The Law of Unintended Consequences

[John Costella]

I just want to see all these damn copies. In the flesh. With plenty of equipment on hand to analyze and/or digitize it. Short of that, everyone's just running around in circles like headless chooks.

[Craig Lamson]

CL:

PUT SOME DATA ON THE TABLE!

How can anyone take this guy seriously anymore.

You do not know what optical densitometry is? What does that say about your so-called "expertise" then?

You never read the Stringer deposition either? I mean what does that say about your knowledge of the actual circumstances of the autopsy photography then?

This is a perfect example of what I said previously about your approach:

1. It is ridiculously biased.

2. You refuse to see anything that clashes with what you want to see.

I look at things that interest me.

WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT STRINGER? I don't care about the autopsy, nor the autopsy photos.

This is about the H7 and so called black patch.

Quit trying to change the subject to cover for your gross inadequacies.

BTW I used both transmission and reflective densitometers every day for the best part of my working life up to the day I stopped using film and running my own lab. You?

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Block, you come on in a very polite, very silk-gloved manner. But that silk glove conceals a slippery (even slimy) argument. In 19th Century logic books (just ask Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. who has used this argument countless times) it is called “poisoning of the wells.” The idea is that if you prejudice your audience by sliming your opponent no one gets a chance to consider the argument and counter-argument on their own merits. Professor Fetzer at least offers this argument with no silk gloves on. When not claiming I’m an “operative” for some shadowy intelligence outfit or about to become a lone-nutter, he claims that my book was so much built on the Zapruder film that any attempt to show its inauthenticity somehow threatens my whole being. With silken gloves you are doing the same thing, only less obviously.

Here’s my answer to both you and Fetzer:

Six Seconds was about all sorts of things besides the Zapruder film. It was an attempt to lay out and then put together all the evidence that was known in 1967 into a persuasive picture of what really happened. Was the Zapruder film an important part of that reconstruction? Of course, it was. And it is today. That is why discussions of the Zapruder film and what it shows keep appearing on this Forum and others. But because the Zapruder film is an important piece of the evidence picture does not mean that I’m committed to defending it. Kennedy being hit twice between 312 and 314 was a central feature of Six Seconds. As soon as I saw that the measurements underlying that claim were mistaken, I gave it up. The same applies to the Zapruder film. If anyone could persuade me that it has been altered for faked up, I would report that in a heart beat. The problem is no one has.

You sum up the basic evidence in three short paragraphs, two of which are mistaken.

(1) The first paragraph mentions the non-existent “black patch” at the rear of JFK’s head. You must be kidding.

(2) The second mentions the medical professionals at Parkland who reported (not testified to) an exit-sized hole in the rear of the President’s head. You are right that some did. But Pat Speer on this site has shown that many also placed the hole higher up in the parietal.

(3) The third mentions the Harper fragment as coming from John Kennedy’s occiput. I myself said exactly that in Six Seconds. I was wrong and you are wrong. It was the opinion of Billy Harper’s uncle that it came from the occiput. However, further study of photos of the fragment by experts for HSAC determined that it was from the parietal area of the skull.

A lot of windage is going to get wasted on this topic. The facts are simple. We all know that downstream copies of the Zapruder film introduce artifacts that are not substantial. The whole Greer-shot-the-President brouhaha proved this. Hence the generation of the copy we are looking at is important. Anyone who has seen the MPI transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum and is sophisticated about the Zapruder film recognizes they are glorious. They are available for viewing. Frame 317 is available for viewing. These transparencies are many generations closer to the original than the material used by Wilkinson. Doug Horne, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and everyone else has conceded this. These transparencies trump anything else in existence. Their pedigree is well-known and firm. Why don’t you go and look at them and then report back? Or how about someone quite neutral from this Forum? Anyone. Go to Dallas and tell us what you find? All the rest is just palaver.

JT

Greetings again Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your nice and well thought out response. I have to admit that you make me feel a bit nervous. I have a very dog-eared copy of your book, I suppose it is a first edition, and I've read the thing nearly to death.

You are one of the early "2nd generation" of researchers who followed the initial wave of books on the assassination. I grew up reading your book. You exhibited creativity and careful thought in your volume, and while perhaps I didn't agree with everything you wrote, you always made me pause and consider matters further in the case.

