest to the limo at the headshot, particularly the Newmans, they were adamant that the limo stopped, and they didn't care what the film showed(see pp. 344-5 in THZFH). This was in 1971, and is one of the most important parts of Lifton's essay Pig on a Leash.

Kathy, one cannot isolate the limo stop as something to be considered in an of itself. Removing the limo stop removes what happend during the stop, and at least one thing happened that has very strong corroborative evidence: that "the spray went behind him," to quote Foster. This alone would be reason to remove the stop, for it would be powerful evidence of a shot from the front, perhaps through the right temple. ITEK's study of the extant Z-film confirms no such ejecta exits the back of Kennedy's head. Now turn to the description of the wound in Dallas: an avulsive wound with bones sprung open in the back, a hole with bone and lots of brains missing. This testimony is completely inconsistent with the extant film, except in a few frames where careful observation does in fact reveal the Dallas wound (I think Z335 and Z370).

It is dangerous to take exception with those closest to the limo based on the assumed authenticity of the extant Z-film, at least in my opinion. Regards, Daniel

[Ed LeDoux]

Wrong Craig. But thanks for your opinions.

I pointed out the person whom you are having a discussion with is a witness to the other film.

Greg doesn't call himself such: "I am a researcher, first and foremost. I am not

a "witness" per se."

Thus when he says he saw it, it is not hearsay it is a statement of a direct witness. Break out a legal dictionary my friend.

This was another film which was viewed by others and they corroborated each other.

Why don't you read the threads on this forum. It will answer your questions directly. I would not want to spread "hearsay" by quoting stuff. :

"I saw the "other film" so I do not need yet "one more witness" to corroborate Z-film fakery. It is a fact. End of debate." ~ Greg Burnham

"I find it counter-intuitive to rely on the extant Zapruder film's "frame count" to make relative determinations that are, by definition, inaccurate due to the inauthenticity of the control source." ~ Greg Burnham

"To my knowledge, none have claimed to have seen "the Zapruder Film in its totality". Rather, the claim is that: "The Film I saw impeaches the authenticity of the Zapruder Film because it (the "other film") shows events that are absent from the extant Zapruder film." I have yet to meet anyone who claims that they saw the "un-edited version" of the Zapruder film. A decade ago, some might have referred to the "other film" in such a manner, but that too would be a misnomer." ~ Greg Burnham

"The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "Other Film" to begin with. Second, assuming that there is more than one "Other Film", -- those who claim that they saw "it" -- may have, in fact, all seen the same film...or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "Other Film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING film." ~ GB

In his own words! From Greg's mouth to your ears Lamson:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2011/04/gov-ventura-greg-burnham.html

A Quote

Of the five persons I know who have viewed the other film, ALL:

1. Had not seen the Zapruder film at the time they saw the OTHER film

2. Had no reason to know that they were not looking at the Z film.

3. Only years later when seeing the extant film did they realize IT was different.

4. Saw the limousine turn the corner.

5. Saw the limousine come to a stop before the head shot.

All of the people saw the film at different times and places.

None of them was aware of the others, but described the same film.

One of them saw it on two different occasions.

One of them saw it on several occasions; it was shown to him by a retired French

intelligence agent. He is a respected French journalist. He attempted to buy the

film, but the man feared for his life, since he was not supposed to have the copy.

All of these people are honest, reputable people. Why suggest they are lying? ~JW

More "HEARSAY":

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film

So Mr. Lamson can you prove the Zapruder film is an unedited original? Prove it.

Can you show Beverly Oliver's (Babushka Lady) film?

How do you know it does not exist? OH YEAH BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT. Is that not your excuse for everything. We know the babushka lady was filming right? Its in the "Zapruder" film which you claim genuine untouched original so it must exist...right.

Did Marilyn Sitzman own a film camera? Prove she didn't.

Why don't you post the "reenactment" film Gary Mack thinks Greg saw.

Better yet go advertise something and leave research to those with the ability to actually proffer.

Nice try but when Greg said he had seen the film it was then not hearsay to me. It was a direct statement.

Show me a nuclear warhead with you touching it Craig. You can't. Does that mean nukes are to be only accepted as FAITH? What BS are you trying to pull here? Your so full of it your eyes must be brown. State secrets do exist, Or are you naive enough to assume they don't.

Greg is a first hand witness, Rich and William Reymond are first hand witnesses, Milicent is too, etc etc etc GET IT. Just because your sorry butt was making coffee for an ad exec doesn't mean the film doesn't exist. Quite the contrary buddy boy. I suggest you ask them as you will only claim anything I say, even directly quoting, as hearsay. Your whole career is second hand gossip to me since I have never seen you do any work. But hey why let a little thing like eye witness testimony get you all hot and bothered. Prove you are Craig Lamson, prove YOU exist.

When your through with that maybe you'll be REAL enough to talk with those whom have seen The Other Film.

