RE:: "A partial response to Tink . . ." [Editor's note: As his DISINFORMATION SERIES continued, it became increasingly apparent to me not only that he was recycling old arguments from articles past but that he was also ignoring important new evidence produced by the ARRB, in- cluding information based upon interviews with Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter strongly suggesting that the Zapruder film had been in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center run by the CIA already the weekend of the assas- sination. He was thereby committing the special pleading fallacy by not even considering evidence that could easily adversely affect his position.] RE:: THE DISINFORMATION SERIES: PART II. -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer , Sat, Jan 06, 2001, 20:19:17 ... about the alteration or non-alteration of the Zapruder film. Much of what he is saying in this "series" has its roots in Tink's earlier article entitled "Why the Zapruder Film IS Authentic" (JFK DPQ April 1999). It is prefaced by an editor's note from Walt Brown perpetuating what I consid- er to be false and misleading reports about a session at JFK Lancer 1998, a post from Greg Jaynes, and a pair of inquiries from me, which appeared without Jaynes' or my permission. Walt Brown extended an invitation to respond to Josiah's piece, which claims that official records of the chain of possession preclude its alteration. A key point to notice in relation to his present posts is that he disclaims the existence of an "official chain of custody", but he trades upon an equivocation. While there may be no single record that qualifies as THE "official chain of custory", he has relied upon numerous official government records in compil- ing HIS "chain of custody". Few of us would suppose that the conspirators who might alter the film would be so kind as to keep official records that establish that it was done. If we are willing to take "official records" for granted, then we might as well accept THE WARREN REPORT at face value and close up shop! So the basic attitude implicit in Tink's series appears to me to be very much open to doubt. A more complete response to this current series of posts will have to await the attention of David W. Mantik, who is far better positioned to address these issues than am I. I am going to invite David to compose a response; meanwhile, as a PARTIAL reply, I am offering the following preliminary observations. Something I found peculiar about Thompson's article and its publication in DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY is that new evi- dence has emerged from the ARRB in the form of interviews conducted with Homer McMahon and his assistant, Ben Hunter, who worked at the National Photo Interpretation Center run by the CIA in November 1963, which indicate that a copy of (what appears to have been the original version of) the Z- film was brought to him Friday night of the assassination for study. I disseminated portions of this information via back in November of 1998, and I there- fore do not understand why a responsible editor would want to publish Thompson's piece in April of 1999, when its most fundamental tenet had already been demonstrated to be false. That is not what I or anyone else would have expected from a serious publication on a subject as important as the assas- sination of our 35th President. But that is precisely what was done in the April 1999 issue by publishing a piece whose central thesis has been severely undermined if not completely demolished by this new evidence, which is neither acknowl- edged nor considered. I anticipate that David Mantik will submit a response at his earliest opportunity. Meanwhile, the excerpts that I had posted as early as 27 November 1998 are presented below. I encourage every serious student to obtain and study the complete texts, which have now appear- ed as an important chapter of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). __________________________________________________________ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0600 (CST) From: james fetzer To: Cc: james fetzer Subject: EXCERPTS FROM ARRB DOCUMENT D-133 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your following message has been delivered to the 87 members of the list at 17:35:07 on 27 Nov 1998. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. You may obtain the complete doc- ument from JFK Lancer Productions by calling Tom Jones, (972) 264-2007. ________________________________________________________________________ Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97 Date: 07/14/97 Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon . . . Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos- es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi- cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak), and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment. After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate) was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x 20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro- cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently, three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat- ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97 Date: 08/14/97 Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15, 1997) . . . I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall- ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec- ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night). . . . Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal- ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ- ently recall. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97 Date: 06/17/97 Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997) . . . -The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun- ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc- ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ- ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or any guidance as to where to look in the film. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97 Date: 07/14/97 Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon . . . Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur- rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul- timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings. . . . END


PART 1: Background and Overview
PART 2: The Disinformation Page
PART 3: The Controversial Post
PART 4: "**** strikes again!"
PART 5: "**** strikes out!"
PART 6: "Not to belabor the obvious"
PART 7: "Consider the evidence" PART 8: "Over the edge..."


PART 10: "The one post to read . . ."
PART 13: "This crap has got to stop!"




Special Cases
Social Issues