The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink has made it a theme of this thread that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

"It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames." You recall that John Costella found the shadow at the back of JFK's head not to be "the blackest area in the frames" in the very excellent upstream copy of 317 provided by David Lifton.

JT

Edited January 21, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

Pat,

You need better resources. Is it possible that, having taught this stuff for 35 years, I might have a better definition of "special pleading" than what you have advanced? My source is Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969). The cases you mention are variations on the more general point about appealing to just the evidence (or principles or whatever) that are favorable to your side while suppressing the rest. If you want to debate about the nature of fallacies, that would be my pleasure. You are too dependent on sources you are unable to evaluate because you don't know enough about them to get them right.

Whatever gets you through the night.

Same for the medical evidence. The Clint Hill images are an excellent example. You take for granted that what Clint is illustrating--around 48 years after the event, where HE HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN WARNED AGAINST GOING TOO FAR

What nonsense. Putting words in all caps doesn't make your paranoia any more believable. The mainstream media is far more interested in the single-bullet theory than the head wounds. And yet Hill made the rounds on all the news shows and made it clear he thought the single-bullet theory was bunkum. This says to me he was telling it as he saw it. If you have any evidence he was told it was OK to tell people the single-bullet theory was nonsense, but that he was to lie to them about the head wound location, and make his lies seem believable by depicting the location a few inches further back on the skull from where it is shown on the autopsy photos, x-rays, and z-film, well, now's the time to share.

--where the shot hit, even though his demonstration is seriously at odds with his consistent reports and testimony over all those years. To cite such a much more recent illustration over the consistent written record--which really leaves no doubt--is a methodological blunder.

Ah, there's the rub. Hill's earliest statements were not very precise or consistent as to the wound's location and he most certainly never described a wound where you claim one was (low on the far back of the head). Since you don't appear to know what he actually said, here's a reminder.

Clint Hill rode on the outside of the back-up car by the driver’s door. (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely....I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull.(3-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H132-144) "The right rear portion of his head was missing. ...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

So you see, he specified in his first report that the wound was "on the right rear side," then later said it was "on the right rear portion." This is somewhat confusing. The "right rear side" does not suggest the inclusion of the far back of the head, but the "right rear portion" does. He then testified that "The right rear portion was missing" and that wound was "in the right rear portion." This is also confusing. If the right rear portion was missing, the wound could not be "in the right rear portion." In any event, his claim the wound was on the right rear side cuts into your claim it was on the far back of the head, and makes his eventual demonstration of the location all the more significant.

As I have pointed out before, earlier reports are generally more reliable than later reports, which is one reason that I fault you. That is not the only methodological blunder which you commit, of course, but it is a rather important one.

This is what I mean by Special Pleading. You say I am not allowed to use Hill's recent demonstrations of the wound location because they are, in your interpretation, in conflict with his earliest reports, and yet you cite McClelland as a witness for an exit would low on the back of the head even though his earliest statements regarding this wound were

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." and

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind...As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front."

The second is that, while you are willing to build your case selectively on the basis of this illustration, you have shown no respect whatsoever for the mass of other witnesses who contradict that depiction. How often to I have to post and re-post the witnesses you nitpick to try to revise the evidence in this case? That is massively objectionable. We have literally dozens of witnesses who reports, testimony, and illustrations contradict the one from Clint Hill that you like to cite.

More Special Pleading. These reports, testimony, and illustrations, are in conflict with your proposed location as well.

Your theory of a side wound is anatomically inconsistent with extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.

Well, DUH. That is why I assume the doctors were mistaken about the cerebellum. You don't seem to realize that they said they were mistaken, long before I ever assumed as much.

YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE WITNESSES WHO WERE REALLY THERE. It is beyond my comprehension how you can think anyone is going to take you seriously when all you do is REVISE AND REVISE AND REVISE THE EVIDENCE TO SHAPE IT TO FIT YOUR PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS.

More Special Pleading. A number of "the witnesses who were really there" who I supposedly don't care about said that they'd come to realize they'd been mistaken about some of their earlier observations and conclusions. And I have the gall to believe them. Well, who are you to doubt them? I mean, they wee really there, right?

You are like a little duckling who was imprinted by the first moving object it saw and took it to be its mother. The Newmans observed the skull flap blowing out, but did not witness the blow-out to the left/rear--

This is far more preposterous than anything I've ventured. They were looking at the back of his head. But I'd readily admit they could be wrong, if the other Dealey Plaza witnesses saw the wound you've envisioned. Buy they didn't. And you know they didn't. Your position is just silly, IMO. I mean, how can anyone claim the Parkland witnesses were unassailable experts who'd never mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum, while simultaneously pushing that they failed to notice the huge hole by Kennedy's temple described by the Newmans?

and you have made a career of trying to force all the evidence to support an indefensible theory. This is your most serious blunder, but at least one more is worth noting.

As I have pointed out AGAIN AND AGAIN, you should be taking into account the unexpectedness of the assassination, differences in location, position and such, which led to minor variations in the locations provided by these eyewitnesses and treat them as a statistical phenomenon.

Another double standard. You claim I have failed to take into account the effect of perspective on people's interpretation of the wound location, when you have refused to study the possibility the Parkland witnesses were confused by looking down on the body.

Instead of pitting one against another to manipulate the evidence to support a blow out at the side FROM WHICH CEREBRUM AND CEREBELLUM WERE EXTRUDING

It's hard not to feel you are deliberately misrepresenting my claims here. You oughta know full well by now I believe they were mistaken about the cerebellum, and that this is something most of them admitted. As far as my "manipulating" the evidence...I would be delighted if someone made an intelligent argument there was a wound on the back of the head where the doctors said it was, but no one wants to do this. Instead, they take their cues from the past and add the Harper fragment's being occipital bone into the mix, then "manipulate the evidence" to support a wound low on the back of the head, where none of the best witnesses saw the wound. Pot, meet kettle.