Lamson's research extraordinaire has produced another PENULTIMATE FAIL

Thanks for the fun,

Ed

PS the extant Zapruder film IS the frankenfilm.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, to the best of my knowledge, none of those films had the "ghost panel" problem, where the Nix and Muchmore were the ones that needed to be redone to not contradict the Zapruder. Tink has observed that the films collectively are in close correspondence, so if we know there are problems with the Zapruder, then we know that the Nix and Muchmore have been revised to conform to it.

The only adjustments that had to be made were with regard to overlap in relation to the events that were changed to produce the new Zapruder. But some of those photos have been altered. Altgens could not recall having taken the limo with Clint Hill on the back step, for example, which has to have been faked to conceal the actions that he took at the time, as he himself has reported.

Are we to suppose you think there could have been at least sixteen (16) witnesses who reported a limo stop WHEN THERE WAS NO LIMO STOP? Is that something you would have done? Do you know ANYONE who would report a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever) if there had NOT BEEN a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever)? And they included the motorcycle escort officers.

Rereading this, I take it you do not understand that we are talking about RESHOOTING IN A LAB--IN PARTICULAR, THE LAB AT KODAK IN ROCHESTER. I can't believe you would suggest PHYSICAL REENACTMENTS OF SOME KIND. That is so absurd that no one has ever suggested anything like that--apart from the actual reenactments for the Warren Commission. That is bizarre.

Tell me, Jim.

Did "they" also reshoot what needed to be shot in Muchmore, Nix, Bronson, Dorman, Paschall, Bell, Martin, Hughes, Moorman, Croft, Betzner, Willis and Altgens, all at the same location, on the same day(s)in order that all of the images would be in sync with each other?

Edited January 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Chris,

I am not sure which clip you want me to view. I have taken a look at

several of them. We considered that it might have been shot at 48fps,

but you have to realize that simple frame removal was not sufficient

to produce what we have. It was done by combining a new foreground

with a new background--adding some events while subtracting others.

The virtually motionless spectators on the north side of Elm Street, for

example, appear to have been taken from an earlier filming when the

president and Jackie were not there. Think about it. They had waited

for them to pass by. Everywhere else there is waving and cheering. It

is inconceivable that they would have been so passive when he arrived.

And Jean and Mary were interacting on the grass. If you read what they

have written and said about their actions at the time, both reported that

they had stepped off the curb and into the street, Jean to call out to the

president to get his attention, Mary to take his photograph. But in the

film they are like two "frozen turkeys", in the words of John Costella.

Let me know what you would like me to watch and I'll take a look at it.

I think that Daniel Gallup and Ed LeDoux are making excellent points,

and I also believe that you have a serious interest in these questions.

That you knew the problem with the ghost panels is great, because I

think most of those posting about this don't understand them at all.

Jim

Jim,

Why not take a look at the final version of the film I just supplied.

Then go ahead and tell me that you knew the original was shot at 48fps.

Then let me know the process by which you came to that conclusion.

Do you know what frame rates were available back in 63 via the US government?

Frame removal at what camera speeds?

Please don't bother me with ghost image explanations, I'm fully aware of what they are and where they belong.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/FD71E/GHOST_IMAGE.gif

chris

Edited January 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Wrong Craig. But thanks for your opinions.

Oh Ed, Is it wonder why most thinking people consider CT's to be crackpots.

I pointed out the person whom you are having a discussion with is a witness to the other film.

Lets review your exact quote again. The truth is your friend Ed...

"While I agree with Craig that the sources used need to be comparable, I have to respect the statements by Mr. Burnham regarding seeing the other film. That MUST be kept in mind when discussing 'this' Z film. To not do so is a disservice to Greg and the others whom have viewed it.

Greg doesn't call himself such: "I am a researcher, first and foremost. I am not

a "witness" per se."

Thus when he says he saw it, it is not hearsay it is a statement of a direct witness. Break out a legal dictionary my friend.

This was another film which was viewed by others and they corroborated each other.

No, when YOU say he saw it and it must be true. You can't prove a thing and yet you tell us we MUST believe it. I refer you to my opening statement in this post.

Corroborated? Are you kidding? How many were together when they CLAIM to have viewed this so called film? Not a single one of these people KNOWS what the other claims to have saw. And neither do you. Or are you going to show us the film? Again refer to my opening statement in this post.

Why don't you read the threads on this forum. It will answer your questions directly. I would not want to spread "hearsay" by quoting stuff. :

The problem is ED, there are not "direct answers" and you know it. Just MORE EMPTY WORDS, BACKED BY ZERO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.

SHOW US THE FILM ED.

I love this one ED, where Burnham destroys you completely. Corroborated? RONFLMAO! What great "direct testimony"

"The title: "Other Film" is, first of all, a mis-nomer. There is no way of knowing, with certainty, that there is ONLY one "Other Film" to begin with. Second, assuming that there is more than one "Other Film", -- those who claim that they saw "it" -- may have, in fact, all seen the same film...or not. Some may have seen another film. Again, there is no way of knowing.

