The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

Why in the world are you posting material like this which not even Lamson understands and you most certainly don't? Why are you trying to fake it?

Jim

Craig,

This is the way Costella explained to Rahn the deblurring process.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42da1f9d4ef288e7/a05b41025a481c92?lnk=gst&q=costella%27s+frames#a05b41025a481c92

. . .

I think this is fascinating, but it seems like a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" approach, even if it is the best one can do...

[Josiah Thompson]

I checked the full quotes and it is clear that the remarks of Forrest Sorrels are not consistent with the scenario I outlined. With respect to Sorrels, you are right and I was wrong. I regret the error. With respect to the others, I think they are all consistent with the report from Chief Curry that the exchange with Chaney took place west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. This would be at a time after the limousine had cleared the scene and at a time when Chaney could have caught up to Chief Curry in the lead car.

JT

I encourage David Josephs to review the witness testimony to determine whether or not Josiah Thompson is correct in claiming that this event did not happen before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. It can be found collated as compiled by John Costella. This is a nice test case to assess our relative degrees of credibility. In the process, David will be learning more about what the witnesses had to day and can make more contributions here. Needless to add, neither Tink nor I should be conducting this research but David Josephs, Pat Speer, and others are appropriate to sort this one out.

Claims of Zapruder film alteration come and go. This particular claim has been on life-support since it was discussed in 2008 as “New Proof of Zapruder Film Fakery.” Like earlier claims, it is usually announced by Professor Fetzer as some sort of world-shaking breakthrough and remains so until the leaks are discovered and it sinks.

The 2008 discussion showed that the recollections of Chief Curry, Agent Lawson and Agent Sorrels are all probably correct. After hanging back and almost coming to a stop, Officer Chaney guns his cycle and catches up with the lead car containing Curry, Lawson and Sorrels. The films of Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniel all are consistent with this scenario as are the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. The McIntire photo, for example, shows two motorcyclists, Chaney and Martin trailing the limousine as it blasts by the lead car at the Triple Underpass. As Chief Curry explained, Officer Chaney caught up with the lead car west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and told them what had happened. Hence, the photo evidence and the reports of Curry, Lawson and Sorrels all form a compact package describing what happened.

Chaney was never deposed by the Warren Commission and never submitted reports to DPD as to what he observed on November 22nd. He was interviewed by the FBI on November 28, 1963 (25H284), but, oddly enough, was only asked about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. On the night of November 22nd, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News at DPD headquarters. During this interview, Chaney said: “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” Since all the films and photos show that Chaney did not do this, Professor Fetzer and Jack White claimed that all the films and photos have been altered (apparently to conceal this rather trivial fact).

Through a lot of work, I finally obtained the mp3 of an interview Chaney did with Gil Toft posing as “John Whitney” sometime between 1971 and 1973. Toft was helping Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams with their book Murder from Within. Chaney was important to this effort because Newcomb and Adams were backing the notion that Agent Bill Greer turned around in his seat and shot Kennedy with a chrome hand-gun. On page 55, Newcomb and Adams write: “The President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” In an Appendix on page 311, they even provide a detailed diagram of the limousine showing Greer turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy. Since Greer is in the driver’s seat and Kennedy is in the rear seat on the right corner, the trajectory of the shot is from left to right with debris blown to the right rear over Officer Chaney. Clearly, Toft hoped to get confirmation for this theory by having Chaney tell him he was hit with impact debris. Chaney did not oblige and said nothing about being hit by any impact debris.

Chapter Four of Murder from Within is entitled “The Filmed Assassination: How the Key Movie of the Murder Was Altered.” Newcomb and Adams describe various ways in which the Zapruder film was altered not the least being retouching of Z 313 to conceal the fact that Greer shot Kennedy in the left temple and the bullet and brain debris exited from the right rear of Kennedy’s head. They devote all of page 99 to showing graphically how this was done. With part of their thesis the claim that the Zapruder film had been altered, they sent copies of the film to Officer Chaney, to Officer Douglas Jackson, to Officer Bobby Hargis and to Sgt. Stavis Ellis. As the transcript posted on this thread makes clear, Toft was obviously hoping Chaney would provide grist for the Zapruder fakery theory and his questions to Chaney show this. Had Chaney really “went ahead of the President’s car,” he could have made Toft’s day by simply telling him this. This was just what Toft was fishing for. Yet Chaney would not oblige. Instead, he said he did not remember stopping but must have stopped because he recalled watching Officer Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of Chaney. This is not something Chaney got from watching the Zapruder film because it’s not there. It’s something he got from remembering the event and knowing what his memory entailed.

