Zavada was an emulsion chemist at Eastland Kodak in the late 40s up to the 60s, He led the team that invented Kodachrome II daylight film.
He and Raymond Fielding both assessed Costella's theory and concluded he is a rank amateur who knows nothing about movie film or movie making equipment, especially special effects. Raymond Fielding wrote the standard book on the *Technique of Special Effects Cinematography*
In 1965, Professor Raymond Fielding wrote the first textbook on the "black arts of Hollywood," titled The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie interviewed him in 2006 about the possibility of Zapruder film alteration, and Rollie wrote in 2010 that Fielding had said any alteration of the Zapruder film in 1963 would be detectable today, and that such alteration would not withstand professional scrutiny.
Patrick J, Do you know how the so-called "ghost images" on the far left margin were created? They were caused by the claw mechanism that advances the film through the camera cause leakage of light into the margins. Those ghost images are of the last frame exposed. This means that the ghost images are in the same sequence and the exposed frames are; What this means for removing or switching any frame is that the ghost images would reveal the wrong image, a telltale sign of what had been done. This is very important because no one new new how those images were caused until Zavada did in investigation for the ARRB in 1992.
So the fact that all the ghost images are in the same sequence as the frames is one more proof that the Zapruder film we know today is the film shot by Zapruder in Dealey Plaza in 1963.
After I originally published this article back in 2003, David Lifton sent me an email message, requesting that I post a "rebuttal" from him on this matter.
I immediately replied to him: "Just a reminder, David...Any "rebuttal" I post needs to meet my editorial standards for acceptance. You know my "drill" - plenty of citations, no heresay (that should kill your rebuttal), and only the best evidence and best sources currently available (another point that should get your rebuttal rejected)."
Haven't heard a peep from Lifton since.
Here we go again...
Professor Fetzer has published yet another book, screaming "The Zapruder film has been altered!" to anyone who listens.
David Lifton is a major contributor. Lifton's chapter is over 100 pages in length, and in those pages I can find only one specific argument for "proving" alteration.
And that one argument is easily proven INCORRECT...not by me, but by the gentleman who literally invented the Kodak emulsion that Abraham Zapruder was using that day.
You would think that an honest researcher would use the BEST AVAILABLE experts when writing such a chapter. One would further think that an editor would demand that only the finest resources be contacted when publishing a book on any topic.
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.
I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence.
I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me.
There was no blue screen used as you claim in your straw man objection. Aerial imaging is self-matting (as you know) and it only requires one pass with a process camera, to create the new film after individual frames are altered. Once the black patches (covering up the true exit wound on the right rear of the head) were painted on animation cells in the animation stand (on an aerial optical printer), each frame altered by animation only had to be rephotographed once with the process camera. That's it. And exit debris frames (back and to the left, and straight up in the air) that were unwanted were removed optically by simply not photographically copying those frames. You are consistently trying to make the alteration of the Z film sound so complicated that, in your view, "it could not have been done." I don't agree with you at all. There were no traveling mattes used. Just animation cells in an aerial optical printer.
Like (1)
Reply (4)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
1d
This is true. Just because Whitten wants everything to be difficult and convoluted doesn't mean everyone else has degenerated to the same lack of standards, the same amateur path lost in the weeds.
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Your statement about aerial imaging being inherently "self-matting" and requiring only one pass with a process camera to create a new film after alterations needs further clarification.
While aerial imagery can be used as a source for matte paintings or digital mattes in visual effects, it's not "self-matting" in the way you might be thinking.
Here's a breakdown to clarify:
Aerial Imagery: Refers to images or video captured from an aerial perspective, such as from an aircraft or drone. This imagery often captures landscapes or expansive scenes, providing a large scale or establishing shot.
Matte: In filmmaking, a matte is a mask that prevents certain areas of an image from being exposed, allowing other areas to be composited with different elements.
Matte Painting: This is a visual effects technique where a painted, digital, or photographic background is used to augment or replace elements in a shot, typically for creating environments or large sets.
Process Camera: A specialized camera historically used in graphic reproduction and prepress to create film separations (CMYK) or line-work.
How aerial imagery relates to mattes:
Aerial Imagery as Source Material: Aerial photographs or videos can be used as source material for creating matte paintings, which can then be used as backgrounds in films.