However, in general terms, the "Other Film" is not a hoax. It was a TRAINING film." ~ GB

And Burnham himself destroys your next bit of dreck...

A Quote

Of the five persons I know who have viewed the other film, ALL:

1. Had not seen the Zapruder film at the time they saw the OTHER film

2. Had no reason to know that they were not looking at the Z film.

3. Only years later when seeing the extant film did they realize IT was different.

4. Saw the limousine turn the corner.

5. Saw the limousine come to a stop before the head shot.

All of the people saw the film at different times and places.

None of them was aware of the others, but described the same film.

One of them saw it on two different occasions.

One of them saw it on several occasions; it was shown to him by a retired French

intelligence agent. He is a respected French journalist. He attempted to buy the

film, but the man feared for his life, since he was not supposed to have the copy.

All of these people are honest, reputable people. Why suggest they are lying? ~JW

A

More "HEARSAY":

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film

Is he WRONG????

So Mr. Lamson can you prove the Zapruder film is an unedited original? Prove it.

Don't need to PROVE anything other than the attempts to prove the film is faked based on photographic issues are are wrong. And I've done that may times over. There is a reason I work on things that can be proven empirically and dismiss that which is said to be "proven" ( but can not be) by testimony. As your reply so aptly shows relying on testimony is a fools errand.

So why don't you show us the other film(s) ED?

Can you show Beverly Oliver's (Babushka Lady) film?

How do you know it does not exist? OH YEAH BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT. Is that not your excuse for everything. We know the babushka lady was filming right? Its in the "Zapruder" film which you claim genuine untouched original so it must exist...right.

What a great display of "logic" there ED. You don't know if she was filming or not ED. You don't know if she was that that the camera was working properly. You know know if she was filming that the film was properly exposed or developed. Nor do I. Lacking a actual film to view no one will ever KNOW. And of course YOU know that. Oh wait I forget Ed likes to believe in fairy tales. Forgive me.

Did Marilyn Sitzman own a film camera? Prove she didn't.

Why?

Why don't you post the "reenactment" film Gary Mack thinks Greg saw.

Because I'm not the one 'thinking' that. Ask Mack.

Better yet go advertise something and leave research to those with the ability to actually proffer.

What like more of the fantasy you have jut posted? Right. [/sarcasm}

Nice try but when Greg said he had seen the film it was then not hearsay to me. It was a direct statement.

You stating it was true ..to me...is HEARSAY ED.

Show me a nuclear warhead with you touching it Craig. You can't. Does that mean nukes are to be only accepted as FAITH?

No Ed, we have actual and tangible EVIDENCE that prove they exist. Unlike the other film that "exists" only as empty words.

What BS are you trying to pull here? Your so full of it your eyes must be brown. State secrets do exist, Or are you naive enough to assume they don't.

No Ed the one that is full of it is you. SHOW US this OTHER FILM ED!

Oh wait, you can't. I refer you to my opening statement in this thread.

Greg is a first hand witness, Rich and William Reymond are first hand witnesses, Milicent is too, etc etc etc GET IT. Just because your sorry butt was making coffee for an ad exec doesn't mean the film doesn't exist. Quite the contrary buddy boy. I suggest you ask them as you will only claim anything I say, even directly quoting, as hearsay. Your whole career is second hand gossip to me since I have never seen you do any work. But hey why let a little thing like eye witness testimony get you all hot and bothered. Prove you are Craig Lamson, prove YOU exist.

You are welcome to attend the next time I'm on a project and observe me working. You can view any of the many examples of prior shoots. You can view my state issued credentials, all of which are TANGIBLE evidence of my work and existence. You can then choose to believe or not. Unlike the so called "other film(s)" which exists only in EMPTY WORDS and no actual tangible evidence.

Your logic is so childish.

Show us the film(s) Ed.

When your through with that maybe you'll be REAL enough to talk with those whom have seen The Other Film.

Lamson's research extraordinaire has produced another PENULTIMATE FAIL

No Ed's 'research" is an epic fail. Lots of empty words but not even a single frame from this so called "other film(s)". Ed's fantasy lives. I refer you to my opening statement in this post.

Thanks for the fun,

Ed

Enjoy your fantasy Ed, you deserve it.

PS the extant Zapruder film IS the frankenfilm.

roflmao

Edited January 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Rereading this, I take it you do not understand that we are talking about RESHOOTING IN A LAB--IN PARTICULAR, THE LAB AT KODAK IN ROCHESTER. I can't believe you would suggest PHYSICAL REENACTMENTS OF SOME KIND. That is so absurd that no one has ever suggested anything like that--apart from the actual reenactments for the Warren Commission. That is bizarre.

DO you even read your own books Jim? Your vaunted Costella and White tell us they shot a GUIDE FILM (not the actual Zapruder film)to use as a base for this so called 'ztoon".