In a delicious irony, by trying to get evidence for Zapruder alteration in the early 1970s, Toft ended up depriving Professor Fetzer of a witness statement he attempted to use for the same purpose forty years later!

JT

..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

I've gone through this and highlighted (bolded) some of the most important testimony you have collated here. Why would ANYONE have reported that it stopped if it hadn't stopped? I really do not follow your reasoning here. Is it simply a matter of intuition? Do you REALLY not understand that the limo HAD TO SLOW AS IT CAME TO A STOP, where some people saw part of it, others saw more? I really cannot understand this. Do you think you can average the reports of witnesses? There are millions who were not there and did not report any stop, either! Why in the world would this many well-positioned witnesses have reported a limo stop if no limo stop had occurred? Would you do that, Kathy? Your position is simply incredible.

Jim

59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street (Revised update-1998) by Vince Palamara:

Said the limousine stopped (personal observation):

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles) — "The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

10) DPD Earle Brown — The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it STOPPed ... after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it STOPPed." [6 H 233];

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car STOPPed almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and STOPPed. Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it STOPPed. Several officers said it STOPPed completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — saw JFK's car stop "just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and STOPPed." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith — confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it STOPPed] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

42) Peggy Burney — she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily STOPPed and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they STOPPed. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily STOPPed. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car STOPPing. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and STOPPed, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

Said the limousine stopped (reported observation):

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car - one of two, nine and ten vehicles behind JFK) — Reported on the air that the limousine STOPPed on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus, in the first press bus, 12 vehicles behind JFK, still on Main Street at the time) — "The President's driver slammed on the brakes — after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193]

Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That is certainly a more gracious concession than I would have expected from you, Tink, but my suggestion was that you and I stay out of it and let David Josephs and Pat Speer sort this one out. In my opinion, there really is no more reasonable interpretation than that it happened BEFORE the limo took off.

I checked the full quotes and it is clear that the remarks of Forrest Sorrels are not consistent with the scenario I outlined. With respect to Sorrels, you are right and I was wrong. I regret the error. With respect to the others, I think they are all consistent with the report from Chief Curry that the exchange with Chaney took place west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway. This would be at a time after the limousine had cleared the scene and at a time when Chaney could have caught up to Chief Curry in the lead car.

JT

I encourage David Josephs to review the witness testimony to determine whether or not Josiah Thompson is correct in claiming that this event did not happen before the limo reached the Triple Underpass. It can be found collated as compiled by John Costella. This is a nice test case to assess our relative degrees of credibility. In the process, David will be learning more about what the witnesses had to day and can make more contributions here. Needless to add, neither Tink nor I should be conducting this research but David Josephs, Pat Speer, and others are appropriate to sort this one out.

Claims of Zapruder film alteration come and go. This particular claim has been on life-support since it was discussed in 2008 as “New Proof of Zapruder Film Fakery.” Like earlier claims, it is usually announced by Professor Fetzer as some sort of world-shaking breakthrough and remains so until the leaks are discovered and it sinks.

The 2008 discussion showed that the recollections of Chief Curry, Agent Lawson and Agent Sorrels are all probably correct. After hanging back and almost coming to a stop, Officer Chaney guns his cycle and catches up with the lead car containing Curry, Lawson and Sorrels. The films of Zapruder, Nix, Bell and Daniel all are consistent with this scenario as are the still photos of Altgens and McIntire. The McIntire photo, for example, shows two motorcyclists, Chaney and Martin trailing the limousine as it blasts by the lead car at the Triple Underpass. As Chief Curry explained, Officer Chaney caught up with the lead car west of the Triple Underpass on the on-ramp to the Stemmons Freeway and told them what had happened. Hence, the photo evidence and the reports of Curry, Lawson and Sorrels all form a compact package describing what happened.

Chaney was never deposed by the Warren Commission and never submitted reports to DPD as to what he observed on November 22nd. He was interviewed by the FBI on November 28, 1963 (25H284), but, oddly enough, was only asked about his chance encounter with Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza on November 23rd. On the night of November 22nd, Chaney was interviewed by Bill Lord of ABC News at DPD headquarters. During this interview, Chaney said: “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit.” Since all the films and photos show that Chaney did not do this, Professor Fetzer and Jack White claimed that all the films and photos have been altered (apparently to conceal this rather trivial fact).

