Guest Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Obviously a subject discussed many times before. The lack of clear images always prevented me to actually go and say, well that is iffy.... Until now. I made some screen grabs from the PBS Frontline docu which I got in 720. Doug Horne has written and interviewed extensively on the whole fakery/alteration matter. He also professed that some film maker associates in Hollywood had made 35 mm copies which would show that the back of his head had been 'marked' out. Guess what. I agree. I have uploaded a gallery of screen grabs of the Zapruder film here Click slideshow so the pix go full screen! Please look carefully at slides 4/5/6. Now pause at slide 5, click full screen and wait a mo so the thumbnails fade away and you see that shot full screen. And now check all the hair that is visible. I can see Nellie's bun I can see Greer's outline. I can see Kellerman's features (slide 4 and 6) But I have this big bleedy black blob on the back of JFK's head, where if I am not mistaken the parkland hospital doctors said there was a wound. Something to think about as Doug would say I really would appreciate it that the conversation sticks to the black marker fakery subject only and is not hijacked with god knows what. Tell me I am wrong. Edited May 16, 2015 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Hi Barto These look great. Thanks for linking them here. One thing that is particularly interesting to me is that we can see that some strands of Jackie's hair are over her face from her right to her left in 4/5/6. If I'm not mistaken this is the part of Zapruder where the four passengers in the front of the limousine are flung forward whereas the Kennedys don't seem to move much at all. In fact it looks as though they are sitting in a different car to the rest of the passengers. But this hair over Jackie's face seems to indicate that she was flung forward at this time too and perhaps was holding onto the back seat and didn't move like the front 4 passengers did. This flung forward movement always seemed to me to be evidence of the brakes being slammed on at that time. Anyway I digress. You're not talking about the ear flap blob are you? The most I can see is a bit of purplish colouration in between JFK's hair on the left and the back seat of the limo. Is that what you are referring to? Can you be a bit more specific about where you are seeing the blowout 'cause I am still just seeing a black patch on the back of his head. Thanks for your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Bart, I agree with your take. There should sunlight striking part of the back of the head, and there isn't. I think the who extant Z-film is a fabrication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I agree that the back of the head is blacked out, and that this alteration at least was certainly feasible in 1963. But it raises other questions, such as no blood or debris on the trunk of the limo. How did they do that in 1963? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) I agree that the back of the head is blacked out... Then maybe you can explain why two of the closest witnesses to the President's car at the time of the assassination--Abraham Zapruder and Bill Newman--have always said (from Day 1) that the SIDE of JFK's was blown open---not the BACK of his head. I guess CTers must think that the "real killers" had lady luck on their side that day when both Zapruder and Newman went on television within two hours of the shooting (and in Newman's case, within 20 minutes of the last shot being fired) and told Jay Watson of WFAA-TV exactly what they saw, with Zapruder even demonstrating where the President's head "practically opened up" --- and it wasn't the back of the head at all... "If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003 Audio with William Newman: box.com/Interview Excerpt With Bill Newman (July 2003) Also See: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-657.html Edited May 17, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 David, That's a toughie. I assume that Zapruder and Newman described seeing the same thing that we see in the Z film, which is a flap opening up on the side of JFK's head. I've stated before that I have a rule against arguing with LNers and young-Earth creationists. Congratulations on having your posting privilege reinstated, but you will not suck me into any argument on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) David, That's a toughie. I assume that Zapruder and Newman described seeing the same thing that we see in the Z film, which is a flap opening up on the side of JFK's head. Right. Therefore, their statements and "hands on" demonstrations are consistent with the Z-Film. I'm glad you agree. I've stated before that I have a rule against arguing with LNers and young-Earth creationists. Congratulations on having your posting privilege reinstated, but you will not suck me into any argument on this forum. That's fine with me. Do whatever you want. I don't care. I'm just putting out the information for people to examine. And as we can see (and hear) in the video and audio excerpts I provided, nowhere in those interviews do Mr. Zapruder or Bill Newman or Gayle Newman ever say anything about seeing the BACK of President Kennedy's head blown open. And if we're to believe the Parkland doctors and most conspiracy theorists, the hole in the BACK of JFK's head was massive. How could Zapruder and the Newmans have missed it? Anyway, the point is: the early witnesses who were interviewed (Zapruder and the Newmans) said things that are perfectly consistent with what we see in the Zapruder Film. Edited May 17, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It"s hard to differentiate colour and brightness values. Particularly when they range from very dark to very bright, black to white.It's easier to do so if the area in question is isolated.Here the boh is cut out and surrounded with black.I did this first with just the brightness and contrast adjusted. It became clear there is a lot of information there. Some of it caused by pixellation.When I stretched the colour values I was surprised to find that the dominant colour is red.I don't think the area has been blacked out in the way suggested. I think there is a simple non alternation explanation for what is seen. I think that what is seen supports witness statements. I think there was/is a conspiracy. I think there are signs of alteration of the film/s, but not in this wayhttp://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/yanndee/bohd_zpsnzszsacj.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 yes Jon, exactly, some of the shots with JFK's head in a position that there ought to be light on that part. And where on earth is this deep shadow coming from at 12:30 when it is practically on top of the limo. vanessa I am talking about the back right side of JFK's head that has been blackened. I don't know how far this film has been altered, what i do know is that that black blob is unnatural. Furthermore it leaks at its edges. Slides 4/5/6 show plenty of detail in the others' hair yet JFK's hair in the back is just badly blacked out.Please consider this: that more than 50 years ago, any retouching would have been done with a brush and rapid drying ink under a microscope/magnifying glass. The ink leaks around its edges. In a projector one cannot see this. In a digital magnification of this size it's a whole different story. It is purely something of applying common sense, and the fact that I have been a photographer for 33 years, developed and printed my own bromide prints, so there's some experience there. I am claiming this only now, after seeing my detailed grabs of a high res video, before that I just sat on the fence. This back of the head is deliberately blacked out. Look at Jackie's and JFK's shadow on the back of the head bit of the back seat, if they are the real shadowns then how on earth can the back of JFK's head be that dark? The angle doesn't add up, and you don't nee to be a scientist to conclude that the shadow makes no sense. Common sense...... yes Jon, exactly, some of the shots with JFK's head in a position that there ought to be light on that part. And where on earth is this deep shadow coming from at 12:30 when it is practically on top of the limo. vanessa I am talking about the back right side of JFK's head that has been blackened. I don't know how far this film has been altered, what i do know is that that black blob is unnatural. Furthermore it leaks at its edges. Slides 4/5/6 show plenty of detail in the others' hair yet JFK's hair in the back is just badly blacked out.Please consider this: that more than 50 years ago, any retouching would have been done with a brush and rapid drying ink under a microscope/magnifying glass. The ink leaks around its edges. In a projector one cannot see this. In a digital magnification of this size it's a whole different story. It is purely something of applying common sense, and the fact that I have been a photographer for 33 years, developed and printed my own bromide prints, so there's some experience there. I am claiming this only now, after seeing my detailed grabs of a high res video, before that I just sat on the fence. This back of the head is deliberately blacked out. Look at Jackie's and JFK's shadow on the back of the head bit of the back seat, if they are the real shadowns then how on earth can the back of JFK's head be that dark? The angle doesn't add up, and you don't nee to be a scientist to conclude that the shadow makes no sense. Common sense...... Thanks for that explanation Bart. And you’re right the shadows don’t match up or make sense. Connally’s hair really sticks out as being in different shadow to JFK’s. One would expect it to be the same as they are sitting on the same side of the car within inches/feet of each other. And at roughly the same height given JFK’s seat was slightly elevated compared to the jump seat. But we can clearly see a lot more of Connally’s hair in differentiated amounts of shade and sunlight. We don’t get the same pattern for JFK. In fact, as you say, given it was 12.30 and JFK is falling to his left one would expect the back of his head to be in full sunlight (with the sun being almost directly overhead at that time). But it’s not, it’s in almost full shade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 ctrl + mouse wheel = zoom.I wonder what screen you're using. I don't see what you suggest at all. Makes me wonder if you are viewing the images with a system that auto smooths. The pixels are clear to me as are the bleeds from pixel to pixel. Subtract that artifice and it seems clear to me that there is a lot of data in the socalled blacked out region. Btw. If this all started after costella posted his candy coloured revisions I can understand if that is what people are basing all this on. In them the values are severely compromised. He's squished stuff together and what had nuance does so no longer. On these less messed with frames I cannot see how anyone could make such a mistake. It is indeed in shadow, not in full sunlight as suggested. Just line it up with the shadow the head makes on the backseat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Agree with John D. I'm not seeing what Bart is seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) If you look at the frame shown in post #1, shouldn't the line of bright sunlight on JFK's right coat sleeve, shoulder and collar extend in a line up the right back of his head, which is also facing the camera? As seen, the light line seems to veer off toward the right temporal area - the "flap" area. This seems to indicate that the right back of the head has been blacked out, and the temporal has not been darkened. Have any other shadows in the car been created or darkened to provide verisimilitude for the disappearance of the light line that should cross from JFK's shoulder to his head? Edited May 19, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) I agree that the back of the head is blacked out... Then maybe you can explain why two of the closest witnesses to the President's car at the time of the assassination--Abraham Zapruder and Bill Newman--have always said (from Day 1) that the SIDE of JFK's was blown open---not the BACK of his head. I guess CTers must think that the "real killers" had lady luck on their side that day when both Zapruder and Newman went on television within two hours of the shooting (and in Newman's case, within 20 minutes of the last shot being fired) and told Jay Watson of WFAA-TV exactly what they saw, with Zapruder even demonstrating where the President's head "practically opened up" --- and it wasn't the back of the head at all... "If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003 Audio with William Newman: box.com/Interview Excerpt With Bill Newman (July 2003) Also See: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-657.html David If the large gaping wound on JFK's head was on the right side and toward the front, any doctor in Trauma Room One would have had a perfectly good look at it, simply by looking in that direction. P.S. If the doctors at Parkland supposedly did not get a good look at the head wound, and were also professionals trained at looking at wounds, how good of a look do you think an electrician and a dress maker got in the space of one or two seconds, and under considerable duress, I might add? Edited May 19, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Great post, Bart. We await the comments of the Zapruder believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) If you select across the image values that are in the boh area you can simultaneously select areas elsewhere. This shows there is nothing significantly different about the boh area and other areas.Here max 15/255 and 1/255 settings selections on the boh area. Pasted onto a white area for better viewing. edit add : (response to below and any future similarities) Just in case anyone expects me to respond to anything using costellas images : I won't. I've already stated why they are garbage for this. See above and past comments on this. I'll only elaborate to say that you only need to look at the colour histograms to see how artificial and compressed the values are. Given that is so it is no surprise that some areas appear artificial. A subscript to Zaps Party tricks : Costellas candy. Edited May 21, 2015 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now