My oh my Jim...

Edited January 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

I invite Craig Lamson to post frames Z-302 and Z-303 from ANY SOURCE of his choosing. Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. Perhaps he can show us how the images in the frames that he posts do not demonstrate the SAME extreme disparity of blur that we see in the Costella frames.

Perhaps he will just go away or FAIL.

Lets show YOUR utter fail Burnham.

This is not about the disparity of the blur, it is about Fetzer's claim that the limo is STOPPED in 303 and that the background is sharp. Try and get with program, if you have have ability.

Adjacent frames can have HUGE disparity in bluring and not be at all suspect. Overpanning for example can produce larger blurs that a sustained pan.

Lets be consistent and use the Costella frames...303

Clearly the limo is not stopped as the highlights on the roll bar show blur...

And clearly the background is not sharp as the blur on Moorman's legs shows...

Another EPIC Burnham fail.

Craig,

Perhaps you'd be willing to post both 302 and 303 FULL FRAME, instead of cropped, from any source of your choosing. Post them one above the other. I would like to see a comparison of the blur in 302 with the non-blur of 303. To do this, I need to be able to see the background. For instance, Toni Foster is very blurred in 302 but not in 303. Thanks--

[Craig Lamson]

I invite Craig Lamson to post frames Z-302 and Z-303 from ANY SOURCE of his choosing. Perhaps he can then demonstrate the inferiority of the Costella frames. Perhaps he can show us how the images in the frames that he posts do not demonstrate the SAME extreme disparity of blur that we see in the Costella frames.

Perhaps he will just go away or FAIL.

Lets show YOUR utter fail Burnham.

This is not about the disparity of the blur, it is about Fetzer's claim that the limo is STOPPED in 303 and that the background is sharp. Try and get with program, if you have have ability.

Adjacent frames can have HUGE disparity in bluring and not be at all suspect. Overpanning for example can produce larger blurs that a sustained pan.

Lets be consistent and use the Costella frames...303

Clearly the limo is not stopped as the highlights on the roll bar show blur...

And clearly the background is not sharp as the blur on Moorman's legs shows...

Another EPIC Burnham fail.

Craig,

Perhaps you'd be willing to post both 302 and 303 FULL FRAME, instead of cropped, from any source of your choosing. Post them one above the other. I would like to see a comparison of the blur in 302 with the non-blur of 303. To do this, I need to be able to see the background. For instance, Toni Foster is very blurred in 302 but not in 303. Thanks--

They are posted upthread, using same source material as I used, the Costella edit, for consistency.

You even commented on these FULL FRAME examples.

"Jim,

Thanks for posting 302 and 303. They illustrate a most important point. Not only did the limo come to a complete stop, but if it had been traveling at about 11 miles an hour, either Greer was braking extremely hard in order for it to complete the stop in 1/18 of a second OR it had already dramatically reduced speed prior to the kill zone... or both."

So if you have a point to make, then make it...yourself.

Another epic Burnham fail.

[Greg Burnham]

Craig,

I believe you have just proved my point. If you are now claiming that Costella's frames are adequate to the task, why did you criticize them?

As I said: Post FULL FRAME images of 302 and 303 together from a source of your own choosing and show us that there is no difference in BLUR between the frames. If you are claiming that the blur differential is caused by Costell'a "distortion" of the film, prove it.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

I believe you have just proved my point. If you are now claiming that Costella's frames are adequate to the task, why did you criticize them?

As I said: Post FULL FRAME images of 302 and 303 together from a source of your own choosing and show us that there is no difference in BLUR between the frames. If you are claiming that the blur differential is caused by Costell'a "distortion" of the film, prove it.

Boy you sure have a problem with reading and compression don't you Burnham.

I said the Costella frames were altered and made from inferior originals...

Post 114: "BTW, you are going to need to show us a frame that has NOT been heavy altered like the Costella frame you just posted."

Post 129: "Of COURSE he altered and distorted the film. If you don't understand even this most basic of matters, you are not qualified to discuss any of this.

The Costella version is taken from poor source material and then interpolated and adjusted. To say it is not a distorted version of the original is simply untrue."

In addition I also presented a graphic that shows just how much image detail the Costella frames lose. This is the result of using inferior source material. Yet another epic Burnham fail.

Post 142:

The frames from the source of my choosing were already posted since I decided to be CONSISTENT with the original claim of Fetzer about 302 and 303. The frames are posted upthread.

Clearly I NEVER claimed the blur differential between frames was caused by the Costella frames. I simply showed that the claims that the limo was standing still and the background in 303 was sharp was false. That is also reflected directly upthread. (post 141)

I also clearly stated that differences in blurring between frames does not mean frames are altered.

Post 141: "This is not about the disparity of the blur, it is about Fetzer's claim that the limo is STOPPED in 303 and that the background is sharp. Try and get with program, if you have have ability."

