The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tink,

You are turning into a caricature of yourself. Either the black patch is on the MPI slides at The 6th Floor Museum or it is not. We know that it's on the 3rd generation copy Sydney obtained from NARA. And we know that it is also on the MPI movie released in 1998. So we know THE BLACK SPOT SHOULD BE ON THE SLIDES. Others, who have studied them, noticed it was there. So IF YOU ARE TELLING US IT'S NO LONGER THERE, the implications are unavoidable.

David Josephs has observed that it is even more conspicuous in frame 323. I am sorry, Tink, but you have painted yourself into a corner. You have been caught with your pants down--and you have no idea what to do about it! Well, the whole world has had its attention focused on this issue, which is another "unintended consequence" of this thread. We know the film is fake--Clint Hill, Officer Chaney, and more--but this is such a nice, simple proof. Thank you for inviting it.

Jim

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

Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

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!

I never expected an "invite" nor do I need it. This is very big world. You don't think htey have the only game do you?

Someone from Ascent Media...Opps DELUXE ( they REALLY should change the registration of their IP address} knows who I am. Good for them. I think they will know me quite well by the time this concludes. Gotta wonder WHY it takes these pros TWO years to prove this if its all so simple? I gotta think getting it wrong and being PROVEN wrong might be a bit of a career killer for certain Hollywood types. Yea, given this rush of "invites" it appears the fear IS PALPABLE.

Anyways I digress.

Back to the subject you are trying SO hard to evade....

Lay it out for us in detail. Simple equipment, VERY little time...

How DO you put it together AND deal with the inter sprocket images? The ELEPHANT in the room for alterationists.

[David G. Healy]

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

Dr. Thompson a simple response to your post is: after 12 years no competent investigator with even a modicum of knowledge concerning the Zapruder film and understands what the consequences of film alteration would have on case evidence and investigations, especially during and after 2001, trusts what the 6th floor mausoleum has to say, or display for public consumption concerning this very specific topic. In fact, there's 16+million reasons why. For instance: inadequately explained film breaks, frame transposition and or reversal, the MPI disaster/pr (the final say, LMAO!), the horrible state of affairs and condition concerning the Z-film and the 3 optical film prints condition known during late 1990's and stored at NARA. Let's not fail to mention what the American taxpayer forked out for these national treasures (sic).

So, why study latter-day trannies when you can study a direct (3rd generation film) copy off the in-camera original (per NARA), that very same in-camera original that's been stated as and WC testimony shows: that the WC and their staff screened the original Z-film in February 1964? The WC surely didn't screen trannies reassembled into a coherent 8mm whole.

Frankly, when it comes to this issue no one I know cares what the 6th floor professes to have. They have homegrown bias and thorough marketing skills--simple as that... believe as you wish, but regurgitating that same old crap advances nothing.

Edited January 23, 2012 by David G. Healy

[David G. Healy]

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!

I never expected an "invite" nor do I need it. This is very big world. You don't think htey have the only game do you?

Someone from Ascent Media...Opps DELUXE ( they REALLY should change the registration of their IP address} knows who I am. Good for them. I think they will know me quite well by the time this concludes. Gotta wonder WHY it takes these pros TWO years to prove this if its all so simple? I gotta think getting it wrong and being PROVEN wrong might be a bit of a career killer for certain Hollywood types. Yea, given this rush of "invites" it appears the fear IS PALPABLE.

Anyways I digress.

Back to the subject you are trying SO hard to evade....

Lay it out for us in detail. Simple equipment, VERY little time...

How DO you put it together AND deal with the inter sprocket images? The ELEPHANT in the room for alterationists.

LMAO! They know of you? Why praytell would they even care? There's no challenge from your part, it is, what it is! Ya can't wish this away. "...this concludes..." what concludes? LMAO!

