Keven Hofeling Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) I came across this meme on PatSpeer.Com (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18c-reason-to-doubt) and thought I'd ask Mr. Speer a couple questions about the peculiarities therein... 1. I see that you have a quite clear version of Z-317 on your meme. The following are 6k stills from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's copy of the "Forensic Zapruder Film" that they purchased from the National Archives which are even sharper than your copy. The deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal region in the lower right back side of JFK's head is even sharper in these copies of Z-317, although yours is very sharp; indeed, sharp enough to see the hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges. I'm wondering what exactly you think that patch is? 2. When I ask this question of Zapruder film authenticity apologists (both of the LN and CT denominations), without fail the answer that comes back is that it is "a shadow." The problem with this answer, however, as demonstrated by the following GIF showing the transformation of the actual shadow on the back of JFK's head in Z-312 to the deep black hexagram shaped black patch with sharp edges that we see at Z-317, only 5/18ths of one second later, is that within that micro second of time a perfectly natural looking shadow has acquired unnatural characteristics, such as sharp edges and the hexagram shape. I'm wondering if you have an explanation for this peculiarity? 3. The following set of stills are from Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead's 6k copies of selected Zapruder film frames Z-312 through Z-335. Notice how the black patch is present in all of the frames in which you can see the back of JFK's head, and notice how the deep black patch with sharp edges radically morphs from frame to frame, in fractions of seconds between each, and tell me if you have ever seen a "natural shadow" behave in such a manner? Do you think it all unusual that the black patch -- or shadow, if you insist --morphs so perfectly to obscure the right side of the back of JFK's head where up to 50 or more witnesses reported that we should be seeing a large avulsive blow out wound? 4. And as for the back-of-the-head photograph you've included in your meme, I'm sure you understand that in order to overcome objections to the contradiction between it and memories and reports of a large avulsive back of the head wound, a sizable contingent of witnesses and researchers have had to postulate the existence of a "flap" covering what you term "the invisible hole." One of these researchers, Douglas Horne, has in recent years reassessed his position about the existence of such a "flap" due to the failure of the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to pass the stereographic testing of Dr. David Mantik and Robert Groden (during his time as a photographic consultant for the HSCA). See article below regarding Doug Horne's reversal of position on the authenticity of the BOH autopsy photographs. Does it concern you that former proponents of an imputed "flap" as a saving measure for the authenticity of the BOH autopsy photographs, such as Doug Horne, are accepting the science of spectrographic testing and are conceding that the BOH autopsy photographs necessarily must be altered? 5. Does it concern you that your notion of an "invisible hole" as it pertains to the BOH autopsy photographs is also invisible with regard to the dimensions of the posterior border of the large top-of-the-head wound modeled by Bethesda pathologist J. Thornton Boswell? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): Others adhering to the hypothesis about the concealment of JFK's head wound in the back of the head autopsy photographs being accomplished by manipulation of the scalp have changed their minds and concluded instead that the photographs are fraudulent. Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, which found that there is a soft matte insertion over the occipital-parietal wound in these photos, is a strong indication that the back of the head autopsy photographs have been altered. Doug Horne is among those who have changed their minds as the result of Dr. Mantik's testing. https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 When the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were first shown the bootleg autopsy photographs, they reacted in shock, and disavowed them. By the time of the 1988 NOVA PBS-TV program ["Who Shot President Kennedy?" https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c ], some of the Parkland doctors who had had some time to find ways to rationalize away the discrepancy between their eye-witness observation and the autopsy photographs, they did exactly that for PBS/Nova, opining that JFK's skull had been manipulated in such a way as to create the false appearance that the back of JFK's head was intact. Dr. David Mantik described it as follows: "...Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Doug Horne had reached the same conclusion during his tenure with the ARRB. In his book "Inside the ARRB" as well as in his Press Statement of May 15, 2006, Doug Horne expressed doubt about claims that the back of the head autopsy photographs of JFK have been altered to conceal the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, speculating instead that JFK's scalp had been manipulated in the photos to conceal the back of the head wound. Ten years later, after Dr. David Mantik had conducted stereoscopic analysis on the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, and thereby detected that there is a soft matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound in the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Doug Horne announced that he had changed his opinion, and now accepts the evidence that the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head are in fact altered. Doug Horne announced his change of opinion during a joint appearance with Dr. David Mantik on Brent Holland's "Night Fright" podcast. The transcript of the relevant dialogue is below, and the video has been queued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ---------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): …BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David? DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing. BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug? DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems. DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about… BRENT HOLLAND: Really?! DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it…. DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine… BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration. DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice. DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…” Edited January 1 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles Massicotte Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 (edited) At 2:59:30 in the following podcast you can hear Doug Horne tell the story of Wilkinson and Whitehead seeing 1st generation frames (MPI transparencies) of the Z-film, and not seeing any "hole" or "black patch". Only "real looking hair and normal shadow" (3:01:20). https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ Horne of course implies a sinister explanation. When Wilkinson first viewed these transparencies in 2009 the so-called anomalies (black patch, etc.) were more prominent, but upon 2nd viewing were no longer present. The word "photoshopped" is used in the podcast. The alteration receives yet another alteration! A more simple and less paranoid solution is that there simply is no black patch. The 1st generation film reveals this. Wilkinson, Mantik, Horne, et al. were mistaken. I think this is much more reasonable to assume until proven otherwise. The black patch is hair and natural shadow. Edited January 1 by Miles Massicotte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 1 Author Share Posted January 1 (edited) On 1/1/2024 at 2:43 PM, Miles Massicotte said: At 2:59:30 in the following podcast you can hear Doug Horne tell the story of Wilkinson and Whitehead seeing 1st generation frames (MPI transparencies) of the Z-film, and not seeing any "hole" or "black patch". Only "real looking hair and normal shadow" (3:01:20). https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ Horne of course implies a sinister explanation. When Wilkinson first viewed these transparencies in 2009 the so-called anomalies (black patch, etc.) were more prominent, but upon 2nd viewing were no longer present. The word "photoshopped" is used in the podcast. The alteration receives yet another alteration! A more simple and less paranoid solution is that there simply is no black patch. The 1st generation film reveals this. Wilkinson, Mantik, Horne, et al. were mistaken. I think this is much more reasonable to assume until proven otherwise. The black patch is hair and natural shadow. 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" still of Z-317 https://youtu.be/Xorv0YCCRno?t=2506 The black patch is even more obvious in the crop of the 1998 MPI scan of Z-317 presented in Hany Farid's article which attempts to debunk the black patch thesis: https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf ------------------------------------------------------ Z-317 from Hany Farid article https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf Z-317 from Hany Farid article https://farid.berkeley.edu/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf The black patch is equally evident in Jack White's presentation of the 1998 MPI scan of Z-317: And the black patch is also visible in this 9/2/2020 letter written by Rollie Zavada which includes Z-317: https://www.ebay.com/itm/403700159791 But for sure, Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scan of Z-317 from the "Forensic Copy" of the Zapruder film they purchased from the National Archives is superior to all of the above: And why are Wilkinson and Whitehead's 6k scans superior even to the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" stills? The answer has to do with the distinction between and utility of logarithmic color versus standard colorization. The scratches and mold that you can see on the film are because the 6k scans were made in log color. Sydney Wilkinson explained this to Doug Horne in a letter that he read while being interviewed on the 1/7/2019 Midnight Writer News, Episode 107, https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ , as follows: ---------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY WILKINSON WROTE: "Our scans show everything in the frame, the good, the bad, and the ugly." By that they mean the scratches and the mold on the film. They wrote "There is so much detail that individual grains of 8mm film stock are evident in the 6k logarithmic scans. It's hardly pretty, but the images are glaringly sharp. That is why we see all the scratches, mold, dirt, stains, and other film anomalies. Linear color is what we view on our TVs and computers, the color looks right to us. The versions of the Zapruder film we see on television documentaries or DVDs like "Images of an Assassination" sold in 1998 or on YouTube have been cleaned up and color corrected. Much of the scratches, dirt, mold, etc., have been removed along with color correcting each scene to create a much richer looking element. The processes used to do this can be grueling and take a long time depending upon how much money and how much time the producers want to spend on it. But we did not want to make our images look prettier. We did not want to touch anything because our goal was to conduct a forensic scientific study of the film. We wanted to see what was really there in every frame not what might have been hidden or obscured by cleaning or color correcting. So logarithmic color, or log color for short, is what professionals use when coming from or going to film because it brings out much more detail in blacks and mid-blacks by stretching the blacks into grays. However, without color correction, which we have not done, the image looks a little washed out, but the amount of information in the blacks is substantially increased. The primary reason we want log color space was to see all the information in the shadows, and what we saw was astounding. If our transfer was linear color we never would have seen the patch on the back of the head in frame 317 or it would have looked like a shadow. Most importantly, log shadow space does not make a shadow look like a patch." Because Sydney Wilkinson and Thom Whitehead are professionals working within the film industry, they have been able to enlist true Hollywood experts in cinematography and post production who have performed content analysis of the Zapruder film. Among them are genuine cinematography professionals such as Ned Price (https://studentfilmreviews.org/?p=17707 ) and Paul Rutan, Jr. (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/ ) who had the following to say about the Zapruder film. Look them up, they are the real deal. ------------------------------------------------ FILM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS COMMENTING ABOUT Z-317 ------------------------------------------------ "...This extreme close-up from the HD scan of Zapruder frame 317 is what prompted one noted Hollywood expert in post production -- Ned Price, the Head of Restoration at a major motion picture studio -- to say: "Oh that's horrible, that's just terrible. I can't believe it's such a bad fake." His film industry colleague, Paul Rutan, Jr., proclaimed we are looking at artwork in this frame (i.e., aerial imaging) -- not at "opticals" (i.e., traveling matte)...." Horne's "Inside the ARRB," Vol. 4, p. 1361. Even Rollie Zavada has acknowledged the black patch and conceded that "...it certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration...." Although Rollie Zavada is not and never claimed to be an expert on film alteration or cinematography. Zavada was a Kodak employee with expertise in Kodachrome II film, and thus is not qualified to evaluate the Zapruder film for content falsification, and the ARRB mandate that Zavada had did not include "content analysis" for which he is not qualified. Zavada authenticated that the extant Zapruder film is on Kodak Kodachrome II film -- which is no surprise given that Hawkeyeworks was a joint CIA/Kodak facility -- and then went beyond his expertise to claim that the film had not been altered. But as you can see below, even Rollie Zavada, viewing an inferior copy of Z-317, admitted that the black patch looks like an alteration, but not being an expert in film alteration, simply said he refused to believe it because he hadn't seen evidence of how it could have been done.... "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." Having no expertise in film alteration whatsoever he resorted to blind faith in a sacred cow instead of following the evidence wherever it leads even though the Heavens may fall... -------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG HORNE TAKES ROLLIE ZAVADA TO TASK OVER ZAPRUDER FRAME 317 [THE BLACK PATCH SUPERIMPOSED OVER JFK'S OCCIPITAL BLOW OUT WOUND]: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html "...In the breakout session, when Josiah Thompson asked him to display the controversial frame 317 and comment on whether the black object covering the rear of JFK's head was a natural shadow or evidence of alteration, Rollie [Zavada] put up the slide (a very dark, muddy image of 317 with much contrast present---an image greatly inferior to the Hollywood scans of the forensic copy), and then said words to the effect: "It certainly looks like a patch; it looks like it could be an alteration. But I haven't seen evidence of how it was done, so I refuse to believe it." [This is very close to a verbatim quote---guaranteed to be accurate in its substance.] I and several others, including Leo Zahn of Hollywood, then suggested---demanded, actually---that Rollie display ALL of frame 317---not just the portion showing JFK's head. When this slide was finally displayed, I asked everyone present in the room what explanation those who were against alteration had for the extreme difference in density between the shadow on Governor Connally's head, and the extremely dense and dark (almost D-max) "anomaly" on JFK's head in that same frame. The two so-called "shadows" have absolutely no relation or similarity to each other, yet both men were photographed in the same frame, at the same instant in time, on the same planet, with the same light source (i.e., the sun). The ensuing silence was more profound than that inside the whale that swallowed Jonah. Rollie and Tink had no explanation for this. Nor does anyone else, who believes that the Zapruder film is an unaltered film. The most reasonable, and currently the only known explanation for this paradox in frame 317, is alteration---the blacking out of the true exit wound on the back of JFK's head in that frame, and in many others, with crude animation...." 'Josiah Thompson and Rollie Zavada at JFK Lancer: A Critical Report' by Douglas P. Horne, author of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board. https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html Edited May 8 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now