Roland Zavada Comments on the Zapruder Film Hoax

(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

 – 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.

. . .
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

osiah 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

Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films in sync

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

FBI model of Dealey Plaza with shot analysis:

This shows the scale model, and analysis by the FBI of their version of the shots from the TBDB. There are two frames from the Nix film, one frame from the Muchmore film, and the B&W Moorman Polaroid picture accompanying the model photo.
http://s1233.photobucket.com/user/dhjosephs/media/fbithreeshots-1pastz313-smaller_zps136daffd.jpg.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

It is IMPOSSIBLE to create traveling 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.

– William Whitten December 13, 2014 at 7:47 pm

\\][//