The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Craig Lamson]

So, Craig Lamson has successfully hijacked yet another thread! BRAVO Craig!

Craig, I have a few questions for you. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer them DIRECTLY. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from AD HOMINEM attacks--direct or indirect--as the latter are COMPLETELY LOST on the moderation team!

1) Why is there no "turn onto Elm Street from Houston Street" seen in the extant Zapruder Film? [Zapruder told the Warren Commission that he filmed the turn. Where did it go--and why?]

2) Why is the SS-100-X "gliding" along on Elm Street, as though it is "sliding on ice" and not in contact with the asphalt? [this is not an interpretation--it is empirically observable]

3) Why is the Stemmon's Freeway sign at an angle consistent with it having been "painted in" -- IT IS FLAT -- rather than naturally occurring (angled consistent with the curve of Elm Street)?

4) Why is Zapruder's image obscured, as is Sitzman's, IN EVERY AVAILABLE FILM, PHOTOGRAPH, and even in every RECOLLECTION of the eyewitnesses? (Even Zapruder had difficulty finding HIMSELF in his WC testimony and only ASSUMED he must have been there)!

5) Why are there indications (in the physical elements of the motorcycles) of EXTREME braking and rapid acceleration (within the sprocket hole images) that are not evident in the film itself? (notice the compression of the front forks vs the rapid subsequent expansion when no such corresponding motion is seen elsewhere in the film)

6) How is it that Connally held on to his hat AFTER he had already been hit? (this has been established elsewhere. If you are unaware--do some research).

7) Why isn't there blur in the stationary objects if the limo, which was not blurred, was indeed moving within the same frame?

8) How is it that Greer was capable of the impossible "head turns" that we see?

9) Why was the Stemmon's Freeway sign REMOVED post haste forever from the scene of the crime?

10) Why did "officials" illegally confiscate all photographic/film evidence under the "color of authority" that day?

11) Why isn't Chaney's motoring to the lead car seen in the Zapruder film?

12) Why is Clint Hill's recollection of the events at odds with what we see in the Zapruder film?

13) Why do more than a dozen witnesses say the limo STOPPED when the film shows no such thing?

14) Why do SCORES of witnesses say the limo either stopped or dramatically slowed down when the film shows no such thing?

15) Why is there no brain/blood/skull matter present on the trunk as seen in the Zapruder film when Officer Hargis was struck by a skull fragment while he was to the rear of the limo?

16) Why is Jackie in almost as pristine condition as CE 399 is, with no blood or brain matter on her in the film, yet ALL witnesses who saw her reported the opposite?

17) Why are the bystanders on the north side of Elm seemingly MOTIONLESS--like wax figures?

Inquiring minds want to know...

I hijacked a thread?

You deal with all the posts you ran away from in this thread and I'll consider yours.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[John Costella]

These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.

JT

Tink, what do you mean by "3D"? You mean of the "camera original" film itself? Or are you referring to a "fake stereo" using two different frames?

(Just trying to figure out which you are referring to.)

John

[Ed LeDoux]

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.

Welcome Patrick!

I enjoyed you CV and share some of your experiences.

My father was recruited by Disney as a animator. I grew up around this.

It was a special time for me. I am working on publication of my fathers artworks.

I hope you can metal through the posts of "EXPERTS" with rulers here.

Great to have an illustrator with a keen eye and sharp wit among us.

I read your post above and agree, the Emperor is sans threads.

Ed

[Ed LeDoux]

Hi Patrick,

Interesting post. Not inconsistent with what many have been saying for a long time (four decades?), but your source material has piqued my interest.

Hello Mr. Costella.

Glad you are finding new research material and moving the process forward.

I wish others would take their own reins instead of whipping dead horses.

Appreciate ALL your efforts John.

Ed

[David Lifton]

Well, what did Lifton see back there is the sixties?

Didn't he do some kind of covert op with an "interested buyer' angle?

ANd is not this what actually struck him as being odd about the film he saw: the blacked out rear of the head.

Jim,

Please note the following sequence:

(1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste.

(2) The matter escalated (somewhat) when, in the school year 1966-67, and when attending Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law School Seminar on the Warren COmmission, Liebeler arranged for the Life "4 x 5 transparencies" to be made available to the class, for study, at the Beverly Hills Office of Time-Life. It was then obvious that the "blacked out area" was on the transparencies. Of course, this did not preclude the possibility that (as noted in point (1) above--that this blacking out was done on the instructions of Life's senior management --and this was a distinct possibility that by then I knew, from Paul Hoch's work, that Life's color plates had been changed, at the last minute, and a caption changed, to either confuse or mislead concerning the frames depicting the head snap. (See my essay, Pig on a Leash).

(3) The matter escalated subsantially further when, in June, 1970, and with the help of famed film maker Haskell Wexler--and with Wexler's company, DOVE FILMS, posing as the possibly interested buyer--I was able to arrange for Life's Director of Photography, Richard Pollard, to send all the key items to the Beverly Hills Office of Time Life. These included:

(a) The 4 x5 transparencies (which I had already seen in 1966-67

(b ) The 35 mm print made from a 35 mm internegative, made by Weitzman

(c ) A 16mm reduction color positive, made from the 35mm internegative (mentioned in (b ).

To my considerable surprise--and that of Jack Clemente, an optics expert from China Lake Naval Air Station (who was a good friend of mine)--the blacked out area appeared on the 35 mm materials. This --once and for all--removed any possibility of the "innocent explanation" that Life's management had ordered specific film frames "cleaned up" for public consumption.

It then became apparent that the "blacked out area" was an integral part of the (supposed) "camera original" and the question became how did this happen?

It was around this time--specifically, in 1969--that I first became aware of the car-stop witnesses, and in November, 1971, I went to Dallas and interviewed them, with a reel to reel tape recorder. These interviews confirmed my belief that the limo briefly stopped, and I do not accept the notion that these witnesses were wrong, mistaken, or suffered from some memory impairment.

Finally, in 1990, I was able to obtain temporary access to one of the Weitzman originals--i.e., the 35mm progenitor of the very materials Life had shipped. It was eminently clear to me, just from viewing that item on an Oxberry optical printer, that the back of the head had been blacked out, as has been described by others.

All of this is described in my essay PIG ON A LEASH.

THere's much more that could be said about this, but that's enough for this post.

In 1998, at JFK Lancer, I gave a talk on this subject. At the time, I had a color reversal internegative ("CRI") made, and transferred to video, so that what appears to be a "blacked out area" then appears as a "whited out area" in the reversed image. I projected that several times, to show how obvious it is.

I do not buy into the notion that this is normal, or "just a shadow," or anything of the kind.

Further, I fully accept the proposition that, if the Z film was altered, then yes, other films had to be altered too.

I'm not saying we know the answers to all this --just yet--but the notion that the witnesses who saw the car stop were all mistaken, and that the blacked out area has an "innocent explanation" is, to me, very far fetched, and completely implausible.

As I have said many times, the plot to kill President Kennedy incorporated plans to alter the body to create the false appearance that the shots came from Oswald's rifle, located in the Texas School Book Depository.

The same plot also included plans to alter civilian imagery--if the need arose.

The philosophy apparently was similar to what happens on the set of a movie: if something "goes wrong," why we'll "fix it in post" (meaning, in "post production.")

Well, plenty went wrong--and the result is a clear trail of evidence that both JFK's body (i.e.,his wounds) were altered, as well as the alteration of some of the civilian imagery.

I have no doubt this is what happened; what remains to be answered are some of the details of exactly how films were collected, and altered, so rapidly.

The Zapruder film was the "flagship" of the collection; and its reasonable to focus on that; but, if the limo halted briefly, then other films had to be altered as well.

The last vestige of the "lone assassin disguise" will drop away when unimpeachable evidence is adduced that the key films were altered. At that point, the extensive nature of this plot will be obvious, as will be the shallowness and silliness of those who persist in viewing conspiracy as being proven by the evidence of a "second shooter."

As I have said for many years--and this is a statement with which ARRB senior staffer Doug Horne agrees--the key to this case is "fraud in the evidence." That's what this case is all about, and its the presence of falsified evidence that stands in the way of the truth about Dallas being known.