Much of your research life has involved this little bit of film. I remember your early writing about the movement of the President's head- and the basic trust of the reliability of the contents of this home movie must be an issue that you care deeply about.

I don't blame you one bit for your being careful about taking that first step into really accepting the notion that this film has been tampered with, but I hope that you are still young enough at heart, and open minded to the possibilities of conspiracy after the fact in the faking of raw evidence in this case.

I quite agree with you on a number of the things you state.

It is indeed confusing trying to sort through the various "versions" of the film. One needs to be cautious. If a person is using images of the Zapruder similar to the image you posted, and trusted all these decades, and the frame shows Governor Connally with a black shirt collar and makes Jackie's roses invisible, naturally it is not a reliable image for looking at the President's hair for an honest evaluation of whether there is alteration or not. All versions that show a similar lack of basic details would need to be avoided. I have a little list of basic things to look for when contemplating newly discovered images- it's just wise to do so and be careful.

You are exactly right about the perennial problem of basic access to the Zapruder Film. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Ever since Mr. Zapruder sold it to Life Magazine, it has been squirrelled away from the American public in a secretive, illusive, and frankly most suspicious way.

Even after the American taxpayers pay millions of dollars for the thing in recent times, the copyright holds it under lock and key in a most un-American spirit. It sits deteriorating and unrestored in the National Archives. We are extremely lucky, in my opinion, that someone with the patriotism and curiosity of Ms. Wilkinson came along and paid the considerable sum to have modern technology preserve the film's content in the best possible manner.

The film, slides, prints are all a part of American History, a history that the American public has paid for using much more than mere dollars. The government should long ago have made excellent copies made available free in libraries, and since 1993, ought to have high quality digital versions online for researchers everywhere.

It's little wonder there is confusion with so very much secrecy. It isn't surprising that public confidence in our government has generally plunged downhill since that day in Dallas. Adding the black patch to the film amounts to treason- as is any alteration to any of the films or photos from the assassination, if the point was to hide the truth from the American people.

It's a big issue. It's important, and I can understand everyone's extreme concern that such things happen here in the USA.

Thank you too, very much, for your well presented four points on the hierarchy of the copies of the Zapruder Films and transparencies, though, you are incorrect about them, which might add some new insights for both you and everyone when considering the accuracy of Ms. Wilkinson's HD neutral scan.

The Wilkinson 35mm dupe negative was declared last year by NARA to be a 3rd generation element.

This, of course, is huge and important news. It destroys the notion of it having later generation problems. It insures this carefully handled HD digital scan of the Zapruder Film, which was created in a professional Hollywood studio using the best equipment by seasoned film pros, is going to be the finest complete record of the details of the assassination- assuming it is someday released!

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the discussion wasn't over- that this was the "tip of the iceburg", and, so it is.

I stated earlier at the start of my posting in this thread that I don't expect people to listen to me and change their long held views, I'm just one artist with one opinion.

What I am hoping is that I have piqued your interest in the matter, and that you all- those who think there was alteration and those who are not sure, will look a little harder at that black patch of artwork on the rear of JFK's head, and consider what this means when combined with the other long existing hard evidence of an occipital exit wound on the rear of the President's skull.

To sum up some of that basic evidence-

1. The rear of the President's head in the historical Zapruder film, which was itself hidden from the public for decades, has clear evidence of simple alteration, with a black patch masking the rear of JFK's head after the headshot.

2. Dozens, perhaps scores of witnesses, most of them medical professionals, all saw and testified to an exit-sized hole on the rear of the President's head- in this same blacked out area. The HSCA tried to hide the testimony of many witnesses at Bethesda who saw the same rearward hole that the Parkland folks did. The ARRB released the testimony for all to read.

3. A piece of bone described as occipital skull bone by 100% of the doctors who handled and described it was found at the scene, studied at the Methodist Hospital, and delivered to the FBI/Admiral Burkley who promptly "lost it" forever. It exists in photos only because the honest doctors who first viewed it took pictures of it that couldn't be ignored.

Each piece of this evidence to a frontal shot that exited from the rear was tampered with in one way or another. The film altered, witnesses influenced to change testimony in later interviews, occipital skull bone destroyed.

To accept this as reality, you do not need multiple film tampering events involved. Zapruder remains virtually alone in clearly visually showcasing the right rear of the President's head after impact.