, we find that they by and large agree with Clint Hill's description: "There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head

This is MY point, exactly. Hill said the wound was in the UPPER skull, and depicted a wound in that location. Most of the witnesses in Groden's book also pointed to a location on the UPPER skull, And yet you and yours have, for decades now, been claiming the wound was on the lower skull, and that those claiming it was on the UPPER skull were just wrong. Well, this is yet another double standard. Why is it not okay for me to assume they were wrong and that the wound was really where it is shown in the photos, if it's okay for you to assume they were wrong and that the wound was chiefly on the occipital bone?

about the size of my palm." Elsewhere in THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), we also read, "And slumped across the seat, President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only Clint Hill was in the position to make that specific observation (p. 217). Ordinary conversational contexts--non-adversarial exchanges--are governed by several principles, including "the principle of charity", which requires of us that we interpret what others say in ways that make them true, unless there are good reasons that override that presumption.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so shockingly sad. The way to interpret conflicting information in ways that make them true is to assume some of the information is inaccurate, and that the people presenting the inaccurate information are honestly mistaken. You, in this very thread, have suggested that the very witnesses you rely upon to make your claims were in many ways mistaken, and WORSE. You've suggested that Chaney lied in the transcript provided by Tink, that Hill lied when showing the wound location, that Mary Moorman lied about her photograph, and that a number of the Parkland witnesses were lying when they said they later changed their minds. What kind of "charity" is that?

You treat one witness after another as wrong, mistaken, lying or deluded.

And you don't? Why don't you start a new thread in which you build your case from the ground up? That way I can show you how you cherry-pick your evidence, and mostly disregard the witnesses.

Those who violate this convention, alas, are most unlikely to make serious contributions to the study of this case or of any other.

Oh, the irony.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is a short and sweet IQ test for you as a student of JFK. Please answer the questions as I have asked them in as simple and direct a fashion as you can:

(1) Clint Hill has described his actions in pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, and peering down into "a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only he was in the position to make that observation. QUESTION: Has Clint Hill been misdescribing his actions and observations for nearly 48 years now?

(2) During the course of this thread, there has been extensive discussion of whether or not Officer Chaney motored forward to advise Chief Curry that JFK has been shot BEFORE OR AFTER the limo had reached the Triple Underpass. QUESTION: Does the weight of the evidence support that Chaney rode forward before the limo reached the TUP?

(3) There has also been extensive discussion of the "black patch" on frame 317, which Tink insists IS NOT PRESENT on the MPI set at The 6th Floor Museum, yet it is on Sydney's 3rd generation copy and even the MPI motion picture film released in 1998. QUESTION: Should the "black patch" also be present on MPI slide set at The 6th Floor Museum?

Let's leave it at this. That way you will have "the last word". Just answer my questions and everyone else can evaluate your cognitive abilities for themselves.

My responses in bold.

Pat,

You need better resources. Is it possible that, having taught this stuff for 35 years, I might have a better definition of "special pleading" than what you have advanced? My source is Alex Michalos, PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC (1969). The cases you mention are variations on the more general point about appealing to just the evidence (or principles or whatever) that are favorable to your side while suppressing the rest. If you want to debate about the nature of fallacies, that would be my pleasure. You are too dependent on sources you are unable to evaluate because you don't know enough about them to get them right.

Whatever gets you through the night.

. . . .

Edited January 21, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Mopping up a few key issues, now that the faking of the film has been established beyond reasonable doubt!

John Costella has written why a quick and dirty version is fine, as long as it is within the following constraints:

(1) It is only shown visually; no copies are allowed to be taken away or published

(2) Any frames published publicly must ultimately be consistent with what we now have as the extant Z film

(3) The frames published need not correspond to the quick and dirty version in detail

(4) The quick and dirty version could have been knocked together quickly with optical film editing techniques (a la what David Healy described)

(5) The ultimate extant Z film required a careful fabrication of each and every frame, including blurs and sprocket hole area

Lamson is right to reject any simplistic alteration scenario of the EXTANT film, as others in the thread I think

suggested. The quick and dirty version and the final product are completely parallel production paths;

coordination between the two would have been imposed by those overseeing the overall process.

What Lamson never does is to think things though to discern the truth at the core of posts he doesn't like,

very much in the tradition of Pat Speer, who does his best to discount even the most of reliable witnesses.

What could be more obvious?[/b]

That you are a master of ridiculous posts.

Yea, that's the ticket. lets alter it TWICE.... got any more silly theories to post?

Of course you do. Why did I even ask.

[Pat Speer]

Here is a short and sweet IQ test for you as a student of JFK. Please answer the questions as I have asked them in as simple and direct a fashion as you can:

(1) Clint Hill has described his actions in pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, and peering down into "a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only he was in the position to make that observation. QUESTION: Has Clint Hill been misdescribing his actions and observations for nearly 48 years now?

The answer is NO--Clint Hill has not been misdescribing his observations for 48 years. He observed a large wound on Kennedy's head above his right ear, very close to where it appears in the autopsy photos. While his early statements were vague, his most recent statements have been quite clear on this point. He has also demonstrated this repeatedly in recent years. You seem to think his doing so is some sort of aberration, but you just don't get it--he NEVER said the wound was on the far back of the head where you'd like others to believe it was. The quote you love to cite in which he uses the words "back of the head," moreover, is not even an actual quote from Hill, but a quote from a book written by Lisa McCubbin and Gerald Blaine, with a foreward by Hill. You have no proof he said this, and you should really stop pretending he did.

P.S. Here's a short and sweet IQ test for you, professor. It's a two-parter. How many times has Clint Hill said the wound was on the "back" of the head? How many times has he said it was "above the ear"?

Clint Hill rode on the outside of the back-up car by the driver’s door. (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The noise came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound—like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left. I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the Lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital." As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat...At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket.” (3-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H132-144) “Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left... I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo.” (On what he saw upon arrival at Parkland) "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (When asked if he saw any wound other than the head wound at the autopsy) "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." (When asked if had an impression of the direction from which the second shot had been fired) "It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it." (Signed statement in the 5-5-64 Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H685) "I departed the Texas Hotel between 1:15 A.M. and 1:30 A.M and went to the Press Club, Fort Worth, arriving there about five minutes after departure from the Texas Hotel. While there I consumed the (?) glass of scotch and water and purchased two packs of cigarettes. I departed the Press Club at approximately 1:45 A.M. I then went to a place known as "The Cellar, arriving there at approximately 1:50 A.M. While at The Cellar I was served a beverage which I can best describe as grape fruit juice and soda. It was called a 'Salty Dick.' I did not drink the entire drink. I departed The Cellar at approximately 2:45 A.M. and returned to my room in the Texas Hotel." (Note: Hill reported for duty at 8:05 A.M.)

