The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Craig Lamson]

That looks pretty good to me Dave. I'm not saying its a home run, but it sure looks like you got a hit. The back of his head looks just bizarre there.

jimmy d drools for no reason since he has no idea what it is he is looking at. Photographic ignorance run amuck.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Josiah Thompson]

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

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

Edited January 13, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

No, you miss the point. We are talking about what is or is not shown in "the Zapruder film". David Healy,

like me, does not believe for a minute that the film in The National Archives is the "authentic, in-camera

original". But WE DO believe is the authentic recreation of the film, which contained a certain number of

flaws. It was largely well-done, but the black-patch on frame 317 and the visible blow-out on frame 374

are indications of fakery, as well as the "blob", the blood spray, and more. The point is not that we think

that film is the ORIGINAL but we do believe it is the FABRICATED FILM, features of which have been under

discussion here, where Tink has been steering us toward the MPI slides as though they were the "BEST

EVIDENCE" of the content of THE ZAPRUDER FILM. There is no BETTER EVIDENCE than the Zapruder

film itself. Who knows how many tweaks may have been made to those slides? To test whether or not

those features are in THE ZAPRUDER FILM we need to use the closest we can get to THE FILM ITSELF.

At present, contrary to Tink's claims, the BEST VERSION we have is the HD scan of the Hollywood group.

Jim

David...

As with the autopsy... what makes you believe the film at the Archives is actually the in camera original

when as of 11:30/12pm on 11/22 there is a very good possibility that the SS already had this original... ?

Do you feel as if ALL the items at the archive are the originals?

Thanks and sincerely interested as you seem to be saying we can TRUST what the Archive gives us as being authenticated in some way

DJ

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.

I think this is a good idea...Does anyone know what the process is for obtaining a dup negative from the National Archives ? As i'm from the UK I'm not sure how this kind of thing would work but until the hollywood 7 cough up something to look at it seems it's the only way to take a proper look ourselves....

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Am I the only one to notice that Josiah Thompson has not said a word about

(1) the witnesses who reported the blow-out to the back of JFK's head;

(2) the physicians who reported extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

(3) the X-ray studies that exposed the blow-out had been covered by a patch;

(4) the visible blow-out in frame 374 that confirms (1) though (3) in spades?

So now we have another "patch", this time painted in, which he claims is not

even there! Does anyone discern a pattern here--one of denial and evasion?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to acknowledge that the Hollywood scan

is closer to the Archived film than to divert attention to a pseudo-documentary?

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Daniel Gallup]

Am I the only one to notice that Josiah Thompson has not said a word about

(1) the witnesses who reported the blow-out to the back of JFK's head;

(2) the physicians who reported extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

(3) the X-ray studies that exposed the blow-out had been covered by a patch;

(4) the visible blow-out in frame 374 that confirms (1) though (3) in spades?

So now we have another "patch", this time painted in, which he claims is not

even there! Does anyone discern a pattern here--one of denial and evasion?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to acknowledge that the Hollywood scan

is closer to the Archived film than to divert attention to a pseudo-documentary?

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

Dr. Fetzer et al. I have been looking at Z-317 now for pages and pages of posts. One of my interests is Toni Foster, whom we can see in that frame, and her testimony of the limo stop in her interview with Debra Conway in 2000. In the Z-film she continues the fast walk/run toward the limo at the time of and shortly after the headshot, while in Nix I believe we see her turn her head sharply to the right, possibly at the time of the heashsot. It was on this basis that Kathy Beckett proposed Foster could not have seen the limo stop, since she wasn't looking at it when it presumably did. Has anyone done a careful study of Toni Foster's movements in the two films and indentified anything suspicious? I seem to remember a researcher demonstrated that her gate has an irregularity in it in the extant Z- film, right near the time of the headshot. But I am also curious about her movements in Z vs. Nix. If this post is out of place, apologies to all concerned. Regards, Daniel

[David Lifton]

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.

We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.

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

JT

I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about.

So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives."

Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame.

Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false).

But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element.

That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1".

Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive.

As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film.

Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame.

I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE.

I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website.

Click on this link and compare:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg

Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me.

To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film.

DSL

1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 13, 2012 by David Lifton

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

Kathy Beckett commits the blunder of ASSUMING THE FILM IS AUTHENTIC by presuming that the contents of the film are MORE AUTHORITATIVE than the reports of the witnesses. The fact of the matter, however, is that photos and films are only admissible as evidence in courts of law when the persons who took them vouch for their authenticity on the theory that they represent a visual or graphic representation of the personal experiences of the witness. The authenticity of the film is in doubt--and even Abraham Zapruder gave only a highly equivocal endorsement of his own film--where, if we are correct about its alteration, NO ONE TOOK IT, since NO ONE TAKES A FAKED FILM. It was created in a lab. No one "took it".

