New Proof of JFK Film Fakery: "Conclusive Evidence", Experts Claim

[Don Jeffries]

Len,

I've given up trying to stop people from being nasty to each other on this forum. I do, however, feel compelled to react to the truly over the top attacks, and Lee Farley's recent tirade against Jim Fetzer fell into that category.

No one can deny that Jim Fetzer stimulates discussion, and is a provocative figure in this community. He's the only guy who can lure Josiah Thompson onto forums. And he always seems to catch your interest.

The most questionable thing about Jim Fetzer's research is his reliance upon photo interpretation, and seeing alteration where many people don't. When he doesn't stray into those waters (which is not often enough, imho), I think his arguments and his logic are a lot more compelling.

[Mark Wengler]

Len,

I've given up trying to stop people from being nasty to each other on this forum. I do, however, feel compelled to react to the truly over the top attacks, and Lee Farley's recent tirade against Jim Fetzer fell into that category.

No one can deny that Jim Fetzer stimulates discussion, and is a provocative figure in this community. He's the only guy who can lure Josiah Thompson onto forums. And he always seems to catch your interest.

The most questionable thing about Jim Fetzer's research is his reliance upon photo interpretation, and seeing alteration where many people don't. When he doesn't stray into those waters (which is not often enough, imho), I think his arguments and his logic are a lot more compelling.

Don you are so right about some people being nasty to one another.

When i got into this 30 years ago there was no Internet like we have today. If you wanted to correspond with another researcher you could do it by smail, telephone or in person. The same with an author. Today there are sites like this.

Here you find fellow researchers and authors where they can talk to one another. Yes they have their own theroy on what happen in Dallas. 99% of the time the exchange is friendly but that 1% gets nasty and mean. I just think we all should be happy this this forum is here where we can talk to one another without all the nastiness .

[Len Colby]

Len,

I've given up trying to stop people from being nasty to each other on this forum. I do, however, feel compelled to react to the truly over the top attacks, and Lee Farley's recent tirade against Jim Fetzer fell into that category.

No one can deny that Jim Fetzer stimulates discussion, and is a provocative figure in this community.

"Stimulates discussion" or stimulates division and rancor? Why do you think debates involving Fetzer so consistently lead to so much acrimony? In your previous post you chided Robin but consider some of the comments Fetzer has made about him, several times the professor has hinted or insinuated Mr. Unger is associated with the forces of darkness:

"Surely there are more serious students of the assassination here than Lamson, Colby, and Unger. Where are they?"

"So somethig is going on here beyond the search for truth re the death of JFK--and it involves Lamson, Colby, Unger and Graves. Think about it."

"Surely Pamela is not the only one to notice that Lamson and Colby are bullies and thugs and that Unger and Graves are weaklings who support them."

"No. This is fascinating. That Robin Unger has these issues of these obscure newspapers at hand is remarkable and revealing. We have found that the CIA went back and created phony issues for that day to be used in precisely this situation. I am dumbfounded that ROBIN UNGER should have them at his fingertips."

"Unger, Lamson, Cobly, Graves have been caught with their pants down. It's no surprise that they would revert to ad hominems. None of them has done anything to refute the evidence that I have published about Officer Chaney motoring forward. NOTHING!"

"Does Robin Unger believe that posting multiple versions of FAKE PHOTOGRAPHS makes them GENUINE? Everyone has to ask themselves how this guy could have such a vast repository of simulated editions of obscure newspapers for 22 November 1963!"

"I think it's a safe bet that Robin Unger and the other shills will no longer be taken seriously after this exchange...That Robin Unger has so many [images of 1963 newspapers] at his fingertips is fascinating to me--and worth contemplation. Unger, Lamson, Colby, Graves--and now Dolva!--appear impervious to logic and evidence in another stunning display of reckless disregard for reason, which requires some explanation."

He's the only guy who can lure Josiah Thompson onto forums. And he always seems to catch your interest.

He has a special place in our hearts

The most questionable thing about Jim Fetzer's research is his reliance upon photo interpretation, and seeing alteration where many people don't. When he doesn't stray into those waters (which is not often enough, imho), I think his arguments and his logic are a lot more compelling.

I of course disagree with you there, I think his other stuff is just as bad or sometimes worse (when he's under the sway neo-Nazis/Holocaust deniers) but what was the last time he posted something about the assassination unrelated to claims of image fakery?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Len Colby

[David Josephs]

Like a third grader with a sharpie

One would expect to see ALL the blacks crushed and extending beyond their natural boarders, yet only the black square over JFK's head is doing so...

THAT sqaure was not part of the original frame.

Obvious to most with any sense and a pair of eyes.

Edited March 24, 2017 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

Like a third grader with a sharpie

One would expect to see ALL the blacks crushed and extending beyond their natural boarders, yet only the black square over JFK's head is doing so...

THAT sqaure was not part of the original frame.

Obvious to most with any sense and a pair of eyes.

LOL! You need better material. Nice JPG artifacts. And lousy interpolation.

And a better understanding of how this stuff works. Like that will ever happen.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

LOL....

Make the same CRUSH happen to Greer's head them Lammy....

It's in the same darkness and should be crushed out just like JFK's if the frame was untouched...

Not a single other shadow in that frame behaves like the one covering JFK's head...

It's cool though... we know you only come out when others are correct and you have nothing to say or do about it....

Now... throw a few insults, a couple of childish names, state yet another unsupported opinion and call it a day...

That's all you ever seem up to the task for in EVERY instance...

Prove me wrong old man.

Edited March 1, 2013 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

LOL....

Make the same CRUSH happen to Greer's head them Lammy....

It's in the same darkness and should be crushed out just like JFK's if the frame was untouched...

Not a single other shadow in that frame behaves like the one covering JFK's head...

It's cool though... we know you only come out when others are correct and you have nothing to say or do about it....

Now... throw a few insults, a couple of childish names, state yet another unsupported opinion and call it a day...

That's all you ever seem up to the task for in EVERY instance...

Prove me wrong old man.

Lets start by looking at the crap you started with. You are clueless davie jo, and you proved it once again just like you did when you made yourself look so foolish thinking you understood parallax and how a camera pans.

There is no "crush", only false detail created by image processing and jpg compression. Which you don't understand.

Notice how the jpg compression in your original creates the square, not the actual content of the image. And I know, I have much better images to work with.

http://www.craiglamson.com/daviejo.png

I see jimmy d is here. Does the hollyweird frame look like davie joes?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Lets start by looking at the crap you started with. You are clueless davie jo, and you proved it once again just like you did when you made yourself look so foolish thinking you understood parallax and how a camera pans.

There is no "crush", only false detail created by image processing and jpg compression. Which you don't understand.

Notice how the jpg compression in your original creates the square, not the actual content of the image. And I know, I have much better images to work with.

I see jimmy d is here. Does the hollyweird frame look like davie joes?

Now lets look at a LOW REZ version of a better frame.....

http://www.craiglamson.com/head.png

davie jo once again shows his incompetence. He makes his claims on crap images.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David Josephs]

Love the way you misdirect... the ENTIRE frame is of the same origin. The ENTIRE FRAME should react the same way to changes in contrast....

So you dont address why it does not happen with all the other "shaded heads" and blacks in that frame.... and try to misdirect with "image quality" BS.

Why are none of the other areas of that frame reacting to the changes in contrast/brightness the same way as the square hovering over JFK's head...

Show the ENTIRE FRAME Lammy... make any other similar black area do the same thing.... with any image you want to use... I will post yet another full frame -

take a look.... wut up wit dat...? all the other black areas stay in their respective places.... hmmmmm

Finally... here's the png you posted... the GOOD one... with a little contrast and brightness...

My goodness... does that look like a square over the back of his head that doesn't match the pixel structure of the info around it?

Edited May 3, 2017 by David Josephs

[Craig Lamson]

Love the way you misdirect... the ENTIRE frame is of the same origin. The ENTIRE FRAME should react the same way to changes in contrast....

So you dont address why it does not happen with all the other "shaded heads" and blacks in that frame.... and try to misdirect with "image quality" BS.

Why are none of the other areas of that frame reacting to the changes in contrast/brightness the same way as the square hovering over JFK's head...

Show the ENTIRE FRAME Lammy... make any other similar black area do the same thing.... with any image you want to use... I will post yet another full frame -

take a look.... wut up wit dat...? all the other black areas stay in their respective places.... hmmmmm

Finally... here's the png you posted... the GOOD one... with a little contrast and brightness...

My goodness... does that look like a square over the back of his head that doesn't match the pixel structure of the info around it?

My oh my you are a whiney little child.

So you can take your crap image and make it look even crappier. Nice work, you proved you are still clueless.

Lets to the same thing to the high quality image I posted, you can even see the brightness/ contrast sliders...and we can see once again that little davie jo simply uses crap and then makes even more crap, and posits a crap and really incompetent opinion.

http://www.craiglamson.com/headadj.png

All little davie joe proves is that garbage in gets you garbage out.

Now lets consider the tonal values of the entire frame.

davie jo among others say the back of the head is painted in black. If it were the area will be opaque, that is no light will pass through the film. It will be in essence as dark as the unexposed film at the edge of the frame.

We can measure this very simply in Photoshop. Lets take a 3x3 pixel square average reading of a few areas of the frame and see what we get. If little davie jo is correct, the back of JFK's head will be the darkest area in the frame.

Here are some samples...

Checking the RGB values we can see that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is not the darkest thing in the frame. It is not as dark as the unexposed film edge.

Once again davie jo has it all wrong. He has proven that he can use a mouse and move some sliders in photoshop. He has also proven his work is valueless and incompetent.

Nice work davie jo.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Craigster:

WIlkinson has done all this stuff. BTW, with much more accurate calculations than you have there.

See, they are experts in FILM, not photography. So they know a heck of a lot about the process and they are cognizant about what the counterclaims are. And they have anticipated this one and parried it quite well with numbers.

They are still awaiting your call to visit. Why haven't you called?

Oh I'm sure they have Jim. And I'm sure they have some sort of counter. And then there is the counter-counter for which they may not be prepared

And quite frankly you don't have a clue what I or others have done. I just gave the you the third grade trip.

There is no difference between alterations for motion picture film and still photography film Jim. Zero. Zip. Nada. After all motion is just a string of stills. The only thing that changes is you need to do it to a BUNCH of frames for motion. Still the actual processes involved are identical.

I'm not interested in a visit, nothing there that is news to me. I'm even in state next week. But why? I'm happy to wait for them to make a public case. What are they waiting for? Money? LOL!

BTW, you failed to answer the question Jim. You have seen the hollyweird frames, did the look like the mash of pixels Davie posted?

[Don Jeffries]

Len,

Let me clarify one thing- I never "chided" Robin Unger, whom I respect very much, about anything. I did edit Lee Farley's personal attack on Jim Fetzer, which was worse than anything Fetzer has posted about anyone else on this forum.

[Robin Unger]

Hi Len

Thanks for the support.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Craig Lamson]

And quite frankly you don't have a clue what I or others have done. I just gave the you the third grade trip.

This is recurrent refrain for Craig: Oh that wasn't what I meant, or I just did that to snooker you.

Yawn.

There is a difference between film and photography. And Zavada uses this in his report to make what are some strong arguments against alteration. The main arguments he makes are that when doing film opticals or special effects, especially at that time, no one ever seriously contemplated doing it with such a small gauge film. It was just unheard of. Therefore the technical process was all geared to wider formats. So therefore, how on earth could this be done so quickly, almost an overnight job? Which is what Horne is talking about.

Also, if the film was blown up to 35 mm, or even larger, how could that not be recognized as it was reduced down? As Zavada notes, it is very hard to believe that working in that small of a guage, that the tell tale ear marks of the blow up, and then the reduction back down for the entire film, all this would be literally undetectable?

To me, these questions, which are all inherent to 8 mm film, are serious ones that Rollie raises. Another one is this: when Zavada did his work, he discovered what appears to be another first day copy in Zapruder's estate. From what I understand, the SIxth Floor has this now. To my knowledge, no one knew about this before Zavada began his work.

But from conferring with Wilkinson, she is not talking about this issue of extensive special effects, matte shots,traveling mattes etc. She is talking about just this one relatively brief section of film, where the back of Kennedy's head looks darkened in. And in her copy of the film, that dark section looks like a square that has been aerial imaged on, its distinct and does not move.

To aerial image something in, that would only take a few frames being blown up to 16 mm. That is something you might be able to get away with.

Oh please jimmy buy a clue...and learn to read.

The techincal processes involved in altering a single frame of film be it for still photo are a frame from a motion picture are exactly the same. Is the EQUIPMENT used to do ti different? Sometimes. The equipment designed for motion is nothing special or magic, it was designed to MAKE MONEY by doing things FASTER AND CHEAPER.

But the fact remains, regardless of the final medium, the technical process of exposing film remains the same. Quite frankly doing special effects on a still frame is far more demanding since the final image is seen continuously and viewed in much greater detail than a single frame of film that flashes on the screen for 1/24 of a second. Movie special effects of often done "just good enough". Facts of life.

I'm happy to wait for the hollyweirds to run their tv special in November, if they can found a buyer. Then we can discuss what they have in detail. And they won't have much.

[Len Colby]

Hi Len

Thanks for the support.

Well having repeatedly been at the receiving end of the 'Wrath of Fetzer' ^TM I can empathise. Great posts BTW.