Through a lot of work, I finally obtained the mp3 of an interview Chaney did with Gil Toft posing as “John Whitney” sometime between 1971 and 1973. Toft was helping Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams with their book Murder from Within. Chaney was important to this effort because Newcomb and Adams were backing the notion that Agent Bill Greer turned around in his seat and shot Kennedy with a chrome hand-gun. On page 55, Newcomb and Adams write: “The President was facing forward and slightly to his left when he was struck by the fatal bullet fired by the driver.” In an Appendix on page 311, they even provide a detailed diagram of the limousine showing Greer turning around in his seat and shooting Kennedy. Since Greer is in the driver’s seat and Kennedy is in the rear seat on the right corner, the trajectory of the shot is from left to right with debris blown to the right rear over Officer Chaney. Clearly, Toft hoped to get confirmation for this theory by having Chaney tell him he was hit with impact debris. Chaney did not oblige and said nothing about being hit by any impact debris.

Chapter Four of Murder from Within is entitled “The Filmed Assassination: How the Key Movie of the Murder Was Altered.” Newcomb and Adams describe various ways in which the Zapruder film was altered not the least being retouching of Z 313 to conceal the fact that Greer shot Kennedy in the left temple and the bullet and brain debris exited from the right rear of Kennedy’s head. They devote all of page 99 to showing graphically how this was done. With part of their thesis the claim that the Zapruder film had been altered, they sent copies of the film to Officer Chaney, to Officer Douglas Jackson, to Officer Bobby Hargis and to Sgt. Stavis Ellis. As the transcript posted on this thread makes clear, Toft was obviously hoping Chaney would provide grist for the Zapruder fakery theory and his questions to Chaney show this. Had Chaney really “went ahead of the President’s car,” he could have made Toft’s day by simply telling him this. This was just what Toft was fishing for. Yet Chaney would not oblige. Instead, he said he did not remember stopping but must have stopped because he recalled watching Officer Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of Chaney. This is not something Chaney got from watching the Zapruder film because it’s not there. It’s something he got from remembering the event and knowing what his memory entailed.

In a delicious irony, by trying to get evidence for Zapruder alteration in the early 1970s, Toft ended up depriving Professor Fetzer of a witness statement he attempted to use for the same purpose forty years later!

JT

..Nor is Office Chaney's motoring forward, for which we have evidence from Chief Curry, Winston Lawson, Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, and Chaney himself!

Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

Thanks for your contributions, which have been most valuable. You apparently do not understand that the witness reports have precedence over the film, which has been massively revised. And why would anyone suppose that Toni Foster's testimony, which was based on being there, would be in synch with a fake film?

And I infer that you have also not read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", which discusses the group of Hollywood film restoration experts who have discovered that the blow-out to the back of the head was crudely painted over in black. Now you can read about them. Don't quit your day job!

Jim

P.S. If you actually had read my books, you would know that photos and films can only be introduced as evidence in a court if their content is verified by those who took them. See ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), page 210. I assume the reason you give primacy to the film is because you simply don't know that.

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.

Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

HiCraig,

Are there any blurring programs that might possible work on the Zapruder film... say frames 312 and 313? Costella's remarks on the theory of blur removal are from 2001. With the development of digital technology since then I would expect some real advances here. Have there been such advances?

JT

Kathy,

Thanks, I've read this before and I use a couple of different blurring programs myself.

Costella is clearly proficient in the math required to do this work....I'm not. I just use it.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Kathy,

I have to admit that I am fairly dumbfounded by your knowing that at least fourteen (14) witnesses reported a limo stop, when you want to deny that a limo stop occurred. Now we are not talking about a group of lunatics. These witnesses included the motorcycle escort officers, who, of all people, would be in an impeccable position to know. So I really do not understand where you are coming from. Let me ask a few questions.

Do you know anyone who would report a limo stop (an automobile accident, whatever) if a limo stop (motorcycle accident, whatever) had not happened? I don't know anyone like that. So what is the probability that 14 witnesses would report a limo stop (many right under their noses) if no limo stop had occurred? And what is the probability that those same witnesses would have reported a limo stop if one actually had occurred?

