The Law of Unintended Consequences

Craig Lamson · January 12, 2012

The evidence is blatant, conspicuous, and damning--and it has been confirmed by real film and photo experts. You and Lamson have disgraced yourselves time and time again in this very thread.You have never explained why you would introduce such an inferior frame 317 when you constantly tout the importance of the frames in the slide set at The 6th Floor Museum. If we now discover discrepancies between that slide set and the third generation scan of the Hollywood group, what would be a reasonable inference?

David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., did not simply report that he had visited The 6th Floor Museum, but he was there and in the company of witnesses. I have ask what happened to the slide set during the two weeks or so it was reported "missing"? Do you think there is any good reason to believe anything you say about this, when you are impugning the integrity of the most respected member of the JFK research community, whose competence and qualifications for research on the film--and X-rays--overwhelmingly exceed your own?

Round and round and round we go and Fetzer tries to deflect what is by now PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.

All the has to back his claim is "I see, just believe me".

He has NO data. He has NO scan. He has NOTHING but "I see, just believe me".

Get back to us when you have real data and a scan so we can investigate the validity of your claims.

Until then you are NOTHING but more hot air.

Greg Burnham · January 12, 2012

A question or two for Tink and Craig:

If optical scans showed that the black patch was definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film) would either of you concede that the film was altered?

If not, why not?

If not, precisely what would constitute proof for for you? Please be specific.

Craig Lamson · January 12, 2012

A question or two for Tink and Craig:

If optical scans showed that the black patch was definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film) would either of you concede that the film was altered?

If not, why not?

If not, precisely what would constitute proof for for you? Please be specific.

Its not our job to define the proof for someone else's claim.

Show us then proof and then we can investigate the validity of the proof.

Gee, I think answer has already been given.

Now scoot along Burnham.

January 12, 2012

Here are some reminders of the strength of the evidence that there was a massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head, which is actually visible in frame 374, where the evidence that something is wrong with the film has been massive and compelling, but of course the public was not allowed to view the film until 1975, where the reasons for concealing it have become more and more apparent across time. In order to defend the thesis of Zapruder film authenticity, Thompson has to deny that these witnesses were truthful about their own personal experiences and observations at the time:

And since the physicians at Parkland had the first opportunity (by medical experts) to examine the wound and describe it, here is a summary of some of their reports, which, like that chapter of MURDER (2000) that Tink likes to cite, was prepared by Dr. Gary Aguilar. The problem for Tink is that, like that chapter, which reported the consistency of the reports about this wound, it implies that the film has been faked. In order to defend the thesis of Zapruder film authenticity, therefore, he also has to deny these physician's reports were accurate, even though they were all experienced and competent medical experts in Dallas who were very familiar with gunshot wounds:

Since Tink has placed all of his eggs in the same basket--the slide set--it might be a good idea to ask if he, like David Mantik, has studied these slides and whether he observed the same anomalies, including the black patch in frame 317, that David observed. It is inconceivable that Tink would be taking such a strong stand--and repeatedly refer to the slide set as "definitive"--if Tink did not know exactly what it shows. It will be most interesting and informative to compare what is now present in this "pristine" slide set with what other students have discovered in their own work, especially in relation to the HD scans of the THIRD GENERATION "forensic" version of the film Sydney obtained from NARA.

Thanks Craig for this. I should tell you that the semi-circular penumbra in the photo is most likely from an overhead flourescent light fixture that I could not turn off during the copying process. I took the photo to a San Francisco lab and had it scanned as you point out to grain level. I attach a certification from the lab.

I think Pat Speer has put the issue correctly. In the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies that I worked with (close-up shown) and in the 4" by 5" transparencies I studied this June at the 6th Floor Museum, there is nothing remotely odd about the back of JFK's head. The shadow there appears just like all other shadows that we see. If you go downstream in copies, contrast build-up apparently makes the back of his head look odd. The same thing has happened before with people working from inferior copies of the Zapruder film and reaching preposterous conclusions. How many years has it been since the promissory note of the H7 started circulating? Two years? Three? Nothing important can be done until they either come forward with their results or silently fold their tents and fade away.

Agreed by everyone, the best copies of the Z film are sitting in Dallas at the 6th Floor Museum. It would have been nice if the National Archives had simply scanned their own copies of the MPI transparencies and released them to the public at a nominal price. They didn't. It would be nice if the 6th Floor Museum would do the same thing and maybe they will. I've urged them to do that. But neither Gary Mack nor I make such decisions. For now, we are at least in the position that the transparencies can be viewed by simply making an appointment. I have seen them. They are glorious and they end this argument definitively. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has viewed these transparencies and says they confirm a black patch at the back of Kennedy's head. Swell. I say that is simply not the case. I say that either Mantik or Fetzer is just making that up, that the transparencies show the opposite. And it's easy to see who's right... just go and take a look at them.