Compositing: The process of combining multiple images or layers to create a final shot often involves using mattes to isolate and blend different elements. For example, in filmmaking, a matte painting might be combined with live-action footage of actors on a set, where the areas where the matte painting will appear are "matted off" in the live-action footage.
Digital Mattes: With modern visual effects, aerial imagery can be used to create digital mattes, which are essentially digital masks that define areas for compositing.
The Role of Process Cameras:
Pre-Digital Era: Historically, process cameras were used to create the physical film elements required for traditional matte processes, such as creating separations or working with film-based mattes.
Not Directly for "Self-Matting": Process cameras are not inherently involved in aerial imagery being "self-matting". Aerial imagery itself doesn't automatically create a matte; it provides the visual information that can be used in conjunction with matting techniques to create a desired effect.
In summary:
Aerial imaging provides a useful visual resource for matte painting and compositing, but it's not a process that is "self-matting" or that is completed with a single pass in a process camera in the way you described. Modern visual effects rely on sophisticated digital techniques to achieve realistic and seamless compositing, including digital mattes derived from sources like aerial imagery.
\\][//
Expand full comment
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Mr. Horne,
Your commentary is just one more example of your ignorance of film making and film making equipment. I have just posted the facts that prove this point.
Read it and try to make up more excuses if you wish.
And tell your puppy Jackie Ow she is just making it worse for y'all.
\\][//
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Mr. Horne,
I am sorry but your ignorance on matters of special effects cinematography is made clearer with every post you make;
It cannot be confirmed that aerial imaging is inherently "self-matting" or that it requires only one pass with a process camera after individual frame alterations.
Here is why:
Matting combines different image elements by masking out parts of one image and superimposing another. This technique creates visual effects, such as combining live-action actors with a painted background.
Process cameras are specialized cameras used in graphic reproduction to create film separations for printing. They are designed for precise control over image enlargement or reduction.
Aerial imaging captures images from an airborne platform. Applications include mapping, surveying, and cinematography.
Matting is a compositing technique, separate from the process of acquiring aerial images. There is no information to suggest that aerial imaging itself automatically creates a matte or that it's inherently a single-pass process camera workflow. Some examples of matte use in film involve complex multi-pass processes or digital techniques like chroma keying.
Therefore, the statement appears inaccurate. While aerial imagery can be used as a background or element in matte shots, the imaging process itself isn't described as "self-matting," and its integration with a process camera workflow for post-alteration image creation may involve multiple steps.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
20h
Whitten's favorite hallucination: anything limiting to Whitten is also impossible for the rest of the world.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
17h
You are one ignorant fuck head Jackie Ow.
All the techniques Horne claims were used to alter the Zapruder film are bullshit.
\\][//
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
11h
Whitten's techniques don't explain how Zapruder was altered, so he figures Zapruder can't possibly be altered. Even for obvious things like the huge tire in Z155 or the flattened upper right corner in Z220. This is like not knowing how the sun works, therefore insisting it can't possibly be shining. Yes, when you have the mentality of a barnyard animal. Since Whitten can't figure out the simplest of things, it makes sense that a guy who can't figure out what's wrong with Zapruder can't figure out what's wrong with himself and his fractured non-logic. Look for his next series of demented sputterings, and you will see that he hasn't made any progress.
William Whitten
William’s Substack
3h
Edited
I already explained to you specifically that the "huge tire in Z155 and the flattened upper right corner in Z220." are due to the sprocket leak of light showing a partial image of the next frame in the sequence.
Since you are ignorant of the claw mechanism in the camera that advances the film was maladjusted in Zapruder's 8mm camera Ms. Ow is mystified by such anomalies in the film.
I have encouraged Ms. Ow to read the Zavada Report. which is available online, but she prefers to remain ignorant.
This is not my problem it is the problem of the ignorant Alterationists.
Zavada was an emulsion chemist at Eastland Kodak in the late 40s up to the 60s, He led the team that invented Kodachrome II daylight film.
He and Raymond Fielding both assessed Costella's theory and concluded he is a rank amateur who knows nothing about movie film or movie making equipment, especially special effects. Raymond Fielding wrote the standard book on the *Technique of Special Effects Cinematography*
In 1965, Professor Raymond Fielding wrote the first textbook on the "black arts of Hollywood," titled The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography. Rollie interviewed him in 2006 about the possibility of Zapruder film alteration, and Rollie wrote in 2010 that Fielding had said any alteration of the Zapruder film in 1963 would be detectable today, and that such alteration would not withstand professional scrutiny.