Adjacent frames can have HUGE disparity in bluring and not be at all suspect. Overpanning for example can produce larger blurs that a sustained pan.

Your failures in this regard have reached epic proportions.

Now if you think the blur disparity is somehow suspect...MAKE YOUR CASE.

Or leave....

Edited January 9, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Patrick Block]

Martin Hay has stated he would be interested in hearing my opinions on whether or not the Zapruder Film has been altered, and he has pointed me to this thread. I am new to the boards, and I think I should introduce myself as far as my "credentials" go for discussion on matters relating to old fashioned physical film.

I've mostly been involved with drawing and writing the "classic" Disney characters for the past 20 years. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and their family members and antagonists. I work in pencil, pen and paint, all of it the non-computer, old school way.

I have collected animation/comic art for almost 30 years. I've owned background art, cels, drawings, multiplane setups from the whole history of traditional animation, from Gertie the Dinosaur up to The Little Mermaid. I've worked to restore some of the early Snow White material. I am intimately familiar with paint on celluloid.

I love movies, and early in my teens, I was torn between becoming a movie director or comic artist.

The illustrator in me eventually won out, but in my teens, and in college, I was constructing super 8 films with friends, editing them on my own equipment. In college, I got my hands on 16 mm equipment by taking film classes. I took film history classes, made short films and belonged to the college film program while also staffing the college newspaper as the official cartoonist.

In school I tested extremely highly in abstract reasoning and mechanical comprehension. I've always had the ability...the passion, really, for visualizing any three dimensional constructions in my head. This ability extends to written plans- I'm great with directions for putting that complicated toy together that frustrates everyone else. I have the knack for intuitively understanding what something on paper looks like when built. I have extremely good focus.

Most important to this thread, because of my long interest in the Kennedy Assassination, and my working in the industry that I do, I was offered the opportunity nearly two years ago to view the exposure-neutral HD scan of the individual frames of the 35mm dupe negative created from the forensic copy of the Zapruder Film from the National Archives and Records Administration.

I've compared frames from this new digital copy to frames from the Costella Edit, and also to the MPI Frames. Both of these older copies are inferior in that they apparently have been modified to make them more visually attractive and the details have been considerably muddied- they are much less crisp than in this new digital scan. I am frankly still amazed at the difference in visible detail, and I am quite surprised no other private researcher has not broken down and spent the money to have this done before in order to acquire the very best possible copy.

It should be pointed out that I am not one the "Hollywood Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book. I am just an independent party who happens to love film and work for Disney who lucked into this opportunity as a casual researcher.

I spent many hours looking at the pertinent frames around 310-340 and after a lot of thought about it, I got permission from the owner of this splendid copy of the Zapruder Film to show frames from it in a casual setting to a friend of mine. This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party.

His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America.

He could see for himself that this jet black patch on the rear of the President's head still had straight edges. This artifact is present in the image that David Josephs has posted right here on this thread...it's just better defined, clearer and more obvious in the more recent neutrally scanned copy.

I don't expect anyone here on the boards to take my word on something they haven't seen with their own eyes, but the image posted here on this board ought to be enough for you to remain open minded on the subject until the new and clearer images are published.

Look at the image of 317. Look at Connally's head. Look at JFK in 312, before he is hit, and consider the fact that as he topples over to his left, into Jackie, that the entire right side of his face and head are falling into the light...not into shadow the way Jackie is, she is bent face down to the right and entirely in shadow. His entire head ought to be getting LIGHTER, not turn jet black inside of a geometric shape.

By all logic, more sunlight is hitting this blacked out area than before when the President was sitting upright. The image makes no sense at all...the "edges" are profound.

I've studied these new frames very closely. The "black patch" appears out of the blue, NOT on frame 313 or 314 as one would think it would, but in frame 315. Find a decent copy of the film and compare frames 314 and 315. The blackness simply appears magically in 315, it's extremely obvious in the new digital film. It doesn't take much imagination to know what you are looking at. It is artwork,-"painted effects", as my friend put it.

This following is strictly my opinion, my observations of these frames outside the context of the assassination itself.

It looks to me as if the painting in of the back of JFK's head starts at 315 and continues through most of the clearer fames that follow. Of those frames, there is an additional pass by a more artistic talent who blurs the edges of these blacked out areas so that they more closely blend in with the President's hair EXCEPT for frame 317. Frame 317 was neglected by the special effects man, and we are left with a strictly artificial, geometric edge all around this blacked out section. You are looking at the raw black patch, unretouched. It is obvious, and you dont have to be a film technician or artist to see it in the MPI film, though, it is much sharper in Wilkerson's new digitial scan, which isn't altered to be pleasingly colored. In other words, other copies of the Zapruder film available to researchers today have been altered to make them more "artistically pleasing" for an audience. This effectively muddys details.

The frame I handled of 317 was huge in information content. 72.9 MB of content in the single frame by itself.