There is one other point I'd like to make. Concerning the back of JFK's head subsequent to Z 313, what you see on the Zapruder film is also what you see in the Moorman photo, Nix and Muchmore. There are frames from the Z film that apparently show some disturbance of hair at the back of the head. It's very difficult to tell what you have. But the Moorman photo is taken from the left side and fairly close-in. It matches what we see in the Zapruder film at the same instant.. Z 315. According to Mr. Block, Z 315 is the frame when efforts were first begun to conceal a massive blow out of the back of JFK's head. If so, how come this is not apparent in the Moorman photo? You want to say that it too was faked up? Good luck.

JT

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

January 12, 2012

Here are some more "reminders" of the strength of the evidence for the conclusions that the Zapruder

film was faked, including, of course, with respect to painting-in "the black patch" at the back of JFK's

head. We have the witnesses, the physicians, plus the X-rays studies--and it is visible in frame 374!

It was "over" for the other side when David Mantik determined that the blow-out to the back of the skull

had been "patched" by using some material that was far too dense to be human bone, where the outline of

the patched area "P" closely corresponds to the wound as described my dozens and dozens of witnesses.

And it was "over" when I discovered that you can actually see the blow out in a later frame of Zapruder,

374, which those who were editing and revising it apparently overlooked in their efforts to conceal the

true causes of his death from the American people, which BY ITSELF refutes authenticity of the film:

And what is there not to understand about the blow-out WHEN WE CAN SEE IT IN FRAME

374? How can Tink persist in maintaining that his fakery is not present, when we can see it in

the frame that Chris posted and where frame 374, BY ITSELF, proves that the film is a fake?

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

Chris Davidson · January 12, 2012

As you persist in your silliness in discounting the obvious, if optical scans showed that the black patch is

definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film), would you concede that the film was

altered? If not, why not? If not, precisely what would constitute proof for you? (And please be very specific.)

Here's the frame that Davidson has posted on this thread:

Here's the frame that Thompson has posted on this thread:

The painted-in black patch is visible in both, even more so in the Davidson than in the Thompson. Do you

seriously believe that the members of this forum do not see through your transparent diversions for Tink?

How dense can you be Fetzer? The question is not IF there is a shadow/patch on the back of JFK's head. Sheesh, get up to speed.

Jim,

I went back through the program " Lost Bullet" and here is a compilation of frame 317.

The original I posted is second from the top.

It appears as if they did more work on that one, as some of the background lines have been removed around Jackie's and JFK's head.

Just one among other items, which is why I thought this was the best version.

But others can decide what they like best.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/318A7/MultipleVersions.png

chris

David G. Healy · January 12, 2012

course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that!

I see dave wants to play bait and switch too. Must be an epidemic of "I can't prove the patch is a patch so I'll try another approach".

nah.... now you're changing the subject, mis-direct a tad if you will. If the patch is there, the original Z-film has been altered... if the same "patch" (I like convienent artwork touch-up) is NOT on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original currently held at NARA... ya gotta a huge problem guy....

I saw the discussed images many months ago -- been watching WCR, Z-film non-alteration theorists, LHO did it all by his lonesome adherents dance mightly since then...

Nice to see you in overdrive... bait-n-switch? don't need it!

Chris Davidson · January 12, 2012

And on the basis of such a GROSSLY INFERIOR copy, he wants to insist that a conspicuous feature that's

OBVIOUSLY THERE is not there? Why should anyone take Tink seriously? He has discredited himself.

Actually the question is should anyone take you seriously?

You have NO CLUE what versions of 317 Tink has viewed over the years. You are simply making a baseless assumption.

I grabbed my copy of Tinks 317 crop and did a quick Photoshop curve adjustment to it. The file attached is this adjustment.

The original image (as seen) was 120mb in size at 16 bit. It was scanned at 4000dpi. It is scanned down to grain level.

Clearly this image has faults. The most blatant is the fact that there is a reflection of the camera right over JFK. This is not surprising. Tink made this slide using an improvised copy setup, "on the sly". and he is not a professional photographer.