It is really irrelevant to me whether the car stopped or not. I don't care about the wealth of other accusations about the film- I am neutral when it comes to much of the material claiming various other irregularities in the film.

I'll stick with what is obvious, provable, and deals with matters that I am very experienced in. Paint, celluloid, simple equipment, and a small window of time to work with the film.

Mr. Thompson, I think this evidence only supports your basic premise, found so long ago in your book, that a bullet or bullets hit JFK from the front.

Perhaps you would agree it would be best to view Ms. Wilkinson's 3rd generation element, officially designated so by NARA itself, and compare it directly to the images you have seen at the Sixth Floor Museum before dismissing the neutrally scanned HD footage.

I'd like to see the Sixth Floor material myself, and sniff the roses, as it were. Thank you for that advice. Is it permissible, do you know, to take in materials to make comparisons, that sort of thing? Do I need to make an appointment well in advance, or can one walk in with the request?

I am indebted to Doug Horne's work with the ARRB in introducing me to the zealous and intelligent researchers in Hollywood who decided to do more than talk about the film, and I would like to publicly thank him for his sacrifice in publishing his monumental research book on the medical evidence. At around 100$ for all five volumes, it was the best value of information per dollar of any of the hundreds of books on the assassination I've ever purchased.

Best regards,

Patrick

[Craig Lamson]

CL:

WHO THE HELL IS TALKING ABOUT STRINGER? I don't care about the autopsy, nor the autopsy photos.

This is getting funnier by the post.

I was talking about the Stringer depo because it proves through his own testimony that the photos of

Kennedy's brain at NARA are forgeries. They were not taken by him, and, in fact COULD NOT be taken by him.

If that is not data, then I don't know what is.

Now, why do I bring it up: two reasons.

1. You have rigorously and systematically ignored it. As you have the optical densitometry measurements. Both if which are prima facie evidence of alteration in the photographic record. Every single one of your efforts has gone to the other effect, to show the record is genuine and therefore the WC was correct.

2. Second, why would the photos of Stringer be substituted? Maybe because his original photos indicated a much more lacerated brain than the WC allowed for? Or it showed a path from front to back with a larger hole in the rear of the brain? Which, of course, would coincide perfectly with why the black patch was drawn in on the film.

This is called connecting the dots Craig. Its what detectives do all the time in solving a homicide. But your "See no evil, Hear no evil, Say not evil" pose conveys the fact that you think there is nothing to solve. Since the WC got it right.

But then, why the wrong densitometry readings on the x rays, and why switch the brain photos?

How many times do you need to be told that I simply DON'T care to waste my time on those things. That you continue to harp on it tells me you no longer have any argument left in the case of the H7 And the black patch. You are really quite transparent.

Try your bait and switch on someone else.

I'm sorry my choices on how and where I choose to spend my time don't meet your expectations. Too f'in bad. Learn to live with it.

Now take a hike jim...

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, Tink, I have already posted the report by Doug Horne about David Mantik's visit to the Museum and he confirmed the presence of the patch on those slides you tout. He's been there, done that. See http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/3251.html, which, from conversations I have had with David, appears to be completely accurate--except that what the Hollywood group has been working with is THIRD GENERATION rather than FIFTH. I have been wondering how you would respond to the increasing body of proof that the film has been faked. The higher the resolution, the more obvious the fabrication. You are boxed in. So instead of acknowledging that the evidence is far beyond what any reasonable soul could require for proof, you instead attempt to smear Pat Block, which I suppose should not come as entirely unexpected. When logic is against you, argue the evidence; and when the evidence against you, argue logic. But in this case, both the evidence and logic are against you, so you commit obvious fallacies, in this case some kind of guilt by association. But Pat and I do not know each other. Apart from reading his brilliant posts, I have never heard of him before. So the blatancy of your evasions, which truly are "slimy" (to use a word that otherwise does not apply here), no one is going to be persuaded, even remotely.

