The Law of Unintended Consequences

[David G. Healy]

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.

All the above is meagre hearsay as far as this forum is concerned, until you can provide evidence that all of the above is as you say it is.

At the moment, the Hollywood 7 studies are just a propoganda rumour.

You are normally not one to hold back evidence, what's the problem in this instance?

All Z-film related postings here are mere hearsay and opinions dude. Unless you, of course, spend your time sitting in the archives gazing....

This thread has new, recent "professional input", unlike yours and some other uninformed "opinions". Without professional chops, I'm afraid your opinion drops to the bottom of the pile... Now imagine this: folks that really do understand Photoshop, AfterEffects, film and photo image composition, and manipulation are monitoring this thread... Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

So.... until you can provide Z-film authenticity and in-camera original verification (which you can't and/or won't do) you're simply advancing old news, old news that's had a thousand holes blown into it over the past 10 years (especially the last 10 years)... Old news advanced by the same DP history preservers of yore (for 45 years now)... What's fascinating is those very preservers of DP history and adherents don't seem to enjoy the advances we've made in the image technology field... maybe we should let them in on 3D commercial film making...

Learn to read, David. I didn't express an opinion, I expressed the fact that the alleged Hollywood 7 studies are null and void on this forum.

What's the problem with releasing the study?

Is it deliberately being held back for profiteering in a 2013 farce publication maybe? Just wondering.

Oh, you are right about one thing though, there has been professional input on this thread, from Craig Lamson,and Craig Lamson Only, the rest haven't a clue, and I know you know it...Carry On Dave.

I can understand your envy, Dunc. Being invited to comment on certain imagery is a mark of respect for ones abilities... ah, peer review if you will, something Hollywood folks deal with on a daily basis.... Plenty of photog wannabes around, as your aware anyone can take a good picture these days, digital cameras are virtually idiot-proof.... manipulating the images, now that's another story.....

Guess you guys will just have to wait for a report, perhaps 2013, maybe sooner, maybe never at all... frankly I was stunned in 2010 when I saw one of the images, takes a lot to stun me dude -- and rest assured, select, credible investigators in the JFK assassination arena have already, and a few soon will see them....

I doubt a related study image will find its way to your lone nut supported website -- but who knows, they're not mine!

Edited January 11, 2012 by David G. Healy

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Thanks. I have revised the first sentence. But how am I supposed to raise suspicions that those slides "went missing" so they could be revised using digital technology? I only ASKED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE ASKED. How else am I supposed to phrase it? And questions are not accusations. Surely he can answer it.

Jim

Jim, I have highlighted sections of your post that are clearly in violation of Rule iv of the forum, which reads:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

I am bringing this to your attention as a fellow member. It is my hope that ALL members choose to cite Rule iv when other members cross the line, rather than return fire. As a consequence, I am asking you to soften or remove the offending passage. If you feel others on this thread are also in violation, I request you similarly cite Rule iv, and ask them to edit their posts as well.

As your post was reported by another member, I am forced to intervene as a moderator, Jim. The questions to which you refer were indeed phrased as accusations, and have been deleted. You could have asked "Do you know anything about such and such" but instead chose to presume such and such had occurred, and then ask "How dumb do you think we are?" or thereabouts. You are free to re-ask your questions, provided there is no presumption of guilt apparent. This forum is designed as a place where people can calmly exchange information. If you have concluded that one or more of its members are involved in dishonest activity, you are free to write about it elsewhere.

[Chris Davidson]

Something Lamson and Thompson are concealing is that David Mantik already visited the Museum and confirmed the presence of the patch. He is a summary by Doug Horne at http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/3251.html It's already been 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

Fetzer, TRY AND STAY ON TOPIC....

Ill ask again, where is the data that supports the claims...ABOUT THE SO CALLED BLACK PATCH?

You know the, I see it so believe me claim?

Now how hard is this anyways?

Oh Wait, THERE STILL IS NO DATA..years later.

Now we can all understand why Fetzer tried to go all bait and switch on us. HE HAS NOTHING!