The only explanations I have for the lack of polish on frame 317 is that it was accidentaly skipped over by the technicians working on the film, or, it was intentionally left in by someone who didn't care for the activity they were engage in, and wanted it discovered.

The way the frames were constructed this way- a pass to add black patches where there was a big hole in JFK's head, and then, a second pass to fuzzy up straight and unnatural edges, suggests a team of film professionals working in an assembly line sort of fashion. Probably the lesser technician blackened in the frames, and a more talented hand did the final finish work.

Earlier in this thread, respected author and long time researcher Josiah Thompson, (his book was the third I ever read on the assassination), describes a recent visiting of the 6th floor museum and examining the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies. These images certainly ought to come close or even surpass the clarity of these new digital frames. They ought to be a generation closer to the original film. If the "black edges" on frame 317 are not present in these images at the Sixth Floor Museum, a close comparison of the two pieces of evidence should certainly be possible in the future.

If the MPI transparencies and the forensic copy of the film do not match exactly, it is evidence of additional alteration having taken place.

Which frankly, wouldn't surprise me in the least, since the visual evidence in the case throughout the years has proven tamper-prone, starting with the 26 volumes blatant switching around of Zapruder frames to make the President appear to fall forward.

I mean, how many times can brains be lost, autopsy reports go missing? How can sizable occipital bone from the back of the President's head evaporate into thin air? Tissue slides be vaporized? Just where does a mauser with a variable scope attached to it disappear to?

In the course of this case, President Kennedy's rear entrance bullet wound to his skull traveled some four inches over the course of a few years, according to the official investigations that followed the death of the President.

Oswald managed shots at a moving target under a specific, narrow time frame that the FBI and the America's very best riflemen could not duplicate on a still target with bench rests and all the time in the world for their first shot, using the exact same rifle with a scope that was adjusted by shimming to make it more accurate than when Oswald used it.

Is evidence of a black patch on the rear of President Kennedy's head extant in Zapruder REALLY that hard to believe in, when it's visible to your own eyes?

I suspect that the difficulties that long time researchers have with even contemplating this scenario is mostly psychological. We've studied these images for so long, and have come to base so many conclusions on them, that we have come to trust them like one trusts John Wayne in the movies.

The covered up hole on 317 is just as much movie magic as the characters Mr. Wayne played. It's not the actual state of the back of the President's head.

I don't need more evidence than these blacked out frames to come to a conclusion about this film. They stand there as evidence themselves, and are what they are. The more you know about film, the more likely you will recognize these images for what they are- but you don't have to be an expert to see it.

And it's more blatant in the crisper digital frames, which surely will be published eventually.

Further proof, that rather resoundingly buttresses the evidence of alteration are all the witnesses who saw the orange sized exit wound on the back of the President's head. Scores of witnesses saw it....most of them medical professionals.

For a number of years the HSCA tried to hide the truth about the Bethesda witnesses, fibbing right in their report that the withheld testimony disagreed with the Parkland doctors about the wounds.

The heads of the HSCA then sealed the records of these key witnesses until a point where a lot of us would be dead.

Lo and behold, when the ARRB opened these Christmas packages early, these Bethesda witnesses mention the hole existing as well....which means, beyond a reasonable doubt by anyone's standards anywhere, that the HSCA lied to the American people to hide the truth about the wounds on the rear of the President's skull.

Yet, here we are, in this thread, with the smoking gun of Zapruder alteration right in front of us, and many here argue that there is no black paint on the rear of the President's head.

The Emperor wears no clothes.

Long live the stealthy new kings, living in the wings of the Republic.

[David G. Healy]

Well, to the best of my knowledge, none of those films had the "ghost panel" problem, where the Nix and Muchmore were the ones that needed to be redone to not contradict the Zapruder. Tink has observed that the films collectively are in close correspondence, so if we know there are problems with the Zapruder, then we know that the Nix and Muchmore have been revised to conform to it.

The only adjustments that had to be made were with regard to overlap in relation to the events that were changed to produce the new Zapruder. But some of those photos have been altered. Altgens could not recall having taken the limo with Clint Hill on the back step, for example, which has to have been faked to conceal the actions that he took at the time, as he himself has reported.

Are we to suppose you think there could have been at least sixteen (16) witnesses who reported a limo stop WHEN THERE WAS NO LIMO STOP? Is that something you would have done? Do you know ANYONE who would report a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever) if there had NOT BEEN a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever)? And they included the motorcycle escort officers.

Rereading this, I take it you do not understand that we are talking about RESHOOTING IN A LAB--IN PARTICULAR, THE LAB AT KODAK IN ROCHESTER. I can't believe you would suggest PHYSICAL REENACTMENTS OF SOME KIND. That is so absurd that no one has ever suggested anything like that--apart from the actual reenactments for the Warren Commission. That is bizarre.

Tell me, Jim.

Did "they" also reshoot what needed to be shot in Muchmore, Nix, Bronson, Dorman, Paschall, Bell, Martin, Hughes, Moorman, Croft, Betzner, Willis and Altgens, all at the same location, on the same day(s)in order that all of the images would be in sync with each other?

No, Jim.

What is bizarre, is that you and other supporters of this wacky theory fail to understand, that if the Zapruder film is faked, then all of the known films, and photographs showing the same Geographical areas at the same time as the Zapruder film must also have been faked and altered accordingly in the same lab and at the same time for on site comparision purposes, in order to implement the alleged synchronization process, ie, Zapruder, Muchmore, Bronson and Nix.

It's simple logic, a logic which does not require having a PHD of any kind.

well now there something which may, just MAY, prove your photo research is worth something anyway (something which Bill Miller never did, although requested multiple times). Establish a baseline comparisons (side-by-side comparisons) of all Nov 22nd 1963 DP films... full frame comparisons (in motion), off of in-camera originals with declared lineage including signed affidavits. Dude, till then, you and Lammie are just other roving opinions, I could care less if you think your the second coming of Ansel Adams...O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S

The Zapruder film as we see it today is flawed. All the whining won't change that.

So SHOW US the film (in motion) comparisons!

Edited January 9, 2012 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

Martin Hay has stated he would be interested in hearing my opinions on whether or not the Zapruder Film has been altered, and he has pointed me to this thread. I am new to the boards, and I think I should introduce myself as far as my "credentials" go for discussion on matters relating to old fashioned physical film.

I've mostly been involved with drawing and writing the "classic" Disney characters for the past 20 years. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and their family members and antagonists. I work in pencil, pen and paint, all of it the non-computer, old school way.

I have collected animation/comic art for almost 30 years. I've owned background art, cels, drawings, multiplane setups from the whole history of traditional animation, from Gertie the Dinosaur up to The Little Mermaid. I've worked to restore some of the early Snow White material. I am intimately familiar with paint on celluloid.

I love movies, and early in my teens, I was torn between becoming a movie director or comic artist.

The illustrator in me eventually won out, but in my teens, and in college, I was constructing super 8 films with friends, editing them on my own equipment. In college, I got my hands on 16 mm equipment by taking film classes. I took film history classes, made short films and belonged to the college film program while also staffing the college newspaper as the official cartoonist.

In school I tested extremely highly in abstract reasoning and mechanical comprehension. I've always had the ability...the passion, really, for visualizing any three dimensional constructions in my head. This ability extends to written plans- I'm great with directions for putting that complicated toy together that frustrates everyone else. I have the knack for intuitively understanding what something on paper looks like when built. I have extremely good focus.

Most important to this thread, because of my long interest in the Kennedy Assassination, and my working in the industry that I do, I was offered the opportunity nearly two years ago to view the exposure-neutral HD scan of the individual frames of the 35mm dupe negative created from the forensic copy of the Zapruder Film from the National Archives and Records Administration.

I've compared frames from this new digital copy to frames from the Costella Edit, and also to the MPI Frames. Both of these older copies are inferior in that they apparently have been modified to make them more visually attractive and the details have been considerably muddied- they are much less crisp than in this new digital scan. I am frankly still amazed at the difference in visible detail, and I am quite surprised no other private researcher has not broken down and spent the money to have this done before in order to acquire the very best possible copy.

It should be pointed out that I am not one the "Hollywood Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book. I am just an independent party who happens to love film and work for Disney who lucked into this opportunity as a casual researcher.

I spent many hours looking at the pertinent frames around 310-340 and after a lot of thought about it, I got permission from the owner of this splendid copy of the Zapruder Film to show frames from it in a casual setting to a friend of mine. This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party.

His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America.

He could see for himself that this jet black patch on the rear of the President's head still had straight edges. This artifact is present in the image that David Josephs has posted right here on this thread...it's just better defined, clearer and more obvious in the more recent neutrally scanned copy.

I don't expect anyone here on the boards to take my word on something they haven't seen with their own eyes, but the image posted here on this board ought to be enough for you to remain open minded on the subject until the new and clearer images are published.

Look at the image of 317. Look at Connally's head. Look at JFK in 312, before he is hit, and consider the fact that as he topples over to his left, into Jackie, that the entire right side of his face and head are falling into the light...not into shadow the way Jackie is, she is bent face down to the right and entirely in shadow. His entire head ought to be getting LIGHTER, not turn jet black inside of a geometric shape.

By all logic, more sunlight is hitting this blacked out area than before when the President was sitting upright. The image makes no sense at all...the "edges" are profound.

I've studied these new frames very closely. The "black patch" appears out of the blue, NOT on frame 313 or 314 as one would think it would, but in frame 315. Find a decent copy of the film and compare frames 314 and 315. The blackness simply appears magically in 315, it's extremely obvious in the new digital film. It doesn't take much imagination to know what you are looking at. It is artwork,-"painted effects", as my friend put it.

This following is strictly my opinion, my observations of these frames outside the context of the assassination itself.

