THE ZAPRUDER FILM

THE ZAPRUDER FILM

An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination

The goal to create a “Kodachrome original” provides further insurmountable challenges..”

~Roland Zavada

The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces is that all the while it was thought that the results of such faking proved a rear shot, or attempted to. However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.~Willy Whitten – November 2014

Let us begin first of all with cui bono? Who would have the most to gain from disputing the authenticity of the Zapruder Film?

The answer is obvious, the perpetrators of the assassination, because the film shows the timing of the shots that hit Kennedy and Connally, and modern ballistics can prove the trajectory of the shots. Therefore it is in the perpetrator’s self-interests to cast as much doubt as possible on the most critical visual evidence of the assassination.

DISSECTING THE ZAPRUDER BELL & HOWELL 8mm MOVIE CAMERA

Outline of a Presentation to the Movie Machine Society Toronto Conference, 10/24/98
by Roland J. Zavada

The camera used is not untypical of several models that position the film with its claw moving in an aperture cutout area adjacent to the image forming picture area. Consequently, scene information falls into this unmasked area due to the excess (circular) imaging area produced by the lens. For normal home movie projection this additional recorded scene information would be of no consequence as the projector aperture would hold back or mask-out this area.

We have the typical camera aperture area (i.e. the images that would be viewed by standard projection), and an additional area where the image extends into the area between the perforations and adds to the total scene content. To some students of the assassination, the Zapruder original film contains several image anomalies – almost all being related to the scene information recorded or imaged into the area between the perforations. (See sample frames below shot in Dealey Plaza.)

There is great significance attached to this area by various researchers who speculate that the anomalies may represent not the peculiar optics of Zapruder’s Bell & Howell camera but rather, evidence of film alteration. It is important, therefore, to understand how the camera optics record images in this area and why certain anomalies are present – which is part of the objective of this study.

Overview of Image Anomalies:

The image characteristics that have been identified as “those of concern” are inconsistencies; i.e. they are not the same density, color and quality as those contained in the primary image area. The cause of those inconsistencies thus provides a focus for our review of camera characteristics. A look at a few frames from the Zapruder “in camera” original, provide a “picture” of the image characteristic that will be the bases of detailed discussions. (See Photo from the Warren Commission Exhibit.)
Image anomalies or characteristics that were addressed are:

Claw Shadow -Between the perforations there is a broad bar where the image has more density (darker) than the primary image area.

Claw or aperture Flare – Sometimes adjacent to the dark (claw shadow) bar and between it and the primary image is a “streak” lighter than the dark bar and the adjacent image.

Multiple Exposure Areas Adjacent to Perforation – Sometimes there appears a lighter image area resembling images of perforation holes.

Ghost Images – Sometimes there appears to be “ghost” images such as a motorcycle fender. These are real images, which because of the design of the claw cutout area occur simultaneously above and below the perforation holes of the primary image being formed.

First Frame Overexposure – Occurs in the Zapruder original with his first exposure of the motorcade and at least twice in his filming of the first half of the roll. The possible causes of the fogged or lesser density first frame are reviewed, to the best extent possible – recognizing the limitation that we could not conduct a practical test with the Zapruder B&H 414 PD camera.

Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film

Image Penetration between the Perforations:

The characteristics and depth of the image penetration are not always seen the same but do follow a consistent and repeatable pattern. The pattern is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases, the aperture setting. We can show and conclude that:
The telephoto lens setting consistently produces the maximum image penetration into the perforation area;

Normal lens focal length produces some but not full penetration into the perforation area; and

Wide-angle lens focal length produces the least penetration into the perforation area.

Claw Shadow

One of the image anomalies seen is a darker (higher density) band or wide bar in the image area between the perforations. This anomaly can be noted in the Zapruder frames as well as my practical test, photos. This higher density (band or streak) can be explained as being caused by the shadow of the intermittent claw (and its supporting arm) as it moves upward over the film to engage the following perforation and pull down the next frame. The pull-down is with the shutter closed, but the upward movement of the claw out of the perforation, over the area between the perforations, into the next perforation hole is done while the shutter is open and the film is being exposed. The claw movement over the area between the perforations reduces the amount of light reaching the film causing more density. (Less light is more density on a reversal film.) The reduction in exposure to the area behind the claw is not linear. The claw functions with a shutter crank pin engaging the claw slot giving a sinusoidal time relationship to the pulldown ratchet reentry action.
Claw or Aperture Flare:

Claw flare appears to be a very real image anomaly often, but not always, seen adjacent to the dark bar caused by the claw shadow and the normal image area. In addition, when the 8mm image is viewed normal, the bottom of the upper perforation may show some flare-like density difference. It is this perforation that “sees” the bottom of the claw arm as it enters the perforation hole and pauses before beginning its rapid positioning stroke. (See also cover photo.)

Optical/Image Characteristics
Varamat Zoom Lens:

The 3: 1 zoom lens of the 414 camera series had eleven elements and reported to be of excellent quality. That quality position was confirmed in correspondence from the former Director of Engineering of the Optical Division, Mr. Rudolf Hartmann. He related: “the Varamat had an unusually flat resolution curve across its picture format (9 field position, 3 focal lengths, full aperture), yielding more than 60 lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter) resolution. Visual (air-image) resolution was 225 I/mm min. at any test position.”
Any attempt on my part to provide details on the lens or the zoom mechanism would be redundant. Dr. Cox and Mr. Mellberg confirmed that their patents, Cox #3074317 and Mellberg #3059533, are directly applicable to the 414 camera series.

Windows” of the Lens:
In simplest terms the entrance window of a lens defines the area of the object we are looking at; and the image in the lenses following it is called the exit window, since this defines the area of the image seen. To determine if the exit window size varied, the aperture plate was removed and a light was imaged through the lens onto frosted acetate to observe (as close as possible to the film plane) any change in exit window size with changes in focal length. We observed that there were changes. Although the full exit window remained almost the same, the effective illumination area changed by the presence of dark peripheral rings at the wide angle through normal lens setting. These dark rings began at a diameter slightly greater than the image area diagonal. (See drawing and photos on cover page.)

Electric Eye and Iris Diaphragm:

An article, A Direct Drive Automatic Iris Control, by LaRue, Bagby, Bushman, Feeland and MacMillin was published in the September 1958 issue of the SMPTE Journal and gives the reader design and engineering details on the automatic exposure system. The exposure sensing is achieved by feedback from two photo-voltaic (Se) cells, one sensing overall scene illumination and the other sensing paraxial luminance for backlight compensation. (Hence the “D” in 414PD relates to dual electric eye.)
The iris diaphragm in the 414 camera series uses two overlapping disks each of which has a wedge shaped angular slot. The intersection of the two slots forms the variable aperture. Gear teeth are formed on the periphery of the disks that engage a gear mounted on the meter coil. (See drawing below.)

Unusual Iris Shapes:

Because the cut of slots in the two iris blades are not linear (as shown), unusual patterns can be formed as seen from the series of photographs of aperture openings. The subject of iris patterns and its effect on the resulting image is well documented in the literature on optical physics. Its significance here is the question of whether or not the possible unusual patterns yielded image artifacts. If the subject is not in focus inversion, multiple images, etc. can and do occur. However, if the image is focused properly, the iris pattern makes no difference. The question presents itself – are Mr. Zapruder’s images in focus? By examination they appear to be. Did an unusual iris pattern contribute to any of the artifacts seen? In my opinion, I doubt it.

Multiple Exposure Areas – Perforation-Like Images

Within the perforation area, adjacent to a perforation above or below or both, an image occurs that resembles a perforation. The images simply represent multiple, i.e. double exposure of the area of the “excess” aperture cutout for the intermittent claw action. Above the upper and below the lower perforation hole, the excess aperture cutout allows an image to be formed concurrent with the primary image. When the succeeding image is formed it adds light to that previously formed causing multiple or double exposure. The shape that this image area takes, and importantly whether it exists at all, is directly dependent on the size of the exit window of the lens based on the chosen focal length together with the influence of scene content. Not all exposure conditions produce the phenomena, however telephoto in bright lighting conditions does. With blank frames between some test target exposures, the phenomenon is visible and multiple exposures adjacent to the perforations are easily seen. (See photo below.)

Ghost Images:

In the Zapruder motorcade scene, below the perforation, you were shown a white object heading toward a bystander in the primary image. This so-called ghost image has caused a lot of speculation and questions from many that examined the Zapruder film. Now, by our understanding of the multiple exposure around the perforations explained above, it is reasonable to conclude the cause as simple double exposure of a primary image super imposed on the excess image of the preceding frame. (See ghosting on test chart below.)

First Frame Over-Exposure:

The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as “first-frame-overexposure.” In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
Mr. Zapruder’s camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder’s camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.

Conclusion

It is my conclusion that all the inter-perforation image anomalies identified can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of the Bell & Howell 414PD Camera.

~Roland J. Zavada, 10/24/98

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavada1.htm

Roland Zavada comments on the Zapruder film hoax issue (9/23/03)

It appears that here again, proponents of Z-film alteration believe
that the creation of all the required steps to achieve special effects in
theatrical motion picture are easily and equally applicable to 8mm film
taken with amateur consumer quality cameras rendered in such a way as
to replicate an original “in-camera” film without tell-tale image structure
characteristics. Nothing is farther from the truth and the author’s choice
of the word “created” may well be significant.
The reader of this dissertation is cautioned to consider the
complex characteristics of typical special effects cinematography.
Simply stated, to achieve special optical effects, it is necessary to
begin with a “family of film types”. Kodak designed camera original color
films to work compatibly with laboratory intermediate films and print films
as spectral dye “sets”. !Professional camera negative films were never
viewed directly and their transmission spectrum matched the spectral
sensitivity of intermediate (and print) films and the transmission dye set
of the intermediate films matched the spectral sensitivity of the final
print films. The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. !The film
was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the
spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple
copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the
film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not
render it receptive for use as a “print” medium – hence, one “hell-of-a”
problem for someone trying to replicate a Kodachrome original (Note: the
goal now being to create a “Kodachrome original”) by using special
optical effects!
The goal to create a “Kodachrome original provides further
insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are
designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way
that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author
wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced
technology and film resources were able: to create a “Kodachrome
original” that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination
and evaluation by multiple researchers. The “evidence” offered are scene
content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.
The limited comments above do not even begin to address image
structure constraints of grain; contrast and modulation transfer function
losses. However another constraint requires comment and that is the
requirement in optical effects of maintaining “cancellation” of film
positioning variables due to: positioning/repositioning the film in the
camera and optical bench projectors; processing shrinkage; relative
humidity controls and heat control from projector light sources. Pilot pin
registration is the typical method used and required for 35mm films.
Sixteen-millimeter films also use “edge and point guiding” as a possible
method for very limited effects. Either of the above requires a reference
perforation(s) or edge and a perforation reference for adequate image
positioning for the required masks.
With the Zapruder film you have neither. The reference edge (i.e.
fixed rail side in the camera) is lost after slitting as the spring-loaded
guides are adjacent to the images being formed on the double-8 (16mm
width film raw stock). Add to this the manufacturing (standardized)
tolerances of: variation of slit width and perforation size and the required
tight tolerances for optical special effects of scene content or as implied
“alteration”, cannot be achieved.
A further complication in the equation derived by the author is that
the final result is “printed” onto Kodachrome II daylight raw stock with
the appropriate manufacturing marking and processing laboratory codes.
Any commercial source of the film would not suffice, as it would contain:
product code, date and strip number. I am not aware of the film source
implied by the author – i.e. possibly involving a major film manufacturer in
the implied conspiracy, or trying to derive an unmarked 8mm width slit
(extracted) from within wide gage film – now requiring the perpetrators of
alteration to have slitting and perforating equipment.
Other researchers have addressed the “time-line” and the fact that
the “same-day” copies would have also required “matched alteration”.
I’m exhausted envisioning the logistics of this purported set of “miracles”.
Further, the author also references “sent out for processing (and
to a Kodachrome plant, such as Hawkeye works)”!I know of no
Kodachrome processing available at Hawkeye (an equipment division). At
Kodak, all processing was done through the unified film processing
division. Kodachrome II required a complex multiple tank process.
However, if processed at a Kodak lab other than Dallas, the “X” Lab’s ID
and date would appear on the film – not Dallas! If the lab code printer
were turned off, then another image reproduction issue is introduced into
the equation. I am unsure if the author addresses this constraint or its
purported solution.

Second:!“This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera
original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the
image doesn’t‚ just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all
the way to the left! !To the left margin of the film!
That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the
Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 volumes. But is that
possible? !Can the Zapruder lens do that? !Can it put an image on the
film that is full flush left?”~Lifton

Under the correct circumstances of lens and light – yes the image
can fill the area between the sprockets. !See my test shots; Study 4,
figure 4-28 and Study 3, Figure 3-12. The Red Truck was taken in Dallas

the same day in the same camera as the shots of Carol. Also in my
report to the Movie Machine Society & SMPTE the upper right test
targets, I show a test target with the image in the preceding and the
following frame. To ensure this is available, I am emailing a couple of jpg
images showing this inter-sprocket image characteristic with full
penetration to the limit of the camera aperture cutout.

Note: Anthony Marsh effectively addressed this topic in his web article:
(
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/amateurs.htm.)

Third: “Then these pictures – these test shots – went into an appendix in
the final report, which was delivered within hours of the ARRB going out
of existence. !A report that was supposed to “explain the anomalies.”~Lifton

I have no idea why a respected author needs to revert to hearsay
to support his arguments. The tests referenced above are described on
page 41 of study 4 – including the reason for the limitation for the full
inter-sprocket image penetration (we simply didn’t have enough studio light
available).

Doug’s comments about the inter-sprocket images surprise me.
He was an extremely busy man near the time of the deadline for our
report but always a great help. Obviously he did not see my multiple
camera test results and apparently did not remember my conclusions
about the inter-sprocket area. He apparently also forgot how the failure
of the ARRB to exercise expected initiative with the DOJ caused months
of delays and unnecessary rewriting (in the summer of ’98) of the report
format that was subsequently acceptable. Doug’s role helped resolve the
problem so he should have remembered the reasons for the last minute
“midnight oil”. However in retrospect: SO WHAT – the complete report
was delivered ON TIME!

Finally: “Let me now add that there is a small problem with Rollie Zavada
which Doug experienced repeatedly. !Zavada is committed to the view
that the Z film must be authentic. !This is not all that clear at first.
!When I spoke to him in September 1998, he went out of his way to say
that he had not tested for authenticity. !But that is not the way Rollie
speaks anymore. !Now he talks as if he has accomplished something that,
at the time, he was careful to say he had not done – he now behaves as if
his multi-volume report somehow establishes the film as authentic.”~Lifton

In the work agreement with Kodak, the ARRB’s request to analyze
image content of the “Z” film was not accepted and the ARRB expressly
acknowledged that there would be no “statement of authenticity”
required because of the “analysis of evidence” nature of the study.
Let’s put the Kodak report to the ARRB in proper perspective.
WHAT WE DID WAS: provide a knowledge and factual database.!Thus,
using our report, the Archives, the DOJ, researchers and students can
make their own authenticity determination. (i.e. we gave them “Tools” for
authentication)
Our Program of Work was structured as studies to address the:
Medium – vintage of the films
Method – processing technology and markings
– printing technology and characteristics
– camera image capture characteristics
When combined, there is a high degree of assurance that the film
identified by the archives as the “Zapruder in-camera-original” —- is!!!

The Kodak study did not address – in writing – characteristics
about the technical constraints or expected visual delectability of any
possible alteration scenarios. The probability of alteration by applying
laboratory optical effects or simple A-B printing techniques (to remove
selected frames) after transfer of the original to an intermediate as
proposed by some researchers was also reviewed. These topics were
discussed and reviewed with NARA and Doug Horne of the ARRB while at
NARA. !Further, my careful viewing of multiple scenes and my knowledge
of optical effects technology convinced me (at that time) that a
dissertation on the probability of alteration was not needed.

Note: subsequent to my report being filed with the ARRB I had
another opportunity to further examine the “In-camera original” with the
NARA subcommittee on preservation which further confirmed my beliefs.
When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to
express my personal views. Simply stated “There is no detectable evidence
of manipulation or image alteration on the “Zapruder in-camera-original”
and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.”

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all
the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium,
manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image
characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,
perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting
characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO
evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge
effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.
~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

Biography of Roland Zavada

Mr. Zavada retired, as a Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, from Eastman Kodak in March 1990. His past responsibilities included coordinating the activities of the Consumer Video and Broadcast Telecine Television Evaluation Laboratories, a product engineer on reversal motion picture films, and as a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system.

He has a BS from Purdue University, a degree in Photo Science from the Rochester Institute of Technology, and a MBA from the University of Rochester.

He began his standards activity with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in 1962. In 1966, he assumed responsibility for the National and International Standardization of the Super 8 system, becoming chair of the SMPTE’s 16mm and 8mm Technology Committee, chair of the Super 8 Technology Committee of the ISO TC-36, and subsequently became chairman of several national and international committees including leader of the United States delegation to ISO-TC36 – Cinematography. Work with the Society culminated with four terms as the Society’s Engineering Vice President, 1976-1983.

Mr. Zavada received recognition for his technical contributions by receiving Fellowships from the SMPTE, the British Kinematographic Sound and Television Society, the Audio Engineering Society, and the Rochester Engineering Society.

In 1985, Mr. Zavada received the SMPTE Progress Medal for Technical Achievement and was awarded the Leo East Award as Rochester’s 1985 Engineer of the Year. In 1986, he received the SMPTE Agfa Gevaert Gold Medal for outstanding Achievement in film and video imaging interface.

In 1994, Mr. Zavada was elected as a Life member of the Foundation of Motion Picture Pioneers Inc.

In 1995, The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conferred its highest award and greatest distinction of Honorary Membership to Mr. Zavada.

http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm

Proof that the Zapruder film is authentic

One of the central arguments in the book Assassination Science is that the Zapruder film is not authentic. Various researchers argue that frames had been cut out for some conspiratorial motive. On pages 310 to 315 Dr. Mantik discusses the strange ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area. He does not know what caused them and suspects that they indicate tampering. Balderdash. To date, no one has correctly explained what those images are and how they were created. For many years I have puzzled over them and discussed them with other researchers, but never reached a firm conclusion due to the very poor quality of the Zapruder film versions we have had. Now MPI has released the original Zapruder film with the sprocket hole areas intact. Within 5 seconds of viewing this new videotape release of the Zapruder, I knew instantly what the sprocket hole images are and exactly what caused them. You, gentle reader, will be among the first people to learn the truth. Since the publication of this article this summer I have received positive feedback from Internet readers which has allowed me to figure out what more of the ghost images are. I have revised and updated this article from this point to reflect the new information.
The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected. Some 8 mm cameras have a notch in the top of the aperture plate where the claw finishes its stroke when pulling down the next frame. Bell & Howell designed the aperture plate to use a groove in the middle of the aperture plate instead of a notch at the top. The illustration on the left is from a standard reference on film making which shows what an aperture plate looks like with a typical notch. The illustration on the right is what the aperture plate would look like if the notch had been changed to a groove. I also suspect that the corners are actually rounded instead of sharp. After exposure of the current frame, the claw grabs the current frame’s sprocket hole and pulls the current frame down to bring in the next frame.

Now, what are the implications of this discovery about the Zapruder film? For one thing, it makes it extremely unlikely that anyone could have tampered with the film and reproduced the ghost images perfectly. When you consider that no one else, not even the best camera experts in the world, realized the mechanism which caused the ghostlike images for over 34 years, it seems highly unlikely that the conspirators would know about this characteristic of Zapruder’s camera and be able to duplicate it within a few hours. If someone were to remove a frame or two here and there, the ghost images in the tabs would not line up properly with the new adjacent frames and would expose the alteration. It is time for everyone who has doubted the authenticity of the Zapruder film to realize that the Zapruder film is genuine and authentic, and now move on with their research.”~Anthony Marsh

http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm

One of the problems with the book Assassination Science is that some authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214 Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that, “Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned to his right. The film does not show this.” Jack White does not provide any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to fact check it himself.”~Marsh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYWm26OLve8 – Zapruder Film [digitized version- 2013]

Oxberry Optical Printer

Artifacts

As in any analog process, every optical “pass” degraded the picture, just like a photocopy of a photocopy (although the degradation can be greater with contact printing than with optical printing).[2] Also, since a new, different piece of film was exposed and printed, matching the exact colors of the original was a problem. Usually the printer work was limited to only the parts of a dissolve needing the effect. The original footage was spliced mid-shot with the optically-printed portion, often resulting in an obvious change in image quality when the transition occurs.

Other problematic artifacts depend on the effect attempted, most often alignment inaccuracies in matte work. For this reason, shots intended to be manipulated via optical printer were often shot on larger film formats than the rest of the project. Otherwise obsolete formats, such as VistaVision, remained in use for many years after they had been abandoned for the conventional shooting of scenes because their larger frame size provided greater clarity, reduced grain size when reprinted and any alignment problems were not as conspicuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_printer

. . .
So there are a few issues to address here.

One is that it isn’t purported that the Z-film was printed in a larger format. It is said that a new 16mm unsplit version was the product of the ‘manipulation’. The effects are said to have been done by rephotographing the large prints made for the presentation boards.

Secondly creating travelling mattes for the special effects is not simply a matter of using an optical printer. Such travelling mattes must be created as a second and more time consuming process. Asserting that the presentation prints were used would entail an animation table, not a process printer. This would mean hand painting the travelling matte one cell at a time. And if only certain sections were to be done this way, the problem arises as to matching that work with the sections not animated.

These problems combine into a situation wherein it is almost impossible to believe it could be accomplished in that 9 to 10 hour window – which is itself in doubt.

On top of this all of these issues become moot when the ghost-image situation is added into the equation. That is explained in detail here already, but the bottom line is ANY splicing or mixing films together to create the ‘effects’ cannot have happened because of the flow of the ghost images as a portion of the image before it proceeds uninterrupted. This proves there were no splices in the film whatsoever. I refer you back to Roland Zavada and Anthony Marsh once more.

. . . .

Clint Bradford Points out Mantik errors:

1 >Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was hearsay – he was only
quoting what was told to him by Chaney.

2>Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
Please tell me where

3> But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
us is Earle Brown’s “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:

Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.

Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?

Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.

Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?

Brown: Yes; slowed down.

Mantik replies:

1. You are correct that Marrion L. Baker was quoting Chaney about the
limousine stopping (3H266).

2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error.

3.You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a “retraction” to my
citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this.
. . . . .
From Kennedy’s Horsemen:
Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

Garrison trial:
Oser: “what did the limousine do then?” (after the head-shot)
Simmons: “It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.”

Ellis: “Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped”

************
5 officers cite’d incorrectly for complete stop:

1 .Ellis
2. Harges
3. Martin
4. Brown
5. Chaney
*************
Comments:
>>”More importantly, however, my own position has never depended on a
>>complete stop; a significant slowing (which was widely reported) is
>>quite enough to disagree (disconcertingly) with the extant version of
>>the Z film.”~Mantik

This is where we both disagree. I have over a dozen renditions of the
Zapruder film (mentioned above) that all show the exact “significant
slowing” of the Presidential limo.”~Clint Bradford

I sincerely believe that we have to dismiss witness’ statements of “the
limo stopped” – as well as “slowed down” – if they were BEHIND the limo
during this sequence. Just leave them out of the “number crunching.”
Here’s why.

Something dramatic is happening. People sense something’s wrong. The
Presidential limo is moving directly AWAY from them. At a downward
angle. And the brake lights come on…

We cannot hold eyewitnesses’ testimony to be entirely accurrate in that
situation – the difference of “slowing” and “stopped” in that situation
just might be beyond the depth perception capabilities of humans.”~Clint Bradford
* * * * * * * *
I am satisfied at this time that the Zapruder film is authentic. What I am looking into now are the claims by the Fetzer crew of witnesses who testified that the limousine came to a complete stop. In the short time I have been researching this I have already eliminated 5 of the witnesses Fetzer et al have cited. Is a pattern arising here?~ww

The Complexity of Faking the Zapruder Film

Creating a blue screen composite image STARTS by photographing a subject in front of an evenly lit, bright, pure blue (or green) background.

Does anyone here grasp the significance of this fact of special effects? Because what is being asserted here is that these shots were starting with a full composition of elements in the shot. This complicates the procedure significantly. One has to now go in and REMOVE elements. This entails creating masks for all moving objects in the field of vision.

For instance, the car and occupants – both Kennedy and Jackie are above the edge of the open limo. So creating a mask of the moving car is one thing in itself – but you also have the portions of the people in the car moving in their various positions.

To create a successful effect, you have to create a mask of all of the movement in the foreground action that is then used to lay over and create a blockage of the background – so that it does not ‘bleed through’ the images in the foreground. This would be the street, the curb, and the people moving around in the grassy area, as well as the grass background. If this mask isn’t perfect, you will see the background movement in the objects in the foreground. The edges have to be perfect or parts of the people in the foreground will be cut-off.

So it must be understood that ‘blue screen’ is not a possibility for this sequence. The mask has to be hand done, one frame at a time. You have to make a silhouette of the whole of the car and occupants. The next step is to use this mask to make a shot of the background with this blanked out area traveling along in front of it. So you are now, two generations away before you make your final pass of adding the car and occupants over the prepared background. That is three generations of added grain to your shot.

You have a lot of incidental movement in both the foreground and background to deal with.

SEE: The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography, the Raymond Fielding classic

~ww – December 14, 2013

Jim Fetzer’s Campaign of Disinformation

Here’s a sampling of email messages I have received regarding the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.
Careful, though…some are ugly…”~Clint Bradford

By 1996, I had lost all faith in [Fetzer’s] integrity. He is a parasite, not a researcher. He tried to ride the medical evidence to fame, but was frustrated by his inability to use Harrison Livingstone. He went on to find others more easily manipulated, and picked Zapruder alteration as his new “cause.”

For all of his talk of science, he told one researcher that he begins by deciding what is the truth, and then marshals evidence (selectively) to support that “truth.” This is the opposite of scientific method. In my opinion, Fetzer is clearly a quack, using the language of his field to advance fraudulent premises.

Whether his motives go beyond his own inflated ego, I don’t know, but he has done considerable damage by his glory-seeking con-artist parody of JFK research.

I would think a serious researcher of the case would be embarrassed NOT to be on Fetzer’s “disinformation” list.

Fetzer is a playground bully, using his academic credentials and his aggressive approach to intimidate those who question his “expertise.” Like a bully, he responds with assaults, then cowardice when someone refuses to be intimidated, and demolishes his absurd claims.

[Fetzer] seems to have convinced a growing core of people that “he may have something,” using his usual smoke and mirrors, and the phony pretense of science. Insane? No. I believe he is an unscrupulous opportunist, a sociopath unconcerned about what damage he does.

Fetzer’s article – “Signs of Disinformation” – is a perfect example of Fetzer’s tactics:
1) He provides the reader with the Fetzer definition of disinformation, without regard to any form of reality.

2) He avoids direct accusation, but seeks to tar his critics with vague smears: “who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’.”

3) He reports their claims are “too strong to be true.” In other words, if a position (like “Fetzer is peddling nonsense”) is stated strongly, that is a “sign of disinformation.” How convenient. You are only NOT a disinformationalist if you are as vague and slippery as Fetzer, apparently.

4) An “unrelentingly negative” review seems to be another “sign of disinformation.” If something is crap, an unrelentingly negative review seems like a reasonable response.

5) He describes “The Innocent Man Script” (which I’ve never heard of) and his own book (without mentioning it is his) as “fascinating works, in my view, that contribute considerably to illuminating” the case…

6) Josiah Thompson’s criticism of Murder in Dealey Plaza is characterized as “trashing.”

7) He associates himself with the idea of a rear exit wound, as though a great many of his critics don’t also believe this, and then adds his own phony conclusions as though they were natural consequences of the first premise: that the brain “cannot be the brain of JFK, and the X-rays from the autopsy must have been fabricated.” These are things which don’t necessarily follow, but he presents them as though they are inevitable. He then ignores all previous work, and attributes all this to his earlier book, Assassination Science (again not identifying it as his own book).

8) He then states triumphantly that “the former has nine contributors, the latter eleven,” as though the number of contributors has the slightest thing to do with the credibility of the two books. He compounds this nonsense by asking “How likely is it that none of the work of these contributors is meritorious, save for that of someone with whom he associates?” In fact, association with Fetzer may be an indicator of “lack or meritorious” work, though he does mix in some good work with the amazing crap. He later addresses this approach as though it were something being done by others, not him. In reality, if ten people write junk articles, and they are collected in a book, the fact there are ten of them has nothing to do with the quality of book. It is still junk.

9) He then says “Consider the source,” but proceeds not to talk about any source. Presumably he means the reader to dismiss Josiah Thompson, the “source” previously mentioned.

10) He states that “the object so disinformation is less to convince anyone of the false than it is to create a set of conditions under which everything can be believed but nothing can be known.” Fetzer has accused me in the past, after I had stated a string of things that I indicated very definitely could be known, of arguing that “nothing could be known.” It had no relation to what I had said, but fitted his image of his critics, so it didn’t matter whether I had said anything that supported the claim – he knew it must be true, so he stated it as a fact. It is, in fact, people like Fetzer who are sowing confusion about what can be known, by tossing out cascades of red herrings, resuscitating discredited theories like the Bill Cooper “Greer shot JFK,” and manufacturing new nonsense to add to the confusion.

11) He then targets Posner – none easier – and it gives him a chance to imply that all of his critics are “Posners,” … even though most of us dismantled Posner long before Fetzer did.

12) He indicates the need to go back to the basic evidence, but then argues that the basic evidence has been forged. His stated intent is to “reconstruct the case from the bottom up.” Without the basic evidence, of course, we are to begin by going back to the basic evidence and throwing it out.

13) He again praises his own books without mentioning they are his books, and proceeds to greatly inflate their importance. They “are threatening to those who oppose the discovery of truth because they take us back to the basics in order to sort out what evidence is authentic and what is not.” NOT, it seems, includes the films, photographs and autopsy evidence pretty much in toto.” They thereby enable us to know what is credible and worthy of belief” (Fetzer certified) “and what is not” (inconvenient to Fetzer’s claims).

14) Although Peter Dale Scott has raised no objection to the name of Walt Brown’s journal, Fetzer has the effrontery to do so in Peter’s behalf. The journal is critical of Fetzer, and thus tarnishes “the name of Peter Dale Scott.”

15) “Notice…..” what Fetzer wants you to think. “Notice…..” how Fetzer wants you to assume what he’s saying has a sinister connotation, such as Tink praising Gary Mack (who Fetzer’s crowd wants to paint as an evil tool of The Sixth Floor Museum “crowd”) or something by Todd Vaughan (who has done some good work, though we disagree on many things) or encourages Walt Brown (whom Fetzer has already “explained” is peddling disinformation).

16) He then throws out four other names without any details, saying they have “an axe to grind.” Notice that, he says. That would be Clint, myself, Barb and Pamela Brown (apparently he doesn’t like her exposure of Doug Weldon’s sloppy work on the limo). Anyone who doesn’t buy his crap has “an axe to grind.”

17) “Notice when claims are too strong to be true.” After saying disinformation seeks to create “a state of confusion,” he now says anyone making a strong claim should be suspected of disinformation. “too strong to be true”? What exactly does that mean? To quote a song, “Absolutely nothing.” Fetzer uses a lot of those phrases that sound profound and mean nothing. Something learned in the academic wars, one would assume.

18) “Notice,” he says, when “sources are not cited” – an easy way to discredit newsgroup postings, and sources are often not cited – one needs only to apply the criticism to the posts with which one disagrees. If sources ARE cited, Fetzer just ignores them, thus having it both ways.

19) “Notice when….quotations are taken out of context” (as defined by Fetzer) “edited selectively” (ditto) “or words removed” (note that he imples any removal of words is suspicious, though often words are removed to shorten something WITHOUT altering the meaning of what is cited, merely to remove extraneous material). “These are signs,” he tells us.

20) Then he backtracks. Wouldn’t want anyone to think he was making a libelous allegation: “I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA for the FBI” and “I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing.” They couldn’t be criticizing Fetzer because he is totally full of shit, because that’s not within the range of acceptable possibilities for him. After all, he’s “revealing the truth.” If the subject matter were different, this would be a religious cult.

21) Then some more obfuscatory phrasing: “there are ample grounds based on past experience eo believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research on the death of JFK.” What grounds? Whose past experience? Any sources cited? Nope, though failure to cite sources is one of Fetzer’s proclaimed “signs of disinformation.” Of course, if he cites sources, he has to make specific allegations against people, and perhaps open himself to legal action, something he’s careful to avoid. He says only “On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate.” That must the the “past experience” he mentioned–experience being criticized by the folks mentioned. “Their function appears to me to be obfuscation”–again the careful phrasing, “appears to me to be.” No libel there, just an opinion.

22) His next paragraph implies that all of those cited are conspiring against him. “They seem to have a lot of interaction.” His evidence? Bradford cited Thompson on his website.

23) Then another wild and spurious accusation: “It repeats the absurd suggestion that those who are most qualified have no more to contribute than those who are least qualified.” This claim, previously made on the newsgroups, takes a lot of chutzpah–it is, after all, Fetzer who is making the ridiculous claim that David Mantik (a physician) is “the world authority on the Zapruder film,” elevating Jack White (with a background in advertising) to the position of expert photo analyst, and making other such bizarre claims, while dismissing authentic experts like Roland Zavada as lacking in credibility. Taking this baloney as proven simply by being stated, he goes on to draw conclusions from it, and tie it in to the tactics (his own) which he is projecting onto others.