DSL;

1/09/12; 11:35 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 10, 2012 by David Lifton

[Greg Burnham]

Great post, David Lifton. -- 'nuff said...

[Ed LeDoux]

..the one above the ear there the scalp has been blown away...leaving a hard edge and the hard edge created by the ear.

What kind of Bravo Sierra are you talking about now Craig?

Can we see your pixel count or interpolation method for this study?

Then we move to mistake two, Patrick's claim the back of the head should move more into the light and the frames progress. Sadly he gets that wrong too. Playing the frames as a gif and UNDERSTANDING the relationship of the head to the sun shows the shadows move exactly as expected and that expected movement is NOT one that adds more light to the back of the head.

Well I see the master of light Vermeer hath spoken. Show us how you claim to now know the expected is as expected. Kennedy's head was not cubic in shape! You are generalizing something rather than being specific.

And finally mistake three. The shadow in no way looks "painted in"? Review the frames and observe the shadows on Jackie and Kellerman's hair. Better yet MEASURE. THEM. I have. There is nothing unusual about the shadow on the back of JFK's head. The head shadow is consistent with the rest of the shadows in the frame. In fact its not even pure black. The back of JFK's coat is darker than his shadowed hair! And the shadow if his hair is well above film base plus fog. Are you going to tell me the black paint was transparent?

Your basing this on assumptions, you have no evidence to support said assumptions. You would never pass the Daubert standard. But please continue I am in need of more humor whilst performing my morning ritual.

The testimony of an expert is only as good as the data he presents. His credentials really mean nothing if he gets it wrong.

And we all now know that Jim DiEugino has a very strong grasp on what testimony means. Unlike your bias Lamson.

[Craig Lamson]

..the one above the ear there the scalp has been blown away...leaving a hard edge and the hard edge created by the ear.

What kind of Bravo Sierra are you talking about now Craig?

Can we see your pixel count or interpolation method for this study?

The edge of the wound and the ear are quite visable. Are you too blind to see them? No interpolation needed...and more pixels than you can imagine. All in due time....this is shaping up to become a wonderful game.

Then we move to mistake two, Patrick's claim the back of the head should move more into the light and the frames progress. Sadly he gets that wrong too. Playing the frames as a gif and UNDERSTANDING the relationship of the head to the sun shows the shadows move exactly as expected and that expected movement is NOT one that adds more light to the back of the head.

Well I see the master of light Vermeer hath spoken. Show us how you claim to now know the expected is as expected. Kennedy's head was not cubic in shape! You are generalizing something rather than being specific.

Not at all. The position of the sun is very well known. The angle of incidence is also well known. We can SEE how JFK's head moves. THE ONLY WAY OFR MORE LIGHT to reach the back of his head is for his head to continue to lean forward. It goes backwards. Simple lighting 101, you you just failed.

And finally mistake three. The shadow in no way looks "painted in"? Review the frames and observe the shadows on Jackie and Kellerman's hair. Better yet MEASURE. THEM. I have. There is nothing unusual about the shadow on the back of JFK's head. The head shadow is consistent with the rest of the shadows in the frame. In fact its not even pure black. The back of JFK's coat is darker than his shadowed hair! And the shadow if his hair is well above film base plus fog. Are you going to tell me the black paint was transparent?

Your basing this on assumptions, you have no evidence to support said assumptions. You would never pass the Daubert standard. But please continue I am in need of more humor whilst performing my morning ritual.

No, I'm not basing this on any "assumptions". It is based on DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. Learn to read. Then flush your post away. it is made of the same material in your bowl.

The testimony of an expert is only as good as the data he presents. His credentials really mean nothing if he gets it wrong.

And we all now know that Jim DiEugino has a very strong grasp on what testimony means. Unlike your bias Lamson.

Jim has his head firmly planted in a moist dark area. As we can see yours is as well. Testimony is only as good as the facts it presents. This is 1963 tech. It is basic stuff. And even that is beyond your grasp.

Bub bye.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Great post, David Lifton. -- 'nuff said...

ROFLMAO!

[John Costella]

Sorry, David, when I said "four decades" I should have said 4.6+ decades ...

