I began writing this opinion piece in response to one specific John McAdams comment in the thread following Peter Voskamp’s interview of Richard Stolley of LIFE magazine, about his involvement with the Zapruder film the weekend of JFK’s assassination.
The response I was writing evolved and morphed into something bigger as I was composing it. It is really about much more than just the one specific comment I am rebutting; it is about a much bigger issue — namely, the negative tone and apparent intent to disrupt, and ridicule, that John McAdams too often brings to the JFKFACTS site, and to other JFK chat rooms.
If John McAdams had truly read any of my work on the Zapruder film — such as the 200-page Z film chapter, number 14 in my book “Inside the ARRB;” or my 19,000-word, footnoted research paper on the 2 NPIC events (posted at LewRockwell.com) — he would know that I have completely discredited David Wrone’s book on the Zapruder film, and have done so with great specificity, quoting Wrone’s incorrect conclusions verbatim, and citing exactly why his major conclusions (that the USG had no interest in the film and did not have the capability to alter it) are incorrect, in light of new evidence. David Wrone’s book misrepresented/failed to report properly on the 2 NPIC events, as I reported in my chapter 14, and that obfuscation, I believe, was intentional. Wrone’s book, when it was published, was widely considered the best defense to date, at that time, of the Z film’s authenticity. But it now reads like a “flat earth” document, following Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe. Citing David Wrone’s book at this point in the Z film debate is about as useful as citing the Warren Report when discussing the medical evidence.
No one who has watched Dino Brugioni’s interview in the Shane O’Sullivan piece titled “The Zapruder Film Mystery” has expressed anything but respect for his excellent memory and his integrity, and this includes the moderator on this site, Jefferson Morley. Dino’s memories, when recorded on video in 2011, were 47 years old, and yet were more truthful, and useful, and reliable, than much of the testimony taken by the Warren Commission just months after JFK’s assassination. The best example of this is Dr. James J. Humes, who perjured himself on many occasions before the Warren Commission (and later before the ARRB). Humes’ testimony in 1964 was not “valid” just because it was “fresh.” And Dino Brugioni’s recollections (and those of Homer McMahon of NPIC in 1997) are not “invalid” just because they were not recorded in 1964. Each witnesses’ testimony and recollections must be evaluated independently, within the context of all known evidence and what they have said previously. Every oral historian and jurist knows this.
On those occasions when he discusses my work, McAdams keeps trotting out his favorite old shibboleth about how no one can trust 30+ year old memories; he attempts to use this rather lame, simplistic dismissal — a standard lawyer’s trick used in adversarial proceedings — whenever he cannot counter any of my specific assertions or conclusions by discussing specific evidence, or by discussing the pattern revealed by a large body of facts (and what those facts mean). On the rare occasions when he does discuss facts, he attempts to use a “reductionist” approach — which entails ignoring the “big picture” and selectively picking out one statement among many made by someone else, in an attempt to destroy a larger argument by nitpicking to death, and casting doubt upon, one small item in a large body of evidence. I find this approach to the JFK assassination counterproductive, for in adopting these methods, Mr. McAdams contributes nothing positive to the JFK debate; his sole object seems to be to cast the maximum doubt possible upon any facts contrary to the Warren Commission’s findings, and to debunk the serious work of dedicated JFK researchers, whose sole goal is to determine what really happened in our country in 1963.
But for the sake of this response, let me on this one occasion, counter his tired old argument that we cannot trust 30+ year old memories — which is demonstrably not true (Dennis David and Dino Brugioni are two good examples of “old” recollections that are rock-solid) — by stating that most of the evidence that causes us to mistrust the Warren Commission’s medical conclusions are NOT 30+ year old memories, but rather, are contemporaneous documents created at or near the time of the assassination, to wit:
(1) The Boyajian Report dated 11/26/63, which records the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue 20 minutes prior to the Andrews AFB motorcade;
(2)The Sibert and O’Neill FBI FD-302 report dated 11/26/63, which quotes Dr. Humes’ statement at the autopsy (when describing the condition of JFK’s body) that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” The significance of this statement is that there was no cranial surgery in Dallas.
(3) The receipt trail for the JFK autopsy report (from both 1965 and from 1967) which proves that the Secret Service TWICE relinquished “original autopsy reports” on JFK to others. The point here is that you cannot give away an “original” twice, if there was only one original. And we know the first draft of the autopsy report was burned by Dr. Humes in his fireplace after it was revised, because this is what Humes testified to in 1964 before Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission. That was not a 30+ year old memory — it was only about 4 months after the assassination. So we can have no confidence today in the extant autopsy report.
(4) National Archives personnel recorded in a written report on 10/31/66 that all of the paragraph nine materials (see the APR ’65 inventory) given to RFK in 1965 (including the brain and an “original autopsy report”) were not returned to the govt by the Kennedy family; and we have a 1969 memo written by Assistant S.S. Director Tom Kelley which records that the group of USG officials he was meeting with discussed the missing autopsy report, and the incendiary nature of that fact, and decided to do nothing about it.
(5) The Joint Casket Bearer Team’s official report written in 1963 lists the time that the honor guard took the Dallas casket into the morgue as “2000 hours,” or 8:00 PM. This contemporaneous document records the final casket entry (of three) that night at the Bethesda morgue; and when married with the Boyajian report (documenting the first casket entry at 18:35 hours, or 6:35 PM) proves that there was a shell game underway at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63 with JFK’s body, and that its chain of custody from Dallas to Bethesda was broken — seriously compromised.
(6) The Gawler’s Funeral Home “first call sheet” prepared on 11/22/63 records that JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a metal shipping casket, a term which had a specific meaning within the funeral trade. A shipping casket is used for the public transportation of corpses, and is not ornamental in any way. (Three Navy men at Bethesda Naval Hospital — Dennis David, Floyd Riebe, and Paul O’Connor — all recalled that the shipping casket was light gray in color, and was very simple and unadorned. It had no siderails, no viewing lid, and Riebe recalled that it sported ugly turnbuckles. Their testimony years later is to be believed because it is consistent with the Gawler’s document, which they never saw.) But JFK’s body did not leave Dallas in a cheap, lightweight gray aluminum shipping casket; rather, it left Dallas in a heavy, dark brown, bronze ceremonial viewing coffin. The break in the chain of custody of JFK’s body already established by the Boyajian report, and the report of the Casket Bearer Team, is further substantiated by this written record created on 11/22/63 by the Gawler’s funeral home embalming team.
(7) The contemporaneous treatment notes and reports of the Parkland treating physicians written on 11/22/63 — they are certainly not 30+ year old memories — all record a large head wound in the rear, or right rear, of President Kennedy’s head. None of them describe any damage to the top of the head or to the right side. Those are NOT simply my interpretations of what they wrote (as McAdams has claimed in an earlier posting), for if one consults a medical anatomy atlas, there is only ONE possible interpretation to what they wrote: JFK had a large defect in the back of his head, devoid of scalp and skull, extruding cerebral AND CEREBELLAR tissue. Those key observations speak to a fatal shot from the front, and dramatically disagree with the later autopsy conclusions (and the controversial autopsy photos of the back of the head). If one reads the treatment notes of the Parkland physicians, you will note a great uniformity and consistency in their descriptions of JFK’s wounds. If error was at play here, there should be a wide range of responses in their notes — but there is not. Dr. Clark stated that day that the treatment of JFK went on for 40 minutes (implying that the time of death was backdated to 1:00 PM after treatment was concluded). So the Dallas doctors and nurses had plenty of time to observe his wounds, both during treatment and after death; and they were all well trained professionals, so when they used words like “occipital” or “occipital-parietal” in their notes, we can have great confidence that they were making reasonably precise descriptions of what they had plenty of time to observe.
I could go on and on, but by now the readers of this thread surely get the point: you cannot dismiss serious evidence, and the conclusions derived from studying the patterns in that evidence, by refusing to discuss the facts, and by resorting to simplistic techniques to attempt to discount “wholesale” everything someone says. That is an intellectually dishonest approach. END
191 thoughts on “Doug Horne rebuts John McAdams”
And this affidavit from Burkley sinks the Lifton/Horne ship – case closed
DSL RESPONSE: It is absurd to believe that a single affidavit from the White House Physician –given the circumstances of this case –eliminates the possibility of a plan to falsify the autopsy results (via “body alteration” –i.e., a plan to alter the wounds and present the autopsy doctor with what was tantamount to a medical forgery. That’s for starters. . . but then Whitten expects us to believe that Admiral Burkley would not be aware? That is an absurd assertion. Had there been a Special Prosecutor in the JFK case–one aware of the substantial body of evidence indicating that (a) JFK’s wounds were altered; (b) the autopsy doctors remarked on it at the outset of the autopsy (“surgery of the head area,” etc.) and (c) there existed very overt and undeniable evidence that there was an interception of the body prior to autopsy (two coffins, sheets [in Dallas] versus “body bag” [at Bethesda]) –then asking Admiral Burkely to offer testimony in the spirit of “You were there! Say it ain’t so!”. For him to testify that thee was “no difference” between Dallas and Bethesda would be like believing that when Willie Sutton approached the bank teller, it was not to obtain money, but that he simply had a bad cold and was asking her for handkerchief. Of course, defense attorneys would probably love to have the likes of Willie Written on the jury.
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.” “[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. And this affidavit from Burkley sinks the Lifton/Horne ship – case closed <
I know it’s almost six years later, but I could not let it pass after checking your reference above. You conveniently left out the reason for Burkley’s claim that they was no difference in the wounds seen at Parkland with those allegedly seen at Bethesda. Nice try.
I am surprised that so many of the commentators here are so willing to jump at the possibility that the Zapruder film has been altered.
The Zapruder film is the most significant visual record of the assassination of John Kennedy that exists. Cui Bono? Who has the most to gain by extinguishing this evidence? The answer to that is obvious: Those who perpetrated the killing.
I advise pause and deep reflection on this topic before jumping aboard cheering. I gather from the conversation here that very few of the participants have any knowledge of special effects cinematography. I know from his own remarks that Douglas Horne is totally clueless on the topic.
I have mentioned on other pages here that I am a retired special effects artist, working for some 25 years in Hollywood. I know special effects techniques intimately. I can grasp the counter arguments made by Zavata and Fielding to Horne. Can you? If not, you owe it to reason and logic to educate yourselves on these issues.
Perhaps my essay at my blog site can assist:
Doug: I found this article/thread on JFK Facts until after drafting the following letter, mailed 11/12/14 to President Obama. I found information you and others conveyed at the JFK conference in Alexandria in late September extremely persuasive. I hope to have adequately synopsized the commendable and impressively rigorous analysis you and others have made in finding that the only “Zapruder Film” Americans have seen was indeed an altered version of the never released original – altered to minimize evidence of one/more shots striking JFK from the front 0n 11/22/63: Letter sent 11/12/14: https://www.scribd.com/doc/177829203/President-Obama-this-November-22nd-Honor-JFK-Free-the-Files
It’s remarkable Humes has defenders here.
Humes cheated everyone here, Photon and McAdams included. He obfuscated the truth (the condition of the back of the head, the damage to the brain, the paths of bullets and bullet fragments, the location of wounds). Thst’s the worst thing a pathologist can do.
He was no bumbler. He was a deceiver. To defend Humes is to defend deceit.
Absolutely agree. For any LNer who thinks JFK’s assassination is an open and shut case, they need to look at Humes’ words and actions. I believe any reasonable person would be shocked at the subterfuge.
What’s really remarkable is that no one ever really grilled him in spite of repeated opportunities in light of his transgressions.
He reported what he saw. He reported in the standard language and techniques of the autopsy procedure He was an expert in his field and his conclusions have been proven correct by multiple genuine experts over 50 years.
And virtually every individual on this site who claims that he had nefarious intentions has zero knowledge of autopsy procedures, pathology or medical reports.
If you do not like his conclusions, fine. But there is a horrible tendency among the conspiracy crowd to demonize honorable men and women simply because their answers do not fit the conspiracy narrative.Even to the point of Horne accusing Humes of doing a medically impossible procedure and thus committing a felony obstructing justice. Or claiming that Ruth Paine was a CIA operative and complicit in the assassination. Or claiming that J D Tippit was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK, a truly obscene claim when one sees what his murder did to his family.
It is easy to libel the dead.
“He (Humes) was an expert in his field and his conclusions have been proven correct by multiple genuine experts over 50 years.” ~Photon
Expert? That kind of specialist is called a “forensic pathologist,” an expert in “unnatural” death, such as death due to gunshots, knife wounds, etc.
Humes was a nonspecialist pathologist which is called an “anatomic” or “general” pathologist, and is expert in “natural” death – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and the like. To achieve forensics credentials an anatomic pathologist undergoes additional years of training beyond the qualifications required for an anatomic pathologist. It is widely recognized that it is best for gunshot victims to have the benefit of forensic expertise. For only with the additional training does an autopsist obtain the requisite skills to unravel these often-difficult cases.
Doug – fine and dandy; but there was no surgery to the head, and that was not what they were talking about. It was, I reiterate, related to removal of the brain. As for later re-construction of the body, that was done for burial purposes. The use of related pics to lie about the wounds is another issue.
Lifton is not worth considering, in any way. I don’t care how much he has refined his earlier opinions. It is not like with, say, Josiah Thompson, who has re-defined rational theories over the years, as any good researcher would. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Even McAdams, like a stopped clock, is occasionally right, but you would not cite his work.
Allen, isn’t the act of removing the brain a “surgery to the head area”(as was reported by Silbert and O’Neill)? I’d say it is, and I don’t have to be a doctor to say that.
You assert there was no surgery to the head, yet the Sibert-O’neill report quotes Humes as saying there was surgery to the head at the START of the autopsy. Maybe I missed something, but why your assertion?
And your confirmation from any other source that Humes actually made the statement?
Why do you ask?
“..yet the Sibert-O’neill report quotes Humes as saying there was surgery to the head at the START of the autopsy.”~Jonathan
Sibert-O’Neill amended that statement about surgery to the head the night of the autopsy when the piece of skull found in the limousine was brought in.
They clarified that when the head was first unwrapped, on just a cursory look, Humes made that statement.
And this one small incident has led to David Lifton’s purely fantastical tale of Kennedy’s body being stolen, or even switched with another. The sort of wacko nonsense that coincidence theorist latch on to the claim all of the conspiracy evidence is as silly.
1) Didn’t Harold Weisberg lay out a pretty convincing argument in “Whitewash” that on average 1 frame in 3 had been elided from the Zapruder film? I’m aware of the argument that the fastest preset speed of the camera was 18 fps but I seem to remember that the camera could be “overclocked” to 24 fps by afficiandos. Zapruder attested to the FBI that his camera was filming at 24 fps.
2) Wasn’t photographic evidence considered inadmissible in court in 1963-64? Because photographs could be retouched or otherwise altered? Maybe I’m the victim of an urban legend, but if not, it seems that the Warren Commission was taking a rather egregious liberty with the public trust, not only with the Z-film but especially with the Backyard Photos.
“Mr. McAdams contributes nothing positive to the JFK debate; his sole object seems to be to cast the maximum doubt possible upon any facts contrary to the Warren Commission’s findings, and to debunk the serious work of dedicated JFK researchers, whose sole goal is to determine what really happened in our country in 1963.”
This comment by Mr. Horne encapsulates my feelings about this individual.
McAdams, Photon, and the lone nut buffs are doing here what Posner did in his book Case Closed. Posner didn’t make much of an argument that Oswald did it alone; rather he focused on why it couldn’t have been a conspiracy. I know that lone nutters know that Oswald was never convicted in a court of law for killing JFK. The reason for that itself may be part of the conspiracy. It’s worth getting the reason verified and it always will be.
And Posner’s book, “Case Closed” has been quite thoroughly debunked for its terrible mistakes and generally faulty conclusions:
So far, although McAdams tries on his site, I still haven’t seen anyone conclusively overturn the acoustical evidence which proves a shot came from the front of the car, as well as shots from behind it, as has been extremely well described (along with his careful scientific debunking of the critics of the HSCA findings by Don Thomas):
” hold everything secure”. That phrase totally debunks the acoustic “evidence” and proves that the tones identified by the ” experts” as gunshots happened after tha assassination. The “experts” that placed the source as the Grassy Knoll were about 2 off from the real source.
Of course, if you want to believe that an insect expert with no training in acoustics or firearms trumps bona fide sound experts and world renounced physicists be my guest.
Thomas explains that old bogus charge you resurrect, and which has now been thoroughly debunked, in his book. I suggest you READ the book before you throw smoke and mud in the air to try to confuse the issue. Cite his claim and rebut it if you can. Let’s see you try.
The “insect expert” laughably lame attack you lob at the author does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument, by the way.
For those who would like to read the book, Hear No Evil, it’s available on the Mary Ferrell site:
Debunked by who? Debunked how? Just go to Dale Myers review of the multiple factual errors and outright lies of Mr. Thomas in regards to the Tippit shooting. Anybody who reads that can see that Mr. Thomas’ research methods are woefully inaccurate .
You begin by repeating the mistake of the “hold everything secure” misreading of the dictabelt tapes, then switch over to Thomas’ analysis of the Tippit shooting, which is a separate argument.
I don’t think you have actually read Thomas’ book, just smeared it without bothering to read it. But if you know much about Dale Myers’ charge, you surely know that Thomas has rebutted Myers, and you can read that here:
Again, READ “Hear No Evil.” Then critique WHY you think the acoustics evidence of the shooting is wrong. The Tippit shooting analysis we can leave for a separate discussion.
Reviewing “tThe Bike With The Mike” article was very revealing, probably not as you would have wished.It is full of unsubstantiated, unsourced and unreferenced claims. Basically you have to accept Dr. Thomas’ version of events- because he says so. To begin with, he complains that Myers uses the film evidence to establish his case, claiming that the testimony of the motorcycle officers involved regarding speeds and acceleration is more accurate than the filmed record.If you believe that I can see how you could hold Thomas in high regard.
Dr. Thomas states “The negative evidence thus provides circumstantial support for the acoustical evidence in that while the acoustically required positions at the exact moment of gunfire are not shown in any film, most every other position is, and McClain is not in the wrong position”. So even though there is no photographic evidence to support his claim and much to disprove it, he is correct?
Lastly, neither Thomas nor anybody else has conclusively proved that the ” hold everything secure” could have been recorded out of sequence, let alone the probability of it happening even if it was possible in the first place. To continue to believe that “experts” would be able to calculate the direction of a “fourth” shot to an accuracy of 95% while completely missing the phrase ” hold everything secure” (which was audible even on a cheap mass-produced copy) is simply ludicrous .
This was a rebuttal article, but Thomas’ sources and references are quite clearly listed in his book and even in more detailed articles on the Mary Ferrell site, and in his book. I’d cite them (the references) but this reply doesn’t give me enough room to list them all. You can find them here:
PHOTON:”Basically you have to accept Dr. Thomas’ version of events- because he says so.”
That’s being a bit flippant. Here’s what Cyril Wecht has said of Thomas’ book:
Hear No Evil is truly a monumental work. Don Thomas has made a huge contribution to the vast JFK Assassination literature. His objective, detailed analysis of every relevant forensic scientific aspect of this politically-motivated murder should convince any unbiased reader of the harsh fact that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a multi-faceted, well-orchestrated conspiracy. - Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., past president of American Academy of Forensic Scientists, past president of American College of Legal Medicine.
PHOTON: “To begin with, he complains that Myers uses the film evidence to establish his case, claiming that the testimony of the motorcycle officers involved regarding speeds and acceleration is more accurate than the filmed record.”
Myers misplaces the position of Hughes, one of the other filmmakers of the motorcade. Thomas points this out, and also explains in detail how the acoustics must be matched not just to a silent film but to the placement of the motorcycle that recorded the impulses, AND notes correctly that the Zapruder film is not completely true to speed; it’s a 8mm film that distorted the actual speed of the motorcade so adjustments must be made when using it to get alignment of the tape recording with the film frame sequence.
PHOTON: “Dr. Thomas states ‘The negative evidence thus provides circumstantial support for the acoustical evidence in that while the acoustically required positions at the exact moment of gunfire are not shown in any film, most every other position is, and McClain is not in the wrong position.’ So even though there is no photographic evidence to support his claim and much to disprove it, he is correct?”//
You obviously don’t have a complete understanding of the careful methodology Thomas employed to get the placement of the motorcycle with the stuck microphone open verified. Newsreels showing the motorcade in Dealey Plaza indicates that a motorcycle ridden by officer H.B. McLain was in positions before and after the shooting such that with a reasonable trajectory he could have been in the acoustically predicted locations to have recorded the gunfire at the time of the shooting. No other motorcycle unit is in a position such that a reasonable trajectory would have been at the predicted locations. In testimony to the HSCA McLain recalled that his radio microphone tended to stick in the on position.
PHOTON: “Lastly, neither Thomas nor anybody else has conclusively proved that the ” hold everything secure” could have been recorded out of sequence, let alone the probability of it happening even if it was possible in the first place.”
The police were using two radio frequencies at the time of the assassination. Ch-1 contains the suspect sounds identified as gunshots. Ch-2 contains broadcasts from the President’s motorcade. The juxtaposition of the suspect sounds to a simulcast of the words, “I’ll check it”, a broadcast found on both channels, establishes exact synchrony between the suspect sounds and the actual time of the assassination. That is, the suspect gunshot sounds were deposited on the police recording at the exact instant that President Kennedy was being assassinated.
Again, if you read the book, you might not find what YOU want; that there is fairly conclusive evidence of more than one shooter from the audio record of the assassination AND that a thorough analysis of that audio recording shows that what you THINK you hear with regard to “Hold everything secure” is recorded over and not from the same timeframe.
Not a single statement in the referred to article is footnoted. There isn’t a single shred of independently verifiable evidence in the article to support his claims. There is no evidence whatsoever that the tones identified as gunshots happened at anytime other than virtually simultaneously with ” hold everything secure”. He has posted no real experts who agree with his findings except the clueless “investigators” who missed the phrase in the first place.
Why would anybody want to read his book or believe his claims with such shoddy methods and unreproducible data?
Excuse my asking Photon, but are you obtuse?
You’re just throwing out half truths and lies. For example, whereas in the “Bike With the Mike” article, you can criticize for there being no footnotes, you cannot say that about other articles and the book, which DO have footnotes. As for the single shred of “evidence”—-what do you think the dictabelt recording is?
As for the crosstalk, “hold everything secure”—-you really haven’t been paying attention, because the article (here:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_3) AND the book, in even greater detail, explains how the tape looped to record over older tape to give an uninformed layperson like yourself the impression that the command to hold secure was made at the same time as the gunshot impulses, but it was not.
As for saying (I guess hoping if you say enough times it will stick?) that no acoustics experts corroborate Dr. Thomas’ findings of a conspiracy based upon the dictabelt recording, you really need to get a clue.
Because if you’re talking about the acoustic scientists employed by the HSCA then you need to get a clue. These guys were genuine experts at the very top of their profession. The HSCA asked the Acoustical Society of America for a short list of leading experts in the field and top of that list was BBN who, the HSCA reported, “specializes in acoustical analysis and performs such work as locating submarines by analyzing underwater sound impulses. It pioneered the technique of using sound recordings to determine the timing and direction of gunfire in an analysis of a tape that was recorded during the shootings at Kent State University in 1970.”
Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy were second on the list. As well as being involved in various acoustical projects such as the examination of the Watergate tapes, Weiss and Aschkenasy wrote computer programs for processing acoustical data for military applications. For example, a submarine navigates by bouncing sounds of its environment and the on-board computer is able to factor in and adjust for important elements like the vessel’s speed and the water temperature which varies with latitude. Weiss and Aschkenasy wrote those software programs for the U.S. Navy. They were genuine, proven and trusted acoustical experts. By no stretch of the imagination were they “clueless investigators”.
These guys applied their expertise to the dictabelt recording and came up with compelling evidence of conspiracy. And because officialdom hated it they’ve been attacked and ridiculed ever since. The poor guys won’t even grant interviews anymore because of the way they’ve been treated. All for having found scientific evidence that the government found inconvenient.
Yikes, I hate it when I agree with Photon. But I think he’s correct on this issue. The Hughes film shows McClain to be out of position to record the shots as needed to support the dictabelt evidence.
It doesn’t entirely debunk it, however. It could be that the tape still makes sense if the first shot was recorded when McClain was on Houston. I don’t believe this has been tested to the point where we can say yes or no, but I could be wrong.
REPLY to PAT SPEER:
I concur with you (and skeptics like Photon) on that issue, of the difficulty of placing the motorcycle driven by Officer McLain of the stuck mike) exactly in position, because of incomplete film and photographic evidence. However, I don’t think this is a “Deal Killer” for the acoustics line of argument that the HSCA and then Dr. Thomas and others have postulated.
Here is how Thomas responded this year to that speculative line of questioning:
“If you look at positive evidence, there is no film or photograph that shows precisely where Officer McLain’s motorcycle was at every moment moving through Dealey Plaza,” Thomas said.
“But there are enough photos of McLain’s motorcycle on Houston and Elm streets that by the process of elimination we know McLain had to be very close to where the physical evidence on the Dictabelt requires that he had to be, if the open microphone broadcast came from him,” Thomas said.
The quote from Thomas is from a VERY interesting article published online in September of this year: http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/did-3-shooters-gun-down-jfk/#y6a6sqpHsuGgD4GH.99
If Weiss and Aschkenasy were such experts how could they have missed the phrase ” hold everything secure” in the first place? They and others came up with a convoluted and highly unlikely ” possibility ” with no proof that it actually occurred AFTER the report was issued.
They had no clue that the phrase even existed at the time the report was released. What does that say about their data collection methods- or lack thereof? It is analogous to a doctor claiming that rectal bleeding is coming from a hemorrhoid after failing to do a digital exam and missing a 6 inch rectal cancer.
The very fact that the rifle shots, which are proven by their wave forms by acoustic experts to be such; align and synchronize perfectly with the shots in the Zapruder film, make all the suppositions put forth to deny it irrelevant.
Researchers in the JFK assassination have, over the decades, compiled a mountain of circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of the U.S. national-security establishment. They have accomplished this, in large part, through voluntary research efforts and analysis, that is, without the power of subpoena, contempt, and the threat of perjury indictments.
That’s why their accomplishment is so impressive.
That’s also why criticisms of assassination researchers by the likes of John McAdams are utterly disingenuous.
Imagine, for example, if the CIA had not kept secret from the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee, and the ARRB what it did with the Zapruder film immediately after the assassination. Those investigative committees could have subpoenaed the CIA officials at NPIC in D.C. and at Kodak in New York and individually questioned them under oath as to what exactly they were doing with the Zapruder film that weekend and why they were trying to keep their activities secret from the American people and official investigators.
Instead, the CIA kept it all secret, which obviously prevented those committees (and the press) from conducting a full and complete investigation into the matter. By the time the CIA’s secrets were revealed several decades later, most of the participants were dead, and, equally important, there was no longer any interest on the part of the U.S. government (or the mainstream press) to reopen the investigation.
Of course, the same principle applies to all the other secrecy that surrounded the assassination and the aftermath, including the JFK autopsy. One good example is one that has been long emphasized on JFK Facts: the secrecy and deceit surrounding CIA agent George Joannides and his and the CIA’s relationship with the DRE, the New Orleans organization that initiated a publicity campaign immediately after the assassination blaming Kennedy’s assassination on a communist.
It’s the height of disingenuousness for McAdams and others of his ilk to spend their time criticizing assassination researchers for not compiling all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that point to the national-security state, while, at the same time, praising the findings of governmental investigative bodies that obviously rendered judgments based on incomplete evidence owing to deliberate and intentional secrecy and deceit on the part of the national-security establishment.
And the secrecy has never stopped. As Jefferson Morley has emphasized so often, the CIA steadfastly continues to keep some 1,100 assassination-related records secret from the American people, notwithstanding the lapse of more than 50 years.
Secrecy, of course, is not conclusive evidence of criminal wrongdoing, but it certainly is consistent with it.
By the way, The Future of Freedom Foundation has posted a 6 ½ hour video presentation on the Kennedy autopsy by Doug Horne on its website, a presentation that is receiving overwhelmingly positive reviews: http://fff.org/freedom-in-motion/videos/series/1-altered-history/
I cannot really take Doug Horne seriously until I hear him explain how he can buy into Lifton, whose theories not only include bogus body alteration (the ‘surgery’, as we now know, was cutting that was done to remove JFK’s brain)but also the erection and then removal of a whole fake series of trees and other de-construction at the assassination site. As for Zapruder, give up this phony theorizing of alteration; if they wanted the film they would have destroyed it up front and today we would probably not have gotten even this far in understanding the conspiracy.
I have contradicted David Lifton in a number of key areas. I do not believe that JFK’s cranial wounds (or his throat wound) were tampered with prior to the body’s arrival at Bethesda, as Lifton does. I do not believe that JFK’s brain was removed from his cranium before his corpse arrived at Bethesda, either, as Mr. Lifton still does. Those are stark areas of disagreement. These areas of disagreement should prevent anyone from getting away with simplistically labeling me a “Liftonite.” (Pat Speer has unsuccessfully tried to do this, and Jim DiEugenio has implied as much in the past.) My current understanding of the evidence and what it means is my own, unique, sober assessment of the medical evidence, and how to view it following the revelation of new evidence during the ARRB’s lifespan. My own current views are actually very different from Mr. Lifton’s views as expressed in “Best Evidence.”
Mr. Lifton claimed in his BE video that “the body lied to the doctors,” since he believed JFK’s wounds had been tampered with by someone prior to the body’s arrival at Bethesda. His interpretation of the “surgery” statement in the S&O report is of an excited oral utterance made by a Dr. Humes who was discovering someone else’s skullduggery. My own unique reinterpretation of Humes’ “surgery” statement is that is was a statement made in panic, before a large morgue audience after 8 PM, when they expressed open disbelief that the huge cranial defect seen in the extant autopsy photos could have been caused by one single bullet. (See Paul O’Connor’s interview with Nigel Turner.) Psychologists call this type of defensive reaction “dissociation,” and when Humes made the surgery statement, I believe his goal was to say, “I see the huge defect too, and I think surgery has occurred, but since I am telling you about it, surely you don’t think I am responsible.” Actually he was responsible (per Ed Reed, under oath; and as implied by Tom Robinson), but the large audience in the morgue after 8 PM simply had not been admitted until the clandestine surgery was completed.
Now, having acknowledged these differences between us, I am also compelled to state that Mr. Lifton made a very valuable contribution to the medical evidence arena by introducing a paradigm shift to our examination of the medical evidence, by focusing on the “surgery” statement in the Sibert-O’Neill report, and by focusing our attention on the gross differences between the Parkland observations by the medical treatment staff, and the observations of those at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. He also properly directed our attention to the multiple casket entries at the Bethesda loading dock, and his work on this in “Best Evidence” is the part of his book that stands up the best today, in my opinion.
But I have, IMHO, improved upon his work by reinterpreting the WHO and WHERE of the post-mortem surgery hypothesis. New evidence uncovered after “Best Evidence” was published (ARRB interviews and depositions) have revealed that the illicit, clandestine post-mortem surgery, designed to remove all evidence of frontal shots from JFK’s body (and in the process, change the geography of the shooting), took place at Bethesda Naval Hospital AFTER JFK’s body arrived, and that it was performed by the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, after 6:35 PM (when JFK’s body arrived) and before 8:00 PM (when the autopsy of record began). The descriptions of the head wound seen immediately after the body arrived by Tom Robinson (to both the HSCA and to the ARRB) and the description of the head wound immediately after the body arrived given by Dr. Canada in 1968 to Mr. Kurtz (and revealed belatedly by Kurtz in his 2006 book) reveal that when JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda, he still had the same head wound described in Dallas, in the rear of the head. Dr. Ebersole’s 1978 HSCA deposition also revealed that the wound was occipital, which is why Robert Blakey tried to suppress it for 50 years. There was no open defect in the top of the head, or in the right side of the head, when JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda. But that all changed very quickly, shortly after 6:35 PM, when Dr. Humes began to wield his scalpel and circular bone saw.
So Mr. Lowe, I suggest that you form your opinions of my work based on reading it yourself, or based instead (if you do not have the patience to read a 5-volume book) on the new 5-part, 6.5 hours online video lecture posted by the Future of Freedom Foundation—not on inaccurate and false summaries of my conclusions and beliefs published by others in JFK chatrooms.
As for Mr. Lifton’s very early beliefs, I am aware of them only by hearsay, and to my knowledge he had abandoned them by the time he published his book in 1981. Men are allowed to change their conclusions over time as they sift and evaluate new evidence. This is what I have done regarding the Zapruder film. New evidence caused me to re-evaluate my prior assumptions that it was an authentic film. END
DOUG HORNE SAID:
Mr. [David] Lifton claimed in his BE [“Best Evidence”] video that “the body lied to the doctors,” since he believed JFK’s wounds had been tampered with by someone prior to the body’s arrival at Bethesda.
His interpretation of the “surgery” statement in the S&O [Sibert & O’Neill] report is of an excited oral utterance made by a Dr. Humes who was discovering someone else’s skullduggery.
My own unique reinterpretation of Humes’ “surgery” statement is that is was a statement made in panic, before a large morgue audience after 8 PM, when they expressed open disbelief that the huge cranial defect seen in the extant autopsy photos could have been caused by one single bullet. (See Paul O’Connor’s interview with Nigel Turner.)
Psychologists call this type of defensive reaction “dissociation,” and when Humes made the surgery statement, I believe his goal was to say, “I see the huge defect too, and I think surgery has occurred, but since I am telling you about it, surely you don’t think I am responsible.”
Actually he was responsible (per Ed Reed, under oath; and as implied by Tom Robinson), but the large audience in the morgue after 8 PM simply had not been admitted until the clandestine surgery was completed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I wonder what it’s like to live in a fantasy world the way Mr. Horne does? It’s a world where you can just make up stuff from sheer whole cloth, and accuse President Kennedy’s lead autopsy doctor of physically altering the wounds of the dead President of the United States.
But in my own opinion, this type of repulsive and reprehensible accusation against Dr. James Joseph Humes goes beyond just mere “fantasy”. It’s downright obscene. It is an accusation that is so monstrously outrageous and disgusting that Douglas P. Horne should probably be run out of town on a rail by all decent and reasonable and rational people reading these words.
It actually isn’t made up from “sheer whole cloth.” There is a troubling discrepancy between what was seen in Trauma Room 1 in Dallas, and what was seen later that night at the Bethesda autopsy. “All decent and reasonable and rational people” can get that basic point. So instead of flinging a bunch of incendiary verbiage at Horne, you could choose to comment reasonably and rationally about why you think he’s wrong. The “run out of town on a rail” bit is definitely not in keeping with the guidelines for commenting here, which is why I hope that Jefferson Morley will give more thought to allowing comments like yours and McAdams’ to appear.
CHRISTOPHER CAUDILL SAID:
It actually isn’t made up from “sheer whole cloth.”
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh really? I beg to differ (strongly).
Horne’s allegation that Humes altered JFK’s wounds *is* most certainly an allegation derived from nothing but “whole cloth” and everybody knows it—even Mr. Horne.
It’s an accusation that no rational person could possibly even begin to believe.
Therefore, my previously stated “incendiary verbiage” is absolutely appropriate given the circumstances (and the repulsive allegation aimed at Dr. Humes by “Whole Cloth Horne”.
Mr. Horne writes:
“. . . that the illicit, clandestine post-mortem surgery, designed to remove all evidence of frontal shots from JFK’s body (and in the process, change the geography of the shooting) . . . ”
I’ll skip the details.
(1) Please consider the possibility that the monolithic cover-up following the assassination can be explained in terms of a panicked civilian government desperately trying to prevent the MIC from controlling the narrative and forcing a confrontation with Cuba and USSR. That’s the short term. Longer term, the civilian government needed to preempt and eradicate the notion that the assassination was linked – in any possible way – to the MIC. That’s a dagger in the heart of democracy. Forever.
(2) Please consider the possibility that the pre-autopsy *examination* fulfilled a (secret) protocol that enabled the military to determine – ASAP – the sophistication and nature of the assassination of the commander-in-chief. Purpose: to implement defensive and offensive strategies, if necessary. The examination would have necessitated the removal of bullets and fragments for purposes of comparison, caliber identification, exotica, etc. Undoubtedly, such an invasive examination (surgery and bullet removal) would have distorted the findings and credibility of the official autopsy.
Your Z-film alteration theory requires the following. A superior (and fellow conspirator) had to direct someone at the pre-autopsy examination to chisel a new hole in JFK’s skull and obliterate frontal wounds. Then someone (a conspirator) from the *examination* or autopsy had to contact and coordinate with the secret film crew which had surreptitiously kidnapped the Z-film. The conspirator had to instruct the film crew to paint a big blob on the side of JFK’s head and black out the large rear head wound because that’s how the autopsy team ‘had been ordered’ to describe the wounds. This is farfetched. It’s an even bigger problem if you have to include Katzenbach, RFK, Burkley (and many others) among those with foreknowledge, all apparently carrying out their predetermined parts in the assassination script.
It’s better to view the assassination as an event planned by a few very sophisticated people who linked the murder to a completely nondescript fellow with a spy’s background. (Who could have done that?) The name Oswald – almost certainly known by RFK as well as FBI, CIA, et al – immediately forced the civilian government into a cover-up. (see #1 above)
Doug: “I have contradicted David Lifton in a number of key areas. I do not believe that JFK’s cranial wounds (or his throat wound) were tampered with prior to the body’s arrival at Bethesda, as Lifton does. I do not believe that JFK’s brain was removed from his cranium before his corpse arrived at Bethesda, either, as Mr. Lifton still does. Those are stark areas of disagreement. These areas of disagreement should prevent anyone from getting away with simplistically labeling me a “Liftonite.” (Pat Speer has unsuccessfully tried to do this, and Jim DiEugenio has implied as much in the past.)”
Pat: Definition of terms. People who believe that Christ is their savior are Christians, whether or not they agree completely with other Christians. By the same token, people who believe the body was altered to disguise the true nature of Kennedy’s wounds are Liftonites. Doug Horne is thereby a Liftonite, in my book, whether he likes it or not.
(P.S. By his tone, I suspect he now thinks Lifton should be called a “Horne-ite).
As a former SWO you should be ashamed of your slander against a fellow Naval Officer . Are you mad because you got passed over and he got augmented?
As a former ???, Photon, you should be ashamed of your constant attacks on people who have actual names, and actual histories. For all we know you are a convicted felon, guilty of the worst things imaginable.
If you’re gonna make your comments personal, after all, you need to first be a person. Otherwise, you’re just a hate machine…that oughta be unplugged.
Even if I am a convicted felon it would not change the fact the Horne has committed exactly the kind of baseless attack on an individual that you claim to abhor. An individual with an outstanding record in his field, who was promoted to O-6, who was awarded the Legion of Merit, who served as a member of the Greatest Generation in WW II.
First off, the claim that Humes did “post mortem” surgery on JFK to alter the wound trajectory sufficiently enough to fool every observer at the autopsy is simply impossible. Never in the history of forensic pathology has such alteration been successfully done.The fact that he has to quote 2 FBI agents as being his source for the surgery lunacy completely bankrupts his theory on another level-there is no evidence that either of the agents had ever seen an operation or would be able to recognize in any way the characteristics of recent surgery.
Of course, a Surface Warfare Officer with no background in Medicine, ballistics or photographic expertise is a better authority than bone fide experts in every one of those fields? An authority who claims that two physically impossible events actually happened with no evidence whatsoever to prove that the events were even attempted? The proof is that despite repeated requests to produce real evidence to support even the physical possibility of the techniques Horne claims were done in 1963, he has produced nothing. As I have stated previously, his claims have the same level of accuracy as claiming that the Government has the ability to change lead into gold, ie. none at all.
I’m not sure it means much that somebody served in the military during World War Two. A lot of pretty dodgy characters did so.
But I have to point out that I searched on line and could not find confirmation that Humes did serve in World War Two. The obituaries I found (most detailed being the New York Times one) made no mention of such service. A google search of “James J. Humes” and “World War Two” turned up nothing.
You may be interested to know, Photon, that I don’t support Lifton’s, nor Horne’s theories, and have actually spent as much time as anyone, except perhaps McAdams, arguing against them. But I support their right to come to their theories, and follow them to their conclusion.
Whether Humes was a knowing participant in a conspiracy (as in Doug’s scenario), or just a hapless boob who couldn’t tell the top of the head from the bottom (as in McAdams’ scenario), his patriotism (or lack of same) probably had little to do with it. I mean, wake up, the vast majority of confederate army veterans undoubtedly thought of themselves as patriots, and they were traitors through and through, who actually fought under a foreign flag against the country of their birth.
Honestly Photon, do you really think that is an acceptable way to speak to someone? We’re not in ‘Lord of the Flies’ you know. We’re adults trying to have a civil discussion about important issues. Why don’t you focus on playing the ball and not the man. (It’s a soccer reference but I’m sure you get my drift).
Vanessa, that’s his whole point.
It’s pretty obvious that the LN crowd has a delberate strategy of creating arguments about completely off-topic subjects as a way of keeping the discussion off the facts of the case. It’s similar to watching a magician steal someone’s watch by getting his or her attention focused elsewhere.
There was a news story this week about the letter sent by the FBI to MLK trying to get him to commit suicide. I’m sure photon is outraged that someone would besmirch the patriotic legacy of j Edgar Hoover. The man dedicated his life to the protection of the American way of life, surely it a damnable lie to suggest that the FBI would commit such a terrible act, no?
So the crocodile tears about Humes are just that, a way to focus our attention away from the contradictions between the medical evidence, the photos and x-rays and witness testimony.
Thanks Paul, I appreciate that’s what they’re about. But I still think it’s worth calling them out on this behaviour as it is not acceptable.
And they have shown some ability to adapt. They’ve stopped referring to us as ‘buffs’ after all. I live in eternal hope of appealing to their better natures (or at least shaming them into stopping). 🙂
Just read about MLK and the FBI letter in the Sydney paper this morning. Very disturbing.
Pat Speer your attack on the honor of Confederate soldiers is unwarranted and most unwelcome within the protocol of this forum. Please confine your comments to JFK facts and desist from anti-Southern slander. Deo Vindice.
There was no attack on their honor. The point was made that “patriotic” people, like Robert E. Lee, who swore to defend the United States, will fight against their country when confronted with a “higher” calling, in this case the South’s right to extend its tradition of slavery.
Perhaps Humes, as Lee, was confronted by a “higher” calling.
P.S. My daddy was from Arkansas, and my step-dad was from Tennessee, so I’m not exactly a Yankee.
Pat you are among the most well-versed commentators on this site with respect to JFK facts. To become equally well-versed on the factual causes of the War Between The States and the motivations of Southern patriots, consult the scholarship of Loyola Maryland professor Thomas DiLorenzo. (Professor DiLorenzo is also a regular contributor on the decidedly pro-JFK conspiracy website lewrockwell.com)
It’s not anti-Southern slander, Sandy. It’s the true history of the nation. Tell me where I go South, er, wrong. The South wanted to have slaves, but wanted its representatives in congress to get credit for “representing” these slaves. So it was decided, from the outset of this nation, that slaves were 3/5 of a person. This compromise allowed Virginia and their fellow slave states to dominate the early years of the nation. As the nation expanded and the northern cities grew more populous, however, the South’s grasp on power began to wane. This shift against slavery was further fueled by a tide of religious fervor in the country, which focused on slavery as a sin that needed to be eradicated. This led to still more compromises, in which a non-slave state could only be allowed to join the union if a slave state was allowed in to off-set it. The power bloc in the South saw where this was headed, however, and made moves to leave the union after Lincoln, an abolitionist but one with no intention of getting rid of slavery, was elected. One by one the Southern states voted on whether to leave the union. As I recall, the voters (exclusively male land-owners) of a few of these states nevertheless voted to stay in the union, but were over-ruled by their state houses, which were largely controlled by the most powerful land-owners (read slave-owners). In any event, these states not only voted to leave the union, they wanted no union presence in their states–which meant, essentially, that they wanted to appropriate all federal property within their states. This, of course, led to confrontation, and war. In this war, moreover, the good sons of the south, including many of my relatives, were convinced to fight on behalf of the large land-owners in the name of Southern pride and honor, etc. Upon the South’s inevitable loss of the war, furthermore, this Southern pride burned on, with white sheet parades and cross-burnings, lynchings, and re-written history books whereby the war was all about “state’s rights” and where silly old slavery had little or nuttin’ to do with it.
I vehemently disagree with you on all points. Se la vie. Henceforth I will confine my comments to JFK facts if you will do likewise.
I have a great interest in the assassination but have yet to make a judgment on Doug Horne’s suggestions. I made a conclusion on Prof McAdams some time ago. His approach is to defend the Warren Commission findings using the techniques proposed in a CIA memo distributed to its media assets (Ref anyone please?). If your starting point is ‘The Warren Commission was correct’ there doesn’t seem to be any point in spending so much energy on bashing the wacko’s. If enough momentum was caused by said Wackos for further enquiries, what would be the worst that could happen?
My favourite comment by Prof McAdams on his site is on Anthony Summers book ‘Not in your lifetime’, which he basically states is a well written book, but that Summers has interviewed some odd people. Well if its a good book then perhaps the frightening ideas propounded in it need looking at , and how serious a comment is it that people are odd?
Mr. McAdams: I am new to this site but do have a question. Since the assassination of JFK was not a federal crime in 1963, under what authority did the Federal government have to remove the corpse from Parkland Hospital and away from the legal jurisdiction of Dallas County? How would Oswald have been prosecuted when the chain of custody of JFK’s remains was legally destroyed right from the onset?
The chain of custody was not destroyed at all. Wade could have proven the chain of custody by having all the people who were with the body testify.
But I doubt that this was be an issue. Would Oswald’s lawyer really argue that his body was somehow snatched, and a different body substituted for the autopsy? That’s even wilder than Lifton’s theory!
Mr. Oswald’s lawyer would absolutely have argued that chain of custody was broken as regards JFK’s body. LBJ went to extraordinarily boorish, inconsiderate and obnoxious lengths to make Mrs. Kennedy leave her husband unattended and witness the swearing-in. Johnson had floated contrived nonsense about “danger all around” while demanding that Air Force One sit unprotected on the tarmac waiting; First for the body and then for a specific Judge; A woman that AG,Robert Kennedy had previously declined to promote. Johnson whined and blubbered about assassins “all over Dallas” when he could have easily flown off to Washington on Air Force Two. LBJ made it clear that he wasn’t leaving Dallas without Kennedy’s body. Back at Parkland, only strict orders from a President would have given Secret Service agents the confidence to thrust their weapons into the faces of high level Texas officials, Judges and Coroners in their efforts to fulfill Presidential orders to get Kennedy’s body on Air Force One (with his murderer). Macca, you know what happened. Is it simply pride that motivates you to defend your indefensible position? Is it the attention you get from being the last hold-out? Perhaps you feel some displaced sense of loyalty to the deceased members of the Warren Commission or to Lyndon Johnson. You’ve gone above and beyond what any members of the Warren Commission could possibly have expected of you. As Union troopers said to the last few Confederate soldiers trying to attain the stone wall after Pickett’s charge had failed so miserably: “Come over to the side of the Lord, son. You’ve done your best”
Is this about the Lifton body snatching theory?
I’m not so sure that is a “theory” John, as the body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, and was not placed into one in Dallas for the trip TO Bethesda.
I am afraid that your answer didn’t quite make it sir. It is indeed a break in the chain of custody and you have not answered my initial question as to under what authority the Feds ( including people like Kenny O’Donnell ) had in removing a vital piece of evidence away from the legal grasp of Dr. Earl Rose and the State of Texas. Oswald would ( had he lived ) been charged with Murder correct? Are you suggesting that as a result of who the victim of the homicide was that all the rules of evidence get tossed to accommodate the grief of the next-of-kin? Until you can get past my question on the legality of the Feds action, you have no valid position on this particular point of issue. By the way, Mr. Wade despite being the DA at the time, could not change the protocol simply because of the inconvenience it created to the Kennedy family. As a public official, he was bound to follow the law which he did not do. It is difficult to look at this crime as a homicide which requires the fullest and legally permissible methods of investigation and not getting caught up in who was the victim.
That was not your question.
But the action was illegal. But it was not conspiratorial.
Do you want to say Kenny O’Donnell was a conspirator?
You conspiracists just make up stuff about “rules of evidence.” It’s not routine to bring the body of the victim into court in a homicide case.
As for “who the victim of the homicide was:” that’s exactly right. Had it been a skid row bum found dead in a gutter in Dallas, Earl Rose would have done a perfectly professional forensic autopsy.
It was indeed my question sir and quite frankly it is obvious that you are having an extremely difficult time addressing it. You admit that the actions of removing JFK’s remains from Parkland were illegal. But you then label me as some type of kooky ” conspiratist ” simply because I pointed out the departure of the rules of evidence that is germane in any courtroom in the United States. Furthermore, you cannot simply dismiss the fact that JFK was any different then the skid row bum. He was at the stage no longer the President and his legal forensic autopsy was not conducted in accordance to the law. It must be me, but somehow I was under the impression that homicide cases were to be investigated in a proper fashion regardless of the former status of the victim who was just as dead at that time as the skid row bum.
Do you think that all this is conspiracy evidence, or not?
If you don’t think there was a conspiracy, we have nothing to argue about.
If you do, you might explain how all this is evidence for conspiracy.
It was a conspiracy at Parkland instigated and carried out by Federal agents and the JFK entourage, Allow me to define the term conspiracy for you sir. It occurs when people conspire to engage in either secret, illegal of covert activity. Guess what? The taking of JFK’s remains out of the legal hold of Dr. Rose was illegal and in doing so, conspired to and did in effect break Texas law, Did it ever occur to you that had Dr. Rose been allowed to conduct his lawful autopsy, that perhaps some of the conspiracy theories in existence might have been snuffed from the onset. Of course, the actual location of the gunshots would have been properly investigated and recorded which obviously is not what the Federal government had in mind was it?
Bravo to Douglas Horne for his outstanding work – his long essay on JFK’s war with the National Security establishment is spectacular (it’s at the Future of Freedom Foundation website). And his online youtube lecture is totally worth the sincere student’s time – some of the very best work ever done on the subject.
So OF COURSE he attracts the attention of good ol’ Professor McAdams, who spends his time watching, eagle-eyed, for any real research that might get people thinking, and then pounces with his repertoire of shyster’s tricks. For a taste of what he’s about, read Jim DiEugenio’s article at CTKA.net -” John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago.”
McAdams is trying to throw doubt on the entire subject using any and all means available, to slow down and confuse, obfuscate and mis-inform the serious student so that they give up in frustration. Sadly many people over 50 years have indeed given up in the face of the “we’ll never know” conventional wisdom; but then true researchers like Horne come along and show us that there’s more to learn.
This is a great website, chock-full of information, but Jefferson Morley should seriously consider banning the professorial disinformationalist once and for all.
Really a bummer to hear dissenting views, isn’t it?
Of course, real truth seekers welcome having their ideas critiqued and challenged.
Members of a cult don’t.
“Of course, real truth seekers welcome having their ideas critiqued and challenged.
Members of a cult don’t.”
I agree with the above statement. That’s why challenges and critiques to the official government’s position (Warren Commission) by lone nut dissenters are not welcome on http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu. There are token minority dissent positions, but these are always carefully screened and rebutted at that site. It’s very carefully packaged and sanitized, like the old Soviet Pravda “News” was.
My site exists as a counterweight to the mass of conspiracy books, videos and websites pushing conspiracy theories.
There is more conspiracy stuff on my site than lone assassin stuff on any conspiracy site.
But you don’t complain about conspiracy sites. It seems that you just dislike having views different from your own presented.
It may seem so, but actually I start as a skeptic, and work from there. What I don’t do is swallow whole any kooky koolaid someone offers to me without first checking the facts, and the science. I don’t see reason on your site, I see an agenda, like some other conspiracy sites, to push one view. What I like about this site is, it doesn’t push any agenda, except to ask that people exercise critical thinking and that people get total access to secret files so they can make up their own minds.
Your site exists as a counterweight. That’s an agenda to counter conspiracy theories. Or do I misinterpret your own words?
That’s correct. There are tons of conspiracy stuff out there, and a lot of it is bogus (something you should be willing to concede).
My site is to debunk as much of the nonsense as I can, and encourage people to think critically about the issue, rather than merely think that if something is written in a book or shown in a documentary, it much be true.
Or to encourage people to question government-issued reports that attempt to bend the facts to omit everything that poses a problem with the lone gunman theory, as the Warren Commission’s Report did?
If you debunk government reports you’re a buff (unless it’s NASA and NOAA global warming reports), but if you debunk outsider critiques in totality (not just the flakier, shoddier theories by some outsiders)—then you’re a “critical thinker”?
C’mon John. Even you can see that that doesn’t stand up to the stink test!
Challenging and dissenting views, sure bring it on, that is what makes science and research so interesting.
But you are contradicting yourself here, this community thrives on more research and findings not the same old hat you are publishing, there is far too much (new) evidence afloat that have crushed your ‘findings’.
Now we are a cult too? By the looks of it you are part of this whether you like it or not 🙂
BTW one last question: how comes your Wikipedia page is so squeaky clean??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._McAdams
Are are aware (or should be) that several of the Kennedy autopsy photos exist as stereo pairs.
Explain how it might be possible to fake a stereo pair.
John McAdams: I admit that I’m in deep water here, but can you explain this?
“So while Horne was unable to confirm an innocent explanation for the mismatch, he was unable to exclude the obvious, sinister explanation: photo tampering. The Kodak finding that the extant images reveal no tampering may prove that the extant images themselves have no internal inconsistencies that would prove tampering. It cannot, however, prove that no images are missing, which, evidence suggests, may well be the case. Nor can it disprove another possibility that was suggested by eyewitness Saundra Spencer (above): that Spencer did in fact see a different set of images than the current set. For while “stereo-pairing” of images showing JFK’s facial features may be useful in arguing for their authenticity, “stereo-pairing” does not prove that pictures of the back of JFK’s head are internally consistent with the rest of the photographs.
The theory of some kind of photographic “doctoring,” therefore, is not mere lunacy; it has significant support in the record. In fact, when Francis O’Neill, one of the FBI agents who had witnessed JFK’s autopsy, was shown the autopsy photograph revealing no damage to the backside of JFK’s head, he told the ARRB under oath, “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way.””
But then also from the ARRB, we have Stringer:
He said that occipital bone was intact. He only thought that the entrance wound was not as the autopsy photo showed it.
So you have been victimized by Horne’s selective quoting.
Not so, Professor McAdams. I suggest you re-read your own reference.
I read it carefully several times before I cited it in my book, and it says what I said it said.
You may be latching onto the part where Stringer said the bone was fractured beneath the scalp. That’s indeed what the autopsy photos and x-rays show.
But Stringer flatly says the blow-out was in parietal bone.
He flatly says it was “above the ear.”
When asked “was any portion of occipital bone missing after the scalp was reflected,” he answers “not that I can recall.”
Why don’t you explain how the entire Parkland staff saw a rear head wound “that wasn’t there?” Why don’t you explain why so many people had their depositions changed, or why their testimonies were changed out of coercion, or when that failed, dropped from inclusion in the Warren Report? Does it bother you that Oswald was seen on the second and first floors by multiple employees at 12:20 and 12:25 pm, and that two people descended the stairs at 12:30-12:31, with two more people confirming that they went down those stairs when Oswald supposedly did? How about Malcolm Wallace’s fingerprint in the sniper’s nest? Can you evaluate prints better than Mr. Darby?
Nominay, Come on Man! The lone nutters won’t even speculate on a motive for the crime which top US Intelligence Agent Lee Oswald is accused of; Not even a motive! And you actually expect them to explain Oswald’s absence at the scene of the crime? Come on Man!
Explain this instead John!
I have no control whatsoever about what ads appear on my site, except to say I don’t want “adult” ads. And Live365 would not sell ads merely for my own little site. The CIA apparently made a buy of the entire Live365 network, or perhaps some subset of stations.
This is silly buff stuff. It fuels the impression that conspiracy people are paranoid.
By the way, I just checked John Simkin’s site, and next to his essay on Richard Helms is an ad for Helm’s book.
So call Simkin a spook too, how about it?
Professor you are as much of a buff as anyone else on this website (Buff, slang term for an enthusiast).
You however tend to use it with derogatory means, and yes it is no different as referring to someone as a lone nutter.
I asked you to explain it and your first paragraph sort of did but the next you go straight into attack-mode trying to ‘defend’ this particular issue.
You wish to compare an ad for Helms’ book (!) to a banner (big difference) for the CIA and note that the CIA bought the entire Live365 network, is it safe to assume you ceased using Live365 the minute you found out they were actually behind it?
I also find your claim hard to swallow whether you have no control about the actual content. In which case you could have done your homework better prior implementation.
Paranoia, well a healthy doses of that would not go amiss in this and the previous century since there is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing, lies and so on by govts./corps etc. Say it aint so…..
I don’t remember calling you a spook, I asked you to explain it.
And if JS (who I don’t fully agree with either) is a spook then he probably misread a memo since he divulges a lot of info which does put the spook community in a tight spot on numerous occasions.
No, it’s not.
Huh? Are you saying the CIA owns Live365? “Bought” as in “ad buy.”
You are just digging yourself deeper into a hole.
Professor, with all due respect, your site is as dated and obsolete as the WC Report. It’s about time to live by another mantra other than one dictated by CIA Document #1035-960
Useless ad hominem comment from you.
Professor, you posted some rather ludicrous refuffs on earlier posts pertaining to the Chicago plots and Abraham Bolden, as well as blowing off the Joseph Milteer as somemone authorities did not take seriously.