As you stated in your original response to Pat, his posts have been models of clarity, simplicity and organization. You are going to have to do better if you want to pull the rabbit of "Zapruder authenticity" out of the hat, including your past trump card, the slides at The 6th Floor Museum. You really are "boxed in". There is no "poisoning of the well" and, to the best of my knowledge, I have not used that phrase. What's going on here is your typical evasion, equivocation, and dissembling--especially about the wound observed at Parkland. Perhaps you don't recall, but in your on-going efforts to trash MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), you endorsed exactly ONE CHAPTER, the one by Gary Aguilar that demonstrated the consistency of the observations of the wound in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland, and even at Bethesda. I pointed out then that your endorsement of his chapter implied the lack of authenticity of the Zapruder film, an ironic consequence--like your endorsement of Umbrella Man, who turned out to be a limo stop witness--of your efforts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. But the time has come to admit failure, Tink. You can no longer defend the indefensible. The weight of the evidence is overwhelming, no matter where we turn: the eyewitnesses, the limo stop, Chaney, the X-rays, the "blob", frame 374 and more. It's done!

Studying Zapruder Film Anomalies: Clarifying the Record

insidethearrb

January 15th, 2010

TEXT REVISED ON JANUARY 20, 2010

In my book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" (in Chapter 14), I discussed in some detail how the Hollywood research group has been using high resolution digital scans of a 35 mm dupe negative of the extant film in the National Archives to study the apparent alteration of the image content of the Zapruder film. I also discussed the provenance of any such film duplicates obtained from NARA, and explained that the 35 mm dupe negative being studied is a fifth generation copy (if one counts the extant film as "zero").

As I pointed out in Chapter 14, the 4" by 5" large format Ektrachrome color positive transparencies of each frame of the extant film in the Archives---commissioned by the Zapruder family and created by a subcontractor working for MPI video in 1997---could be used to verify that the image content in the 35 mm dupe negative has NOT been altered in any way by those studying the film in Hollywood.

This has already been done. On November 20, 2009, Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., examined the MPI color positive transparencies that are now owned by the Sixth Floor Museum. During a detailed examination which lasted for some time, Dr. Mantik (who had already seen the research results of the Hollywood group) verified to his own satisfaction that the anomalies discussed in my book regarding frames 220, 313, and 317 (as well as in frames 321 and 323, for example) were also present on the color positive transparencies. In fact, he reported to me that the same anomalies were particularly stunning when viewed on the color positive transparencies, which are a FIRST GENERATION product. Gary Mack, and the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property (Megan Bryant), were both present during his examination. Dr. Mantik was also accompanied by a member of the Hollywood research group.

I report this to emphasize that the examination verified, by use of a "control" (the first generation color positive transparencies), that the anomalies being studied in the 35 mm dupe negative are also present in another film product created independently from the extant film in the Archives. (In fact, I was present in 1997 when MPI's subcontractor photographed the extant film using the large format Ektachrome transparencies.) The validity and accuracy of the 35 mm dupe negative has thus been verified. No one can now claim that the digital scans of the 35 mm dupe negative being studied by film professionals in Hollywood have been tampered with or altered by those studying them; Mantik's examination verified that the same anomalies present on the high resolution scans of the 35 mm dupe negative are indeed present on the MPI transparencies. Anyone who wishes to make the same comparisons (with the images of frames 220 and 317 in my book) can request access to the MPI transparencies through the Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property, using the Museum's website. This is the procedure Dr. Mantik followed.

It has been suggested recently in the postings of one blogger that the Hollywood research group's study of the 35 mm dupe negative is somehow "invalid" simply because it is a fifth generation product, since an earlier generation product (the first generation MPI transparencies) exists. This is specious nonsense, of course, and simply an attempt to throw stones and to change the subject.

The Hollywood research group did the right thing by going directly to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to obtain a duplicate negative of the extant film whose provenance could not be questioned. The fact that it happens to be a fifth generation copy was beyond the control of the Hollywood group---this was a function of how the Archives commissioned its Forensic Copy and follow-on products. In fact, when Sydney Wilkinson first asked Les Waffen (a Senior Official in the NARA Sound and Motion Picture Branch) how to obtain the clearest possible copy of the extant Zapruder film, he told her that the clearest images of the extant film could only be obtained from the National Archives; she followed his advice, and purchased her dupe negative of the Archives' Forensic Copy. Les Waffen did not mention the MPI transparencies, and at the time Sydney did not know they were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum, or whether they still existed, or not. She followed the advice she was given by NARA, and obtained a dupe negative of the Archives' Forensic Copy created by Monaco Film Lab.

Now that the Hollywood research group has performed a "6K" scan of each frame of the 35 mm dupe negative, that high definition digital visual record is currently the BEST TOOL that can be used for empirical study of the extant film, for it permits close examination, at great magnification, of high resolution digital images---whereas the first generation color positive transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum can only be studied with the human eyeball. The human eye and brain cannot make empirical measurements of grain structure or luminosity or color; the human eye, in conjunction with the human brain, can only render subjective (and not empirical) judgments.

Before David Mantik viewed the MPI transparencies on November 20, 2009, the Sixth Floor Museum made known its position that he could not digitally scan or copy the transparencies during his visit. If the Museum were to persist in that position, in light of the current debate about the film's alteration, then that decision would be contrary to good science, and would undoubtedly be viewed by many as de facto suppression of crucial evidence. If, on the other hand, the Sixth Floor Museum were to allow high resolution digital scans to be performed of the MPI transparencies of selected Zapruder film frames, and release those scans free of charge to any and all interested researchers (for research purposes only, not for commercial use), such action would materially assist in Zapruder film research.

Until or unless the MPI transparencies are digitally scanned at a very high resolution (i.e., the state of the art "6K"---or even the "4K" process which is now standard in the motion picture industry for the restoration of motion picture films), these vaunted MPI transparencies (which can presently only be viewed by the human eye) will remain a study tool that is inferior to the "6K" scans that presently exist of the 35 mm dupe negative.

Here is why I say this: each individual "6K" scan of only one frame in the 35 mm dupe negative contains 72.9 MB (megabytes) of information. (Each so-called "6K" scan being used by the Hollywood research group is actually a cropped version of the master scan of the 35 mm image frame, reduced in size to eliminate unused space on the 35 mm frame so that in its cropped form it approximates what in Hollywood is called a "4K" scan. The entire Zapruder film frame was captured in each cropped image, but not the unused portion of the 35 mm image.) That is, each cropped "6K" scan is an image that is 4096 pixels wide on the horizontal axis, and 3112 pixels in length on the vertical axis. This yields a stunning total of 12.75 million pixels in each image of every single frame of the Zapruder film on the 35 mm dupe negative. Clearly, this kind of detail is superior as a research tool to any fleeting impression that can be obtained by examination of the MPI transparencies with the human eye. The human eye/brain combination is a wonderful tool, but what is sees cannot be recorded for further detailed and empirical study.

If the Sixth Floor Museum were to permit high resolution digitization of the MPI transparencies, at say, "4K" resolution, then that digital product would in theory be superior to the existing scans obtained from the 35 mm dupe negative. [i am talking about image content here; we all know by now that some Zapruder frames---341, 350, and 486---were inadvertently skipped, and not photographed, by the MPI subcontractor in 1997, and that in the resulting video sold by MPI, the order of two frames---331 and 332---was also reversed.] But that is a big "IF." It remains to be seen whether the Museum that trumpets Oswald's guilt and the authenticity of the Zapruder film will be open-minded enough to permit digitization of what may potentially be the best evidence (apart from the extant film in cold storage in the National Archives) that the film's image content has been altered.

Unless or until the MPI transparencies are digitized at the proper resolution, the existing HD scans of the 35 mm dupe negative (4096 x 3112 pixels per Zapruder frame, at 72.9 MB each) will remain the best research tool available for studying the blacked out areas of the back of JFK's head (and the Stemmons Freeway sign) in the extant Zapruder film.

END

Mr. Block, you come on in a very polite, very silk-gloved manner. But that silk glove conceals a slippery (even slimy) argument. In 19th Century logic books (just ask Professor James Fetzer, Ph.D. who has used this argument countless times) it is called “poisoning of the wells.” The idea is that if you prejudice your audience by sliming your opponent no one gets a chance to consider the argument and counter-argument on their own merits. Professor Fetzer at least offers this argument with no silk gloves on. When not claiming I’m an “operative” for some shadowy intelligence outfit or about to become a lone-nutter, he claims that my book was so much built on the Zapruder film that any attempt to show its inauthenticity somehow threatens my whole being. With silken gloves you are doing the same thing, only less obviously.