Jim,

It sounds as if the "Lost Bullet" program used either the original 35mm version or a copy themselves.

Possibly, the same version that the Hollywood research group has been studying.

Here is the pertinent segment from that show.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/0DE4A/1.flv

chris

[Chris Davidson]

I also agree that the MPI frames, at least what came on the DVD are less than desirable.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/70EB5/317Multi.png

Here is a comparison among a few.:

1.From the "Lost Bullet" program.

2.From MPI, this was from the enlarged version. One of many shown.

To the left in the red square is the version supplied by John Costella, I believe it to be from MPI also. John please correct me if I am wrong.

3.This is #2 with about 30 seconds of work in Photoshop.

Little more green, little less red, and some shadow contrast applied.

If the quality is there from the MPI transparencies, it would be nice to see it in digital form.

chris

[Patrick Block]

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 Patrick Block

[Craig Lamson]

If you combine what Patrick just aid about the Wilkinson version of the film and what LIfton said about what he saw way back then:

(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.

Well, then we have Mantik. Are all of them lying about this blackened out area?

Further what Patrick says about its rendition and the straight edges, and the brown/black contrast,and how it appears at a certain frame etc. This seems to me to be of compelling interest.

And I thank Tink for being civil and generous in his reply to Patrick. Some people here, in a Von Peinain way, like to polarize the debate by using base rhetorical techniques. Patrick has brought some interesting new info and views to this discussion. And he is to be commended for that.

But Patrick, her name is not Wilkerson, its Wilkinson. Right? You have never met her?

But Jim, its NOT new, its just more of the same bag-o-crap that's been around FOREVER.

Its still the "I see it, just believe me" nonsense.

Patrick adds nothing new, aside for gen 5 to gen 3 on the H7copy. Let me repeat...NOTHING.

Patrick posits a really simplistic model for blacking in the back of the head. But what about all the rest? How does he handle that? Whats the rest? How about the mess that would have been blown out of this so called hole? Where did that go? It's not a simple black patch.

And still after all of these years of people says I see it, believe me, not a one has shown that what is seen cannot be a natural occurrence. You talk about brown hair changing color..how do you eliminate the blood and fluid from the wound NOT changing the color for example?

And the straight lines? Come on. They exactly correspond with the edge of the wound and the ear.....

It goes ON AND ON. And all we get is "I see it, just believe me".

This is an EXTRAORDINARY claim. it requires EXTRAORDINARY proof. And all we get is silence. TWO YEARS OF SILENCE.

Oh and "I see it, believe me". Sheesh... CT's....

BTW, While I disagree with Patrick completely in regards to the film, there is no mistaking his skills and acclaim as an artist.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Patrick Block]

Wilkinson, yes. I can't believe I spelled it like that. Editing that to correct it, thank you Jim.

We have not met in person, only via phone and emails.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

Lamson is the original, "Who are you going to believe: me or your lying eyes?" Unless LAMSON approves it,

it isn't there. No matter how obvious or conspicuous. Even frame 374, where you can view the BLOW OUT

with your own eyes; or frame 317, where you can see THE BLACK PATCH with your own eyes! Unless it has

the "Lamson Seal of Approval", none of this evidence EVEN EXISTS. It's an old act and grown stale over time.

Your posts about Patrick have been excellent and reflect a sincere and rational response to his observations.

Jim

If you combine what Patrick just aid about the Wilkinson version of the film and what LIfton said about what he saw way back then:

(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.

Well, then we have Mantik. Are all of them lying about this blackened out area?

Further what Patrick says about its rendition and the straight edges, and the brown/black contrast,and how it appears at a certain frame etc. This seems to me to be of compelling interest.

And I thank Tink for being civil and generous in his reply to Patrick. Some people here, in a Von Peinain way, like to polarize the debate by using base rhetorical techniques. Patrick has brought some interesting new info and views to this discussion. And he is to be commended for that.

But Patrick, her name is not Wilkerson, its Wilkinson. Right? You have never met her?