(1975 interview on television program 60 Minutes) (When asked if there were multiple shooters) "There were only three shots. It was one gun. Three shots." (When asked if he was satisfied that Oswald acted alone) "Completely." (Television interview found on Youtube as Clint Hill Interview 1, apparently taken from the History Channel program The Secret Service, 1995) "I heard a sound from my right rear. I was on the left-hand front of the follow-up car. As I began to turn to my right toward that sound, my eyes crossed the back of the presidential car. And I saw the president grasp at his throat and lurch a bit to his left. And I realized something had happened. And I got off the car as quickly as I could and ran to the presidential car. By the time I got there two more shots had been fired and he had been hit in the head." (Television interview found on Youtube as Clint Hill interview 2, apparently taken from the Discovery Channel program Inside the Secret Service, 1995)) "We made a left-hand turn, and shortly after we made a left-hand turn there was an explosion to my right rear that sounded a bit like a gun shot or a firecracker. And I responded by looking to my right and as I did so my eyes went across the back of the presidential car. And I saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left. And I jumped from the car and ran to the presidential car. Before I got there he had been shot again in the head." (Interview conducted for the National Geographic Channel program Inside the Secret Service, first broadcast 10-24-04. Note that this is, in fact, a compilation of two different edits of the interview as found on Youtube ) "We traveled along this open area which was on my left and then made a left turn, but it wasn't a 90 degree left turn, it was like a 120 degree left turn. The open area was still on my left, and shortly after we got into that turn and started on that street, I heard a sound--which I wasn't sure what it was--whether it was a gunshot or a firecracker. I turned to see what was happening, and as I did I saw President Kennedy grab at his throat and lurch forward. I knew something was wrong. Before I could get to the presidential limousine, another shot had been fired and hit President Kennedy in the head. About that time I reached the back of the presidential limousine and tried to get on. I was trying to get my foot up on the back of the car. And I slipped. I had to run three or four more steps before I could get up. By that time Mrs. Kennedy had come out onto the trunk. It appeared to me she was searching for something, trying to retrieve something. But I got up on the back of the car and placed her back in the seat. The President at that time had slumped down into her lap. And I could see the back of his head. And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm. And there was white brain matter and red blood throughout the entire car."

(Foreword written by Hill for The Kennedy Detail, 2010) "I would be very pleased if the results of the Warren Commission and its investigation would be accepted as the final word." (Interview on Fox News Network promoting the release of The Kennedy Detail, 11-12-10) "I heard the first shot, saw the President grab his throat, and lurch left. I knew something was wrong so I ran out to the car. I tried to get up on the trunk. The driver accelerated. I slipped. When I gained my footing, I got up on the trunk of the car. About that time, Mrs. Kennedy started up on the rear of the trunk. She was trying to retrieve something that came off the President's head. She didn't know I was there. I helped her get back in the back seat and the President fell to the left in her lap." (When asked what he believes happened) "What happened was a single shooter fired three shots from an elevated position to the rear of the motorcade. All three shots hit what they were aimed at. The first one hit President Kennedy. The second one hit Governor Connally. The third one hit President Kennedy in the head. That's the fact. The rest of it is just theory. Unlike fact." (Interview on Free Johnny Dare radio program on 98.9 The Rock in Kansas City, 11-12-10) (When asked what happened after he saw the president react to the first shot) "Well, I tried to get there as quick as I could. I came off the follow-up car, ran to the presidential vehicle. I could not hear the second shot 'cause I was running. By the time I got close the third shot had hit the president in the head. Some material came off the right rear. Mrs. Kennedy came out of her seat and onto the trunk to try to retrieve that material. I slipped, I tried to regain my position. I got up on the trunk. She did not know I was there. And I grabbed her, and put her back in the seat when the president fell to his left onto her lap." (When asked what he saw when he climbed up onto the trunk and looked at the president) "I saw that there was a portion of his skull removed from the upper rear above the right ear about the size of my palm, and brain material and blood was all over the back of the car including myself." (When asked if the president was still breathing when they got to the hospital) "Well, I couldn't tell if that was the case. His eyes were fixed, and a hole was in the upper right portion of his head. So it appeared that he was fatally wounded." (London Daily Mail Online article stupidly entitled "What have they done?': Jackie's words as JFK was shot are revealed by secret service agent who breaks silence after almost 50 years", 11-14-10) "‘I heard the first shot, saw the president grab his throat, lurch left and I knew something was wrong," he recalled, his voice halting. "When I got to the presidential vehicle, just as I approached it, a third shot rang out, hitting the president in the head, just above the right ear, and left a hole about the size of my palm. There were blood and brains spewed about over myself and the car. I helped Mrs Kennedy get in the back seat and the President fell into her lap. I was quite sure it was a fatal wound. The First Lady was in shock. She was doing the best she could, she was covered in blood." On the way to Parkland Hospital, where the president would be certified dead there was little conversation. But, according to Mr. Hill, Mrs Kennedy "said something about, 'Oh, Jack, what have they done? What have they done?'"