Do you get my point? By dismissing these witnesses--a list that does not include Toni Foster or Louis Witt, by the way, so there is no telling how many more there may be!--you are suggesting that something wildly improbable has occurred, namely: that 14 witnesses (let's make it 16) have reported a limo stop that actually did not occur! My best guess is that that would have a probability of approximate zero. Would you agree?

On the other hand, it is not difficult to imagine that, when we are talking about a limo stop involving the President of the United States, the probability of reporting a limo stop if a limo stop had actually occurred would be very high, say, around one. In fact, if a limo stop had in fact occurred, I would think only those who had not seen it or who had seen it only in part (slowing but not stopping) would not report it. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you see what I mean? If you have a gift for mathematics, as you imply by suggesting that Costella's explanation of de-blurring is for you a piece of cake, then dealing with these probabilities must be that much simpler. Since the probability of reporting a limo stop if one had not occurred is incredibly low, while reporting a limo stop if one had occurred is incredibly high, do you think we REALLY ARE dealing with loons?

Jim

Kathy,

I've gone through this and highlighted (bolded) some of the most important testimony you have collated here. Why would ANYONE have reported that it stopped if it hadn't stopped? I really do not follow your reasoning here. Is it simply a matter of intuition? Do you REALLY not understand that the limo HAD TO SLOW AS IT CAME TO A STOP, where some people saw part of it, others saw more? I really cannot understand this. Do you think you can average the reports of witnesses? There are millions who were not there and did not report any stop, either! Why in the world would this many well-positioned witnesses have reported a limo stop if no limo stop had occurred? Would you do that, Kathy? Your position is simply incredible.

Jim

59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street (Revised update-1998) by Vince Palamara:

Said the limousine stopped (personal observation):

4) DPD motorcycle officer James W. Courson (one of two mid-motorcade motorcycles) — "The limousine came to a stop and Mrs. Kennedy was on the back. I noticed that as I came around the corner at Elm. Then the Secret Service agent [Clint Hill] helped push her back into the car, and the motorcade took off at a high rate of speed." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 129];

6) Clemon Earl Johnson---"You could see it [the limo] speed up and then stop, then speed up, and you could see it stop while they [sic; Clint Hill] threw Mrs. Kennedy back up in the car. Then they just left out of there like a bat of the eye and were just gone." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 80];

10) DPD Earle Brown — The first I noticed the [JFK's] car was when it STOPPed ... after it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it STOPPed." [6 H 233];

11) DPD motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car STOPPed almost immediately after that." [6 H 294; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), p. 71; 6/26/95 videotaped interview with Mark Oakes & Ian Griggs: "That guy (Greer) slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down slowed down almost to a stop." Like Posner, Hargis feels Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill Kennedy.];

13) DPD James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — stated that the Presidential limousine stopped momentarily after the first shot (according to the testimony of Mark Lane; corroborated by the testimony of fellow DPD motorcycle officer Marion Baker: Chaney told him that " at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and STOPPed. Now I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it STOPPed. Several officers said it STOPPed completely." [2 H 44-45 (Lane)---referring to Chaney's statement as reported in the "Houston Chronicle" dated 11/24/63; 3 H 266 (Baker)];

14) DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) — saw JFK's car stop "just for a moment." ["Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

33) Alan Smith---" the car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead the car went about five feet and STOPPed." ["Chicago Tribune", 11/23/63, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 71];

34) Mrs. Ruth M. Smith — confirmed that the Presidential limousine had come to a stop. [CD 206, p. 9; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97];

35) TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly---after the first shot " I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area [it STOPPed] for a second or two or something like that I just saw it stop." [3 H 221, 266];

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

42) Peggy Burney — she stated that JFK's car had come to a stop. ["Dallas Times Herald", 11/24/63; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97; interestingly, during the 11/20/93 C-SPAN "Journalists Remember" conference, Vivian Castleberry of the Dallas Times Herald made the claim that her first cousin, Peggy Burney, was Abraham Zapruder's assistant "and was next to him when he shot his famous film. She called and said, 'Vivian, today I saw the President die.'"!---See Sheldon Inkol's article on this conference in the January 1994 "Fourth Decade"];

50) Bill Newman---after the fatal head shot "the car momentarily STOPPed and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. Some Secret Service men reached into their car and came out with some sort of machine gun. Then the cars roared off "; "I've maintained that they STOPPed. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but" ["Crossfire" by Jim Marrs (1989), p. 70; "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 96] "I believe Kennedy's car came to a full stop after the final shot." ["JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan (1993), p. 169] "I believe it was the passenger in the front seat [Roy Kellerman]---there were two men in the front seat---had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily STOPPed. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car STOPPing. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded [sic] and accelerated on." [11/20/97 videotaped interview with Bill Law, Mark Row, & Ian Griggs, as transcribed in "November Patriots" by Connie Kritzberg & Larry Hancock (1998), p. 362] "One of the two men in the front seat of the car had a telephone in his hand, and as I was looking back at the car covering my son, I can remember seeing the tail lights of the car, and just for a moment they hesitated and STOPPed, and then they floorboarded [sic] the car and shot off." ["No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 96];

Said the limousine stopped (reported observation):

2) ABC Reporter Bob Clark (rode in the National Press Pool Car - one of two, nine and ten vehicles behind JFK) — Reported on the air that the limousine STOPPed on Elm Street during the shooting [WFAA/ ABC, 11/22/63];

8) NBC reporter Robert MacNeil (rode in White House Press Bus, in the first press bus, 12 vehicles behind JFK, still on Main Street at the time) — "The President's driver slammed on the brakes — after the third shot " ["The Way We Were, 1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988), p. 193]

Edited January 8, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Kathy,

Why in the world are you posting material like this which not even Lamson understands and you most certainly don't? Why are you trying to fake it?

Jim

Craig,

This is the way Costella explained to Rahn the deblurring process.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/42da1f9d4ef288e7/a05b41025a481c92?lnk=gst&q=costella%27s+frames#a05b41025a481c92

. . .

I think this is fascinating, but it seems like a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" approach, even if it is the best one can do...

Oh Jim, understand it and I USE similar tech all tech all the time. I'm just not competent to CREATE it. Is this so hard for you to understand?

[Craig Lamson]

over the film, which has been massively revised.

Beep, Beep Beep....wrong answer.

[Craig Lamson]

HiCraig,

Are there any blurring programs that might possible work on the Zapruder film... say frames 312 and 313? Costella's remarks on the theory of blur removal are from 2001. With the development of digital technology since then I would expect some real advances here. Have there been such advances?

JT

Can't say if there have been 'advances' but there are newer packages on the market. I've seen the results of a few of these on assassination films and some are better than others.

Adobe is working on some stuff...

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2011/10/behind-all-the-buzz-deblur-sneak-peek.html

The problem is most were never really designed to remove massive amounts of blur or complex bluring. I generally use the software to remove the subtle blurring caused by the anti-aliasing filter on my digital SLR cameras. Even with this very very small blurring one must use it sparingly as it can really destroy image detail if over applied.

Even in small amounts the software work by producing NEW data where no true data exists. What you get is a alteration of the real data. If you upsize, downsize sharpen, change color, brightness, contrast, blur or deblur, the data you end up with is not the same data you started with. It is altered.

Now that's not to say that these functions don't have value, they do.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Chris Davidson]

Craig,

I remember watching the Adobe presentation a few months ago and thought it had promise.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be a fabrication.

Adobe got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

We just got an email back from Jue Wang (from Adobe Research and the presenter of the deblurring sneak peek), who explained the history of the images used in the demo…

There’s no issue to speak of really – here’s what he wrote us:

Hi, we have updated our recent blog post to include a statement on this. If you could point readers to this post that would be great.

-Jue

And that post addition says:

UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur” technology. The first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX conference!

For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:

grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/mdf_deblurring/synth_results/

cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/

wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.pdf

chris

Edited January 8, 2012 by Chris Davidson

[Ed LeDoux]

If Burnham can to show actual PROOF of the existence of this film, let him. At this point his account is simply hearsay. Let him prove his case. I surely don't have to "trust" his word.

His account is corroborated Craig.

OKAY, I would then ask that you post the in camera original Zapruder film as proof of its existence because at this point it is hearsay what is on it.

I surely don't trust your analysis of a faked second or third generation film.

FAIL

Thanks for playing though,

Ed

[David Andrews]

Sometimes, I like to look at this lowly little item on YouTube, which has certain qualities of framing that aren't available in more exacting assemblages of Zapruder frames. Ignore, please, the fatuous soundtrack, and take a look at Clint Hill in this version:

Using John Costella's frames for reference, we can see in this film, and by Costella frames 406-7, that Clint hill is both touching Jackie's arm, and is close enough to the limo rear seat to see JFK's wounding. (We see this by those frames, not necessarily exclusively in their duration.) Did he see the wound perfectly then? Perhaps not, but what he adduced then was confirmed soon after, during the ride to Parkland. Here's frame 407 Costella, with Hill close enough to judge JFK's condition:

Did Clint Hill really "push" Jackie back into her seat? I doubt it. He touched her. He was prepared to push her down, but she responded to his presence and guidance. Climbing over a moving car trunk under gunfire probably made the act of seating Jackie seem more physical than it was. (How, exactly, could the act of pushing Jackie into her seat be eliminated from the film and replaced with the more gentle actuality, using the available frames and matte work or other special effects?)

In this YouTube framing of the Zapruder film, we can see that by Costella frames 423-427, Hill is looking back to the Queen Mary - Hill rises, noticeably, from his forward crouch, and we can see his left facial profile for the only time in Zapruder. We can see his motion begin at 0:26 in the YouTube version above, which corresponds to frame 423 Costella.

Hill rises and turns at the moment when he is partly obscured to Zapruder by an upright stalk of the Pyracanthus bush, and we can see him up and looking back at least as far as frame 427 Costella. After that, he is lost in the sprocket holes in Costella, and in Zapruder he is obscured by the second freeway sign.

Compare the film version and the Cosrella frames. Hill rises and turns between the upright stalk and the sign edge. We can't see what Hill did while obscured by the sign, but his actions are consistent with his testimony, and he did have opportunity to flash a "Thumbs-down" back to the Queen Mary. Unfortunately, this moment is not available for comparison in Nix and Muchmore.

After the limo emerges from behind the second freeway sign, we see that Hill is returned to his more stable position on the bumper step. Yes, he is not shown draped over Jackie and JFK before the Triple Underpass, as he testified. But such is memory under panic and regret.

I submit that what we see in this YouTube version is essentially the enactment of Clint Hill's testimony, given the conditions which necessitated his testimony. There are many alterations to Zapruder, but I don't believe gross alteration of the Hill-Jackie motions are among them (as opposed to frames cut in this sequence to change duration).

Edited January 8, 2012 by David Andrews

[David Josephs]

Jim -

You ask why so many state the limo stopped...

We have testimony stating everything from a split second to 2-3 seconds.. again - HUGE difference

If it had stopped for a full 2-3 seconds, one would think there would be better corroboration.....

In terms of the ghost images.... I'd guess that's why we can't see the actual z film's structure (like doug would like) to determine if it was exposed with natural or artificial light... a reworked film would have been entirely filmed to allow for these ghost images to be correct from frame to frame...... but it would be done with artificial light...

I was specific in my post about not knowing HOW... just that frames SEEM to be excised in a number of places... AND the ghost images work.

Again - has anyone done a comparison in the same type of camera (or anycamera) and looked at the frames side by side?

If the Z camera was operating at 48fps - slow motion - wouldn't it be more likely that we'd get full frame clarity?

Thanks

DJ

Brehm puts it very well:

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

This phenomenon is reported all the time during intense memory acquisition... seeing the pres shot would qualify, no?

http://www.livescience.com/2117-time-slow-emergencies.html

Instead, such time warping seems to be a trick played by one's memory. When a person is scared, a brain area called the amygdala becomes more active, laying down an extra set of memories that go along with those normally taken care of by other parts of the brain.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/17/why-time-slows-down-in-near-death-experiences/

Eagleman’s theory? The brain records more sensory information in traumatic experiences. Time isn’t slowing down, but the hyper-memory makes it seem like it is by processing and storing all this additional information. Or, as NPR puts it, “you’re getting a peek into all the pictures and smells and thoughts that usually just pass through your brain and float away, forgotten forever.”

[Craig Lamson]

If Burnham can to show actual PROOF of the existence of this film, let him. At this point his account is simply hearsay. Let him prove his case. I surely don't have to "trust" his word.

His account is corroborated Craig.

OKAY, I would then ask that you post the in camera original Zapruder film as proof of its existence because at this point it is hearsay what is on it.

I surely don't trust your analysis of a faked second or third generation film.

FAIL

Thanks for playing though,

Ed

No its NOT. All you have is hearsay. You can't produce the film. YOU CAN'T EVEN PRODUCE GENERATIONAL COPIES. You want to see you the original Z film, go to the archives.

EPIC FAIL.

Thanks for playing.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Craig Lamson