24) “If the least simpleton should be taken as seriously as the most distinguished scholar” (close to Fetzer’s own work) “then there is nothing for them to fear.” In fact, it is Fetzer who is fleeing from real expertise, and elevating people with llittle or no background in the fields where he proclaims them “leading authorities,” with the exception of Robert Livingston. He says “Even the most important discoveries” (presumably the junk science he is championing) “can be readily discounted merely by denial” (a nice way to avoid confronting the fact those claims have been blasted to scrap by the evidence).

25) He then adds the non-sequiter: “But perhaps that’s what we ought to expect from someone who graduated from Yale.” This is another sleazy Fetzerism. To those who know many CIA people are Yalies, he is impying that Thompson is “one of them.”

26) “There is a serious disinformation movement afoot.” Yep, he’s leading it, and the best defense is a good offense.

27) His ego then soars again, “one that finds the work of those they attack to be to good to ignore.” Please.

28) He then cites Tink as “perhaps the best” example of disinformation.

  1. He closes with a call to arms against his critics: “Let us all do our best to expose and combat it” (criticism of Fetzer and his claims, that is). “The cause of justice demands no less.” Of course it does, Jim. How can “justice” prevail if his bullshit isn’t accepted as the received wisdom of the case?

    ~Clint Bradford

http://www.jfk-info.com/feedback.htm

Josiah Thompson

In a recent email to me, Professor Fetzer wrote:

A study that appears in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE [states that] the film appears to have been in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center run by the CIA already Friday night, where an original and three copies were struck and then returned to Dallas in time for a small group of reporters, including Dan Rather, to view the film in a preliminarily-edited version.”

The study referred to is by Mike Pincher and Roy L. Schaeffer. These writers manufacture out of whole cloth a flight of “at least the original and one copy” from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base on the night of the 22nd and a return flight of the altered film to Dallas in the early morning hours of November 23rd. They do this without a single fact to support their fancy. They even cite the Max Phillips note (quoted above), but never tell the reader that Phillips also pointed out that “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ [read ‘original’] film.”

They – and apparently Professor Fetzer – have simply misinterpreted the socalled “CIA 450 Documents” discovered by Paul Hoch in the early 1980s.

These documents recount the preparation of four photo briefing boards for government officials based upon NPIC’s analysis of the film. The question at issue is the timing of the shots. The selection of frames for the briefing boards makes clear that NPIC is looking at the same film we see today.

Telltale information is found on page six of the documents which refer to the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE. Hence, the examination was carried out not on November 22nd – but sometime in December 1963. The copy of the film analyzed was the Secret Service copy, whose agents stayed with the film while the briefing boards were prepared. AARB located and interviewed two former employees of NPIC who stated that internegatives were made of only single frames to be mounted on briefing boards and that they never “reproduced the film as a motion picture.” ~Josiah Thompson, 11/98

_______________________________________________

The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity

The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.

Quoting Zavada again:
“The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”

What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.~Willy Whitten — 12/2014

_______________________________________________

PART 2, Forensics and Crime Scene Investigation

There are 3 questions to be answered in a homicide investigation:

What Happened?
• Who did it?
• Why did they do it?

The investigative process relies on these techniques to answer those questions:

Crime scene investigation [CSI], a study of the scene of the homicide, with a measurement and record of all elements within that scene.
• Medical evidence – Autopsy
• Motive
• Cui Bono? (who benefits?)
• Modus Operandi [MO]
• Means & Oportunity

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Homicide/homicide%20investigation%20standard%20operating%20procedures%201999.pdf

http://www.nmsoh.org/homicide_investigator_checklist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics

Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination
By Sherry Fiester

Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

Fiester has presented forensic findings at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference (COPA) in Washington, DC in 1995, the Dealey Plaza Echo Annual Kennedy Assassination Conference in the United Kingdom in 1996, and at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Historical Research Conferences since 1996. Fiester is a recipient of the prestigious JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell New Pioneer Award, presented for advancing a better understanding of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination through innovative research.

Now retired from police work, Fiester is a prominent author, lecturer, and educator. “Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination” is her first in a series of upcoming publications utilizing various forensic disciplines to address important subjects of interest to Americans in the 21st century. Her next book, “Demystifying Mind Control” is slated for release in late 2013.

The Forensics
“Enemy of the Truth,” by Sherry Fiester reveals compelling new information supported by the weight of scientific validity by examining assassination evidence with contemporary research and established forensic investigative techniques, including:

The mechanics of head wound ballistics
Utilization of high-speed photography
Fracture sequencing studies of human skulls
Beveling in relation to projectile directionality
Blood spatter pattern analysis
Target movement in gunshot injuries
Trajectory analysis for the fatal head shot
Written from the perspective of a court certified forensic investigator, this exceptional piece of scientific work looks the assassination as a major crime, revealing truths that meet today’s standard of evidence required to support a criminal conviction.

http://astore.amazon.com/jfk-info-books-20/detail/0988305003

The mist of blood that is seen in the Zapruter film and claimed to be unnatural by the Fetzer crowd, is now recognized as what is called “Backspatter”, which is blood that sprays out of the entry wound as more or less a mist, and it does indeed dissipate within a split second. It proves the shot was from the front.

According to Ms Fiester’s forensic investigation the shot came from the opposite area of the Dealy Plaza towards the triple-underpass, not the grassy knoll. This is not to say that shots did not come from knoll area. This according to modern Trajectory Reconstruction techniques.~ww

Josiah Thompson: The Untrue Fact by Sherry Fiester

At this site, by going to the blog button pulls up a marvelous forensic analysis of the shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruter film, and buttressed by the autopsy X-rays from Bethesda:

When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Fiester

http://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/

Movement into the force: Once the bullet enters the skull, if the design of the projectile limits penetration by distortion or fragmentation, the bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in the transfer of kinetic energy demonstrated by the instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation. The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011;l Radford, 2009). (page 245)~Fiester

NOTE: “instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation” – this results as an implosion.

More from the above cited article:

When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head. German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011). Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.

The distribution of bullet fragments begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998). The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402). Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11). Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.

Back spatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible (James, 2005).
Scientific journals, books, and research published since the late 1980s indicate the blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance characteristic of back spatter, particularly when correlated to blood documented elsewhere on the scene. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. Consequently, the only possible conclusion is the back spatter in the Zapruder film is genuine. Identifying the blood in the Zapruder film as back spatter signifies a shot from the front of President Kennedy.

Contemporary forensic research indicates of the five methods to determine the direction of travel of the projectile fatally wounding President Kennedy, four indicate a shot from the front. Importantly, they do so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom. If we eliminate the forward movement, and eliminate beveling, we still have conclusive proof of a front shot.

So, if we know the shot came from the front, where is front? If you superimpose a protractor over a map of Dealey Plaza with the apex at the point where Kennedy received the head shot, at a ninety-degree angle to Zapruder’s location, and draw a line representative of the 115-degree turn relative to Zapruder, it becomes obvious “front” of Kennedy is not the Grassy Knoll. Front, for Kennedy, was the south end of the triple overpass and the adjacent parking lot on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza. While the exact steps of trajectory analysis is meticulously detailed in Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination, a graphic indicating possible locations for the shooter is demonstrated here:http://enemyofthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dealey3a.jpg

We all make decisions based on the information to which we have been exposed. The latest in contemporary forensic research, essential to our decades long struggle to interpret aspects of this horrendous event, has important information to tell us about what we thought we knew. All researchers do the best they can and no one blames anyone for mistaking the various stations and stages along the way as ultimate destinations. Our views change as we obtain new and better information. However, CSI has finally caught up with the nightmare of Dallas.

The late Peter Drucker stated: We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn.

We can now scientifically prove a single, front head shot from a location near the south end of the triple overpass.”~Fiester

Parkland Doctors

this shows McClelland, Jenkins, Peters with their hands on their heads indicating location of head wound, BUT none of these are as far down and to the back as the attendant sketch of the blowout. None have their hands on the occipital protuberance.
To be more to the point, I think the blurb that comes with this illustration misleads. The placement of the Parkland doctors hands to their heads is simply not that far removed from the autopsy photo to the left of their pictures. What is substantially different from both the doctor’s positioning is the drawing of the wound shown below.

This is the drawing:

Autopsy and X-ray are consistent with the forensic analysis of a single shot from the front:

JFK head wounds – skull etc

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

JFK photos – x-rays

http://ADemonstrableImpossibility%20JFK%20autopsy%20photos%20and%20x-rays.htm

Z-film alteration argument

http://Brief%20Overview%20of%20Zapruder%20Alteration%20Argument%20-%20Shackelford.html

* * * * * * * * * * *

Debates and Controversy

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/fifty-years-ago-today-coup-detat-in-the-usa/

https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/

Willy Whitten – 12/12/2014

257 thoughts on “THE ZAPRUDER FILM

    • Muchmore film – slowdown, no stop. That the title suggests frames were removed from the Zapruder film, is a Non Sequitur. It does not follow that simply because the brake lights flash that the car came to a stop. A momentary tap on the break will throw passengers forward just like we see in the films. So the conclusion that the car stopped based on this tail light is remiss and misplaced logically.

      \\][//

      • Bill Greer’s Impossible Head Turn
        James R. Gordon

        “One of the biggest mistakes made in the creation of the film was the depiction of the driver of the presidential limousine, Secret Service agent William Greer.” — John Costella (TGZFH P. 193)

        So begins John Costella in the section of his article “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication” where he deals with the twin head turns of Bill Greer. It is a short section, comprising of only four pages. There is no analysis of the images concerned and Costella’s main reference is Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason” pages 127-129 and Twyman’s Exhibts C2 + C3.

        In the section of this article, entitled “Replicating the Twyman experiment at home” he says:

        “I decided that it would be simple enough to replicate this experiment for myself – and, indeed, it is not too difficult for most people to perform.” TGZFH P.194

        John Costella’s main contribution to the book is entitled “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication”. Within this article Costella develops a section within which he comments on, and supports, an observation that is contained within Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason”; that twice in the Zapruder film driver Bill Greer turns both back and forward at a speed that is not humanly possible. John Costella might suggest, within his title, that his contribution to TGZFH is that of a scientist, however this “scientist” did not do the most elementary item of research: to check whether infact Twyman was correct in his initial hypothesis regarding these turns. The simple answer is that he (Twyman) is not correct and what is interesting is that the very images of the Zapruder film which Twyman includes in his book demonstrate that he is wrong. If the reader looks at the colour plate on which Twyman has a copy of Z 317 which he (Twyman ) also annotates and comments on how by this frame Bill Greer is facing forward, as well as indicating how impossible it would be for him to do so, it will be seen that at this frame Bill Greer is not facing forward. How Noel Twyman ever concluded from this frame [ which he included in his book ] that his subject ( Bill Greer ) is facing forward at this point is beyond this writer’s comprehension. As pointed out, this elementary item of research [ checking whether the hypothesis was indeed accurate to begin with ] was evidently not carried out by John Costella, however he did continue to describe this error not only as a truth but a further proof that the Zapruder film had been fabricated.

        The basic hypothesis which Twyman expounded and which John Costella appears to completely support, is that between two Zapruder film sequences:

        i. Z 302 – Z 303

        ii. Z 315 – 317

        Bill Greer’s head turns by approximately 120 -140º. There is dispute between researchers as to how great this turn actually is. Approaching a third of John Costella’s comment on these turns is taken up with some complex mathematical calculations that underline just how impossible it would be to the human body to make either of these turns within the time he specifies. It is a pity this scientist did not take an equal, or even greater time, to analyse whether the hypothesis, he is now supporting, stands up to serious scrutiny.

        What follows is a description of the twin turns Bill Greer made just before and just after the fatal head shot. Within the description I will illustrate and comment on the errors that John Costella both made himself and failed to detect within the work of Noel Twyman.”

        http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/gordon-greer-turn.html
        \\][//

      • When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to express my personal views. Simply stated:

        There is no detectable evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the “Zapruder in-camera original” – and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.

        The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, and has all the characteristics of an original film – per my report.

        The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface all indicate NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup, etc.

        Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03
        . . . . .
        \\][//

    • Another interesting angle – reflection from the inner ring of the lens housing on the Z-camera:

      \\][//

    • From the Clay Shaw trial transcript:

      Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

      A: I would say they do.

      THE COURT: I didn’t hear you again.

      THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
      http://www.jfk-info.com/az-shaw.htm

      \\][//

  1. Summing up the medical evidence

    [] Autopsy X-rays are consistent with the autopsy photographs.
    [] None of the Parkland doctors place their hands on the occipital protuberance.
    [] The sketch of the head wound is at the occipital protuberance in variance with the photos of hand placement of doctors.

    Conclusion: The Parkland doctors who were in a position to observe the head wound is consistent with the autopsy X-rays and photographs.

    The Throat Wound is described as an entrance would by the Parkland doctors before tracheotomy performed that left a larger slit area. The Bethesda doctors did not have the original wound to examine.
    [Humes was told by unnamed officers in the gallery not to dissect the throat]
    [*] “The fact that the autopsy doctors did not observe a bullet path from the back wound to the throat wound is evident in their descriptions of the back and throat wounds. They said the back wound was “presumably” a wound of entrance, and the throat wound “presumably” a wound of exit. If they had seen a track from the back wound to the throat wound, they wouldn’t have had to “presume” anything. Even lone-gunman theorist Dr. John Lattimer admitted there is only “circumstantial” evidence of a bullet track between the back wound and the throat wound. The back wound was not dissected, and only dissection of the wound through the body would have provided us with conclusive proof of the missile’s path.”

    The wound to the back said to be shallow may have been mistaken as the body was going into rigor mortis, and had laid on its back from Parkland through the flight to Bethesda. Because of the position on the autopsy table only a cursory probe was attempted. The performing doctor was advised to move on by “other officers” in the gallery. The wound may have entered the lung – not known – the performing doctor was advised not to partition and examine the lungs.
    [*] “Dr. Pierre Finck, admitted that the autopsy team was ordered by a general or admiral not to dissect the back wound. Since no dissection took place, it is obvious that no bullet track was ever revealed at the autopsy.”

    [*> http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/factmyth.htm

    \\][//

  2. ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlan
    Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I
    could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
    posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had
    been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through
    the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior
    half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its
    lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such
    a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself
    and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue,
    posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been
    blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss
    of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great
    that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.”
    (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he
    thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37).
    McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries
    with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and
    massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

    [Note: McClelland says “right parietal occipital area.” He does not say the occipital protuberance.]

    MALCOLM PERRY, MD In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated,
    11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the
    right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s
    appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated,
    “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior
    cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large
    avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both
    scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
    laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview
    with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr.
    Perry…believed the head wound was located on the “occipital
    parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior
    aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr.
    Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table
    and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely
    avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some
    cerebellum seen…”
    (Emphasis added throughout) (HSCA-V7:302-interview
    with Purdy 1-11-78.

    ———————————————-

    It should be obvious even from Aguilar’s account that Perry was in no
    position to see a wound to the back of the head. Aguilar quotes him
    telling Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the
    table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely
    avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some
    cerebellum seen….”

    Aguilar does this to stress “cerebellum,” but Perry makes it clear
    that he had no way of seeing the back of the head blown out. There is
    no mention of examining the back of the head, or manipulating or
    lifting Kennedy’s body. Rather he explicitly says that he “looked at
    the wound briefly by leaning over the table.”

    But Aguilar *omits* a part of this passage that makes it even clearer
    that Perry did not examine the wound, and could not have seen the back
    of Kennedy’s head blasted out.

    Let me quote the passage Aguilar used, and restore the part he omitted
    in ALL CAPS.

    ———————————–

    I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and
    noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive
    and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum
    seen AND I DIDN’T INSPECT IT FURTHER. I JUST GLANCED AT IT AND I WENT
    ON OUTSIDE AND LATER WAS SUMMONED UP TO THE OPERATING ROOM TO HELP IN
    THE CARE OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY
    .

    ———————————————-

    Earlier in the interview, when Perry is talking about the tracheostomy
    incision, he notes that “I noticed the head injury, but I didn’t
    examine it at the time.”
    7 HSCA 300.

    \\][//

    • Consensus Recollection Prejudice

      “Consensus Recollection Prejudice:” I would describe this as recollections tainted by intervening subconscious absorbing of the views of others throughout the years between the event and recall.
      I would propose that this can account for the consensus of many witnesses to the head wound said to have been seen at Parkland. Again, the parietal protuberance area of Kennedy’s head was not seen at Parkland because Kennedy was on his back on the gurney. No one lifted his head or disturbed his position as they were involved in trying to save his life.

      The so-called “McClelland Drawing” is this consensus image. And it is one that simply could not have been seen at Parkland.

      Now my making note of this is not to dispute that what happened at Bethesda. It was not only a botched autopsy, but a criminal destruction of the head wounds by Boswell and Humes. And as this issue seems very clear, the assertion of the body being stolen and mutilated earlier and actually arriving beforehand in a shipping casket becomes moot. I think the Sibert and O’Neill testimony is reliable on this point, Kennedy was removed from the ornate bronze casket that they themselves carried into the morgue.

      I am sure that they saw the smaller occipital-parietal damage and the temporal entry wound when the body was laid on the autopsy table. What I doubt is their ‘consensus memory’ of the wound as depicted in the “McClelland Drawing” that they offer years later.

      The two to three shots to the head theory now being offered by Horne defies the modern ballistic analysis of given by CSI Sherry Fiester. A single shot from a high-powered rifle would have caused the avulsive occipital-parietal wounds on Kennedy’s head with the entry at the temple. A shot from the side from the Grassy Knoll would have blown out the left side of Kennedy’s head, a second shot from behind is not the cause of the fraction of a second nodding forward of the head, as explained in great detail by Fiester.
      \\][//

  3. Dr. Malcolm Perry, his superior, said after watching the televised interview with Dr. Crenshaw:
    “”I feel sorry for him. I had thought of suing him, but when I saw him on television [promoting his book], (sic) my anger melted. He has to know that what he said is false, and he knows the rest of us know that. You have to pity him. What a way to end his career. His story is filled with half-truths and insinuations, and those of us who know him know he is desperate… He is a pitiful sight.”

    But if you look at the film clips of Dr. Perry on the day of the assassination,he said that Kennedy had an entrance wound in his neck and an entrance wound in the front at his right temple.

    But also if you read his testimony carefully you see that he said he “just glanced at the head wound by leaning forward while doing the tracheotomy. He also said he never really got a look at the back of the head. The ONLY Parkland doctor who is claiming the occipital protuberance was blasted out is Crenshaw.
    Crenshaw could not possibly have seen such a wound, as Kennedy’s head had been wrapped in sheets to soak up the blood that continued to leak from the head. He said he got a look at that wound as the team was transferring the body to the casket – at that time the head was entirely wrapped. Therefore Crenshaw is lying.

    There is no doubt that the Parkland staff agreed that both the neck wound and head wound were entrance wounds. What is in dispute is the gaping hole at the rear occipital protuberance. The occipital parietal is a large area defining the area from the top of the head to the rear of the head. The occipital protuberance is the distinct protuberance at the very base of the skull. All of the doctors at Parkland used the term ” occipital parietal” NONE used the specific term “occipital protuberance”.

    The Autopsy x-rays and photographs show the blasting of occipital parietal, the very term the Parkland doctors used to describe what they saw.

    \\][//

    • I enjoy reading your blog, which is a breath of fresh air, compared to the crap that is being posted on both sides of this debate by so many others.

      To rational people, the idiot theories, appear to be acts of desperation by conspiracy nuts who can’t prove their case via rational analysis and evidence. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is just tragic that you are apparently, not getting a lot of traffic. I don’t know if it will help much, but I will be sure to mention you in an upcoming video.

      I am still working on a video which will debunk Horne & co. One of the things I need is, a good copy of the Bronson film. As you probably know, that film was never in the hands of the authorities. The FBI came to Bronson’s house, viewed the film and declared that it was of no value to them.

      But the Elm st. sequence runs from the equivalent of about Zframe 301, and the limo NEVER stops. I could confirm that in the copy in Groden’s low res video, but it will be difficult for people to see it on Youtube.

      There is a good copy of the film at the museum, but I could never talk Mack into letting me have a copy. Anyway, if you know of anyone who has access to a high res version, please let me know.

      • Mr Harris,
        Thank you for your kind words.
        As for traffic on HR1blog, it varies. I got a link from someone on ZeroHedge that gave the URL to my page on Compulsory Schooling and my hits skyrocketed for weeks. There is still lingering hits from that promo.
        But yes, I would certainly like to hit some new plateau and have a larger affect in the “Mind War”.

        Thank you again, Willy Whitten –
        \\][//

  4. Let’s be clear on this Charnin, as you are now accusing me of being Bradford in your hysterical come-backs on your blog.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to create travelling mattes with the use of aerial printing. That is not the process. The travelling mattes are created in a completely different way. It is a multistage process in which the final individual elements are drawn together in an optical printer. An 8mm film cannot be firmly registered for optical projection/re-photography. The rephotographing of the combined elements must be perfectly aligned or there will be wild jiggle in the final product.

    This is on top of the problem of lack of proper emulsions for 8 mm film, which are made for professional formats beginning with 35 mm. Without these special emulsion film stocks, the color, and intensity of the original 8 mm film cannot be successfully duplicated.

    If the film is re-shot on an animation stand using the same film stock as the original, the light from the projector is artificial light. The original Zapruder film stock is ‘daylight film’ – the resulting product would be detectable as the emulsion would react to the artificial light producing anomalous color, saturation and contrast.

    \\][//

  5. When THE BOSTON GLOBE was interviewing the autopsy doctors in 1981,
    Carrico sent them a letter in response to looking at a drawing of the
    Back of the Head Photo. According to the GLOBE, Carrico “said the
    official tracing of the autopsy photograph showed ‘nothing
    incompatible’ with what he remembered of the back of the head.”
    THE BOSTON GLOBE, June 21, 1981.

    On March 5, 1981, C. James Carrico sent a letter to Ben Bradlee (Jr.)
    of THE BOSTON GLOBE responding to a query from Bradlee. Bradlee had
    apparently asked him about the standard conspiracist claim that the
    doctors saw the “back of the head” blown out, and that this
    contradicted the autopsy photos.

    Carrico told Bradlee that:

    “. . . there is nothing in the pictures and drawings that is
    incompatible with the injury as I remember it.”

    Carrico then makes a statement that I have difficulty interpreting,
    but maybe it would make sense if I knew exactly what Bradlee had shown
    him:

    “According to the drawings from Dr. Lattimer there were two wounds.
    The photograph also shows a posterior wound.”

    He then continues:

    “We never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound. Our
    responsibility was to evaluate the wounds from the standpoint of what
    might be done to keep the patient alive. . . . The wounds as we looked
    at them were from the front and top with the patient laying on a
    gurney on his back.”

    Carrico then goes on to say he has enclosed a drawing of the wound.
    The drawing is indeed attached, and it shows the wound *above* the
    ear, and mostly posterior to the ear. It shows no part of the wound
    involving occipital bone. It shows no part of the wound anywhere near
    the EOP.

    In fact, the drawing is almost indentical to the location we can see
    Carrico point to in Robert Groden’s THE KILLING OF THE PRESIDENT.
    Groden somehow interprets that as consistent with “back of the head.”

    \\][//

  6. alt.assassination.jfk ›
    Aguilar’s “Back of the Head” Witnesses – 2 (Revised)

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/TEwiPCY9xWs

    “Nurse Nelson helped prepare Kennedy’s body to be placed in the coffin. When
    she was shown the autopsy photos showing the back of the head intact, she
    replied, “It’s not true…. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown
    away. All that area was blown out.” (Boston Globe, June 21, 1981)”

    Nurse Nelson is recalling an event that took place 18 years prior to this interview in 1981. In the intervening years this nurse was certainly aware of the controversies arising on the issues of these wounds, and would just as certainly been influenced as per her memory of 18 years before.

    I remain unconvinced of these “testimonies” so long after the fact. Note; I am not saying that Nurse Nelson or any of the others are lying. I think that their memories have been tainted in the intervening years do to the ensuing controversies throughout that time. The only person I think is actually lying is Crenshaw.

    \\][//

  7. Sign

    Horne writes: “Frame 220 depicts JFK’s limousine emerging
    from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. In the HD scan of this frame, the
    upper right corner of the sign looks as though it had been cut off by a
    razor blade (i.e., it does not have a rounded edge as it does in other
    frames.)
    . . . . .
    This is an optical illusion caused by shadows in the background blending with the hue of the color of the sign. Note the brightest red motorcycle light is below the darker hue than the sign strip running to the edge where we see Jackie Kennedy’s head and hat at the spot where the sign’s curved corner is. That whole area seems to be a blend of “ghost image” (double exposure) over the real image of the shot as the sign itself seems to step-up in the line extending from that brightest red motorcycle light to Mrs Kennedy’s head.
    The bottom line here is: No, the sign does not look as though it had been cut off by a razor blade upon close inspection.

    Horne is dealing with the very sprocket mechanism and ghost-image/double exposure that Zavada explains, and still hasn’t the sense to see that what he is looking at can be easily explained on such terms.

    To really study the above frame shot, one needs to copy it to one’s own picture viewer and blow it up to see the details I speak to here.
    \\][//

  8. Dealy Plaza 1963 plat

    According to ballistic analysis the head shot came from the area just before the RR overpass – Auto triple underpass. The assassin being hidden in the shrubbery. This shot would have been approximately 200 feet in front of the scene of the head-shot.
    \\][//

  9. Mortician Thomas Evan Robinson: Notes on preparation of JFK’s body for burial

    Transcription of these handwritten notes:

    Thomas Evan Robinson
    Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson’s privacy

    May 26, 1992 (Phone)

    Wounds:

    Large gaping hole in back of head.
    patched by placing piece of rubber…..over it.
    Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

    Smaller wound in right temple.
    Crescent shped, flapped down (3″)

    (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.
    Packed with wax.

    Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.
    To the right of the back bone.

    Adrenlin gland and brain removed.

    Other organs removed and then put back.

    No swelling or discoloration to face.
    (Died instantly)

    Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask…..
    “How much longer???”
    He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)
    “Take your time.”
    Thomas Evan Robinson
    Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson’s privacy

    May 26, 1992 (Phone)

    Wounds:

    Large gaping hole in back of head.
    patched by placing piece of rubber…..over it.
    Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

    Smaller wound in right temple.
    Crescent shped, flapped down (3″)

    (approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.
    Packed with wax.

    Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.
    To the right of the back bone.

    Adrenlin gland and brain removed.

    Other organs removed and then put back.

    No swelling or discoloration to face.
    (Died instantly)

    Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask…..
    “How much longer???”
    He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)
    “Take your time.”
    ************************************************
    My commentary:

    “Large gaping hole in back of head. patched by placing piece of rubber…..over it.
    Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.”

    The brain was removed during autopsy, of course plaster of Paris would have been used to keep the skull from fragmenting further during the time between autopsy and being sent to mortician.

    We again get into the issue – what does “back of the head” mean? The autopsy photos and x-rays show the wound is to the back of the occipital parietal, all the Parkland doctors used the same phrase.

    “Smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shped, flapped down (3″)” This is the entrance wound, that is without dispute by the research community.

    “(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.” These would be caused by windshield glass, as Sherry Fiester CSI tracks the trajectory from the end of Dealey plaza near the Triple Underpass, which is higher in elevation than the area in front of the pavilion where the bullet hit Kennedy, as seen in the Zapruder film.
    \\][//

  10. “When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes made at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following detailed inspection and when the piece of bone found in the limousine was brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy.”
    — Sibert and O’Neill memorandum, 29 June 1966.

    See: scan of original document:
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=375
    http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report

    \\][//

    • “…detailed inspection and when the piece of bone found in the limousine was brought to the autopsy room during the latter stages of the autopsy.”~Sibert

      I think this clears up a lot of the confusion about the autopsy, and why there was a retracing of the notes and everything when a new part of the puzzle (skull bone) was brought in after initial inspection.
      I do think this clears up a misconception of “surgery to the head”. Which I see as blown out of proportion by Lifton, who is not a pathologist, but a man with a theory he is trying to prove.

      I think Lifton has done a lot of great research on the case in general, but I think his body alteration theory is built on hammering square pegs into round holes; that is “grasping at straws”. That he buys the hearsay of some military guy that said that “when the body was first put on the autopsy table, Kennedy’s right arm was in the position of a Hitler salute,” I have to see this as total naivete and gullibility on Lifton’s part. That this proposition is absurd is blatant to me, it is obviously a joke on Lifton.
      [Address to Bismark State College 11/7/2013]

      ““When the body was first observed on the autopsy table…”~Agent Sibert FBI; he did not say that Kennedy’s right arm was in the position of a Nazi salute! He and his partner were present throughout the entire autopsy.
      Let’s face it, if Kennedy’s arm was in such a position, his body would not fit in any ‘body bag’ ‘shipping coffin’ nor the bronze casket it was actually in.
      \\][//

    • Custer:
      The only possible way to tell exactly where the defect is, is by taking a lateral film. Here’s that area you were looking at (indicating the darkened area in photo 8). The fragments are traveling front to back and outward. It lifted everything up ((motioning right to left to indicate the direction in which he feels the bullet fragments were traveling — —overlapped everything. Take a hard-boiled egg, run it in your hands. That’s exactly what the skull fragments were like.

      Law: By the way, is this an actual X-ray you took?

      Custer: This is the actual X-ray I took

      Law: And you remember it being this way that night?

      Custer: Absolutely!

      Law: Okay. Is there anything else of interest about this X-ray that you can tell us?

      Custer: Massive destruction. They wanted to make sure this man was dead.
      And they did a good job of it.
      . . . . . .
      Custer: Basically, the wound on the neck, a tracheotomy wound. When we took pictures of the neck, we took two views of the neck. A straight-on view and a side view. Now, in the straight–on view, in that area, you actually saw bullet fragment, also bone fractures where the bullet had gone through. Same thing on
      the lateral, but it showed you the different perspective. Like I stated before, a good way to tell the depth of a specific fragment is by taking two planes of interest, and then measuring the distance.
      When I first saw the body, the neck was exactly like this (photo 1); there were no suture marks. It was a big gaping hole.

      Law: And in your opinion was that man-made?

      Custer: Absolutely. You could see where this was man-made. Where they had taken a scalpel and went across and down you can see the down marking cut right here (pointing to the bottom portion of the wound; photo la, arrow C).

      Law: So, in effect you think that’s a scalpel mark?

      Custer: Right.

      Law: You don’t think that’s a part of a bullet entry wound?

      Custer: No.

      Law: Many researchers have said that—what you see down here—this little part right here (photo la, arrow C) is part of a bullet-entrance wound.

      Custer: You could see the skin where the skin was separated. If a bullet fragment came through there—a bullet went through there —it would be separated, irregular. This was nice and neat like the skin was separated, like somebody took a ruler and just separated the skin. There were no serrations on it at all. It was perfect. This is one thing for the books.

      –Custer 117
      . . . . . . .
      Palamara: But I’ve heard that you did say that the hack of the head appeared to
      be gone, there was no scalp there…

      Custer: Here’s where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head.
      Here’s the back of the head (indicating the area of the head in contact with the
      head-holder, photo 2). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, “That’s the back of the head.” No! That’s not the back of the head (poining to the top of Kennedy’s head in photo 2)! That’s the top of the head!

      Law: Now, explain to me: there’s been a lot of controversy, and this is why some
      researchers point to forgery, that the back of the head was blown out. If the back
      of his head was blown out, how can the head rest on that [head-holder]?

      Custer: Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact (pointing to the lower portion of the back of the head in photo 2). It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up.

      Law: But there was a…

      Custer: This [head-holder] would have been all inside.
      . . . . . . . .
      \\][//

  11. DINO BRUGIONI

    “Dino Brugioni is not new to those who have studied the JFK assassination. Besides writing the book “Eyeball to Eyeball” about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the role photo recognizance played in that affair, Brugioni wrote a book about the CIA’s photo lab and how they uncover fake photos, like the one of Mao swimming is a fake, and the one of Oswald in the backyard with the weapons and commie magazines is real.”~Doug Horne

    “…Dino A. Brugioni is a former senior official at the CIA‘s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). He worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973. Arthur Lundahl, as Dino Brugioni explained to Peter Janney, was the western world’s foremost photoanalyst during those two decades. And anytime that Mr. Lundahl needed a briefing board prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC’s photo-interpreters and graphics department, who oversaw its preparation, and the preparation of the associated notes that Lundahl would use to brief Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, for example. Dino Brugioni was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was able to author an excellent and captivating book about the role of NPIC in that crucial Cold War episode, called Eyeball to Eyeball. Dino Brugioni, therefore, is the ultimate, insider source for what was going on at NPIC during the 1950s and 1960s. He possesses unimpeachable credentials.”~Peter Janney
    . . . . . . . . .
    Arthur Lundahl was the western world’s foremost photoanalyst from 1954 to 1973. Dino Brugion worked for Lundahl – it was Lundahl who was the expert. And first and foremost; both are government agents – spooks.