But Jim, its NOT new, its just more of the same bag-o-crap that's been around FOREVER.

Its still the "I see it, just believe me" nonsense.

Patrick adds nothing new, aside for gen 5 to gen 3 on the H7copy. Let me repeat...NOTHING.

Patrick posits a really simplistic model for blacking in the back of the head. But what about all the rest? How does he handle that? Whats the rest? How about the mess that would have been blown out of this so called hole? Where did that go? It's not a simple black patch.

And still after all of these years of people says I see it, believe me, not a one has shown that what is seen cannot be a natural occurrence. You talk about brown hair changing color..how do you eliminate the blood and fluid from the wound NOT changing the color for example?

And the straight lines? Come on. They exactly correspond with the edge of the wound and the ear.....

It goes ON AND ON. And all we get is "I see it, just believe me".

This is an EXTRAORDINARY claim. it requires EXTRAORDINARY proof. And all we get is silence. TWO YEARS OF SILENCE.

Oh and "I see it, believe me". Sheesh... CT's....

BTW, While I disagree with Patrick completely in regards to the film, there is no mistaking his skills and acclaim as an artist.

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Patrick Block]

Hi Kathy,

Yes, initially NARA informed Ms. Wilkinson her dupe neg was 5th generation, and Horne was told this from Wilkinson and published the information in his big book. NARA itself discovered they were mistaken this past year, I understand, and informed the researcher of their mistake. I didn't read this anywhere...it's not on the internet, I was informed of this directly.

The term "element" in the film world is generally used to describe what you get when you take a "positive print" and create a "dupe negative", which is the preferred method in the film world when you want something that you are going to work with or study closely....a dupe negative is a "negative element", or an "element" for short. Typically, in movie making you make release prints from dupe negatives.

*squints at the last paragraph*

Yeah, right, that make sense.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent work, Chris. Here is the comparison image you produced for the benefit of viewing by others:

The "black patch" is most conspicuous in the frame from "The Lost Bullet", suggesting they had access.

Contrary to Tink and Lamson's insinuations, the higher the quality, the more conspicuous is the art work.

I also agree that the MPI frames, at least what came on the DVD are less than desirable.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/70EB5/317Multi.png

Here is a comparison among a few.:

1.From the "Lost Bullet" program.

2.From MPI, this was from the enlarged version. One of many shown.

To the left in the red square is the version supplied by John Costella, I believe it to be from MPI also. John please correct me if I am wrong.

3.This is #2 with about 30 seconds of work in Photoshop.

Little more green, little less red, and some shadow contrast applied.

If the quality is there from the MPI transparencies, it would be nice to see it in digital form.

chris

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Jim,

Lamson is the original, "Who are you going to believe: me or your lying eyes?" Unless LAMSON approves it,

it isn't there. No matter how obvious or conspicuous. Even frame 374, where you can view the BLOW OUT

with your own eyes; or frame 317, where you can see THE BLACK PATCH with your own eyes! Unless it has

the "Lamson Seal of Approval", none of this evidence EVEN EXISTS. It's an old act and grown stale over time.

Your posts about Patrick have been excellent and reflect a sincere and rational response to his observations.

Jim

Eyes can be deceiving Jim, as we have seen firsthand with Patrick telling us by HIS EYES the so called black patch was the darkest thing in the frame. He was wrong

That's why we need REAL DATA and not subjective vision. This group has had 2 years to develop this data and the fact it is still missing speaks volumes.

And of course its always such wonderful comedy to watch cts, who babble on at length about solid evidence, drool at nothing more than "see I told you so". The irony is simply delicious.

Your brain and your eyes don't always work so well.....

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelsonCheckShadow/index.html

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Everyone here knows where I stand on this issue, and why... but that was not determined by images on a computer monitor because only so much "information" can be displayed in this medium. Web-browsers are limited to 72 dpi. So, even a very large, high resolution file that is uploaded to a server that can handle its girth will not display "true" on the monitor. The attempt to speculate about what the "in person" direct empirical observations of the SCANS would reveal vs what is displayed on our respective monitors via a wholly inadequate web-browser's limitations is specious, at best.