Evade? Ever ask yourself why, when a Hollywood compositor/animator posts a professional opinion concerning the Z-film there a rush of Z-film purist denial and overabundance of unknowing... 2 years? Nothing that I know of has changed since I saw the frame, that was 18+ months ago... A career killer? Whose career, whose? btw, if you saw what I saw, understood simple compositing techniques, you'd know, KNOW inter-sprocket imagery has no bearing on this simple alteration--

[Craig Lamson]

LMAO! They know of you? Why praytell would they even care? There's no challenge from your part, it is, what it is! Ya can't wish this away. "...this concludes..." what concludes? LMAO!

"

Yes dave they know me. What is there to CHALLENGE at this point dave? Clearly You have not been paying very close attention. Its all I see, just believe me" at this point.

Evade? Ever ask yourself why, when a Hollywood compositor/animator posts a professional opinion concerning the Z-film there a rush of Z-film purist denial and overabundance of unknowing...

There is no 'RUSH", just the standard questions by those not 'taken in" by "I see, just believe me". And in the case of one professional animator, his first "professional opinion" whet down int major flames after the failure of his "darkest thing it the frame" comment. What a wonderful illustration of why "I see it. just believe me is such a very weak argument.

2 years? Nothing that I know of has changed since I saw the frame, that was 18+ months ago...

Yea, that's the point, NOTHING has changed in TWO YEARS...thanks so much for pointing that out. Two years and all we get is "I see it, just believe me".

A career killer? Whose career, whose? btw, if you saw what I saw, understood simple compositing techniques, you'd know, KNOW inter-sprocket imagery has no bearing on this simple alteration--

Who knows if it kills, wounds or just embarrasses...time will tell. One thing is for certain, TWO YEARS have past and the work is still not published. Heck you keep telling us it's all so simple...and TWO YEARS later, NOTHING.

No to the question about BLOCK's theory you keep evading. He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW!

BTW, Hi 66.77.102.10

Edited January 23, 2012 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW![/color][/b]

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years....

Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

[Craig Lamson]

...

He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW![/color][/b]

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years....

Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend.

Please try again NEXT TIME....

[Pat Speer]

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.

Thank you, Jim. Your post supports my points.

1. IF one takes Clint Hill's description of a wound on the upper right rear portion of the skull as confirmation for the wound location proposed by the Parkland witnesses, then one is forced to think Hill is either lying or has been describing TWO different wounds in recent years, as he has recently made it clear he saw a wound above Kennedy's right ear. The problem is that Hill makes it equally clear that, when looking at the back of Kennedy's head, he saw but ONE large wound--above Kennedy's ear. This was not a skull flap, moreover, as you'd have us believe, but a large gaping hole. It is, quite obviously, the wound described by the Parkland doctors, only not where they saw it, and quite close to where it is shown in the autopsy photos. Now, the realization of this problem--Hill started saying the wound was above the ear in 2004, around the time I started looking into this aspect of the case--led me to go back and look at Hill's early statements and realize he never said anything about the wound being on the back of the head. This led me to wonder if he'd actually changed his interpretation of the wound location--or had become aware that "right rear portion" was just too vague, and was trying to be more precise. Well, as Hill in his most recent statements says "above the ear" and "right rear portion" interchangeably, while describing the same wound, it seems likely to me that the latter is true, and that Hill has always believed the wound to have been above Kennedy's ear on the right side. In either event, he has not been consistent in claiming the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, as you have long insisted. POINT: HIll has most recently claimed the the large gaping head wound was above the ear, and not on the back of the head.

2. You rely on notes taken of a phone call to Tom Robinson in the nineties, and ignore his 1977 HSCA interview, for which there is an actual transcript. This goes against the "earlier is better" rule you insist should be used when evaluating testimony. During this 1977 interview, moreover, Robinson claims to have seen two head wounds while working on the body--a big hole in the back of Kennedy's head and a small mark by the temple--and never mentions anything about the bone flap he later claimed to have seen. The wound on the back of the head, moreover, is something he claims to have seen after the brain had been removed, after the end of the autopsy. Well, this is only natural. Kennedy's skull and scalp were not reconstructed by Robinson, but by a co-worker, under the belief Kennedy was headed for an open-casket funeral. In such case, the scalp and skull would be reconstructed to hide the large defect on the front of the head, and someone viewing the body during reconstruction would note an opening on the back of the head. POINT: Robinson is not a credible witness for the two head wounds you propose, nor for the body alteration you and Horne claim occurred before the beginning of the autopsy.