\\][//
Patrick J, Do you know how the so-called "ghost images" on the far left margin were created? They were caused by the claw mechanism that advances the film through the camera cause leakage of light into the margins. Those ghost images are of the last frame exposed. This means that the ghost images are in the same sequence and the exposed frames are; What this means for removing or switching any frame is that the ghost images would reveal the wrong image, a telltale sign of what had been done. This is very important because no one new new how those images were caused until Zavada did in investigation for the ARRB in 1992.
So the fact that all the ghost images are in the same sequence as the frames is one more proof that the Zapruder film we know today is the film shot by Zapruder in Dealey Plaza in 1963.
https://youtu.be/4Acn_caIFAs?t=23
\\][//
Fetzer's New Book...
His Third Miserable Attempt at Scholarly Work
After I originally published this article back in 2003, David Lifton sent me an email message, requesting that I post a "rebuttal" from him on this matter.
I immediately replied to him: "Just a reminder, David...Any "rebuttal" I post needs to meet my editorial standards for acceptance. You know my "drill" - plenty of citations, no heresay (that should kill your rebuttal), and only the best evidence and best sources currently available (another point that should get your rebuttal rejected)."
Haven't heard a peep from Lifton since.
Here we go again...
Professor Fetzer has published yet another book, screaming "The Zapruder film has been altered!" to anyone who listens.
David Lifton is a major contributor. Lifton's chapter is over 100 pages in length, and in those pages I can find only one specific argument for "proving" alteration.
And that one argument is easily proven INCORRECT...not by me, but by the gentleman who literally invented the Kodak emulsion that Abraham Zapruder was using that day.
You would think that an honest researcher would use the BEST AVAILABLE experts when writing such a chapter. One would further think that an editor would demand that only the finest resources be contacted when publishing a book on any topic.
http://www.jfk-info.com/fetzerfails3.htm
\\][//
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.
\\][//
From: RAYRfielding@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:53:52 EST
Subject: Zavada
To: lenbrasil@xxxxxxx
Mr. Colby:
I apologize for my delay in responding to your e-nail. I have been out of the city for the last couple weeks and am only now catching up with my correspondence.
I agree with Rollie Zavada that the Zapruder film could not have been successfully manipulated in 1963 with the technology then available, and had it been attempted, could not possibly have survived scrutiny. You may quote me.
Raymond Fielding
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/6155-fielding-zavada-attn-john-simkin/
\\][//
Douglas Horne
Douglas’s Substack
1d
Edited
There was no blue screen used as you claim in your straw man objection. Aerial imaging is self-matting (as you know) and it only requires one pass with a process camera, to create the new film after individual frames are altered. Once the black patches (covering up the true exit wound on the right rear of the head) were painted on animation cells in the animation stand (on an aerial optical printer), each frame altered by animation only had to be rephotographed once with the process camera. That's it. And exit debris frames (back and to the left, and straight up in the air) that were unwanted were removed optically by simply not photographically copying those frames. You are consistently trying to make the alteration of the Z film sound so complicated that, in your view, "it could not have been done." I don't agree with you at all. There were no traveling mattes used. Just animation cells in an aerial optical printer.
Like (1)
Reply (4)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
1d
This is true. Just because Whitten wants everything to be difficult and convoluted doesn't mean everyone else has degenerated to the same lack of standards, the same amateur path lost in the weeds.
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Your statement about aerial imaging being inherently "self-matting" and requiring only one pass with a process camera to create a new film after alterations needs further clarification.
While aerial imagery can be used as a source for matte paintings or digital mattes in visual effects, it's not "self-matting" in the way you might be thinking.
Here's a breakdown to clarify:
Aerial Imagery: Refers to images or video captured from an aerial perspective, such as from an aircraft or drone. This imagery often captures landscapes or expansive scenes, providing a large scale or establishing shot.
Matte: In filmmaking, a matte is a mask that prevents certain areas of an image from being exposed, allowing other areas to be composited with different elements.
Matte Painting: This is a visual effects technique where a painted, digital, or photographic background is used to augment or replace elements in a shot, typically for creating environments or large sets.