(11-20-10 interview of Hill and Gerald Blaine by Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum, broadcast on CSPAN2, 12-12-10) (When Mack offers "You heard three shots.") "The three shots all came from the same location." (When Mack asks if the three shots were evenly spaced) "I didn't hear the second shot, so I only heard two shots. The first shot came from my right rear. And I was looking to the left of the grassy area on the left hand side of Elm Street when I heard the shot. My vision took me to the right toward that shot. In so doing my eyes went across the back of the President's car. I saw him grab at his throat and he started to lurch to his left. He didn't move too far but he was trying to go to his left. I knew something was wrong. So I jumped off the car and started running to the President's car, trying to get there in time to get on top and cover--what we try to do is cover and evacuate. I was trying to get there to cover up so nobody would impart further damage to the President or Mrs. Kennedy. About the time I got to the car, just before I got there, the third shot--that I heard, and I felt--because it hit the President in the head just above the right ear, right up in here (he places his hand just above his right ear, with some of his fingers to the back of the his ear), and blood and brain matter were spewing all over the place, including on me. About that time Mrs. Kennedy came out of her seat out onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had come off the President's head and went to the right rear. I slipped at first while trying to get onto the car 'cause Bill Greer the driver accelerated the car. I gained my footing again, got up on the car, and helped her get back in the seat. When I did that the President fell over to his left onto her lap and I could see the upper right portion of his head (he again places his hand above his right ear, only this time he places it directly above the ear, about an inch forward of where he'd placed it only 30 seconds before) had a large hole about the size of my palm. It looked like somebody had taken a scoop and removed brain matter and just thrown it around the car--blood and brain matter and bone particles all around the car. His eyes were fixed. I was quite sure it was a fatal wound." (When Mack points out to him that the scenario Hill has been pushing in his recent interviews entails three shots and three hits) "That is correct." (When Mack points out that this puts Hill at odds with the conclusions of the Warren Commission) "I recognize that. But the two of us believe that the second shot hit Governor Connally. The other person who said that, Nellie Connally, was sitting right beside him when he was hit. So I think I'm in pretty good company in believing that the second shot hit the Governor and that the third shot was the fatal wound to the President."

(Article by Hill in the New York Times, 11-22-10) "We were traveling through Dallas en route to the Trade Mart, where the president was to give a lunchtime speech, when I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. As I turned toward the sound, I scanned the presidential limousine and saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left. I jumped off the running board and ran toward his car. I was so focused on getting to the president and Mrs. Kennedy to provide them cover that I didn’t hear the second shot. I was just feet away when I heard and felt the effects of a third shot. It hit the president in the upper right rear of his head, and blood was everywhere. Once in the back seat, I threw myself on top of the president and first lady so that if another shot came, it would hit me instead." (Interview with Bob Barnard on WTTG, Washington D.C.'s channel Fox 5, and subsequently posted on the website promoting The Kennedy Detail, 11-22-10) "I was scanning the left side of the street in Dealey Plaza, and I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. And so I scanned from my left to my right going toward that noise. When I did so I scanned across the back of the car. What I saw was the president grab at his throat, and lurch to his left. And I knew something was wrong. So I jumped from the car and ran, ran toward the presidential vehicle. Now there was another shot, the second shot, I did not hear that because I was running. Just before I got to the car there was a third shot, and it hit the president in the head, causing an explosion to the upper right of his head, and brain material and blood spattered all about, including on myself. Mrs. Kennedy at that had come out on the trunk. She was apparently trying to retrieve something that had come off the president's head, and had gone to the right rear. She didn't know I was there. And so I grabbed her as best I could and put her into the back seat. And as I did that the president fell to his left onto her lap, with his right side of his head exposed. I could see his eyes, they was fixed, with a hole in his head about the size of my palm above his right ear." (11-22-10 CNN.com report by Dugard McConnell and Brian Todd) "'After the first shot hit the president,' former agent Clint Hill says, "I saw him grab at his throat and lean to his left. So I jumped and ran." Hill is the man seen running toward the limousine in the famous film of the shooting, captured by a bystander named Abraham Zapruder. Hill jumped onto the back of the presidential car, in a desperate attempt to protect the president. "Just before I got to the car, the third shot hit him in the head." Hill says."It was too late." (Unidentified book store appearance captured in Youtube video US Secret Service Agent Clint Hill Recalls Dallas, uploaded 11-24-10) "About 50 feet or 60 feet down Elm Street I heard an explosive noise from my right rear. Now I had been looking to my left over the grassy area. So when I looked back toward that explosive noise my vision took me across the back of the President's car. When I did that I saw the President grab at his throat and go left. And I knew something was wrong. So I jumped from the car and ran to the presidential limousine. I didn't hear another shot. They tell me there was a shot that occurred while I was running. By the time I had just about got to the car--I was a few feet from it--there was another shot. It hit the President in the head above the right ear. It removed a portion of his skull about the size of my palm. And there was blood and brain matter spewing about the entire area, including on myself." (Interview on C-Span program Q & A, 11-28-10) (Hill's comments while watching the Zapruder film) "When the third shot hit--which is right about now--I was just about to get onto the car. And I slipped. Then I regained my step. Then I got up on the car. Mrs. Kennedy at that time was coming out onto the trunk. She was coming out on the trunk to try to retrieve something that came off the President's head that went off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. When I got up on the trunk, I pushed her as best I could back into the rear seat. When I did that, the President fell down into her lap with the right side of his head up, exposed. I could see that his eyes were fixed and that there was a large hole above the right ear--just to the rear--above the right ear, about the size of my palm. That part of the skull was missing and there was brain matter--it looked like somebody'd taken an ice cream scoop and gone in there and removed a whole portion of the brain and thrown it around the back of the car. The back of the car and she were covered in blood and brain."