Here’s my answer to both you and Fetzer:

Six Seconds was about all sorts of things besides the Zapruder film. It was an attempt to lay out and then put together all the evidence that was known in 1967 into a persuasive picture of what really happened. Was the Zapruder film an important part of that reconstruction? Of course, it was. And it is today. That is why discussions of the Zapruder film and what it shows keep appearing on this Forum and others. But because the Zapruder film is an important piece of the evidence picture does not mean that I’m committed to defending it. Kennedy being hit twice between 312 and 314 was a central feature of Six Seconds. As soon as I saw that the measurements underlying that claim were mistaken, I gave it up. The same applies to the Zapruder film. If anyone could persuade me that it has been altered for faked up, I would report that in a heart beat. The problem is no one has.

You sum up the basic evidence in three short paragraphs, two of which are mistaken.

(1) The first paragraph mentions the non-existent “black patch” at the rear of JFK’s head. You must be kidding.

(2) The second mentions the medical professionals at Parkland who reported (not testified to) an exit-sized hole in the rear of the President’s head. You are right that some did. But Pat Speer on this site has shown that many also placed the hole higher up in the parietal.

(3) The third mentions the Harper fragment as coming from John Kennedy’s occiput. I myself said exactly that in Six Seconds. I was wrong and you are wrong. It was the opinion of Billy Harper’s uncle that it came from the occiput. However, further study of photos of the fragment by experts for HSAC determined that it was from the parietal area of the skull.

A lot of windage is going to get wasted on this topic. The facts are simple. We all know that downstream copies of the Zapruder film introduce artifacts that are not substantial. The whole Greer-shot-the-President brouhaha proved this. Hence the generation of the copy we are looking at is important. Anyone who has seen the MPI transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum and is sophisticated about the Zapruder film recognizes they are glorious. They are available for viewing. Frame 317 is available for viewing. These transparencies are many generations closer to the original than the material used by Wilkinson. Doug Horne, James Fetzer, Ph.D., and everyone else has conceded this. These transparencies trump anything else in existence. Their pedigree is well-known and firm. Why don’t you go and look at them and then report back? Or how about someone quite neutral from this Forum? Anyone. Go to Dallas and tell us what you find? All the rest is just palaver.

JT

Greetings again Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your nice and well thought out response. I have to admit that you make me feel a bit nervous. I have a very dog-eared copy of your book, I suppose it is a first edition, and I've read the thing nearly to death.

You are one of the early "2nd generation" of researchers who followed the initial wave of books on the assassination. I grew up reading your book. You exhibited creativity and careful thought in your volume, and while perhaps I didn't agree with everything you wrote, you always made me pause and consider matters further in the case.

Much of your research life has involved this little bit of film. I remember your early writing about the movement of the President's head- and the basic trust of the reliability of the contents of this home movie must be an issue that you care deeply about.

I don't blame you one bit for your being careful about taking that first step into really accepting the notion that this film has been tampered with, but I hope that you are still young enough at heart, and open minded to the possibilities of conspiracy after the fact in the faking of raw evidence in this case.

I quite agree with you on a number of the things you state.

It is indeed confusing trying to sort through the various "versions" of the film. One needs to be cautious. If a person is using images of the Zapruder similar to the image you posted, and trusted all these decades, and the frame shows Governor Connally with a black shirt collar and makes Jackie's roses invisible, naturally it is not a reliable image for looking at the President's hair for an honest evaluation of whether there is alteration or not. All versions that show a similar lack of basic details would need to be avoided. I have a little list of basic things to look for when contemplating newly discovered images- it's just wise to do so and be careful.

You are exactly right about the perennial problem of basic access to the Zapruder Film. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Ever since Mr. Zapruder sold it to Life Magazine, it has been squirrelled away from the American public in a secretive, illusive, and frankly most suspicious way.

Even after the American taxpayers pay millions of dollars for the thing in recent times, the copyright holds it under lock and key in a most un-American spirit. It sits deteriorating and unrestored in the National Archives. We are extremely lucky, in my opinion, that someone with the patriotism and curiosity of Ms. Wilkinson came along and paid the considerable sum to have modern technology preserve the film's content in the best possible manner.

The film, slides, prints are all a part of American History, a history that the American public has paid for using much more than mere dollars. The government should long ago have made excellent copies made available free in libraries, and since 1993, ought to have high quality digital versions online for researchers everywhere.