Process Camera: A specialized camera historically used in graphic reproduction and prepress to create film separations (CMYK) or line-work.
How aerial imagery relates to mattes:
Aerial Imagery as Source Material: Aerial photographs or videos can be used as source material for creating matte paintings, which can then be used as backgrounds in films.
Compositing: The process of combining multiple images or layers to create a final shot often involves using mattes to isolate and blend different elements. For example, in filmmaking, a matte painting might be combined with live-action footage of actors on a set, where the areas where the matte painting will appear are "matted off" in the live-action footage.
Digital Mattes: With modern visual effects, aerial imagery can be used to create digital mattes, which are essentially digital masks that define areas for compositing.
The Role of Process Cameras:
Pre-Digital Era: Historically, process cameras were used to create the physical film elements required for traditional matte processes, such as creating separations or working with film-based mattes.
Not Directly for "Self-Matting": Process cameras are not inherently involved in aerial imagery being "self-matting". Aerial imagery itself doesn't automatically create a matte; it provides the visual information that can be used in conjunction with matting techniques to create a desired effect.
In summary:
Aerial imaging provides a useful visual resource for matte painting and compositing, but it's not a process that is "self-matting" or that is completed with a single pass in a process camera in the way you described. Modern visual effects rely on sophisticated digital techniques to achieve realistic and seamless compositing, including digital mattes derived from sources like aerial imagery.
\\][//
Expand full comment
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Mr. Horne,
Your commentary is just one more example of your ignorance of film making and film making equipment. I have just posted the facts that prove this point.
Read it and try to make up more excuses if you wish.
And tell your puppy Jackie Ow she is just making it worse for y'all.
\\][//
Like
Reply
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
1d
Mr. Horne,
I am sorry but your ignorance on matters of special effects cinematography is made clearer with every post you make;
It cannot be confirmed that aerial imaging is inherently "self-matting" or that it requires only one pass with a process camera after individual frame alterations.
Here is why:
Matting combines different image elements by masking out parts of one image and superimposing another. This technique creates visual effects, such as combining live-action actors with a painted background.
Process cameras are specialized cameras used in graphic reproduction to create film separations for printing. They are designed for precise control over image enlargement or reduction.
Aerial imaging captures images from an airborne platform. Applications include mapping, surveying, and cinematography.
Matting is a compositing technique, separate from the process of acquiring aerial images. There is no information to suggest that aerial imaging itself automatically creates a matte or that it's inherently a single-pass process camera workflow. Some examples of matte use in film involve complex multi-pass processes or digital techniques like chroma keying.
Therefore, the statement appears inaccurate. While aerial imagery can be used as a background or element in matte shots, the imaging process itself isn't described as "self-matting," and its integration with a process camera workflow for post-alteration image creation may involve multiple steps.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
20h
Whitten's favorite hallucination: anything limiting to Whitten is also impossible for the rest of the world.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
William Whitten
William’s Substack
17h
You are one ignorant fuck head Jackie Ow.
All the techniques Horne claims were used to alter the Zapruder film are bullshit.
\\][//
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Jackie Ow
Jackie’s Substack
11h
Whitten's techniques don't explain how Zapruder was altered, so he figures Zapruder can't possibly be altered. Even for obvious things like the huge tire in Z155 or the flattened upper right corner in Z220. This is like not knowing how the sun works, therefore insisting it can't possibly be shining. Yes, when you have the mentality of a barnyard animal. Since Whitten can't figure out the simplest of things, it makes sense that a guy who can't figure out what's wrong with Zapruder can't figure out what's wrong with himself and his fractured non-logic. Look for his next series of demented sputterings, and you will see that he hasn't made any progress.
William Whitten
William’s Substack
3h
Edited
I already explained to you specifically that the "huge tire in Z155 and the flattened upper right corner in Z220." are due to the sprocket leak of light showing a partial image of the next frame in the sequence.
Since you are ignorant of the claw mechanism in the camera that advances the film was maladjusted in Zapruder's 8mm camera Ms. Ow is mystified by such anomalies in the film.
I have encouraged Ms. Ow to read the Zavada Report. which is available online, but she prefers to remain ignorant.
This is not my problem it is the problem of the ignorant Alterationists.
\\][//
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/david-mamet-lee-harvey-oswald-was/comment/125572462