It looks to me as if the painting in of the back of JFK's head starts at 315 and continues through most of the clearer fames that follow. Of those frames, there is an additional pass by a more artistic talent who blurs the edges of these blacked out areas so that they more closely blend in with the President's hair EXCEPT for frame 317. Frame 317 was neglected by the special effects man, and we are left with a strictly artificial, geometric edge all around this blacked out section. You are looking at the raw black patch, unretouched. It is obvious, and you dont have to be a film technician or artist to see it in the MPI film, though, it is much sharper in Wilkerson's new digitial scan, which isn't altered to be pleasingly colored. In other words, other copies of the Zapruder film available to researchers today have been altered to make them more "artistically pleasing" for an audience. This effectively muddys details.

The frame I handled of 317 was huge in information content. 72.9 MB of content in the single frame by itself.

The only explanations I have for the lack of polish on frame 317 is that it was accidentaly skipped over by the technicians working on the film, or, it was intentionally left in by someone who didn't care for the activity they were engage in, and wanted it discovered.

The way the frames were constructed this way- a pass to add black patches where there was a big hole in JFK's head, and then, a second pass to fuzzy up straight and unnatural edges, suggests a team of film professionals working in an assembly line sort of fashion. Probably the lesser technician blackened in the frames, and a more talented hand did the final finish work.

Earlier in this thread, respected author and long time researcher Josiah Thompson, (his book was the third I ever read on the assassination), describes a recent visiting of the 6th floor museum and examining the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies. These images certainly ought to come close or even surpass the clarity of these new digital frames. They ought to be a generation closer to the original film. If the "black edges" on frame 317 are not present in these images at the Sixth Floor Museum, a close comparison of the two pieces of evidence should certainly be possible in the future.

If the MPI transparencies and the forensic copy of the film do not match exactly, it is evidence of additional alteration having taken place.

Which frankly, wouldn't surprise me in the least, since the visual evidence in the case throughout the years has proven tamper-prone, starting with the 26 volumes blatant switching around of Zapruder frames to make the President appear to fall forward.

I mean, how many times can brains be lost, autopsy reports go missing? How can sizable occipital bone from the back of the President's head evaporate into thin air? Tissue slides be vaporized? Just where does a mauser with a variable scope attached to it disappear to?

In the course of this case, President Kennedy's rear entrance bullet wound to his skull traveled some four inches over the course of a few years, according to the official investigations that followed the death of the President.

Oswald managed shots at a moving target under a specific, narrow time frame that the FBI and the America's very best riflemen could not duplicate on a still target with bench rests and all the time in the world for their first shot, using the exact same rifle with a scope that was adjusted by shimming to make it more accurate than when Oswald used it.

Is evidence of a black patch on the rear of President Kennedy's head extant in Zapruder REALLY that hard to believe in, when it's visible to your own eyes?

I suspect that the difficulties that long time researchers have with even contemplating this scenario is mostly psychological. We've studied these images for so long, and have come to base so many conclusions on them, that we have come to trust them like one trusts John Wayne in the movies.

The covered up hole on 317 is just as much movie magic as the characters Mr. Wayne played. It's not the actual state of the back of the President's head.

I don't need more evidence than these blacked out frames to come to a conclusion about this film. They stand there as evidence themselves, and are what they are. The more you know about film, the more likely you will recognize these images for what they are- but you don't have to be an expert to see it.

And it's more blatant in the crisper digital frames, which surely will be published eventually.

Further proof, that rather resoundingly buttresses the evidence of alteration are all the witnesses who saw the orange sized exit wound on the back of the President's head. Scores of witnesses saw it....most of them medical professionals.

For a number of years the HSCA tried to hide the truth about the Bethesda witnesses, fibbing right in their report that the withheld testimony disagreed with the Parkland doctors about the wounds.

The heads of the HSCA then sealed the records of these key witnesses until a point where a lot of us would be dead.

Lo and behold, when the ARRB opened these Christmas packages early, these Bethesda witnesses mention the hole existing as well....which means, beyond a reasonable doubt by anyone's standards anywhere, that the HSCA lied to the American people to hide the truth about the wounds on the rear of the President's skull.

Yet, here we are, in this thread, with the smoking gun of Zapruder alteration right in front of us, and many here argue that there is no black paint on the rear of the President's head.

The Emperor wears no clothes.

Long live the stealthy new kings, living in the wings of the Republic.

Patrick.... welcome to this forum.

Belief in the alleged Zapruder Film is an act of FAITH by lone nutters, WCR supporters and SBT adherents. It (the film) provides a comfort zone if you will... When it comes to the Z-film common sense goes out the window, in fact discussing Z-film alteration (ANY alteration) brings out self proclaimed photogs, even those that haven't picked up a camera for years.... don't let them get you down, when discussing image Kennedy related imagery topics insist on film-photo imagery lineage AND sources.... only way to keep the Z-film faithful in line...