What this means is that Kathy, who seems to me to be a very sincere and dear person, has not put together the logic of the evidential relationship between the film and the witnesses. THE WITNESSES HAVE PRIMACY OVER THE FILM AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Notice that A WITNESS IS REQUIRED TO AUTHENTICATE A FILM, where, even merely based upon the differences between the extant film and what Abraham Zapruder claimed he had taken--beginning as the limo turned from Houston onto Elm, which is missing from the extant film--supports its lack of authenticity, she should give more weight to those who reported the limo stop, Chaney motoring forward, Clint Hill's description of his own action, and all that. After all, THEY WERE THERE.

When Toni Foster reports looking at the limo and seeing that it had stopped--as well as many other details not in the extant film--HER TESTIMONY OUTWEIGHS THE FILM. Josiah has done a great job of not making this clear and, when David Mantik and I had both published about it in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), this appears to have been one of many findings that were disclosed there--including the alteration of the X-rays and the substitution of another brain, as well as multiple studies that tended to prove the film's lack of authenticity--where he responded by referring to it as "ASSASSINATED SCIENCE"! I had expected him to welcome our research, but instead he denigrated it. So we have to take what Toni says seriously:

There are many other indications the film is fake:

(1) Greer's head turns are impossibly fast.

(2) The "blob" was painted in.

(3) The blood spray was painted in.

(4) There was no back-and-to-the-left.

(5) JFK instead slumped forward.

(6) Debris blew out to the left/rear.

(7) Debris was strewn across the trunk.

(8) Clint actually pushed Jackie down.

(9) Clint lay across their bodies.

(10) Clint gave a "thumbs down".

(11) Chaney motored forward.

(12) There was a limo stop.

These are all in addition to the "patch" painted over the blow out at the back of his head, where I have already noted the number of witnesses who reported it, the physicians at Parkland who described it, the X-ray studies that confirm it, and that you can actually SEE IT IN FRAME 374! Not only that, but the Hollywood group, using the best available version of the film that they obtained directly from The National Archives, have identified it, Patrick Block and the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world have confirmed it--and you can actually see it with your own eyes! How much proof do we need to conclude that the film is a fabrication? How much more?

David Mantik, M.D,, Ph.D., has also reported observing the "patch" in frame 317 of the MPI "slide set", which Josiah has so often touted. Tink denies that it can be seen in the slides now held at The 6th Floor Museum. But we know it is present in the HD scan that the Hollywood experts on film restoration have been studying, which Sydney Wilkinson obtained from the Archives and which, at this point in time, is the closest we have to a copy of the film that is held by the Archives, which cannot be said of the slide set in the museum. Josiah, ironcially, has not had a lot of success in defending his point of view, where even his endorsement of Louis Witt as "the Umbrella man" backfired when it turned out that Will had witnessed the limo stop:

When you consider the large number of witnesses who reported the limo stop--and I personally have never known ANYONE who would REPORT A LIMO STOP IF THERE HAD NOT BEEN A LIMO STOP--and the corroborating witnesses to Chaney's motoring forward, not to mention Clint Hill's own vivid and consistent recollections of the actions that he took at that time in Dealey Plaza (which I have discussed in considerable detail in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"), I must confess to astonishment that ANYONE continues to defend its authenticity. We have been having an extraordinary discussion about a small feature of the film, but the additional evidence that impeaches its authenticity is simply overwhelming.

Jim

Am I the only one to notice that Josiah Thompson has not said a word about

(1) the witnesses who reported the blow-out to the back of JFK's head;

(2) the physicians who reported extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

(3) the X-ray studies that exposed the blow-out had been covered by a patch;

(4) the visible blow-out in frame 374 that confirms (1) though (3) in spades?

So now we have another "patch", this time painted in, which he claims is not

even there! Does anyone discern a pattern here--one of denial and evasion?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to acknowledge that the Hollywood scan

is closer to the Archived film than to divert attention to a pseudo-documentary?

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

Dr. Fetzer et al. I have been looking at Z-317 now for pages and pages of posts. One of my interests is Toni Foster, whom we can see in that frame, and her testimony of the limo stop in her interview with Debra Conway in 2000. In the Z-film she continues the fast walk/run toward the limo at the time of and shortly after the headshot, while in Nix I believe we see her turn her head sharply to the right, possibly at the time of the heashsot. It was on this basis that Kathy Beckett proposed Foster could not have seen the limo stop, since she wasn't looking at it when it presumably did. Has anyone done a careful study of Toni Foster's movements in the two films and indentified anything suspicious? I seem to remember a researcher demonstrated that her gate has an irregularity in it in the extant Z- film, right near the time of the headshot. But I am also curious about her movements in Z vs. Nix. If this post is out of place, apologies to all concerned. Regards, Daniel

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[John Costella]

Fascinating.

This is my opinion:

Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.

The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.

With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.

It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.

I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:

So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.

Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])

John

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.

We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.

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

JT

I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about.

So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives."

Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame.

Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false).

But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element.

That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1".

Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive.

As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film.

Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame.

I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE.

I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website.

Click on this link and compare:

http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z317.jpg

Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me.

To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film.

DSL

1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Craig Lamson]

That looks pretty good to me Dave. I'm not saying its a home run, but it sure looks like you got a hit. The back of his head looks just bizarre there.

jimmy d drools for no reason since he has no idea what it is he is looking at. Photographic ignorance run amuck.

I love it: I don' t know what I am looking at. Talk about Thought Police.

You would have to be either visually impaired or ideologically blinkered not to see anything weird there.

BTW, nice dodge about your political leanings Craigy. I would keep them under wraps also if I were you.

I

I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure.

So tell us oh intelligent one. Exactly what ARE you seeing? And why is is 'weird". Your answers are sure to be amusing.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure.

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda.

Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it?

Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling.

[Craig Lamson]

Not nearly as amusing as some of your "expert" opinions on things like the go round you had with Speer over the DPD's Paper Bag for Oswald's rifle.

If anyone could take you seriously after that, they, like you, must have though W was too liberal.

Sadly for him ( and you) Speer is still wrong and I'm still right about the paper bag

Now instead of playing bait and switch how about answering the question you just tried to dodge...

So tell us oh intelligent one. Exactly what ARE you seeing? And why is is 'weird". Your answers are sure to be amusing.

[Chris Davidson]

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

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

Josiah,

Yes, they do not appear on those two frames.

Neither do the scratch marks that the other's possess. Well, actually the scratch marks are there, they have been cleaned up.

Which leads me to believe the two spots I specifically pointed out were also cleaned up in those two specific frames.

That's why I wanted to know what 4x5 transparencies you used.

Now, David Lifton has posted another version which appears to match yours in terms of these marks(non-existent) they are.

It appears David and your's possibly came from the same original source?

And, it appears the "MPI" and "Lost Bullet" frames could have come from the same original source, especially if MPI did some clean up (scratches eliminated) work to theirs, which I'm pretty sure they did.

But they all did not originate from the same original source.

chris

Edited January 13, 2012 by Chris Davidson

[Craig Lamson]

I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure.

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda.

Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it?

Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling.

So cliff, exact where did I contradict my earlier denial? Your fantasy take here should be quite anusing.

Now I'm a Kennedy hater? Sheesh Cliff you have gone off the deep end.

Yes it is about fantasy and reality. You live in a fantasy world while I live in the real world.

rock on ...

Edited January 13, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

.

But they all did not originate from the same original source.

chris

Why? Many YEARS past between the Lifton and Thompson copies and the MPI and Lost Bullet copies. And many playings and viewings of the original. It would be silly to expect to to remain unchanged damage and dirt wise.

DO you see any content changes ASIDE from damage and dirt?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John,

I find it rather odd that this frame has none of the sharpness and

definition that has historically been associated with Ektachrome.

Could you discuss this? I found the frames being studied by the

Hollywood group to have far better definition. Why is that, mate?

Just to make sure we understand each other, you are not denying:

(1) that many witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head;

(2) that the Parkland physicians described the blow out at that location;

(3) that Mantik discovered the blow out had been "patched" in the X-rays;

(4) that the blow out can actually be clearly seen in the later frame 374.

From which it follows the blow-out WAS covered up by a black patch,

which has been confirmed by Pat and the Director and the Hollywood

group who are studying a 3rd generation copy we have of the archived

film. So whatever your take on the blackness issue, YOU ARE NOT NOW

DENYING THAT THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IS "PATCHED".

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Jim

Fascinating.

This is my opinion:

Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.

The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.

With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.

It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.

I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:

So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.

Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])

John

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer