From - Fri Dec 06 22:55:44 1996
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu (james fetzer)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated
Subject: Zapruder film alteration
Approved: jmcadams@netcom.com
Date: 6 Dec 1996 22:00:11 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Duluth
Lines: 1003
Message-ID: <58a51b$itg@news.d.umn.edu>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 49519
Status: RO
Originator: jmcadams@homer.thenet.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.64.182.2
Path: mcadams.posc.mu.edu!jmcadams
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:23 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:03:06 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: Z-FILM AUTHENTICITY, PART I
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 03:07:29 -0500
From: DWMANTIK@aol.com
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Z-Film Authenticity
Z-FILM AUTHENTICITY: RESPONSES
Part 1
November 29, 1996
Jim Fetzer:
How ironic that my AOL software crashed several days before the Dallas
conference! Only today have I been able to get back on-line--and what I
found in my e-mailbox was quite amazing!
I was extremely disappointed (as well as astonished) at Joe Riley's
responses--even to the point of depression. I have always respected his
views, I have sought him out (and deferred to him) on questions where his
expertise was pertinent. He has previously provided detailed and highly
constructive critiques of my work, he is a sincere and dedicated ally in
the cause of conspiracy, and I like him!
Nonetheless, whenever a response such as this occurs, it is time to ask a
different question: "What evidence would be sufficient for Riley to at
least seriously reconsider his position?" Riley's responses cause me to
doubt that any evidence would suffice for that purpose. If my impression
is wrong in this, I will happily stand corrected!
Jim, you know that I am open-minded to new evidence. To prove the point,
you will recall that, in the summer of 1995, I even changed my mind
briefly on the authenticity of the JFK skull X-rays--and this was based on
my own evidence! No one had to force this change on me. And I am not
likely to be close-minded to serious arguments presented against my
current position on the Z-film. On the contrary, I'd love to see some
really good ones--that's how I learn best. If Joe is truly leaving this
case, we should all feel a profound sense of loss. This does none of us
any good.
As you would surely expect, there are detailed and powerful responses to
all of Riley's comments. If there is a serious need for such responses
(please tell me!), I shall produce them later. As it is now nearly bedtime
here, however, I shall respond briefly to only one of Joe's comments. This
one objection caught my eye--and my response can perhaps serve as a
foretaste of how the rest might be addressed.
Joe refers to the "wet gate" procedure for copying movie films (liquid
between the two films during the copying process). Jim, you will recall
that this was actually discussed during the closed workshop. Let A be the
film being copied and B the new copy produced by this process. Then
Riley's point requires that magnification changes, NOT PRESENT ON A,
appear for THE FIRST TIME on B. The logical reply to this objection is
obvious: don't use B for the measurements--use A! And that's what I did!
Please recall that my measurements were based on the black and white
prints in the Warren Commission Volumes--which were based on the
"ORIGINAL" Z-film! In fact, there is NO intervening COPY of a Z-film
MOVIE at all! The black and white prints in the WC Volumes can be traced
directly to the "ORIGINAL," via INDIVIDUAL COPIES OF PRINTS AND INDIVIDUAL
COPIES OF TRANSPARENCIES, not movie film copies. QED.
If Joe honestly rejects even this line of argument, then there is still a
straightforward solution--i.e., examine the "ORIGINAL" Z-film! Actually,
it is now time for someone in the critical community to do this. Or, in
the interim, Joe could ask someone who has seen it--e.g., Groden or the
Archives staff. And if the "original" is different in any substantial way
from the photographs in the Warren Commission volumes--then we have
another kind of problem! As you consider this, you should recall that the
cumulative magnification, from Z225 to Z313, was well over 50%, a value
that should surely be obvious to the eye of even an amateur photo analyst!
Please pass this on to whomever may benefit from it. I am sending a copy
to Lisa Pease because Jim D. just phoned to discuss this, and to Gary
Aguilar, who is still trying to catch up on all of this!
Good night!
David Mantik
P.S. I did happen to notice that in his summary of my comments of the
Z-film at COPA, Greg Jaynes neither mentioned (1) my public thanks to
Robert Groden for all of his work on the Z film, nor (2) my encouragement
of the audience to applaud Bob for this (which applause did occur), nor
(3) the duration of my discussion of the Moorman film, nor (4) my specific
comments on the Moorman photo, nor (5) my mention of the Weaver Polaroid
photo as a useful control for the blur seen in the Moorman photo. Enough
said!
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:27 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:03:45 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: Z FILM AUTHENTICITY, PART 2
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:29:41 -0500
From: DWMANTIK@aol.com
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Z FILM AUTHENTICITY, PART 2
Z-FILM RESPONSES
Part 2
November 30, 1996
Jim Fetzer:
An issue which has troubled me over the past several years is the
supposed unreliability of eye witness testimony. As you know, in the JFK
assassination, there is now a small mountain of data for extensive
photographic and X-ray alteration of evidence. We are therefore left
primarily with eyewitness testimony. The HSCA, of course, endlessly
disparaged eyewitness testimony. I have not researched this in detail, but
I don't actually recall what sources the HSCA cited for this pessimistic
view nor what actual research they carried out on this critical question.
If you (or anyone else reading this) can cite the HSCA on this, I would be
most grateful.
At any rate, it seemed to me as I considered this issue, that no one had
assessed it in sufficient detail. For example, you will recall that when I
recently reviewed the statements of eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza,
regarding the head shots, there was quite incredible agreement. In fact, I
don't recall any significant disagreement. In view of the supposed
unreliability of eyewitnesses, this was quite extraordinary. In fact, it
seemed a genuine paradox!
I next turned to EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY by Elizabeth Loftus (1996 edition),
to see if this paradox could be resolved. Her book, you may recall, won
the National Media Award for Distinguished Contribution from the American
Psychological Foundation. The book jacket says what you would expect it to
say--it implies that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. However, two days
ago, as I was reading this book, I encountered Table 3.1 on page 27--and
this told quite another story! The question I had been turning over in my
mind was the issue of complexity--i.e., granted that the human brain is
not very reliable for recalling the details of a briefly glimpsed
stranger's face nor for the specific acts in a long sequence of events, I
wondered if the situation might be different for a lower level of
complexity or for a lower level of information content. And it is!
The above table makes this more than obvious. The data cited are from J
Marshall, et al., HARVARD LAW REVIEW 84: 1620-1643. The study took place
in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1971 (while I was on the Michigan faculty)! A
total of 151 observers were shown a two minute movie in color and
sound--with a fairly complex set of actions. The researchers identified
about 900 items present in the film that could have been mentioned. The
observers were interviewed immediately after the viewing; they were urged
to recount what they had seen in all possible detail.
The researchers assessed these responses based on accuracy, completeness,
and saliency. Accuracy and completeness were determined by what was
actually seen in the film, but saliency was determined, not by the
researchers, but rather was defined internally--i.e., by the responses of
the observers themselves (how democratic)! If an item was described by
over 50% of the observers it was considered highly salient.
Marshall, et al. then graphed the accuracy and completeness of the
responses vs saliency, as follows.
Saliency Accuracy Completeness
0 61 64
1-12 78 81
13-25 81 82
26-50 83 92
51-100 98 98
In view of all that has been said about eyewitness unreliability, I found
this data truly shocking! This table tells us that if over 50% of the
witnesses consider an item to be salient, then they are 98% accurate and
98% complete! Did the HSCA consider this? Also, remember that this study
was published well before anyone dreamed that there would even be an HSCA!
I thought again about my review of the eyewitnesses who described the
motion of JFK's head during the head shot sequence. Would they have
considered this important? Would they have agreed on salience? The answer
was obvious--OF COURSE! Therefore, according to the above table, both
their accuracy and completeness should be very high. And it is!
I suspect that Gary Aguilar will be interested in the above data as well.
It is so directly and obviously pertinent to the head wounds--as seen in
Dallas and in Bethesda. Would the observers have agreed that the location
and size of these wounds was salient? Again the answer is obvious--OF
COURSE!
The above data is also directly pertinent to the recent responses of Joe
Riley. There are probably at least 50 witnesses who saw the limousine
either slow or stop on Elm St. If this is true, then the Z-film must be
altered--because the limo does not do anything like this in the film. To
pursue this further, perhaps Riley (or other supporters of authenticity)
could supply a list of witnesses who said that the limousine did not stop
but rather traveled down Elm St at a constant (or nearly constant) speed.
And this list should be based on statements made by witnesses before they
viewed the Z film. Why have I never seen such a list of witnesses?
Likewise, why have I never seen a list of witnesses in Dealey Plaza who
saw the head snap (again, compiled before the Z-film was viewed)?
Supporters of authenticity have some apparently intractable problems to
consider. I would be delighted to see a serious and intelligent response
to some of these issues.
David W Mantik
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:32 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:10:46 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: Z FILM AUTHENTICITY, PART 3
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 15:58:38 -0500
From: DWMANTIK@aol.com
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Z FILM AUTHENTICITY
Z-FILM RESPONSES
Part 3
December 1, 1996
Jim Fetzer:
A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY?
A frequently raised criticism of Z film alteration is that there simply
was not enough time to complete all of the proposed editing of the film.
The proper response is: "Not enough time by WHEN?" Aside from the frames
published by LIFE on November 29, 1963, and in the following week's
Memorial edition, I am not aware of anything else publicly printed for a
long while.
Trask reports (p. 96) that on January 7, 1964, LIFE's Washington bureau
chief wrote to Jim Rowley of the SS, stating that LIFE had several copies
made up for government use. [Why would he do this at all, since the SS
already had received copies from Z? Is this an offer to replace one
version by another?] LIFE asks for the copies back (presumably meaning the
ones the SS got directly from Zapruder). Rowley stressed that the film
would not be shown to anyone except for official purposes.
Beginning on January 27 (Trask, p. 100) Shaneyfelt (FBI) began examining
a COPY of the film. This continued over 7 days, during which SS agents and
Commission representatives were always present.
On January 28, Shaneyfelt suggested that a clearer version might provide
more information. Trask notes that it was odd that the SS copies were
never requested--nor were they offered by the SS. I have personally seen
two SS copies at the Archives. One is superb (could be original as far as
I could tell--except for no intersprocket images) and one was quite poor,
in both clarity and color.
On February 25, the original film was projected, but individual frames
were never examined. Orth did make 35 mm transparencies which were later
projected.
The central question though is this: DID ANYONE SEE THE Z FILM (MOVIE
VERSION) AT ANY TIME BETWEEN THE WEEKEND OF NOVEMBER 23 AND THE FBI REVIEW
OF JANUARY 27? I have not seen any evidence for this. Has anyone else? It
may be that this entire window of time was available for film alteration.
That wide window would surely make the proposals of alteration seem much
more feasible to those among us who still believe in Z film authenticity.
Or, if a showing did occur within this interval, then we need to ask if
it is consistent with (1) Erwin Schwartz's version or (2) with the current
version. Does anyone have any data on this question?
RILEY'S OBJECTIONS
A. THE HEAD SNAP. Riley apparently argues that a frontal shot is strongly
suggested by the head snap and that the forgers would hardly have left
this (head snap) in. In my talk I emphasized the amazing state of current
affairs: we still have no explanation for the head snap. I mentioned the
shooting experiments (including the concurrent report of Art Snyder) and I
mentioned the ITEK work. I explained that the gravitational potential
energy change was too great for such a frontal bullet to provide--on top
of the kinetic energy of the head and upper torso that is required. If
Riley wants to make his objection, he will have to be quantitative. To
date, he has not even hinted that he has reviewed the ITEK calculations.
My position is that, given the total absence of other reasonable
explanations (as well as the overwhelming eyewitness reports--both from
Dealey Plaza and from early viewers of the Z film), a plausible
explanation for the head snap is frame excision from the Z film.
Could the forgers have removed the head snap? I cannot finally answer
this question but I suspect that it would not have been easy. We should
also recall that the current version is probably less damning to a lone
gunman view than was the initial version. Also, this film was probably
never intended for public release. It's also interesting to note
Liebeler's comments regarding an initially private viewing:
Assistant Counsel Wesley J Liebeler admitted that the [Warren] Commission
never paid much attention to the President's head movement. "It's only
since the critics have raised this point that anybody has ever looked at
it closely, " Liebeler conceded. KTTV, Los Angeles, February, 1967
Two additional points: (1) many witnesses saw JFK sit back up after the
first head shot. I reviewed this extensively in my Dallas talk. To leave
this movement to an erect posture out of the Z film would, by itself,
raise serious questions--i.e., too many witnesses saw it. (2) If the limo
moved during the supposed interval of the head snap, then its orientation
with respect to Z (photogrammetry issues) would be apparent. To simply
delete all of these frames (during the head snap) would be apparent to
anyone--simply by looking at the relative orientation of the limo. The
alternative to this would be to keep these frames in which the limo
advances, but to alter (reconstruct) the limo occupants during this entire
interval so that no head snap is seen. Although this may be possible in
principle, it poses yet more serious technical challenges (including time
consuming alterations) that the forgers may have been only too happy to
bypass.
B. NIX AND MUCHMORE. Riley states that the Nix and Muchmore films were
conveniently ignored. Not so!! Those in attendance will recall many, many
Muchmore frames that I projected-- and the whole point of one long
sequence was that there was no visible head snap! Has Riley forgotten this
already? The other Muchmore sequence showed 9 successive frames (there
may be more--the brakelight is obscured before and after this) during
which the brakelight is obviously on. If someone wants to argue that the
limo thereafter continued at a constant speed (as seen in the Z film) he
will need to provide some physical explanation for this odd
phenomenon--i.e., cars braking but not slowing. To date, I have not seen
even an offer of explanation. M. Cranor has also suggested that the Nix
film shows evidence of skull damage before the supposed head shot. Others
should also take a closer look at these images--she may be right. Riley
appears to be begging the question--i.e., assuming that the other films
agree with Z, without actually looking at them.
C. CONTROLS. Riley quotes me as saying that no controls were done. In
fact, quite a point was made of controls, even after he asked this
question publicly. Internal controls play a major role in the analysis:
compare background vs foreground magnification, compare aperture angle of
the camera at Z193 vs Z312, white spot vs light on rollbar, etc. Also note
the Weaver Polaroid photo vs the Moorman photo. What I said was that other
movies (than the Z film) had not been examined and that it might be
interesting to do so. More pertinently, though, this comparison should be
done on the portion of the Z film that precedes Dealey Plaza. There is a
whole list of control tests that can and should be done on this section of
the film. I can list many of these. Does anyone else want to contribute?
My hope is that all of this can be completed by someone from the critical
community before the ARRB dies. That is a very important issue. So yes, I
DO BELIEVE IN CONTROLS!
D. OTHER COMMENTS BY RILEY. I will be happy to address these if anyone is
concerned about them.
David W Mantik
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:40 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:06:03 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: MOORMAN PHOTO ET AL. RESEARCH IDEAS
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:02:04 -0500
From: DWMANTIK@aol.com
To: snyder@slac.stanford.edu
cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Moorman Photo, et al
TO: ART SNYDER
Date: December 3, 1996
Re: Moorman Photo and Your Recent E-Mail
I was dee-lighted to receive your comments! It is always special to learn
something new from someone with good insights. But let me respond
specifically.
Moorman Camera
From Trask (p. 231) Moorman used a "Highlander," Model 80 series folding
camera, first sold in 1954. It used series 30 film. The exposure rating of
the film is not listed by Trask. The camera remained in production until
1957, had a 100 mm focal lens, and shutter speeds of 1/25 to 1/100 sec.
You may wish to purchase Trask's book, PICTURES OF THE PAIN, from Yeoman
Press at 35 Centre St , Danvers, MA 01923 for about $25-30. I find it to
be an irreplaceable resource.
Blurs due to Exposure Time
The exposure time of Zapruder's camera was 1/36 seconds. I have
previously calculated the amount of (linear) blur from this to be about
the same as the number you suggest--i.e., about 6 inches.
Nix, Moorman Alterations
I made a point in my talk of showing many sequential frames in Muchmore
after the head shot. The head snap is not seen in these. Cranor has noted
some evidence for a skull flap in the Nix film, well before the supposed
(single) head shot. This kind of evidence may never be conclusive, but it
surely is odd and unexpected. More work on intercomparison of films should
be done. You will recall that I made at least three points (of
discordance) between Moorman and Zapruder, as well.
Control Studies
The best control study would be the sequence that Zapruder shot before
the assassination (for convenience I label this pre-A here)--on the same
roll of film but on the other side of the (physical) 16 mm film which his
camera used. I am listing these possible comparisons right now as I write
for the first time. Please enlarge this list as much as you can!
1. Does the image of the preceding frame leak into the next inter
sprocket area? If so, then the very first image on each track should
contain no such leaked image--is that the case? This question should be
addressed to both tracks of the film, i.e., pre-A and the assassination
sequence (called A here).
2. In the "original" Z film, are the color tones in the inter sprocket
area similar to the central image: for (a) the A sequence? for the pre-A
sequence? Apparently they are (inexplicably) different in the A sequence.
3. Same question for the relative lightness and darkness.
4. Is the physical width of the inter sprocket image the same for pre-A
as for A? (Lifton has proposed that in the editing and reframing process,
the inter sprocket images may have been added separately.)
5. Is the apparent fiducial mark (a cross) on Elm St that is obvious (and
inxplicable) on frame 28 in copies also visible on the "original?' Any
other fiducial marks evident?
6. Does the Kodachrome label match for the two tracks? Is the cycle
interval for the Kodachrome label in the inter sprocket area identical for
the two tracks?
7. In the pre-A track are there both double and single images on the same
frame (as there are in the A sequence) ?
8. In the pre-A track are there sequential frames in which relative
clarity of stationary and moving images change dramatically (as there are
in the A sequence)? This will be possible to assess only if there is a
moving object.
9. Is there any evidence of magnification discontinuity between
foreground and background in the pre-A sequence?
10. Are there any blurs due to motion in the pre-A sequence: e.g., hands,
legs, head, other objects? If so, how do they compare to the A sequence?
11. In the pre-A sequence, is there any freely falling object? That would
permit calculation of camera speed--i.e., frames per second--a subject
that appears still to be kicking and screaming.
12. In the pre-A sequence, is anyone walking or clapping? Such cycle
times might be used for assessing camera speed and could be compared to
the A sequence.
13. Are frames centered identically (or very similarly) in sequential
frames in the pre-A sequence? When I analyzed the white spot I was
astonished at how much re-centering (from frame to frame) I had to do.
Also, one of Groden's (justifiable) claims to fame is the frame by frame
re-centering he had to do to get a decent movie--it's the same problem
that I found during my white spot measurements! The early observers of the
Z film did not complain of this problem. Does anyone complain of this
problem with respect to the pre-A sequence? (I have no idea.)
14. Was Z able to center his subjects reasonably well in the pre-A
sequence? He (supposedly) almost missed JFK's head during the head
shots--BEFORE HE HEARD OR SAW any head shots, but AFTER hearing and seeing
the head shots he IMPROVED in his centering of the image. Does this make
any sense?
15. The overall image quality of the pre-A sequence should be compared to
the A sequence. If the "original" is really a copy and the pre-A is truly
original there may be slight differences in overall clarity and color.
The White Spot in the Grass
It's not seen in any other photos. If it were a piece of paper blown by
the wind, Nix and Muchmore should have seen it. Its successive
displacement from frame to frame is not at all consistent with the wind.
If it moves too far in one frame interval it makes up for it by moving
less in the next interval! Wind changes don't usually do this--nor do
they occur within 1/18 second.
Double Images
This argument is not about double images in one frame and single images
in the next. It is about both double and single images in the SAME FRAME.
That occurs more than once. What kind of optics would do that? Yes, I
agree with you, that in the Z film, Hill and Moorman sometimes do look
more like a double exposure than like a blur. Can any of this be explained
by film vibrations--specifically film vibrations in only the inter
sprocket area? That's one reason why the pre-A sequence is important, as
a control on this very odd feature.
Wet Gate Copying and Magnification
Your argument about the index of refraction is compelling. I have already
noted, however, that this argument is completely irrelevant--because no
movie film copying preceded the images in the Warren Commission. And these
were the images I used for my measurements.
Did you wish to discuss any of Riley's other objections?
The Moorman Fingerprint
I don't know where this fingerprint is supposed to be--or even if anyone
else knows. I am quite unable to perceive its circumference. For several
reasons, however, that seems an unlikely explanation for all of the
blurring that is present.
1. The blurring of the near motorcycle windshield is greater than the far
one. This would be expected from motion burring (greater angular
displacement nearby) but why would a fingerprint do this?
2.The limo wheel and fender are quite clear, but the IMMEDIATELY adjacent
motorcycle headlights are clearly blurred (a lot). Would a fingerprint
mark be this discriminating?
3. The front motorcycle windshield is definitely blurred, but the
IMMEDIATELY adjacent left hand grip on the limo trunk is quite well
defined. Would a fingerprint mark be this discriminating?
4. In general, blurring is more easily recognized via reflected
highlights (they are stretched out) or by thin objects that are obviously
too thick (windshield frames, radio antennae). The motorcycle helmet does
not fit these criteria; i.e., it may be more blurred than the naked eye
can readily perceive. I considered measuring the length to width of the
two motorcycle helmets (assuming that they were standard issue items)
visible in the UNCROPPED Moorman photo to assess this issue
quantitatively, but the helmet orientations may not be exactly comparable
so I haven't done it. Any other ideas here?
P.S. I have so far prepared Z Film Responses in 3 parts. I believe that
you have some of these. Do you have all 3? If not, for coherence in this
discussion, I should forward any missing parts to you. Let me know.
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:44 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:08:39 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: Re: MOORMAN PHOTO, ET AL. RESEARCH
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 21:02:27 -0600
From: jackwhite
To: DWMANTIK@aol.com
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Moorman Photo, et al
HI, DAVID...I SUGGEST YOU POST THIS AND SUBSEQUENT STUFF TO NEWSGROUPS:
alt.conspiracy.jfk
alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated
startext.jfk
"research@weberman.com"
DWMANTIK@aol.com wrote:
>
> TO: ART SNYDER
> Date: December 3, 1996
> Re: Moorman Photo and Your Recent E-Mail
>
> I was dee-lighted to receive your comments! It is always special to learn
> something new from someone with good insights. But let me respond
> specifically.
>
> Moorman Camera
>
> From Trask (p. 231) Moorman used a "Highlander," Model 80 series folding
> camera, first sold in 1954. It used series 30 film. The exposure rating of
> the film is not listed by Trask. The camera remained in production until
> 1957, had a 100 mm focal lens, and shutter speeds of 1/25 to 1/100 sec. You
> may wish to purchase Trask's book, PICTURES OF THE PAIN, from Yeoman Press at
> 35 Centre St , Danvers, MA 01923 for about $25-30. I find it to be an
> irreplaceable resource.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THAT FOR TURNER*S TMWKK I ACTUALLY TOOK A
PHOTO IN THE ACTUAL MOORMAN CAMERA, WHICH HAD BEEN IN A BANK VAULT SINCE
11-22-63. ITS OPTICS WERE SUPERB, AND THE RESULTING PHOTO OF THE KNOLL WAS
EXTREMELY SHARP! MY PHOTO (CONVERTED TO A TRANSPARENT OVERLAY) EXACTLY
MATCHES THE MOORMAN PHOTO. I ALSO HAVE THE OTHER MOORMAN PHOTOS (MARY,
JEAN, COP) AND THEY ARE ALL EXTREMELY SHARP. I ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED THE
ORIGINALS, WHICH ARE QUITE FADED.
>
> Blurs due to Exposure Time
>
> The exposure time of Zapruder's camera was 1/36 seconds. I have previously
> calculated the amount of (linear) blur from this to be about the same as the
> number you suggest--i.e., about 6 inches.
>
> Nix, Moorman Alterations
>
> I made a point in my talk of showing many sequential frames in Muchmore
> after the head shot. The head snap is not seen in these. Cranor has noted
> some evidence for a skull flap in the Nix film, well before the supposed
> (single) head shot. This kind of evidence may never be conclusive, but it
> surely is odd and unexpected. More work on intercomparison of films should be
> done. You will recall that I made at least three points (of discordance)
> between Moorman and Zapruder, as well.
>
> Control Studies
>
> The best control study would be the sequence that Zapruder shot before the
> assassination (for convenience I label this pre-A here)--on the same roll of
> film but on the other side of the (physical) 16 mm film which his camera
> used. I am listing these possible comparisons right now as I write for the
> first time. Please enlarge this list as much as you can!
>
> 1. Does the image of the preceding frame leak into the next inter sprocket
> area? If so, then the very first image on each track should contain no such
> leaked image--is that the case? This question should be addressed to both
> tracks of the film, i.e., pre-A and the assassination sequence (called A
> here).
>
> 2. In the "original" Z film, are the color tones in the inter sprocket area
> similar to the central image: for (a) the A sequence? for the pre-A sequence?
> Apparently they are (inexplicably) different in the A sequence.
>
> 3. Same question for the relative lightness and darkness.
>
> 4. Is the physical width of the inter sprocket image the same for pre-A as
> for A? (Lifton has proposed that in the editing and reframing process, the
> inter sprocket images may have been added separately.)
>
> 5. Is the apparent fiducial mark (a cross) on Elm St that is obvious (and
> inxplicable) on frame 28 in copies also visible on the "original?' Any other
> fiducial marks evident?
>
> 6. Does the Kodachrome label match for the two tracks? Is the cycle interval
> for the Kodachrome label in the inter sprocket area identical for the two
> tracks?
THE LABEL IS NOT NECESSARILY FROM THE ORIGINAL...IT COULD BE ON THE
**NEW** KODACHROME COPY. IF FRAMES ARE REMOVED, THIS IS ALMOST NECESSARILY
SO.
>
> 7. In the pre-A track are there both double and single images on the same
> frame (as there are in the A sequence) ?
>
> 8. In the pre-A track are there sequential frames in which relative clarity
> of stationary and moving images change dramatically (as there are in the A
> sequence)?
> This will be possible to assess only if there is a moving object.
>
> 9. Is there any evidence of magnification discontinuity between foreground
> and background in the pre-A sequence?
>
> 10. Are there any blurs due to motion in the pre-A sequence: e.g., hands,
> legs, head, other objects? If so, how do they compare to the A sequence?
>
> 11. In the pre-A sequence, is there any freely falling object? That would
> permit calculation of camera speed--i.e., frames per second--a subject that
> appears still to be kicking and screaming.
>
> 12. In the pre-A sequence, is anyone walking or clapping? Such cycle times
> might be used for assessing camera speed and could be compared to the A
> sequence.
>
> 13. Are frames centered identically (or very similarly) in sequential frames
> in the pre-A sequence? When I analyzed the white spot I was astonished at how
> much re-centering (from frame to frame) I had to do. Also, one of Groden's
> (justifiable) claims to fame is the frame by frame re-centering he had to do
> to get a decent movie--it's the same problem that I found during my white
> spot measurements! The early observers of the Z film did not complain of this
> problem. Does anyone complain of this problem with respect to the pre-A
> sequence? (I have no idea.)
>
> 14. Was Z able to center his subjects reasonably well in the pre-A sequence?
> He (supposedly) almost missed JFK's head during the head shots--BEFORE HE
> HEARD OR SAW any head shots, but AFTER hearing and seeing the head shots he
> IMPROVED in his centering of the image. Does this make any sense?
>
> 15. The overall image quality of the pre-A sequence should be compared to
> the A sequence. If the "original" is really a copy and the pre-A is truly
> original there may be slight differences in overall clarity and color.
>
> The White Spot in the Grass
>
> It's not seen in any other photos. If it were a piece of paper blown by the
> wind, Nix and Muchmore should have seen it. Its successive displacement from
> frame to frame is not at all consistent with the wind. If it moves too far in
> one frame interval it makes up for it by moving less in the next interval!
> Wind changes don't usually do this--nor do they occur within 1/18 second.
> Double Images
>
> This argument is not about double images in one frame and single images in
> the next. It is about both double and single images in the SAME FRAME. That
> occurs more than once. What kind of optics would do that? Yes, I agree with
> you, that in the Z film, Hill and Moorman sometimes do look more like a
> double exposure than like a blur. Can any of this be explained by film
> vibrations--specifically film vibrations in only the inter sprocket area?
> That's one reason why the pre-A sequence is important, as a control on this
> very odd feature.
>
> Wet Gate Copying and Magnification
>
> Your argument about the index of refraction is compelling. I have already
> noted, however, that this argument is completely irrelevant--because no movie
> film copying preceded the images in the Warren Commission. And these were the
> images I used for my measurements.
> Did you wish to discuss any of Riley's other objections?
>
> The Moorman Fingerprint
>
> I don't know where this fingerprint is supposed to be--or even if anyone
> else knows.
THE FINGERPRINT IS NOT ON EARLY COPIES OF THE PHOTO. THE FINGERPRINT ACID
DISOLVED SOME OF THE IMAGE EVENTUALLY, BUT OF COURSE THIS DID NOT AFFECT
EARLY COPY NEGATIVES. I HAVE AT LEAST 2 PRINTS MADE BEFORE THE FINGERPRINT
APPEARED. THEY INCLUDE THE FULL UNCROPPED IMAGE.
I am quite unable to perceive its circumference. For several
> reasons, however, that seems an unlikely explanation for all of the blurring
> that is present.
THE FINGERPRINT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOTORCYCLE BLURRING. THIS
APPLIES TO ALL THE FINGERPRINT QUESTIONS BELOW. MAYBE I CAN HELP WITH THIS
IF YOU WANT.
> 1. The blurring of the near motorcycle windshield is greater than the far
> one. This would be expected from motion burring (greater angular displacement
> nearby) but why would a fingerprint do this?
> 2.The limo wheel and fender are quite clear, but the IMMEDIATELY adjacent
> motorcycle headlights are clearly blurred (a lot). Would a fingerprint mark
> be this discriminating?
> 3. The front motorcycle windshield is definitely blurred, but the
> IMMEDIATELY adjacent left hand grip on the limo trunk is quite well defined.
> Would a fingerprint mark be this discriminating?
> 4. In general, blurring is more easily recognized via reflected highlights
> (they are stretched out) or by thin objects that are obviously too thick
> (windshield frames, radio antennae). The motorcycle helmet does not fit these
> criteria; i.e., it may be more blurred than the naked eye can readily
> perceive. I considered measuring the length to width of the two motorcycle
> helmets (assuming that they were standard issue items) visible in the
> UNCROPPED Moorman photo to assess this issue quantitatively, but the helmet
> orientations may not be exactly comparable so I haven't done it. Any other
> ideas here?
>
>
> P.S. I have so far prepared Z Film Responses in 3 parts. I believe that you
> have some of these. Do you have all 3?
I DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE. CAN YOU POST OR EMAIL?
BY THE WAY, DID YOU GET MY ALGEBRA PROBLEM?
JACK
If not, for coherence in this
> discussion, I should forward any missing parts to you. Let me know.
>From jfetzer@d.umn.edu Fri Dec 6 15:48:49 1996
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:09:23 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: james fetzer
Subject: Re: Some Disturbing Recent Developments
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 16:09:14 -0600
From: jackwhite
To: james fetzer
Subject: Re: Some Disturbing Recent Developments
Dear Jim and others...
Since my name is being bandied about a lot in discussions such as this, I think I
should repeat some of what I stated in my little presentation (paraphrasing).
OVER THE YEARS I HAD NOTICED MANY SEEMING ANOMALIES IN THE Z-FILM WHICH I
HAD LONG THOUGHT WERE SUGGESTIVE OF TAMPERING. MANY OTHER RESEARCHERS OVER
THE YEARS ALSO HAD CONTACTED ME ABOUT THESE AND OTHER ANOMALIES. DESPITE
MY SUSPICIONS (HYPOTHESES), I HAVE NEVER CONDUCTED **PHOTOANALYSIS** OF
THE FILM, THOUGH I HAVE FOR MANY YEARS IN SLIDE LECTURES TALKED ABOUT MY
**OPINIONS** OF THESE SUSPICIOUS THINGS. MY REASON FOR NOT DOING
PHOTOANALYSIS IS THAT I HAVE NO EXPERTISE IN 8MM FILM PHOTOGRAPHY (THOUGH
I HAVE SINCE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT IT). MY SPECIALTY IS **STILL**
PHOTOGRAPHY. I HAVE POINTED OUT Z-FILM PROBLEMS IN THE HOPE THAT OTHERS
MORE EXPERT THAN I WOULD CONDUCT STUDIES. THEY HAVE. I SUPPORT MOST OF
WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE...BUT THIS IS STRICTLY BASED ON
COMMON SENSE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED. **IN MY OPINION**, DR.
MANTIK*S PRESENTATION (AND OTHERS) **PROVED** MANY THINGS I HAD NOTICED. I
FEEL I AM ENTITLED TO **MY OPINION** OF THIS AND OTHER PRESENTATIONS AT
THE SYMPOSIUM, AND OTHERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIRS. I RESENT BEING
CRITICIZED BY SOME PERSONS FOR EXPRESSING MY OPINION. SEVERAL HAVE
CRITICIZED ME FOR OPINING THAT TAMPERING HAS BEEN **PROVED**, WHEN IT
REALLY **NEEDS MORE STUDY**. **IN MY OPINION**, **SOME THINGS** HAVE BEEN
**PROVED**! BUT OF COURSE, THE FILM **DOES** NEED FURTHER STUDY, BUT
COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT AN INTELLIGENT PERSON WILL FORM OPINIONS WHEN
PRESENTED WITH PERSUASIVE DATA. I WILL READILY ADMIT I AM WRONG AND CHANGE
MY OPINIONS **IF** SUBSEQUENT STUDY **PROVES** THE FILM GENUINE.
CORDIALLY..JACK WHITE
YOU WROTE:
>
> Martin,
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful response. I would certain be hanging my head in
> shame had I committed the blunders you attribute to me. Although what I
> am contributing to this research is largely as an interpreter of findings
> by others--such as David Mantik, Jack White, Noel Twyman, Chuck Marler,
> and David Lifton--I think I know enough to differentiate between evidence
> and hypotheses. Among my other qualifications are holding a Ph.D. in the
> history and philosophy of science, authoring about 100 articles and numer-
> ous books related to scientific reasoning, and regularly teaching courses
> that deal with this and related issues. You are completely mistaken to
> suppose that Mantik's careful and meticulous findings are not sufficient
> evidence to conclude--by themselves--that the film has been edited using
> sophisticated techniques. Those who deny this conclusion in the face of
> evidence of this quality are not merely cautious but actually obtuse. I
> would be glad to elaborate on any of these themes at your invitation. In-
> cidentally, did you not notice that David's handout included the summary
> of the "pecular data" that his reconstruction of the head shots explains?
>
> Jim
>
> P.S. I infer that your model is that each of the claims that have been
> made about the film--such as those included in Jack White's ab-
> stract, for example--are themselves hypotheses that are deserving
> of further investigation. Unless they are taken for granted as
> evidence that does not require further corroboration, building an
> interpretation in support of film editing as I have done is a haz-
> ardous passtime. I would agree, of course, that if the evidence
> is not as I take it to be--including, for example, the "peculiar
> data" that David has detected--then my conclusions do not follow.
> But I am sufficiently confident about those subsidiary hypotheses,
> as they might be described, to draw higher-level inferences from
> them as evidence. In my judgment, though obviously not in yours,
> they are adequate in quantity and quality to serve this function.
> These specific results are of course open to corroboration, which
> I expect will--in most, if not all, cases--support their findings.
>
> On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Martin R Shackelford wrote:
>
> > Jim:
> >
> > You are correct in pointing out that, at some point, instead of
> > presenting the Zapruder material as a set of hypotheses deserving further
> > study, and a work in progress, you made the transition into presenting
> > the material as self-evident proof. This is what is being criticized as
> > unscientific--as if Einstein had claimed he proved General Relativity
> > simply by publishing the theory. Debra's more conservative phrasing is
> > the more scientifically valid at this point. The point is not whether you
> > expressed any reservations about your conclusions--the point is that you
> > should have!!!!
>
> I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MY INTERPREATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DATA AND
> YOU FOR YOURS, BUT I AM COMPLETELY CONFIDENT THAT MY INTERPRETATION WILL
> BE SUSTAINED BY THE FUTURE COURSE OF RESEARCH ON PROBLEMS SUCH AS THESE.
>
> > It was my quite clear impression that you jumped off the cliff
> > without fully testing your wings, and it remains to be seen whether the
> > flight will end in an upward soaring or a scattering of fragments on the
> > rocks below. No one doubts that you persist in your insistence that
> > alteration has been proven; nor is a quotation from Jack White further
> > proof of anything.
>
> DEBRA ASSERTED THAT ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS AGREED THAT MUCH MORE RESEARCH
> WAS REQUIRED AND THAT WE HAD ONLY SHOWN THAT THE FILM "COULD HAVE BEEN"
> ALTERED, NOT THAT IT HAD BEEN. BUT, OF COURSE, THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG.
> MY QUOTE FROM JACK WHITE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT HE, LIKE ME, BELIEVES
> THAT DAVID ESTABLISHED ("PROVED") THAT THE FILM HAD BEEN EDITED. THAT IS
> WHAT A QUOTE FROM JACK WHITE PROVES. (YOU SEEM TO DISPLAY AN ACUTE INSEN-
> SITIVITY TO EXACTLY WHAT HYPOTHESES ARE AT STAKE IN ANY GIVEN INSTANCE.)
>
> > The summary of my comments which Debra inserted was from an e-mail
> > in which I stated the points I had found to be the strongest ones. It
> > wasn't intended as a summary of the presentations. As for the points you
> > summarize, they are arguments to consider, not self-evident proof. The
> > Greer head turn argument, as I've previously discussed with Noel Twyman,
> > is one I don't find credible.
>
> MOST OF THE POINTS I LISTED WERE FEATURES FOUND IN THE FILM THAT PROVIDE
> PRIMA FACIE INDICATIONS OF FILM ALTERATION. SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE WRONG
> IN HAVING INNOCENT EXPLANATIONS, BUT TAKEN IN THEIR TOTALITY--AS ALL OF
> THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, RELATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES--I FIND
> THEM MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE HAVE DRAWN.
>
> > As for some of the other points:
> > 1) obscuring JFK's forehead isn't the same as showing the forehead
> > missing.
> > 2) the pink spray is at its largest in one frame, but in clear copies of
> > frames 313-316 it can be seen rising and dispersing until it no longer
> > registers on the film.
> > 3) there is no definite evidence the white spot was added to the film;
> > the original LIFE frames were printed too light to show it, in order to
> > bring out facial features in the limousine. Frames in which it can be
> > easily seen are printed darker.
>
> I HAVE A COPY OF THE MAGAZINE. HAVE YOU EVEN LOOKED AT IT? YOU ARE MIS-
> TAKEN--IN SPADES. I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU WOULD MAKE SUCH A SIMPLE BLUNDER.
>
> > 4) Connally turned to his right, then STARTED to turn to his left, when
> > he was hit in the back. All this is in the Zapruder film.
>
> BIG JOHN WAS QUITE SPECIFIC IN DESCRIBING HIS OWN BEHAVIOR, WHICH HAPPENS
> TO SUPPORT MANTIK'S RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HEAD SHOTS. I THINK YOU ARE
> HAVING A HARD TIME TAKING MANTIK'S EXPLANATION SERIOUSLY, WHICH OF COURSE
> IS PRECISELY WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION THEREOF.
>
> > 5) the lack of blood on Connally's cuff is hardly new evidence, and has
> > long been an argument against the Single Bullet Theory (see, for example,
> > the first Groden video).
> > 6) the idea that the field of view decreases "more than it should" is
> > supposition, which Mantik talked--after his presentation--about the need
> > to test further.
>
> DAVID AND I BOTH ADDRESSED QUESTIONS FROM JOE RILEY ABOUT INTERNAL AND
> EXTERNAL CONTROLS AND THE DESIRABILITY OF MORE TESTING CONCERNING CERTAIN
> SPECIFIC ISSUES, NOT EVERY ISSUE AND CERTAINLY NOT THE CRUCIAL FINDINGS.
> UNLESS YOU MISSED THE KEY POINT, DAVID HAS ESTABLISHED PRECISE MEASURE-
> MENTS THAT INDICATE MONOTONICALLY INCREASING MAGNIFICATION OF THE BACK-
> GROUND TO CONCEAL DELETIONS OF INFORMATION FROM THE FOREGROUND, THAT THE
> WHITE SPOT WHICH CHANGES IN SIZE AND APPEARANCE WAS ADDED TO THE FILE IN
> AN APPARENT EFFORT TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION OF MOVEMENT BY THE LIMO, ETC.
>
> > 7) If jerkiness of movement surprises you, you haven't seen many 8mm
> > films.
> > You seem to be under the impression that simply exposing people
> > to your hypotheses is going to instantly convert them to your view that
> > they are the truth. I assume that most of those with me in the room have
> > had some scientific training, so I don't know why you would make that
> > assumption.
>
> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY YOUR ARE DIRECTING SOME OF THESE CRITICISMS TO
> ME RATHER THAN TO DAVID, JACK, CHUCK, NOEL OR OTHERS WHO ADVANCE THESE
> POINTS. I AM TAKING THEIR RESULTS AS PREMISES OF MY ARGUMENT, WHICH IS
> INTENDED TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE FINDINGS ARE OF SUCH ENORMOUS IMPORTANCE.
> IF THEIR FINDINGS ARE WELL-FOUNDED--WHICH I CERTAINLY BELIEVE TO BE THE
> CASE--THEN MY INTERPRETATION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IS HIGHLY CONFIRMED.
>
> NICE SNIDE REMARK ABOUT "SCIENTIFIC TRAINING". I HAVE TRAINING BOTH IN
> INDUCTIVE AND IN DEDUCTIVE REASONING AND IN ANALYZING THE RELATIONS BE-
> TWEEN HYPOTHESES AND EVIDENCE. I WAS EXPLAINING TO YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS
> OF THE AUDIENCE WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IMPLIES IN TERMS OF ALTERNATIVE HYPO-
> THESES ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION, A MATTER THAT I SPELLED OUT EXPLICITLY IN
> THE INTRODUCTION I PROVIDED FOR THE SYMPOSIUM. I ASSUME YOU WERE THERE.
>
> >
> > 8) "absence of occipital defect..."--actually, it looks like wound
> > margins can be seen in good copies of frames 316 and 317, though I'm
> > still suspicious of the darkening.
> >
> > Some of what is alleged would be very difficult to accomplish.
> > What is even MORE difficult is to do it in such a way that it isn't
> > blatantly apparent in stereo viewing of frame pairs. I've been stereo
> > viewing Zapruder frames since 1978, and have noticed no obvious
> > anomalies.
> >
> > 9) "Image clarity changes in successive frames": this is a common effect
> > of movement of the film within an 8mm camera.
> >
> > Some of the "peculiar data" you list is so general as to be impossible
> > even to discuss.
> >
>
> I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD KNOW THE DIFFER-
> ENCE BETWEEN MANTIK'S DATA AND INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION AND MY
> INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS GOING ON INFERENTIALLY AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT.
> TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE HANDOUT YOU PICKED UP IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SES-
> SION AND YOU WILL SEE MANITK'S SUMMARY OF HIS RESERCH, WHICH I WAS ONLY
> RECITING (VERBATIM) FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT.
> I AM ONLY SURPRISED TO DISCOVER THAT THAT GROUP EVIDENTLY INCLUDES YOU.
>
> > Lastly, NONE of the presentations were discussed in much detail in
> > Debra's summary, which wasn't intended as a detailed report on the
> > conference, just as a few quick notes. You are over-reacting on a pretty
> > impressive scale. It would be useful to recall that had it not been for
> > Debra and George Michael, there would have been no Zapruder seminar, and
> > no such extensive presentation of the various hypotheses. I, too, hope
> > that the complete videotape is made available--but unless you or I intend
> > to put up the money, I don't think we have much say on the matter.
> >
>
> ARE YOU ENDORSING THE EDTING OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM SESSION VIDEO BEYOND
> WHAT I SPECIFIED? I FIND YOUR ATTITUDE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE AND WRONG.
> YOU ARE ACTIVING AS AN ANTICIPATORY APOLOGIST FOR EDITING OUR FINDINGS.
>
> > Let's see if we can tone down the crusading rhetoric, and get
> > down to studying the hypotheses, and see what is valid and what isn't.
> >
> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE PRECISE NATURE
> OF WHAT I WAS DOING VS. WHAT THE OTHERS WERE DOING AND THE RELATIONSHIP
> BETWEEN THEIR FINDINGS OF SPECIFIC INDICATIONS OF FILM EDITING AND MY
> INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR EMPIRICAL RESULTS.
>
> > Martin Shackelford
> >