Second the image appears to be made on regular reversal film. Tink states Ektachrome. It appears from the contrast build that this is in fact the case. A professional duplication would have been done on duplication stock which requires tested filtration to achieve proper results.

Third the image was scanned to film grain level. This adds level of 'noise' above the image detail that makes measurements difficult.

Finally the image appears underexposed.

So where does that leave us? Is the image of no value?

Of course not. It adds yet another data point to the mix. It shows, as best possible given the faults, what was present in the Life 4x5 color transparencies.

And clearly the Davidson image being touted has faults as well. It is FILLED with compression artifacts and it is contrasty.

No one in their right mind would say that the 6k scan made by the H7 has no value. Given its lineage it is surely a valuable asset.

I for one cant wait to see the presentation of both the scan and the data that attempts to prove the claim that the image is retouched.

Sadly all we have now is, "I see it, just believe me."

Josiah or Craig,

What 4x5 transparencies were used that eventually give us what we see today (frame 317) from Josiah.

Common elements seen on the MPI and Lost Bullet frames.

I do not see them on the enhanced version Craig created from Josiah's frame.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/CA8AD/Common.png

chris

Craig Lamson · January 12, 2012

course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that!

I see dave wants to play bait and switch too. Must be an epidemic of "I can't prove the patch is a patch so I'll try another approach".

nah.... now you're changing the subject, mis-direct a tad if you will. If the patch is there, the original Z-film has been altered... if the same "patch" (I like convienent artwork touch-up) is NOT on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original currently held at NARA... ya gotta a huge problem guy....

I saw the discussed images many months ago -- been watching WCR, Z-film non-alteration theorists, LHO did it all by his lonesome adherents dance mightly since then...

Nice to see you in overdrive... bait-n-switch? don't need it!

Worlds a big place Dave, lots of people see lots of things. Gonna be a big road to prove that the so called patch can only be man made and not the result of nature, a gun shot and 8mm Kodachrome film. It's taken them 2 years so far and still nothing to show the world. One thing is for certain, Its gonna be a whale of a fun time if...or when they try and go public. I hope they have all their ducks in a row, but pretty confident they won't. We will see.

January 12, 2012

David makes an excellent point. The "best evidence" is NOT the MPI slide sets at The 6th Floor Museum,

but the film that the government purchased on behalf of the people of the United States, which is stored at

The National Archives. Why don't we ask the Archives to let us all examine that together in their presence?

If they refuse (which they will), all we have to do is purchase a 35 mm dupe negative FROM THE ARCHIVES

of what is in the Archives (the extant film), and replicate Sydney's scans. In this way there can be no doubt

of the film's provenance. When there are conflicts--which now appears to be the case--they can be settled.

A third generation item FROM THE ARCHIVES is more trustworthy than any film product that has been in the

hands of parties with obvious bias, which, I am sorry to say, includes The 6th Floor Museum. David Mantik

claims he saw the black patch (and other artifacts) in November 2009, which Tink claims are now not present.

The MPI slides are NOT "best authority." The film in the Archives is the "best authority," and the next-best

is any 35 mm dupe negative or positive that can be purchased from the Archives SINCE ITS PROVENANCE

IS UNQUESTIONED. Which also means that the Hollywood HD scan is superior to anything in the museum.

course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that!

I see dave wants to play bait and switch too. Must be an epidemic of "I can't prove the patch is a patch so I'll try another approach".

nah.... now you're changing the subject, mis-direct a tad if you will. If the patch is there, the original Z-film has been altered... if the same "patch" (I like convienent artwork touch-up) is NOT on the alleged Zapruder in-camera original currently held at NARA... ya gotta a huge problem guy....

I saw the discussed images many months ago -- been watching WCR, Z-film non-alteration theorists, LHO did it all by his lonesome adherents dance mightly since then...

Nice to see you in overdrive... bait-n-switch? don't need it!

Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

David Josephs · January 12, 2012

Then a question for the photo experts...

by doing what I;ve done to this frame - shouldn't we expect all the balck areas to look the same, if they are all indeed just SHADOW?

Please explain why Jackie's hair... in the same depth of shadow, does not exhibit this same squared off, out of the lines result?

or Greer's hair

JC's jacket

Kellerman's jacket

the dark door panels to the right of Jackie

the blackness of the window frames on the south side of the limo

why is this result ONLY seen on the black area at the back of JFK's head, does not follow the contours of his head,

and actually looks as if it was drawn in?

Craig, can you post a frame, any other frame, in which we can see this effect at any other spot on a frame?

Thanks

DJ

David Butler · January 12, 2012