Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 20, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:18:33

Real Deal Special: Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Zapruder Film Symposium

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a Real Deal JMK Special.
	If this were a golf conference, I'd say we got a collection here equivalent to Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, and Ben Hogan, okay?
	So this is kind of an extraordinary event tonight.
	I want to begin with David Mantic.
	is doing a kind of a simplified version of his book on the medical evidence of the JFK headshots with Jared Cosey.
	David, could you just give us a few words about how you and Jerry are proceeding and how it's all shaping up?
	Jerry is the primary writer, but I'm doing a huge amount of editing.
	The core of the book is about the three pieces of evidence for the altered x-rays, but there'll be other material in it as well.
	We hope that it'll be around 120,000 words long, and we hope that it'll be ready to go in a few months.
	So this is not exactly a reprise of your book in a simplified version?
	Well, it will be simplified for sure, because it's designed for the general public.
	Okay.
	Captain White is not color, so it's a little more limited that way.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I'm sorry, so in that sense, would it be instead of occipital parietal, it would be the back of the head?
	Just to be clear.
	Oh, you mean how it would be simplified for the public?
	Right, right, right.
	Would that be an example, David?
	I don't imagine.
	You're probably going to identify.
	I wouldn't simplify it that way, no.
	Okay.
	Well, John had a recent conversation with Rolly Zavada.
	Well, it actually may have been a while ago that I thought it would be wonderful to share with the public, because Rolly was, of course, an expert on film, on solenoid.
	He wasn't an expert on content.
	So far as I can tell, John Rolly really didn't understand much about the assassination.
	Am I wrong or am I right?
	Well, from what I understand, Roly was supposed to come to our... The reason we're talking about this is because it's 20 years since the Zapruder Film Symposium that you arranged in Duluth, that David and I were there with you and the late Jack White and the late David Lifton and David Healy as well.
	And so that was 20 years ago, like a week or two ago.
	And we were reminiscing about things.
	I think David Healy was saying that Rowley was supposed to attend that symposium originally.
	I know that there's been an email exchange before that.
	I think it became clear that Rowley knew a lot about the film, like the Kodachrome film, the stock, the processes, the chemicals, everything to do with that.
	Had done quite a substantial report.
	His long report that I used a lot of the technical material about the camera and all that sort of stuff.
	But when it came to the actual content, that wasn't really his domain.
	And I think even the emails we exchanged before the Duluth Symposium, he was clear about that.
	And I caught up with him, I think it was at the 50th anniversary.
	So we're talking about a while ago now, it's 10 years ago.
	Caught up in person and, you know, it was quite a cordial Discussion.
	I got his business card still somewhere.
	I think he's still with us somewhere.
	But yeah, his expertise was the actual physical camera, the Kodachrome process, the film stock, what it would look like if you copied a film onto another film, or copied that film onto another film, which side it would be on, what the chemicals, what the exposure would look like.
	Which was all fine.
	I mean, all the material I saw that he did there.
	What I think he didn't touch on was that if you were trying to create a brand new film from scratch, and you exposed film as if it was coming through a camera, you can't rule that out purely from a physical thing.
	What he was sort of refuting were the arguments put to him saying, could this have been a copy of a copy of a copy or Would this scenario have been done?
	And he ruled out a lot of those, and I agree with him completely.
	I agreed with him at least, you know, this is stuff 20 years ago, 10 years ago, that a lot of the scenarios that were being put to him as an expert in the Kodak equipment and the process, he could rule them out.
	Because physically, you know, if you do a copy of a film, it's not going to look the same as the original.
	Exposed film.
	But if you put a different scenario to him and say, OK, what if I got this and a lens and I projected an image that was a totally fake image, but I exposed it onto the film as if it was coming through a, you know, the Bell and Howell type camera that Zapruder had.
	I mean, you know, I can't remember his exact words, but he's not going to argue with that.
	You can't tell the difference if.
	He wasn't looking into those aspects.
	He was looking into the aspects that he was asked to look into.
	So, you know, I didn't disagree with him.
	I don't think he disagreed with me.
	We were just talking about different aspects of the case.
	And that's probably why he didn't attend, you know, 20 years ago in Duluth.
	I'm not sure whether he would have been able to really support or refute some of the ideas that were being put forward.
	Do you remember, Jim, when you first invited me to that thing in 2002?
	I didn't know.
	You didn't know whether I was going to come out in support of or against the idea that the Zapruder film had been altered.
	I tell this story often, that I'd gone through, you know, Assassination Science and Murder in Dilly Plaza and David had some arguments about why the Zapruder film didn't look right.
	David Mantic, I'm pointing, he's on the screen over there.
	And, you know, I sent David a message saying, David, you know, I'm finding that all of these things that you said in the previous book, you know, they're all wrong for this reason, that reason, that reason.
	And then I sat back to see what David's reaction would be and it was like, fantastic!
	He said, that's fantastic!
	And I thought to myself, okay, this guy's fair dinkum.
	Genuine.
	Legitimate.
	And he's a real scientist, as he is.
	And we took it from there.
	That's the way it goes.
	And I... I mean, one of the reasons why Greg Burnham thought I was dodgy to start with was because I supported the idea of Mary Mormon being in the street, as was the big debate 20 years ago.
	Jack White, yourself, David had been down at Dilley Plaza.
	And when I looked at better photographic evidence, I reversed myself.
	And said, no, my earlier argument was wrong.
	I don't think that this proves she was in the street.
	I'm not saying she wasn't.
	But, you know, Greg Burnham at the time, he actually called me on the phone.
	I was teaching as a school teacher back in those days in Melbourne, in Australia.
	I said, all right, if you think I'm dodgy, if you think I'm C.I.A.
	or A.Z.O.
	or something like that, call me up.
	Here's my phone number.
	And he called me while I was driving home.
	I was in the middle of a paddock or something.
	And that's the first time we ever spoke.
	And, you know, we're good friends now.
	So this, what I found with everybody that was at that conference that was speaking in Duluth 20 years ago, was exactly the same thing.
	Like, I think to each and every one of you, I've said at times like, Yeah, you said this, but that can't be right because of this or because of that.
	And to a man, and, you know, we're all men, you all said, oh, that's fantastic.
	Let's keep going.
	Let's see where this goes.
	Not like, no, no, no, no, no, I've said this.
	You know, I can't back down from this.
	Everybody was open to having their ideas challenged and to back down when they were wrong.
	And then we pushed things forward.
	Now what I, what I, sorry, I'm talking, I'm yabbering on here, Jim.
	No, I love it.
	I love it, John.
	And let me say, we all endorse Sir Karl Popper's philosophy of falsificationism, where he says science advances by falsifying hypotheses, and our problem is to falsify them as fast as we can.
	So I think that when David gave his positive response here, having falsified his hypothesis, it was in precisely that spirit.
	Absolutely.
	And that's what I said.
	He was an absolute scientist.
	But you've got to remember, this is the time I was on the other side of the planet, You know, the internet was, you know, 20, 23 years younger than it is now.
	I didn't know, there was no Facebook or Instagram, you didn't know anybody was.
	And a lot of the people I spoke to online were not as scientific or not even as genuine as what David and you and the rest of the guys that spoke.
	And Greg Burnham and Rich De La Rosa, you know, everybody involved and other people as well.
	So, I didn't know who was who, and you didn't know who I was.
	You could have thought that I was just spreading disinformation.
	I supported Norman in the street, and then I backed off, and was I just a plant?
	You know, some physicist that's come along to again, you know, to say this is true, and then back away from it, and then bring the whole lot down.
	You'll give me the right philosophy term for that.
	The thing about the symposium 20 years ago, what I find fascinating, and I tell people this, I don't know if I've done it on a podcast type of thing before, but Jim, you know exactly how many people were there in Duluth for the symposium, but I tell people it was like, we're in a room and there might have been, I don't know, dozens of people there.
	We might have had a dozen altogether, including ourselves!
	Including ourselves!
	I didn't want to actually say that, but privately, of people, it was probably about that amount.
	It was the single most important small conference in world history, I'll tell you that.
	So, and you can't tell, and like, David Healy filmed it, and we're lucky, he gave it to Rich De La Rosa to put it on YouTube, I downloaded all of Rich's YouTubes, and then when he passed away, his YouTube channel disappeared, I put them back up on YouTube.
	So even after that time, so that's 2011, 2012, I put them back up on YouTube, and it's crazy to think that like, you know, 20 years ago there was A dozen people in the world that even came, maybe there was a hundred people, two hundred people on Rich's forum that even tolerated the idea that Zapruderfilm might have been altered, faked, fabricated, whatever, any of those things, right?
	I just wanted to say something very briefly here that the great Zapruderfilm hoax, the book that Jim compiled, is probably still the de facto reference to the Z film.
	I want to bring David in on two different fronts.
	One is recollections, you know, about our meeting in Dallas.
	I have a story about David Lifton that's not very flattering because he extorted me coming in.
	I mean, I brought the guy up from California.
	We all had an agreement.
	And then he said he wouldn't speak unless he got a percentage of the book.
	I mean, David, did I ever explain this to you?
	That Lifton, you know, this was outside of a conference hall.
	And I've always felt this was grossly unfair and unethical on his part.
	But the other I wanted to ask David, not only about his reflections about the conference, but about Rolly Zavada.
	Because, yeah, I think it was very clever to bring in a guy as an expert on the celluloid, on the technical features of the film, but who's ignorant completely of the content.
	And then presented with special effects, too.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, David, yeah, David, David, yeah.
	But I mean, the fact is, I don't know what Rowley knew about optical printing and special effects, but they were using him, Tink and Groton.
	As though he had said that the film was authentic, that it meant the content was accurate.
	And of course, that was the equivocation.
	It was fundamental to their argument, their use of Rawley, who is an expert, understood in one regard, but not in regard to the other, the content.
	David, please.
	Well, yes.
	Rawley, at one point in Dallas, was discussing the issue of how the film might have been altered via the well-known Hollywood special effects.
	And he basically implied that he didn't know almost, he knew almost nothing about that.
	So that was a public confession.
	That was a huge error in his background training for this whole situation.
	Yeah, so y'all had Rich Della Rosa at the meeting and Jack White.
	Back in 2002?
	The Dallas meeting was attended by Jack White, I believe, but not by Rich Della Rosa.
	The Duluth one?
	I don't think I ever met Della Rosa, so he couldn't have been at either meeting.
	Rich didn't attend the actual symposium, but he ran the forum that we're all Discussing things on and he, you know, he went on some radio shows and I think I spoke to him on the phone.
	As one person, I always wish I would have met Jack White and Rich De La Rosa.
	That's two people that I've never met before.
	Well, I mean, my luckiest thing, apart from Jim sending me some books and saying, whatever you find, I'm inviting you to this symposium.
	Good or bad.
	I mean, like agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
	Here's a box of books I'm sending to Australia by Amazon, this little company that sends books, and I'm going to invite you to this symposium, and whatever you find, whether it agrees with us, disagrees with us, agrees with Tink, doesn't agree with... you can come and say it.
	So, part of that was he flew me to Dallas, which, it's a dearly plaza.
	I mean, I keep seeing it behind Larry here, all the 3D ones, but that was the only place in the world I'd ever visited That I knew exactly where I was, even though I'd never been there before, because I'd done so much work on the Zapruder film.
	However, it's really interesting, there's a few angles where I walked up the street, like out of the, what was the Texas School Book Depository, towards Elm Street, and I thought, I've never seen this view before.
	Like, I don't know, I've never seen this before, because all of the photographic evidence in Dealey Plaza was taken from a few different positions and nowhere else.
	There was nobody over that side of, like, behind where Larry is.
	There was nobody, no footage that we have anymore, or no photos from the other side of Houston Street.
	So it's actually quite bizarre, but if you get into certain positions, I knew it like the back of my hand.
	Now, luckily, the second day I was there, my guide to Dallas and all things JFK was Jack White.
	So he took me to see, you know, we looked over the fence to where the background, backyard photos were and, you know, 10th and Pat and all those different places.
	And I've got photos of Jack White where somebody, somebody said, you know, Elm Street isn't three degrees.
	It's much steeper than three degrees or something.
	This is elaborate.
	Yeah, we had the spirit level and Jack, I've got photos of Jack holding the spirit level, you know, and we proved it was three degrees.
	But yeah, that was fantastic having Jack as a tour guide for everything to do with Deerleague Plaza and all the other places.
	Later on we went to the rooming house and things like that, but that was a great experience having Jack as my personal tour guide.
	And also to Fort Worth, where he lived.
	Well, your response, oh, your response, oh, John, to my sending you all those books was you actually read them!
	I mean, you know, I send people books intermittently and they may never even open the cover, but you actually poured through them and devoured them!
	The Mormon thing, of course, became very important.
	David and I went down with surveying equipment to verify Jack's hypothesis that there was an internal line of sight of the Mormon, about which he was absolutely right, and we determined that Mary had been in the street.
	David, I'm sure you remember that well.
	I certainly do.
	Yes.
	Fresh in the memory, yes.
	But you know, I still disagree with you now.
	That's the thing I backed down on.
	Oh, you think Mary was on the grass?
	No, no, no.
	Hang on.
	Whoa, whoa.
	You've got to back off a bit.
	When we're talking about all this stuff, the question is, does the Zapruder film and the Mormon Polaroid together put Mary, as the photographic evidence is there, does it put her on the street or on the grass?
	Now, I agreed with you originally.
	I thought there was that line of sight that put her on the street.
	But then when we had high-resolution copies of the... I mean, are they good copies?
	But a high-resolution copy of the Mormon Polaroid, there's a gap in that line of sight, and that gives enough wiggle room to put her back up on the grass.
	Now, was she really on the grass?
	Was she standing there?
	Was Jean Hill, you know, frozen solid and not moving except... Like, the whole Zapruder film was a fake.
	Don't get me wrong.
	But the question I was answering was, Were you correct in saying that the Zapruder film together with the, sorry, does the Mormon Polaroid prove the Zapruder film fake because the Polaroid puts her on the street and the Zapruder shows her on the grass and my Conclusion, I reversed myself.
	Like, you know, I took all the heat for reversing myself and apparently going to Tink's side of the argument and against all of you who, you know, we still collaborated well in Duluth and with the book six months later, The Great Zapruder Film Host, but I've even got a chapter in the book where I talk about Polaroids and go through this whole thing about how I thought, you know, she was too short, but she was short, right?
	The thing about Mary, actually, is not whether she was in the street or on the grass, really.
	It's what she said about the shots.
	And I asked her at the 50th anniversary, I asked her, she's kept the same story, you know, probably till today, that the shot sequence she describes is nothing like what the official shot sequence is, right?
	She has the headshot happening as the first shot, and then shots after that.
	Like, and she said that, she confirmed that to me, you know, in Dallas 10 years ago.
	The whole thing about it being on the street, on the grass, I just concluded that the Polaroid didn't actually prove that, and to this day we disagree about that.
	But that's how it works.
	I think Mary would have been oblivious of the shot to the back.
	She wouldn't have had any sense of that, because it was a silenced weapon.
	The shot to the throat passage of the windshield, I don't think she was aware of that either, but those had both taken place.
	What's interesting the most is whether she says he would have been hit in the back of the head and slumped forward or not.
	Because, you know, Rich Delarose and everyone else who's seen the unedited, what appears to be the unedited film, agrees you actually find that in the film.
	And, of course, we have all the internal evidence.
	That was the best part of Tink's book, was when he verified the double motion that we had from 312 to 313 motion forward and then back.
	And Lifton, of course, had already independently verified with Richard Feynman.
	I mean, that's just one of the fascinating things about David Lifton's wonderful book, was he had gone up to Caltech and taken these photographs, and Feynman, with a ruler, had ascertained that Jack had first gone forward and then back.
	Yeah, you're talking about Gene's first book, his 66th book, not his recent, where he tries to save humans.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That, well, the whole, you know, I've got a whole theory about why that motion happens the way it does, but the thing about Mary's description, and yeah, she might not have heard some first shot up the street, but she basically says that when she took a Polaroid is the first shot that she heard, And then she started taking her camera down, and then she sees his head get blown off.
	Right?
	After she's, like, long after she's taken a... So she's talking about a double headshot, right?
	Which we all believe probably happened, separated by some amount of time.
	David, you can speak to this even more than I can.
	But this is Mary, who's supposed to be, you know, the closest witness, who's not actually in the motorcade, I guess, who took a photo, and she said, yeah, that was the first shot.
	That wasn't the one where his head...
	I want John to clarify something.
	by the first is the first that she discerned.
	That's right.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	David, have you ever reconsidered our work with the survey equipment on the line of sight?
	I mean, I still think that's good as gold.
	I want, John, to clarify something.
	You're saying that the photographic evidence does not place her on the street.
	But let's go to the bottom line.
	What is your ultimate position on this?
	Are you agnostic or are you saying that the autographic evidence clearly places her on the grass?
	I think it's consistent with her... I think the Mormon Polaroid is consistent with her being on the grass.
	At least if the high-resolution scan is accurate.
	Now, do we even have the genuine Mormon Polaroid?
	I don't know.
	But the original argument that I supported what you were saying, putting it on the street, was based on a lower resolution copy that actually had some JPEG artefacts.
	It actually squared up the pedestal more than I realised.
	So the whole point is whether there is that exact line of sight that you have, that you use for that.
	Once you say there's that exact line of sight between the two points, you reconstructed it in the plaza.
	I don't disagree about that.
	Where it would be too low, you'd have to be on the street.
	But the question is, do those two points actually line up or is there a gap?
	Because if there's a gap, then that, of course, raises it from what you got by exactly aligning.
	I think I addressed this gap argument in one of my refutations or rebuttals to Tink, David.
	I don't think I agree with John about this gap thing.
	I think that was a Tink invention myself, though John is far superior to Tink in any of these issues, though obviously far more formidable and serious in discerning the facts of the matter.
	I remember there was an ambiguity where he claimed there was a gap and I took a look and there was no such gap.
	That's as I recall.
	Do you, David, know some of this?
	I mean, Tink went on endlessly about this.
	Yes, Tink was like a dog with a bone.
	He would not let go of it.
	I'm probably somewhere in the middle.
	I really respect John's work on this, because it's work that I had not done, and I had to pay attention to.
	I thought he might have been a little more agnostic about it, though.
	That's why I asked him this question.
	Well, I don't think there's any question Mary and Gene were in the street.
	I mean, the question is, at what point?
	And then there's the murder.
	They show them only on the grass, and that cannot be correct.
	I mean, they were both emphatic about it.
	Well, the thing about Mormon in the Street, and I do have a whole, I think a chapter, at least a half a chapter, in hoax about Mary and her Polaroids, and about where she's in the street, so I can't even, I couldn't even be more agnostic if I wanted to now, because when I actually did the work, it's in the book, it's in print, so I can't change that.
	Larry, what's your take on her being in the street?
	If Alton's is in the street, as we have confirmed by our models and, you know, the image that you see behind me, that's where Mike Alton's was at Z255, equivalent to the A6.
	I don't see why Mary Moorman wouldn't be on the street as well.
	Why she would not be on the street as well.
	No, no.
	Yeah, yeah.
	She was in the street.
	Jack's got a photograph that appears to show Mary in the street.
	Because people don't realize how slow that motorcade was traveling, Jim.
	I mean, that's here, you know.
	It wasn't going 11 miles an hour like, you know, we've been led to believe it was going so slow.
	In fact, after we know from the Newcomb tapes, That Bobby Hodges ran in between the two limos on his way, you know, to the Grassy Knoll, you know, in response, you know, as, uh, as, uh, John, uh, Chaney, Jim Chaney, James Chaney, uh, told, uh, uh, Newcomb in the tape.
	So, you know, so many things that happened there, according to the Newcomb tapes, that we need to apply to the Z film.
	You know, and Jim, you've, for example, the agents that, you know, dismounted and surrounded, you know, the limousine, you know, we don't see any of that in the Z film.
	Yeah, of course not, yeah.
	So, you know, let's, you know, cut to the chase, you know, so to speak, you know, and talk about, you know, that version of events You know, and we know from the, as a fact, you know, that, you know, that those tapes exist and those motorcycle cops, you know, that those were there.
	And let me take you back a little bit.
	You know, the story is that Newcomb sent all of them copies of the Z film, you know, and then he called them up to see their reaction.
	You know, and he recorded the reaction.
	And unfortunately, Fred did not use all of the information that was contained in those tapes, which, you know, happened much, much later.
	You know, we know the story.
	And I think that's the crux of the matter here.
	You know, what you see in the Z film is not what the motorcycle cops described in the Newcomb tapes.
	Right, and he got four of them converging in their description.
	It was completely different, and it suggested they'd left out about 420 seconds.
	I can't figure out any real- Douglas Jackson!
	Douglas Jackson!
	I spoke to his son, you know, and I sent him the tapes.
	This guy, you know, and Douglas Jackson said, that film that you sent me has been cut up!
	It's been edited!
	Yeah.
	And none of the cops knew that the other police officers were getting the film, so they had four different reactions, you know, getting the film.
	David, do you know Larry's work here on the Newcomb Tape and the limo stop and all that?
	Because it appears to me, from all the activity, we have Bobby Hargis parking his bike, running between the limo to the grass he know, Douglas Jackson motoring up on the grass until his bike falls over, then he continues on foot, five agents getting out, surrounding the presidential limo, one taking a chunk of bone from a little boy and throwing it in the back, which I believe was a harbor fragment.
	Which I cannot find taking place in less than 20 seconds at 18 or 20 frames.
	That's 400 frames missing, more than we have in the excellent version of the film, and together with another 100 turning from Houston onto Elm.
	I see 500 frames missing from what should have been about a thousand frame video, but we only have 487.
	How much of that do you agree with?
	I'm very fond of Larry's work.
	I read it several times, including within the past month.
	That's how much I have enjoyed it.
	Thank you.
	The tapes that he reports on are quite extraordinary.
	And you're right to think about how many frames must have been pulled out to eliminate that whole sequence with the little boy.
	That's quite striking.
	Yeah, and we actually have surmised, and you know, by process of elimination, that was Joey Brehm, Charles Brehm's son, who was standing right next to him and who, if you look at the frames, 188, 189, and in the vicinity of those frames, you'll see the rapid movement
	You know, where it is obvious, you know, he appears from behind his dad and comes back out, and obviously because frames have been removed, you know, it's impossible to have that fast movement.
	And by process of elimination, that's the only kid that was standing on the south curb of Elm there, you know, so...
	Larry, have you got David a copy of your model of the Harbor Fragment?
	I can't imagine anyone who'd have a greater interest.
	Oh yeah, he has.
	I found it very interesting.
	The only thing that we needed to work on there was the width, the thickness, and we've already, yeah, nine millimeters is what, eight to nine millimeters, and that's quite thick, you know, because the model that David Knight created using that paradigm, you know, is exactly, you know, the way it should be, but he's still working on some things there.
	David, tell us where you feel the final shot actually took place.
	Remember, we talked about that Newsweek piece that had it further down on him, and you were saying, what did Newsweek know that we didn't know?
	And it appeared they had it right, properly positioned.
	It's just, say, they have gone so far out of their way.
	John was talking about looking around D.Z.
	Plaza.
	Well, they've even moved the lampposts, for God's sake.
	I mean, it's not a repaved on Elm Street, but they moved around the lampposts.
	Yeah, and in our model, we have put them back where they belong, Jim, actually.
	I love it.
	I love it.
	David, David, more about... Yeah, there they go.
	There they go, right behind me there.
	Is it valuable to have that 3D model of the harbor fragment?
	Yeah, I think it's quite useful.
	Has he published it anywhere in print yet?
	We're working on it.
	Trust me, David Knight is swamped.
	I can't even call him, you know, because he's... But it's...
	A priority, trust me, it's a priority.
	I was talking about earlier that we ran into this medical examiner at the Dallas conference this past November, and this woman, you know, she must have been seven months pregnant, you know, and after David did a small presentation showing the model that he had brought,
	You know in the 3D and the PVC model and we showed her and we put it you know where exactly where it should have come from in the back of the head occipital parietal area and she came out of nowhere and she says I'm a medical examiner and she's trying to show us you know some of the 3D models that she had been working on.
	I was thinking, this is too much of a coincidence.
	This woman that shows up, and trust me, she was like seven months pregnant.
	And anyway, we showed her, and we actually gave her one of the last copies of the model that we had, that David had printed out.
	And we thought she was going to respond right away, man.
	We never heard from her again.
	Disappeared!
	And she was... They made a conjecture she was at Plant A, but that she was just there to learn what they knew and, you know, bring it into the... Crazy, crazy stuff!
	Bring it into the CIA archives.
	That kind of stuff happens anymore, you know?
	But anyway...
	But Jim, I was going to say about these, and I don't know if I've seen the stuff on these tapes, so I've been quite slack on a lot of JFK stuff for many years now.
	I'm like, oh, we've lost Larry.
	He'll be back.
	I'm going to have to look at those tapes, or look at the work on those tapes.
	Yeah, he's got a book called the JFK Horseman.
	You can get it at Moonrock Books.
	That is one you want.
	It's indispensable, John, for this more recent work.
	Larry painstakingly transcribed these transcripts that no one had ever transcribed.
	I mean, he discovered this mountain of stuff.
	I don't know.
	Five key witnesses.
	Four motorcycle escort officers in there.
	And their boss.
	And their supervisor.
	And their supervisor.
	That's right.
	Were these tapes available, like the audio of these, available in recent years?
	Is that not yet?
	Yeah.
	I passed them around.
	I passed them around.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Because I think I did listen to them, but I was thinking back 20 years ago when... No, no, no.
	These came out in... I did these in the summer of 2014, and that was the basis of my book, and we did... Gary and I did two incredible shows.
	They're still up there.
	Gary put them up via JFK Horseman, didn't you, Gary?
	Yeah, that's one of our, you know, we've got a bunch of buddies.
	Send them to Joe.
	Yeah, send them those links, because everything is synthesized there.
	Everything is there.
	I was going to say, not that this was around then, but when I, because I'm looking at Dealey Plaza behind your virtual background, Larry, that I'm looking up, and it takes me back to 20 years ago when Jim sent me to Dallas, and I was standing in there for the first time, basically to the right as I'm looking where your head is, where On the grass where Mary would have been standing, somewhere like that.
	And you've got to realise, by that time, I was going to the symposium the next day or the day after, that I knew that the holes of Prutafilm, the holes of Prutafilm had been fabricated, right?
	Every single, at least the main part of it, from 133 through to whatever, 400 and something, had been fabricated.
	We're not talking about just taking out frames and sticking it back together.
	It's been fabricated based on real footage of the assassination.
	I said that in the symposium, I said it in the book.
	Yeah, I was in Dallas, knowing that the whole thing was constructed according to some storyboard, some timeline, from real imagery.
	But I had a very good picture of what actually happened from all the eyewitnesses and all of the stories and a couple of people that had seen other films.
	And I stood there where Mary, and there was nobody in Dealey Plaza, because this was like a Thursday in May in 2003.
	There was no tourists there at the time.
	I had the whole plaza to myself.
	It was like 8 o'clock in the morning, except for a couple of FBI agents that were pacing up and down the pergola.
	I think they were a bit upset that I was there.
	But apart from that, I was all to myself.
	I stood there and I just literally visualised the assassination as it actually happened, not as we see it in the Zapruder film.
	And it's exactly what you're saying.
	Now, I couldn't visualise the car turning wide.
	I mean, I know that that probably happened.
	But when it gets to the thing, slowing down and almost stopping, all the commotion, all the motorcycles going up the hill, James Chaney, which we realized a bit later, going past, right, to the lead car, and they all talked about him going to the lead car, which is not in the films.
	Never happened.
	Right?
	Never happened in the films, but they talk about him motoring for, it was nothing, like, he's been hit, right?
	All that activity.
	And then them accelerating away, all of that was like a movie in my head, which is exactly what you're describing, that the actual people on the motorcycles describe the same thing.
	Because everybody describes the same thing.
	If you look at all the eyewitnesses, that's why, like in 2006, I put together that compilation.
	Even for the Warren Commission's own reports, the exhibits, Stuart Gallinore put together this huge compilation of a whole lot of all the eyewitnesses He was looking at how many shots were there and which direction did they come from, right?
	Now, that's an old question.
	I said, okay, he's done that one.
	Let's ignore those two questions, because that's an old question, and you know, three shots, not three shots, five or six or eight or whatever, null, you know, depository, delta x, whatever.
	Forget about all that, because that's a separate question.
	He did it.
	I took all of his collection of reports from the Warren Commission's own volumes.
	And did this eyewitness compilation, it's like 90-something pages.
	It's on assassination research.
	And you get a consistent picture.
	Because, I mean, one eyewitness can mishear things, missee things, they make up stuff, they get told something.
	You put together tens and dozens and, you know, not hundreds, but dozens scores of witnesses about the limo stop and about what was happening, and you get a totally different picture of the assassination.
	It's not even, it's not the Zapruder film that's been edited, The Zapruder film is a total fabrication with a timeline and a storyboard that was put together, carefully calculated, measured, and then a whole new film was created.
	So the problem I have sometimes is, we get Mormon in the street.
	Can you prove that the film is fake because the Mormon shows are in the street and the Zapruder is on the grass?
	It would have been a great argument if it worked, but I concluded that it wasn't correct.
	But all that means is that argument isn't correct.
	The whole film is total fake!
	The limo didn't go gliding down the street, never stopping and just, you know, somehow clinging to the car and jumped on the back.
	The whole thing's a fake, right?
	It's completely wrong.
	It stopped.
	It was probably the two headshots, or the glancing shot, and then another one down by the... Everything is self-consistent if you just ignore the actual photographic evidence, right?
	Listen to all the eyewitnesses and everything else we have about it, and even Newsweek.
	Yeah, I'd like to know why a huge percentage of the JFK community refused to believe that the film has been altered at all.
	Well, that was a funny thing.
	That's what I was saying to Jim a couple of weeks ago when we had the 20th.
	I have a response to that.
	It's called Robert Grodin.
	He's one?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Robert Grodin's an interesting guy.
	Oh, not the only one.
	Okay.
	They want to claim that it's the best evidence we have of a conspiracy even because of the fact that it's to the left.
	And we give that up, then we lose it all.
	They think it has no value evidentially if it was a fabrication.
	On the contrary, it's proof of fabrication that the government was involved because they were ones in the possession.
	So I think it works the other way around.
	But John, you wanted to finish your thought.
	I forgot what I was talking about now.
	Well, you were talking about 20 years ago, how people were saying to you, Gary's asking, why does everyone want to hang on to it?
	And you were starting to say, one of you was talking about Groton.
	Why do you think they want to hang on to it, John?
	I mean, you know, it's hard.
	Well, actually, you know, I'm getting a bit older now.
	So in Duluth I was like 36 years old and I said I wasn't even alive when the assassination happened and everyone's gasping and, oh my god, he's such a child, he wasn't even alive.
	Now I'm 50 things and so probably there's at least half of the There's at least half the internet who can sort of say the same thing.
	They weren't actually alive when JFK was assassinated.
	But the amazing thing about Duluth was we had a dozen of us there, including us.
	And then it goes on YouTube, and I have a look, and it's like 100,000 people have viewed it.
	And the crazy thing is last year we were watching TV.
	We were watching on FX, an Australian series, but it's on FX on Hulu.
	And I've got it on my website.
	This little cutaway sequence where they're just joking around about stuff.
	And it's about the Zapruder film.
	It's actually hilarious.
	I don't know, Jim's on the phone.
	Jim, did you want me to put that up?
	The little clip?
	I just thought it was hilarious.
	I even took a video of it.
	I mean, you know, fair use and all that.
	Let's see it.
	John, let's see it, if you have it, because... Jim, you've got to make me the boss, so I can... No, make it a host.
	You're telling me John and this Australian thing made a clip from our conference?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	But you've just got to watch this thing, right?
	OK.
	OK, OK.
	I'll try and get the technology to work.
	We had great time.
	Here you go.
	Here you go.
	So I can share my screen.
	Urban legends are born this way.
	OK.
	Share.
	Is that it?
	I don't know.
	All right.
	You can see... Can you see my...
	Yeah.
	Alright.
	So this thing, let me stop this thing.
	This is just me videoing off the TV.
	Very low-tech.
	Now, I'm going to turn the mystery intro down.
	Have a listen.
	I didn't think there was a guard behind the fence.
	No, no.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	I don't think there was anyone watching this.
	I think the shoes are going to start.
	Where's the dollar?
	The dollar's on the ground.
	It's not for this.
	It's at the moment, towards the depositories.
	In what building?
	The concrete one?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And there's a photo.
	There's two blokes that are hiding in the garden.
	I reckon that's where the headshots come from.
	And when the limo comes around the corner, where does it stop?
	Where does it stop, babe?
	In front of the garden.
	Well, the limo didn't stop.
	You know, we didn't tell them.
	So it's the end of the... Oh, there's a pretty one there.
	Oh, that wasn't the problem.
	That's because the first doctor.
	The subgroup of his doctor?
	Yeah, of course.
	The doctor disappeared.
	Everyone had a subgroup of his doctor.
	He went this in two years and then he came back to you.
	research like patients all years like you don't have a talk about it just doesn't make any sense I got to confess I couldn't make out a word of that Tell me what they were saying.
	Ah, sorry.
	I thought the audio was audible.
	They're talking about the Z-Film.
	Well, it was, but I couldn't hear it.
	It was just kind of garbled for me.
	David, could you figure out what they were saying?
	Well, I've heard it before, so it wasn't so hard for me.
	Tell me, John.
	I've not seen this before.
	Yeah, spell it out.
	Let me describe it for you.
	So it's on my website, JohnCostello.com slash JFK.
	It's from this show.
	It's unrelated, nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
	It's an Australian series about this guy that, you know, he murders people or something.
	But that's beside the point.
	So, they're just sitting at a pub, talking, having lunch, and they happen to be talking about the JFK assassination.
	So we're sitting there on the couch, like, what?
	What's going on here?
	And he says, where does the limo stop?
	And the other guy, the main character, the bald guy, says, well the limo didn't stop.
	And the other guy says, what do you mean it doesn't stop?
	He says, well, you can see it in the film.
	It doesn't stop.
	He says, what, the Zapruder film?
	No, that's bullshit.
	That's been doctored.
	They've been taken out of frame.
	We're going from, like, 12 people in the world that believed this stuff 20 years ago to hundreds of thousands of people looking at it on YouTube.
	Now it seems to me as everybody knows the Zapruder film's been doctored and the whole thing's a fake.
	Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
	David, you've seen this before?
	Oh, yes, of course.
	That was great stuff.
	I have no idea that's wonderful.
	Yeah.
	The guy was playing Jim Fetzer on TV.
	I even tweeted at the guy, the lead character.
	He actually comes from Melbourne, even though the series is set in Sydney.
	And it's finished now.
	It had a few seasons.
	But I even tweeted.
	He didn't respond, but I just said he got the work really... I mean, they did an excellent job.
	Like, if you watch the thing and listen to it, you know, they could be sitting in a Zoom call right now about how accurate they got it.
	So I don't know.
	I don't know if it's a coincidence that the main guy is from Melbourne and maybe it's sort of spread throughout Melbourne and through the infrastructure but...
	I can't believe that it's now common knowledge that a Brita film has been doctored.
	That's wonderful!
	David, is there compassion?
	Do you think there's common acceptance of this today?
	I don't.
	I mean, I don't know.
	But, you know, you look all over the internet and people are sending me things.
	I even had someone arguing against me once.
	You saw an email chain.
	Someone was arguing against me and they used one of my own videos or frames to try and prove me wrong.
	And I said, you know, I created that thing.
	And, you know, the things we created, there's so many different versions out there, you know, from the frames or the whatever.
	The ironic thing about the work I did, you know, most of it a couple of decades ago, ...was that even people that think the Zapruder film is genuine appreciate the fact that I put all the frames together and took out the distortion and corrected them and coloured them and put them all there.
	As a reference, I have a perfect reference copy of something that I believe is totally fake.
	They appreciate it because they think, oh, well, we've got a perfect reference copy of the film of the century.
	But there's a whole lot of other people that believe... Now, the actual Zapruder film, the main stabilised clip that I put up, YouTube actually took it down because it depicted graphic violence.
	Right!
	And I... And we've seen it in all countries, yeah.
	They put up stuff refuting MERS and showing they're fake, and they say it's deleted for graphic violence.
	I'm sure these are mannequins, not real people, or it's fake blood, or it's actors, and they delete it anyway.
	Yeah, Larry.
	Can I get the host just to show you just three snippets?
	I was asking...
	David, whether he thinks it's common now for most people to think the film is fake?
	David, what is your impression?
	I don't think I know how widespread this idea is.
	It would be very interesting to take a poll, I must say.
	But I haven't seen anything comparable to what John Costello has shown us here.
	Nothing like that from Hollywood.
	Carter is in Hollywood, and I think she would tell me about her impressions if it were the same as in Australia.
	So I think it's just a dark hole without too much public polling or information.
	David, I think we had the conversation before you joined it.
	We began our discussion here on the video, but whatever happened to the Hollywood film restoration expert?
	Yeah, how are you going to know that?
	Who knows?
	David, I'm asking David whether he may know.
	You're talking about Wilkinson.
	Yeah, Sydney Wilkinson.
	You know, I was actually in their studio, and they had this superb quality version of the film.
	I couldn't believe how detailed and clear it was.
	And earlier, I was talking to you guys about how at one of the conferences, I think it was 2018, where they were on remote, you know, into the conference.
	And I told them to check into this, you know, Z Frame 343.
	Larry, Larry, I'm asking David a question.
	What happened to them, David?
	They did present their work four or five years ago in Dallas at the Big Red Courthouse, and that took, I would say, somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes, presented to a sizable audience.
	So I think they presented the core of their work at that conference, but they haven't really done anything publicly since.
	I don't think they're afraid to present the material, so I don't really know what's holding them back to do more.
	Can we get a video of what they did there, what they presented?
	I mean, I would like to see it.
	Yeah, I think they would be quite happy to share that.
	It may even be available through the conference that was held there in Dallas.
	Which conference would it have been?
	I think it was four or five years ago.
	Yeah, but I mean, no, I mean, was it Cobar, Lancer or what?
	What would it have been?
	No, it was, it was Judy.
	The last one that I remember, it was into Judy's conference, I think it was 2018.
	And they were via Zoom or something like that, you know, because they were not attending, but they did the presentation, you know, remotely.
	David, that's what you're talking about.
	David, is that correct?
	Yeah.
	I think that information would be easy to retrieve.
	I can probably find out from looking at my files when that occurred pretty easily.
	But regardless, the point is that they have not resurfaced, period.
	You have an opinion, David, about what happened to them?
	Why they disappeared?
	I don't know why they haven't resurfaced.
	I think if a little pressure were to bring to bear on them, they would probably be happy to cooperate with presenting you with that material to share in a conference like this.
	Wonderful.
	It might be, but it might be what Mike Maciaska told us.
	It's the Hollywood Syndrome.
	They don't want to touch the JFK assassination because it's a career destroyer.
	But they've already done it, you know.
	I mean, these are people so established.
	It's a big deal for them.
	I mean, they definitely had the high-resolution scans from the National Archives, and I'm interested in knowing if anybody else has Has copies of those scans.
	I understand there's conditions, you know, under which you can get those sort of things.
	But I was also going to mention, back to your earlier question, Jim, whether a lot of people believe the Zapruder film is fake.
	I've got to say, in this day and age, if you ask a lot of the public in America here, or Australia or anywhere else, about JFK, a lot of the people, sadly, might not even know who we're talking about, or the fact that he was assassinated.
	Most people wouldn't know the Zapruder film.
	Some people would say, oh, the film, And if you say it's fake, I mean, if they know that much, then if they're really deep into it, then I think there's a fair number of people that believe that it has been altered or fabricated or whatever.
	But sadly, there's going to be a small percentage and shrinking percentage of the population because it's out of their lifetimes.
	It was before my lifetime, but for a lot of the population, it's like, ah, who cares what happened in the 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s now?
	But I mean, that's a sad fact of life.
	I don't know whether everybody would even know the basics of the assassination these days.
	Even when I was a school teacher 20 years ago.
	David, I want to come back to you about that because you've paid attention to the historians.
	Do you have any thoughts about that?
	Did we freeze up here momentarily?
	Have I lost you all?
	Fascinating.
	I mean...
	We seem to have been hit.
	This is quite remarkable.
	We had an unexpected interruption.
	Now we're continuing the conversation.
	Gary King's about to join us.
	John, go for it.
	You're talking about Tink in this picture about the last final second in Dallas.
	Yeah, I'm sorry, I can't remember what we... We had a bit of an interruption.
	I can't remember what we're actually talking about before we... That's right.
	But it was interesting that only... The only recent work that I redid on the case... Everybody else here has done a lot of more recent work, so I apologise for living in the past.
	Not a problem.
	Actually, this takes me all the way back to the start, because the thing that got me into the whole JFK thing is I had an idea in 2000 to do a deblurring program.
	In 2001, I finished it.
	I remember it was 9th of September 2001.
	I finally finished a version.
	Two days later, the world seemed to end on September 11th.
	2002-2003, Tink was very interested in the idea of de-blurring of 3.13 compared to 3.12, and I think it goes back to his six seconds in Dallas with his observation, but Lifton had gone, and Richard Feynman of course, the best physicist anybody has ever worked on this case, I'm sure everybody would agree, ran a ruler and said that his head moves, you know, moves forward before it moves back.
	The double hit.
	Yeah, and I've got my own theory about why everything ends up like that.
	So you've got six seconds in Dallas where he's got the graph and everything and he measures it.
	And then somehow by 2002 or so, he, I think, misunderstood some work that David Wimp did in terms of measuring the head compared to the roll bar or whatever you want to call it.
	The bar.
	It's not a roll bar.
	The bar that the thing clips on.
	And David, I think, David Wimp, who ironically was the guy who originally sent me the frames of the Zapruder film.
	I didn't have the DVD.
	I didn't even have something that could capture the frame.
	He sent them to me by email, one frame at a time, in like 2001, which is... How effing wonderful.
	I praise him for that.
	I mean, the guy... We had our differences, but that was a good thing he did, John.
	Well, I was working on these things, and I was actually de-blurring different frames, a very dodgy program.
	I rebuilt the program recently, which Comes into this story.
	So I think Tink was interested because of that, the problem, like, is that forward head movement from 312 to 313 real?
	Or was it mismeasured?
	Now, I know, iTech also, iTech, iTech, but it also measured the same sort of thing.
	Richard Feynman measured the same sort of thing.
	Tink measured the same thing.
	And so I did this back 2002 or so, and I said, no, you know, like, whether you believe the film is genuine or fake or something in between, The film, as we have it, shows a forward movement from 3.12 to 3.13, right?
	And I showed that two different ways back then, and I redid the analysis.
	I can even do a screen share to show what it looks like, the 2021 or 2022 version, but you can do it two different ways.
	The thing I was trying to do back then was to unblur, deblur, frame 3.13 and compare that to 3.12.
	But there's an easier way of doing it, because that's not unique, like, you know, you've got to make up some information when you do that.
	The easier thing is to blur 312 the same way that 313 is blurred, and then you can overlay the two of them.
	And there's no doubt, there's only one way to do that.
	I mean, you know, you've got to measure the blur properly.
	Jim, can you, can I, can I?
	Sure, sure, sure.
	I'll make you a host again, yeah.
	And then I'll see if I can... I mean, it's on my website, but I redid it with... Your host.
	Thank you.
	Let me see.
	So you can see these?
	Yeah, we can see them.
	OK, so this top... I'll make the top one a bit bigger, so... OK.
	So this is actually doing what I said second.
	You're actually getting 312 blurring it the way that 313 is blurred.
	And then overlaying it with 313.
	And you can see, okay, if you can see my mouse here, you can see that's pretty well lined up.
	That's pretty well lined up.
	So these are two blurred frames.
	And I don't care about all this whatever that is there.
	We can debate if you believe it's genuine.
	None of us in this room do.
	But if you want to believe all this is genuine or not genuine, forget about all this happening.
	But just like here, can you see my mouse moving?
	Yeah.
	Jacking completely stationary, that's brilliant.
	Yeah, so even, forget about deblurring, which was what I was playing with 20 years ago, and I've done it below.
	Just look here.
	I mean, there's no doubt that his head is moving forward.
	Now, is it one inch or two inches or whatever?
	Well, I don't know, because it's pivoting, right?
	So it's going from, it's a smaller man here, it's a larger man here.
	But you can't doubt, even looking at how that white, whatever it is, the curb, is showing through, that the Zapruder film, whatever you think of it, is showing a forward movement from 312 to 313.
	So everyone agrees, except Tink.
	Now, He puts out this book, which, you know, like nearly a decade after he said that he was retiring, and now, oh, here's the deblurred version, right?
	So this is trying to deblur 3.13.
	His ear stays behind, but ignore that, because that's just a mathematical artifact of the way that I dropped in the... So this looks nicer because, like, that's very sharp, and that's all very sharp, and Jackie's exactly stationary.
	Even the back of the seat's pretty good.
	And again, you look here, like, his head pivots forward.
	No matter what you think of the film, that's what it shows, right?
	I think the whole thing is a total fake.
	So he puts out this book last year.
	It was last year, wasn't it?
	I'll stop sharing.
	You've seen that enough.
	You can sit on my website.
	He puts out a book where the whole thing seems to be that he was concerned that 50 years, 60 years earlier, he'd measured this forward movement.
	And he tries to argue, oh, David Wimp showed that that was a mismeasurement because of blurring.
	And the book comes out, and it's like, what?
	So, you know, people saying, didn't you prove this wrong 20 years ago?
	So I rewrote everything, my image blurring stuff.
	I've done a little bit of image processing since that early Zapruder stuff, as you might know.
	I fixed all the photos on Facebook and Instagram, which means that I've had influence over about 3 billion extra people than what I did for the Zapruder stuff.
	But the The same argument held true.
	Now, the crazy thing about all this is that David Wimp himself came out and basically said, look, for decades I've been saying that Tink misunderstood what I said.
	Okay?
	He said it all the way back.
	He had links to a post from some ancient thing from 20 years ago saying that he never proved that the head doesn't move forward, right?
	It was just maybe it doesn't move forward by the same number of inches.
	So I don't understand why Tink was so John, what you missed is, leading up to the 50th, Teak was going to do a series of, I don't know, 50 or 100 interviews debunking all the evidence of conspiracy, including in his own book!
	And the first one came out from the New York Times about the Umbrella Man, and I wrote a piece just taking it apart and showing how absurd this was, and they abandoned the project.
	But John, he was trying to refute everything he'd had.
	Who was our friend out in Massachusetts who was taking pride that he was the first person to call Tink out as a fraud?
	David, David, who am I talking about?
	That first-generation brilliant guy, you know, who... I know, Solyndria, Solyndria.
	Yeah, Vince Solyndria.
	Vince was very proud.
	I've been the first person that caught Tink, and it's because of the concluding paragraphs at the end.
	I mean, you got the McDonald's ad, you got the double hit, you got all this proof of conspiracy in the book, and then he says, none of this shows there was a conspiracy, and Vince Landria called him out and said, you know how absurd this was, and he took pride in calling out Tink as a fraud, and he had it right.
	Larry, go ahead.
	No, there's a whole story to that, that Solyndra told us that he actually went, he was arrested in the mid to early 60s in some kind of union protest or something, and he went there at that time that Solyndra was David, did you want to add to any of this?
	the AFL-CIO and he went to check on the people that had been arrested and he noticed that Thompson was processed in a different way and taken away by agents so to speak.
	And from that time on he knew that there was something funny about that guy.
	David, did you want to add to any of this?
	David.
	Especially about the double hit.
	I I'd like to know, because Dr. Mantic has written about that, and maybe he can expand a little bit on that.
	David, could you share some thoughts about any aspect of this double hit?
	What happened?
	Well, it's pretty well spelled out in my recent hardcover book.
	There's a whole very, very long section, which is a critique of Last Second in Dallas.
	So all of these issues are examined there in quite some detail, and I agree with what's been said here already.
	Yeah, I mean, it's embarrassing, isn't it?
	I mean, he was really... It's very embarrassing for Tink, yes.
	Yeah, I mean... It's just, it's repulsive, really.
	That's the best word for it, repulsive.
	Well, I'm more repulsive than Gary Mack.
	And Robert Grodin, I mean, Grodin still to this day wants to claim the film is authentic.
	How absurd is that?
	I think he started back off on that, Jim.
	I haven't seen it.
	I've heard it's going to happen.
	I think he, and other things, you know, he's, you know, he's, uh, you know, in ill health now, you know, and, uh, you know, I think he's been vanquished, especially on the Altron 6 and the Z film, actually.
	David, I'm very keen on more about your book with Jerry Corsi.
	I mean, is it going to be a kind of an easily less technical version of your book, or is it going to be something different?
	It's supposedly a little more accessible to the layperson, especially the parts about optical density.
	We're really struggling hard to make that a little clearer by using analogies.
	In several different ways.
	I think you just gotta, go ahead.
	And the other chapters will deal with the T-shaped inscription, which is discussed in some length in my hardcover book, and then we'll also talk about the white patch.
	And we'll probably get to the Autopsy photographs as well, and we'll address the evidence for their faked images, which is often discussed in my hardcover book with good images.
	Well, you had that nailed from 1992, David.
	Yeah, we did.
	There's not a whole lot new in here.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Well, I think it's wonderful to make a book that is more reader-friendly for the average person with no scientific background, which is 90% of the American public, if not more.
	Yeah, that's what we're hoping.
	And Corsi, of course, has had several bestsellers before.
	He has a good relationship with the publisher, so this is a major advantage in this case.
	Yes.
	Oh, I think it's a good combination.
	Yeah, I like that.
	John, would you like to offer some kind of overall reflections here before we have to draw our conclusion for this conversation, which I have personally enjoyed immensely?
	Yours?
	Thoughts?
	Ah, now you've put him on the spot.
	I haven't thought about this.
	It's just great to see the work continuing on.
	I mean, I came what I thought was relatively late into the field in this century.
	I mean, there have been people that have been working.
	A lot of the things that we sort of discovered, even Jim Cheney, that was all done before.
	You go back to a decade before and a decade before that, that people rediscover things.
	But it's always great to have fresh eyes on things and to see all the work continuing on in the 20 years since I sort of dropped out of doing most things.
	It's been fantastic learning new stuff all the time.
	I said a while back, a few people know that Rich De La Rosa left me some control information about the other films that he saw, and I've always said, I hope I see a genuine film of the assassination in my lifetime, but I don't know.
	As the decades go on, I'm thinking, well... You're going to have to make it yourself.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	Would people still have copies of things around?
	Maybe we're running out of hope.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	They exist, John.
	I have not the least doubt.
	I have not the least doubt they exist.
	This would be among the most precious possessions of those who have a copy.
	I don't have any doubt.
	I mean, I've got no doubt that if we do see it, and the things that David described, You know, 25 years ago, and yourself, and we know that it happened with the motorcycles and everything.
	It's basically going to look like that, I'm convinced.
	If we ever see a genuine film, I'm just hoping, if there's anybody that ever hears this, that, you know, it'd just be great to actually see, you know, what the actual assassination went like.
	Maybe we've got to wait another 100 years and none of us will be around, but...
	I've always, and I know what Rich's control information was, so I promise, and I haven't, I've only told a few select family members, you know, what he told me and where to find it if something happens to me, but if I ever see a film that agrees with his control information, I will say so.
	But that's the power of keeping it to myself, and people said, you know, tell us what he said.
	I know what the assassination looks like roughly and you guys already described it before I came along and you know the rest of everybody here has been fleshing it out.
	Unfortunately, as I said, I think more and more people are sort of oblivious to history and what actually happened.
	But, you know, if the film does come out one day, I'm sure that's going to get a lot of attention.
	So we can always hold out hope.
	You know, if anybody sees this, please, even if you've got to show it to me and swear me to silence.
	David, you're... Go ahead, Gary.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah.
	You're saying that a lot of this stuff is Bypasses and things like that.
	Now, I do know in the JFK community, we have over 300 shows, we get lots of comments.
	When I'm in Dealey Plaza, you know, the 22nd and stuff, I get a lot of feedback.
	Now, as far as the people that care, the Zapruder film, we've already busted through, and that's pretty much over.
	Everyone tells me that, and they're really false.
	People like DiEugenio, and they've just Just cannot go there as far as the film is concerned and stuff.
	So as far as the JFK community and the researchers and the people that are trying to get their information, I think we've knocked that wall over quite a while back.
	David, I'd like your just reflections on our conversations and the current state of research and all that.
	I'm so glad you're publishing this new book and of course congratulate you on the book you've already published, A Masterpiece.
	Well, thank you.
	You're very kind.
	This has been the center of my life, so to speak, in the last three decades.
	It's almost been too much.
	But fortunately, you know, I'm still seeing patients as I did today.
	So, it hasn't pushed my professional career out of the way, which is a good thing.
	We need balance in life.
	But I will probably still remain interested in this case for as long as I live.
	And the Zapruder film is a big part of it.
	By the way, there is a whole chapter on the Zapruder film in my hardcover book as well.
	And it covers some issues that we have not discussed tonight.
	Mention a few of those, David, would you be so kind?
	The black patch is the big one.
	Oh, in the back of the head you mean?
	Yeah, in frame 317 in particular.
	On the MPI images that Sidney Wilkinson and I saw in 2009 at the Sixth Floor Museum.
	And then when we came back, when Sidney came back a year later and I came back several years later, the clarity of that black patch had disappeared.
	Of course, the whole frame had been replaced with something with lower resolution.
	But Sidney's copy that she purchased from the National Archives still shows a very clear black patch, especially in that 3-1-7 frame.
	But it was so ludicrously poorly done at the MPI images, which was made directly from the copy at the archives, it was so juvenile in character that I almost laughed when I saw it.
	And unfortunately, when Tink Thompson went back to look at that image, he did not have the chance to see the same version that Sidney and I saw.
	He saw the later, lower resolution image, and he's never bothered to look at Sidney's copy from the National Archives either, which is really quite extraordinary.
	Well, I have an opinion about that.
	I mean, it's all deliberate.
	He may have even been instrumental in Developing the lower resolution.
	This is my take on Tink.
	He is on the wrong side of these issues, David.
	And, you know, Sidney and her people said it was just amateurish how they put the black patch on there.
	I called it juvenile.
	It was so ridiculously obvious.
	It's something my six or seven-year-old daughter might have done.
	Actually, she probably would have done better since she's quite a bit of an artist.
	When she was six or seven.
	Yes.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Is there anything else that you would like to add that we ought to be considerate of in relation to the Z-film especially?
	Well, of course, the bullet in the The bullet hole in the windshield of the limousine occupies a good part of the hardcover book, and that relates to the Zapruder film as well.
	I described that I saw a very clear image of the bullet hole in the early Zapruder frames.
	Right.
	200.
	It's there, it's there.
	Yeah, it's there.
	We all agree on that.
	I don't think Tink has any explanation for that.
	He's never even spoken about it.
	He just totally avoids that issue.
	But it's directly related to the authenticity of the Scooter film as well.
	Yeah, absolutely, 100%.
	I couldn't agree more.
	Laurie, about some reflections of yours about, you know, the current state of the audience?
	Yeah, I think about the Z film in the same manner as I think about the Alton 6, which I held the negative in my hand just this past November, thanks to Gary Fannin, who was able to obtain it.
	And then David Knight did some ultra-high-resolution scans, and we did some groundbreaking work, and we did a show, as you can recall, a couple of months ago, precisely on that.
	And the condition of the Altium 6 is exactly what we see in the Z film.
	The alterations have already been baked in, okay?
	So when you look at the Altium 6, and we showed our audience, I mean, those were some incredible close-ups that we did that time, right?
	Remember, Gary and Jim?
	Yeah, and we could just keep going into the image, you know, I mean, just keep going further and further into the image because of the high-resolution scan.
	And you can do that with the high-resolution scans that these people have already done, but why are they not releasing them and sharing them appropriately?
	Okay?
	What's going on there?
	So if you're not going to, you know, it's like my old boss is a shit or get off the pot, you know?
	So anyway, I don't want to be vulgar or anything like that, but, you know, when we did the study on the A6 negative, We concluded that all those alterations, you know, and the airbrushing out of here and there, because all the people that had the cameras, you know, had already been baked in.
	So, you know, that's what we're left in.
	That is the extant version, and that is exactly what you're going to see with the Z film.
	That's what I want to spell for John.
	They created a new negative of the Ultron 6, John, that already, you know, based on the already altered photograph.
	Yeah, what you see, yeah, yeah, and we confirmed and we proved it, you know, thank, you know.
	Well, that, yeah, that's great work, because, I mean, you remember, Jim, back in the Great Sepulchre Film Hercs, I've got that whole sequence about Opkins, Ultjens, Opkins, however you pronounce his name.
	I know how to spell it, I don't know how to say it.
	That basically you can't even figure out how many photos you actually took.
	I don't think you took seven or eight, right?
	And so it makes sense that if these negatives, these, you know, Trask had the original negatives and you've held one of them apparently now, like, if you can't trust the numbering, then you can't trust the negatives.
	They are themselves.
	Fabrications.
	And we were able to authenticate the negative with the contact print that is out there, you know, so when we did the overlays and we concluded and we confirmed that the negative that we had in hand is exactly is the negative that has been printed out so many times, you know, and wired and whatever, you know, which was already the altered product, which, you know, we're not going to get into, you know, how they did that, but
	That's exactly the same thing that we see with the Z film, you know, it's already baked in.
	But I mean, I was showing Sally this just the other week, talking about how James Harris happened to see his name in the great Zapruder film hoax and gave me a call.
	If you look at that section, it's quite hilarious how, like, he stormed into the Warren Commission in early 1964 saying, there's Oswald in the doorway, right?
	And there's this communication between Rankin and J. Edgar Hoover Not only about whether it's Oswald in the doorway, but just trying to establish who actually took that photo.
	Like, which Associated Press photographer took the photo?
	You've got to bring J. Edgar Hoover into the mind of the FBI to try and figure out, retrospectively, who took one of the most famous photos in the world?
	I mean, that's just crazy!
	Now, why wasn't that already known the day of the assassination?
	Now, something went out over the wire, How did it take them months and J. Edgar Hoover to figure out, ah, this guy, Ike Alkins, took this photo we've established now.
	I mean, he happened to be just down the road from the Dallas field office, I believe.
	But the whole story is crazy, like so many things to do with the photographic evidence.
	None of it holds water when you hold it up to the light.
	Sorry, I'm just metaphoring there.
	No, no, no, no.
	David, I've got to go back to you for further reflections on the Alch.
	Would you like to add a few further thoughts?
	Well, if you look at the timeline for the Alkins, you will find that there were several hours that afternoon where there was time for alteration of the film.
	Roy Shafer in particular has looked at this very carefully.
	No, it's one of the phony arguments Tink went.
	It's just as though, you know, how could they have altered the Z film when it was in the custody of the Secret Service and they had a timeline as though the Secret Service weren't involved in it, you know?
	They actually, you know, Ralph Zinkai did this brilliant thing.
	He found altered editions of newspapers, David, I don't know if we've ever discussed this, Well, they showed the Ultras already being published the day of the assassination, when in fact it didn't show up.
	In fact, in Brent Dillard's following day, they went all the way back to some obscure newspapers that were Tony editions.
	6.30 that afternoon, and it was Cronkite who showed a very cropped version, you know, didn't even include anything outside of the limo.
	And it was at 6.30, and it's, you know, and on the East Coast, the late Right, right, right.
	carried it, okay, and on the West Coast late, you know, and as you know, the time zones went, you know, late, but nothing of what, you know, that what we have been told at one o'clock, one oh three that afternoon, Texas-Dallas time, no, not a chance, not a chance. Texas-Dallas time, no, not a chance, not a chance.
	Right, right, right.
	Well, listen, it's been a great joy to bring John Costello, David Manning, Larry Rivera, Derek King, together here for this evening's conversation.
	I hope we can do it again, but I'm certainly glad we have this opportunity.
	I thank each and every one of you.
	You've done magnificent work.
	We look forward to your new book, David, and we want to interview you on the new JFK Show when it appears to go over in some detail what you're giving to the public, because I think it's very, very important.
	Meanwhile, Thank you for joining us here for this Real Deal special on the Zapruder film.
	20th anniversary!
	20th anniversary of the conference in Duluth in 2003, which I was honored to host.
	And I reiterate, as John was mentioning, it was a tiny handful of people there.
	I think we had a dozen.
	Is that the one where you helped Jack White finish his emotional presentation?
	I believe, yes.
	Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	I remember that.
	Well, you guys are terrific, and you've made historic contributions, and I can't thank you enough.

▲