    Bottom line on Brugion: He pronounced the Oswald in the backyard with the weapons and commie magazines is real. Even amateurs can see the splice point at the chin, the shadow anomalies, and use of exact same face shot pasted on three separate body poses, to realize that the Oswald backyard photos are fake. So how could anyone buy anything Brugion has to say about anything – let alone the Z-film?

    http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/zapruder-film-mystery.html

    \\][//

    • “And Jim, seven out of seven people now that have viewed the digital scans that she made – she made high definition scans of each frame of the Zapruder film from her dupe negatives, Seven out of seven experts, now, experts in the post-production of pictures, people who know what special effects look like – Seven out of seven people that have viewed it now say that the film – the head wounds are not only altered, but they are badly altered. The alterations were very poorly done – and…”~Horne to Jim Marrs
      February 20, 2010

      Here again we have seven out of seven anonymous – unidentified “experts” who now say “vague blablabla.”

      http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/03/kennedy-assassination-jim-marrs.html

      \\][//

    • “• First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak
      processing plant after the three ‘first day copies’ were developed the evening of the
      assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed
      them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, after the Secret
      Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a
      commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late on
      Friday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.]”Horne

      Horne boldly asserts, “they no doubt realized” and “No one would send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain and send the original film.” This is supposition delivered in hyperbole! If the only copy available is a direct copy of the original, it would be perfectly acceptable for their purposes to use such a copy–the only copy available.

      As with all of Horne’s assertions, he presents his opinions as fact. His further points, ending with 8 total; are all filled with “must have” and other such qualifiers, that are only obvious when one seriously deconstructs the presumptuous nature of Horne’s assertions.
      \\][//

    • “The implication here is that if the true exit wound on President Kennedy’s head can be obscured in the Zapruder film through use of aerial imaging (i.e., self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer) — as revealed by the u201C6Ku201D scans of the 35 mm dupe negative — then the same technique could be used to add a desired exit wound, one consistent with the cover story of a lone shooter firing from behind.”~Horne

      This very paragraph proves that Horne has no grasp of special effects cinematography: “self-matting animation, applied to each frame’s image via an animation stand married to an optical printer.” There is no such thing as “self matting” using an animation stand. An animation stand is what is used to create mattes; an entirely different and lengthily process: One involving several previous processes to separate elements from each and every frame before the mattes can be created.

      A second point on this is that the finished product of any Z-film used in an optical printer would be another generation, which would be detectable to a trained eye. This doesn’t even take into account that there are none of the special emulsion films available in 8 mm to create all of the working prints to be combined with an optical printer. [See: Zavata]

      Horne quotes Zavada mentioning Raymond Fielding’s book on special effects cinematography – but it is quite obvious that Horne has not read the book himself. I have, I still own my original hard bound volume.
      \\][//

      • To elaborate on Horne’s explanation of the “aerial projection” again, this is not “self matting”!
        If you paint a cell and a projection is made beneath which is re-filmed in the Oxberry, the light will come through the painting unless a “matte” silhouette is backing it up. The final product will be a ‘ghost-like’ image of the painting.

        The reason this works with cartoon animation is because the cell is made and laid over a opaque background and re-shot with an animation camera, lit only from the front.

        If the background is panning an elaborate set-up like Disney created for later films with several stacks of glass paintings moving to create the illusion of perspective from that POV is necessary. This is called ‘The Multiplane Camera’ – and is illustrated on pg. 311 of the book ‘Disney Animation: THE ILLUSION OF LIFE’ by Frank Thomas & Ollie Johnson (1981)

        Any clear medium, glass or cell that has lighting from behind must have a matte to keep light from bleeding from the rear.
        \\][//

  12. “In the opinion of virtually all of the dozens of motion picture film professionals who have viewed the Zapruder film u201C6Ku201D scans, the dark patches do not look like natural shadows, and appear quite anomalous. Some of these film industry professionals — in particular, two film restoration experts accustomed to looking at visual effects in hundreds of 1950s and 1960s era films — have declared that the aforementioned frames are proof that the Zapruder film has been altered, and that it was crudely done.” ~Douglas Horne

    Look at this!

    Again Horne speaks to not just seven unnamed sources – now it’s “virtually all of the dozens”.
    “particular, two film restoration experts…” In particular??? WTF is particular if it is not SPECIFIC?

    WHO? Goddammit!!!

    Sydney Wilkinson’s husband is:Tom Whitehead – IMBD (key grip) (post-production) (best boy electric) (post-production) (gaffer) (completed)

    This is hardly the resume’ of a “Hollywood Film Expert”
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3176574/

    All Horne offers here are unnamed sources and speculation.
    \\][//

    • Willy Whitten

      December 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm
      I would advise everyone reading here to read Rolland Zavata’s work on his inspection of the Zapruder Camera. As well as his answers back to David Lifton. In his reply to Lifton, pay close attention to what Mr Zavata says about the special emulsion film types used for processing special effects cinematography. These special emulsion film types are made for professional purposes and only come in 35 mm and up. They are not and were never available for 16 mm nor 8 mm film stocks.
      — Zavada response to Lifton: http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm%5D

      As a professional special effects artist for many years, I have to say that much of what I am reading here about “faking” the Z-film is based on ignorance of the craft and techniques of special effects cinematography.

      I have quite a few other critiques of this business as far as the rhetoric and false argumentation of those asserting this charge of faking the Z-film~Willy Whitten \\][//
      . . . .

      Willy Whitten

      December 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm
      “In the opinion of virtually all of the dozens of motion picture film professionals who have viewed the Zapruder film u201C6Ku201D scans, the dark patches do not look like natural shadows, and appear quite anomalous. Some of these film industry professionals — in particular, two film restoration experts accustomed to looking at visual effects in hundreds of 1950s and 1960s era films — have declared that the aforementioned frames are proof that the Zapruder film has been altered, and that it was crudely done.” ~Douglas Horne

      I request that Mr Horne either identify these so-called film experts, or refrain from making these statements.~Willy Whitten
      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/#comment-652479

  13. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html

    Some general thoughts here:

    Homer A. McMahon and Morgan Bennett Hunter, both are first and foremost employed by CIA, and worked at the Agency’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
    Dino A. Brugioni, also CIA, also claims to have participated in an NPIC “briefing board event” the weekend following JFK’s assassination.

    I have a problem with accepting the word of CIA agents for reliable testimony. One one hand it is asserted that the CIA were behind the JFK assassination, and are therefore the perpetrators. On the other hand it is asserted that “certain” CIA agents are “experts in their fields” and are “prestigious”.

    So just how is it that certain researchers pick and choose who are the “good CIA” and who are the “bad CIA”? Obviously it is cherry picking by virtue of whether that testimony backs up the story the researcher is pushing or not.

    I also have a problem with testimony given 20 – 30 years or more post event. Not necessarily because the memory would not be reliable simply because of the length of time, but more importantly; the influence of other information in the intervening years that would add to that memory as tainting.
    . . .

    ” At the time, back in 1963, both McMahon and Brugioni were each led to believe they were working with the “original film,” but clearly, only one of them could have been. Fantastic, you say? Certainly. But all true. The evidence will be clearly laid out before you, below, along with an analysis of what the evidence likely means, and why.”~Horne

    Let’s reassess this conclusion Horne makes; “but clearly, only one of them could have been.”
    As both men are seasoned experts in film, and both accepted that they were working with the original film, the answer to this dilemma could reasonably be that NEITHER had the original film.
    It does not necessarily follow, as Horne asserts, that “only one” had the original extant Z-film.

    “We have now accounted for the whereabouts of all three “first day copies” that weekend. However, the primary focus in this paper should remain on the original film. ARRB consultant Roland Zavada’s formal conclusion in his report was this: “After the dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit to 8 mm.” [8] There was absolutely no doubt in his mind about this, for he had interviewed the surviving employees from the Kodak Plant in Dallas, and both high level supervisors present that day concurred in this.”~Horne
    […]
    “Something” had happened that caused the magazine to seek all rights to the film, including motion picture rights, and outright ownership of both the original film, and all copies.”~Horne

    This is the point at which we are now going to be treated to conjecture from Horne. And it is from this point that we must deconstruct every passage for supposition compared to fact.
    . . . . . .
    Let’s begin first of all with cui bono? Who would have the most to gain from disputing the authenticity of the Zapruder Film?
    The answer is obvious, the perpetrators of the assassination, because the film shows the timing of the shots that hit Kennedy and Connolly, and modern ballistics can prove the trajectory of the shots. Therefore it is in the perpetrator’s self-interests to cast as much doubt as possible on the visual evidence of the assassination.~ww

    “NPIC EVENT # 1 (Presided over by Dino Brugioni)
    The summary below recapitulates information gleaned from the seven recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interviews in 2009; an eighth recorded (MP3) Peter Janney-Dino Brugioni interview on April 28, 2011″
    […]
    “Briefing Boards placed in the National Archives by the CIA in 1993 are not the briefing boards prepared by Dino Brugioni’s team: In 1993, the CIA’s Historical Review Group (HRG), as required by the JFK Records Act, deposited with the National Archives one set of briefing boards identified in 1975 at NPIC – a four panel set (four loose panels, not joined to each other in any way) – mounting frame enlargements of the Zapruder film.”

    “NPIC EVENT # 2 (Presided over by Homer McMahon)

    As stated earlier, as a member of the ARRB staff, I interviewed Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter three times each between June and August of 1997. [18] A written call report was produced following each interview; additionally, the second of three Homer McMahon interviews – on July 14, 1997 – was tape recorded, and that recording may be obtained from the National Archives, along with all of the written interview reports. In May of 2012, I completed a verbatim transcript of the audiotaped interview with Mr. McMahon on July 14, 1997. The summary below recapitulates the totality of the information provided by McMahon and Hunter over the course of all of their interviews in the summer of 1997.

    Time and date: The strong and final consensus of opinion between the two men was that the NPIC event they participated in took place “about two days after” JFK’s assassination, and “before the funeral.” [The funeral was Monday afternoon, November 25th.] They both agreed that their NPIC activity took place before the funeral of the 35th President. McMahon initially recalled the event as taking place 1 or 2 days after the assassination, and Hunter initially recalled it as taking place 2 or 3 days after the assassination; but both men consistently agreed that their NPIC activity definitely occurred prior to President Kennedy’s funeral. The work commenced after dark, and lasted all night long. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC for McMahon and Hunter to work with was not copied as a motion picture; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so.]”
    […]
    The Four Briefing Board Panels at NARA are examined: Both McMahon and Hunter agreed that the prints mounted on the four briefing board panels in the National Archives were indeed the prints they made the night of their “NPIC event.” Neither man had seen the completed briefing boards before, but they both agreed that the 28 prints mounted on the four panels were the prints they had made. McMahon stated that the prints had been trimmed down to a slightly smaller size from what had been printed. McMahon also noted, with dispassionate professional interest, that the prints had deteriorated badly over time, due to the instability of the dyes. When McMahon examined the 28 prints mounted on the four panels, he immediately expressed the opinion that some of the prints they had made were missing from the briefing boards, and had not been used – most likely additional views of the limousine before it went behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and additional views of Clint Hill mounting the vehicle after the head explosion. Neither McMahon nor Hunter had any direct or indirect knowledge of how the four briefing board panels were used. McMahon could only speculate that they may have been used to brief the Warren Commission, but this was not something told to him by Bill Smith; indeed, there was no Warren Commission yet created when Bill Smith visited NPIC. [The Warren Commission was not even created by President Lyndon B. Johnson until Friday, November 29th, 1963.]
    […]
    Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”

    ********************************
    “They could do anything.”~Brugioni

    This trust placed on CIA agent Brugioni is misplaced in my opinion.
    In the first place the briefing boards he claims to have created are not in evidence, just a typed analysis accompanying the boards created by McMahon and Hunter, who had never seen such a typed page.

    \\][//

  14. “Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films.”~Horne

    This is a puzzle. Is Horne’s assertion that it had to have been made at Hawkeyeworks the only possibility?
    Could it not be possible that the Kodak facility that made the copies for Zapruder also made a copy of the unslit 16 mm for an agent in attendance at this event in Dallas?

    In fact the most likely answer to this situation is that there simply was no unslit 16 mm delivered to Hawkeyeworks, and this whole story is a fabrication top to bottom.
    \\][//

  15. >>”No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there”~Horne

    This is not so; the massive head wound was described as “occipital-parietal” by all of the Parkland doctors. None of them said the wound was at the “occipital protuberance”, as none of them had lifted the head to view that area.
    When indicating the entry wound every one of them pointed to the temple or described the temporal wound as the likely entrance wound.

    \\][//

  16. “It is obvious to me, in view of what happened at the “Dino Brugioni event” at NPIC, that the camera-original Zapruder film was intercepted, either at the Chicago airport as soon as it arrived from Dallas, or as soon as it arrived at the offices of LIFE, by the Secret Service.”~Horne

    . . . .

    I think that Horne is a liar and interjected this event long after the events of 1963. Brugioni never says the film he saw had a limo stop. He never says that he saw anything different other than the explosion of matter high above Kennedy’s head – the only problem with this is that in the Z-film available today there IS matter flying as high as four feet above Kennedy’s head.

    I think it is more likely that agent “Bill Smith” said by Horne himself to be a liar, delivered a film from Dallas that was a copy of the original 16 mm double-8 that Zapruder had made at the Kodak facility. I see this as a much simpler explanation of where the film delivered to McMahon and Hunter.

    “That is most unlikely for another reason, as well. Enlargements of tiny 8 mm frames for briefing boards would not have been made from a copy film if the original film were available. Furthermore, Dino Brugioni himself would have noticed the soft focus if he had been working with a copy film, instead of an original.”~Horne

    . . .
    Again, I don’t believe Horne’s story at all. And what Brugioni may or may not have noticed 33 years prior to the interview is irrelevant.

    “Dino Brugioni not only informed John Hicks about the existence of the two-panel briefing board; he showed it to him. Hick’s response was both profane, and violent. Hicks said to Brugioni, when shown the two-panel briefing board made from the unaltered Zapruder film: “Goddammit, what the hell are you doing with that?” Hicks followed with immediate instructions: “Get the Goddamn thing out of here!” A shaken Dino Brugioni, who is still mystified today about the anger expressed by Hicks, wrapped up the two-panel briefing board, sent it over to the office of CIA Director William Colby, and never saw it again.”~Horne

    . . . .
    So now conveniently the physical evidence that Brugioni claims to have had in his possession, that no one else had ever seen, is suddenly taken and sent to Colby and was never seen again!
    A whale of a tale I tell ya!

    \\][//

    • After watching the interview with Brugioni, I don’t think it is Brugioni that is lying. I think Horne is making this all up out of his own imagination, Brugioni never claims to have made a film copy. In fact both teams said they only made stills for the briefing boards.

      The whole story is bullshit, as we know the alterations never took place because of the information supplied by Rolland Zavata. Horne is the conman in this tale.
      \\][//

  17. Essentially my critique is based on Horne’s leading of CIA employee Brugioni’s testimony, that is the crux of my counterargument. I also suspect, the CIA is continuing the cover-up with this trashing of the Zapruder film as a fake is the coup de grâce in erasing the most vital visual evidence in the case of the Kennedy assassination.
    \\][//

  18. “Jean Hill, [*]Hugh Betzner, Bill Newman, Mary Woodward, Roy Truly, Phil Willis, Alan Smith, [*]DPD patrolmen Earle Brown and J. W. Foster, [*]and DPD motorcyclists Bobby W. Hargis and James Chaney.”

    Are all verified witnesses to the car stop, according to Douglas Horne.

    *>” Hugh Betzner—“…I looked down the street and I could see the President’s car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped..”
    Betzner was to the rear and far down the street. His testimony here is inconclusive: “looked like the cars were stopped.” It is not clear that he was talking about the presidential limousine or the procession. It is known that the procession halted as the cars up in front of them were moving so slowly. anyone experienced in stop and go traffic is familiar with similar scenarios.

    *>J. W. Foster (police officer on overpass): “Immediately after Kennedy was struck… the car pulled to the curb.”
    Foster says “the car pulled to the curb,” but he does not say it came to a stop. This could easily mean that the car swerved to the curb. As this is up to interpretation, it is not conclusive.

    *>“In the telephone conversation not long before he died Curry confirmed to me that another police officer had witnessed [second hand testimony] the motorcade came to a virtual halt on the *access ramp to the Stemmens*. Patrolman Earl Brown was on the railroad overpass which spans Stemmons (not the triple underpass) and saw the cars come to a complete stop for nearly 30 seconds as it approached him.
    He told this information to Earl Golz of the Dallas Morning News, and repeated it to me when I called him for verification. Unknown to me was that Jim Bowles, in his reconstruction had already allowed for 15-20 seconds for the temporary stop in addition to the time it took from the Plaza to the access road.
    Curry told me they slowed down for two reasons: to find out from motorcycle officer if anyone was hurt, and to inform the Secret Service of the location of the nearest hospital.”

    NOTE: The access ramp to the Stemmons FWY is some 700 feet beyond the Pavilion where Zapruder filmed the JFK head shot – and some 400 feet beyond the triple underpass. Earl Brown was 400 feet to the right on another railroad overpass.

    In reading Vince Palamara’s ‘Fifty-nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street’ , I see enough controversy between “the car slowed down” to “the car stopped momentarily” to conclude that choosing which testimony is correct is a matter of the bias of the person attempting to make a case one way or the other.
    \\][//

  19. http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/

    Willy Whitten
    December 18, 2014 at 7:44 am

    THE ZAPRUDER FILM:
    An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination

    The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces is that all the while it was thought that the results of such faking proved a rear shot, or attempted to. However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.

    Let us begin first of all with cui bono? Who would have the most to gain from disputing the authenticity of the Zapruder Film?

    The answer is obvious, the perpetrators of the assassination, because the film shows the timing of the shots that hit Kennedy and Connolly, and modern ballistics can prove the trajectory of the shots. Therefore it is in the perpetrator’s self-interests to cast as much doubt as possible on the most critical visual evidence of the assassination.

    Essentially my critique is based on Horne’s leading the emotions of CIA agent Brugioni that is the crux of my counterargument. And I suspect, the CIA’s continuing cover-up is this trashing of the Zapruder film as a fake is the coup de grâce in erasing the most vital visual evidence in the case of the Kennedy assassination.
    . . .

    “The goal to create a “Kodachrome original” provides further insurmountable challenges..”~Roland Zavada

    See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/

    ~Willy Whitten, Special Effects Artist (Retired)

    • The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity
      Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing itself speaks”)

      The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.

      Quoting Zavata again:
      “The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
      response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
      In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
      daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
      5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
      1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
      spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
      response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”

      What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
      As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also by easily identified by chemical examination.
      …..

      “The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.”~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

      \\][//

    • What is utterly amazing is that all of these so-called film and special effects experts assembled by the Fetzer-Horne coven seem so blissfully unaware that the Zapruder film was shot on Kodachrome II daylight film, which cannot be exposed to the artificial light of a projector and react as if it were shot in daylight. The reaction of the dyes to this artificial light would be immediately apparent to any expert inspecting the film. All of the curves of contrast. brightness, colors and hues would have been totally out of balance.
      \\][//

  20. The Technique of Special-effects Cinematography (Hastings House Revised Edition 1968)
    Raymond Fielding

    I was given this book as a gift from David L. Carson in 1968. Dave and I grew up together in Southern California. As kids we both made 8 mm films together and separately.
    Dave eventually went up to work at Lucas Films in Northern California. I remained in the LA area and went on to work in the Hollywood film industry, both union and non-union special effects shops.
    \\][//

  21. Dr. Joseph Riley, and neuroanatomist and conspiracy-oriented researcher, has done a more thorough and extensive examination of the issue. On the basis of several distinctive and identifying features, he judges the Harper Fragment to be parietal bone. These features include:

    A pattern of vascular grooving consistent with parietal bone and inconsistent with occipital bone.
    A lack of the deep “sulci” (grooves) found in occipital bone.
    A smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness.
    Parietal foramina — vascular perforations of a type that occur only in parietal bone — visible in photos of the Harper Fragment.
    Thus, in spite of the initial judgment by Cairns, the clear weight of medical expertise sides with the Harper Fragment being parietal bone, and not from the back, but rather from the top and side of the head.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

    harper fragment as perietal

    Consensus Recollection Prejudice:
    http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper2.html

    For more more analysis of bone fragments, Also See: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2001.pdf
    \\][//

  22. Now as per Horne’s assertions that Humes did the radical destruction of the back of Kennedy’s skull before the actual autopsy began, before anyone else was present. We have this testimony given to William M. Law in his book, EYE OF HISTORY – PDF:

    [Custer was the X-ray technician – Jenkins was Humes’ autopsy assistant]

    Palamara: But I’ve heard that you did say that the back of the head appeared to be gone, there was no scalp there…

    Jerrol Custer: Here’s where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head.
    Here’s the back of the head (indicating the area of the head in contact with the head-holder, photo 2). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, “That’s the back of the head.” No! That’s not the back of the head (pointing to the top of Kennedy’s head in photo 2)! That’s the top of the head!

    Law: Now, explain to me: there’s been a lot of controversy, and this is why some researchers point to forgery, that the back of the head was blown out. If the back of his head was blown out, how can the head rest on that [head-holder]?

    Custer: Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact (pointing to the lower portion of the back of the head in photo 2). It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up.

    Law: But there was a…

    Custer: This [head-holder] would have been all inside.
    . . . . .
    Law: Tell me the basic story from the time that the body was taken from the casket.

    Jenkins: Basically, they unwrapped the head and they started taking X-rays and photographs.

    Law: Immediately after they…

    Jenkins: After they looked at it. The X-ray people got there and, from the conversation,
    they were looking for bullet fragments, or metal fragments really, I guess is more appropriate. And they kept doing X-rays and going back and finally one of the radiologists came in. There was a lot of discussion and so forth about them not being able to find fragments and there was some direction and so forth beinggiven from the gallery, which is where Admiral Galloway was.
    \\][//

  23. This video is good to a great extent but for some moderation on the slight movement of the head forward, which is true*. The end of the video however puts the final nail in the Alterationist argument on the Z-film.
    When the sound is added by syncing the audio with the dictabelt recording there is no question that the film shots match up with the audio of the shots.
    Without the slightest doubt the Zapruder film is authentic.

    Audio/Video Sync
    5 shots:
    shot 1. a miss,
    shot 2. JFK throat hit (frontal shot),
    shot 3. Kennedy hit in back (shot from rear) ,
    shot 4. Connally hit in the back (shot from rear),
    shot 5. Kennedy head-shot (frontal shot).

    Graph below is an approximation of adding just a couple seconds for a limo stop:
    [A] > ___________|___________|___________|___________|___|
    [V] > ___________|___________|___________|___________|___|
    [L S]>___________|___________|[Limo stop]___________|___________|___|

    You will note that when out of sync, the shots would be heard after the actual visual hits and as the limo is already speeding away out of the scene.
    . . . .
    Note: Whatever the problems are with Thomson’s ‘Mic-In’ channel to the mixing desk, that causes the audio to mismatch his lip movements, are irrelevant to the fact that the ‘Line-In’ channel shows a perfect synchronization of the dictabelt audio with the Z-film visual.
    Of course I don’t expect to convince someone with a hostile bias towards the authenticity of the dictabelt.

    \\][//

    * See: https://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/josiah-thompson-the-untrue-fact/
    \\][//

    • FAQs
      Mathematical Synchronization of Zapruder Film and DictaBelt Tape

      1. Synchronization:
      In order to achieve synchronization of the acoustic impulses of the DictaBelt with the Zapruder film, the gunshot impulses need to synchronize – to within hundredths of a second – with each event captured in a precise place on the Zapruder film.
      As most of you know, for synchronization to work, the limousine has to be in the exact location in Dealey Plaza that is shown in the Zapruder film, at the precise moment each impulse was recorded. Moreover, the acoustic impulses need to correspond to the specific Zapruder frames where wounds and damages were incurred.
      2. News:
      Although not new news to some in the Researcher’s group, I have successfully synchronized the film and the acoustic recording. They correspond, to within hundredths of a second – in every one of these instances. Most astonishingly, two of the gunshot impulses are within 1/4 second of one another, and their origins and impact times correspond precisely to the previously enigmatic forward-and-backward movement of JFK’s head that were identified in the ITEK study. (FYI: ITEK was a highly regarded CIA contractor, working on programs that included Top Secret photo reconnaissance.)
      Further, Zapruder consistently blurred his film with predictable mathematical precision based upon his distance from the site of origin of each gunshot. Zapruder’s blurs, and the visible reactions of others on the film, confirm that actual sound waves were propagating across Dealey Plaza in an entirely predictable manner.”
      ~Mathematical Synchronization of Zapruder Film and DictaBelt Acoustic Tape.
      […]
      Are there missing frames in some copies?
      RR: Basically: if there is a frame that’s been deleted — who would have accomplished it? Who would benefit from it? What was supposed to be accomplished? I have never seen a single piece of persuasive evidence that could cause me to question that the Zapruder film as it is today shows the exact events as they occurred in DealeyPlaza. There are some who subscribe to the concept of missing or altered frames; or infer or say that frames were deliberately deleted (and not due to a rare technical problem); or who believe that somehow someone has been able to change the events on the original film. There are otherwise brilliant people, some with deep and comprehensive knowledge of film making and editing, who truly believe that the original film was more than tampered with. I have only a single response: the very rich tapestry of acoustic, visual and corroborative eyewitness and earwitness testimony, all synchronized to hundredths of a second in this study, makes the possibility of fraud or criminality connected to the Zapruder film a virtual impossibility.
      by Dr. Randolph Robertson © 2013. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
      http://jfkproject.org/faqs/

      \\][//

      • SHOT IMPULSE TIMES AND SHOT ORIGIN TIMES:
        “What is a Shot Impulse Time? A”Shot Origin Time”? What is the difference between them?
        RR: Shot Impulse Time is the time a gunshot report reached the motorcycle with its DictaBelt microphone — not when the shot originated. The time that the shot was taken is its Shot Origin Time.
        Shot Origin Time is calculated by subtracting the distance between Officer McClain’s motorcycle and a sniper’s nest, and then dividing that number by the speed of sound (1120 feet per second). This results in identifying the exact time and place that each shot originated.”~Robertson
        \\][//

      • TSBD
        Some experts who have seen this presentation feel strongly that no shots could have been fired from TSBD.
        RR: “The mathematics and science prove this is incorrect. But these results do not prove who shot, or who did not shoot, but it does prove that two shots were taken from TSBD.”
        . . . . . I will also note that the results do not prove that the shots actually hit their targets.
        I would be on the side of CSI Fiester’s ballistic analysis that the only shot from the actual front is the one that hit Kennedy in the head. That shot coming from the Knoll area just before the Triple Underpass.
        \\][//

      • “Regardless, no matter when or where the tape was made; no matter who uses what new technology: the impulses on the DictaBelt that was originally determined by HSCA to have been made in Dealey Plaza still, amazingly and precisely, match the specific events recorded on the Zapruder – down to hundredths of a second and a single Zapruder frame.”~Dr. Randolph Robertson
        http://jfkproject.org/mathematical-synchronization-of-the-zapruder-film-and-the-dallas-police-department-dictabelt/
        \\][//

  24. > “Dr. Robertson’s Study of the assassination of President Kennedy has resulted in his being able to synchronize the Zapruder movie film with the DictaBelt tape that recorded at least 5 gunshots in Dealey Plaza. This first successful synchronization of the two media, within 5/100ths of a second, establishes that at least 5 shots came from 3 different locations and 3 different shooters. The acoustics, mathematics, and Zapruder film together, prove mathematically that Governor Connally was not hit by the same bullet that passed through the President’s back and neck; that President Kennedy was killed by 2 shots to his head taken from 2 different directions; and that at least 3 shooters conspired to accomplish the murder of the President. Ipso facto, the assassination was a conspiracy.”
    http://jfkproject.org/mathematical-synchronization-of-the-zapruder-film-and-the-dallas-police-department-dictabelt/
    . . . . .
    I agree with the 5 shots evidence, however I disagree with the “2 shots to the head”, because this assertion doesn’t account for the shot to Kennedy’s back. It is falsely asserted that, “the same bullet that passed through the President’s back and neck”. The neck wound was an entry wound. The track of the bullet that entered Kennedy’s back was never dissected [orders given to Boswell from a general in the gallery of the morgue]. So the theory that the bullet is the same for both neck and back is conjecture that does not take all the known facts into account.
    The final point in this is that according to modern ballistics as analyzed by CSI Sherry Fiester, there was only one shot to Kennedy’s head, and it was a frontal shot from the end of the picket fence nearest the Triple Underpass.
    \\][//

  25. The accurate recreation of acoustical signatures, or “impulse responses” can be determined by a microphone array positioned within a specific environment. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Did these very tests in Dealey Plaza using rifle fire as the source of the impulses.
    The signatures of these impulses match the impulses on the dictabelt recording made during the motorcade. This line of evidence combined with the syncing of the dictabelt impulses with the Z-film frames corresponding to the hits in the limousine is undeniable evidence that these were the shots fired during the assassination.
    \\][//

  26. The House Select Committee on Assassinations stunned many people with its finding that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” The HSCA’s finding was based in large part, though not solely, on its analysis of acoustics evidence.
    [HSCA Hearings of 29 Dec 1978 on acoustics evidence. HSCA Report, Volume V, p.499.]
    HSCA accustic study
    Mary Ferrell and others brought to the attention of the HSCA the existence of a police dictabelt which might contain sounds of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. One channel of police transmissions had been open during this time due to a stuck microphone switch. The HSCA hired two outside laboratories to analyze the dictabelt. While the roar of motorcycle engine noise drowned out much of the audio from a human listener’s perspective, distinct spikes in volume could be analyzed statistically, based on comparison between the pattern of such spikes and the echo patterns which the buildings in the Plaza would create. The experts found 6 impulses on the dictabelt whose echo patterns matched what one would expect from gunfire in the plaza. The HSCA then conducted a field study, placing microphones in Dealey Plaza and firing rifles fired from the Book Depository’s “sniper’s nest” and from spots behind the fence on the grassy knoll.”
    https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustics_Evidence
    \\][//

    • Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 8, Issue 4
      Current Section: CROSSTALK: Synchronization of Putative Gunshots …, by Dr. Donald B. Thomas
      Conclusions:
      “The point I want to make in conlussions is that the NRC panel’s reliance on a single instance to crosstalk, the Double Decker, does not establish asynchrony between the sounds identified as gunshots and the time of the assassination. As a consequence, the accustical identification of the assassination gunfire in Dallas Police recordings has yet to suffer a substantial challenge”~Dr. Donald B. Thomas

      https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=4277&relPageId=36
      \\][//

      • Scientific hypothesis stands or falls on the evidence behind it and not on the status of the person who makes it.

        “When the House Select Committee on Assassinations was first confronted with this evidence, they asked the Acoustical Society of America for a short list of the top acoustics laboratories in this country. At the top of the list was the expert consulting firm of Bolt, Baranek & Newman (BBN)of Cambridge, Massachusettes. They had done the Watergate tapes for the Ervin Committee and the acoustics study of the Kent State shooting for the Department of Justice. These experts determined that the assassination gunfire was on the Dallas police tapes and they were the experts who found the “fingerprint” of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll.

        Because that finding was politically incorrect, and because there was an element of uncertainty with regard to the alleged grassy knoll shot, a second expert opinion was sought. Back to the short list, the next laboratory was the Computer Science Department of Queens College, New York, where Professor Mark Weiss and his assistant Arnold Aschkenasy wrote computer programs with sonar applications for the military. They had also published on methods for detecting and separating real sounds from noisy backgrounds. Using the principles of sonar analysis (echo location) they eliminated the cause of the uncertainty and concurred that there was scientific evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll on the police tapes.

        So, if expertise is what one requires, the top acoustic experts agree that there was scientifically valid evidence for a shot from the Grassy Knoll. Moreover, there has never been a direct challenge to the acoustical evidence, or its analysis, or the methods which were used to determine that shots were present on the police tapes.

        Weiss and Aschkenasy’s conclusions were based on echo correlation. That is, on the high degree of match between the echo delay pattern of recorded test shots and an impulse pattern on the police evidence tape. Preliminary screening of the police tapes by the BBN lab led to the identification of five impulse patterns that were considered as candidate gunshots because they had some of the acoustic characteristics of gunfire. These suspect noises occurred together in a cluster about two minutes into the open microphone segment. All five suspect patterns were found to match test shots fired in Dealey Plaza, and all five were ultimately identified as gunshot patterns by the experts.

        In spite of the Assassinations Committee’s finding, BBN had found acoustical evidence for five shots. That is because five evidence patterns had matched to the echo patterns of test shots. The reduction from five to four in the final report was made not because of acoustical evidence but because of a perversion of the non-acoustical evidence.”~Thomas
        http://www.whokilledjfk.net/d_b_thomas_report.htm
        \\][//

    • Amerikans don’t like real history, it gives them a tummy ache. Grin…

      There is a distinction I make between the terms “America” and “Amerika”
      The first applies to the republic. The second applies to the National Security State established in 1947, by the same cabal of sinister spooks that pulled off ‘Operation Paperclip’ and aligned CIA with the Nazi spy organization of Reinhard Gehlen.
      \\][//

    • Was there a real “Communist Threat” during the so-called “Cold War”? Did the Power Elite think this was the case? No, of course not, the cold war was theater designed by the Power Elite, just like WWI before it, just like the Bolshevik Revolution, just like the “War on Terror”- all manufactured enemies to fulfill the agenda of world conquest through ‘divide and conquer’ via the Hegelian Dialectic of the false Left/Right Paradigm.