I don't know if there's anything new over what David saw back then, and described in detail at the Zapruder Film Symposium in 2003 (I put the YouTubes of them on my account after the late Rich DellaRosa's account disappeared) and in his fantastic essay "Pig on a Leash" in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

However ... I'd like to re-raise something that I mentioned back then (in 2003), first noted by David Mantik back in about 1997, that doesn't per se deal with the President's wounds, but does bear on the interesting question of what might have been retouched on what film stock at what time.

The issue is the "object in the grass" seen around the time of the head shot (quite possibly the backing of a Polaroid, but its exact nature is irrelevant -- it's just some piece of trash sitting in the grass). Let's call it the "piece of trash lying on the grass".

Specifically, what happened to that piece of trash in Frame 323.

Now, my memory isn't great at the best of times, but I think that this is how it traces out:

• LIFE issue of Nov 29, 1963 (printed on Sunday Nov 24, distributed by Tuesday Nov 26): piece of trash is missing in three of those muddy black and white frames, including frame 323 (with a "puddle" visible in 323, which is a larger reproduction than the other two)
• One of the various versions of LIFE (the version with Z323 rather than Z313), September 1964 (Warren Report edition): now in color, the piece of trash is in 323
• MPI digitizations of "camera original" film, late 1990s: the piece of trash is all frames, but there is a remnant of the "puddle" seen in the original LIFE issue in frame 323
• Stewart Galanor, 1997 or 1998: requests a set of color slides from the National Archives, and reproduces them in an appendix of his book Cover-Up: the piece of trash is present in all frames except Frame 323. Galanor insists to me (2003) that that was how he obtained the slides from the National Archives, and he did not retouch them in any way.

As I said, it's a piece of trash, not the President's head, but if you think about it for a while, and try to come up with a plausible scenario, it's absolutely baffling.

I can understand someone at LIFE retouching copies of the film (the 4 x 5's, say) on that first weekend, to remove a "blemish" from the background. (It doesn't really make a lot of sense, given how bad the prints are, but let's go with this.)

And I can understand that Galanor might have been given slides that were made from these copies by the National Archives.

But then why did two of Galanor's slides show the piece of trash, and only one (323) have it retouched out?

And why was it retouched out in color (see Galanor's book), when that first issue of LIFE had only black and white images?

And why was its subsequent publication in LIFE in September 1964, in color, not retouched out? What did they use as the basis of this publication?

And why does the "camera original" have the remnants of the "puddle" of the original (pre-Nov 24 1963) retouching of frame 323 on it?

I'd love to know what everyone's copies of frame 323 have on them.

John

Well, what did Lifton see back there is the sixties?

Didn't he do some kind of covert op with an "interested buyer' angle?

ANd is not this what actually struck him as being odd about the film he saw: the blacked out rear of the head.

Jim,

Please note the following sequence:

(1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste.

<snip>

[Cliff Varnell]

The last vestige of the "lone assassin disguise" will drop away when unimpeachable evidence is adduced that the key films were altered. At that point, the extensive nature of this plot will be obvious, as will be the shallowness and silliness of those who persist in viewing conspiracy as being proven by the evidence of a "second shooter."

You had me up to this point, David, but with all due respect that last comment of yours is, well, shallow and silly.

In order to verify claims of Z-fakery one must possess a technical expertise which requires years of study to acquire.

In order to verify a second shooter all one needs to do is note that the location of the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is several inches below the SBT inshoot, and then imitate JFK's posture in the limo, to wit: glance over at your right shoulder-line, slowly raise your right arm to wave, observe the INDENTATION of the shirt fabric along your shoulder-line (it happens every time).

Bingo! Two shooters verified. No experts required, which is probably why this evidence is generally ignored by "experts" in the JFK case.

As I have said for many years--and this is a statement with which ARRB senior staffer Doug Horne agrees--the key to this case is "fraud in the evidence." That's what this case is all about, and its the presence of falsified evidence that stands in the way of the truth about Dallas being known.

Fakery in the medical evidence is easy to spot. If the evidence wasn't produced according to proper military autopsy protocol -- that evidence is readily dismissed. Since there is an observation of pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy, we can dismiss the head x-rays. The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol and there is no chain of possession for them -- so into the dust-bin of history they go.