It's little wonder there is confusion with so very much secrecy. It isn't surprising that public confidence in our government has generally plunged downhill since that day in Dallas. Adding the black patch to the film amounts to treason- as is any alteration to any of the films or photos from the assassination, if the point was to hide the truth from the American people.

It's a big issue. It's important, and I can understand everyone's extreme concern that such things happen here in the USA.

Thank you too, very much, for your well presented four points on the hierarchy of the copies of the Zapruder Films and transparencies, though, you are incorrect about them, which might add some new insights for both you and everyone when considering the accuracy of Ms. Wilkinson's HD neutral scan.

The Wilkinson 35mm dupe negative was declared last year by NARA to be a 3rd generation element.

This, of course, is huge and important news. It destroys the notion of it having later generation problems. It insures this carefully handled HD digital scan of the Zapruder Film, which was created in a professional Hollywood studio using the best equipment by seasoned film pros, is going to be the finest complete record of the details of the assassination- assuming it is someday released!

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the discussion wasn't over- that this was the "tip of the iceburg", and, so it is.

I stated earlier at the start of my posting in this thread that I don't expect people to listen to me and change their long held views, I'm just one artist with one opinion.

What I am hoping is that I have piqued your interest in the matter, and that you all- those who think there was alteration and those who are not sure, will look a little harder at that black patch of artwork on the rear of JFK's head, and consider what this means when combined with the other long existing hard evidence of an occipital exit wound on the rear of the President's skull.

To sum up some of that basic evidence-

1. The rear of the President's head in the historical Zapruder film, which was itself hidden from the public for decades, has clear evidence of simple alteration, with a black patch masking the rear of JFK's head after the headshot.

2. Dozens, perhaps scores of witnesses, most of them medical professionals, all saw and testified to an exit-sized hole on the rear of the President's head- in this same blacked out area. The HSCA tried to hide the testimony of many witnesses at Bethesda who saw the same rearward hole that the Parkland folks did. The ARRB released the testimony for all to read.

3. A piece of bone described as occipital skull bone by 100% of the doctors who handled and described it was found at the scene, studied at the Methodist Hospital, and delivered to the FBI/Admiral Burkley who promptly "lost it" forever. It exists in photos only because the honest doctors who first viewed it took pictures of it that couldn't be ignored.

Each piece of this evidence to a frontal shot that exited from the rear was tampered with in one way or another. The film altered, witnesses influenced to change testimony in later interviews, occipital skull bone destroyed.

To accept this as reality, you do not need multiple film tampering events involved. Zapruder remains virtually alone in clearly visually showcasing the right rear of the President's head after impact.

It is really irrelevant to me whether the car stopped or not. I don't care about the wealth of other accusations about the film- I am neutral when it comes to much of the material claiming various other irregularities in the film.

I'll stick with what is obvious, provable, and deals with matters that I am very experienced in. Paint, celluloid, simple equipment, and a small window of time to work with the film.

Mr. Thompson, I think this evidence only supports your basic premise, found so long ago in your book, that a bullet or bullets hit JFK from the front.

Perhaps you would agree it would be best to view Ms. Wilkinson's 3rd generation element, officially designated so by NARA itself, and compare it directly to the images you have seen at the Sixth Floor Museum before dismissing the neutrally scanned HD footage.

I'd like to see the Sixth Floor material myself, and sniff the roses, as it were. Thank you for that advice. Is it permissible, do you know, to take in materials to make comparisons, that sort of thing? Do I need to make an appointment well in advance, or can one walk in with the request?

I am indebted to Doug Horne's work with the ARRB in introducing me to the zealous and intelligent researchers in Hollywood who decided to do more than talk about the film, and I would like to publicly thank him for his sacrifice in publishing his monumental research book on the medical evidence. At around 100$ for all five volumes, it was the best value of information per dollar of any of the hundreds of books on the assassination I've ever purchased.

Best regards,

Patrick

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Please go back and read his original observations about the film and frame 317. THat is where he really makes his argument from.

BTW, this is not a waste at all. I don't know why you would characterize it as such.

Block does not make an argument and thats the problem. He says I see it therfore it is.

That's not an argument. It's just more empty words. Which must be why you find it attractive.

[Craig Lamson]

CL: I simply DON'T care to waste my time on those things.

What he is really saying here is that he does not want to dwell on proof in the record that demonstrates photographic forgery. Or how that falseness could coincide with the black patch in the film.