      This is not ‘theory’, this is open source history told in most instances by the Power Elite themselves. Those who have failed to connect these blatant dots and recognize the chain of evidence that it is, are simply clueless to the architecture of modern political power.
      Again, the leading sources on this material are Antony Sutton, and Carroll Quigley. Deep reads, but accessible.
      \\][//

  27. >> “Yes indeed, the limo did stop the first time the Zapruder film was shown on TV, it stopped.” ~BrptherBruce
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-there-an-audio-recording-of-the-jfk-assassination/

    Your memory is faulty, the Zapruder film shown on TV the first time is the same film we see today. The limo does not stop in that film, it slows substantially but never comes to a stop. That is not a “factoid”

    factoid — noun
    NORTH AMERICAN
    1. a brief or trivial item of news or information.
    2. an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.
    \\][//

  28. Slick production values and knowledgeable commentary from Dick Russell, Doug Horne, Vince Palamara, and Sherry Feister, as narrated by the actor/author Peter Coyote, whose accomplishments amaze.
    A Coup In Camelot Trailer from The Legacy Mill, LLC on Vimeo.
    via A Coup in Camelot: A Film Screening on Oct 26
    . . . . . .
    My question is, where did the funding originate for this “slick production”? I don’t trust Doug Horne at all. He has managed to generate a whole New Wave version of the JFK assassination, and has been in league with James Fetzer one of the most obvious shills in the “Conspiracy Theory Industry” – this is phony lollipop bullshit.
    Cui Bono? Who most benefits from erasing the best visual evidence of the assassination? The perpetrators is who. I am becoming more convinced this whole thing is a scam run by Horne, and it’s a slick PSYOP.
    \\][//

    • I am finding it hard to understand why this thing with daylight film is so hard for some people to grasp. I am wondering if they are young enough to have never used a film camera, perhaps all they have ever known is digital cameras(?)
      There has to be some reason that they can’t understand something as simple as this!
      \\][//

    • I find Vince Palamara to be too apt to step out of his realm of being the so-called “expert on the Secret Service”. His interviews and data is good enough, but his analysis is sub par in my estimation. His List of 60 something witnesses to the limousine stopping or slowing down, is unorganized and haphazard. He has both propositions “stopped” or “slowed down” grouped together. He is unconcerned about POV, whether a witness was far back behind and could only discern the taillights going on as a stop, even though the car was still rolling. There are limited visual perceptions based on angles, distances, and obstruction of full view. There is also testimony that is left out. This is so of the motorcyclists, who are often quoted as saying the car stopped. But these are from interviews. When they were under oath they said “the car stopped, or almost came to a stop, it was moving very slowly”. These conflicting utterances all within one flow of thought must give the researcher pause.
      There are some witnesses to a limo stop that are talking about the on-ramp to the Stimmons FWY. This is minutes after the limousine had past Dealey Plaza, beyond the Triple Underpass and around a curve from the Plaza. And researchers point to them as witnesses of a limo stop during the assassination. Mantik and Fetzer have been called on these issues, yet they continue to list the numbers as if the facts haven’t been pointed out to them. I have posted a full page of email dialog (above) between Mantik and Clint Bradford, and Fetzer finally joining in. Mantik and Fetzer both acknowledged mistakes in the witness count and categories. They promised errata. But have never made such corrections to their record, and they continue to this day citing those witnesses. Palamara uses the same generalization tactics.

      I refuse to take these “researchers” serious. I think they are caught up in the fame game.
      \\][//

  29. So do we go the consensus route and agree that Kennedy was killed by the state, and agree to disagree on the details? For decorum this is the only reasonable path to take in a public forum. However from my personal point of view it is necessary to arrive at the truth, at least as much as can be gleaned by the history and evidence of the event. I find certain core issues that are worth stressing, and struggling with others to convince them on points I feel certain of; at least to the point of the critical criteria of ” beyond reasonable doubt”.

    First and foremost, I think a deep critical analysis of the hypothesis of the Alteration of the Zapruder film is very important. As the most important piece of visual evidence, it must be verified to be authentic, so that what is within it can be used in forensic analysis. Analysis bye the way that is bearing great fruit at this very time – that the Alterationists have risen with what I see as a false controversy. A diversionary ploy to distract from the most recent forensic analysis by a veteran crime scene investigator that brings the most up to date techniques and knowledge into solving the bullet trajectory that hit Kennedy in the head.

    As I am a veteran visual special effects artist, I feel compelled to reveal the facts of the matter, Put simply, the Zapruder film is 100% authentic. It is the film as Zapruder shot it that day. Therefore the forensic information in that film is worthy of study and understanding.
    \\][//

  30. I propose that the central concept proving the Zapruder film is authentic is so basic, so simple that anyone who is of sound mind and judgement should understand it. It is the essence of the difference between the spectrum of daylight and artificial light.
    \\][//

  31. http://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/fpg_2.pdf
    __________________________________________________________________________
    http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/healy.html

    Kodachrome II Daylight Film
    “What would happen if you copied a movie shot with this film stock onto this same film stock? Well, the contrast boost would get applied twice, really boosting the heck out of the contrast. The film has a limited ability to hold all that (indicated by the flattening of the curves at the top and bottom of the graph), so bright scene details become too bright to record and dark scene details become too dark. As photographers say, you blow out your highlights and you lose shadow detail. Even worse, because the color curves are not the same, contrast of the red layer gets boosted more than the green layer, which gets boosted more than blue layer. Your colors are all out of balance in a somewhat complex way.

    Kodak made the Secret Service copies of the Zapruder film to camera original film. Attempts were made to compensate for some of the problems described above, but the quality of the copies still suffered. To make good quality copies, Kodak developed a duplicating film with a neutral contrast, meaning the contrast doesn’t change when making a copy. Kodak was out of stock of that when Zapruder walked in, so they gave him camera film instead.

    What does this have to do with fabricating the film? Well, our best evidence to date–from Zavada’s work–is that the Zapruder film is camera original Kodachrome II film. That means that if the film was fabricated, the forgers would have to finish their special effects work on such film. Healy boasts about how easy it is to produce composites on optical printers but what he doesn’t tell you is that nobody finishes to camera original film. Not only would the contrast buildup excessively, but the colors would shift in undesired and complex ways.
    kodachrome II curves
    The motion picture industry uses a group of film stocks that Kodak has specially designed to complement each other. Zavada refers to these as a “family of films.” They invest a great deal of research into finding emulsions that give exactly the right contrast boost or reduction, without distorting the color balance, through several generations of copies. This is called the tone reproduction cycle. The motion picture industry uses at least 4 different film stocks in their cycle: camera original, interpositive, internegative, and print film.

    The challenge for those claiming Zapruder film alteration is to identify the film stocks from those available in 1963 that will allow forgers to start with Kodachrome camera original film, to go through several intermediate stages to produce the alterations, and finally to finish on Kodachrome camera original film. Of course, the final film must have the excellent color balance, highlight and shadow detail, and low grain that the Zapruder film exhibits. Then the challenge is to find evidence that this actually happened.” ~Joe Durnavich & David Wimp
    . . . . .
    I would add that the use of a aerial printer in the process would compromise the issue even further. Kodachrome II is a daylight film. Aerial printers by necessity use artificial light. This simple fact would throw the entire spectrum of color balance, intensity, hue, and contrast completely out of balance.
    . . . . .
    \\][//

    • David Healy on faking the Z-film.
      Note: Kodachrome II is NOT a contact film, it is film to be exposed in daylight in an 8 mm camera.
      Any use of an optical printer means the use of artificial light – NOT daylight. This single point shoots down this entire complex exposition made by Healy at the following URL, and the 8 pages completing the exposition:
      healy aerial projection assertion
      . .. .
      Note on the illustration above by Healy: Healy has asserted that all of these travelling mattes can be produced in the Oxberry Optical Printer. This is simply not true. The travelling mattes must be created by another process entirely, either on an animation stand – by hand, or through a blue screen process. The second process demands no background at all in the original film of the moving elements. The first process of hand painting the mattes one at a time is much more time consuming than Healy lets on.

      Only when the travelling mattes have been created separately, do you have all the elements to combine together as illustrated above.
      Added notes being; that Healy hasn’t done any of this actual work with real film and an optical printer, he has made this entire presentation in the digital realm. The second point, and one that cannot be emphasized too often is the matter of daylight v artificial light. This is a problem overcome in the digital medium because Healy never produces a physical finished Kodachrome II film.

      It is my contention that this entire presentation of Healy’s is bullshit. Perhaps it is persuasive to those who do not understand film and emulsion chemistry. What could be Healy’s motivation in all of this? Simple notoriety in the JFK research community.

      http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html
      \\][//

      • David Healy seems to have adequate experience in photography and film generally, according to his self-professed biography. But when it comes to his exposition on special effects creation using an Oxberry Optical Printer, he shows a complete misunderstanding of travelling mattes and their creation. Such mattes and their combination with foreground and moving elements must be fed as separate elements into the projector arrays of the Oxberry set -up. These separate elements must be made post production to any use in the optical printer.

        Lastly, and one more time, he seems oblivious to the nature of daylight v artificial light and their disparate effects on film emulsions. This seems at odds with his claimed expertise in movie making machinery and film products.
        \\][//

  32. “Assassination Science” – The Contributors – The Fetzer Cabal

    Charles Crenshaw, M.D., F.A.C.S., of Fort Worth, Texas. Dr. Crenshaw assisted in emergency treatment of President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital and, two days later, of Lee Harvey Oswald. An account of his experiences has been published in JFK: Conspiracy of Silence. A former Professor of Clinical Surgery at Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, he is now Chairman Emeritus of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital of Ft. Worth.

    James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., of Duluth, Minnesota. A graduate of Princeton, Dr. Fetzer received his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Indiana. A former officer in the Marine Corps, he has published widely on the nature of scientific reasoning and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. He is currently McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota and teaches on its Duluth campus.

    Ron Helper of Austin, Texas. A director of engineering in the cable industry, he has interests in aviation and waterskiing as well as in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which he has pursued since 1988.

    Bradley Kizzia, J.D., of Dallas, Texas. A graduate of Austin College and of the Southern Methodist University School of Law, Mr. Kizzia has been admitted to practice before all of the U.S. District Courts in Texas, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He practices law in the State of Texas, where he specializes in general civil litigation.

    Robert B. Livingston, M.D., of San Diego, California. Dr. Livingston is a graduate of Stanford who received his M.D. from the Stanford Medical School. A world authority on the human brain, he has held appointments at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and UCLA, and founded the first ever Department of Neurosciences at UCSD, where he remains Professor Emeritus. Dr. Livingston was the Scientific Director of both the National Institutes for Mental Health and the National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness in both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. During World War II, he supervised the emergency treatments of injured Okinawans and Japanese prisoners of war during the battle of Okinawa.

    David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., of Rancho Mirage, California. Dr. Mantik received his Ph.D. in physics from Wisconsin and his M.D. from Michigan. He is board certified in radiation oncology and is on the staff of the Peter A. Lake, M.D., Center in Rancho Mirage, CA. He has repeatedly visited the National Archives to study the official X-rays and other autopsy materials and, more recently, the Zapruder film. Dr. Mantik resigned from the AMA in protest over the abuse of JAMA.

    Chuck Marler of Riverside, California. A labor relations representative for San Bernardino who has an extensive interest in the Zapruder film, Chuck is also a founding member of Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination.

    Mike Pincher, J.D., of Palmdale, California. A graduate of SUNY Albany who has a J.D. from the University of San Fernando Valley College of Law (now LaVerne), Mr. Pincher currently practices as a trial attorney within the Los Angeles area. He has a special interest in the Zapruder film.

    Roy Schaeffer of Dayton, Ohio. Mr. Schaeffer is a long-time serious student of the Presidential limousine and related aspects of the assassination. He served a six-year apprenticeship in film development sponsored by the federal government from 1963 to 1969.

    Jack White of Fort Worth, Texas. A leading expert on photographic aspects of the assassination of JFK, Mr. White produced The Continuing Inquiry for the celebrated investigator, Penn Jones, with whom he worked for three years. He served as an advisor on photographic evidence to the House Select Committee on Assassinations during its reinvestigation and to Oliver Stone in producing his motion picture, JFK.

    Ronald F. White, Ph.D., of Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. White holds the Ph.D. in history from the University of Kentucky. He has published numerous articles on the history and philosophy of medicine and science and is an associate producer at the College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati.
    ……..
    \\][//

  33. The bottom line to this whole issue is the distinction between daylight and artificial light and the effects one or the other have on the chemistry of emulsions in film.
    No matter what is asserted as far as the techniques used to alter the film, even the fantastically elaborate scenario posited by David Healy; the final product must be a Kodachrome II film.

    As Joe Durnavich & David Wimp point out about Kodachrome II Daylight Film:
    “What would happen if you copied a movie shot with this film stock onto this same film stock? Well, the contrast boost would get applied twice, really boosting the heck out of the contrast. The film has a limited ability to hold all that (indicated by the flattening of the curves at the top and bottom of the graph), so bright scene details become too bright to record and dark scene details become too dark. As photographers say, you blow out your highlights and you lose shadow detail. Even worse, because the color curves are not the same, contrast of the red layer gets boosted more than the green layer, which gets boosted more than blue layer. Your colors are all out of balance in a somewhat complex way.”
    — Adding to this the problem of the necessity to use artificial light using a projector ie, an optical printer, and any faker would have an insurmountable, in fact impossible problem creating anything that looked remotely realistic.
    \\][//

  34. It is a shame that people are losing their historical memories of things that occurred in their very lifetimes. The transition from analog technologies to the digital wonderland of the “future” here has seemingly been attended by mass amnesia.

    A facsimile of film effects done in digital format is still only a virtual product. It is crucial to bear in mind that there was no such thing as digital imagery in 1963. Everything had to be accomplished by analog means at that time.

    My lifetime has been on the cusp of these two worlds. I have been in special effects work from the time of film, and made he cross over to digital when that came to the fore. I understand the relation of one to the other, but also know the ways in which they differ.

    I would note here then, that there is nothing but artificial light in the virtual world of digital. There is no daylight there, only the hypnosis of Ones & Zeros.
    \\][//

  35. This is a curious proposition offered for Z-film Alteration: Read this closely and consider Vanessa’s “reasoning” and strange conclusion:

    “With all due respect, I have to say I don’t see any forward movements by the Kennedys that match the lurch of the Connallys and SSAs. The lurch is simultaneous by those 4 and quite sharp. If the lurch is caused by the limo having the brakes slammed on at that time (which I believe it was) then I would expect the movement by the Kennedys to be identical in force to that of the other passengers. ie they should lurch forward sharply and back simultaneously and to the same degree that the other 4 do (regardless of their seating position).
    I believe that the frames showing the Kennedys’ forward movement have been removed and that is why we don’t see it in the extant zfilm.”~Vanessa
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/#comment-674515

    Think this through. She is saying that within the same set of frames that the Connally’s and the 2 SS men in the limo lurch forward, while in those same frames the Kennedy’s do not appear to. Her conclusion is, “that the frames showing the Kennedys’ forward movement have been removed..”

    Is it possible that simply removing the frames “of the Kennedy’s forward movement” is the answer to Vanessa’s perceptual dilemma?

    Vanessa is describing what is happening in individual frames as against her sense of inertia, all within a frame. She says within these frames all the people in the car lurch forward but for the Kennedy’s.

    How could removing frames accomplish what she is so suspicious of?
    One would need to change the elements within the frames themselves. The alterationist would have to remove and then replace the Kennedy’s from the same frames that everyone else is lurching in.
    Now we are talking an even more complex alteration. Frankly, the implications of what Vanessa proposes are simply impossible.
    \\][//

  36. ULTIMATE FACT

    Full Definition of ULTIMATE FACT: “a basic fact essential to maintain a cause of action or to establish a defense thereto as distinguished from the subsidiary individual facts that are offered in evidence as tending to prove a basic fact”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ultimate%20fact

    The individual points of evidence that the Zapruder Film is authentic are laid out in detail in the body of my essay on the film [above]. These basic technical facts are then buttressed by the commentary that follows.
    [+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

    The final, and Ultimate Fact that the Zapruder Film in the National Archives is authentic is summed up by the exposition of the distinction between ‘daylight’ and ‘artificial light’ and their disparate effects on various chemical dye emulsions.

    However in the preceding deductive phase in my commentary, I have gone into deep detail as to the complex problems an alterationist would encounter in using the techniques of special effects cinematography, and how the proponents seem to be woefully ignorant of these processes.

    I have also addressed numerous issues, including the spurious treatment of eye & ear witnesses, and the unwarranted certainties applied to these testimonies.

    Also I have given a good deal of attention to the rifle shot impulses from the police dictabelt, and especially the perfection with which this synchronizes with the Zapruder Film.

    All of this adduces to the Ultimate Fact that the Zapruder Film is authentic, beyond reasonable doubt.
    ~Willy Whitten \\][//

  37. Response to Douglas P. Horne, Author: INSIDE THE ASSASSINATION RECORD REVIEW BOARD, Volume IV Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery (p1185 – p1377) by Rolland Zavata

    “You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the
    presentation by David Healy “HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s
    May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of
    SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.

    In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he
    was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera
    and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the
    types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears
    to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were
    working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability
    environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm
    film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special
    optical effects changes.”~ Rolland Zavata

    14. Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder
    Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any
    Other Manner.
    I have always believed that there are many film technology and time
    constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and
    then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the
    original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being
    the subject of Professor Fetzer’s May 2003 conference, I decided to
    reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting
    professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review
    with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our
    conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible
    to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily
    detectable artifacts.
    Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web
    interchange of information, I submitted his chapter “HOW THE FILM WAS
    EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received
    comments that included:
    “You may quote me if you wish in saying that
    (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved,
    (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available,
    (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and
    (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve.~Raymond Fielding

    http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

    Raymond Fielding is author of THE TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY – the veritable bible of professional special effects artists during the era of film.
    \\][//

    • I have gone through and hand aligned the following document as best I can. If you wish to see the illustrations attendant to the the text I would highly recommend readers to access the original PDF for the full presentation by Mr Zavada.
      \\][//

  38. Therefore, the following lengthy review regarding the impossibility of altering the original film and reproducing it as an undetectable facsimile on KODACHROME II daylight film stock must be worth my effort “for the record” to provide my closure to the alteration issue. My analysis described below has been reviewed and concurred to by Professor Raymond Fielding.
    This dissertation follows as several sub parts with references to your comments and conclusions.

    15. Constraints That Preclude Alteration Of The Zapruder 8mm Film
    as Described in Chapter 14

    There is no known film production history that would provide a technology reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original. Typically, laboratory practices deal with camera original negative films as the primary material for a host of post-production applications to yield a positive projectable print.
    The magnitude of this issue – 8mm original > postproduction added/deleted image effects > reconstituted 8mm ‘original’ – mandates that we re-examine and address a number of detailed sub-parts to support a non-alteration conclusion. It’s like a game of “what-if” to identify the scope of special optical effects that would be required to achieve the purported alteration, and in doing so expose the multiple constraints, including venue and time, which make your professed alteration impossible.

    The Hollywood “frame-of-mind”.
    If Superman can be made to fly, surely the “effects magicians” of Hollywood can easily alter the home movie of the assassination of JFK! The problem of this mind-set is that it fails to acknowledge that a Hollywood or other film production requiring postproduction optical effects is a product of a carefully planned and executed script in advance. The key subject matter, foreground and background scene content, camera image focus, depths of field, masks or mattes, etc. are carefully executed ahead of time and incorporated into the camera film that becomes the optical master. A key fundamental issue is that the image size and format follow established standards for each step of the operation. Printer projector gates and film transport shuttles (with appropriate pitch and positioning pins) are available and interchangeable. The system is mechanically and artistically flexible to meet multiple optical special effects needs. A family of motion picture film materials is available as needed.

    Reality – The Zapruder 8mm Film Scene Content Was Not Planned.
    The camera was handheld, unsteady, panned to follow the limousine causing bystanders and background to be blurred and Zapruder jerked as reflex reaction to rifle shot reports or other stimuli. As an unplanned capture of a significant event with an amateur 8mm camera, it has none of the flexibility of 35mm or wider camera film image structure and established postproduction practices. It introduces a host of camera image and artifact constraints because of the camera design and type of camera film used. You note in your chapter that alteration would demand the use of an optical printer to blowup to 35mm, followed by an animation stand for frame-by-frame cell art or matte work from a positive print. You fail to add; a custom 0.150 in. pitch transport shuttle for the printer projector, custom apertures (to project and capture the image between the perforations to the edge of the film), full immersion wet gate for an initial blowup to 35mm, a camera with a custom aperture and a shuttle displaced from the aperture area for reconstituting the image as 8mm.

    The non-professional positioning of the intermittent claw adjacent to the image being captured was a convenient design compromise permitting magazine load mechanisms to be compatible with daylight load roll film.
    This methodology introduced several image anomalies that must be transferred or maintained in a substitute altered ‘original’ film. The projector for the 8mm camera film could not have a compatible intermittent location, adjacent to the projected image, because of the constraint of the projectable image area-limiting aperture. Consequently the projector head of an optical printer or animation stand are equally restricted and image position, using 8mm or double 8mm film, is subject to perforation pitch tolerance variability from the displaced image positioning perforation.
    Notwithstanding, you believe that the image content could be altered, based on Healey’s guidelines and Fielding’s reference textbook; and that “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, run for the CIA by Kodak, seems to have “fit-the-bill” as a facility. You write: As Dino Brugioni put it in 2009 to Peter Janney; at “Hawkeyeworks” they “could do almost anything.” (p1326)

    Reviewing The Derived Camera Images.
    A few frame clips will ensure the readership of my reply a full comprehension of the multiple image capture artifacts confronting any laboratory attempting adjustment to selected frame(s) and reconstituting a film as a substitute ‘original’.
    As described in Study 4 of my report, the area of the exit window (red) of the camera lens at the telephoto setting, allowed scene information to be recorded in the aperture area between the perforations because of the cutout space for the intermittent claw . This lens characteristic, the claw, and shuttle mechanism introduced artifacts that are distinguishable camera characteristics.
    The first frame fog characteristic of the Zapruder camera added another artifact to be considered in any alteration attempt. Note that fogged area very distinctly replicates the camera aperture and claw cutout. The other scene anomalies described in the test scene above are shown in the first couple of frames of the limousine sequence.
    Any alteration attempt must also consider untypical random imagery obtained during the daylight loading of the camera and “runoff” to the start filming camera cue. The special processing handling at Dallas precluded removing this leader.
    Film product identification (type/date/source) is incorporated onto all amateur and professional film products as part of the manufacturing process. This edge code printing is continuous without cue mark. Because the extracting of image information to simulate an original mandates capturing the full frame area plus the area beyond and between the perforations to the edge of the film, using any stock product would superimpose the captured edge information onto the “new” rawstock. Obtaining and using a special strip derived from a wide strip requires special atypical slitting and perforating and would leave detectable printing inconsistency along an extension of the frame line (at arrows). Scene image information is also captured in the product code background.
    Daylight loading in the B&H camera introduces a multitude of artifacts. As shown in this copy of side A; the artifact of light piping through the perforations extends beyond complete fog of the integral leader. This daylight load characteristic would need to be accounted for in trying to simulate the original. Near both ends of the double 8mm roll, loading light also fogged a fine line along the outer edge.
    When replicating the Jamieson copies, the processing lab edge code must be incorporated into both the altered ‘original’ and the derived copies. Because these codes already exist on the original and “same-day” copies, would they be excised or transposed? Then follows the challenging question of where will the ‘sanitized’ KODACHROME II daylight ‘original’ and KODACHROME IIA ‘substitute dupes’ receive their required K12 process? Substituting a Dallas
    Laboratory processing edge print would require multiple steps at a separate facility to make the stencil, time for substitution and involve special technicians.
    What Was Considered Objectionable In The Film, Deemed Critical and Required Alteration?
    You wrote: “….to remove whatever was objectionable in the film -most likely the car stop and the rear-of-head exit debris; and to add to the film whatever was desired, such as a large, painted-on exit wound generally consistent with the enlarged, altered head wound depicted in the autopsy photos which were developed the day before.” (p1241)

    First step would be to blow up the 8mm to 35mm. A reference is the work of Moses Weisman for TIME using an Oxberry Optical Printer, full immersion wet gate and a custom shuttle. Moses was forced to use Eastman Color Negative (ECN)for film speed because of the low light level transmitted from the small 8mm frame. In the reference frame, note that the standard 35mm image area did not allow inclusion of intersprocket images along the perforated edge of the 8mm film.
    If a custom aperture is used to capture the full edge-to-edge image, we now capture the full scene information plus the Intersprocket area and the accompanying artifacts and edge print constraints listed above – however the double exposure area at the inside corners of the perforations as shown above and from the bench test are NOT included.
    In the professional environment it is normal to focus on controlling or adjusting the principle subject matter, but with images from the Zapruder amateur camera, you must also deal with the edge print and the anomalies between the perforations.
    Trying to split the total area into the “minimum camera image area” and “remaining area” to address the edge print and other artifacts independently would introduce an easily detectable interface where the two image components would be merged and would require the relative impossibility of obtaining correctly perforated rawstock without any manufacturing codes.

    For focus, in this analysis, consider the challenge to a purported alteration of the headshot and surrounding frames. The correction you believe was attained required multiple actions on the part of the technicians complicated by a subject in motion with a blurred background as well as significantly motion blurred primary subjects. You do offer an abbreviated approach when you relate:
    “In my view, if no traditional traveling mattes were employed, and if the principal changes made were optical frame excisions of the exit debris leaving the head (using a step printer), and aerial imaging artwork altering the head wound(s), it just might have been possible to accomplish the necessary minimal changes to the film in one working day, providing sufficient skilled labor was available.” (p1340)

    Lets address the above statement with the objective of providing a brief review for comprehension of the complexity of the multiple steps involved rather than a detailed optical effects image – purported content – sanitizing script.
    The 8mm original; blowup by optical printer to 35mm master negative; then contact printed as a master positive, would be projected in an animation stand to provide for an aerial image at the same plane as the artwork. Precision art work will be required to: make multiple frame–frame pin-registered high contrast hand-drawn hold-back traveling mattes to; delete the posterior head exit wound, and, to delete the rearward brain splatter spray. (Note: Image content hypothesized but never seen)
    • Counter mattes would then need to be developed to allow insertion of image content analogous to “expected scene content” and replace the extracted brain matter rearward spray and correct the posterior shape of the President Kennedy’s head.
    • No real-time scene information is available to fill-in each counter matte. Because it is necessary to add parts of the limousine, the curb and lawn, some detailed and some blurred, it becomes necessary to animate hand painted corresponding scene components.
    • The insertion of an anterior head wound (In Frame 313+ You say is purportedly added to comply with autopsy findings) and addition of the four or so frames of blood/brain spray would require hand-painted transparent animation cells developed concurrently with the holdback mattes referenced above.

    All of the image artwork, mattes and photography are not accomplished on a one-shot “we-did-it-right” the first time. Process photography requires test and retest to achieve the desired effects objective. These tests take time and require accessibility of a number of film processes and could not be achieved in the nine to ten hours you indicate available for ‘sanitizing’ the original to obtain an undetectable KODACHROME II substitute double 8mm ‘original’.
    Further you insist that the original was slit to 8mm, thus requiring a separate duplication/recapture process to make the substitute ‘original’ delivered to NPIC Sunday night a double 8mm.
    This action also requires capturing side A and re-rendering all of the inte-rperforation anomalies described above using a custom designed camera and dealing with the “PROCESSED BY KODAK D NOV 63”identification.

    As mentioned above, you believe “that the process camera used for the final step in the creation of an altered Zapruder film must have been a Bell and Howell 414 model home movie camera set in the animation mode.” (p1313) This assumption is unrealistic for a host of reasons:

    • The zoom lens was integral with the camera body and not interchangeable,
    • The short focal length was 6 feet,
    • The lens had significant spherical aberration, especially at the wide aperture openings required,
    • The “exit window” required to achieve inter-perforation images required telephoto setting, and an insufficient exit window to ensure results within the required full penetration of perforation area.
    • The viewfinder was insufficient in providing the exact film area being captured including adjustments for parallax.
    • The shutter speed was fixed at 1/40 sec placing all exposure light control at the printer’s projector.
    • As noted earlier the film gate positioning and claw pull down precluded the needed precise positioning/repositioning.

    Postproduction Films; Their Resolution, Color, Contrast Handling And Processing,
    Simply stated, to achieve special optical effects, it is necessary to begin with a printing master that is a part of a “family of film types”. Kodak designed camera original color films to work compatibly with laboratory intermediate films and print films as spectral dye “sets”. (Status A, reversal and Status M, negative/positive.)6 Professional camera negative films were never viewed directly and their transmission spectrum matched the spectral sensitivity of intermediate (and print) films and the transmission dye set of the intermediate films matched the spectral sensitivity of the final print films. The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
    In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a daylight camera original KODACHROME II reversal film was balanced for about 5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about 1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. (Status A) The film was not designed for printing response so that its dye set would match the spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films. A reversal duplicating film was available (Status A), but that was for direct simple copies, and not intended to be used as an optical intermediate.
    The methodology proposed to achieve purported optical manipulation suggests a 35mm blowup to EASTMAN color Internegative Film 5270 or a camera negative film; EASTMAN Color Negative Film 5251 – both current at that time. (Note in 1967 Moses Weitzman was forced to use ECN, for his TIME/LIFE blowups because 5270 was too slow for his printer light.) The use of internegative film, even in 35mm format could incur some graininess. The use of either would incur image structure degradation. The faster camera negative would incur a significant and easily detectable level of graininess. Both these stocks were available at the time and had a contrast of about 0.6.
    Color fidelity degradation: The use of internegative film would cause a loss of color fidelity (desaturation) as internegative film employed Status M sensitivities (for printing from the Status M image dyes of EKTACHROME Commercial Film 7255, for which it was designed) while KODACHROME II Film, from which the Zapruder film would be printed, employed Status A image dyes, thus incurring a print-through color sensitivity mismatch.
    To allow working with a projected color master positive film, it would be necessary to print onto EASTMAN Color Print Film 5385, which had a contrast of 2.8. Depending on the special effect methodology you purport, two or more intermediate steps would have to occur before the third or fifth step of printing down to a ‘substitute’ 8mm KODACHROME II daylight ‘original’. The film’s daylight sensitivity, contrast and spectral characteristics do not render it receptive for use as a “print” medium.
    Contrast Increase. The total system contrast increase even in the simple 3-step approach would be about 5.0. KII original, 1.8; to blowup negative, 0.6; master positive 2.8; and print down to simulated ‘original’ KII daylight, 1.8, yielding (1.8 x 0.6 x 2.8 x 1.8) = a contrast of 5.4. Repeating the master positive/negative or intermediate process would further increase the unacceptable contrast buildup. With color negative and positive films, attempts to reduce the contrast by reducing the time of development would cause crossed-curves, which would be visible as highlight/shadow color changes in the print-through. The Kodachrome K12 Process could not be adjusted to change the contrast.

    A further complication in the derived alteration equation is that the final result is “printed” onto KODACHROME II daylight7 raw stock.
    Any off-the-shelf source of the film would not suffice, because it inherently has the appropriate manufacturing markings and would already contain: product type, code, date and strip number and “S˚AFETY FILM”, in part accomplished when the strips are slit from the wide master coating roll. A suitable alternate film source was not identified – however David Healey unrealistically believed that an unmarked KODACHROME movie film was readily available.
    Next comes the K12 Process and first adding the perforated (0183) customer identification code and processing laboratory printed “PROCESSED BY KODAK D NOV 63” identification on the A side of the role (as it exists on the print through of the two NARA held SS 1&2 copies) to replicate Kodak Dallas processing. Then the sanitized ‘original’ is NOT going to be slit to 8mm width!
    Making three copies. Assuming, as noted, a substitute ‘original’ is created, you then profess in 13A – 11 above, that it is used to produce three double 8mm copies on KODACHROME IIA film to replace the Jamieson “same-day” copies. In the duplication process we now introduce some interesting constraints, characteristics and illogic!
    The Jamieson copies, SS1&2 at NARA show a bracketed exposure series. If the two copies were viewed prior to alteration of the ‘original’, and you contended that the Jamieson Laboratory printed “one-light” (p1265-1270), the two secret service copies should have had the same density! Why then would the perpetrators of alteration “bracket” exposures of their replacement copies when the switch was intended to provide an undetectable replacement of the copies provided to the Secret Service by Zapruder?

    In your discussion of the septum line, (p1259 – 1262) you refer to “flawed logic” in the analysis provided in my report. Yet you expect us to believe that the perpetrators of the altered film were able to replicate the desired width septum line on side A when printing the three copies using a B&H Model J with an undercut-printing sprocket, or outboard margin printer on the first try!
    Then there is the choice of slitting the double 8 copies to 8mm or not.
    Zapruder has a copy in Dallas through Monday. His replacement copy requires slitting and we know McMahon at NPIC received double 8mm films Sunday night, from Smith, for Briefing Board prints. (p1241). However, it is in McMahon’s interview with you [8], that we become aware that two double 8mm copies are received. McMahon relates to you that a copy is projected as 16mm double 8mm, and another double 8 film, that he believes is the ‘original’, is enlarged 40X (about 5X7 in.) This leaves the third copy to be slit to 8mm.

    Mission Impossible – Logistics Required For The Purported Alteration To Have Been Conducted At “Hawkeyeworks”

    To accomplish the alteration you profess that: “All that one would have needed was a good, state-of-the-art optical printer facility, and laboratory technicians matte artists experienced in the ‘black arts’ Hollywood.” (p1339) However lets expand your summary term, “state-of-the-art optical printer facility” and list a few components needed.
    The printing equipment you expected to be immediately available at CIA’s Hawkeye Plant (maximum of overnight notice) would probably include:
    A Step Optical Printer – single or more likely multi-head including the required components of a: 35mm Camera Head, a 16mm Projector Head, customized for full 8mm edge-to-edge projection, a unique Projector
    Shuttle customized for 0.1496 in. or shorter perforation pitch, also a 35 mm Projector Head for subsequent matte work.
    Animation Stand – Oxberry or equivalent for aerial imaging matte artwork
    Corresponding Camera and Projector Heads as above.
    B&H Model J 16mm contact printer with means of printing margin markings.
    Editing equipment – multiple gauges, Haseltine Color Analyzer,
    densitometer, MP film cleaning capability – etc.Cells, cell punch, art materials, etc Processing Services at-hand or immediately accessible.
    • K12 Kodachrome process – with16 mm racks,
    • ECN for Color Negative or Intermediate films – 35mm racks,
    • ECP for Color positive – 35mm racks,
    • B&W negative process – 16mm racks
    • B&W reversal process – 16mm racks,
    • B&W high contrast positive process – 35mm racks – matte work Process Control Sensitometric test strips for each process.
    The Human Element – laboratory technicians – talent – and matte artists.
    It is probable that the “Hawkeyeworks” activity focused on laboratory and film technology requirements for CIA satellite reconnaissance. If true, it is highly unlikely that the facility maintained personnel and equipment capable of handling motion picture special effects for a “no notice” rush project. Even if the laboratory technician talent were available, the artistic talent would need to be imported (with rush security clearances).
    Whatever “Hawkeyeworks” role was, handling 8mm Motion Picture film was going to be unique.

    The Time Element – Workflow sequence, sketchy, rough overview:

    • 8mm original arrives – Hazeltine analyze exposure/filter pack setup for 35mm blow up negative – clean film, add leaders –1hour.
    • Optical printer projector head does not have an aperture for 8mm9 or intermittent shuttle for 8mm short pitch of 0.1496 in. Hand positioning becomes the only immediate option – however this represents a task of 500+ frames on Side B and more than 2300 frames on side A. A 16mm gate/shuttle could be modified, but not within the time frame allowed.
    • Assume blowup copy of side B on ECI 5270 or ECN 5251. Side A is being blown up to 35mm while side B, as 35mm, is being processed. (ECN Process 45min wet plus load and dry = 1hr 15min if processor on site.)
    • Side B as 35mm negative is printed to a color positive ECP 5385 by continuous contact printer if available. (ECP Process 45min wet plus load and dry = 1hr 15min if processing on site.)
    • Side B 35mm master positive is placed in animation stand projector for a combination of aerial imagining and cell artwork. Individual frames could be captured interlocked onto 35mm ECI or ECN and backed up and re-projected for necessary cell “self” matte work – then reprinted to ECP before transfer to KII. I note however, you are aware of the time constraint and unrealistically profess that a B&H 414 PD camera could have been used, loaded with custom10 8mm KODACHROME II Daylight (p1313), and that the key, back of the head blowout and spray, are removed by “excising a few frames” 11.
    (Wow, Got-to-be obvious! RZ)

    • Because the camera will require image position and alignment
    and exposure certification of the cell work, at least a few
    frames of test exposures are needed on KII Daylight with K12
    processing of 1hr 15min min.
    • For sake of your “quick limited matte” approach you will need
    to produce cells for about 30 frames or more, many that the
    principle subjects are blurred and that will require extra artistic
    effort. The cell paint will need to dry and the exposure will be
    single frame. Even at only 10 minutes per cell, that would
    equal 5- hours.
    • Next, a second run through the 8mm camera would be
    required to add side A, the family scenes and lady at the office,
    representing 2040 frames plus the integral fogged leader and
    trailer. With the light levels available and KII daylight filtered
    EI speed of about 8, 18 fps at 2/40 sec. just won’t be possible.
    • Next the altered double 8mm KODACHROME ‘original’ requires
    K12 processing of 1hr 15min.
    • Next the new sanitized ‘original’ with its 0183 perforation is
    loaded on a B&H Model J and three KIIA prints are made (using
    off-the-shelf camera film) with silent aperture setting and with
    an undercut printer sprocket and diverted printer light (or
    outboard margin printer).
    • Next, a second run through the 8mm camera would be
    required to add side A, the family scenes and lady at the office,
    representing 2040 frames plus the integral fogged leader and
    trailer. With the light levels available and KII daylight filtered
    EI speed of about 8, 18 fps at 2/40 sec. just won’t be possible.
    • Next the altered double 8mm KODACHROME ‘original’ requires
    K12 processing of 1hr 15min.
    • Next the new sanitized ‘original’ with its 0183 perforation is
    loaded on a B&H Model J and three KIIA prints are made (using
    off-the-shelf camera film) with silent aperture setting and with
    an undercut printer sprocket and diverted printer light (or
    outboard margin printer).
    • Next the three double 8mm KODACHROME IIA copies require
    K12 processing of 1hr 15min plus 15min extra make-up break-down handling. If the lab code printer was set as “R” for
    Rochester, another image reproduction issue is introduced into
    the equation. Perforation ID is required as 0185,6&7.
    • While the copies are processed, three copies are printed with
    the Model J onto 16 mm B&W negative stock. Two copies are
    processed as negative (about 30 minutes) and one is processed
    as reversal (about 45 minutes).
    If the CIA lab technicians really hustled did you make the deadline?
    • Prep 8mm – 1 – hours
    • Blow-up print side B – Proj shuttle/aperture non std ?
    • Blow-up print side A ?
    • Process ECI or ECN 1.3
    • Print and process ECP 0.3 plus 1.3 1.6
    • KII Daylight test exp and align 1.8
    • Artwork on cells and expose side B 5.0
    • Rethread and exp side A 1.0
    K12 process for new ‘original’ 1.3
    • Print and process three copies KIIA 0.3 plus 1.3 1.6
    • Print and process three B&W copies, 0.3 plus 0.8 1.1

    Doug, ponder the logistics – it just doesn’t add up! I have been ultra conservative in time estimates. Even without 35mm traveling matte options, your proposal requires five different possessing machines setup with certified chemistry and personnel on a Sunday. At the CP&P Division or Photo Technology (PT) it would represent two or floors of equipment. Only the K12 processing provided daily customer service. All other processing equipment existed for product testing and research and development. Also understand the Hawkeye Plant was separated from CP&P, PT or FTD by more than 2 miles!
    The film dry-to-dry “in process” time alone for the required ‘quick-and-dirty approach is 7.6 hours. The alteration goal purported in your chapter is just NOT attainable.

    16. And in Conclusion…
    In my lengthy review of Chapter 14 there remain several topics that require correction and clarification – left for another time. Initially I was disappointed that you did not consider me available to openly discuss many of your concerns and interpretations of my work. I now understand that it probably would not have altered the posture and position you have taken.
    The very interesting twist to your chapter is that it has done more to ensure the Zapruder film at NARA is authentic rather than altered.
    Your interviews with Dino Brugioni and Homer McMahon and their handling of what they interpreted as “original” films, most likely were the Jamieson copies provided to the Secret Service by Zapruder and flown to Washington on successive days. (With the FBI requesting two copies, returned to Dallas, of their viewed double 8 copy.)
    Nonetheless, your analysis of those interviews and the conclusions you draw about the briefing boards have provided a tight focus to establish the time frame and possible venue for the purported ‘sanitizing’ of the Zapruder original. Both reinforce all of the technology and film reproduction constraints to confirm our conclusion that alteration to the 8mm original and its reconstitution, as a ‘sanitized’ KODACHROME II equivalent, was impossible.

    Remember, The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm KODACHROME II film, embeds itself with the limitation that it cannot be altered as perceived.
    Rollie Zavada – 26 May 2010
    http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
    \\][//

  39. The final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission’s own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco – and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report – is reported to have said, “The American people don’t read.”

    Now Douglas Horne is taking this quote to heart, that “The American people don’t read.”

    Horne is counting on it to pull off a hoax as sinister and elaborate as the Warren Commission report. Horne is counting on the general ignorance of special effects cinematography of his audience. He can likely rest assured that most people will not take the effort to read and understand the rebuttals to his nonsense by Rolland Zavata and Raymond Fielding, that utterly demolish his jejune assertions.

    And what will be the final effect of Horne’s elaborate hoax? It will be to extinguish the single most crucial visual evidence of the assassination of President Kennedy. That is quite a coup in favor of the killers.
    \\][//

  40. Back to Ballistics

    When the bullet exits the muzzle of a high powered/ long range rifle, it generally travels at a rate of two or more times the speed of sound (the speed of sound is approximately 343m/s, or 1125fps, in standard atmospheric conditions), and so bullet speed (in these cases) is therefore considered supersonic. When the bullet flies supersonic, it compresses the air in front of itself, generating a series of shockwaves that origin from the bullet tip and propagate behind the bullet as a cone. You can observe this on the image to the left, which is a shadowgraph photo of a supersonic bullet in flight at Mach 2.66 (that is, 2.66 times the speed of sound).

    These shockwaves generate the crack that you can hear if you are alongside the trajectory of a bullet that is travelling at supersonic speeds. It is the same explosion, the so-called sonic boom (or sonic bang), that you hear when a jet fighter flies supersonic above your head.
    http://thearmsguide.com/5348/long-range-shooting-external-ballistics-transonic-region/
    \\][//

    • “If the shot is powerful enough, from high velocity rifles for example, there is a combination of the initial impact and an ‘explosive’ effect which can do substantial damage through forcing the brain to the side of the skull and fracturing from the inside out.”

      There is one rare effect, called the Krönlein shot, where a high powered shot messily opens the skull but neatly ejects the whole brain on the ground.
      [Wound ballistics of the Krönlein shot: Article in German]
      Pankratz H, Fischer H.
      Abstract
      The “Krönlein” shot (evisceration of the brain) is a very rare injury of the skull caused by a high-velocity bullet. The requirement for this type of low-range shot wound is a broad opening of the skull with laceration of the dura mater. In the past, several cases of this particular injury have been reported and all led to immediate death.
      http://mindhacks.com/2012/06/09/a-shot-to-the-head/
      \\][//

      • Now after watching this video, imagine what would happen to the bones of the skull as this dramatic explosion takes place within in it.
        __________________________________________________
        Remington’s 55-grain Accelerator load with its 55-grain saboted bullet at 4080 fps for the 30-06 is quite an achievement, Hornady’s Superformance loadings offer standard loadings with an average of 200 feet per second velocity gains over standard 30-06 loads of equal bullet weights with the use of specialized gun powders.
        http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.30-06springfield.html
        \\][//

    • Oswald Did NOT Purchase a Rifle from Kleins
      by John Armstrong
      “The FBI/Warren Commission wants us to believe, with no original documents, that “Oswald/Hidell” purchased this rifle in March, 1963. But the only original documentation relating to a Mannlicher Carcano with serial number C2766 was the rifle sold to Klein’s on June 18, 1962 by Crescent. The identity of the person who purchased C2766 from Klein’s was likely found by the FBI on the Klein’s microfilm. But the identity of this person was hidden, all original records relating to C2766 were destroyed by the FBI, and blame was placed on Oswald–the chosen “patsy.”
      The complete details of the FBI’s handling, manipulation and fabrication of evidence, and the Warren Commission’s handling and/or directing witness testimony are far too numerous to include in this brief summary. But documentation and witness testimony published by the Warren Commission clearly shows there is not a single, conclusive piece of evidence that proves Oswald ordered, purchased, or received a rifle. The “evidence” used by the Commission to show that Oswald purchased a rifle from Klein’s consisted of nothing more than paper copies and photographs of altered records, WC Attorney David Belin’s blatant mis-leading and limited questioning of Klein’s Vice President William Waldman. The Warren Commissions willingness to accept COPIES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND MORE COPIES of documents, instead of insisting on original documents, and their deliberate mis-handling and mis-interpreting of these copies and witnesses, is another “smoking gun,” and shows their deliberate attempt to try and prove that Oswald was the lone assassin. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was correct when he said, “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”
      http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html
      \\][//

    • January 17, 2015 at 11:24 am — Your website states that you are a “Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator”. The closest that I have been able to match that term is the IAI “Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst”~Photon
      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-you-should-know-about-the-warren-commission-report-is-that/#comment-563892

      Well then you haven’t looked into it very thoroughly Herr Doktor…

      There are four different certifications available through the Crime Scene Certification Board. They are:
      Certified Crime Scene Investigator (CCSI)
      Certified Crime Scene Analyst (CCSA)
      Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist (CCSR)
      Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst (CSCSA)
      [Crime Scene Certification FAQ’s IAI page.]
      https://www.theiai.org/certifications/crime_scene/faq.php
      \\][//

      • Saturday, December 15, 2012

        First Impressions: Enemy of the Truth

        Fiester waylays many cherished myths of the establishment as well as of the conspiracy community as she follows the evidence where it leads regardless of the philosophical preference she or others may hold.
        The Zapruder film has been the subject of charges of alteration due largely to the blood spatter and body motion of Kennedy at the moment of the assassination. Fiester shows that modern blood spatter analysis – a veritable science – demonstrates that the effluents coming from Kennedy are authentic and the result of a front shot. Forgers would have needed to possess knowledge about blood spatter science which simply was not available prior to 1975 when the film was first publicly aired.

        While none of the assassination films shows the presidential limousine stopping, many witnesses swore to the fact that it did. We even adopted that position in a previous blog, but have since divested ourselves of the notion based upon better evidence and explanation. Fiester delves into some specialized theory and science to explain the phenomenon of the witnesses’ empirical perceptions to show the stress of the moment led to time dilation which in turn gave the appearance of the stopping vehicle.
        None of this exonerates the Secret Service in any way as Fiester later reports analysis from a study sponsored by House Select Committee on Assassinations which showed that the vehicle indeed slowed from about 12 mph to 8 mph just prior to the head shot.

        One of the highlights of the book uses ballistic wounds, math, and physics to triangulate the location of the shooter. This evidence is used to disabuse us of the Grassy Knoll theory. While the author does not claim that no shots were fired from behind the fence – and indeed there is an abundance of witness to weapons fire from the parking lot behind the knoll – she does claim that the fatal head wound could not have come from the famed grassy knoll.

        We have skimmed just a fraction of the information and analysis found in this fabulous and long overdue book, so readers will have to obtain a copy to get the full monty as they say. We are delighted that the lone nut theory has been wasted with the devastation it so justly deserves.
        http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2012/12/first-impressions-enemy-of-truth.html

      • https://www.linkedin.com/in/sherryfiester
        Sherry Gutierrez Fiester, Detective Lieutenant – Forensics
        St. Charles Patish Sheriff’s Department
        August 1995 – October 1999 (4 years 3 months)
        In 1995 newly elected Sheriff Greg Champagne employed me to head his Forensic Unit. It was a wonderful opportunity to assist in the development of an investigative unit that would become regionally based and respected for their expertise.

        My duties included: Supervise overall operations for Forensic Unit, Evidence Division, and License and Permits Departments; Direct, supervise and coordinate forensic investigations and personnel in the field; Develop forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications; Maintain fiscal responsibility, develop budgets and maintain inventory for three departments without budget overages; Develop and maintain computerized records management system for case activity, sex offenders database and evidence retention; Inspect facilities for emergency readiness and compliance of OSHA regulations; And develop instructional materials and conducte educational programs on state and national levels.
        Prior:
        Detective Sargeant – Forensics
        Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department
        1982 – 1993 (11 years)
        In 1983 I began my career with Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department. After three years in Patrol I transferred to the Forensics Investigation Division. I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern interpretation in Federal and local judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. I am published in Crime scene Investigation, Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Interpretation and has taught at state, national and international levels.

        Directed, supervised and coordinated forensic investigations for multiple agencies in a 6 parish region
        Trained, supervised and coordinated clerical office staff and forensic investigative personnel
        Developed forensic certification standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for successfully meeting national individual certifications
        Developed and maintained computerized records management system for case activity
        Maintained fiscal responsibility, developed budget and maintained inventory.
        . . . . . .
        There are other certifications for CSI: Court Certification for District and Regional court systems. In Fiester’s bio material for her book it is “Written from the perspective of a court certified forensic investigator.”

        \\][//

  41. IAI Forensic Certification Home Page
    IAI Certification Program Operations Manual
    Overview of Steps — Renew Application
    Each program consists of a rigorous educational process, a certification procedure, and re-certification requirements. Each is administered by a certification board comprised of experts in the discipline. All programs operate under a written set of procedures approved by the IAI’s Board of Directors to ensure compliance with broad IAI goals and policies.
    https://www.theiai.org/certifications/
    ______________________________________________
    It is obvious that the IAI is certification for those who have just completed their education prior to entering the field professionally. That there are other paths and certification processes for people who already have professional law enforcement experience is obvious.
    There are other certifications for CSI: Court Certification for District and Regional court systems.
    \\][//

  42. “Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.”~Douglas Horne

    This is rhetorical nonsense and innuendo. Neither Zavata nor Fielding agree’d with Healy. They emphatically disagreed in a signed rebuttal. The insinuation that the “Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging,” Fielding explains in his book are simply being misrepresented by ignorant and technically naïve interpretation; as expressly stated by Fielding himself :

    Professor Fielding for review and received
    comments that included: “You may quote me if you wish in saying that
    (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the
    conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and
    the time line involved,
    (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation
    of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the
    technology then available,
    (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the
    footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived
    professional scrutiny, and
    (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA
    footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in
    the document you sent me, are technically naïve.”~Raymond Fielding – 2010
    . . . . . . . .

    Before discovering Mr Fieldings remaks, I addressed Healy’s assertions myself. Touching on one of the key issues now pointed out by Fielding; which is Healy’s complete lack of understanding of the creation of travelling mattes. See:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/#comment-4973

    Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film#Authenticity
    \\][//

  43. Jonathan – December 1, 2014 at 7:03 pm
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/doug-horne-rebuts-john-mcadams/#comment-639135

    “I’m not a photographer. Here’s how I would have manipulated a Z-film frame in 1963:

    – I would have produced the film frame.

    – I would have laid it on some overhead projector.

    – I would have laid some blank transparency over it.

    – I would have created areas on the blank transparency.

    – I would have photographed the composite view.

    That’s all.”
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Splendid, Jonathan presents us with a point at which some simple lessons from ‘Special Effects 101’.

    Jonathan notion that this simple procedure is false because of some very elementary mistaken assumptions. First is the “film frame” he firsts produces is how large in itself, a 8 mm fukn frame? 16 mm? 35 mm? larger? Second Jonathan lays this yet to be fully described object on a “overhead projector”. Just so? The concept of “registration” of imagery applies here. Without precise registration the product produced by such a method would display very obvious “jiggle” in any sequence made this way.
    A similar issue arises with his second, blank transparency. He nonchalantly says that he would have previously created on this blank transparency. What sort of “areas”? Silhouettes? In black? Is this item which is defined as a “matte” done as a positive? That being, detailed silhouettes of the car and occupants. Or is he suggesting a female/negative matte, with the detailed edge being the shapes that would meet the male/positive like a intricate puzzle piece? Either way he is proposing an enormously painstaking and time consuming process just for one frame.

    Next there are issues with the screen on-which these images would display on. By blowing up an image one introduces a magnification of the original grain of the film, even with the finest most reflective screens, the grain pattern will be enhance. On top of this there is the actual texture of your screen, which is added to degrading the image. This proximate beginning, as described by Jonathan starts with an easily detected forgery.

    But worse is the fact that even the use of the highest quality professional equipment of the day, and following the procedures offered by Healy, the celebrated ‘EXPERT’ of the alterationist camp, the final product would be easily detected as a forgery. What is more, Healy skips steps due to conceptual errors as elementary as Jonathan’s. With such techniques he would not even produced any product simply because his asserted camera’s and optical projectors haven’t been provided with mattes. He presumes this process is somehow “self-matting”. There is no such thing. The strips of films with the matte elements on them must be the result of preproduction, long before the camera array can be brought into the picture.

    The final and insurmountable issue has to do with the nature “light” – “dark” & natural light v artificial light, and their disparate effects on film dye and emulsion. Of course this is the point at which we enter Sp-FX 202. Which is quite a bit more advanced than the outline above. These techniques are not nearly as difficult as amateurs might imagine at first glance. But these lessons are so well made and delivered by Raymond Fielding, that it is better that the readers here, go to that original source.
    In these chapters on “Travelling Mattes” you will learn that there was a process in the 1920’s that was actually “self-matting”, this involved a “B-iPack” camera which shot two separate rolls of film simultaneously. This system was limited for use with black and white films, and was superseded when color films became the norm.

    Chapter 8 dealing with Travelling Mattes, from Feilding’s book THE TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY, are available as a PDF online:
    http://www.leckman.com/ca425/documents/fielding_ch_8.pdf
    \\][//

  44. Staff Examinations of Films Designated as “In-Camera” Original, and First Generation Copies, by NARA

    The Review Board determined that there should be an examination of the Zapruder films at NARA designated as the original and the two Secret Service copies (believed to be first generation copies) for the purpose of recording characteristics of the three films. (See illustration.) [omitted here] (The Review Board subsequently determined that the LMH Companythe Zapruder family’s companypossessed a third first generation copy of the Zapruder film.) The Review Board hoped that the recorded observations would serve to provide information to a public that would not be able to obtain physical access to these films, and second, would determine whether the film should be examined by photographic experts. Ultimately, the staff recommended, and the Review Board agreed, that it would approach Eastman Kodak to request that Kodak examine the Zapruder film.

    3. Eastman Kodak’s Pro Bono Work for the Review Board Related to the Zapruder Film (and Autopsy Photographs)

    The Review Board first met with the Eastman Kodak Company in June 1996 in Washington to discuss a wide variety of possible research topics related to a host of potential film issues. At that time, Kodak stated that it would provide a limited amount of pro bono work for the Review Board. The Review Board continued discussions with Kodak laboratory officials based in Rochester, New York, and subsequently met with Kodak technical experts James Milch and Roland Zavada in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, the Review Board identified three major areas of interest, only one of which related to the Zapruder film: (1) the possible digitization and enhancement of the Zapruder film, as well as edge print analysis of the original and first generation copies, and study of the optical characteristics of the Zapruder camera in relation to perceived “anomalies” in the original film; (2) the possible enhancement and, if necessary, optical (i.e., film, not medical) analysis of autopsy images; and (3) a study of the provenance of film materials subpoenaed by the Review Board from Robert J. Groden for examination. Kodak laboratory experts Milch and Zavada viewed the original Zapruder film, a Secret Service first generation copy, and some of the Groden materials for the first time at NARA during their September 1996 visit to Washington.

    Kodak subsequently offered to contribute up to $20,000 of labor and materials to the Review Board in pro bono workthe equivalent of roughly 35 days of effort. Kodak confirmed, at a meeting with the Review Board in August of 1997, that Zavada, a retired Kodak film chemist who was formerly Kodak’s pre-eminent 8 mm film expert, was the consultant that Kodak had hired to: (1) attempt to write a “primer” explaining the optical and mechanical operating characteristics of Abraham Zapruder’s 8 mm Bell and Howell home movie camera; (2) explain the relationship, if any, between the camera’s operating characteristics and perceived “anomalies” in the original film; and (3) answer questions about the provenance of the original film and the first generation copies. (“Provenance” issues that Mr. Zavada took on included studying the chain-of-custody documents executed in November 1963 by Abraham Zapruder; conducting interviews of surviving personnel involved in the development of the original film, and the exposure and developing of the three first generation copies; and studying manufacturer’s edge print, processing lab edge print, and the physical characteristics of the optical printer believed to have been used to create the three first generation copies on November 22, 1963.)

    In September 1997, Toner and Zavada visited Washington and, in addition to studying selected autopsy film and x-ray images at NARA, they also studied perceived anomalies in the inter-sprocket areas of the original Zapruder film, and the emulsion characteristics and edge print characteristics of what NARA presumed to be the camera-original Zapruder film and the two Secret Service first generation copies. (See the 3 illustrations on page 121 [omitted here].) Following this visit, Zavada began writing his extensive report on Zapruder film issues, which expanded in scope as his research into camera optics and printer characteristics continued. This report was scheduled for completion by Kodak no later than September 30, 1998; six copies were scheduled for deposit at NARA in the JFK Collection.

    Kodak ultimately spent approximately $53,000 on work related to the digitization and enhancement of the President’s autopsy images, and approximately $11,000 on work related to Zapruder film issues, significantly exceeding its original estimate of donated labor and materials. The Review Board gratefully acknowledges the public service provided to the American people by the Eastman Kodak Company.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part09.htm
    \\][//

  45. The Review Board Staff’s Study and Clarification of Paul Hoch’s FOIA Lead “CIA Document 450”

    The Review Board staff located and interviewed two former employees of the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) and questioned them about “CIA Document 450,” a 1970s Freedom Of Information Act release original document undated that indicates NPIC had a version of the Zapruder film, made “internegatives” and “copies,” conducted a “print test,” and performed a shot-and-timing analysis based on interpretation of the film’s content.

    Both individuals indicated that the internegatives made were of single frames only, and the prints made (from these same internegatives) were of single frames only for briefing boards and that they never reproduced (or altered) the film as a motion picture. They identified portions of the document related to this activity magnification and reproduction of small motion picture frames as prints. To this extent, the document has been demystified. However, other questions, such as who conducted the shot-and-timing analysis, and who assembled the briefing boards, remain unanswered.
    \\][//

  46. March 1975, Geraldo Rivera welcomed assassination researchers Robert Groden and Dick Gregory onto the ABC late-night television show Good Night America, to present what they called, accurately, “the first-ever network television showing of the Zapruder home movie.”


    \\][//

    • Life released a statement saying that four frames of the camera original, 208–211, had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963.
      These frames coincide with the time the limo is just going behind the sign at 208, and 211 is just before the limo is seen again. So not much can be extrapolated as to what could have been missed at this point.
      \\][//

  47. “First, they are “bracketed” exposures: one is too dark, one is just right, and one is a bit light. And yet the lab technician who first answered Rollie Zavada’s question in 1997/98 stated that the Jamieson lab had NOT, repeat NOT bracketed the 3 contact prints when they were exposed. The Jamieson lab used the same light pack for all three contact prints. (The ARRB’s Kodak consultant Rollie Zavada, who exhibits a bias in favor of authenticity, later jawboned Bruce Jamieson, a-la Arlen Specter, and got Jamieson to agree to a leading speculative question that the 3 contact prints “may” have been bracketed after all. But the first answer Zavada got when he posed the question was: “we did not bracket the 3 exposures.”~Doug Horne
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/doug-horne-zooms-in-on-the-zapruder-film/

    This is outrageous and scandalous to liken Zavada to Arlen Specter.

    Horne makes these disparaging characterizations here without offering the context or the actual dialog between Zavada and Jamieson.
    Horne says that Zavada “exhibits a bias in favor of authenticity,” which is simply a subjective assessment by Horne, who himself exhibits equally a bias in favor of alteration.

    Further Horne’s likening of Zavada to a perceived villain Arlen Specter, is a psychological ploy to plant a seed of distrust in the mind of the reader.
    Horne has a big problem with Zavada, as well as Raymond Fielding, in that he cannot successfully dispute their technical arguments against the Alterationist position. So his only option is to attack the character of his opponents.

    I would point out that Horne uses psychological manipulation quite boldly, quite often, if you are aware of such techniques of interrogation. In his video interview with Brugioni, we find such emotional prompts as (to paraphrase)”how did it feel to be treated this way by people you had known for so long?”; this is a psychological cue to the subject under interrogation, one with two goals, to feign pity suggestively, and to disturb the emotional stability of the subject and gain his trust.

    These techniques are part of modern interrogation tactics drawn from the science of Neurolinguistics, that are predated by natural born intuitive hucksters such as tent revival preachers, faith healers, and snake-oil salesmen of the past.
    Also see: http://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zavada/zstudy3b.pdf
    \\][//

  48. The sprocket of the camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

    Does everyone grasp this? In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

    Furthermore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would therefore not realize that they had to then somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice. This makes the entire process much more complex than what Horne is attempting to present here.
    \\][//

  49. THE FETZER – HORNE PSYOP

    Fetzer Claims these two have viewed the images of Horne’s ‘Hollywood Group”:

    Ned Price – Vice President of Mastering at Warner Bros. in Burbank.
    Paul Rutan Jr. – Visual Effects | Miscellaneous Crew :http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751876/
    _________________________________
    I am getting the sense that this image that they have blown up digitally does in fact have evidence of alteration. If this is so, I would propose that such alteration was done after the 35 mm frame was purchased by Wilkerson. That is that the image has been altered after the fact by those who are in possession of this particular image. I think that the subterfuge is recent, and that this is not an artifact from the original Zapruder film footage.
    To prove such, another party or group should acquire the another copy of this image from the same source that Wilkerson got her’s, and repeat the enlargement process to test whether the “matte” is on the original frame or the product of tampering with the evidence by the Fetzer-Horne cabal.

    Experiments such as this should be repeatable. If a second test isn’t done, too much trust is being put on a single source. I have had enough experience dealing with Fetzer to conclude that he is a government mole inserted into the truth communities of both the 9/11 and JFK cases. In both of these cases Fetzer has been at the forefront of attempts to extinguish the most crucial visual evidence of each.

    Fetzer is a proven charlatan. This has been shown to be the case over and again. Anything he is involved in is suspect.
    \\][//

  50. The Commission’s conclusion that Oswald had fired at Walker was based on:

    1. an undated note which made no mention of the Walker attempt

    2. photographs of Walker’s home allegedly found among Oswald’s possessions

    3. the testimony of ballistic experts who could not identify the recovered bullet as having come from the Depository rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons and

    4. the testimony of Marina Oswald who admitted that she repeatedly lied to the FBI.

    walker bullet
    Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK

    The following FBI memo discusses a March 1964 meeting between Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff and FBI spectrographic experts Henry Heiberger and John Gallagher. One of the topics of their discussion was the results of the FBI’s spectrographic tests comparing the Walker bullet and the bullet fragments found in the President’s limousine.

    Heiberger was the one who conducted the tests.
    His conclusion was that “the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot.”

    http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/bullet.htm
    See discussion with Jean:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/uncategorized/if-oswald-shot-jfk-heres-when-he-decided-to-do-it/#comment-687127
    \\][//

    • DEPOSITION OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER
      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1977
      HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
      SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS,
      Washington, D.C.
      ———————————————-
      …/…
      Q. This camera, do you recall whether to take pictures with this camera, you would look down into the viewfinder or
      whether you would hold the camera up to your eye and look straight ahead?
      A. I just recall I think it is straight.
      Q. You would put the camera up by your eye?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Do you remember what color the camera was?
      A. I think it was black.
      Q. Do you remember anything else about it?
      A. Not the name; no. But again, since I am not expert with the camera, that is what I remember, I think?
      …/…

      Below are three details of the actual camera:
      Oswald camera

      – The color of Oswald Imperial camera was silver, this was a unusual color for a box camera in the 60’s.
      – The large red knob, is used to the advance the film.
      – The viewfinder at the top of the camera (under the hood) displays a inverted ‘horizontal’ image.
      http://www.copweb.be/Imperial_Camera.htm
      \\][//

      • A photography expert with the FBI was able to determine that this picture (Gen Walker’s home) was taken with the Imperial Reflex camera owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. (See app. X, p. 596.)

        To the exclusion of any other Imperial Reflex camera?
        \\][//

  51. Lifton is a pig off his leash:

    “When testifying before the ARRB, Humes was asked: when did you first see the body? His answer: 6: 45 pm.”~Lifton

    Here’s the exact quote, from the ARRB transcript:

    Q: Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?:

    A: I didn’t look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o’clock, something like that, (pause) approximately.

    So Lifton claims that his answer was, ” 6: 45 pm.” This is a scurrilous assertion; Humes states clearly that he did not look at his watch, he did NOT know the time, he could only guess. But Lifton, as in much of his argumentation adds a certainty where there is none.
    _________________
    Martin Hay responds to Lifton in this exchange:

    “No amount of huffing and puffing will change the FACT that Roger Boyajian’s report does NOT say that the casket he and his men picked up contained the body of President Kennedy. Nor the FACT that he did NOT recall the arrival of Kennedy’s casket.

    Nor the FACT that Dennis David had no personal knowledge of who was in the grey casket he thought arrived at approximately 6:45 pm.

    Nor the FACT that Paul O’Connor said that he helped lift Kennedy’s body out of a casket that he said arrived at 8:00 pm.

    Nor the FACT that Donald Rebenstich, Robert Muma, and Paul Neigler all said that two caskets were employed as a security measure.

    Those are the FACTS that no objections, regardless of how needlessly verbose they are, can change. Those of us who care about the truth and are not committed to untenable theories will accept them. Others will warp, twist, and spin those FACTS in order to make them fit their preconceived conclusions. They are not to be taken seriously.”

    https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11761-The-Head-Wounds-Revisited/page6#.VMTO9dXF9pk
    \\][//

    • Lifton writes: Martin, the “facts” you prefer are filtered through a prism of intense personal animus towards me and my work, and it is you who are doing the “huffing and puffing”

      Filtered “through an intense personal animus” by whom? Certainly not by me. I feel absolutely nothing about you one way or the other – hence the reason why, when you sent me a personal message simply to insult me after I quit the Ed forum, I felt no compulsion to respond. Your daft theories, however, have done damage to to the truth, helped undo much of the good work done by early critics of the Warren Commission, and made it easy for critics of the official story to be lumped in with moon hoaxers and holocaust deniers. So I will continue to show how factually corrupt your work is, and how little basis your ludicrous hypotheses have in fact, in order to help set the record straight.

      Lifton writes: “Roger Boyajian’s security detail was requested to report to the morgue to handle the arrival of JFK’s body. So who’s coffin are you attempting to imply was delivered to Bethesda at 6:35 PM EST, and which was the subject of his report—that of Mickey Mouse?”

      I’m not implying anything, I’m merely stating the facts. You may have trouble separating theory from fact but I don’t. Boyajian’s report does NOT say that the casket he and his men picked up contained the body of President Kennedy. And he did NOT recall the arrival of Kennedy’s casket. Those are the FACTS. Additionally, as Jim DiEugenio correctly pointed out, “Bethesda is also a morgue. It did not stop being so just because Kennedy was being transported there that day. Other military men died that day”

      Lifton writes: “Dennis David repeatedly said to me that the coffin arrived “a good 20 minutes” before the naval ambulance –so that is 6:35 PM (not 6:45 PM, Martin. Do the math, Martin. It will be good mental exercise: 6:55 PM – 20 minutes = 6:35 PM.”

      From ARRB MD177, Call Report Summarizing 2/14/97 Telephonic Interview of Dennis David: “He then got his own duty sailors together, borrowed some more from the dental school, and assembled them outside the morgue at the loading dock by about 6:40 P.M. Five or six minutes later, at about 6:45, he said a black hearse drove up to the loading dock…the Navy sailors (approximately 7 or 8 people) working for him offloaded the casket which was in the hearse. He said it was a simple, gray shipping casket such as he frequently saw used later during the Vietnam war.” Your problem is with David, not with me.

      Lifton writes: “Paul O’Connor lifted a body out of the shipping casket that arrived at 6:35 PM. That’s the preponderance of the evidence.”

      According to you, NOT according to Paul O’Connor. Which one of you was there? And, of course, when you say “preponderance of the evidence” you mean Dennis David’s story which, given that he had no personal knowledge of who was in the casket he saw, is not all that weighty and doesn’t offer much support for your erroneous claim that Kennedy’s body arrived when you wish it did.

      Lifton writes: “Yes, Martin—the word “security measure”was in fact used.”

      No need for further comment.~Martin Hay
      \\][//

  52. In early 1977, Burkley’s attorney, William F. Illig, contacted HSCA counsel Richard A. Sprague. Sprague’s needlessly suppressed memo recounts that Burkley wanted to get some information to the Select Committee. Namely, as Sprague put it, that “although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.”[378] Given Burkley’s central vantage point, this was a hot investigative prospect if there ever was one. The staff of the HSCA wasn’t interested. But it did more than just ignore the lead. It shielded its own forensic consultants from the existence of this contact.

    January 1978, two HSCA counsels, D. Andy Purdy and Mark Flanagan, contacted Burkley. Their purpose was to extract an affidavit saying that that no one could have intercepted JFK’s body before it got to the morgue, and that JFK’s wounds had not been altered between Dallas and the post mortem.[379] Dutifully, Burkley wrote up an affidavit, declaring that, “[he, Burkley, had remained] in the ambulance with the President’s body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way.” And also that, “There was no difference in the nature of the wounds” seen in Dallas compared to those seen in the morgue.[380]

    – And this affidavit from Burkley sinks the Lifton/Horne ship – case closed –

    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

  53. “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”.
    — April 27, 1964 memo from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin.

    . . . . .

    Norman Redlich certainly knew he need not remind Rankin of the agenda that Rankin was party to establishing. So this memo is a key that Redlich put into the record as to the true agenda of the Warren Commission. Deconstructing this sentence in context of the history of Relitch’s participation in this burlesque, we see that shortly after he was brought in he was relentlessly attacked by the rabid conservative members of government and he press. He was vilified as a closet Communist, and traitor, and all manner of defamation and slurs. His arm was twisted tight to back out or play ball.

    Speaking metaphorically, this one little morsel, this memo to Rankin, is bread of a sermon on the mound. Redlich lays the truth bare before our eyes, if we dare choose to look and see it.
    \\][//

    • In deconstruction, the text written consciously is analyzed for subconscious assumptions that drive such text. What this does is add a new dimension to the overall context, filling it with light from another angle.
      New light casts new shadows at new angles.
      The new angle cast by these shadows, are the shadows haunting Redlich, trauma from his abuse at the hands of those he surely saw as villains seeking to hide the truth. So this message is put by intent, either consciously or subconsciously/subliminally:

      “Our intention is__ merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”. This is the clear unambiguous message. The qualifier: “not to establish the point with complete accuracy,” does not change, but reinforces on a single issue the main message in the sentence.
      \\][//

      • Deconstruction is not some mystical voodoo, or a “reading tea leaves”. Let this simple example suffice:

        A speaker pronounces, “If we don’t recognize the Red Menace we face, it will roll over us like a red riptide and leave us slaves on our knees to foreign tyrants!”

        The assumptions driving this statement are, first of all steeped in hysterical fear. The speaker also is convinced that Communism has the power to crush his world. So his message is fear-mongering, intimating warmongering as the solution. The assumptions are what define “subtext” in the art of deconstruction. The subtext in this example is as blatant as that in the subtext of Redlich’s quote.

        Of course not all deconstruction is so simple as this. Many assumptions are drawn quite subtly in the open text.
        Therefore a careful reading of such text must be done as a whole. Often there are found to be internal contradictions that lie in the subtext that are not readily apparent in the open text. These telltale signs of cognitive dissonance can be gleaned and described with ample attention to the details involved.
        \\][//

    • “He did not confess. He denied everything. [But] the surprising, the incredible, what increases the suspicion that the entire world has, is that barely 36 or 48 hours later, in the basement of a jail surrounded by police agents, he was murdered. This shows that the ones responsible for Kennedy’s death needed — they were compelled at all costs — to eliminate the accused.”~Fidel Castro
      \\][//

  54. I do not see the rationality of faulting circumstantial evidence in cases where the hard evidence is classified. That exculpatory evidence was to be withheld by the Warren Commission is not in anyway circumstantial in itself. The January 22, Executive Session makes this absolutely clear to any honest analysis of it. The fact that this session was brought to the table was a panic in the house due to the possibility that Oswald had been identified as a government agent. This would of course complicate the whole issue of Oswald as the lone gunman.
    Add to these points that the commissioners classified the minutes of this session, and the only reason it finally surfaced was because the clerk taking the minutes kept a copy which finally surfaced.

    It is my opinion that all of this added together is very strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald was in fact a government agent attempting to infiltrate the Cuban-Intelligence nexus, and was then kept aboard the with the conspirators who then used Oswald as the patsy that he always claimed to be.
    \\][//

  55. “Community Rights” defined properly is simply Individual Rights shared on equal basis with all within a community. The “Collective” of that community has no more authority over individual rights than any single individual would. However Collectivists of all stripes have asserted a higher value to the collected whole of people which they argue should give that whole authority beyond the aspect of an individual’s rights. They add to this claim that there is a collective right to impinge on individual rights for the benefit of the many.

    And here is the step onto the slippery slope that will by “necessity” lead to a monopoly of force held by not the whole of the people, but by ‘representatives’ of the whole, who are charged with faithfully executing the consensus will of the whole of the peoples. Now at this juncture in the assertions of this combined authority where the techniques of “governance” come into play in a nonsensical way. It is nonsense in that it insists on a degree of ‘trust’ in the integrity of those who have assumed this authority. ‘Trust’ is another word for “faith’, and faith is at its core a belief beyond rational reason.

    Faith is in its nature a matter of emotion and intuition, not empirical rationality. Therefore, all the wiles and human foibles come to play, a critical one being ‘charisma’, which becomes defined as a “leadership quality” regardless of the actual-known intents and motives of this ‘charismatic leader’. And the term “Confidence Man” is well known and defined sufficiently, but due to the emotional attraction of those to the con man, these well known attributes are ignored, because emotion side-steps reason.

    At this point we have slid all the way down that slippery slope and are mired in the quicksand in a deep abyss. The system erected by the smartest crooks has become an ironclad structure, a Panoptic Maximum Security State with the agenda of “Full Spectrum Dominance”, just a euphemism for totalitarian tyranny.

    And all of this stems from the very first mistake in the sequence this article begins with; the assertion and acceptance of the Collectivist argument that community has more authority over individual rights than any single individual could. Put plainly, giving up Individual Liberty for the good of the Collective.

    This medium we are caught in, this ‘quicksand’, can be defined and characterized with specific exactitude, beginning with an understanding of ‘Public Relations’, as defined by the person who coined the term, Edward Bernays. Once a fundamental grasp of what Bernays describes, as a prescription for a secret government, one is then compelled by self interest to look further and discover the techniques that Bernays and the regime he set in motion use, and how individual will is subsumed in mass by perception manipulation, indoctrination, and regimentation.

    When one realizes how thorough and efficient this System has become at this late date, the problem can seem insurmountable. But it must be borne in mind that the problem is the Collective, therefore the solution must be Individual. Each is responsible for their own choice to submit, or rebel, and to balance the two responses in a strategic and wise manner.

    The only advice therefore submitted here is to understand the breadth of your inherent rights to Liberty, by virtue of your birth as a human being.
    \\][//

    • UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

      The central core of this situation is the fact that Authority does not Grant rights, it is exactly the opposite; Rights grant authority. This is the primary principle that grounds the concept of Liberty.

      One cannot take away what one did not give in the first place, except to steal it.

      Unalienable Rights are immutable and can not be bartered, sold, nor acquiesced. Ignorance of this core truth is no excuse. It is malum in si to act in pretense that an unalienable right can be laid at the foot of the State. It matters not what majority might pretend to such an act, it is illicit nonetheless.

      A “balancing” of personal rights to “Community Rights”, is a spurious conceptualization as I remarked upon earlier. One cannot “balance” rights that are identical but for the numbers of those holding such rights.
      To disparage a single individual’s rights for a collective of individuals, in fact disparages that right for every individual in the collective. There is at once a gross and retail loss for every individual, so it is the profit that is in real terms which is only “in their minds”

      The only real profit goes to the so-called “Community Organizers” and that profit manifests as authoritarian political power.
      \\][//

      • I will point out that I am not speaking to “profit” as monetary above, I am speaking to a profit in the aspect of political power. It should however be noted that a gain in political power translates automatically in a gain of monetary power. Collectivist have no idea of the wealth they could maintain if there were not this System coercing the majority of the population.

        I apologize to those who can follow me, but I am compelled to remind yet again that a proper definition of “a collective”, is expressly meant to be the collection of individuals in such a group. I feel the need to keep reiterating this central point as it seems that so many do not have the ability to follow a travelling thought.
        \\][//

  56. Socialized, yes. Socialism, no. You stand corrected.~Sam
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-are-people-talking-about-when-they-say-the-deep-state/#comment-712447

    Socialized – Socialization – Socialism; A Process:

    In the theoretical work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, socialization has a slightly different meaning, where it refers to the transformation of an economic activity from a solitary to a social relationship. Socialization is a process that begins to take place under capitalism and is a hallmark of the capitalist mode of production in the form of socialization of production by transforming the process of producing goods and services into a highly collective and mechanized process. This occurs due to centralization of capital in industries where there are increasing returns to scale. In Marxist theory, a contradiction develops between the socialized production and the private ownership and appropriation of the surplus value and profits, leading to a situation where the expansion of socialization to include surplus value in the form of cooperative ownership over the means of production. This expansion of socialization marks the transition from capitalism to socialism.
    \\][//

    • Sam, you have already reached stage one in this process towards a socialist state. As you have already surrendered the principles of personal liberty; as this process continues you will obviously go with the flow, accepting the ever dwindling bounty the state affords you.

      I already consider the US a socialist state, a corporatist, ie, fascist state. Here the bounty proffered by the state has has become so pitiful that there is growing homelessness, hunger, and an exponentially blooming prison population, both state run and corporation run institutions.

      You surely can see this now, yet you still believe the poison that weakened society is needed in larger doses to finally realize health!
      WTF?
      \\][//

  57. Mary Moorman says she is pretty sure she stepped back onto the curb. So she was NOT in the street. And the Z-film shows she had stepped back far enough to be on the grass just before the curb.
    And she says the limo slowed down “almost to a stop”.

    Those claiming that she was in the street have her testimony that she stepped back. They have the visual evidence in the Z-film that she had stepped back far enough that she is actually on the grass just in front of the curb. What the fuck more do they want???
    \\][//

  58. Bob Prudhomme – February 28, 2015 at 3:32 pm
    “I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. In Jan. 1964, the FBI presented a report, designated WCD 298, in which they placed the head shot 42 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 location. Does no one have a problem with this?”
    . . . . .

    Willy Whitten – February 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm
    Bob, I am not the one taking the FBI measurements as fact that can be held as true – you are. They are counting distances from the book depository building, which have nothing to do with the reality of where the shots that hit Kennedy came from.

    The FBI isn’t seeing “another version of the Z-film”, they are making the story fit the official narrative.
    Again Z-313 is long before the front of the limo reached the steps on the knoll. As I point out Hill had reached the car by then.
    \\][//
    _____________

    Clearly Bob is missing my central point here. That is that the FBI is making measurements from an imaginary position. The shots that Hit Kennedy in the throat and head came from the front. The shots from “the Snipers Nest” are the fantasy tale told by the Warren Commission. The shots came from the front. It is proven by ballistic analysis.
    So these distances cited by the FBI are simply made up using the limit of three shots for their “calculations”, it is simply bullshit propaganda.

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-marina-oswald-a-credible-witness/#comment-718997
    \\][//

  59. Published last November, Enemy of the Truth was received enthusiastically by the author’s contemporaries. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, praised, “As more information is extracted from official government files and new technology is utilized in analyzing the scientific aspects, Fiester’s fascinating, extensively researched book presents a powerful and cogent basis for repudiation of the official findings. A true literary dissection performed with a sharp analytical scalpel.”
    Further, Larry Hancock, author of Someone Would Have Talked, noted, “… no experienced law enforcement criminalist has stepped up to the challenge of re-examining the President’s murder with current day knowledge—until now. Anyone with even a passing interest in JFK’s murder needs to examine her [Fiester’s] analysis and conclusions.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/jfk-assassination-revisited-part-3-sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth

    “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”~John F Kennedy
    \\][//

  60. The vice grip on Photon’s labia is that the more he-she tries to make Sherry Fiester out a fraud; the more he-she proves him-herself a fraud.

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-marina-oswald-a-credible-witness/#comment-722496

    This ridiculous person deserves nothing but ridicule. Like I said in a comment (not posted yet *JFKfacts) Photon’s script is like something out of WE’RE ALL BOZO’S ON THIS BUS by the Fire-Sign Theater’s. It is a burlesque of slipshod, turgid, tepid rhetoric.
    \\][//

    • There is contention in every human endeavor. That this holds especially true in the field of ‘Inquiry’, we should not be surprised at arguments and counterarguments. What merits each side may have can only be judged by familiarity with the subject.

      Blood Splatter Analysis has its detractors some well informed but behind the newest developments , some who receive grants from the US government; for these the “disclaimer” that the views are those of the authors and do not represent the views of any other person or agency. Nevertheless the appearance is taken that such are in effect “government studies”.

      What is the impetus for such appearances being made? As with all issues concerning power, at the core is the agenda to centralize everything under one recognized authority. This centralization of authority translates as Political Power. As we know “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” .
      A centralized power of ‘Certification’ will be no less politically corrupted than in any field of human endeavor.

      As in all things we must educate ourselves on such topics. Only then do we have the knowledge to make pertinent commentary on such topics.

      Time allowing, I will be addressing one such study. I will point out the error of the assumptions driving the authors’ hypothesis. Mentioning this for the moment; Human nature is selectively cited on the side of their hypothesis. The glaring omission is that of general mediocrity when compared in their ‘statistical analysis’ of ‘blood splatter experts’. Also introduced into this study should have been a “control group” study, of levels of skill sets in all matters of human endeavors. Such studies are available
      \\][//

  61. Photon has a transparent trajectory to his commentary on the blog. He makes assertions, he is asked for sources of such. Then the next comeback is a rationalization of why a source cannot be found, and ludicrously enough, this rationalization is accompanied by the assertion that it is not his place to do our research.

    On the issue of Sherry Fiester, Photon’s first assault was that she wasn’t credentialed. When proven that she is indeed credentialed certified and holds a position demanding such expertise. After avoiding the fact that this is indeed the case, he claims that those who grasp her contribution have not said so, that in fact one of them, Dr. Wecht said he disagreed. Again no citation, but rather some more spurious scrabble babble.

    Then Photon’s next gambit is to parade some government , MSM approved Pathologist as a counterweight to Fiester. Fiester is a crime scene analyst, an interface with forensic pathology, and these two fields work best when they compliment each others efforts, and speak the same technical language.
    There is contention in every field of inquiry. It is naïve to suppose that political authority does not come into play on these issues as it does in every human issue.

    But then the last ploy we get from Photon is that the field of “Blood Spatter Analysis” is determined to be unreliable. This is another mere rationalization. As spoken to above, all methods of inquiry are in contention, it is a ubiquitous situation.

    One more time; it is essential to have adequate knowledge to choose for yourself which side is correct in these debates between ‘experts’.
    \\][//

    • I don’t buy Photon’s assertions to expertise in medical, and forensic pathology. I think Photon has expertise as in accountant, and dabbles in everything else spoken to on this blog. I also think she is disingenuous, and plays in rhetorical stagecraft.
      In a single phrase, I don’t think Photon knows what she is talking about most of the time, but attempts to bluff her way through arguments. She is a transparent pretender; all the hallmarks of an amateur spook.
      \\][//

  62. ART & ARTIST by Otto Rank

    The Artist, much like the individual generally, is a cultural phenomenon. The individual’s Art must begin and be articulated as a historical genre. At the same time Artists often attempt to reach beyond genre, i.e. beyond their cultural condition

    Rank articulates the impossibility of escaping socio-cultural domination, epistemological doubt, and ontological terror, in our corporal form. Hence human beings escape into speculation into non-corporal form, via the process of creation, play, and the pleasure of the aesthetic as a latent promise of, or possibility for, immortality.
    http://www.ottorank.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Rank
    http://www.amazon.com/Art-Artist-Creative-Personality-Development/dp/0393305740
    \\][//

  63. Meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To the right of the President is General Curtis LeMay, commander of the U.S. Air Force. Convinced that nuclear war was inevitable, and the sooner the better, he had only contempt for what he perceived as Kennedy’s naïve and cowardly pacifism. For his part, Kennedy was repulsed by his readiness to kill a few hundred of millions of people in a few hours. “I don’t want that man near me again,” he would once say to his assistant Charles Daly after having listened to his argument for preemptive nuclear strikes.[v]
    http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/11/17/230147who-killed-kennedy-cia-lbj-or-the-truly-unspeakable/
    \\][//

  64. THE IMPOSSIBLE ONE DAY JOURNEY OF CE 399
    By Jim DiEugenio (with help by J. Edgar Hoover)

    “To say that the chain of evidence rule has been violated in this case is a monumental understatement. Former Chief of Homicide in New York, attorney Bob Tanenbaum once said that it would be embarrassing to present this material to a jury for the prosecution. For me, the most incriminating elements is the evidence that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the original bullet i.e. the call to Tomlinson, the fake Odum document, possibly the influence over Wright to leave it out of his affidavit, Specter avoiding Wright in the Commission inquiry.
    […]
    Within an hour after the assassination, Johnsen was given the bullet by Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright, after orderly Darrell Tomlinson found it by a stretcher. Like Johnsen and Rowley, neither Wright nor Tomlinson could identify the bullet.

    So from the beginning, with its reverse trajectory out of the thigh of Connally, to its incredible tunneling under a mat, to its leaping out of Ron Fuller’s stretcher and magically knowing it has to be on the governor’s, to its shocking ability to alter its form and color, and then to actually crack the time barrier and be in Frazier’s office before Todd gives it to him, the Impossible Journey of CE 399 is even more magical than anyone ever could imagine.

    What is truly incredible about the above demonstration is that I have left all the other arguments about the Magic Bullet out i.e. weight and trajectory etc. To me, in the face of the above, they are irrelevant. The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends this argument.

    Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc.-is irrelevant. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE 399 as we know it today, did not exist.”
    http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
    \\][//

  65. Willy Whitten
    April 15, 2015 at 12:41 pm
    There are many reasons that prove it is impossible to have altered the Zapruder film. Too many to even give a synopsis here, other than this:

    The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity

    The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.

    Quoting Zavada again:
    “The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
    response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
    In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
    daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
    5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
    1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
    spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
    response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination.”

    What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
    As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.
    …..
    For a detailed exposition on this matter see:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/#comment-747774

  66. http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/#comment-748527

    Willy Whitten
    April 17, 2015 at 12:55 am

    Antonio D’Antonio,

    As I pointed out above on April 15, 2015 at 12:41 pm:

    If the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
    As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.

    You obviously do not grasp what this means.

    You say, “With the technology available even in 1963, you would not have to re-film to make alterations. You could use the original film and make alterations that would not harm or change the original film, but that could produce a copy of it with the alterations being made with the equipment available at that time.”

    Do you not see that claiming, “you would not have to re-film to make alterations,” and ending with “produce a copy of it” is only possible by refilming the film you have altered?
    Further you cannot make alterations to the original film that will not harm or change it.

    It is most obvious to me that you have no idea of how special effects were produced in film in 1963. You are also obviously unaware of Rolland Zavada and Raymond Fielding’s rebuke of Douglas Horne’s assertions about the faking of the Zapruder Film.
    If you are unaware of who Fielding and Zavada are, and their standing in the field of film and special effects cinema, then you had better get to work and learn the facts of what you are attempting to address here.
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
    \\][//

    • It is really depressing to read the ignorant bullshit from people like Antonio D’Antonio, and Vanessa on this topic. They have been duped by this fraud Doug Horne and his band of charlatans led by James Fetzer, one of the worst liars on the Internet.

      “Remember, The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm KODACHROME II film, embeds itself with the limitation that it cannot be altered as perceived.”~Rollie Zavada – 26 May 2010
      http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
      \\][//

  67. “There are otherwise brilliant people, some with deep and comprehensive knowledge of filmmaking and editing, who truly believe that the original film was more than tampered with. I have only a single response: the very rich tapestry of acoustic, visual and corroborative eyewitness and earwitness testimony, all synchronized to hundredths of a second in this study, makes the possibility of fraud or criminality connected to the Zapruder film a virtual impossibility.”~Dr. Randolph Robertson
    http://jfkproject.org/faqs/

    This is the same conclusion came to by both Rolland Zavada, and Raymond Fielding the premier experts on film stock, movie making machinery (Zavada), and special effects cinematography (Fielding).
    http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
    \\][//

  68. These quotes are right from JFK Horsemen itself;

    Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

    Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

    Garrison trial:
    Oser: “what did the limousine do then?” (after the head-shot)
    Simmons: “It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.”

    Ellis: “Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped”
    _____________________________________
    1. Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
    Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was heresay – he was only
    quoting what was told to him by Chaney. It is wrong to cite both as
    independent witnesses to bolster any argument.

    2. Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
    Please tell me where, in your copy of the Warren Commission, you find
    Chaney’s testimony. (Try looking at Mantik’s cite of “3H221″ for Chaney.)

    If a mere mistake on Mantik’s part, where’s the apology and Errata?

    If Mantik, though, is relying on subordinates for research and then
    claiming authorship without verifying facts, we have a larger problem.

    3. See if you truly believe Mantik’s use of Officer Brown’s WC
    testimony is a fair representation. Don’t use the “had to cut it short
    due to space constraints” argument. Sure, Brown used the word,
    “stopped,” in describing the limo. But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
    us is his “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:

    Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
    After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.

    Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?

    Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.

    Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?

    Brown: Yes; slowed down.
    . . . . . .
    4. Mantik gives us the impression that Palamara claimed at least 48
    witnesses stated that the limo “stopped” right before the fatal head
    shot(s).

    Please read Palamara’s article for yourself, and expecially his
    opening remarks regarding his research, to see how Mantik
    misrepresented Palamara’s work.

    Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara’s work, and comes up with 14
    witnesses who stated “stopped” and 19 who stated
    “slowed down”.
    http://www.jfk-info.com/mantik-1.htm
    \\][//

  69. The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has NO evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.”~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

    http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf

    The hoaxers are: Lifton, Horne, Healy, Costella, Jack White, Larry Rivera (who posts on JFKacts) and Fetzer…to name just a few.

    \\][//

  70. Rolland Zavada in rebuttal to Douglas Horne:

    “The reader of this dissertation is cautioned to consider the
    complex characteristics of typical special effects cinematography.
    Simply stated, to achieve special optical effects, it is necessary to
    begin with a “family of film types”. Kodak designed camera original color
    films to work compatibly with laboratory intermediate films and print films
    as spectral dye “sets”. !Professional camera negative films were never
    viewed directly and their transmission spectrum matched the spectral
    sensitivity of intermediate (and print) films and the transmission dye set
    of the intermediate films matched the spectral sensitivity of the final
    print films. The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
    response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
    In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
    daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
    5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
    1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
    spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
    response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. !The film
    was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the
    spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
    A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple
    copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the
    film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not
    render it receptive for use as a “print” medium – hence, one “hell-of-a”
    problem for someone trying to replicate a Kodachrome original (Note: the
    goal now being to create a “Kodachrome original”) by using special
    optical effects!
    The goal to create a “Kodachrome original provides further
    insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are
    designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way
    that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author
    wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced
    technology and film resources were able: to create a “Kodachrome
    original” that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination
    and evaluation by multiple researchers. The “evidence” offered are scene
    content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.”
    http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
    _________________________________________________________________________
    ANYONE who is even slightly lucid should be able to grasp what Zavada is saying here. You don’t have to be an expert, he explains it very simply: You cannot fake a Kodachrome II daylight film using artificial light, and that is what ANY projector uses. That is the end of the story.
    \\][//

  71. Finding exactly which way Kennedy’s head was facing and what the tilt was compared to the angle shot by Zapruder’s camera, specifying his height on the pedistal and the optics of the Bell and Howell camera as shown by Zavada’s exposition:

    Photogrammetry uses methods from many disciplines, including optics and projective geometry. The data model on the right shows what type of information can go into and come out of photogrammetric methods.

    The 3-D co-ordinates define the locations of object points in the 3-D space. The image co-ordinates define the locations of the object points’ images on the film or an electronic imaging device. The exterior orientation of a camera defines its location in space and its view direction. The inner orientationdefines the geometric parameters of the imaging process. This is primarily the focal length of the lens, but can also include the description of lens distortions. Further additional observations play an important role: With scale bars, basically a known distance of two points in space, or known fix points, the connection to the basic measuring units is created.

    Each of the four main variables can be an input or an output of a photogrammetric method.

    Photogrammetry has been defined by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) as the art, science, and technology of obtaining reliable information about physical objects and the environment through processes of recording, measuring and interpreting photographic images and patterns of recorded radiant electromagnetic energy and other phenomena.
    \\][//

  72. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm
    “Doug Horne huh? Thank you for your suggestion, will study it.”~Pedro Malafaya Baptista

    Yes indeed do that Pedro, that is if you wish to reinforce your bias. I always find it beneficial to understand both sides of a debate.
    But if you prefer to hand wave Zavada, and embrace Horne; by all means it is your own cognition to deal with as your will.
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/#comment-757524
    \\][//

  73. Willy Whitten May 7, 2015 at 12:36 pm
    “..you seem intelligent enough to know that “experts” have varied opinions on just about everything.” ~Robert Paul

    Yes indeed, and some are correct while others are mistaken. In determining which is which, it is not a matter of “belief” it is a matter of actual knowledge of the processes themselves.
    . . . .
    ” just about anything can be done with film, especially when in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center.” ~Robert Paul

    This is hyperbole, there are limits to anything. These limits are clearly laid out by both Zavada and Raymond fielding. These are physical realities as true as you cannot breath water.
    . . . .
    “It’s a FACT that the Z film was in that Center within 24 hours after November 22, 1963.”~Robert Paul

    It is not a FACT, that the original extant (in camera) film was delivered to the center. It is an assertion made by Doug Horne, and is disputed by many others.
    It is much more plausible that the first day copies of the Z-film, known to be in possession of the Secret Service are the ones that were at the NPIC to be used for making the briefing boards.

    All of this being said Mr Paul, you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion. I will just say that in my opinion you have been grossly misinformed.
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-757956
    \\][//

    • Willy Whitten
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      May 8, 2015 at 10:50 am
      “Why was the Z film (original or otherwise) flown to the NPCI? What was the reason for that? Was it simply to make briefing boards?”~Robert Paul

      Yes, and no one from either team claimed to have made a movie – but only copied still frames to use for the briefing boards.
      . . . .
      “Was the NPCI Director mistaken when he said that he and others worked all night with the original Z film?”~Ibid

      In my opinion, yes. I see no reason for them to even consider whether the film was the original or not, they had a job to perform and worked with the materials they were brought.
      Remember no one was asked about any of this until years later – no controversy at the time, why would they be concerned with such details?
      . . . .
      “He also said that the same film was then taken from his team by the SS. Where did it go from there? Do we know?”~Ibid

      They were the SS copies, that they took them back seems natural enough. I can only assume they went into SS evidence lockers.
      . . . .
      “With all due respect for Mr. Zavada, I doubt that he would be privy to, or familiar with, the high level of film resources the CIA had its disposal.”

      With all due respect for you and all concerned, I don’t think you or anyone can define what “level of film resources the CIA had its disposal,” and whether it is accurate that, as you claim “the science and methodology of film alteration pale in comparison.”
      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-758360
      \\][//

      • Horne claims that the Z-film was altered at Hawkeyworks, not at the National Photographic Interpretation Center. If this is so, how is it that Brugioni saw “the original Z-film” that was different than what we see today? Horne claims that the films went to Hawkeyworks first. Horne does not infer or charge Brugioni or the Sunday team at NPIC were involved with the “alterations” – so neither team would have ever seen what we are told was an unaltered copy of the Z-film.

        Doesn’t the reasoning here breakdown rather blatantly?
        . . . .
        Horne centers his case of alteration on Brugioni’s claim that he saw a different more drastic “explosion” of Kennedy’s head in the film he remembers working with, than what he sees today. Keep in mind Brugioni is talking about something he did more than 34 years before here!
        \\][//

      • As far as what I said about Brugioni; it is important to understand how much Horne hangs his hat on the fact that Brugioni claims that the film he had shows the head hit to Kennedy was much more dramatic and explosive. But according to Horne Brugioni received the film he worked with AFTER it had been altered at Hawkeyeworks. So the film Brugioni is describing as seeing is supposedly the one already altered! This is oxymoronic, if the altered film had changed the head-shot, and that is what Brugioni sees as >different from “the original” that he worked with< when the film he worked with was ALREADY ALTERED, we have a complete circle of nonsense.
        Is this much clear?

        Brugioni does not say he saw the limousine come to a complete stop, or any of the other claims Horne is now saying. All Brugioni remembered was how dramatic he thought the head shot looked. Add to this he is speaking to a 34 year old memory, and I think the theory is on very thin ice, just on those grounds.

        34 years later and Brugioni "thinks" he would have noticed if the film was first generation or not.

        34 years before the technical reasons for the ghost frames was discovered by Zavada – meaning the forgers would not have known that the ghost image was of the frame directly prior to the next bleeding through. So they would not have known the importance of redoing the ghost images in the shots where the frames were removed. PLUS the added special effects problem that would have entailed as far as compositing films doing this added work…

        Each of these compounding issues culminates in the final insurmountable problem of producing a final dupe copy on Kodachrome II, as I have explained over and again.
        \\][//

  74. R.M.
    October 30, 2014 at 5:57 pm
    Starting in 1970 I worked for 25 years photographing animated special effects for motion pictures and television and I am extremely curious as to who the mysterious “experts” are who are studying the Zapruder film. It would be interesting if Doug Horne would direct us their list of film credits on the IMDB.
    I’ve been following the discussion for the past four years and I still
    have heard no details about who they are or what kind of techniques they are familiar with.
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/#comment-599775
    \\][//

  75. COPY A4 Updated 02/18/10

    ARRB Interview with NPIC Employee Homer McMahon

    Hearing Date July 14, 1997
    Interviewed by Douglas P. Horne Chief of Military Records of ARRB
    Total Time 1:41:19
    DH = Douglas Horne
    HM = Homer McMahon
    JG = Jeremy Gunn
    MC = Michelle Combs

    ARRB Interview with Homer McMahon:
    http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/npic.html

    —————————————————————————————————————————
    HM: I think, I think I was told that to get the film from the individual, take it and get it processed, and come back, was a couple of days. I’m not sure. I’m not…I don’t really recall that.
    […]
    DH: So the color prints were the same size then as the inter negative?

    HM: I’m pretty sure we…

    DH: Contact? Without an enlarger?

    HM: …we contacted the 8 x 10 negatives that were exposed two up. And then they were cut apart and identified on the back, and I did not do that, the identification, I don’t think I did that, I might have.
    […]
    DH: By that you mean 40 times the original size?

    HM: 40 times the original half frame super double eight…or whatever it was,..
    […]
    DH: Do you recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been slit or unslit?

    HM: I think it was unslit…the reason I…said that, and we might have slit it, but before we used it, but they were – I thought they were told that they didn’t want to slit the film,…and I don’t, I don’t think we slit it, I think we used it unslit in a 16 mm projector…

    DH: That was going to be my next question, how did you project it? You think it was…

    HM: I think it was unslit…This was the original film. It had been – I think they ran dupes of it, but we actually worked from the – the acquisition material of the original film.

    DH: Is this something you observed yourself or something you were told by Mr. Smith? How do you come to the conclusion today that you had the original film?

    HM: Alright, I think it was a combination of everything you said, along with, ah, the quality of the film. Normally when you dupe it, you loose a lot of resolution and when we made them you could ah…Kodachrome is an additive process. It’s black and white film with filers that give you color separation negatives, and then you use…dyes…After you flash them and redevelop them selectively onto the original film, and it has a Yellow coupler, a Magenta coupler, and Cyan coupler that give you the three subtractive primary colors that give you the illusion of image and color and there was very little dye that changes,…it was excellent imagery, and I don’t know if that still exists or not, but I’m pretty sure that’s what I used.

    DH: Okay. One more follow up on the first part of the interview, and then we’ll move along. How certain are you that Mr. Smith said he went down to pick up the film from the person who took it and then took it to Rochester? Are you…

    HM: I know he took it to Rochester, and I’m not certain other than I think he said he got it from the original person himself, but I am not positive of that. I am positive that he said that he took it to Rochester, hand carried it, got it processed, and then they guided him back to us to do the…
    ______________________
    I simply cannot take any of McMahon’s testimony serious, “a Browny super 8mm camera”?

    Recall this is testimony taken more than 34 years later, and you can tell. McMahon “thinks he recalls..”:
    \\][//

    • “It’s quite clear from the ARRB testimony and the annotations (relating to Peter Janney’s discovery) that the CIA, perhaps with help from the Secret Service, produced a false version of the Z-film at its Hawkeye Works facility, the version that exists today; but even the false version could not fool the trained eye and intuitive mind of Homer McMahon.”~Jonathon
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
      Willy Whitten
      Your comment is awaiting moderation.
      May 9, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      Jonathon,
      Did you actually read the testimony of McMahon? Or are your going by Doug Horne’s characterization of it? …
      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-759037
      \\][//

      • “Homer McMahon vividly and independently recalled during his first interview that an unslit,“double 8” home movie film, 16 mm wide, was delivered to him at NPIC by “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service.” ~Douglas Horne*
        . . . .
        In light of the fact that Homer McMahon warned both Horne and Gunn that he suffered from senile dementia and he can’t remember really anything; this assertion by Horne that, McMahon “vividly and independently recalled” is one of the most preposterous statements I have ever seen in print.

        Horne’s statement above can be found here:
        http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
        And as far as the rest of this article, it is all conjecture presented as ‘fact’. It is rhetorical jabberwacky to assert that any of this is factual. It is conjecture based on 35 year old memories, and there isn’t a single item of proof in any of the article above. It is a story Horne himself made up.
        \\][//

    • More McMahon testimony, this time Jeremy Gun asks some questions:

      JG: Let me try a question?…You are acquainted with the Zapruder film, the film called the Zapruder film? Is this the Zapruder film or a different film?

      HM: I haven’t seen it for 35 years. Ah, I never heard Dalcruder at the time. I heard that much, much later.

      DH: Do you mean Dalcruder? Did you say Dalcruder?

      HM: He did. The man who took the most famous film was Abraham Zapruder.

      HM: Abraham Zapruder. I never heard that name, or if I did I don’t remember it.

      JG: But right now, you’re not certain whether the film you processed or that you were involved in working with was the Zapruder film…?

      HM: Well, I’m told it was the only coverage they had. That that was it. No one else photographed it. They said it was the only film, and I don’t know if it was or if it was the historic film.
      […]
      HM: I have senile dementia…I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.

      JG: With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?

      HM: I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)

      [pages 29 & 30]>>
      http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf
      ______________________________________________________________

      WTF? This is fucking lunacy, McMahon was a very confused old man in this interview.

      And this is the kind of bullshit Doug Horne is basing his case on. Unbelievable.
      \\][//

      • appears you may be a tad envious, eh?

        Are you a .john-ite, David VonPein adherent? Have you been commercially published regarding any subject matter re the JFK assassination? Blogs/website not withstanding.

        Please fill us in regarding your film “expertise” concerning evaluation of the Zapruder Film and possible alteration of same.

      • “appears you may be a tad envious, eh?”~Healy, David

        Don’t flatter yourself Healy, I have nothing to be envious of regarding you and your group of charlatan pals.

        Let us review some facts, beginning with this quote from Roland Zavada:

        “You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the
        presentation by David Healy “HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED” at Jim Fetzer’s
        May 2003 conference and Professor Fielding’s book The Technique of
        SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.
        In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he
        was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera
        and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the
        types of films used in post-production. Therefore David’s analysis appears
        to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were
        working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability
        environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm
        film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special
        optical effects changes.(pg 15)”
        [Roland Zavada Refutes Doug Horne Assertions – http://www.jfk-info….Z-DH-032010.pdf]

        Douglas Horne responded with this spurious lie:

        “Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology.”
        (Italics, are an outright lie by Horne)

        Now, quoting from pg. 18 of the Zavada – Fielding critique of Horne:

        “Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web
        interchange of information, I submitted his chapter “HOW THE FILM WAS
        EDITED” and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received
        comments that included:

        “You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I
        agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the
        conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and
        the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation
        of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the
        technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the
        footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived
        professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA
        footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in
        the document you sent me, are technically naïve.”
        . . . . .
        As per my views on the JFK assassination I have four presentations on this very blog, all of them very clearly put me firmly in the pro-conspiracy camp:

        > https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/the-warren-commission-cult/

        > https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/

        > https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/fifty-years-ago-today-coup-detat-in-the-usa/

        > This thead you are on right now if you would actually read it.

        And you might be particularly interested in this thread about your glorious leader Uncle Fetzer:

        > https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
        . . . . .

        Take special care Healy, I have been a professional special effects artist for most of my adult life. Do not trifle with me or try to blow your scurrilous smoke here.
        ~Willy Whitten \\][//

      • So Healy, do you want to try to defend this bullshit from this page by Costella?
        I will go through every nonsense assertion for the readership here.

        You can’t win Healy. For a host of reasons. The first being that you are simply wrong. The second being you do not understand critical thinking, but think you can bullshit your way through an argument. That may be true with the uninitiated. But not me Healy. I know your fucking game. You are a charlatan just like the rest of the assholes pushing this ‘Alterationist’ agenda.

        I have been dealing with conmen like you on the web for years, you’re an amateur in film, special effects and in argumentation. You’re a punk Healy. Give it a shot here, I’ll prove it to the whole world.
        http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/healy.html
        \\][//

      • Where is your IMDb page Healy? You claim to be a pro; what films and TV shows did you work on as a film editor? What shows did you do special effects on? Name one.
        \\][//

      • Healy, do yourself a favor, go over this information and try to digest it this time. Recognize that you are out of your league in your attempts to dispute Zavada and Fielding. Hanging your hat with the charlatans you have mixed yourself up with is your downfall.
        Or, you are yourself bluffing. Either way you’re a chump.

        http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
        \\][//

  76. ARRB staff interview Ben Hunter on June 17, 1997 – Summary – Doug Horne

    Mr. Hunter said he did participate in en NPIC event involving the Zapruder film in 1963, but cautioned
    at the beginning of the Interview that his memory of this event was “extremely fuzzy,’ and told us
    repeatedly that Mr. Homer McMahon’s memory was probably much better than his…
    […]
    He recalled that a ‘Captain Sands’ delivered the home movie of the assassination to him and Homer
    McMahon; he thought Sends (a person In civilan clothes whom was simply addressed as ‘Captain) was
    probably with the CIA Office of Security, or perhaps was the NPIC Head of Security, but could not be sure
    today. He said that another person may have bean present. or arrived with Sands, but could not
    remember much about that. Later in the Interview, when he was asked whether he remembered any
    Secret Service involvement. he said that our question did ring a bell with him, and that yes, he did believe
    there may have been a Secret Service employee present. He said that the others (Sands, the Ranson with
    Sands, and McMahon) were already present when he arrived. He said Sands remained ‘close by,’
    observing the work, while he and McMahon handled and worked with the Zapruder film.
    […]
    The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; In fact, Hunter said that NPIC did not have that
    capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for
    the most pad. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., locale on the film) where occupants of
    the limousine were wounded. Including ‘studying frames leading up to shots,’ and then produce color
    prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots Impacting limousine
    occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loop to examine Individual
    frames. He could not recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or any
    guidance as to where to look in the film.
    […]
    -His impression IS that the film was probably In 16mm format, but was not of an unslit double-8 mm
    film. It was his strong Impression that they were working with the original, but when asked whether there
    were Images present between the sprocket holes, he said that It was his reasonably strong Impression
    today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at
    NPIC.
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/Fetzer%20James%20H%20Phd/Item%2004.pdf

    Everything that Ben Hunter has to say here leads to the impression that there was no movies made there. But most importantly this:
    “At one point he described the film as ‘not high resolution’,” thus belying the assertion that it was the extant film. This must be added to the fact that we know Zapruder had the original split into 8mm in Dallas on November 22nd, and had the film in his possession on the 23rd as well.
    If one pays attention here, one can see that Horne has NOTHING he claims he has, especially his preposterous assertions as to Homer McMahon’s “vivid memories and keen eye”.
    It is bloody nonsense.

    \\][//

  77. The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events:
    Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration
    By Douglas P. Horne,
    Author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board”

    “…I remember all of us being shocked…it was straight up [gesturing high above his own head]…in the sky…There should have been more than one frame…I thought the spray was, say, three or four feet from his head…what I saw was more than that [than frame 313 in today’s film]…it wasn’t low [as in frame 313], it was high…there was more than that in the original…It was way high off of his head…and I can’t imagine that there would only be one frame. What I saw was more than you have there [in frame 313].”[17] [emphasis as spoken]~Dino Brugioni

    z-313
    http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
    \\][//

  78. Without prejudice regarding whether the film in the Archives is authentic or not, it can be described as follows: the assassination portion of the Zapruder film in the Archives is now 480 frames in length (6 frames of the extant film—155-156, and 208-211—were damaged and removed by LIFE, but are still present on the two Secret Service copies); it is about 26 and one half seconds in duration when played at 18.3 frames per second; and the image content is only about 6 feet, 3 inches in length.
    \\][//

  79. Lanny — November 13, 2014 at 12:12 am

    “Mr. Horne:
    You are quite correct that Sgt. Roger Boyajian’s lack of memory about the events itemized in his after action report “proves nothing.” What you need to understand (and frankly I really believe you already do) is that item number three on that report also “proves nothing.” Given what you are attempting to prove in citing Boyajian’s report, I don’t believe that absence of proof in either case is a good thing for you and your side.

    Item #3 simply alleges that “At approximately 1835 the casket” (it would be more accurately described as “a casket” since no other details are supplied) “was received at the morgue entrance and taken inside.” It does not even identify the casket as being the one containing President Kennedy’s body. That is an inference you wish us to make in hopes of our eventual agreement with your assertion that the casket shown on a national television broadcast being unloaded off of Air Force One, was, in fact, empty, thus raising the possibility (which you accept as fact) that the President’s body had been stolen out of the Dallas casket some time prior to landing at Andrews AFB.

    But there is a wealth of reliable evidence that you are dead wrong concerning both of these latter conclusions, and it is here where your “police report” analogy fails miserably. Allegations made in a police report are not accepted as established fact merely upon their assertion. They are merely the starting point for an investigation. These same allegations are admissible or inadmissible evidence in a court of law based on the same standards as any other piece of evidence.

    And when examining evidence that purports to impeach other contravening evidence, it is appropriate for the examiner to expect access to all pertinent information that accurately reflects the strength and weaknesses of all the evidence under consideration. It is how jurors eventually “weigh” evidence over the course of a trial.

    I do not believe for one minute that you are ignorant of the fact that this same expectation exists in the court of “public opinion.” Therefore, when the details of an “after action report” are submitted in support of the contention that the President’s body was stolen out of its casket prior to arrival in Washington, D. C., mere authentication of the document itself is most certainly NOT “all that matters.” The circumstances surrounding the content of the document, including the memory of its author, are appropriately subject to challenge.

    In short, if it is alleged that item #3 of the Boyajian report records the arrival of President Kennedy’s body some 20 minutes ahead of the motorcade from Andrews AFB, sceptics of that allegation are within their right to demand who the source of the item #3 entry is and on what substantiated facts did he base his conclusion that a specific vehicle, containing a particular casket arriving at 6:35 p.m. actually contained the body of President Kennedy.

    That does not seem to me to be too much to ask.

    Furthermore, the presentation of evidence without all relevant, contextual details runs the very real risk of telling an inaccurate story. When you exclude so many of such relevant details available within the very ARRB medical exhibits which you were instrumental in creating, it is difficult for me to believe that a slanted, bias story is not your specific objective.

    But, in my opinion, that is what you do whenever you fail to share the details of Roger Boyajian’s failed memory so otherwise documented in ARRB medical exhibit MD 236.

    It is what you do when you reference Gawler’s “First Call” sheet indicating that President Kennedy’s body was “removed from metal shipping casket at USNH at Bethesda” and you fail to include that Joe Hagan identified that handwritten entry as his own (see ARRB MD 182) but informed you on two separate occasions that the notation did NOT represent his or any other Gawler’s employee’s direct observation of President Kennedy’s body actually being removed from a non-ceremonial, shipping casket. Rather, it was his own unwarranted assumption on having been told by some unnamed person that the casket had been “metal” without the additional information that it had been an ornamental bronze design from O’Neil’s funeral home in Dallas.

    It is what you do when you cite the testimony of Ed Reed, Paul O’Connor and Floyd Reibe that President Kennedy was taken out of a plain shipping cabinet without acknowledging that their casket testimony is directly contradicted by Jerrol Custer, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill, photographer John Stringer, and doctors Humes and Boswell, who, despite your own condemnation of them as criminal co-conspirators after the fact, nonetheless testified under oath that the casket was ceremonial in design.

    It is what you do, Mr. Horne, and having watched you do it in your books, blogs, online articles and other presentations for several years now, it appears to me to be glaringly duplicitous.”~Lanny

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/doug-horne-rebuts-john-mcadams/#comment-620344
    . . . . . . . . .
    \\][//

  80. Willy Whitten — May 12, 2015 at 8:49 am
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-759976

    “New and more intense Z film research may be productive, regardless of those who say that alteration is/was impossible. Only those with a dubious agenda would argue against additional examination.”~Robert Paul

    I would like to say that I am not at all against intense Z film research. I am in fact all for it, as long as it actually addresses the real issues. As long as those who are doing this research actually know something about real film, and do not confine their attention of playing with computer simulations that have nothing to do with real world film; I refer to Healy and his utterly naive and misguided efforts.

    I will also point out that there are well known and infamous charlatans who have been involved in promoting this alteration hypothesis. The false arguments they have already made must be put in perspective as well.

    One more thing this old adage may be popular; “Anything Is Possible”__but is it True?

    I would assert that there are boundaries to what is and is not possible in the physical world. I will assert that taking a metaphysical and esoteric mindset, and approaching these issue from a theological perspective will lead you into the fantastical, to magical thinking.

    Lastly I will point out that Doug Horne keeps introducing what he calls new and exciting research, but is yet to provide the work he claimed was conclusive more than five years ago now. Where and who are these dozens of “Hollywood Experts” he claimed were on board with this so called “patch” on the back of Kennedy’s head?
    And where is the errata promised to Clint Bradford regarding Mantik’s Mistakes* in misrepresenting Palamara’s witness testimonies, acknowledged as far back as July 1998 by Mantik and Fetzer?
    I happen to know Fetzer is still promoting those known errors as true in 2014.
    *See: http://www.jfk-info.com/mantik-1.htm
    \\][//

  81. Douglas Horne, Provocateur

    “Rollie Zavada admitted that when he wrote his report for the ARRB he had concluded that all four films had been slit, or split, in Dallas on 11/22/63—the original and all three contact prints exposed at Jamieson’s lab—but said he didn’t believe that anymore. Huh?”~Douglas P. Horne
    http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10709.html

    I cannot find any other source than Horne claiming that Zavada said he didn’t believe that anymore at this Lancer talk.
    I have read many instances of Horne misrepresenting what Zavada and others have said. So I want at least one other source to verify this assertion by Horne. After all the bullshit I have read from Horne I see no reason to buy this story.

    Consider Horne’s use of language here, “Rollie Zavada admitted”; as if Zavata is “admitting” to a crime or wrong doing. Horne uses these rhetorical devices in all of his argumentation. His language is that of a PR man and a provocateur.
    \\][//

  82. JFK Facts – Jefferson Morley
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jean-hill-problem-eyewitness-with-eyewitness-testimony/#comment-777140

    Willy Whitten
    July 13, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    “Over 50 witnesses stated that the limo came to a near or complete stop.”~Andrew Kiel

    So, which was it Andrew? Was it a “near stop” or a “complete stop”?

    When one mode of investigation brings you to insurmountable controversy what is the most intelligent tactic to take from there? To put it directly, if the eyewitness testimonies are so variant, what does other evidence show?

    The actual visual evidence should hold precedent. The very best of this evidence is the Zapruder Film. Here is the case for it’s authenticity:
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
    \\][//

  83. “I did not get a degree in film at USC or UCLA, so am not qualified to resolve this dispute.”~Doug Horne
    http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf

    Well it is utterly obvious in every word that Horne writes that he has no concept of film or special effects cinematography. It is equally obvious that those he surrounds himself with, such as Jack White, Costella, and Healy are equally unqualified to speak professionally to the topics. And once Fetzer is brought into the picture it is obvious that the ‘Alterationist’ camp is a disinformation campaign.
    \\][//

  84. The Rubber Hits the Road

    “15. Constraints That Preclude Alteration Of The Zapruder 8mm Film as Described in Chapter 14
    There is no known film production history that would provide a technology reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original.
    Typically, laboratory practices deal with camera original negative films as the primary material for a host of post-production applications to yield a positive projectable print.”~Roland Zavada
    \\][//

  85. ‘Jack White’, on 15 Aug 2010 – 6:32 PM, said:
    “Of course that is an artful twist of what happened. No alterationist suggests that 8MM FILM was
    altered. The filmstrip was very short. It was enlarged to a much larger size for the alterations
    and then rephotographed on 8mm Kodachrome.”
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16409

    And this very assertion by White in itself proves he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    Kodachrome II the film stock that White claims the ‘special effects’ film was “rephotographed” to is a daylight film. It is not a ‘contact film’ it has to be tank processed by special Kodak procedures.
    The only way to “rephotograph” would be by projection. Every single projection process there is requires artificial lamps – this is NOT daylight. That is why Zavada said the forging of an undetectable Kodachrome II film is an “insurmountable” process. You would be at least 2 generations away, and the contrast would be shot out the window, no matter how well you attempt to filter it, it will not be a perfect match to real daylight.
    The grain would also give it away.

    And these features are not the only issues. There is the edge print information plus the fact that no one had any idea what caused the “ghost images” until 30+ years later when Zavada explained the sprocket issues with the camera Zapruder used.
    \\][//

  86. And when at last we finally see the “proof” of that single frame from the Z-film that has been held incognito for all these years by the Horne-Fetzer cult, why should we trust that it is not that single image itself that they themselves have altered?

    When I compare the integrity of conmen such as Horne and Fetzer to that of premier experts in their fields, Zavada and Fielding; I cannot but take the latter as the ones speaking truth to this issue.

    Horne and his crew have held this card too long to their chest at this point. I say it will turn out to be a marked card from under their sleeve. That is, if they have the nerve to ever lay it on the table.
    \\][//

  87. Willy Whitten
    July 17, 2015 at 4:15 pm
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jean-hill-problem-eyewitness-with-eyewitness-testimony/#comment-778322
    (my response to R. Andrew Kiel)

    What does Jeffery Sundberg’s degree in electrical engineering have to do with film or special effects cinematography?

    Zavada was an expert, not only in film chemistry, but in all movie making machinery, which obviously includes cameras, projectors, and lenses.

    If the lens on the Bell & Howell didn’t create the ghost images as proven by Zavada, what is Sundberg’s alternative explanation?

    Do you as simply an author have the technical expertise to determine who is correct in this dispute? If you think so, do please explain.
    \\][//

  88. DPD Dictabelt Recording of JFK Assassination
    Martin Hay
    July 17, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    “The NAS report was a joke.

    When the Justice Department commissioned the NAS study, it was immediately apparent that it had no interest in conducting an open-minded analysis because it offered the chairmanship to none other than Luis Alvarez, a vocal defender of the Warren Commission who had staked his professional reputation on there having been no shots from the Knoll. Alvarez publicly dismissed the acoustics evidence before he even looked at it, so he wisely declined the position and instead recommended his colleague, Norman Ramsey. Nonetheless, Alvarez stayed on as the panel’s most active member. Needless to say, the conclusions of the “Ramsey Panel”, which did not include a single expert on ballistics or acoustics, were preordained. When the HSCA’s expert, Dr. Barger, met with the panel to explain and defend his work, Alverez let him know that it didn’t actually matter what he said, they were going to shoot down the HSCA’s findings regardless.

    After spending two years going over the acoustics looking for flaws, the Ramsey Panel finally issued a report which made no mention of, let alone attempt to explain, the order in the acoustic data.

    If the impulses on the dictabelt were not truly gunfire recorded by a motorcycle travelling in the Presidential motorcade, and instead represented some form of random static, then the matches to the test data could have fallen in any one of 125 different random sequences (there being 125 different ways to sequence 5 events). However, the matches did not occur in a random order. They fell 1-2-3-4-5, which is the only correct order for a microphone travelling north on Houston Street and West on Elm Street.

    Not only was the order of the matches correct, the spacing of the matching microphones was a near-perfect fit with the time between the suspect impulses on the dictabelt recording. The first three impulses were clustered together, falling approximately 1.7 and 1.1 seconds apart. This was followed by a space of 4.8 seconds before the final two impulses arrived very close together, 0.7 seconds apart. The matching microphone locations exhibited the very same pattern. The first three matches occurred at microphones that were grouped at 18 ft increments on Houston Street. There was then a 78 ft gap before the last two matches occurred at two consecutive microphones on Elm Street.

    And it wasn’t just the order and spacing that matched. The distance from the first matching microphone to the last was 143 feet and the time between the first and last suspect impulse on the tape was 8.3 seconds. In order for the motorcycle with the stuck microphone to cover 143 feet in 8.3 seconds it would need to be travelling at a speed of approximately 11.7 mph which fully corresponds with the FBI’s conclusion that the Presidential limousine was averaging 11.3 mph on Elm Street.

    Does anybody really want to believe the above is meaningless? Does it seem even remotely reasonable to suggest that some unexplained event occurred which somehow created five acoustic impulses that just happened to mimic five shots fired from two directions in the specific environment of Dealey Plaza as recorded by a microphone travelling north on Houston Street then west on Elm Street at 11 mph at 12:30 PM when the air temperature was 65 degrees F?

    That’s ludicrous.

    The dictabelt proves conspiracy and, sooner or later, folks are going to have to deal with it.”~Martin Hay
    \\][//

  89. In my experience with information and open source intelligence, the “official story” is almost always bullshit.
    \\][//

  90. Z-film – Officer Chaney Controversy:

    “Neither SA Kellerman nor SA Greer mention a motorcycle passing in front of them in their Warren Comission testimonies, and the statements or testimonies of the lead car occupants are, by my reckoning, also pretty vague as to the timing of this. Only Chief Curry has stated that the officer was Chaney, but his recollection of WHEN this happened, in my opinion, seems questionable. Here’s a couple of examples :

    April 15th 1964 WCXII (page 28), Chief Curry : “…and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and ABOUT (emphasis mine) this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was officer Chaney rode up beside us….”
    He also reiterates this point in testimony, April 22nd 1964 WCIV (page 161) ….
    Rep. Ford : ‘Did you get this order over the PA system before the second and third shots’?
    Curry : ” I don’t believe so, I am not sure. I am not positive. Because they (shots) were in rapid succession. But after I noticed some commotion in the President’s car and a motorcycle officer ran up aside of me….I said “Has the President been hit…?” And he said “I am sure they have”, I said “Take us to the hospital immediately.” ‘and I got on the radio and told them to notify Parkland’

    At no point does Curry state where the limo is in relation to the motorcycle officer.

    WCVII (page 346) ( Forrest V Sorrels, statement Nov 28th 1963)
    Sorrels : ‘I noted that the President’s car had accelerated it’s speed and was fast closing the gap between us. A motorcycle officer pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled “Is anybody hurt?” ‘….By that time we’d had gotten (unreadable) the underpass when the President’s car pulled up alongside, and at that time Chief Curry’s car had started to pick up speed…’

    Sorrels states that a bike pulls alongside them, but, again, seems pretty vague as to when, in my opinion.

    WCVII (page 548) Testimony dated May 7th 1964, Forrest V. Sorrels : ‘Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said. “Let’s get out of here” and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward. And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, “Anybody hurt?”…’And by that time we had gotten almost in under the underpass, and the President’s car had come up and was almost abreast of us. When I saw them get so close, I said, “Let’s get out quick,” or “Get going fast,” or something to that effect. In other words, I didn’t want them to pass us, because I knew we were supposed to be in front.’

    Both the McIntyre pic, above, and frames from the Daniel film, however, show that the limo did overtake the lead car.

    WCXVII (page 629) statement of Winston G. Lawson, 23rd Nov 1963, Lawson : ….’I believe I heard two more sharp reports and looking back saw people scurrying away from the route, as though they were taking cover. Almost immediately the President’s car leaped ahead. We also rapidly accelerated’.

    No mention of any motorcycle, but the first admission that the limo has overtaken the lead car as verified by McIntyre/ Daniels…”~Calli Robertson
    http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1653.15;wap2
    \\][//

  91. “With reference to the McIntire photo that you posted, showing the three motorcycles ahead of Chief Curry and the limousine after they had passed to the west of the Triple Underpass – I believe these three officers are lead motorcyclists L.E. Grey (or Gray), W.G. Lumpkin and Sgt. Ellis. Also, remember that while this McIntire photo was taken west of the Underpass, but they still had to pass under Stemmons before they swung right, and up the on-ramp onto the Freeway itself.

    I am also convinced that Chaney did not catch up to Curry until they were on the Stemmons freeway on-ramp, for the following reasons:

    – DPD Officer Earle Brown, on the railway overpass above Stemmons, told Earl Golz in March 1980 that he saw the limo and 4 other cars stop on the Stemmons on-ramp for at least 30 secs. Brown later repeated his story for Gary Mack;

    – Officer Doug Jackson told Mack in 1981 that he and Chaney raced after lead car, caught up with it after about 30 secs, and Chaney spoke through window to Curry;

    – Curry told another researcher (whose name I cannot recall at this moment) in 1979 that Chaney caught up with him as they began climbing the Stemmons on-ramp;

    – Curry told Mack that he slowed down in order to find out if anyone had been hit, as he was unaware that anyone had been hit until Chaney told him. He also said he then had to tell the limousine driver, Secret Service agent Bill Greer, how to get to Parkland Hospital, before issuing “Go to hospital” order;

    – Curry told the Warren Commission that he did not transmit on Channel 2 until after he spoke to Motorcycle Officer Jim Chaney;

    – DPD Officer Courson said lead car had slowed sufficiently for him to catch it on the Stemmons access road, and Courson was 100-120 feet behind McLain in the motorcade, and McLain was himself about 140 feet behind the Presidential limo when the shots were fired. (Courson was appprox. 80 yds behind JFK at Z-313);

    – Chaney is in the extreme left edge of the Daniel film (in the inter-sprocket images, I believe) , and in the Mel McIntire photo – in both cases, he hasn’t yet caught up with Curry.

    Hope this is some help.”~Chris Scally

    Also from: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1653.15;wap2
    \\][//

  92. Willy Whitten
    July 23, 2015 at 10:39 am

    “BC. I don’t have the omniscience of a god but I do understand the security classification used by DOD better than you it appears. But I now see why you take Prouty to your breast so strongly. You both are very big on imagination. Imagination is what has caused much of this mess, Willy.”~Bill Clarke
    . . . . .

    “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”~Albert Einstein

    I know why you are jealous of Fletcher Prouty, it is because his experience and knowledge of the DOD is far superior of yours, plus he grasps the importance of imagination, and that the trite interpretation of the term as “just making stuff up” or “being juvenile” is not at the core of it. All discovery and invention is dependent on human imagination. There would be no civilization, no science, no technology; no empathy for one another without the imagination to identify with the pain of others.

    Your list of three major categories of security clearances may be correct as far as it goes, but it is silly and ridiculous to conclude that there are no subheadings for specialty clearances.

    The core issue here is whether or not Oswald was a double agent for the US. And this is what you are arguing against, while all of the facts revealed thus far indicate that Oswald was an agent.
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-779889
    \\][//

  93. Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics and commented:
    Lucien Sarti?

    The mist of blood that is seen in the Zapruter film and claimed to be unnatural by the Fetzer crowd, is now recognized as what is called “Backspatter”, which is blood that sprays out of the entry wound as more or less a mist, and it does indeed dissipate within a split second. It proves the shot was from the front.

    According to Ms Fiester’s forensic investigation the shot came from the opposite area of the Dealy Plaza towards the triple-underpass, not the grassy knoll. This is not to say that shots did not come from knoll area. This according to modern Trajectory Reconstruction techniques.~ww

  94. Latest Z-film threads on JFKfacts:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/when-was-the-zapruder-film-first-shown-to-the-american-people/
    . . . . .
    “Alex Cox, the creative cinematic mind who gave us “Repo Man” and “Sid and Nancy,” offers his reflections on the saddest, shortest movie ever, the Zapruder film. He relies on Doug Horne’s original research.”~Jeff Morley
    “As for the proposition that the Zapruder film was altered, I used to think it was physically impossible. I no longer think that.”~Morley
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/director-alex-cox-screens-the-zapruder-film/

    I find it especially aggravating that people would defer to someone like Alex Cox, simply because he has made some movies, and refer to him as a “creative cinematic mind”, as if that puts him on a level with Roland Zavada and Raymond Fielding. That Cox has been swayed by Doug Horne’s specious arguments, and defers to Costella, is enough evidence for me that the guy does not understand the full technological problems of creating a “Kodachrome II original”.

    I recognize that it is an uphill battle now that Doug Horne’s PR machine, boosted by Fetzer has gotten a’hold of the mind of a certain portion of the JFK research public.
    Morley clearly doesn’t have the ability to see through the bullshit being put out there. Unless people are willing to go through the basics of film, and special effects cinematography, they are going to remain chumps begging for rupture by charlatans.
    \\][//

    • The Zapruder Mystery – Posted on 2013/08/16

      “This strange tale – which indicates multiple “Zapruder” films and multiple 16mm reels very early on – is told by Douglas P. Horne, Senior Analyst on the ARRB’s Military Records Team, here.

      Horne’s story is the tip of the iceberg. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Jim Fetzer, goes into much detail, pointing out anomalies in the existing version of the film. John Costella‘s analysis of possible alterations and special visual effects – including the possible insertion of a fake Stemmons Freeway sign – is here.”~Alex Cox

      http://presidentandprovocateur.com/

      As we see, Cox is buying into the bullshit of established and well known agent provocateurs, Horne and Fetzer. To fall for this naive crap proves that Cox does not grasp the essential technological issues he is attempting to address. Those who wish to grasp these essentials are invited to read this very page from the top, back to this comment.
      \\][//

  95. Doug Horne has all the mannerisms of a trained interrogator, likely an intelligence agent. Listen to him carefully. His careful voice modulation, and phrase patterns. And watch is body language his posture and right hand movements. These are signs of someone trained in neurolingustic programming. these traits are also obvious in Barack Obama.

    In Horne’s interview with Dino Brugioni, Horne has him essentially hypnotized. At one point Dino is on the verge of tears when Horne asks him how he felt when everyone he considered friends and confidants had lied to him and kept him out of the loop.
    This is a way of stripping confidence and making one desperate to find that friend that Horne has just deprived Dino of. The will cause a subject to transfer confidence to his interrogator.

    Horne is an obvious master of these techniques. He is more than that of course, he is a prevaricator, and an outright liar as well. He pretends at expertise he clearly is clueless about. Especially his pretend knowledge of film and special effects. He misrepresents every effects technique he tries to address. I hasn’t the slightest knowledge of film chemistry, light, or even simple still photographic insights.

    I just missed being able to confront him of JFKfacts. He stopped posting about a week before I discovered the forum. I know his is close to David Lifton, and Lifton responded to my commentary a few times a couple/few months ago. I would wager Lifton had him check in on my commentary about him. I don’t think Horne would debate me, unless cornered.
    \\][//

  96. Costella Combined Edit Frames (updated 2006)
    Click on a frame number below to view the corresponding frame of the film,
    or click here to download all 486 frames in a single ZIP file (119 MB)
    http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
    . . . . . . .
    The limo first appears in; z133, and it is in fact a slight overexposure.

    Compare z133 to z135 & z136 (z134 is too blurred for certainty)

    Check the difference in richness of color between these frames. It may be easier to compare the richness of tone in the woman in the dark blue coat, standing 6th from the left of the sign.

    Also the car that is sideways (maybe 3rd back) the richness in it’s color is a tell between 133 & 136.

    The over exposure is only about one-third of a stop. Perhaps not as dramatic as you may expect when just reading about it.

    * * * * *
    Now add to this Horne’s assertion that HE concludes that “the turn from Houston to Elm was optically excised in an optical printer.”

    As explained before one cannot film Kodachrome II using artificial light without dramatically noticeable shifts in color curve balance and contrast: because ALL projection systems use artificial light!
    An “optical printer” IS a projector system.
    \\][//

  97. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 21, 2015 at 9:48 pm
    Greg,

    This is an instance when I have to insist on knowing who you are.
    Greg who? You are claiming privy to viewing something no one else has seen. Just you and Horne and his mystical “Hollywood film experts”

    You cit: “But with an optical printer, yes it could.” What is an “optical printer Greg? How does one work? What experience have you had with one? What experience have you had with special effects cinematography?

    You realize that no one who has such experience with such is going to buy this by watching a film or video presentation. Personally I am going to have to see these 4K slides up close and personal before I will believe any of this.

    How do you know, that with all the time these items have been in the hands of Horne and his cronies that they did not produce these blobs themselves on the original transparencies before doing the high digital scans?

    As I know how an optical printer works, I can guarantee you that they could not have used this process on Kodachrome II film to reproduce the original Kodachrome II Zapruder original.

    I have read accounts of people claiming to have seen “another version” of the Z-film for years now. Yet no one has ever come up with an actual film as proof.

    Now we have people claiming to have seen these 4K digital scans. Well, you are going to have to prove your bona fides to me before I buy any of this.
    \\][//

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/#comment-841487

    \\][//

  98. Yes Hawkeyeworks is a fascinating technological facility. But they were mainly involved in analysis of reconnaissance photos. They certainly were not involved in producing motion pictures, and they had no special effect production facilities. This bullshit from Horne that “they could do ANYTHING” is balderdash. They hardly did anything as far as producing, they were involved in analysis of photos they received.

    They didn’t even produce the stills from the films to make the storyboards from the Z-film for presentation to the people meant to receive them, and not a single person involved in producing those boards mentioned a word about producing a film. They only were involved in making photocopied stills from the film.

    Horne, who OBVIOUSLY doesn’t know squat about film, movie making machinery, projectors, film chemistry, and certainly not special effects is making this story up out of wholecloth. The central issue again is quite simple, you cannot project onto Kodachrome II film without producing a copy that is obviously out of color balance and blown out contrast; because Kodachrome film is balanced for daylight not artificial light. Couple these problems with the added contrast buildup of any second generation photo, and you have an impossibility as extreme as a mouse grabbing an elephant by the trunk and hurling it into space.

    If these 4K scans end up with the bouncing black blobs that those claiming to have seen them say, then I would say that Doug Horne and his gang created those anomalies themselves. They have had these materials for close to 7 – 8 years now, and still no public viewing of them. Knowing the bullshit stories Horne has made up on the other issues, is to know he is a liar and a charlatan. Putting ANYTHING past these jokers is pure gullibility.

    Remember, they are not working with the original Z-film. They are working with large format transparencies from the JFK museum, that cost some $700. a piece. Once they had those, it would be a real simple job to lay a clear cell over the transparency and paint their own blobs. Then produce their 4K scans of the reproductions they just produced themselves.
    \\][//

  99. As far as a 4K scan of what is originally an 8 mm image of colored dyes on celluloid, it seems that no one is taking into account the fact that we are not talking about a magnification of the actual head of Kennedy. We are speaking to a magnification of film grain not real life.

    You are not peering at Kennedy’s actual head as if you are there in the plaza at the time moving closer in to look directly at the area of Kennedy’s head.

    While I do not trust Douglas Horne for a moment, and wouldn’t put anything past him, such as possibly being involve in doctoring the photo’s in his care. More to the point is that I don’t trust his grasp on the medium; what film actually is, the chemical structure of both the film dyes and the celluloid it is adhered to, and how light effects this combination.

    As far as the dyes and grain being magnified to that degree, I think the concept itself is faulty. Any medium magnified to that level is only going to show the medium itself, far out of context of the subject it had once portrayed.
    \\][//

    • Dye coupler is present in chromogenic film and paper used in photography, primarily color photography. When color developer reduces ionized (exposed) silver-halide crystals, the developer is oxidized, and the oxidized molecules react with dye coupler molecules to form dye in situ. The silver image is removed by subsequent bleach and fix processes, so the final image will consist of the dye image.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_coupler
      * * * * * * * * * *
      Since the introduction of modern color motion picture films in the 1950s (the older Technicolor process is a different story), color fading has become a growing concern. Color fading is caused by spontaneous chemical changes in the image dyes of color films. Many older films have taken on a distinct purplish cast, caused by the rapid fading of the cyan and yellow image dyes. Negatives, interpositives and prints are all affected in the same way.
      http://www.filmpreservation.org/preservation-basics/color-dye-fading

      How Photographic Film Works
      http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/film8.htm

      4K Resolution

      4K resolution, also called 4K, refers to a display device or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels.[1] Several 4K resolutions exist in the fields of digital television and digital cinematography. In the movie projection industry, Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) is the dominant 4K standard. In television and consumer media, 4K UHD or UHD-1 is the dominant 4K standard. By 2015, 4K television market share had increased greatly as prices fell dramatically during 2014[2] and 2015. By 2025, more than half of US households are anticipated to have a 4K-capable TV (2160p), much faster than the adoption curve of FullHD (1080p).[3]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
      \\][//

  100. “Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.”

    What Doug Horne described above has been sitting at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas since 1999 available for inspection. There is no question whatsoever that the MPI transparencies were made directly from the in-camera original. It is indisputably a “first generation copy.” At some point in the future someone may be able to show whether the Wilkinson copy is a “third generation copy” or a “fifth generation copy.” Right now all we have are different people saying different things at different times. However this turns out in the future, the Wilkinson copy is at least two generations downstream from the MPI transparencies and possibly four generations downstream. In Doug Horne’s own words, the MPI transparencies are the “control.”

    I’ve said many times that my examination of the transparencies and frame 317 in particular showed no indications whatsoever of the socalled “patch effect.” Instead of looking at the transparencies and seeing whether or not I’m right, Fetzer has started a new tune: “Since the MPI transparencies don’t show the same effect as the Wilkinson copy, the MPI transparencies must have been doctored by persons unknown.” So once again the conspiritorial alteration of the Zapruder film has to spin additional conspiracies to keep itself alive. At least, this seems to be Fetzer’s view. The other alternative is the simple photographic principle that direct copies are to be preferred to secondary copies and that each copying process leads to contrast build-up. Take your choice. Conspiracies piled on conspiracies or contrast buildup piled on contrast buildup.”~Josiah Thomson

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18680&page=2#entry244629
    \\][//

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18680&page=2#entry244629

    • The MPI video has many problems but the individual transparencies do not. All frames were properly photographed in sequence. As Fetzer points out, Doug Horne was actually present during the process by which the original frames were copied onto 4″ by 5″ transparencies. Now consider Fetzer’s claimed “facts.” They are really “non-facts,” “factoids.” The transparencies show no reversal of frames 331 and 332. The transparencies include frames 341, 350 and 486. None are missing, nor has the entire set ever been “missing” as Fetzer claimed elsewhere. Since the transparencies are copies of the in-camera original film, there are no transparencies for the socalled “missing frames” (207 – 212) or 155 and 156. It was Horne himself … not me… who recommended that the MPI transparencies be taken as the “gold standard.” He wrote:

      “Whereas Syd Wilkinson’s dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were to be declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than Sydney’s dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove that Sydney and her research team have not digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.”
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18680&page=2
      \\][//

  101. Gunn (20:22): That was—that was my next question—I had assumed that when
    you made the, the negatives, you were focusing just on the, on the
    single frames that would be in the assassination sequence. Do you
    have any recollection now as to anything that was in the other part
    of the, the double 8 picture, the part that is not in the assassination
    sequence?

    McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really—anything.
    Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and
    remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I
    recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works,
    but I do know that I—that I’m not—OK, I’m a recovering drug
    addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re
    looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness,
    because I don’t have good recall—absolutely not—absolute recall.

    Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah,
    what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?

    McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I
    don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything
    here. So, this is not—at the time I did it, I was not—I was not
    impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking
    to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].

    P. 29/30
    http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf

  102. “Without engaging in the arguments over alteration, Rollie Z says it has now been determined that there was an unslit copy in the possession of the Secret Service, so McMahon has been proven right one again, even though the first response to his interview was to mock him.”~William Kelly – 31 May 2010 – 09:24 AM.
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15996

    It is too bad that Kelly cannot distinguish from the term “copy” and the original extant film. McMahon is proven right in that he had a COPY not the original film. Just as Dino Brugioni had a COPY. It is clear that the extant film was never at NPIC nor at the Hawkeye Plant.

    “Doug, you have forgotten my oft quoted comment from Marshall McLuhan that: The medium is the message; and that the form of the medium, 8mm film, embeds itself with the limitation that it can not be altered as perceived by you and others.”~Rolland Zavada

    \\][//

    • “And what has become of the 2-panel briefing board set produced by Dino Brugioni’s team?”~AGK

      If you are actually following the issue, you should know the answer to that question: Brugioni’s boards got back into his personal possession at some point. When Cartha DeLoach found out about Brugioni having the boards, he demanded that they be delivered to him immediately, and they have never been seen since.

      Please remember that throughout this entire controversy, neither McMahon nor Brugioni claimed to have been part of, nor had any knowledge of a moving picture being produced from the copies of the z-film they were working with.

      That entire story is made up in whole cloth by Douglas Horne.
      \\][//

      http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/#comment-847726

  103. “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent.”
    ~Martin Luther King
    \\][//

  104. The Zapruder Film is Authentic

    After being threatened with litigation on the telephone late one Sunday night by Jim Fetzer for publicly voicing my opinion that his compilation, Assassination Science, lacked basic scientific research methods…

    And after Fetzer’s – and others’ – attempts to discredit ANYONE who found faults with ANY poorly presented propaganda…

    I realized I was on the right track.

    It’s over, Z-Film alterationists.
    Messrs. Lifton, Fetzer, White, Mantik, Schaeffer – and Twyman and others – need to move on to other subjects to research. And all authors’ works need to be carefully scrutinzed, so that the duping of the public with their “The Zapruder Film is altered…” nonsense never occurs again.”~ Clint Bradford.
    http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm
    \\][//

  105. Pingback: The Two Faces of Government | wordpresscom507

  106. Eddy — March 8, 2016 at 7:31 am
    “Mr Whitten, you are wedded to your view the film was not altered. You make no effort to explain the issues I have raised that lead me to conclude it was altered (other than to abuse some commentators). My conclusion on your evidence that the film has not been altered is that I reject it.”
    . . . . . . . . . .
    Eddy, I don’t give a flying bat-fuck that you reject it. You are a dumbfuck that doesn’t know shit about photography, or special effects cinematography. You are as clueless as your hero Doug Horne on these issues. You and all the dupes like you who believe in this superstitious nonsense promoted by con men like Horne and Fetzer can wallow in your ignorance as long as you wish. But I will say this, I am getting sick of dealing with your horseshit on JFKfacts__go tell it to your mommy.

    \\][//

  107. Willy Whitten — January 14, 2015 at 11:12 am
    Jean’s question to Mr Horne was simple:
    “Why did Brugioni place the wound in the same location we see in Z313, if this wound was “painted” on later and the “real wound” was in the back of the head?”

    How many paragraphs did Horne reply with and still not make a clear answer to Jean’s question?
    This is a technique called argumentum verbosium, it is rhetorical distraction and misdirection.
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/#comment-676606

  108. Willy Whitten
    January 14, 2015 at 5:53 am
    “Virtually everyone with an open mind who has…read my Chapter 14 on the Z film…understands the vital importance of what those 2 events at NPIC the weekend of the assassination mean.”~Douglas Horne

    There are at least two significant people who disagree with Mr Horne’s hyperbole quoted above, those being, Rolland Zavata, and Raymond Fielding.

    Zavata and Fielding together represent the premier experts on cinematography, film, movie making machinery and special effects. Their combined knowledge and expertise in the field is equaled by none.

    Raymond Fielding is author of THE TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY – the veritable bible of professional special effects artists during the era of film.

    Both of these icons of the film industry dispute specifically Doug Horne’s Chapter 14 on the Z film -and in great technical detail, at:

    http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/#comment-676470

  109. The X-ray clearly shows the missing parietal/frontal bone and sphenoid/temporal bone just behind the fragment of zigomatic/petrous bone. These X-rays would indicate a bullet entry at the right temporal that exploded the brain and cracked the skull like and egg, the major portion of ejecta being blown out of the top of the skull. As seen in the Zapruder film. The apparently intact bones in the occipital may be held in place by the hair and scalp during the X-ray process. Apparently the scalp and hair could be lifted to show the interior of the skull as the shards of bone were attached to the scalp.

    A very curious thing about these X-rays, claimed to have been taken at the beginning of the autopsy before any of the procedures were carried out, is that there are no teeth. As is known the teeth are the major identifiers for a skull. Not only are there no teeth there is no hint of the mandible attached to the skull. How could this be?
    Is this REALLY John Kennedy’s skull we see in these X-rays? Why are there only two X-rays taken of the skull during the entire autopsy? The same question can be asked about the rear of the head? Only one photo of that, and it shows the scalp pulled up over where the wound was supposedly located.


    \\][//

    • Q. Could you describe how the President’s head looked at the very first time that you saw it after it had been unwrapped?
      A. Well, the most obvious thing was a large defect in the right parietal area. The

      Page 71

      measurements are in the autopsy protocol, and the hair was matted in that area and bloody and so forth. And there was a suggestion like a contusion in the right frontal area over the right eyebrow. The skin was a little bit discolored in that area, but it wasn’t very remarkable. The most striking thing was this large defect. His face was, for all intents and purposes, normal. Normal as anybody can be in death, I guess. It was not significantly injured in any way.
      Q. Were any portions of the brain extruding from any wounds in the head?
      A. Well, the wound was so big that–I don’t know what you mean by extruding. It wasn’t really- -it was just a gaping hole and the brain was right there. It wasn’t really being extruded, no.
      Q. So you could see it, but it was not as if it were coming out–
      A. No.
      Q. –sort of just seeing inside a hole–
      A. It was a big hole, yeah.
      […]
      Page 82

      Q. Right below the middle of the skull, there is the number 17 with, again, arrows pointing, at least on the paper, up and down. Do you see that?
      A. Yeah. I would presume that this is the antero-posterior maximum measurement of this defect. Okay?
      Q. Okay.
      A. So it was 17 centimeters (approx 6.7 in), fore and aft, if you will, and 10 wide (4 in). I got some slightly different measurement, I think, in my written report, but ball park, you know.
      Q. Right below the 17 and the arrow, there’s the word, it looks as if it’s “missing.” Do you see that?
      A. That much bone is missing. That was a big defect, you see.
      Q. Now, when this 10 by 17 centimeters of bone is missing, does that mean that it was present nowhere in the autopsy room during the autopsy?
      A. Not until later when part of it was brought to me, which I described, I believe, in the written report.

      Page 83

      Q. So would it–
      A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I’m talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn’t have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.
      Q. So then from the first time that you saw the President’s head without the pieces of skull fragment that came in later, the approximate measurements of the missing scalp would be roughly 10 centimeters to 17 centimeters?
      A. By 17, right.
      Q. In the autopsy protocol, you referred to the amount as being 10 centimeters by 13 centimeters, and let me show you the protocol.
      A. I’m not going to debate it. I mean, it would depend on how you were measuring it, because it wasn’t a–like this room is 25 by 35. It’s got walls and extreme–this was irregular, so you could make any kind of measurement you want…
      […]
      Q. Was scalp missing from that same–from

      Page 90

      those same measurements?
      A. Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much close the scalp, skin, when we finished everything. So I can’t tell you how much was–but it was not that much skin missing, no.
      Q. So mostly skull fragments–
      A. Right.
      Q. –but not the scalp itself?
      A. Right. Right.
      […]
      Q. The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp.
      A. They went in every direction. They were– I think I described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.
      Q. For the scalp?

      Page 93

      A. Yes.
      Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital–
      A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal.
      Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?
      A. No. No.
      Q. None whatsoever?
      A. No.
      Q. There were tears, however, over the temporal–
      A. Temporal and parietal.
      Q. And the parietal.
      A. Yes.
      […]
      Q. Do you have any recollection now about radio-opaque objects being in or appearing in the X-rays?
      A. Yes, in the skull. There were some little tiny fragments of radio-opaque material, which we thought to be bullet fragments, traversing from– well, I don’t know. It looked like it was going from posterior to anterior. Very fine, sort of granular-looking material, went almost as far forward as the frontal bone, but not quite that far.
      Q. Those are dust-like fragments?
      A. Yes, right.

      Q. Were there any–
      A. A couple of them were–we did retrieve a couple that were maybe a couple millimeters, as I recall, from that path, you know. But that was about all.
      Q. Do you recall where you retrieved those fragments?

      Page 100

      A. I think from the frontal lobe of the brain.
      Q. Were there any X-rays taken between the time that you–or after the time that you removed the small fragments?
      A. No.
      Q. So all of the X-rays of the cranium were taken before any–
      A. Exactly.
      Q. –metal fragments were removed?
      A. Exactly, exactly.
      Q. Do you have any recollection now about the shapes of the fragments that were removed?
      A. They were small and irregular. That’s all I can tell you.
      Q. Long and sliver-like or roundish or–any recollection?
      A. Flat, irregular, two or three millimeters.
      […]
      Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell– I’ll read this into the record. It’s from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
      “Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?”
      “Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn’t write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o’clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.”

      Page 136

      “Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –
      “Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.”
      Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?
      A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.
      Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?
      A. Right.
      Q. Is that correct?
      A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.
      Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

      Page 137

      A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason–see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn’t burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don’t know. There was nothing left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have, period.
      Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances–
      A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?
      Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it

      Page 138

      was that it had the blood of the President on it.
      A. Right.
      Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of–
      A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.
      […]
      Q. You’re welcome to read as much as you would prefer.
      A. Whatever.
      Q. It’s just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.
      A. Okay.
      Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?
      A. Yes.
      Q. Was that correct?
      A. I don’t know. I didn’t measure from which vertebra it was. It’s sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second–did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that’s much lower

      Page 142

      than it actually was. I think it’s much lower than it actually–you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don’t know. I mean, he’s got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don’t have an opinion about it.
      Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra–
      A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.
      I mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just- -they’re not things of which I’m aware.
      The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.
      http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm








      \\][//

      • ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

        McClelland’s unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw’s book, “Conspiracy of Silence”. McClelland told Posner, “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.” (Posner, G. “CC.”, p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, “I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that… It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.” (Posner G. “Case Closed”. p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry’s own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

        3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, “Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…” (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.)

        Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51)

        In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”.

        CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, ” (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing… attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted…” (CE 392–WC V17:4-5)

        In is first mention of JFK’s skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, “There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.” (6H3) And… “The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.” (6H6)

        On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, “Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?” Dr. Carrico: “Sure. This was a 5 by 71 cm (sic–the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said “5 by 7 cm) defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present…”. Specter: “Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?” Carrico: “No other wound on the head.”(WC–V3:361)

        In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, “The skull wound” …was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound.” (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

        MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr. Perry… believed the head wound was located on the “occipital parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen…” (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

        RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter, “…he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head… There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.” (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull”. (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

        GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, “The back of the right occipital
        parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding.” (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, “I assume the right occipital parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head…”. (WC-V6:67)

        PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter under oath as, “…I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput…It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area that there was a large defect.” (WC-V6:71)

        CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, ” (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President’s head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, “I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater–an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.” ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

        CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, “…the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table…” (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads “…the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)…”. (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter’s original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present….” (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been “temporo-occipital” than “temporo-parietal”, because he also recalled, “cerebellum was present”. (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, “…the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table….” (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as “…a large gaping wound in the occipital area.” Livingstone also reported that “(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact).”(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

        PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, “Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive.” (Price Exhibit V21 H 216–Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, “This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head.” (IBID)

        DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK’s wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, “Did you get a good look at his head injuries?” Nelson: “A very good look…When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head.” Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: “No. It’s not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher.” (High Treason I. p. 454)

        SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President’s wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: “His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.” Specter, “Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?” Greer: “Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off.”(WCV2:124)

        SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, “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 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.” (WC–V2:141)
        http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
        \\][//

      • The purpose of this page is to illustrate the (apparent) incompatibility between the ‘back of the head’ autopsy photographs (below) and the witness testimony. The autopsy photo shows the obvious and universally admitted ‘right front’ flap. The evidence is that there were in fact three ‘major’ flaps, one of them being at the right rear. (See Bell, Perry, Grossman, McClelland, Peters below).

        Dr Boswell – one of the autopsy doctors – maintains that he was lifting such a flap over the back of the head in the photo below.

        Also see:
        https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/_/rsrc/1268954178042/xraydox-full.jpg?height=552&width=733

        http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#grossman
        \\][//

      • “Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, two of the three medical doctors who performed the autopsy on the body of President Kennedy, testified together to the HSCA’s medical panel. Much of their testimony is taken up with the controversy over the location of the entry wound into the skull. In this interview, both Humes and Boswell remain adamant about a location near the external occiptal protuberance (eop), low in the skull, despite being unable to adequately locate this wound on any of the autopsy photographs. The medical panel seems equally persistent that the entry wound must be higher, near the cowlick. A year later, Dr. Humes appeared in the HSCA public hearings and publicly disavowed the lower eop location, though his retraction seemed half-hearted. Later in a 1993 article for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Humes re-affirmed the original location. The other doctors, Boswell and Finck, had never wavered from their original contention.”
        http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_HumesBoswell.htm

        Interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations staff and/or the medical consultants with: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Dr. C. James Carrico, Dr. Norman Chase, Dr. James J. Humes, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, Dr. John K. Lattimer, Dr. Malcolm 0. Perry, Dr. Jack Reynolds, Dr. William B. Seaman, Dr. Robert R. Shaw, and Dr. George T. Shires,
        Not included : Dr. Pierre A. Finck and Dr. John H. Ebersole were deposed by the select committee on March 11,1978.
        INTERVEW OF DRs. JAMES J. HUMES AND J. THORNTON BOSWELL BY THE FORENSIC
        PATHOLOGY PANEL, SUB~PANEL OF DOCTORS HAD NOT REVIEWED THE AUTOPSY MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY.
        NATIONAL ARCHIVE SEPTEMBER 16, 1977.
        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md20.pdf

        AUDIO:
        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_HumesBoswell.htm
        [audio src="http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_HumesBos_R1S2.mp3" /]

        Having listened to the audio clips from these sessions with Humes, Boswell and the HSCA pathologists, I got the distinct feeling that Humes was lying, covering up something. He had a very defensive tone and a compensating arrogance that seemed to belie some guilt. I think he was involved in a cover-up, Boswell seemed to just be going along to get along, taking cues from Humes.
        \\][//

      • I think the bullet that entered Kennedy’s back at T3 worked its way out during Dr Perry’s frantic pounding on JFK’s chest in his hysterical attempt to get the heart beating. It certainly could not have exited through the throat as the Magic Bullet buffs assert. And it was not found in the X-rays. And the probe during autopsy indicated a shallow wound. That bullet was likely thrown out with bloody towels when the trauma room was cleaned up.

        I also think that Dr Perry’s first impressions of the throat wound as a wound of entry is correct. And that pressure was applied to him to retract and go along to get along.
        I also think that Humes was lying and covering up on orders from above, just as Dr Finck indicated in the Clay Shaw trial.

        I think the conspiracy to cover-up reveals who the conspirators were that perpetrated the murder of President Kennedy; the Military Industrial Complex.
        \\][//

      • SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS
        NAME: Dr . Malcolm Oliver Perry
        University of Washington
        Address Medical School
        Seattle- Washinaton
        292
        TimeDate 1/11/_ 78 4 :40 D .m .
        Place: Dr. Perry’s office
        Dr . Malcolm Perry is. currently . a professor of Surgery at the .University of Washington Medical School . He can be contacted at 206/543-3105 . Andy Purdy and I interviewed Dr. Perry because of his participation in the medical treatment of President Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.

        Dr . Perry began the interview by stating that the intervening 14 years since the assassination have “not sharpened my recall .”~Donald A. Purdy

        “The wound was somewhere, probably 4 to 6 mm in diameter.”~Dr. Perry describing throat wound.

        Does everybody understand how tiny this is? In my opinion, anyone claiming this could have been an exit wound is out of their mind!

        “I thought perhaps there might also have been a hemo or pneumthorax accident .” Dr Perry (pg 10)

        I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the perietal occipatal head wound was largely evulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen and I didn’t inspect it further.”~Dr Perry (pg 11)

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M59If_Perry.pdf
        \\][//

  110. Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK – Volume 1 Paperback – November 24, 2009
    by Douglas P. Horne

    Horne has been spewing this hot-dog flavored water from his chocolate starfish for more than 6 years now, and STILL there has been no final display of these so called proofs, nor the revealing of who these so-called “Hollywood film experts” are. And now Horne has dropped off the radar screen.

    Horne’s supporters keep the faith like all superstitious cults.
    \\][//

  111. To understand wound ballistics, one must first have a firm grasp of basic Newtonian Physics; Momentum, Trajectory, and Kinetics.
    The intricacies of ballistics is founded on these basics.

    Newton’s 1st Law

    “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
    This law is often called “the law of inertia”.

    Newton’s 2nd Law

    “Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).”

    Newton’s 3rd Law

    “For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.”
    . . .

    It is this accumulation to the 3rd law that causes the light bulb to lean against the bullet when it first comes in contact. The bulb/head for that split second as the bullet first contacts it is heavier than the missile, and leans forward against it. Only after the center of gravity is reached as the bullet inters the skull does the kinetic energy push the head back.

    Target Movement

    “When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head.

    German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011).

    Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.”~Sherry Fiester CSI

    “Although the principles of wound ballistics are not so complicated, bullets take a special position among the objects relevant in traumatology due to their physical characteristics: compared to other wounding agents, the mass is very small and the velocity is high. Unlike other blunt accelerated objects, this allows per se a deep penetration of tissue. But unlike sharp force, a dynamic penetration mechanism is effective which has not ended by the time the bullet exits.”
    […]
    “The third part is dedicated to blood and tissue particles exiting via the entrance wound: backspatter. The direction against the line of fire is the reason for the high evidential value of this phenomenon.”~Karger (9.1 Introduction – pg. 141)

    Mr. STURDIVAN – “There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions.

    **Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.**

    You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.”– HSCA testimony
    . . .

    To Understand the Zapruder film, one must first have a firm grasp on movie making machinery ie: cameras, projectors, splicing equipment, etc.
    One must also understand the medium of film itself, its properties and the chemistry of the dyes and celluloid.
    Then, if one is going to assert “alteration”, one must understand the field of special effects cinematography.
    If one does NOT understand these things, one is not going to grasp the arguments that prove the Zapruder film is authentic.

    The grasp of ballistics, and of cinematography combine as necessities in understanding the best evidence in the JFK murder, the Zapruder film.
    \\][//

  112. Zapruder Film on JFKfacts:

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/gayle-jackson-nix-sues-for-her-grandfathers-jfk-film/#comments
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/doug-horne-zooms-in-on-the-zapruder-film/#comment-868435
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/in-defense-of-life-magazine-on-jfk/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/max-holland-reinterprets-the-zapruder-film/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/a-revisionist-view-of-the-zapruder-film/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/when-was-the-zapruder-film-first-shown-to-the-american-people/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/director-alex-cox-screens-the-zapruder-film/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/max-holland-rewinds-the-zapruder-film/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/abraham-zapruder-as-the-director-of-american-history/
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/where-did-the-most-famous-jfk-assassination-film-come-from/
    http://jfkfacts.org/tag/doug-horne/
    __________________________________________________________________________________________
    Willy Whitten — April 9, 2016 at 12:42 am
    “I witnessed a viewing of the film in NYC in late November 1964 at the Charles Theater.”~Pamela Brown

    Do you have any documented proof that such a viewing ever actually occurred Ms Brown?

    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/doug-horne-zooms-in-on-the-zapruder-film/#comment-868435

    From the Clay Shaw trial transcript:

    Q: Mr. Zapruder, from having seen the film just projected on the screen, can you tell us whether or not this represents what you saw on November 22, 1963, after your original film was developed in Dallas, Texas?

    A: I would say they do.

    THE COURT: I didn’t hear you again.

    THE WITNESS: I would say that they do. Yes, they do.
    http://www.jfk-info.com/az-shaw.htm

    \\][//

  113. Willy Whitten
    December 22, 2015 at 11:31 am
    “It is an entirely bogus argument to make that ‘the Zapruder film couldn’t possibly be altered’ Its bogus because like all the physical evidence, its provenance cannot be reliably established. It is doubly bogus because it isn’t common knowledge what techniques intelligence agencies had at their disposal in the 60’s.”~Eddy

    I’m sorry Eddy but you are wrong. It is a straw man first of all, to leave out the essential point about the argument for the authenticity of the Zapruder film: It is not that it impossible the film could be altered – It is that it could not be done so in an undetectable manner.

    Whether you want to believe it or not some things ARE impossible, there are limits to almost anything. The limits on what one can do with 8 mm Kodachrome II are well stated, and well known to anyone who actually understands film chemistry, dye stuff reactions to light and the particular dyes composing the emulsion of K-II.

    The provenance of the Z-film is indeed reliably established. The story told by Horne is all supposition and rhetorical nonsense.

    Horne’s discussion on how he thinks the film was altered proves beyond the slightest doubt that he is utterly ignorant of film and special effects. The only people he can fool with this nonsense are others who are equally is ignorant.

    As far as a 4K scan of what is originally an 8 mm image of colored dyes on celluloid, it seems that no one is taking into account the fact that we are not talking about a magnification of the actual head of Kennedy. We are speaking to a magnification of film grain not real life.

    You are not peering at Kennedy’s actual head as if you are there in the plaza at the time moving closer in to look directly at the area of Kennedy’s head.

    While I do not trust Douglas Horne for a moment, and wouldn’t put anything past him, such as possibly being involve in doctoring the photo’s in his care. More to the point is that I don’t trust his grasp on the medium; what film actually is, the chemical structure of both the film dyes and the celluloid it is adhered to, and how light effects this combination.

    As far as the dyes and grain being magnified to that degree, I think the concept itself is faulty. Any medium magnified to that level is only going to show the medium itself, far out of context of the subject it had once portrayed.
    \\][//

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/#comment-841655

  114. Do you understand the mechanism that created the ghost images appearing at the left margin of the Z-film? These images are a bleed in, a double exposure of the frame directly proceeding the frame we see. The leak comes from the sprocket mechanism, allowing light to come through the sprocket hole, exposing the area next to the hole on the upcoming frame. If there had been an edit in the Z-film, the ghost image in the first frame where the edit begins would be of an image of the last frame where the film was cut, not the frame just proceeding the edited splice.
    At no place in the film is there a ghost image that is not of the frame just proceeding the frame we see,

    Zavada discovered the cause of these ghost images some 33 years after the film had been shot. People had noticed the ghost images before, but had no idea of what caused them. They were in fact one of the first aspects of the film that began the speculation that the film had been altered. Actually they are proof that it was not altered. Zavada explains all of this in great detail in his exposition on the Bell & Howell 8mm movie camera that Zapruder used to film the motorcade in Dallas.
    * * * * *
    See above:
    DISSECTING THE ZAPRUDER BELL & HOWELL 8mm MOVIE CAMERA
    Outline of a Presentation to the Movie Machine Society Toronto Conference, 10/24/98
    by Roland J. Zavada
    [At the very top of this page.]
    \\][//

    • Willy Whitten — April 29, 2016 at 11:24 pm
      Could it have been different? Could this topic have been discussed in a less combative manner? Could it have been discussed rationally without rancor?

      Of course it could have. That is what is most aggravating of all about the way things did proceed here. I think most people who already think Oswald is innocent, that he cannot possibly have been JFK’s murderer. would be delighted to find definite, unambiguous proof; such as a clear photo of him elsewhere when the shots were fired.

      Therefore it is not the notion itself that brought this kettle to a boil here. It was the manner in which the Prayerman contingent assaulted the site with such determined virulence.

      There is no need at this point to relitigate the steps that led to this unfortunate confrontation. The arguments have been made and exhausted; the record is clear.

      I have had reasonably civil arguments with some proponents of the alteration of the Z-film – I have encountered other alteration proponents who are just as unreasonable and pugnacious as this current group of Prayerman proponents.

      In my experience, those who listen to reason, and learn the facts can be persuaded to change their views. Those who simply enjoy rancorous confrontation do not change their views because their views are secondary to their emotional and egotistical need for one-upmanship and conflict.

      Personally I am not seeking consensus on any of these topics, just reasonable and rational argumentation.
      \\][//

      http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873274

      • HI Willy. I think when you debate people who promote fringe theories, you’re going to run into a lot of vitriol. The same is true of 9/11 “truthers”, moon hoax proponents and evolution deniers. As for prayerman, the image isn’t remotely clear enough for a reliable identification. And why didn’t Oswald talk about that when the press was asking him questions? That would have been a perfect alibi. For that matter, why didn’t ANY of his fellow employees say they saw him there? Were ALL the employees in on it? I’m sure you already know all this, but I’m just thinking out loud.

        I think Oswald was indeed, a patsy, but not an innocent one. It makes no sense that he was framed, unless the perps had some way to prevent him from standing anywhere near other people during the shooting, where they would prove his innocence.

        BTW, I’ve been hanging out in a couple of the Facebook JFK groups. One of them has over 4000 members, including a few of the celebrity class, although they rarely put in an appearance. One of the groups (the big one) is called the “JFK Assassination Research Bureau”. The guy who runs it, puts up with no crap and bans people who claim Jackie, Connally, Greer or Hickey did it. I think he may have banned Zfilm alterationists too. I don’t seem to see anyone pitching that notion. You should check it out. This is the first group where I have seen fairly open minded people and the nutters are relatively civil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s