Back to the topic at hand: David, I have a couple of questions for you: have you found any evidence of fakery in Zapruder frames 186 thru 255 -- other than the "missing frames" circa Z210? Have you found any fakery in the following three photos -- Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), or Altgens 6 (Z255)?

Thanks in advance.

[Cliff Varnell]

Back to the topic at hand:

I'm of the opinion that any editing out of the limo stop was incidental -- what was edited out/altered was the back shot which just happened to correspond with the limo stop post Z255.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

While I otherwise agree with your response to Lifton, especially that, simply by locating where JFK was hit in the back, the existence of conspiracy is proven (since it was 5.5" below the collar at a downward angle and had no exist, the wounds to the throat and to Connally--not to mention the head wounds--have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots made by other shooters), there was no effort to conceal the back wound. Indeed, if you review the reenactment photographs that I include in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you can see that they acknowledge the back wound with a large patch. Indeed, the Secret Service and the FBI both concluded that day that there had been three shots and three hits: the first shot hit JFK in the back; the second hit Connally in the back; and the third hit JFK in the back of the head, killing him. Your conjecture that the edition of the film was intended to conceal the back shot is highly implausible and contradicted by the evidence. The limo stop, however, was such an obvious indication of Sercret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit that it had to be removed and, once it had been taken out, there was not enough time for Clint Hill's actions--and Chaney motoring forward was scrapped along with it.

Jim

Back to the topic at hand:

I'm of the opinion that any editing out of the limo stop was incidental -- what was edited out/altered was the back shot which just happened to correspond with the limo stop post Z255.

Edited January 10, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David Josephs]

Sorry, David, when I said "four decades" I should have said 4.6+ decades ...

I don't know if there's anything new over what David saw back then, and described in detail at the Zapruder Film Symposium in 2003 (I put the YouTubes of them on my account after the late Rich DellaRosa's account disappeared) and in his fantastic essay "Pig on a Leash" in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

However ... I'd like to re-raise something that I mentioned back then (in 2003), first noted by David Mantik back in about 1997, that doesn't per se deal with the President's wounds, but does bear on the interesting question of what might have been retouched on what film stock at what time.

The issue is the "object in the grass" seen around the time of the head shot (quite possibly the backing of a Polaroid, but its exact nature is irrelevant -- it's just some piece of trash sitting in the grass). Let's call it the "piece of trash lying on the grass".

Specifically, what happened to that piece of trash in Frame 323.

Now, my memory isn't great at the best of times, but I think that this is how it traces out:

• LIFE issue of Nov 29, 1963 (printed on Sunday Nov 24, distributed by Tuesday Nov 26): piece of trash is missing in three of those muddy black and white frames, including frame 323 (with a "puddle" visible in 323, which is a larger reproduction than the other two)
• One of the various versions of LIFE (the version with Z323 rather than Z313), September 1964 (Warren Report edition): now in color, the piece of trash is in 323
• MPI digitizations of "camera original" film, late 1990s: the piece of trash is all frames, but there is a remnant of the "puddle" seen in the original LIFE issue in frame 323
• Stewart Galanor, 1997 or 1998: requests a set of color slides from the National Archives, and reproduces them in an appendix of his book Cover-Up: the piece of trash is present in all frames except Frame 323. Galanor insists to me (2003) that that was how he obtained the slides from the National Archives, and he did not retouch them in any way.

As I said, it's a piece of trash, not the President's head, but if you think about it for a while, and try to come up with a plausible scenario, it's absolutely baffling.

I can understand someone at LIFE retouching copies of the film (the 4 x 5's, say) on that first weekend, to remove a "blemish" from the background. (It doesn't really make a lot of sense, given how bad the prints are, but let's go with this.)

And I can understand that Galanor might have been given slides that were made from these copies by the National Archives.

But then why did two of Galanor's slides show the piece of trash, and only one (323) have it retouched out?

And why was it retouched out in color (see Galanor's book), when that first issue of LIFE had only black and white images?

And why was its subsequent publication in LIFE in September 1964, in color, not retouched out? What did they use as the basis of this publication?

And why does the "camera original" have the remnants of the "puddle" of the original (pre-Nov 24 1963) retouching of frame 323 on it?

I'd love to know what everyone's copies of frame 323 have on them.

John

Well, what did Lifton see back there is the sixties?

Didn't he do some kind of covert op with an "interested buyer' angle?

ANd is not this what actually struck him as being odd about the film he saw: the blacked out rear of the head.

Jim,

Please note the following sequence:

(1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste.

<snip>

Seems to me if the film was changed, it would have to be done by the end of the weekend and all these enlargements, and slides and such are made from the already altered version...

That the "camera original" is not and has not been available to anyone since Abe handed it to the SS on the evening of 11/22/63...

and that the missing briefing boards had the "real story" while the subsequent briefing of LBJ was not...

So Jim, while DSL makes a lot of sense, we really do not know if anyone was working with a camera original after that weekend....

John... always a pleasure when you're contributing here... thanks

Here's my take on 323... from your frames.. pretty obvious to me

[Pat Speer]

Cliff,

While I otherwise agree with your response to Lifton, especially that, simply by locating where JFK was hit in the back, the existence of conspiracy is proven (since it was 5.5" below the collar at a downward angle and had no exist, the wounds to the throat and to Connally--not to mention the head wounds--have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots made by other shooters), there was no effort to conceal the back wound. Indeed, if you review the reenactment photographs that I include in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you can see that they acknowledge the back wound with a large patch. Indeed, the Secret Service and the FBI both concluded that day that there had been three shots and three hits: the first shot hit JFK in the back; the second hit Connally in the back; and the third hit JFK in the back of the head, killing him. Your conjecture that the edition of the film was intended to conceal the back shot is highly implausible and contradicted by the evidence. The limo stop, however, was such an obvious indication of Sercret Service complicity in setting him up for the hit that it had to be removed and, once it had been taken out, there was not enough time for Clint Hill's actions--and Chaney motoring forward was scrapped along with it.

Jim

Back to the topic at hand:

I'm of the opinion that any editing out of the limo stop was incidental -- what was edited out/altered was the back shot which just happened to correspond with the limo stop post Z255.

Jim, the re-enactment photos with the white patch in the correct location are photos taken during the May 24, 1964 re-enactment. This re-enactment was performed by the FBI and Secret Service, under the direction of Arlen Specter. The FBI and Secret Service did not come to a three hit conclusion based upon this re-enactment. They had come to that conclusion back in December. There is no evidence they actually came to the conclusion there was three shots, three hits, moreover. When one looks at the timeline, in fact, it seems likely they simply deferred to Governor Connally's recollections, and pretended the films supported his recollections.

The WC counsel, however, after studying the films, realized this wouldn't fly, as Connally was hit far too close to Kennedy's first being hit to support the three shots/three hits scenario. Thus, the May re-enactment. Thus, the single-bullet theory.

The correct placement of the patch during the re-enactment is of course a smoking gun. Specter admitted studying the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment. The FBI's Robert Frazier, moreover, admitted using the autopsy measurements in the placement of the patch. The Secret Service's Thomas Kelley, however, claimed they'd used the Rydberg drawings--which place the wound on the back of the neck. And the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt did his part by saying that their single-bullet re-enactment established that a bullet fired when the Commission proposed would have “passed through a point on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound.” Specter then entered into evidence a photo taken from the front, that did not show the entrance wound location on Kennedy's back. NO photos of the white patch designating this location were entered into evidence, or published by the Commission, even in the 26 volumes.

That this was a deliberate deception is proved, moreover, by Specter's acknowledgement in his book that the man showing him the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment was none other than Thomas Kelley, whose testimony he took but days later, and who, under Specter's questioning, made the false claim the back wound location came from the Rydberg drawings.

As far as the head wound... While you insist those claiming the limo stopped must be correct, and that the Zapruder film must therefore be a fake, this is inconsistent with your claim there was a large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head. You see, NONE of the Dealey Plaza witnesses you rely upon to establish your limo stop described such a wound.

Do you really believe that William Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson, Charles Brehm, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, Kenneth O'Donnell, Dave Powers, and George Hickey were WRONG when they described an explosion from the top right side of the head, and failed to mention an explosion from the low back of the head behind the ear, where you propose the large head wound was located?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Pat Speer