[Craig Lamson]

Oh and "I see it, believe me". Sheesh... CT's....

To me, this is the whole key to your post.

Its not a matter of who sees what, its a matter of who REFUSES to see ANYTHING!

To believe you, all the people who have seen this dark patch are somehow lying to themselves and to everyone else.

And here is the truly incredible part: these are people who work in the film industry!! Which you do not.

And one guy who does special effects for a huge house! Even Patrick, who is an animation illustrator. None of this means a whit to you.

I know a person who what was at the Wilkinson screening. He is not a Z film alterationist. But he does work in the film industry. He even says what he saw was really interesting.

So when you say, we have to take it on "their word", this is a complete distortion on your part. First of all, not all of them are so-called CTers. There were scores of people at the screening. Sydney has shown the work to many others besides that. BTW, she has gone to even more work even beyond the scan. Which you are not even aware of and have made zero attempt to find out what it is. All the time praising the work of Farid and Rollie and never even once pointing out the problems, that even Rollie himself explains.

Secondly, it is not just a handful of people. Its way, way more than that. And again, its MOTION PICTURE people--many of whom are not even interested very much in the JFK case.

Ever since you first appeared here, many, many years ago, you your own private agenda. It was to go after the "Sheesh CTEers". I have never ever once heard you say anything critical of the other side. Never. Ever. Which is astonishing considering the work done on the x rays by David Mantik, and what Stringer told Jeremy Gunn about the photos of the brain.

Those instances ARE NOT WHAT SOMEONE SEES, TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT.

And this points out the large lacunae I indicated above in your method. This is not still photography basics Craig. This is a homicide case which includes crime scene investigation and collection. And the evidence then has to be knit together in a coherent way. If you add in Stringer's deposition under oath, with Mantik's densitometry measurements, something is really wrong with the photos of the brain and the x -rays of the skull. If you then add in the over 40 witnesses who saw an avulsive wound in the back of the head, it then gets worse. So dabbing a little matte work on the Z film for a few frames would seem rather easy to me. Knowing that the film would be locked up for decades. And only bad quality copies--made deliberately bad by TIme-Life to give to Garrison--would ever get to the public. And therefore this could never be detected.

What amazingly silly babble. Standard jimmy d stuff, when he is trapped.

PUT SOME DATA ON THE TABLE! Don't tell us this guy or that guy SEE's something. SHOW US REAL PROOF! 10 people or a hundred, film pro or not...IF THEY CAN'T PROVE with something aside from "I think" or "I see" or "in my professional opinion", they have no proof nor evidence. It's just empty words.

PUT THE DATA ON THE TABLE. Really quite simple. And we are still waiting. And jimmy d is still drooling.

BTW, this is very basic photo stuff jimmy. Nothing high tech about 1963 special effects in the context of this film. Unless you subscribe to the Costella nonsense of build the film from scratch.

Its not a question of if people see "something". It's a question of what is it and can it be natural. They guys are claiming it is a retouched patch. Quite an extraordinary claim.

Their extraordinary proof so far..."I see it".

Sheesh...ct's

PS.

I don't give a dang about the rest of the case as you well know. I don't care who killed JFK. Ancient history. Changes nothing today. YMMV.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Everyone here knows where I stand on this issue, and why... but that was not determined by images on a computer monitor because only so much "information" can be displayed in this medium. Web-browsers are limited to 72 dpi. So, even a very large, high resolution file that is uploaded to a server that can handle its girth will not display "true" on the monitor. The attempt to speculate about what the "in person" direct empirical observations of the SCANS would reveal vs what is displayed on our respective monitors via a wholly inadequate web-browser's limitations is specious, at best.

The world is not limited to web browsers...sheesh.

[Craig Lamson]

PS: Your post 310 is a perfect example of what I am talking about with your methodology. Its become Von Peinian.

Post 310 proves the fantasy of relying on human vision in these cases.

You have just shown how weak you really are.