3. You actually defend your citing a passage in a book not written by Hill as a quote from Hill! That's like taking Gary Aguilar's claim the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound and attributing it to YOU! POINT: You haven't really analyzed the statements of the assassination witnesses and prefer to cherry-pick pieces that support your theories.

4. Your assertion Hill's statements prove the Z-film fake is just silly, IMO, seeing as Hill has seen the film many times and said no such thing. If your mom tells you she wore a red dress to your fifth birthday party and you find footage of the party and it shows her wearing a blue dress, and you show it to her, and she says nothing, is it logical for you to assume the film of the party is a fake? Of course not. POINT: Hill's statements and behavior suggest the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

5. Your attempt at reclaiming Hill as a "back of the head" witness by insisting the wound he described was "primarily at the back of the head" and then asking "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?" is more silliness, IMO. You conveniently avoid Hill's first statements on the wound: "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." SIDE, not "back of the head." You leave out, moreover, that Hill has claimed dozens of times in recent years that the wound he saw was above the right ear. POINT: You can't get around it. Hill has clarified his position on the wound location, and it isn't what you have long claimed he claims. Is he wrong? Or is he lying?

6. You say the wound on the back of the head "cannot have been too high or cerebellum would not have been extruding." Well, this proves another one of my points. You have disregarded the actual statements of most of the witnesses to make them fit your belief a few of them were correct, and that cerebellum was extruding from the wound. Well, most of those claiming to see cerebellum later claimed they'd been mistaken. And you assume they were lying about this, even though it would help explain why so few of the other witnesses thought the wound was so low. POINT: You do not respect the statements of the witnesses taken as a whole, but pick and choose a few that fit your agenda, and disregard the rest. This is exactly the crime you attribute to others.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Pat Speer

[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.

Pat Speer wrote:

Thank you, Jim. Your post supports my points.

Why am I not surprised? What possible evidence could ever convinced you that you are wrong? That is inconceivable to you.

1. IF one takes Clint Hill's description of a wound on the upper right rear portion of the skull as confirmation for the wound location proposed by the Parkland witnesses, then one is forced to think Hill is either lying or has been describing TWO different wounds in recent years, as he has recently made it clear he saw a wound above Kennedy's right ear. The problem is that Hill makes it equally clear that, when looking at the back of Kennedy's head, he saw but ONE large wound--above Kennedy's ear. This was not a skull flap, moreover, as you'd have us believe, but a large gaping hole. It is, quite obviously, the wound described by the Parkland doctors, only not where they saw it, and quite close to where it is shown in the autopsy photos. Now, the realization of this problem--Hill started saying the wound was above the ear in 2004, around the time I started looking into this aspect of the case--led me to go back and look at Hill's early statements and realize he never said anything about the wound being on the back of the head. This led me to wonder if he'd actually changed his interpretation of the wound location--or had become aware that "right rear portion" was just too vague, and was trying to be more precise. Well, as Hill in his most recent statements says "above the ear" and "right rear portion" interchangeably, while describing the same wound, it seems likely to me that the latter is true, and that Hill has always believed the wound to have been above Kennedy's ear on the right side. In either event, he has not been consistent in claiming the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, as you have long insisted. POINT: HIll has most recently claimed the the large gaping head wound was above the ear, and not on the back of the head.

No one has to be "lying". His memory has lapsed a bit and now he, like you, has merged the skull flap and the blow out together.

