Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Jim DiEugenio]

My response will be lengthy and focused, in the main, on Jim's problems with my first post on this thread.

So as to avoid confusion, I'll begin by reproducing that post in its entirety:

5) other than a possible patch on back of JFK's head and perhaps something at Z313, there is no visible evidence or trace of any alteration work.

Other than the fact that his head was blown apart, there is no visible evidence that JFK was assassinated in Dallas.

Alternate Response: Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you enjoy Dallas?

Jeff, deep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated.

Please define "extensive" as you use the word in the title of this thread.

I am not aware of any shot or sequence done anywhere at anytime, utilizing an optical printer, which approaches the technical accomplishment claimed for Z-film alteration scenarios beyond frame excision.

This, of course, is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.

Person C claims to be an authority on subject Z. (Forgive me if you're not making such a claim. But if you are, would you be so kind as to share with us your relevant credentials?)

Person C makes claim L about subject Z.

Therefore, L is true.

Further, implicit in your statement above is the claim, "If I don't know about it, it can't exist."

Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?

Might classified technologies other than optical printers have existed in 1963?

Now I'll respond to Jim's post above:




In re your penultimate paragraph: Are you seriously making yet another Argument from Authority, Jim? Jeff's other JFK-related work is of no relevance whatsoever to his Z-film analysis. Unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that, say, Jim Fetzer's early JFK research requires us either to accept his LHO-in-the-doorway nonsense without objection or to decline to subject it to our most informed scrutiny.

As for Jeff's technical know-how: I've yet to receive a response from him to my request that he present his credentials as a forensic photo/film analyst.




I'm so pleased that you've decided to ask questions about deep political analysis. The first step in any learning process is to recognize in oneself and publicly acknowledge the need to learn.

While you are correct in noting the appropriateness of including in "deep political analysis of the Zapruder film" the technical investigations you reference, your implication that such work alone would satisfactorily complete said analysis is sadly and gravely incorrect.

I'll help you along now by re-posting how I tried to help Jeff:

"[D]eep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated[.]"

To get good optical printing, especiaily on a traveling matte, especially back then, was no mean feat. Its pretty obvious where matte lines are inserted in film like Mary Poppins. The great leap forward in these kinds of shots did not come until 2001: A Space Odyssey. On that film, it is very difficult to detect the matte lines. But that film pioneered and perfected certain techniques e.g. front projection. Plus, it took five years to make the picture. Plus, they were working with large film frames.

Ahh, Jim. Just when you had raised my hopes, you once again make unsupported and, in my opinion, deep politically naive statements.

Again, I give to you what I gave to Jeff:

"Further, implicit in [Jeff's] statement above is the claim, 'If I don't know about it, it can't exist.'

"Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?

"Might classified technologies [including advanced] optical printers have existed in 1963?"

Are you arguing, Jim, that if you don't know about it, it can't exist?

The technical problems tis kind of vast alteration imposes are quite formidable. And Jeff only begins to outline them here, This is why the Wilkinsons--who understand this thoroughly--aren't on that train.

Their work, on the darkened end back of the skull, was somewhat misrepresented by Horne. SInce he grouped them with some of Lifton's claims, like the whole Full FLush Left thing, which is pretty much down the drain today. But after watching their presentation, I thought they made the most cogent argument I have seen yet on this subject. Even though they have some work to do also.

Where to begin?

If I'm following you, I must conclude that somehow in your mind Horne's work on the black skull patches is flawed because he "grouped" it with other claims with which you find fault.

The work of Horne and Sydney Wilkinson are not substantively dependent upon the validity of any other researchers' product.

What you seem to be objecting to here, Jim, is an editorial decision by Horne.

You're trying to diminish the value of his work based upon where he chose to include it in one of his volumes.

Not exactly the kind of reasoning that would make Peter Dale Scott stand up and take notice.

But here is a question for the radical alterationists: If such extensive work was done on the film to eliminate so much, is there any evidence that anyone who saw the film before the roll was bought by Stolley has said that what he saw that day has been butchered? IF so, who is it and what have they said?

Jim, surely you understand that charges of Z-film alteration, radical or otherwise, must be evaluated solely on their own merits. Please tell us that you're not serious here.

I would be able to take this a bit more seriously if I thought you had ever talked to the Wilkinsons.

Its obvious you have not.

With you, that kind of one on one discussion does not count. What counts is your "deep political analysis" which essentially amounts to, just because Stanley Kubrick didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it did not exist.

Charles, if I thought you knew anything about the rather passe film process that others have talked about in depth in other places, I would spend more time on this post. Its pretty clear you don't. Instead, your "deep political analysis" simply amounts to, "See, I am Charles Drago". In the real world, as Jeff noted, this kind of argument gets us nowhere. It would be ripped to shreds by any authority the other side got.

And yes Doug Horne did misrepresent his so called representation of the "Hollywood Group". There was no "Hollywood Group". There was Sydney and her husband who were doing all the heavy lifting on this. The last time I looked, two people did not make a group.

But of course, Horne misrepresented more than just them. He also talked about the Boyijean Report, or whatever it was, which "proved" Lifton's theory. Well it did not.

Then there was the KGB report which said Johnson did it. Well guess what. There was no such thing in that regard either.

I, like several others-the late Roger Feinman, the glorious Carol Hewett, and John Armstrong for starters-- did not think Horne being on the ARRB was such a good idea. Why? Because he ended up being an advocate not so much for full disclosure--please show me where he mentions that in any serious way in his book?. But an advocate for proving Best Evidence. And Lifton's other theories. In fact, if you read his book, which i did, he pretty much says that up front.

Since he had that agenda going in, then of course, his book would be about that coming out. In my opinion, this is one of the problems with the book. And I stated this in my review. Which went on for four parts. And evidently you have not read.

Did Horne ever push for the Paines to be deposed?

Did he push for the Lopez Notes to the Mexico City report to be discovered?

Did he push for the appendix to the Lopez Report, "Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA?" to be declassified?

The answer to all these, as far as I can see, is no, no and no. Therefore, he spends all of 14 pages in his analysis of the ARRB operations. Even though he was in the midst of it. He then spends well over 1,200 pages on trying to prove Lifton's theories. But not just that, while he was there he also tried to disprove the theories of people Lifton did not like e.g. Armstrong. So in my review, I mentioned these things. SInce they are a part of the critical process. Since they clearly left an imprint on his book. I mean, not everyone had an appendage on the ARRB, like Lifton did.

The point is, that Horne ended up being so much infatuated with Lifton's book, that when it came time to do something outside of it--his last chapter--it was kind of shocking to see how puerile his actual "Deep Political Analysis" really was. Its pretty clear he actually did not have any real knowledge about this. Or at least any type of knowledge that was really intelligent or helpful. (BTW, this is also how I feel about Lifton's take on the Big Picture.) So when he tried to do his Jim Douglass thing, well, let us just say, Douglass had nothing to worry about.

He actually also tried to float the FFL argument also. It turned out, he and Lifton had not really done their homework on this, at best. Because, as Costella predicted, that did not play out either.

So Charles, please excuse me if I am not taken by your argument on this. Just like I was not taken by Horne's book. Doug had some good things in there, no doubt, like Stringer's deposition. But if ever a guy needed an editor, it was Doug. Why he didn't get one escapes me.