Perhaps you (or Photon/Jean Davison) could enlighten us all on the following news reports:
ABC News – JFK Murder Plots: The Omen in Chicago http://abc7chicago.com/archive/9315215/
Exclusive: JFK Death Threat Note From Nov. 1963 In Miami Revealed For 1st Time « CBS Miami#.VH8Z5XWiT00.twitter#.VH8Z5XWiT00.twitter#.VH8Z5XWiT00.twitter
Police File Confirms Secret Service Knew of Plot to Kill JFK: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1994/Police-File-Confirms-Secret-Service-Knew-of-Plot-to-Kill-JFK/id-c8530acce9d05cde8e4a79842f1e1edb
New FBI Files Say White Supremacists Paid For Martin Luther King’s Assassination http://www.mmdnewswire.com/martin-luther-king-4864.html#.VIxBNHIMZPc.twitter
Ireland Knew of Threats to Kennedy in 1963 Trip: http://nyti.ms/1bliKSf
This is simply a local TV station accepting the Bolden account.
I posted a link to the HSCA investigation of this, and they didn’t buy it.
This is not a working link. You need to tell me the source. Is is just Milteer again?
This is just Milteer again.
This is a press release, for heaven’s sake.
It’s a Waldron and Hartmann theory, with no hard evidence.
Do you understand that there are always “threats against the president?”
From March through December 1963 the Secret Service received information on over 400 possible threats to the President. (See the HSCA Report, p. 230.)
Milteer was a racist blowhard with no actual knowledge:
The “questionable authenticity” of the Bolden account:
For the Professor: nothing to do with Milteer. Another threat Miami Police had
Exclusive: JFK Death Threat Note From Nov. 1963 In Miami Revealed For 1st Time « CBS Miami http://cbsloc.al/1INhAgZ
As for Chicago ABC News, since when does being a local news affiliate mean less credibility, given what we know about Dan Rather? Even Walter Cronkite admitted in the early 90s, that while he felt LHO was the lone gunman, he wasn’t certain if it was part of a conspiracy any longer. Sentiments shared by none other than LBJ to Cronkite in a 1969 interview.
Of course the President receives many threats – are you saying they are all related to lone nuts? The Irish authorities certainly didn’t think so and responded appropriately, which sadly can’t be said for Dallas. How convenient the SS stonewalled the ARRB for months on their 1963 protection detail records before admitting their destruction.
No one has faked a stereo pair. Dr. David Mantik has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos 9 times in the Archives. He has viewed the back-of-the-head photos stereoscopically, as you are surely aware, and he says that the portion of the back of the head that appears very wet (the center of the back of the head) appears 2-dimensional when viewed stereoscopically, and the rest of the back of the head images appear 3-dimensional. Dr. Mantik has opined that the technique used was probably a soft-edged matte insertion. Robert Groden agrees.
The Kennedy family should allow photographic experts (a wide range of experts, not selected by the government) to examine the photos again.
If Dr. Mantik and Robert Groden are right (for they both made the same observation during independent stereoscopic viewings at the Archives), then the results of the HSCA photographic panel cannot be trusted, and are incorrect on this score.
And until or unless you go to the Archives yourself and stereoscopically examine the back of the head photos yourself, you are in no position to challenge what Mantik and Groden recall seeing during their observations. END
Post-Script to the above, for John McAdams:
Before you trot out your tired old argument that Mantik and Groden (who have viewed the back of the head photos at the Archives stereoscopically) are merely “hobbysists,” let me dissuade you from making this mistake again by asking you, “Why shouldn’t I consider you, John McAdams, merely a ‘hobbyist?” You have not served on any government commission or body looking into the assassination, and you do not have a degree in the photographic arts, so what right do you have to disparage the empirical observations of others?
I, for one, believe in empirical observations that are testable and can be repeated: that is called “science.”
So I say to the Kennedy family: open up the autopsy photos to a panel of ten photographic experts, none of them selected by the USG, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not afraid of the outcome; indeed, I look forward to it.
Every time you dismiss serious JFK researchers as “hobbyists” you are invoking an argument based on authority—the implication being that the HSCA photo panel, in this case, is incapable of error or bias simply because it was appointed by a Congressional committee (the HSCA).
I don’t buy authority-based arguments. Nor should any other Americans at this point in our history. Galileo said, “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one humble individual.” In other words, it’s the evidence that counts, and the inspired interpretation of what that evidence means based on critical, independent thinking; not the professional CV of “men of authority” on official bodies making official pronouncements.
But since you are so fond of disparaging the opinions of what you call “hobbyists,” aren’t you a “hobbyist,” too? And since you apparently are, why should the American people listen to you, either? END
Which means you buy the assessments of people who agree with you.
Credentialed experts are not infallible, but hobbyists with no professional expertise are way less credible.
Assuming you get sick, do you take your doctor’s advice?
John McAdams asks:
Well, for me, it depends on what the doctor’s advice is.
I commend you to Joseph Hooper’s excellent four-part series, “When to Say No to Your Doctor,” in the October 2014 issue of Men’s Journal.
If you don’t believe what Hooper writes, try reading How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick in America, by Otis Webb Brawley, M.D., the chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society. He documents how some doctors recommend treatments based on the payment they will receive, rather than on demonstrated scientific results.
Or try Are Your Prescriptions Killing You?, which I wrote with Armon B. Neel, Jr., PharmD, a certified geriatric pharmacist.
“…hobbyists with no professional experience….
Like the Colonials facing professional troops at Lexington Green,
Like the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team.
Like Alvin York.
Yep, the professionals are always the better bet.
You are in no position to challenge the bona fide experts of the HSCA with the claims of conspiracy hobbyists like Groden and Mantik.
Where fakery is concerned, you simply have no properly credentialed, neutral experts on your side.
The Boston Globe gave Groden a shot at convincing real experts of fakery, and he failed miserably.
Are you even aware of Groden’s humiliation at the O.J. Simpson civil trial?
So given Mantik’s medical background, the best you can do to counter his findings is to call him a hobbyist? That’s like saying lawyers are hobbyists of the law, and doctors are hobbyists of medicine. Collecting stamps is a hobby, not going into the medical field. I’m in construction; is working with subcontractors my hobby? Hell no. And if I were to lend my experience as a General Contractor to analyze a situation where a house is faulty, it’s not because I’m a hobbyist. Can you really not tell the difference between a hobbyist and applying one’s profession to research? How can a college professor such as yourself possibly conclude that a Doctor’s study of a case in his field of expertise is “wrong” in his conclussions? The way you make your case as a contrarian is just to dismiss him personally? To you I’d say reputations are stubborn things.
A pattern of evidence and suspicious circumstances is not to be judged consistently as wrong. There are a lot of troubling aspects about the JFK case that greatly draw into question the official storyline, so you really ought to cut the “buffs” some slack.
Wasn’t the best you could do to discredit Rose Cheramie was to call her a druggie? That’s neither here nor there on the fact that she predicted the JFK assassination. She said it would happen on Friday in Dallas too, and you just blow that off as a coincidence? It’s delusional on your part to think that anyone can take you seriously, aside from the media. Now there’s an institution lacking in credibility!
Mantik has no training, expertise or credentials in the forensic evaluation of x-rays. He’s not even a radiologist. He’s a radiation oncologist.
He’s never submitted his work to peer review.
Further, he self-selected himself into the JFK field. This in contrast to HSCA experts who had established reputations, and were asked for their assessments.
As for Cherami: You haven’t read Reitzes essay on her, have you?
One tidbit on her: she said Ruby and Oswald were gay, and had been “shacking up for years.”
Do you believe that?
David Mantik a Conspiracy hobbyist, hmmmmm
David W. Mantik received his doctorate in physics from the University of Wisconsin and was a member on the physics faculty (as assistant professor) at the university before leaving for medical school. He completed his internship and residency in radiation oncology at LAC/USC Medical Center in Los Angeles.
He has also completed fellowships in physics at the University of Illinois and in biophysics at Stanford University, and a junior faculty clinical fellowship with the American Cancer Society.
Robert Groden: he was the Staff Photographic Consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations
Looks like either those bona fide HSCA experts made a terrible mistake or did do the right thing hiring Groden, which one is it ‘professor’?
None of Mantik’s training or credentials has anything to do with the forensic evaluation of x-rays. In fact, he’s not even a radiologist.
The HSCA hired Groden to get a conspiracy view of the photographic evidence.
They also hired real experts, and dismissed Groden’s views, and went with the experts.
What do you have to say about Groden and the O.J. civil trial?
Has Dr. Mantik ever seen a bullet wound?
Has he ever seen an x-ray of a bullet wound aside from JFK’s?
When was the last time that he treated a trauma patient? Has he ever treated a trauma patient? He is qualified to treat carcinomas and sarcomas; there is nothing in his training making him an expert in bullet wound pathology,emergency room management or forensic radiology.
Since when does a doctorate in Physics make somebody an expert in pathology-or even radiology for that matter.While I am sure that he has a greater grasp of radiographic interpretation than your average internist he is not a radiologist-a distinction that many of his supporters don’t understand( or perhaps can’t accept). Every radiation oncologist that I have met has been highly intelligent, which makes Dr. Mantik’s claims about using an undefined densitometry method in the National Archives and his avoidance of the peer-reviewed literature so puzzling. Of course it is easy to pull the wool over the eyes of people who don’t even know what a radiation oncologist does; if Dr. Mantik is so sincere in his convictions why doesn’t he present them in medical meetings attended by his peers instead of conspiracy festschrifts where nobody will bring up pertinent and inconvenient medical facts?
Shorter McAdams and Photon: Mantik’s message is threatening to our position. We cannot refute the message. So we’ll attack the messenger and try to distract everyone here from the message.
I agree with Doug Horne here. I also trust Dr. Mantik’s conclusions because I am knowledgable in the techniques described in Doug’s post to alter the stereo pairs. Also, I have been told, personally told, by an HSCA hired photographic expert that the photographs that he testified to the HSCA about to be authentic could have in fact been faked. He told me that he testified to the HSCA that the photographs he analyzed were authentic and also to me personlly that they could in fact have been faked. You Professor McAdams appear here to be the hobbyist.
Who is this person?
Where can I see him on the record saying that?
Are you saying he lied to the HSCA?
Translation: I attack, ad hominem, people who disagree with me.
It’s interesting that conspiracists label “disruptive” any dissent or disagreement with their claims.
Real truth seekers welcome critical scrutiny applied to any and all claims. The assumption of people like Horne seems to be that “if you just left us conspiracists alone, we could solve the case in no time.”
In fact, you folks have been largely left alone for 50 years, and all you have is a mess of competing and contradictory claims.
As in the part where he describes an explosion of Kennedy’s head like the explosion we see in the current copies?
Why did you ignore this, Doug?
Pot, kettle, black.
You ignore the vast majority of evidence, including (for example) all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described the top or right side of Kennedy’s head exploding:
Just to give three examples:
Why do you ignore all these witnesses, Doug?
Because they are not convenient for you?
No, it’s the conclusion of psychologists who have studied memory and published the results in peer reviewed journals.
Whom do you have on your side on this issue? Amateur hobbyists.
Just to give you some JFK examples:
I could add Michael Paine’s claim, only made in the 1990s, to have seem one of the Backyard photos.
And crazy things specifically from the medical testimony:
And then some of the silly stuff you turned up:
Your own witnesses contradicted other of your witnesses. And you treat everything you find convenient as the gospel truth.
You’re not used to being challenged, Doug. You hang out among your conspiracy cronies.
It’s painful to get out and have your theories and use of evidence challenged by people who aren’t part of that culture, isn’t it?
Rather than provide links to your own site please just make an argument why the official story of, say, the autopsy is correct.
Doug Horne has produced lots of reasons to disbelieve the official story of the autopsy. Lots of reasons to suspect body tampering before the autopsy began officially.
I find it hard to believe our government was so efficient at tampering with the body within such time and space constraints. But being a realist, I look to the facts.
Doug Horne has produced here a lot of corrorated facts. You have produced none here. It’s time for you to step up to the plate.
I have produced plenty of facts. You just don’t like them.
You don’t like links to my site? Do you object to Doug citing his own book?
Same standard should apply to you that you attempted to apply to DiEugenio. He has source material that is footnoted and you chose to ignore it and claim he had to show his facts on this site.
While I rather admire your uncanny strategy to increase hits on your site, the same standard should apply to you. if their books don’t count then neither does your website.
I think Doug has pointed to a lot of links/evidence outside his book, the post above clearly demonstrates this.
The problem with your replies in many of your posts, is that you pick out one tiny fragment and argue against that, I would prefer and so do others if you’d retort to the entire article instead, but you can’t. It is that simple!
Fact of the matter is that it already has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy, on the ground and on govt. levels and that is something that cannot be disproved with a link to your site.
But many posts here are so laden with conspiracy factoids that I don’t have time to debunk them all.
I’m hoping that neutral observers (if an such person is reading this site) will infer from my posts that the conspiracy culture is awash with silly factoids, and they should beware.
Among the “corroborated facts” not mentioned above:
(1) In a letter to Horne, Boyajian said, “One thing bothering me is that I can’t recall seeing the casket arrive, yet I state in the report that it arrived at 18:35.” Boyajian suggested that he was elsewhere in the hospital when the casket arrived,so who knows what the time of 6:35 is based on.
(6) Tom Robinson of the Gawler funeral home told Horne that the only casket he saw at Bethesda was “a metallic, bronze casket which was copper-colored” and “had a dent or break in the handle.” This was, of course, the Dallas casket. Why the “call sheet” says “shipping casket” is anybody’s guess, but no one from Gawler was present when the body arrived at the morgue. Possibly someone made an assumption.
I hope that Mr. Horne will also “step up to the plate” and explain why Dino Brugioni did not see the rear head wound that Horne says was “blacked out” later and instead saw the explosive wound on the side/top of the head that he has claimed was “painted on” after Brugioni saw the original Z film. (How could he see something that wasn’t there yet? Very puzzling — unless of course what he saw was actually the same old unaltered Z film we have today.)
From comments in another thread and in his blog, however, I don’t think Mr. Horne intends to continue responding here, unfortunately.
Regarding Roger Boyajian’s report, delivered to the ARRB, which stated the casket arrived at 6:35 PM:
NAVY people in those days, and even when I was on active duty, all carried with them a “wheel book,” or miniature green notebook with a hard cover used for note-taking. Presumably Boyajian had his “wheel book” with him, or he would not have been able to quote a precise time for the casket arrival in his report dated November 26th.
The fact that he remembered no details about the casket entry when I contacted him on the phone and interviewed him in 1997 proves nothing, and is not a source for alarm or doubt. Why? Because on the phone he authenticated the onionskin copy he still had in his possession of his own report, and in his letter to me at the ARRB, by which he forwarded a good photocopy of that onionskin copy, he again authenticated the report as the one he prepared and signed on November 26th, 1963. That is all that matters.
Let me give you a hypothetical, to prove my point. If a man fills out a police report detailing how he was assaulted and robbed shortly after the crime; and no one is immediately captured; and if that man has a massive memory loss years later due to Alzheimer’s disease, or drinking too much alcohol, or due to some physical brain trauma, and can no longer remember the details of the robbery—NOTHING ABOUT HIS CURRENT LOSS OF MEMORY INVALIDATES THE REPORT HE WROTE FOR THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FACT.
You are employing a false argument put forth by Harry Livingstone in his attack book on my work, and you should know better. The argument is pure sophistry.
Roger Boyajian authenticated the report he sent us, and that is all that matters. You didn’t quote that part of his letter, did you? His report pins a precise time on the Dennis David event, namely, the arrival of an aluminum shipping casket in a black hearse, PRIOR to the Andrews motorcade.
Thank you for replying, Mr. Horne. I haven’t read Harry Livingstone’s “attack” book. I’m responding to what has been posted here about your theory, which I disagree with, but I’m not attacking you personally. I hope you understand that.
I provided a link to Boyajian’s letter in which he said nothing about a “wheel book.” What good would a wheel book have been if, as he suggested, he might not have been present when the casket arrived? He seemed unsure of where this time came from, when he said….
One thing bothering me is that I can’t recall seeing the casket arrive, yet I state that it arrived at 1835 hours. I think I split the detail initially, sending seven men to meet the ambulance and taking the remainder with me to set up security posts within the corridors.
His 11/26/63 report describes how the detail was split into two groups (#2 here):
Anybody can “quote an exact time” that may or may not be correct. For example, all it would take is to write “1835” instead of “1935” and the time would be an hour off. A person can fill out a police report immediately after a crime and STILL BE WRONG about some of the details.
I’m still hoping you’ll clarify your comments in the other thread, where you suggested that Brugioni saw debris coming from a wound at the flap-like opening Grossman described as an exit. Are you saying there were two skull exit wounds?
So Godfrey McHugh is a liar?
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.
Roger Boyajian died in 2001, so his memomory may well have been failing in 1997. However, I can’t help suspecting that he may have been intimidated out of remembering.
There was a news report in the New Bern Sun Journal of Jan. 19, 1994, “Woman recovering after night in trunk,” which can be found on line. The preceding day, Boyajian’s wife surprised a burglar in the Boyajians’ home. She was kidnapped and left overnight in the trunk of her car in a remote area, after having suffered a blow to the head, but was soon discovered and sent to the hospital, where she was treated until she could return home. Roger Boyajian had earlier arrived home to find the home ransacked and his wife missing.
Was somebody tying up loose ends in anticipating of the impending AARB investigation?
“In fact, you folks have been largely left alone for 50 years, and all you have is a mess of competing and contradictory claims”
Mr. McAdams; As I contemplate the galaxy sized reservoir of abuse, criticism and attacks that conspiracy “folks” have endured over the past 51 years, It’s clear to even the most casual observer that conspiracists have NEVER been left alone; And, in reality, have been the victims of the most vicious campaign of slander, violence and criticism since Galileo presented his theory of heliocentrism. Cognizance of your reputation as a careful researcher and a gentleman compels me to excuse your unfortunate remark as most likely the product of a tired man at the end of a busy day. I’ll simply state the inadmissibility of your assertion and wish you a pleasant Veteran’s Day. Best Regards.
PS How do you manage to italicize the passages you print of contributors that you’re rebutting?
To John McAdams—
As Ronald Reagan used to say in his debates with Walter Mondale, “There you go again.” You can’t help yourself, can you? You are employing the same nit-picking, reductionist debating approach that you seem so wedded to, even when you have been called out on it, publicly.
I notice that you have not addressed the pattern in the evidence cited by me in my 7 examples of contemporaneous documents; you refuse to address patterns in the evidence that blow the Warren Report out of the water—all you can do is nitpick and engage in personal attacks.
“Someone” must have decided that I now pose a serious threat to the establishment’s view of the JFK assassination, for you to react so sharply to my recent activity this past year.
I have made the point I wished to make in this OPED piece: there are numerous contemporaneous documents from the time of the assassination, or shortly afterward, that cast extremely serious doubt upon the Warren Commission’s medical conclusions, and which in fact prove they are not at all trustworthy. This is the undeniable pattern in the evidence I cited.
And with that, I bid you farewell. I have an uncompleted manuscript to work on, and it calls for my full attention. END
You are using evidence very tendentiously and selectively, and using a nit-picking, reductionist approach, even when you have been called out on it.
You simply have no sense of the amount of “noise” relative to “signal” in the data. You latch into stuff that you find convenient, and ignore the weight of the evidence, and the most reliable evidence.
Does the word “projection” mean anything to you?….because that is what you are doing. It’s a tried and true political ploy (not to mention a form of delusional behavior) but it’s superficial logic at best and never a valid debating technique.
I suggest you up your game.
I suggest you lay off the ad hominum.
We’ve been largely left alone for 50 years, John? Bugliosi and Posner would have something to say about that.
I’ve read everything available on Zapruder film alteration and listed to hours of interviews with everybody who has discussed it and I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of how it could have been done in the short time frame available as required by the “two NPIC events” scenario.
I personally photographed more than a million frames of special effects animation and rotoscoped travelling mattes for motion pictures between 1970 and 1995 and if such a convincing 8mm film alteration was done 50 years ago it should be possible for someone to do it again today but I have seen no attempt to do so by anybody.
In the 1960s I had 8mm film blown-up to 16mm for television presentation but the quality obviously suffered and reducing it back to 8mm would only create an extremely bad final composite that would never fool anyone.
I also cannot understand why Kodak would send any film to NPIC until after any alterations, if possible, had been completed. It makes no sense.
Besides Kodak could easily make their own prints since they invented the whole business.
But didn’t you say on another post that you have seen evidence in the zfilm that contradicts the single bullet theory?
Perhaps you’d like to share that with us now.
Until Mr. Horne can explain exactly how the Zapruder film was altered with 1963 technology his claims must be regarded as impossible. They couldn’t even get a live television feed on the air without letting equipment warm up in 1963; even the state of the art effects of “2001:A Space Odyssey” pale in comparison to what is claimed for the film.
A little common sense goes a long way. You can’t expect SPY-1 data from NTDS- a concept our former SWO officer seems to forget.
Oh Photon, RM himself has said he see’s anomalies in the zfilm that contradict the single bullet theory. How do you explain that?
Most of us can’t explain the technology behind the moon landing but we know that it happened.
And if you were prepared to go through the zfilm frame by frame even I could show you events that defy the laws of physics.
But I’m guessing you won’t want to do that…..in the same way that you don’t want to discuss the Wiegman and Darnell films.
‘Someone’,on here suggests using common sense yet fails to apply their own advice! They instead skirt around the tough questions, the bigger picture and try to create a smoke screen to avoid answering the questions themselves and turn it on to the creator. One Will write an article pointing out numerous facts and asking serious questions which still the gvnt won’t answer which cast huge suspicion on them and support the theory that jfk was killed by ‘others’, and they shall receive a reply picking at one detail and blowing it up failing to consider or take in to account the bigger picture. It baffles me that these people don’t see what the majority do. Is it stupidity? Stubborn? Anti truth? who knows. What I do know is that anyone with half a brain does not swallow the WCR and never will, doesn’t matter how many times a keyboard warrior chooses to pick out the points they wish to dissect and trash but have no answer to the bulk of the article or summary- they ignore the tough bits like the magic bullet or the crime scene being destroyed or the guns not matching, or the 21 police officers ignored re another shooter and multiple others who supported this theory, LBJ’s connection to the owner of the very building/business which employed LHO, Mac Wallace whose partial print is pulled from within the window- I say partial it had something like 32 point match where only a 15 point is required- answer that? The same Mac Wallace who received a 5 years sus sentence in Texas for murder who was a hench man for LBJ…the list goes on. They don’t want the truth, they want to remain blissfully ignorant to the fact. Maybe they are all part of the machine intended to suppress the truth….god only knows but you’ll never suppress me.
“Oh Photon, RM himself has said he see’s anomalies in the zfilm that contradict the single bullet theory. How do you explain that?”
RM said he sees evidence that contradicts the single bullet theory. This does not equate to “anomalies” in the Zapruder film.
His comment above shows clearly that he doesn’t accept the alteration argument.
“In the 1960s I had 8mm film blown-up to 16mm for television presentation but the quality obviously suffered and reducing it back to 8mm would only create an extremely bad final composite that would never fool anyone.”
No one here can comply with your demand, because no one here knows the capabilities of Hawkeye Works in 1963. One can only speculate as to those capabilities.
It’s easy for me to imagine Hawkeye works could have manipulated the Z Film. The film was a series of photographs. Manipulating the contents of a photograph would have been easy.
So if you claim that the government can change lead into gold we have to accept that claim because ” we don’t know their capabilities”?
Manipulating the contents of a photograph would be easy? Prove it by giving a single example of a similar contemporary alteration that has not been recognized by real photographic experts.
There are reasons to believe the back yard photos were produced by photo manipulation.
What’s the big deal? Do you know some secret about photo manipulation in the early 1960s?
Photon, can provide a single reason why there are so many discrepancies in the zfilm compared to eyewitness testimony versus other contemporary events we have captured on film. Such as;
1. Capt Sully and the Miracle on the Hudson; and
2. the Boston bombings.
No difference at all between what the witnesses and victims say happened and what we see on those films is there. Now why is that? C’mon Paul, time to lift the cone of silence.
Vanessa, 11/12, 5:24 am
Re your question to Photon on discrepancies in the Z film vs. other contemporary events, check the Internet.
Conspiracy theories have been spun around discrepancies in the Boston marathon photos:
And in “Miracle on the Hudson” photos:
And of course 9/11, the moon landing, and even the shooting at Sandy Hook …
Type in just about any notable event with
the word “hoax” and you’re likely to pull this kind of nonsense.
Thanks Jean, I appreciate that there is a lot of speculative nonsense about hoaxes out there.
What I’m specifically referring to is whether the victims and participants versions of what happened differ to what we see on film. (In the same way that we do on the zfilm. In the limo for example only Kellerman’s testimony matches what we see on the film).
So far I haven’t seen anything from Cpt Sully, his crew or the passengers that contradicts what we see on the film of the crash.
Likewise, I haven’t seen anything from the Boston bombing victims that contradicts what we see on the film of the finish line. No victims claiming things happened that don’t appear on the film (such as motorcycle cops disappearing and Chaney/Curry conversations not happening).
Why do we not see those type of discrepancies in these modern disasters caught on film? Thanks for your views.
The fact that there is no such discrepancies
Vanessa, 11/12 5:10pm
I haven’t seen anything other than brief comments from the Hudson passengers and Boston victims, have you? Nothing like the volumes (literally) of testimony and interviews of Dallas witnesses.
Have you compared the accuracy of the limo passengers’ memories with that of other people being shot at during a brief incident?
If by “disappearing cop” you mean the one turning onto Elm, he simply drove out of Zapruder’s view, he didn’t leave the motorcade. As I recall, he can be seen on another film although I’m not sure which one.
The Chaney/Curry conversation *did* happen, it just happened a bit later, when Curry’s car was headed up the Stemmons on-ramp just beyond the triple underpass. Please see the posts of Chris Scally and Todd Vaughan about halfway down this page:
To clarify what I just posted about Chaney/Curry — see specifically, the post from Chris Scally of Jan. 19 8:59:25.
Hi Jean – thanks for your comments
I’ve seen quite detailed interviews and a documentary on the Hudson incident from Capt Sullenburger and the co-pilot (and the air traffic controller) who could be regarded as being in equivalent positions to Greer and Kellerman in the limo. I see no differences at all between their accounts and what we see on film and the black box recordings. They all remembered exactly what was said as well as what was done in the correct order including each other’s behaviour.
As for the Boston bombing victims, all hospital interviews and other accounts I’ve seen match what we see on the films.
In terms of comparing the accuracy of the limo passengers’ memories with that of other people being shot at during a brief incident – a more accurate comparison would be comparing events that are filmed or recorded to the accounts of those involved. In terms of gunshot victims in general, their testimony is allowed in court every day so I expect it can’t be that inaccurate.
If you have evidence that 4 out of 5 people being shot at (while being filmed/recorded) can’t describe their own actions accurately then I’d be interested to see it.
I’ll get to the Chaney/Curry issues in a separate post.
In terms of the ‘disappearing’ policeman I was also referring to Chaney. He disappears out of the zfilm and Bell film when he should be there.
I’ve read the links and posts you suggested but I have to say I’m a bit surprised you find that these interviews given to Gary Mack 20 and 30 years after the fact more convincing than the WC testimony. Do you really give more weight to these interviews than the WC testimony?
The WC testimony of the 4 officers (Curry, Lawson, Chaney et al) is consistent with each other – that Chaney spoke to Curry just after the shots were fired and that’s when Curry got on the radio. Not one of them mentions the off ramp as being where this conversation took place.
The problem of Chaney not appearing in either the zfilm or Bell film when he should is that we have a continuous view of the limo during those films. Chaney should appear on the zfilm at some stage before the limo goes under the triple underpass or on the Bell film at some stage after the limo comes out of the underpass.
The alternative suggested by the thread – that Chaney didn’t move until the limo and lead car were on the off ramp and then floored it so he could catch up and chat with Curry – at which time the limo and other cars stopped so Curry and Chaney could have a chat does not match anyone’s testimony from that day. Not one single person said that happened.
I’m sorry, Jean but it’s just not credible at all.
This is a PS to my post to Jean.
Apologies Jean, I meant the Daniel film (not Bell) shows the limo coming out of the underpass.
Vanessa 11/14, 5:21,
If a witness says one thing and a surveillance camera shows something entirely different, do we assume that the camera footage has been altered? I don’t think so. No one has yet demonstrated that it would even be possible to take Chaney out of a film. And why would anyone do that, anyway? What’s the point?
The counter-argument, that Chaney stopped briefly in the Plaza and reached Curry later than he thought, is not based only on later testimony. Chaney can be seen in this Nix film clip (next to the limo’s right side) abruptly slowing down or stopping:
I think that’d why he “disappears” from the Z film: Zapruder panned past him. Chaney has also said: “I don’t recall myself stopping –- I must have or come almost to a stop. Hargis did, he got off of his motorcycle over on the left hand side and run between those two cars. . . and run in front of me, so apparently I did too. I don’t recall stopping, but I’m not sure.” How else could he have seen Hargis’s movements?
Chaney is said to be the policeman on the far left in the McIntyre photo:
Notice that the limo has no motorcycles beside it at this point. All apparently fell behind as it sped away.
The Stemmons on-ramp is just ahead in that photo.
Hi Jean – thanks for your response. I agree, Jean we almost always assume the film is correct. We’ve been doing that for 50 years with the zfilm. We never questioned it and just thought all the conflicting and confusing witness statements were a result of stress and fear during a horrible situation.
The only reason anyone has questioned the integrity of the zfilm is due to work by people like John Costella pointing out events that defy the laws of physics and involve impossible human reactions. That sort of examination has then lead us to wonder if in fact the weird eyewitness testimony was in fact a more accurate version of what happened than what is on the film.
If there is another public film with the large number of discrepancies between witness testimony and what we see on the film then I would like to see it.
My informed guess for the reason for taking Chaney out of the zfilm is that he was removed as part of eliminating the limo stop. The reason Chaney was able to speed ahead and tell Curry what was happening was because the limo had stopped and that gave Chaney time to talk to Curry through the window before the limo sped away.
If I may put words in your mouth, you’re saying that after hearing the shots Chaney stopped for long enough for the limo to go under the underpass and almost to the point of the on-ramp. He then realized the President had been shot so he chased after the already speeding away limo and caught up before the limo reached the on-ramp and then overtook it and Curry’s car. He then spoke to Curry at some stage on the on-ramp.
This does not match his testimony or Curry’s or Lawson’s. And given that we can see Curry’s car pulled to the side to allow the limo to pass just after the triple underpass on the zfilm and Daniel I don’t see how that could have happened. Why would Chaney drive past Curry if he wanted to talk to him?
Zapruder, Bell, Muchmore and Daniel provide us with a continuous view of the limo before it goes under the underpass and then after it comes out.
If Chaney is the policeman on the far left in McIntyre then how did he get from Point A (behind the limo on Zapruder) to Point B (in front of the limo in the McIntyre photo) without showing up on any of the films?
Even if Zapruder had panned past Chaney (which I don’t believe happened) then Chaney should still have shown up on Daniel chasing the limo. Otherwise he would not have been able to catch up to the limo and pass it in time to appear in the McIntyre photo.
This is a serious unanswered question for WC defenders. How did Chaney get from Point A to Point B without being seen in transit on any of the films?
And just to keep Photon happy – here’s a link to some clear statements by Chaney et al about when he went in front of the limo. It was before the triple underpass.
So far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated that it’s even possible to alter an 8mm film by “painting on” a head wound or removing a motorcyclist. So why should I believe it was done?
Nothing in the Z film “defies physics.” That’s just a way of saying “this looks weird to me and I can’t explain it.” But many of these anomalies have been explained on the Simkin forum and in links like these:
All from this page:
IMO, these anomalies are like the “speculative nonsense” about moon landing photos and 9/ll that has also been thoroughly debunked online.
This is a follow up to my previous post. I’ll respond to your newest post asap.
In fact, in Bell we see the 3 motorcycle policemen at 40 – 43 just exiting the underpass. If that really is Chaney on the far right then how did he get past the limo without being seen in Zapruder? His helmet at least should be visible while passing JFK on the right side of the limo in Zapruder.
I don’t think that motorcycle officer you cite in McIntyre on the far right can be Chaney. If he did stop, as you say he seems to, in Nix, he can’t have gotten from this position in Nix to the position in Bell (exiting the underpass at 40 – 43) and then the McIntyre photo without being see on Zapruder or Daniel.
So that cannot be Officer Chaney we see at the front left in McIntyre or going under the underpass on the far right in Bell.
However, in McIntyre there is a motorcycle policeman on the left hand side back waiting in the underpass. This would be the position we would expect to see Chaney if he had ridden up to Curry and spoken to him before the underpass and after the limo has sped away. It’s the only way the testimony and the positions of the motorcycle policemen on the films make sense.
And that means the Zapruder film has been altered to remove Chaney.
Thanks for your views.
Thanks for those links. I’ve read them and they don’t address the issue I’ve raised which is Officer Chaney’s position and movements. Are you able to specifically address that?
As for why you should believe the film could be altered when no-one has yet demonstrated it could be done. There are plenty of things we know have been done even if we can’t demonstrate the technology ourselves. ie the Russians (and the world) knew the US had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but at that time no-one else could have demonstrated how it was done.
In terms of the zfilm defying the laws of physics – the specific evidence is the simultaneous lurch forward of the 4 front passengers after frame 313 and the lack of motion of the Kennedys. If the lurch forward is caused by the limo decelerating then why don’t the Kennedys move at all?
There are 2 specific anomalies that the anti-alterationists have not been able to address and that is Officer Chaney and the lurch forward. If someone has an answer to either of these issues I’d be happy to see it.
The zfilm alteration issue is completely different from talk about moon landings faked and 9/11 conspiracies. And that is because the film of the moon landings and 9/11 corresponds with the witness testimony of what happened.
If Neil Armstrong had subsequently said look I actually tripped down the steps and then said “this is a small step for man but a giant leap for me’ then we might question what was authentic the film or Armstrong’s version. It’s similar with 9/11 I haven’t seen any witness accounts differ to what we see on the various films of that day.
In the case of the zfilm there are substantial variations between what we see on the film and the witnesses versions and there are anomalies in the film which cannot be explained except through alteration ie Chaney’s movements and the lurch forward.
Hello – where on earth has everyone on this forum gone? Is it due to Thanksgiving?
Anyway just to add a point to my discussion with Jean concerning the Zapruder film.
Kellerman’s testimony also does not match what we see on the zfilm. As he leaves out the lurch forward in his WC testimony. So we have 5 witnesses in the limo and not one recounts their experiences as we see them on the zfilm.
The four that lurch forward (Kellerman, Greer, Nellie and John Connally) do not mention this in their testimonies at all.
That is a lot of discrepancy between film and testimony.
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.
Jonathan – December 1, 2014 at 7:03 pm
“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.
. . . . . . . . . . .
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.
Chapter 8 dealing with Travelling Mattes, from Feilding’s book THE TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY, are available as a PDF online:
“There are reasons to believe the back yard photos were produced by photo manipulation.”
Yes and there are a myriad of very good reasons to illustrate that they are fake. Which brings a very interesting point to the table. Horne’s very own ‘Photo Interpreter’, Dino Brugioni pronounced the backyard photo’s of Oswald as authentic. How does this clash with your present belief system?
“And that means the Zapruder film has been altered to remove Chaney.”~Vanessa
And what possible motive would the forgers have to remove Chaney?
We have spoken to this extensively on another thread. And I have found your argument that Chaney was “removed” to be totally unconvincing. So it would be apropos for you to explain what motive there would be for this unlikely proposition.
“And just to keep Photon happy – here’s a link to some clear statements by Chaney et al about when he went in front of the limo. It was before the triple underpass.”~Vanessa
This very point proves that your “Chaney disappeared in the Zapruder film” to be misapprehended, as my last comment on the other thread suggests. Chaney was out of frame in the Zapruder film for the very reason you just gave. He motored ahead of the limo before the underpass. Zapruder’s pan kept up with the limo, and there is nothing in the frames but that limo – so you don’t see anything of the underpass until Zapruder’s pan follows the limo to the entrance of the underpass.
It is curious that Photon fails to appreciate that this film that he defends as true and authentic evidence, is that what if reveals is proof of the fatal frontal beyond reasonable doubt in view of modern forensic pathology.
He has some sense of this, as is clearby his attempt to discredit Sherry Fiester, but fails to appreciate the fact that her interpretations are based upon the cutting edge of forensic pathology. So the question raises far beyond Fiester’s expertise and provides a view of the latest discoveries pertinent to forensic pathology. New evidence in physics proving forward movement of a body to a force applied to it before the Mass/Momentum equation translates into kinetics at a precise moment of impact, describe as in aeronautical crash physics does, in that when the center of mass of the object in motion passes through the target.
It is these physics which explain the so-called “head-snap” wherein Kennedy’s head nodded toward the oncoming projectile for a fraction of a second.
Now that all of this adds up to a shot from the front, troubles many people here, and not just the Warren Commission boosters. The comments here reflect that very clearly.
Both camps are faced with a dilemma, because not only the ballistics are proven, but the expected results in fact are what is described in the X-rays and photographs of JFK’s head.
The pro-conspiracy camp has made a dogmatic ritual of asserting these documents are fraudulent, partially or in toto. Now that it is shown that these very materials are proof of a frontal entry, is painful emotionally as so much has been invested into arguments that prove the opposite of what they thought they prove.
And the same thing holds true for the pro-Warren Report contingent. Equation is reversed. They cannot accept the new forensic findings because it destroys all of their previous arguments as well.
The is one of those pregnant moments in history where a new idea is rejected out of hand by simple ingrained bias by both sides of the controversy.
I myself felt challenged. But for me it was fascinating to test all of my long held assumptions. So retracing my steps back to when some of these ideas took hold gave me a better perspective, and how my natural impulse is to always ferret-out presumptions I have made earlier, and testing them again with the new information at hand.
What is the “cutting edge of forensic pathology” that you base your assumptions on? Sherry Fiester is not a forensic pathologist, she isn’t even a health care professional. She has been retired from police investigative work for almost twenty years with no evidence for any continuing education since.You still can’t address the certification questions.
Exactly what training in Physics do you base your “head snap” argument on? Fiester has none, so using her as a source is pointless.
Again, do you have any degree or evidence of any expertise in this subject?
Photon your reading comprehension suffers when you wish to make a dispute regardless of what your opponent has actually said.
I clearly did not claim that Fiester is or was a forensic pathologist. I said that beyond her own expertise – which clearly establishes my context as larger than the issue of who and what she is.
The cutting edge forensic pathology is referred to in her work. A few examples:
> 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)
> Movement into the force, in the context of the kinetics of the head-snap (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011;l Radford, 2009)
>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. (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998)
I have addressed the certification questions:
“Again, do you have any degree or evidence of any expertise in this subject?”~Photon
Do you Dr Anonymous?
Until Mr. Horne can
Then again you cannot prove Oswald was the lone assassin either….
Oh one more thing: isn’t time you ditch that alias and use your own name Paul?
The questions you posed can be best answered by the technicians that modified the Zapruder film. Only the government knows who they were back in 1963-1964, the Government paid their salaries. The Government has the power to forgive & rescind any & all silence (gag) orders they received. Distracting from Doug Horne’s research by placing the monkey on his back to explain the Z-film alterations only allows the Government to continue to shield its own employees. The questions you posed to Doug Horne should be directed to the Congress & Senate & pressure not stopped until the public gets the answers it seeks. That’s exactly what Doug Horne is doing with his research; he’s waking up the public to what their Government did back in 1963-1964 in regards to the Z-film & the autopsy of JFK. It will up to the public to apply the pressure to its own Government representatives today to gets what’s been shielded all these years out on the table.
Thanks, Charles. Right on.
You are begging the question, assuming that the Z-film was altered.
It’s like you were demanding from the government to explain how they disposed of the wreckage of the flying saucer that crashed at Roswell. Of course they can’t do that.
Horne needs to prove that “the government” could do that, and do that much faster than it has ever been done in Hollywood.
To “R.M.” (why don’t you use your name?)
You have set up a “straw man” and tried to disparage my work and my hypothesis by knocking down your own straw man. It is a classic debating trick that will not work in a discussion with me. That has to be challenged.
I have never alleged that we see any traveling mattes or rotoscoping in the extant (altered) Zapruder film that is in the Archives today. Any traveling matte work done on an 8 mm film would suffer from severe registration errors and would have been detectable, even by laymen, in 1964 when the Warren Commission staff viewed the film on a home movie screen. (Just as we can detect registration errors—from imperfect rotoscoping—today, with the naked eye, when viewing old episodes of classic Star Trek.)
If you have read “everything available” on Zapruder film alteration, as you claim, you will surely know, from reading my Chapter 14, that my allegation is that AERIAL IMAGING was surely the technique used to black out the true exit wound in the right rear of the head seen at Parkland Hospital (and to paint on false cranial wounds)—NOT traveling mattes and rotoscoping.
Professor Raymond Fielding discusses AERIAL IMAGING extensively in Chapter 9 his 1965 textbook, “The Technique of Special Effects Cinemotography,” on pages 224-233 (fourth edition, 1985). He provides a beautiful schematic diagram of an aerial image setup on page 229, and an exquisite photograph of an Oxberry optical printer, modified with an animation stand to perform aerial imaging, on page 228.
As Fielding points out, since the paints used on the animation cel are opaque, aerial imaging is “self-matting.” He also points out that if artwork, “such as a painted image on a transparent animation cel, is laid onto the animation cel board in the plane of the aerially-imaged master positive, then it will be photographed simultaneously with the live-action scene, both components being equally well-defined.” He further explains, “both the aerially-imaged color master and the artwork are then re-photographed simultaneously by the [process] camera above.”
Altering a film in this manner takes only one pass through an aerial optical printer—that is, one round of photography with the process camera. One film professional in Hollywood who has been interviewed on camera (and who has personal experience with aerial optical printers) has stated that the alterations he sees in the extant film would have been an “overnight” job.
Your frustration about Kodak possessing the film at Hawkeyeworks all day on Sunday, 11/24/63, is something you are going to have to get used to. It is a fact. Kodak did not take it there, the Secret Service did. The Secret Service agent who brought the Z film to the SECOND NPIC event (Sunday night, one day after Dino Brugioni handled the original) told Homer McMahon (the head of the color lab) that he had brought the film from Hawkeyeworks, in Rochester, where it had just been processed. He also told two lies—namely, that it had been donated by a citizen who did not want any money whatsoever, and that it was the camera-original film. (It is well-documented that the camera-original film was developed Friday in Dallas.)
The interview during which Homer McMahon recounted his experiences (the second of three interviews) was recorded on July 14, 1997, and you can obtain a copy of the audio recording at the National Archives, if you wish.
Per Dino Brugioni, the camera-original Z film left Washington D.C. (near the end of event # 1) at about 3 AM on Sunday morning, 11/24—and (per Homer McMahon) did not return until about 9 PM Sunday night (or later—it was well after dark) when the new Zapruder film was couriered to NPIC from Rochester by “Bill Smith” of the Secret Service. Allowing 3 hours for transportation each way, that allows 12 hours to alter the film with relatively simple aerial imaging technology. To me, that 12 hours is equivalent to what Paul Rutan Jr., in Hollywood, has called an “overnight” job.
It is clear that the Secret Service was working hand-in-hand with the CIA that weekend (the NPIC was run by the CIA) to produce first, a set of unsanitized briefing boards depicting what had really happened on Elm Street; and second, a set of sanitized briefing boards (made from an altered film) which could be used publicly during investigations. In between those two compartmentalized briefing board operations at NPIC, the Zapruder film was altered at Hawkeyeworks in Rochester—by the company with which the CIA had a longstanding, classified, contractual relationship.
As Homer McMahon put it, “we were in bed with the Yellow God; our best people were working with their best people”—such was the closeness with which the CIA worked with Kodak on various projects. Kodak did nothing on its own with the Z film; it was following instructions from the CIA, and the Secret Service acted as the courier service. END
I have a question for you, likely one you have heard many times. On Nov. 25, 1963 (or so we are told), newsman Dan Rather was allowed to view the Zapruder film. I have no idea which copy he viewed but, his descriptions are so radically different from what can be viewed today in the Z film, it is clear he was watching a much different version of the Z film.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Or he lied.
A researcher told me that Penn Jones confronted Dan Rather at the front door of Mr. Rather’s home and asked him “why did you say his head went forward when it went violently backward” (or words to that effet).
Dan Rather just said that he may have made a mistake.
Additional Response to “R.M.”:
As described in detail in Douglas Horne’s Vol. IV of “Inside the ARRB,” a team of professional film restorers in Hollywood confirmed that the Zapruder film has been altered. These experts have the bona fide credentials for assessing the feasibility of the alteration in a short window of time.
It is important to keep in mind that we are not talking about the editing of a two-hour feature film, which might require months of intensive editing work, but a small strip of images which lasts less than 30 seconds. Because of the numerous errors that we are now able to identify due to computer technology, it is clear that the editors of this film were rushing to complete the job in time for select frames to be published in LIFE magazine.
For a comprehensive knowledge of this case, the best place to start is with Douglas Horne’s Vol. IV, his superb video presentations, and James H. Fetzer, ed., “The Great Zapruder Film Hoax” (Catfeet Press 2003). A careful reading of these materials provides the student of the JFK case with a working vocabulary for understanding film editing in the early 1960s, plus the provenance of the film. For decades, the American public was told that the film was in the hands of Time-Life in Chicago during the assassination weekend. We now know that it secretly passed through the CIA and Kodak Hawkeyeworks en route to Chicago.
It is only a matter of time before Zapruder film alteration will be acknowledged universally as a matter of fact and will serve as still more evidence of CIA complicity in the death of President Kennedy.
“As described in detail in Douglas Horne’s Vol. IV of “Inside the ARRB,” a team of professional film restorers in Hollywood confirmed that the Zapruder film has been altered. These experts have the bona fide credentials for assessing the feasibility of the alteration in a short window of time.”~James Norwood
In great detail Mr Norwood? I beg to differ, Horne mentions one name in this so called “team of professional film restorers in Hollywood confirmed that the Zapruder film has been altered.” That name is, Sydney Wilkinson. It turns out that Wilkinson’s husband Tom Whitehead is counted as one of these “experts – See,the Whitehead IMBD: (key grip) (post-production) (best boy electric) (post-production) (gaffer) (completed)
This is hardly the resume’ of a “Hollywood Film Expert”
Yet Horne keeps escalating the numbers, from “7” at one point, to now “dozens” – all without attribution.
I am awaiting ‘Coup in Camelot’ to see if Horne is ever going to list these so-called “Hollywood Experts”, and to finally see what he deems as conclusive proof of a “crudely painted black splotch” over this purported wound in the far rear of Kennedy’s head. I am not holding my breath, Horne’s ignorance of special effects cinematography is as clear as his great expertise with rhetorical salesmanship.
Here is a Post-Script to my earlier response to R.M.—
In your final comments, you alleged that Kodak had taken the Z film to NPIC, and said you did not understand why Kodak would do that PRIOR to the film being altered.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the basic story of the 2 NPIC events as recounted in my LewRockwell research paper, and in my book in chapter 14. And therefore, you do not understand the chain of custody of the film that weekend.
KODAK NEVER TOOK THE Z FILM TO ANYBODY. IT WAS THE SECRET SERVICE WHO BROUGHT THE Z FILM TO NPIC (AND DINO BRUGIONI) AT 10 PM ON SATURDAY NIGHT, 11/23/63.
As Dino told me during my interview of him in 2011, the two agents had just gotten off an airplane, and had just come from the airport (presumably National Airport in D.C.), and had not yet seen the film they were delivering to him.
This means, to me, that these two agents had intercepted the Z film in Chicago, and taken it straight to Washington D.C. It had been placed on an airplane (bound for Chicago) in Dallas by Richard Stolley on Saturday afternoon. This explains why the Z film delivered to Dino Brugioni arrived so late at night—it was surely intercepted in Chicago.
But it was certainly not brought to NPIC by Kodak, at any time. I don’t know where you came up with that idea. Two Secret Service agents brought the film to NPIC for event # 1 Saturday night; and one Secret Service agent brought the film to NPIC for event # 2 Sunday night. In between those two NPIC events, two Secret Service agents took the film to Hawkeyeworks in Rochester; we know that because the agent that brought a Zapruder film (the altered one) to NPIC for event # 2 said the film he was carrying was developed in Rochester, at Hawkeyeworks, and that he had personally brought it from there to D.C.
The Secret Service contacted John McCone, the CIA Director, on Saturday and told him they wanted NPIC to study a film they would be delivering. McCone contacted Arthur Lundahl, NPIC’s Director, and he then contacted Dino Brugioni, who was the duty officer that weekend (and who was also his Chief of Information and the briefing board CZAR). The Secret Service delivered the film to NPIC for event # 1 because they wanted a true depiction of what had really happened on Elm Street.
The purpose of NPIC event # 2 was clearly to produce a series of “sanitized” briefing boards from a “sanitized” Zapruder film. This is why a completely different work crew was utilized by NPIC for event # 2, and why the two work crews were kept in the dark until 2009 about the other event in their building that weekend. A compartmentalized operation was necessary because something was being hidden—and that “something” was the fact that the assassination film had been altered and “sanitized.”
You need to re-examine the chain of custody that weekend; when you do you will see that Kodak delivered the film TO NO ONE. Kodak was simply doing what it was told by its government customer. END
If one takes a photo of their dog & posts it on Facebook and someone copies that photo of your dog & posts it somewhere else on the Internet, the copied photo of your dog is an altered photo; regardless if nothing else was changed. 1st NPIC event received a slit 8mm film from Dallas. 2nd NPIC event received an unslit 16mm film from Hawkeyeworks. Even if nothing else was done by Hawkeyworks but to merely copy the 8mm slit Dallas film, the 16mm unslit film is an alteration of the original. The monkey is on the back of the employees of Hawkeyeworks & their Government employer to explain the 16mm unslit z-film. Doug Horne needs not provide any additional proof than he already has with his 2 NPIC witnesses. The Government has the ball now.
There was no Internet in 1963. Likewise there was no technology to produce the changes mentioned by Mr. Horne in 1963.
Wow, you are not only one of the world’s foremost authorities on forensic medicine, but 1960’s technology as well.
The person calling themselves ‘Photon’ is wrong. The Internet was created on 5 December 1969 as a military weapon during the cold war. Google it, Photon.
“Internet was created on 5 December 1969” ~Samuel Rinn
Since when did 1969 and 1963 become synonymous?
The span of years between are now to be deemed irrelevant?
I have a lot of issues with Photon, I will not defend him wholesale, but this comeback by Mr Rinn is ludicrous.
Is it true that you believe that Greer shot JFK?
You know SOO much better than that; Is that really the best response (to doug horne’s extensive work on the alteration of the z-film) you can muster, professor?
“Altering a film in this manner takes only one pass through an aerial optical printer—that is, one round of photography with the process camera.”~Douglas Horne
Yes, but ONLY when the mattes have been produced beforehand, which is the laborious process that both Healy and Horne do not seem to comprehend.
This “one round of photography with the process camera,” can only take place AFTER the mattes and counter mattes have been produced. This production is complicated by the fact that the “special effects” sequence in planned effects shots BEGIN with individual elements being produced specifically for a shot, whereas the Zapruder film begins with a complete composition in each frame, that must first be deconstructed post-production. Each element must be separated from the other – frame-by-frame, before any reconstruction can begin.
Eloquent, respectful and parallel many of my own views regarding “30 year old memories”. Thank you Doug for being brave enough to share your facts.
Thanks for your support, Gayle. I love your book about your grandfather’s experiences (and yours) with his film of the assassination.
Everyone interested in film shot in Dealey Plaza should read your book.
For Doug Horne: Hi, I’ve enjoyed listening to your talks on YouTube. I was wondering if I could contact you somehow. I just have a couple thoughts I’d like to run by you. Thanks. Doug Mather email@example.com
Gayle, I read where a part of your grandfather’s film shows the act of LBJ ducking in the Veep limo, which has been said to be in anticipation of the assassination beginning. I’ll look to see the film in slow motion, or keep stopping it in real motion.
Doug Horne has a lot of global attention on him & his startling analysis at present. Those who haven’t read his books are certainly aware of his video presentations posted online. He’s been able to get his message out globally without the assistance or blessings from the MSM. The closer he brings the truth to the public, the more intense his detractors will try to pull his audience to their side. It’s the old good vs. evil, Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader thing we’ve seen all our lives. Doug needn’t worry; those convinced he’s got it right won’t jump ship.
This is exactly how I see it. I wasn’t worth mentioning in McAdams’ book, in which he trashed the independent JFK research community, but suddenly someone has decided that it is important to attack me now, and to do so vigorously. It seems to me to be a sort of “back-and-to-the-left-handed compliment,” if you get my drift. Only people perceived as a threat are attacked; others are ignored.
A parallel to your wonderful analogy above is that I sometimes feel like one of E.E. “Doc” Smith’s LENSMEN, engaged in mortal combat with the evil forces of Boskone. (Readers of the old classics of science fiction will appreciate this analogy.)
Thanks for your appreciation.
I can’t thank you enough for the enlightening you have done for the true JFK research community! While I haven’t actually purchased your “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board” as yet, I have read many excerpts from it and it has helped me to make connections I hadn’t previously managed prior to it. I think it disgusting the slanderous remarks made to me about you whenever I cite your work! Keep up the good fight Sir. I think you’re a true American hero!
I salute you for bringing the true facts to light surrounding this case – keep fighting the good fight! I’ve been enjoying your work and was riveted by your FOFF online presentation.
In terms of disposition of the JFK casket, it was fascinating to review these documents: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/other/contents_casket-disposition.htm
“(1) The Boyajian Report dated 11/26/63, which records the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue 20 minutes prior to the Andrews AFB motorcade..”Horne
This claim is hyperbole and utterly false. What Horne is speaking to is Boyajian’s report of receipt of a manifest for a shipping casket. One that Boyajian did not inspect personally, nor have any knowledge if it had any contents.
To claim this was “the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue..” is patently dishonest.
Mr. Whitten: Your comment is absurd. Sgt. Boyajian was the NOIC of the USMC Security Detail at the Bethesda morgue; and the entire purpose of that detail was to secure the area in connection with the arrival of the President’s body. His report states that the coffin arrived at “18:35”. Here are his exact words: “At approximately 1835 (6:35 EST) the casket was received at the morgue entrance and taken inside.” For you to write that “Boyajian did not inspect [it] personally, nor have any knowledge if it had any contents” shows how vacuous is your comment. Then you conclude: “To claim this was ‘the arrival of JFK’s body at the Bethesda morgue. . ” is patently dishonest.” Oh pleez: this is an absurd and ridiculous critique. When you buy “Wheaties” at the supermarket, do you open it and inspect the box to make sure it contains that cereal, before paying for it at the checkout stand? (Maybe you do!).
“Mr. Whitten: Your comment is absurd.”
~David S. Lifton
Actually Mr. Lifton you likening a casket to a box of Wheaties is absurd. Boyajian wasn’t buying a box of breakfast cereal at a supermarket. He was in charge of what came in and out of the area he was in charge of. There is no proof whatsoever that said casket contained the body of JFK.
And it is ABSURD to assert such, san’s Boyajian’s specific testimony of such a fact.
Mr. Whitten: Besides the fact that you seem to ignore the obvious–i.e., that the entire purpose of Sgt. Roger Boyajian and his group was morgue security, in preparation for the arrival of JFK’s coffin–you also ignore the following corroborating evidence that clearly establishes the sequence of arrivals of two coffins. It is the sequence of arrivals–the shipping casket (at 6:35 p.m., a full 20 minutes before the naval ambulance arrived at the front of Bethesda (which contained the Dallas ceremonial casket)–that also establishes that the second casket was empty. Specifically, I am referring to the account of Dennis David, the Officer of the Day–who witnessed both arrivals (see Chapter 25 of Best Evidence); and Donald Rebentisch (who came forward the week Best Evidence was first published in January 1981, who I interviewed at that time, and whose account I published in an Epilogue that appears in all the following editions of Best Evidence). Also, besides the evidence of sequence, there is also the fact that Paul O’Connor opened the shipping casket, and it contained the body of JFK, inside a body bag. All this was clearly set forth not only in my book (Best Evidence) but in filmed interviews that I conducted in October 1980, and which were released in 1989 as part of the Best Evidence Research Video.(Google that term, to see the video). You are welcome to play epistemological games, but the facts clearly speak for themselves, and very loudly: JFK’s body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue in a shipping casket that was recorded to have arrived at 6:35 p.m. according to the morgue security detail–a good 20 minutes before the arrival of the naval ambulance containing the Dallas coffin. Further, that arrival (and offload) was witnessed by Dennis David and Donald Rebentisch (among others). To anyone with a serious interest in history, and in piercing this deception, that is what the facts show. If you want to play lawyer’s games with this data, and demand what is tantamount to a “written receipt” for an empty coffin, of course that is your privilege.
“Besides the fact that you seem to ignore the obvious–i.e., that the entire purpose of Sgt. Roger Boyajian and his group was morgue security, in preparation for the arrival of JFK’s coffin.”
False; Boyajian and his group was morgue security, a permanent position, not one specifically arranged for the arrival of JFK’s coffin.
It was a morgue, there were constant deliveries of coffins, naturally some had bodies in them. some were empty to put bodies into.
There is absolutely nothing in Roger Boyajian’s entry to indicate that he inspected the delivery, or that there was mention of a body or it’s identity in one of the caskets.
All you have here is conjecture.
Douglas Horne shouldn’t concern himself with McAdams. Horne should however be very concerned about Rolland Zavat and Raymond Fielding, two of the icons of motion picture film, camera’s, projectors – including ‘process projectors’ such as the Oxberry,from Zavata. Raymond Fielding wrote the book. THE TECHNIQUES OF SPECIAL EFFECTS CINEMATOGRAPHY, the veritable bible of special effects artist during the era of film.
14. Per My Studies and Investigation, I Contend that the Zapruder
Original Film Could NOT be Altered as You have Claimed or in Any
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