2. You rely on notes taken of a phone call to Tom Robinson in the nineties, and ignore his 1977 HSCA interview, for which there is an actual transcript. This goes against the "earlier is better" rule you insist should be used when evaluating testimony. During this 1977 interview, moreover, Robinson claims to have seen two head wounds while working on the body--a big hole in the back of Kennedy's head and a small mark by the temple--and never mentions anything about the bone flap he later claimed to have seen. The wound on the back of the head, moreover, is something he claims to have seen after the brain had been removed, after the end of the autopsy. Well, this is only natural. Kennedy's skull and scalp were not reconstructed by Robinson, but by a co-worker, under the belief Kennedy was headed for an open-casket funeral. In such case, the scalp and skull would be reconstructed to hide the large defect on the front of the head, and someone viewing the body during reconstruction would note an opening on the back of the head. POINT: Robinson is not a credible witness for the two head wounds you propose, nor for the body alteration you and Horne claim occurred before the beginning of the autopsy.

There are voluminous witnesses whose testimony confirms my version. According to you, they were all either lying or deluded.

3. You actually defend your citing a passage in a book not written by Hill as a quote from Hill! That's like taking Gary Aguilar's claim the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound and attributing it to YOU! POINT: You haven't really analyzed the statements of the assassination witnesses and prefer to cherry-pick pieces that support your theories.

Didn't you even read the book? The Preface acknowledges the collaboration that went into it. There is no other possible source.

4. Your assertion Hill's statements prove the Z-film fake is just silly, IMO, seeing as Hill has seen the film many times and said no such thing. If your mom tells you she wore a red dress to your fifth birthday party and you find footage of the party and it shows her wearing a blue dress, and you show it to her, and she says nothing, is it logical for you to assume the film of the party is a fake? Of course not. POINT: Hill's statements and behavior suggest the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

A man whose position is stunningly detached from reality with respect to logic and evidence has no right to call anyone "silly".

5. Your attempt at reclaiming Hill as a "back of the head" witness by insisting the wound he described was "primarily at the back of the head" and then asking "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?" is more silliness, IMO. You conveniently avoid Hill's first statements on the wound: "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." SIDE, not "back of the head." You leave out, moreover, that Hill has claimed dozens of times in recent years that the wound he saw was above the right ear. POINT: You can't get around it. Hill has clarified his position on the wound location, and it isn't what you have long claimed he claims. Is he wrong? Or is he lying?

The cranium is a 3-dimensional, rounded object. The wound was at the back right/rear of the head but extended slightly forward.

6. You say the wound on the back of the head "cannot have been too high or cerebellum would not have been extruding." Well, this proves another one of my points. You have disregarded the actual statements of most of the witnesses to make them fit your belief a few of them were correct, and that cerebellum was extruding from the wound. Well, most of those claiming to see cerebellum later claimed they'd been mistaken. And you assume they were lying about this, even though it would help explain why so few of the other witnesses thought the wound was so low. POINT: You do not respect the statements of the witnesses taken as a whole, but pick and choose a few that fit your agenda, and disregard the rest. This is exactly the crime you attribute to others.

If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them.

You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions!

Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[David G. Healy]

...

He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW![/color][/b]

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years....

Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend.

Please try again NEXT TIME....

Block theory? Try again? Hell man you've been at this photo-film battle for 10+ years now.... lmao, ya did better with the Moorman 5 canard!

Another PRO and his professional opinion and evaluation chiming in. So tell me, are DP film-photo purists still under the illusion there's NO tainted evidence in this case? The murder unfolded exactly as the WC stated in their report in '64?

You're not ticked off cause you haven't seen the 3rd generation, 4K frame we're talking about there are you craig? Even without seeing that frame, I know, YOU know, exactly what is said here. Time to do the grunt work there craig... best regroup... One and done? Nah, just another brick in the road...

[Craig Lamson]

...

He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW![/color][/b]

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years....

Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend.

Please try again NEXT TIME....

Block theory? Try again? Hell man you've been at this photo-film battle for 10+ years now.... lmao, ya did better with the Moorman 5 canard!

Another PRO and his professional opinion and evaluation chiming in. So tell me, are DP film-photo purists still under the illusion there's NO tainted evidence in this case? The murder unfolded exactly as the WC stated in their report in '64?

You're not ticked off cause you haven't seen the 3rd generation, 4K frame we're talking about there are you craig? Even without seeing that frame, I know, YOU know, exactly what is said here. Time to do the grunt work there craig... best regroup... One and done? Nah, just another brick in the road...

Yea dave, the BLOCK theory. PLEASE learn to read prior to posting.

You don't have first clue as to what I have or have not seen/measured dave. And quite frankly you won't know until I decide to tell you.

Third generation negative taken from a second generation 2383 PRINT? LMAO! Gotta love that increased D-max....

rock on dave,

[Patrick Block]

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

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.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains.

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

My recent posts have strongly pointed out the way those who murdered the President isolated the Zapruder Film for decades from the American public using their assets in the media.

No one has attempted to debate even one point of the many I have detailed in my last post. This is a bit surprising to me.

Instead, someone has attributed me as saying the sprocket area of the film was altered in one day. I assume they hope to hide in the cover of almost 50 pages of posts the fact that this is just a plain falsehood- I never once mention the inter-sprocket images because they are invisible in the record until decades later. Mr. Healy makes excellent observations about this. That is a separate matter from the work on the black patch, which is visible early in the record.

This silly way of trying to score points in a debate- ignoring what a debater actually says and pretending he addressed some other subject they wish to discuss, is a sign of desperation for any debater. It is deception and worthy of no researcher.

It is similar to a debater abandoning his reasoning and irrationally tossing slurs and insults out instead of discussing valid points the other side has made.

Both are clear, obvious signs that the debate has ended, and you have won a victory on that particular subject.

Please try and refrain in the future from posting that I said something here that I never wrote.

Sydney Wilkinson, who paid to have the dupe negative element of the forensic copy in the National Archives made, has kindly agreed to let me share the following information she has received from NARA.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA this past year.

This isn't hearsay, nor a rumor nor even science-fiction. It's an official declaration from NARA to the owner of the negative element-

--- In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original." 

[David G. Healy]

...

He gets the job done the first weekend, WHICH WOULD DEMAND inter sprocket images. You position yourself as the alteration technical guy...TELL US HOW![/color][/b]

No it doesn't... do some house cleaning here, where and WHEN does Z-film inter-sprocket imagery first appear to the public? Whether as published (if ever) in LIFE magazine or, even as viewed (if ever) by the Warren Commission? If the Warren Commission never were presented with or saw inter-sprocket imagery, there's no need for the film alterationists to fret.... even for a year, 10 years, 30 years....

Ya think those possible, pesky film alerationists would get it figured out as to how to do sprocket alteration in say 25 years, for instance? I do! Where's your faith for those in our craft? Surely you can problem solve in post, eh?

No dave that's YOUR game. The question concerns the BLOCK theory. One and done, the first weekend.

Please try again NEXT TIME....

Block theory? Try again? Hell man you've been at this photo-film battle for 10+ years now.... lmao, ya did better with the Moorman 5 canard!

Another PRO and his professional opinion and evaluation chiming in. So tell me, are DP film-photo purists still under the illusion there's NO tainted evidence in this case? The murder unfolded exactly as the WC stated in their report in '64?

You're not ticked off cause you haven't seen the 3rd generation, 4K frame we're talking about there are you craig? Even without seeing that frame, I know, YOU know, exactly what is said here. Time to do the grunt work there craig... best regroup... One and done? Nah, just another brick in the road...

Yea dave, the BLOCK theory. PLEASE learn to read prior to posting.

You don't have first clue as to what I have or have not seen/measured dave. And quite frankly you won't know until I decide to tell you.

Third generation negative taken from a second generation 2383 PRINT? LMAO! Gotta love that increased D-max....

rock on dave,

Of course craig, I have no conception as to what you've seen, or not seen, however one can assume by your dance here this past week, YOU have NOT seen the 4K imagery discussed in this thread those that have, can understand your apprehension. Possibly a game changer! Is it a 10 ton elephant sitting in the middle of the 6th floor museum? I doubt it, but, its surely an issue that needs to be addresses by the DP film-photo purists....

TIP for the craigster: for under a grand (perhaps a bit more these days) you can get the same 3rd generation 35mm Zapruder film from NARA, yes folks NARA. Get it in the hands of a BlackMagic-DiVinci system film colorist or, a competent Rank-Cintel operator.

quote on:

...Zapruder Camera Original 8mm > NARA 35mm Interneg > NARA 35mm Interpos > Our Dupe Neg...

quote off

what don't you understand Craig?

Edited January 23, 2012 by David G. Healy

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Patrick,

As one who has bee dealing with unwarranted and unjustifiable attacks from Josiah Thompson for more than 15 year, I want to thank you for these astute observations, where I have confirmed his tendency to rely upon fallacies I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid and to "cut and run" when the going gets tough and he can't cope;

This silly way of trying to score points in a debate- ignoring what a debater actually says and pretending he addressed some other subject they wish to discuss, is a sign of desperation for any debater. It is deception and worthy of no researcher.

It is similar to a debater abandoning his reasoning and irrationally tossing slurs and insults out instead of discussing valid points the other side has made.

Both are clear, obvious signs that the debate has ended, and you [his opponent] have won a victory on that particular subject.

There are so many lines of proof that demonstrate the film has been faked that those we have discussed in this thread--especially Chaney motoring forward, Clint Hill's actions and observations, and the "black patch" on frame 317--that I continue to be astonished at the resilience of those who persist in denying the obvious.

As Roderick Ryan explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), the "blob" was also painted in--with the intent of creating the impression of the kind of effect that would be expected from a bullet hitting the back of his head. Roderick received the Academy Award in 2000 for his contributions to "special effects" cinema.

When you have the chance to study the "ghost panels" in the sprocket hole area, which are double-exposures and cannot be faked, I think you will appreciate why John and I, among others, believe that this was a two-stage process, the "quick and dirty" and the more leisurely "fine tuning". In the meanwhile, thanks for being here.

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

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.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains.

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

My recent posts have strongly pointed out the way those who murdered the President isolated the Zapruder Film for decades from the American public using their assets in the media.

No one has attempted to debate even one point of the many I have detailed in my last post. This is a bit surprising to me.

Instead, someone has attributed me as saying the sprocket area of the film was altered in one day. I assume they hope to hide in the cover of almost 50 pages of posts the fact that this is just a plain falsehood- I never once mention the inter-sprocket images because they are invisible in the record until decades later. Mr. Healy makes excellent observations about this. That is a separate matter from the work on the black patch, which is visible early in the record.

This silly way of trying to score points in a debate- ignoring what a debater actually says and pretending he addressed some other subject they wish to discuss, is a sign of desperation for any debater. It is deception and worthy of no researcher.

It is similar to a debater abandoning his reasoning and irrationally tossing slurs and insults out instead of discussing valid points the other side has made.

Both are clear, obvious signs that the debate has ended, and you have won a victory on that particular subject.

Please try and refrain in the future from posting that I said something here that I never wrote.

Sydney Wilkinson, who paid to have the dupe negative element of the forensic copy in the National Archives made, has kindly agreed to let me share the following information she has received from NARA.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA this past year.

This isn't hearsay, nor a rumor nor even science-fiction. It's an official declaration from NARA to the owner of the negative element-

--- In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original."

Edited January 23, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer wrote:

Thank you, Jim. Your post supports my points.

Why am I not surprised? What possible evidence could ever convinced you that you are wrong? That is inconceivable to you.

PAT'S RESPONSE: As discussed on my webpage, I at one point thought there'd been a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos had been altered. As I studied the witness statements for myself, and realized that the Dealey Plaza witnesses, in particular, suggested the wound was where it is shown in the autopsy photos and Z-film, I both changed my mind and came to realize that there's as much or more deception in the conspiracy theorist literature as in the Warren Report.

1. IF one takes Clint Hill's description of a wound on the upper right rear portion of the skull as confirmation for the wound location proposed by the Parkland witnesses, then one is forced to think Hill is either lying or has been describing TWO different wounds in recent years, as he has recently made it clear he saw a wound above Kennedy's right ear. The problem is that Hill makes it equally clear that, when looking at the back of Kennedy's head, he saw but ONE large wound--above Kennedy's ear. This was not a skull flap, moreover, as you'd have us believe, but a large gaping hole. It is, quite obviously, the wound described by the Parkland doctors, only not where they saw it, and quite close to where it is shown in the autopsy photos. Now, the realization of this problem--Hill started saying the wound was above the ear in 2004, around the time I started looking into this aspect of the case--led me to go back and look at Hill's early statements and realize he never said anything about the wound being on the back of the head. This led me to wonder if he'd actually changed his interpretation of the wound location--or had become aware that "right rear portion" was just too vague, and was trying to be more precise. Well, as Hill in his most recent statements says "above the ear" and "right rear portion" interchangeably, while describing the same wound, it seems likely to me that the latter is true, and that Hill has always believed the wound to have been above Kennedy's ear on the right side. In either event, he has not been consistent in claiming the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, as you have long insisted. POINT: HIll has most recently claimed the the large gaping head wound was above the ear, and not on the back of the head.

No one has to be "lying". His memory has lapsed a bit and now he, like you, has merged the skull flap and the blow out together.

PAT'S RESPONSE: Well, I guess that's progress. A few posts ago you were asserting Hill had been consistent about a wound on the back of the head. As far as his "merging" the skull flap and blow out together, that's pure conjecture, and a bit silly. Hill NEVER mentioned seeing TWO big head wounds in his earliest statements, and he doesn't mention it now. NONE of the Parkland witnesses, moreover, saw the two separate wounds you propose. So you, in effect, have decided that Hill has "merged" the head wound he saw with a second one nobody else viewing the body when he claims to have viewed the body claimed to have seen.

2. You rely on notes taken of a phone call to Tom Robinson in the nineties, and ignore his 1977 HSCA interview, for which there is an actual transcript. This goes against the "earlier is better" rule you insist should be used when evaluating testimony. During this 1977 interview, moreover, Robinson claims to have seen two head wounds while working on the body--a big hole in the back of Kennedy's head and a small mark by the temple--and never mentions anything about the bone flap he later claimed to have seen. The wound on the back of the head, moreover, is something he claims to have seen after the brain had been removed, after the end of the autopsy. Well, this is only natural. Kennedy's skull and scalp were not reconstructed by Robinson, but by a co-worker, under the belief Kennedy was headed for an open-casket funeral. In such case, the scalp and skull would be reconstructed to hide the large defect on the front of the head, and someone viewing the body during reconstruction would note an opening on the back of the head. POINT: Robinson is not a credible witness for the two head wounds you propose, nor for the body alteration you and Horne claim occurred before the beginning of the autopsy.

There are voluminous witnesses whose testimony confirms my version. According to you, they were all either lying or deluded.

PAT'S RESPONSE. None of your Parkland witnesses noticed the two separate wounds you now propose were apparent to Hill, and you know it. Saying someone's mistaken is not the same as saying they're deluded. Doctors and nurses and eyewitnesses of all stripes make mistakes all the time.

3. You actually defend your citing a passage in a book not written by Hill as a quote from Hill! That's like taking Gary Aguilar's claim the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses saw the same wound and attributing it to YOU! POINT: You haven't really analyzed the statements of the assassination witnesses and prefer to cherry-pick pieces that support your theories.

Didn't you even read the book? The Preface acknowledges the collaboration that went into it. There is no other possible source.

PAT'S RESPONSE: And the beat goes on. You still won't admit you're wrong. While the passage may have derived from a discussion the authors had with Hill, the words were not in quotes and it was misleading for you to pretend they were a direct quote from Hill.

4. Your assertion Hill's statements prove the Z-film fake is just silly, IMO, seeing as Hill has seen the film many times and said no such thing. If your mom tells you she wore a red dress to your fifth birthday party and you find footage of the party and it shows her wearing a blue dress, and you show it to her, and she says nothing, is it logical for you to assume the film of the party is a fake? Of course not. POINT: Hill's statements and behavior suggest the authenticity of the Zapruder film.

A man whose position is stunningly detached from reality with respect to logic and evidence has no right to call anyone "silly".

PAT'S RESPONSE: I'll let the readers of this forum decide who is "stunningly detached from reality with respect to logic and evidence."

5. Your attempt at reclaiming Hill as a "back of the head" witness by insisting the wound he described was "primarily at the back of the head" and then asking "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?" is more silliness, IMO. You conveniently avoid Hill's first statements on the wound: "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." SIDE, not "back of the head." You leave out, moreover, that Hill has claimed dozens of times in recent years that the wound he saw was above the right ear. POINT: You can't get around it. Hill has clarified his position on the wound location, and it isn't what you have long claimed he claims. Is he wrong? Or is he lying?

The cranium is a 3-dimensional, rounded object. The wound was at the back right/rear of the head but extended slightly forward.

PAT"S RESPONSE: And how often has Hill indicated the wound was on the far back of the head, BELOW the top of the ear, where you claim it was? NEVER.

6. You say the wound on the back of the head "cannot have been too high or cerebellum would not have been extruding." Well, this proves another one of my points. You have disregarded the actual statements of most of the witnesses to make them fit your belief a few of them were correct, and that cerebellum was extruding from the wound. Well, most of those claiming to see cerebellum later claimed they'd been mistaken. And you assume they were lying about this, even though it would help explain why so few of the other witnesses thought the wound was so low. POINT: You do not respect the statements of the witnesses taken as a whole, but pick and choose a few that fit your agenda, and disregard the rest. This is exactly the crime you attribute to others.

If anyone sought to evade the loss of their lives and harassment from the likes of you, neither I nor anyone else can blame them.

PAT'S RESPONSE: The "loss of their lives"? What are you talking about?

You self-delusion is only comparable to Tink's denial the assassination films are authentic--except HE doesn't actually believe it! The problem for you, I believe, is that you adopt a completely unwarranted antagonistic approach toward the witnesses who were there, the physicians who treated him, and even the experts who have studied the X-rays. If you better understood the conventions of ordinary human discourse, you would interpret their words and actions in accord with the principle of charity (by assuming that they are telling the truth to the best of their ability) and the principle of humanity (by assuming that their motives are the same as those of other human beings), who are not normally disposed to cheat, lie and mislead. If you were only to change your attitude, then I believe you would understand what you have so seriously misrepresented. Otherwise, you will continue to grossly misrepresent their words and actions!

PAT'S RESPONSE: Your trying to hide behind this "principle of charity" is beyond hypocritical. You assume it "charitable" to assume the Dealey Plaza witnesses failing to note your presumed "blow-out" on the back of the head, (which is to say all of them), mistaken. You consider it "charitable" to assume the witnesses believing the wound was at or near the back of the head, but claiming the wound was also at or near the top of the head (which is to say most of them) mistaken. You consider it "charitable,"moreover, to assume the witnesses deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos (which is to say most of them) cowardly, and scared for their lives. Well, that's not "charity." It's insulting rubbish. When analyzing conflicting accounts of an incident, it is only logical to assume, as I, that some of the witnesses were mistaken, even all the witnesses mistaken. What is not logical, or acceptable, in my opinion, is to pretend the bulk of the witnesses claimed there was a wound low on the back of the head, when virtually NONE of them ever claimed such a thing.

PAT'S CHALLENGE: You have made it clear you believe Kennedy had two large head wounds: a bone flap near his temple, and a large blow-out low on the back of his head almost entirely below the top level of his ear. FIND US ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW BOTH THESE WOUNDS. Or acknowledge no such witness exists, and that you assume ALL the witnesses you claim support your analysis failed to see one of the wounds.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Pat Speer