(BBC 4 audio interview published online, 12-1-10) "Well, we were turning left onto Elm Street in Dallas. And as we progressed down Elm Street I heard a sudden explosive noise from the right rear of the motorcade. And so my vision changed from looking left to looking toward that sound, which took my vision across the back of the presidential vehicle. And when I did that I saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to his left. And I knew something was wrong. And so I jumped from the follow-up car which was immediately behind the presidential vehicle and ran toward the presidential vehicle, attempting to get there to throw my body up on top of the car to form a shield between the president and Mrs. Kennedy and whoever was shooting at them." (When asked how many shots he heard) "I only heard two because while I was running apparently the second shot was fired. The third shot which I heard and felt because I was near the presidential vehicle when that happened hit the president in the head--upper right rear of the right ear--and it spewed blood matter, brain matter, and bone fragments out over the car and myself. And then I was getting up on the back of the car and Mrs. Kennedy was trying to come off out on the trunk of the car to retrieve something that had come off the president's head to the right rear. She did not know I was there. I pushed her back into the seat. And then the president's body fell to its left onto her lap." (When asked if at that time he knew Kennedy was dead) "Well, his right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed, that there was a hole in his skull above his right ear to the rear about the size of my palm. And I was quite sure that the shot had been fatal." (When asked if he felt the shots had come from the same place) "Yes I believe they all came from an elevated position to our right rear of the motorcade--it turned out to be the Texas School Book Depository--that they were all fired by the same rifle, and that they were all fired by one individual." (Interview in Discovery Channel program The Kennedy Detail, first broadcast 12-2-10) "The driver had to slow the car considerably in order to make the turn. Instead of going the 10-12 miles an hour we had been going he had to cut the speed at least in half. About that time, as I was scanning the left area from Elm Street, there was a large explosive noise to my right rear. I thought it was a fire cracker. My eyes passed over the back of the presidential car. And I saw the President grab at his throat and lurch slightly to his left. And I knew something was wrong. (Moments later in the program) Just before I got to the presidential vehicle I heard another large sound from the right rear. And then I heard the sound of an impact like a bullet hitting something hollow. Now Mrs. Kennedy was out on top of the trunk of the car trying to retrieve something she'd seen come off the President's head. I was trying to get up on the car. The driver all of a sudden accelerated. I grabbed the handle, pulled myself up, grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President slumped over into her lap. I looked down and realized how severe the President had been hit. Above the right ear, there was an area about the size of the palm of my hand that was gone. The skull was gone. It looked like an ice cream scoop had gone in and removed all the brain in that area. There was brain matter, skull, and blood throughout the entire car...(Later in the interview) On the way to Parkland, I had seen Governor Connally's chest covered in blood. That was the first that I realized that he'd also been shot."

(12-3-10 appearance at Warwick's Bookstore, New York City, posted on Youtube) "We had just started to straighten out the vehicle as as we started down Elm Street toward the Stemmons Freeway. At that point, I was scanning to the left, which was a grassy area. I heard an explosive noise to the right rear of the motorcade to my right ear. My eyes took me to the right rear toward that sound. In so doing, I had to scan across the presidential vehicle. When I did that I saw the President grab at his throat and move to his left, and I knew something was wrong. So I jumped from the follow-up car and I ran toward the presidential vehicle. My intent was to get on top of the presidential vehicle and place myself between the President and Mrs. Kennedy and whoever was shooting at them. I ran, and apparently, in that time I ran there was a second shot. I did not hear it. As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left. His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . ." (When later asked, by someone claiming to have been given permission to inspect the autopsy photos in 1979, about his description of a wound on the right rear of the head) "Above the right ear. (At this point he touches his head above his right ear and slides his hand back behind his ear) It's hard for me to describe so that people like you can understand it." (He places his hand back on his head and turns his back to the audience. The palm of his hand is above his ear and his fingers stretch to the crown of his head.) "Right in here. That portion of the skull was gone. About the size of this..." (He shows the audience his palm.) "My palm. It was an entry wound from the rear (He points to the EOP area of his skull, where the autopsy doctors claimed the bullet entered.) and it caused the entire area of that skull to lift up." (4-19-11 article in the Chicago Daily Herald on a 4-16 appearance by Hill at Anderson's Bookshop in Naperville Illinois) "Hill, one of the agents closest to Kennedy when shots were fired, told the assassination story from his point of view. On what was a warm November day in Dallas, windows were open at the high-rises surrounding the streets where the president’s vehicles proceeded to a campaign stop, Hill said. He was scanning a building to his left when he heard an “explosive noise” from his right, which turned out to be the first gunshot fired from a sixth-story window by Lee Harvey Oswald. After the first shot: “What I saw was the president grabbing at his throat and moving to the left,” Hill said, speaking quickly, as though his words were memorized and well-practiced. “I knew he was in trouble and something was wrong.” After the second shot: Hill said he tried to “cover and evacuate,” a Secret Service technique that would have allowed his body to block those of the president and Jackie Kennedy. After the third shot: Hill saw a “gaping hole” in Kennedy’s head as blood, brains and bone sprayed out from the gunshot wound, covering his clothing as well as Jackie Kennedy’s. “I assumed the wound was fatal,” Hill said."

(10-9-11 article on Hill on the Fargo--Moorehead Inforum) "During the motorcade, Hill was positioned behind Jackie Kennedy on the follow-up car and was scanning people taking photos from a grassy area off to the left. Then he heard an explosive noise over his right shoulder, and his eyes scanned past the presidential vehicle. 'I saw the president grab at his throat and kind of move to his left. I knew something had happened,' Hill said. 'I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the presidential vehicle,' he said. 'My attempt was to get on the back of the presidential car and place my body above the president and Mrs. Kennedy so that I would shield them from anything that was a possibility of happening. There was a second shot, apparently, but I didn't hear it because I was running. Then the third shot happened just as I was approaching the presidential vehicle. I slipped, had to regain my steps, got up on the car. The president had been hit in the upper right rear of his head with that third shot. There were blood and brain matter and bone fragments throughout the entire area, including myself. He slumped to his left. Mrs. Kennedy came up from her seat onto the trunk of the car trying to grab some of the material that came off his head. I grabbed her and put her back into her seat. When I did that, the president's body fell into her lap. The right side of his face was up, and I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear of his head. It appeared to me that he was dead.'"

Edited January 22, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

Mopping up a few key issues, now that the faking of the film has been established beyond reasonable doubt!

John Costella has written why a quick and dirty version is fine, as long as it is within the following constraints:

(1) It is only shown visually; no copies are allowed to be taken away or published

(2) Any frames published publicly must ultimately be consistent with what we now have as the extant Z film

(3) The frames published need not correspond to the quick and dirty version in detail

(4) The quick and dirty version could have been knocked together quickly with optical film editing techniques (a la what David Healy described)

(5) The ultimate extant Z film required a careful fabrication of each and every frame, including blurs and sprocket hole area

Lamson is right to reject any simplistic alteration scenario of the EXTANT film, as others in the thread I think

suggested. The quick and dirty version and the final product are completely parallel production paths;

coordination between the two would have been imposed by those overseeing the overall process.

What Lamson never does is to think things though to discern the truth at the core of posts he doesn't like,

very much in the tradition of Pat Speer, who does his best to discount even the most of reliable witnesses.

What could be more obvious?[/b]

That you are a master of ridiculous posts.

Yea, that's the ticket. lets alter it TWICE.... got any more silly theories to post?

Of course you do. Why did I even ask.

No Jim, I reject BOTH.

Not to mention the "complete fabrication" theory is just insane. But that kind of sums up your entire argument.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, I believe I understand why we are having this protracted exchange. As you know, the HSCA diagram and photograph clearly show the skull flap as separate from the back of the head wound, which is shown at the top of the head (at the cowlick or crown). The phrase, "above the ear", actually fits the skull flap, even though it does not really fit the wound to the right rear, as the Dealey Plaza witnesses and the Parkland doctors describe it.

I believe that you have not sufficiently separated the skull flap, which Thomas Evan Robinson also described, from the back of the head wound to the right rear, which had to be low enough for cerebellum as well as cerebrum to have extruded. Clint has sometimes been describing the open skull flap, which Jackie appears to have pressed close, and at other times the right rear head wound, which you have inadvertently conflated. Is that possible?

P.S. Here's a short and sweet IQ test for you, professor. It's a two-parter. How many times has Clint Hill said the wound was on the "back" of the head? How many times has he said it was "above the ear"?

Notice that the wound described at Parkland, as David Lifton depicts it, is at the right rear of the head but also extends somewhat to the side. The Bethesda depiction includes the considerable enlargement of the wound by Humes using a cranial saw. Most interestingly, in relation to what I am now proposing, notice that the skull flap is easily seen in the HSCA drawing and is on the side of the head and above the ear. Can anyone doubt that these are not the same wounds?

* large gaping hole in back of head (the back-of-the-head-wound)

* smaller wound in right temple (the entry wound from the right/front)

* crescent shaped, flapped down (3") (the skull flap near his right ear)

* approx 2 small shrapnel wounds in face (from those tiny glass shards)

* wound in back (5 to six inches below shoulder) to the right of back bone

Notice that the mortician also separates them. Most importantly, therefore, here is my suggestion. You have simply conflated the skull flap with the wound at the back of the head. You have misconstrued some of the witness reports, including from the Newmans and Clint Hill, to create a merge of what were actually TWO WOUNDS caused by THE SAME FRANGIBLE (OR "EXPLODING") BULLET. Consider the consequences that follow if I am right about your conflating them:

(1) then the witnesses are all generally correct in their descriptions, but of two different skull wounds;

(2) the doctor are right about extruding cerebellum, which could not have come from the skull flap wound;

(3) Mantik's study of the X-rays is correct and well-founded and is always open to replication by others;

(4) frame 374 is accurate--you can see the skull flap (pink) extending beyond the (bluish) head wound.

On your account, Pat, most of the witnesses have to be deluded, lying, or making things up. You don't even trust the doctors, who are most unlikely to be wrong about cerebellum extruding. On your account, most of them are not telling the truth. On my account, virtually all of the witnesses--when you consider differences in perspective and such--are telling the truth. The confusion derives from the--to you, irresistible--mistake of conflating what were actually two different wounds.

Here is a short and sweet IQ test for you as a student of JFK. Please answer the questions as I have asked them in as simple and direct a fashion as you can:

(1) Clint Hill has described his actions in pushing Jackie down, lying across their bodies, and peering down into "a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head", where only he was in the position to make that observation. QUESTION: Has Clint Hill been misdescribing his actions and observations for nearly 48 years now?

The answer is NO--Clint Hill has not been misdescribing his observations for 48 years. He observed a large wound on Kennedy's head above his right ear, very close to where it appears in the autopsy photos. While his early statements were vague, his most recent statements have been quite clear on this point. He has also demonstrated this repeatedly in recent years. You seem to think his doing so is some sort of aberration, but you just don't get it--he NEVER said the wound was on the far back of the head where you'd like others to believe it was. The quote you love to cite in which he uses the words "back of the head," moreover, is not even an actual quote from Hill, but a quote from a book written by Lisa McCubbin and Gerald Blaine, with a foreward by Hill. You have no proof he said this, and you should really stop pretending he did.

Since it is the single most striking and important sentence in the book--for which Clint is the only possible source!--how can you seriously contest it? This is a nice illustration of your difficulties in thinking things through. This is about as simple as it gets: WHO ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE? DO YOU THINK THEY WERE JUST MAKING IT UP?

P.S. Here's a short and sweet IQ test for you, professor. It's a two-parter. How many times has Clint Hill said the wound was on the "back" of the head? How many times has he said it was "above the ear"?

Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy.

Do you grasp that Clint Hill is describing ACTIONS he took that are not present in the Zapruder and the Nix films? There is nothing confusing about what he says: HE PUSHED HER BACK INTO THE SEAT AND LAY ACROSS THEIR BODIES. Do you see that in either the Zapruder of the Nix films?

As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat...

AS HE LAY OVER THE TOP OF THE BACK SEAT . . . , again not seen in the films. If the wound really was at the side, then why does even bother with "right rear"? Are you incapable of seeing that this was a wound that was a the right rear of the head but extended somewhat forward on the right side?

I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull.

Here Clint Hill is confirming the back wound as having occurred "about six inches down . . . just to the right of the spinal column". While David Lifton believes that this wound was fabricated, do you agree that the observations of Clint Hill and Thomas Evan Robinson on the back wound converge?

The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Now if the wound really was PRIMARILY ON THE SIDE, then why does Clint Hill NOT SAY THAT? Instead, he says--again and again--that it was "in the right rear portion of his head". He says it twice here. He says NOTHING about the side. Don't you understand that it was PRIMARILY AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD?

(When asked if he saw any wound other than the head wound at the autopsy) "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column."

So again he confirms the existence of the wound to the back, which was "about 6 inches below the neckline and to the right-hand side of the spinal column."

I got up on the back of the car and placed her back in the seat. The President at that time had slumped down into her lap. And I could see the back of his head. And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm. And there was white brain matter and red blood throughout the entire car."

What would you describe the size of the skull flap to be? About the size of your plam? Robinson says that it was "crescent shaped" and about 3" high. Since Clint is not talking about the right/rear of the head, isn't it likely that, in this instance, he was talking about the skull flap?

"Mrs. Kennedy came out of her seat and onto the trunk to try to retrieve that material. I slipped, I tried to regain my position. I got up on the trunk. She did not know I was there. And I grabbed her, and put her back in the seat when the president fell to his left onto her lap."

Do you see Clint Hill GRAB JACKIE AND PUT HER BACK IN HER SEAT IN EITHER THE ZAPRUDER OR THE NIX FILMS? That is my point about his ACTIONS in contrast with his OBSERVATIONS. His ACTIONS contradict what we see in the extant film, because they have been removed from it.

"I saw that there was a portion of his skull removed from the upper rear above the right ear about the size of my palm and there was a hole was in the upper right portion of his head.

Do you appreciate that, by separating the skull flap from the wound at the right rear of JFK's head, which extends somewhat to the front, there is a resolution of the conflict that you have created by your own fixation upon the side--where neither cerebral nor cerebellar tissue would have extruded?

I gained my footing again, got up on the car, and helped her get back in the seat. When I did that the President fell over to his left onto her lap and I could see the upper right portion of his head (he again places his hand above his right ear, only this time he places it directly above the ear, about an inch forward of where he'd placed it only 30 seconds before) had a large hole about the size of my palm.

Isn't it possible he first saw the skull flap, which was exactly where you claim there was a wound--above and even to the front of the right ear--but which you have run together with the larger wound at the back of his head to the right rear, which slightly extends forward? Isn't that a possibility?

Mrs. Kennedy at that had come out on the trunk. She was apparently trying to retrieve something that had come off the president's head, and had gone to the right rear. She didn't know I was there. And so I grabbed her as best I could and put her into the back seat. And as I did that the president fell to his left onto her lap, with his right side of his head exposed. I could see his eyes, they was fixed, with a hole in his head about the size of my palm above his right ear."

Again . . .

At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left. His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm.

Again . . .

I grabbed her and put her back into her seat. When I did that, the president's body fell into her lap. The right side of his face was up, and I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear of his head. It appeared to me that he was dead.

Notice how often he describes "a hole in the upper right rear of his head" and does not mention the side of his head or his ear? Doesn't that suggest that the wound was PRINCIPALLY to the rear of his head? and it cannot have been too high or cerebellum would not have been extruding. Do you understand how the gross anatomy of the human brain and wound descriptions have to fit together? You have been conflating two wounds.

Edited January 22, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

Please tell us how you deal with the inter-sprocket images in this theory.

considering Z-film inner sprocket imagery was published later -- irrelevant for LIFE's 1963-64-65 use of published Z-film frames.... btw, the "theory" in reality is called optical film printing techniques, I believe you've been made well aware of Society of Motion Picture Engineers (now Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and their 1930-on publications covering optical film printing, yes? Techniques seem as old as Methusla...

I'm well aware David, but this IS theory, that is the so called alteration as described by Block.

You wanna take a stab at it?

hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there...

A case in point, how was the MPI DVD frames assembled? How did the production house get all those **NEW** MPI versions of the Z-film assembled, the MPI film frame rate set and adjusted for their various versions of the Z-film, color corrected, etc...? After Effects or in-house software of like fashion, that's how... what would of taken days, weeks, months in optical film labs is done today in minutes or hours with the help of After Effects or other like proprietary software packages...

If you know Adobe After Effects (originally called COSA After Effects, a computer software image commposite-layer program for the uninitiated) which, by-the-way, damn near single hand, over the course of the past 15 years, put the entire worldwide film optical printing business out of business --with a little help from advances in computer and CPU power, of course. Today's Adobe After Effects and yesterday's COSA After Effects are based on creating the simplest of film titles to most complex optical film composite and advanced layering techniques.... Software package producers like Adobe and computer hardware giants like APPLE worked hand-n-glove with Hollywood film industry and commercial broadcast television program providers in developing faster, cheaper, less labor intensive ways of doing the post production film industry business....

[Craig Lamson]

hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there...

No Dave, you miss the point as usual. You are waving your hands. The is a VERY specific case as detailed by BLOCK. Now instead of waving your hands, point us step by step, in the time frame alloted by BLOCKS's theory.

Lets review..

BLOCK says:

"This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand."

Take a STAB at it Dave, and COMMIT for once.

Not that I'm holding my breath YOU will actually commit to ANYTHING but the wild waving of hands...

[David G. Healy]

hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there...

No Dave, you miss the point as usual. You are waving your hands. The is a VERY specific case as detailed by BLOCK. Now instead of waving your hands, point us step by step, in the time frame alloted by BLOCKS's theory.

Lets review..

BLOCK says:

"This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand."

Take a STAB at it Dave, and COMMIT for once.

Not that I'm holding my breath YOU will actually commit to ANYTHING but the wild waving of hands...

hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening

Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that.

The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

[Craig Lamson]

hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening

OH yes as I mentioned YOUR HANDWAVING..

Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that.

And yet you CAN'T ( nor can BLOCK for that matter) answer the question .. explain how you deal with the intersprocket images. YOU KNOW...THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE QUESTION? Silly me expecting David Healy, video technician, to actually answer the question.

The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

Not Rocket Science...heck to date it's ZERO SCIENCE. It's Block (who failed his very first test here BTW) and company telling us "I see it, just believe". Get back to us when you have something concrete.

Oh wait is is dave healy...you never deal in concrete. God forbid you actually commit to something.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there...

No Dave, you miss the point as usual. You are waving your hands. The is a VERY specific case as detailed by BLOCK. Now instead of waving your hands, point us step by step, in the time frame alloted by BLOCKS's theory.

Lets review..

BLOCK says:

"This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand."

Take a STAB at it Dave, and COMMIT for once.

Not that I'm holding my breath YOU will actually commit to ANYTHING but the wild waving of hands...

hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening

Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that.

The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

Good point, Dave.

One of the persons I spoke with at DELUXE said the same thing. This would not have been an advanced process at all; it would have been relatively simple given that it would not require super sophisticated equipment nor would it require very much time...only talent.

[Josiah Thompson]

Like so much of your bloviation, this is both stupid and wrong. The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been "missing" as you’ve claimed. The individual frames were copied as-is for the Zapruder family for the MPI project. They were returned to the family and the family later donated the transparencies and the film's copyright to The Sixth Floor Museum in 1999. The transparencies have been available for study at the Museum ever since. After about twelve years, the number of JFK researchers who have done so is extremely small... less than ten, perhaps less than five. I don’t know if Doug Horne is one of them. In the quote posted from his book, he basically designated these transparencies the “gold standard” as far as available copies of the Zapruder film go.

JT

Tink has made it a theme of this thread that the MPI slides are supposed to be the "gold standard" for Zapruder film research, where I have faulted that claim on multiple grounds: The MPI version of the film has reversed the order of frames 331 and 332; does not include what ought to be frames 341, 350, and 486; does not include frames 155 and 156; and does not include frames 208, 209, 210, and 211. But there are other, more subtle, problems with MPI that have not been addressed here, in particular, because of which the claim that these are "state of the art" reproductions is not remotely defensible. Since many of those who post on the film do not show any signs of having read THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I want to share some important passages that were authored by John Costella:

"The MPI saga seemed to me to be a bizarre one--but in time I realized that it fit neatly into the pattern of supposed incompetence with which the entire assassination has been whitewashed, by those ascribing to the U.S. government's official view of the crime.

"The first problem was that MPI had ostensibly been somewhat at a loss in preparing their material for video reproduction. Images had obviously been resized and reframed a number of times resulting in a loss of clarity. And, in the end, the images were produced with the wrong dimensions: images of complete frames were overstretched, horizontally, compared to the real frames; highly zoomed images of JFK, in contrast, were compressed horizontally.

"The second problem was the MPI had, somehow, completely omitted three frames of the film (including the very last frame), resulting in incorrect numbers being allocated to the last 143 frames being shown, including two frames that were also interchanged in two of the sequences, but not in the others.

"The resulting DVD was, perhaps, of suitable quality for an average home video collection. I was flabbergasted to discover that it was also intended to be the final "reference" digitization for assassination researchers of the camera-original Zapruder film, because the latter was sealed and locked away in the National Archives. Apart from a small region surrounding JFK in a number of frames (shown in a highly zoomed sequence on the DVD), the resolution of each image was inferior to that published in Life magazine just two weeks after the assassination, as well as that already available from other sources." (HOAX, pp. 147-148)

Notice that the resolution of the individual frames is INFERIOR to those published in LIFE just two weeks after the assassination. We have already been told by Josiah that the "black patch" so conspicuous in frame 317 on other versions of the film, including the 3rd generation copy obtained by Sydney Wilkinson from the NARA, is not on the MPI slides, which by itself is extremely suspicious. Tink has told us that "downstream copies" display "contrast build up" and that this is supposed to explain the "black patch" at the back of JFK's head. But since John Connally is also in the same frames of the same generations of these films, why is there no "contrast build up" on the back of his head? And that is not the only suspicious problem with the MPI slides that Tink continues to tout. There is more.

Doug Horne personally witnessed the true original MPI slides photographed from the extant film in the Archives. It took over three days of effort to accomplish. Each frame, and portions of the preceding frame and following frame, were photographed on a 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome color positive transparency. Horne was the ARRB's representative at this event and was a neutral observer at the time, because he had not yet done research on the authenticity of the film. Silverberg also had a junior attorney there representing LMH Co. interests, where McCrone Associates was the Chicago company that did the work. The images went from the "camera original" to large transparencies and were then scanned digitally, which puts their RAW SCANS already one or two steps away from the "camera original".

The more serious question is why the black patch should be absent from the current MPI frames, when it is not only visible on the 3rd generation copy obtained from the Archives but is also present in the MPI re-created motion picture film that was produced by MPI and marketed to the public in 1998! This 1998 video shows the black patch -- not completely clearly, but it is definitely there -- in frame 317. Since Tink says it is not present on the MPI slide at The 6th Floor Museum, as I have asked before, just what could this portend other than ever more alteration? If other observers confirm that the black patch is no longer present (now) on the MPI slide of frame 317, then how can this be explained when IT IS PRESENT ON THE MPI MOTION PICTURE SOLD IN 1998, especially in the close-up version?

"It is clearly the BLACKEST area in the frames." You recall that John Costella found the shadow at the back of JFK's head not to be "the blackest area in the frames" in the very excellent upstream copy of 317 provided by David Lifton.

JT

[Craig Lamson]

Good point, Dave.

One of the persons I spoke with at DELUXE said the same thing. This would not have been an advanced process at all; it would have been relatively simple given that it would not require super sophisticated equipment nor would it require very much time...only talent.

And it deals with the inter sprocket images HOW?

Edited January 22, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening

OH yes as I mentioned YOUR HANDWAVING..

Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that.

And yet you CAN'T ( nor can BLOCK for that matter) answer the question .. explain how you deal with the intersprocket images. YOU KNOW...THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE QUESTION? Silly me expecting David Healy, video technician, to actually answer the question.

The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

Not Rocket Science...heck to date it's ZERO SCIENCE. It's Block (who failed his very first test here BTW) and company telling us "I see it, just believe". Get back to us when you have something concrete.

Oh wait is is dave healy...you never deal in concrete. God forbid you actually commit to something.

so... its YOU that needs to see and believe, ah-ha... well, don't wait for an invite, you've kinda burnt that bridge, I think... so I doubt an invite is imminent for you... as I said earlier: Dr. Thompson should take a peek, after all it's not far from his stomping grounds... And all this current bloviation is pure lone nut distraction, AND mis-direction. Perhaps this latest DP film-photo purist attitude is simply a bit of not wanting to look at what, perhaps a new reality, ya think? Dr. Thompson seeing it? Well, then and only then can the Dealey Plaza film-photo purists take the claim under advisement, THEN investigate... till then... fear of it is palpable. In fact, ever since D. Horne brought it to the forefront.

What? Possibly two shooters in DP, a conspiracy -- oh-my! Not going to go away, friend. And the LHO 'did it all by his lonesome' crowd scrambling going on here, is telling!

Edited January 22, 2012 by David G. Healy