I rest my case your honor.

What I'm really saying here is I'll spend my time where I choose. Jimmy just can't stand that. Wow, that makes it good!

[Craig Lamson]

I just want to see all these damn copies. In the flesh. With plenty of equipment on hand to analyze and/or digitize it. Short of that, everyone's just running around in circles like headless chooks.

I agree with this John, wholeheartedly.

If this ever happens, a riddle may be solved.

Then buy your own copy and have the scans made....

[Craig Lamson]

LOL.

That is not what John said.

And that is not what I meant.

If you want it bad enough you can have it.

No one is stopping you.

[Don Jeffries]

I just wanted to thank Patrick Block for providing a real breath of fresh air on this forum. Not only does he appear to be very knowledgable about the subject matter he's discussing, he expresses himself about as cordially as possible. He is respectful and civil to others.

We could all learn something from him.

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't give a dang about the rest of the case as you well know.

Slather some mustard on that baloney, Craig, it's getting mighty gamey.

You've spent the last 4+ years defending the Single Bullet Theory to a point beyond absurdity.

You're a die-hard, Kennedy-hating Lone Nutter, and anyone who follows your posts knows it.

[William Kelly]

If the Sixth Floor Transparencies are so wonderful, why can't they be posted on the internet so everyone can see them?

After all, the tax paying American public has paid millions for the film, why can't they see the best version?

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

[Craig Lamson]

I don't give a dang about the rest of the case as you well know.

Slather some mustard on that baloney, Craig, it's getting mighty gamey.

You've spent the last 4+ years defending the Single Bullet Theory to a point beyond absurdity.

You're a die-hard, Kennedy-hating Lone Nutter, and anyone who follows your posts knows it.

If thats your take Cliff it's dead wrong and we can now discard you opinions about other matters. You can't define reality from fantasy.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Where is Varnell wrong Craig?

You don't buy the WC?

You have not defended the official story all the time you have been here?

You are actually a liberal who's heart was broken when JFK was killed?

On all counts jimmy. Your ability to define reality from fantasy is as bad as Varnells.

Dang I scare the heck out of you guys. Makes my day.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In post #280, I raised a question about the slide set that is your rock-bottom defense of the integrity of the film. As I have now posted twice, David Mantik has been there, done that! Could you therefore address the question I raise in the second paragraph about reports that the slide set "went missing" for two weeks, which has raised questions about what may have been going on. Should there now turn out to be discrepancies between the "pristine" slide set held by The 6th Floor Museum, whose curator, Gary Mack, is a close friend and associate of yours, where you both have well-known positions on the authenticity of the film, then if those "pristine" slides no longer show the "black patch", for example, what should we infer? Here is my revised post for your consideration.

Tink,

We hope that your game plan is not to attempt to create as much uncertainty as possible so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail. What precisely is your position supposed to be? That this extremely conspicuous feature of the back of the head, which not only he and his friend, Director of what is probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world today, who are both experts, have confirmed but which has also been identified by the Hollywood group IS NOT ACTUALLY THERE?

Could you elaborate on the reports that the slide set to which you so often refer, which must be the most valuable possession of The 6th Floor Museum, was "lost" or "misplaced" for around two weeks time? Some of us worry that, who ever may have taken them, might have had them digitally redone to remove features like the black patch on the back of the head. Is there anything to that or is it only a "false rumor"? These guys are real experts, not faux-experts like you and Lamson. And when have you ever addressed the FIVE PHYSICAL FEATURES that distinguish the original film from what we have today? In case you lost track of them, take another look at "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", Veterans Today.

And of course the photographic and film evidence has to be evaluated in relation to the medical, ballistic, and testimonial evidence, where I have been concentrating on the latter. The film is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 contradicts earlier frames, so I am baffled that you seem to have made no mention or notice of frame 374, which by itself demonstrates that the film is not even self-consistent, which proves by itself that it has been faked. Compare the blacked out area at the back of the head with the blow-out that it is concealing, Tink. Surely you cannot continue with this charade forever.

"You never give us your money, you only give us your funny paper"! Get real, Tink. The jig is up.

Jim

If the Sixth Floor Transparencies are so wonderful, why can't they be posted on the internet so everyone can see them?

After all, the tax paying American public has paid millions for the film, why can't they see the best version?

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer