Comparing the White Jacket to CE 162

[Ed LeDoux]

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

<grins> I know.

I asked Sherry Gutierrez Fiester on Lancer about blood splatter a while ago and it seems rather odd there was none on LHO, the jacket, gun, etc. especially with the close proximity of the coup de grace to the head of Tippit.

I believe we can rule the GREY jacket out as being worn by the Tippit shooter based on this.

[John Dolva]

is it reasonable to assume the label on the nara photo should be white?

IF so, then ramping up the gamma till it is near white and adjusting for bright sunlight seems to bring the shade closer. (using imageanalyzer, (which can also produce graphs of values))

edit add : that's a good point, Ed re blood, should be more consideration re that. But just how point blank? on the same: his trousers and shoes ( darn those shoes ) should have something as if he was standing over any spray would traject down as well.

Edited September 16, 2011 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

<grins> I know.

Why SHOULD I care, I don't give a dang who killed JFK.

[Craig Lamson]

I believe...

And therein lies your problem....

[Ed LeDoux]

is it reasonable to assume the label on the nara photo should be white?

IF so, then ramping up the gamma till it is near white and adjusting for bright sunlight seems to bring the shade closer. (using imageanalyzer, (which can also produce graphs of values))

edit add : that's a good point, Ed re blood, should be more consideration re that. But just how point blank? on the same: his trousers and shoes ( darn those shoes ) should have something as if he was standing over any spray would traject down as well.

Hey John,

I'd have to find it on Lancer but, if I recall correctly it was 16-18" for the head shot. That is close, and would be considered point blank.

It (jacket) should show signs of splatter. Not sure about shoes or pants, questions were focused on the cone of spatter and its direction. Sherry did a 'reconstruction' of the wound angles to Tippit, and I brought up the bloodsplatter analysis of this. Her CD was mainly on the JFK, frontal headshot bloodsplatter and trajectory analysis. I had her sign her 2006 CD "JFK HOMICIDE FORENSIC RECONSTRUCTION". :-)

It has a section entitled "Tippit Shooting Trajectory Analysis" which I just reviewed.

Craig,

She is AN EXPERT! She has TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES! She is tops in her field...get it?

Plus "I believe" means it has been a while, and I was not quoting Sherry directly. But I believe based on all the evidence and AN EXPERTS reconstruction and study, that yes the grey jacket would have to be ruled out solely on splatter. Thanks though for keeping us honest.

Interesting you state you don't care who killed Kennedy, then why would we care what your opinion is as to the Tippit murder or evidence therein.

Why not care about a slain leader, a murdered American, the death of a President?

Is it because he was real and not a composite image?

[Craig Lamson]

No Craig, its your problem.

You believe the WC. Which is natural considering your political views.

Therefore all you write here emanates from that political matrix.

Oh jimmy, you are such a weak piece of work.

I don't "believe" the WC.

And photographic principles have no "politics"

Once again (which is rapidly becoming the norm for you) you are wrong.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig,

She is AN EXPERT! She has TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES! She is tops in her field...get it?

Plus "I believe" means it has been a while, and I was not quoting Sherry directly. But I believe based on all the evidence and AN EXPERTS reconstruction and study, that yes the grey jacket would have to be ruled out solely on splatter. Thanks though for keeping us honest.

Interesting you state you don't care who killed Kennedy, then why would we care what your opinion is as to the Tippit murder or evidence therein.

Why not care about a slain leader, a murdered American, the death of a President?

Is it because he was real and not a composite image?

"Believe" gets you no where. And of course that's why I don't CARE about who killed JFK, because in the end (as it has since his death} it will continue to be just "I Believe". I'm not interested in endlessly arguing the 'I Believe" points. But hey if it trips your trigger, be my guest. When you stumble upon yet another photo study like the faulty one of Gil's I'll show up to see it it reflects correct application of photographic principle.

Your problem with me is that I correctly apply these long proven principles. To you and a large swath of the CT's on this forum and elsewhere false information is a big part of your "BELIEF" system and is based on faulty application of those photographic principles. It's ignorance run a muck.

Why SHOULD I care about who killed Kennedy? Maybe we already know, and maybe we don't. But who really cars anymore Ed, beside a select few who have this grandiose idea that they are "solving" the case for the betterment of mankind and to change the course of history. The public at large sure does not. They have bigger fish to fry. American Idol is about to start again for a new season. JFK is just bones in a coffin and a few paragraphs in a high school history book.

Like I said, if you enjoy your search for "belief", then have at it. Its not a "belief" that interests me. More power to you.

By the same token , I find the study of images to be stimulating, and entertaining. Both Apollo and JFK provide great venues and lots of unbelievable photographic ignorance to uncover. Its a target rich environment.

You go on "believing" Ed. I'm never going to tell you Oswald did or did not kill JFK. I don't care. I might however completely destroy some of those long held beliefs you consider to be "evidence". Some of you will just continue to "believe" the untrue, because to not do so just might wreck your worldview.

[Gil Jesus]

Osswald? Who cares? Not me.

The jacket? Who cares? Not me.

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.

You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.

ROFLMAO.....you're a legend in your own mind.

But here's the problem.... if the jacket in the video IS the jacket found in the lot and worn by the Tippit killer, then there would have been gunpowder residue and blood splatter on it. And it would have been completely understandable for a killer escaping in public and in broad daylight, to attempt to avoid drawing attention to himself by discarding a jacket splattered with the blood of a victim.

That I have no problem with. Makes complete sense to me.

But if that jacket in the video is the GREY jacket, as you claim, there should be gunpowder residue and blood splatter on that as well. Yet, the color photographs supplied by Mr. Backes from NARA earlier in this thread show no such blood splatter on the jacket.

In addition, there is no report of Tippit's blood being found on Oswald's pants or shoes.

This is considered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and it simply isn't there.

Absent any PHYSICAL evidence that Tippit's killer was wearing the GREY jacket at the time of the murder, the GREY jacket can't possibly be the jacket we see in the video.

And absent any PHYSICAL evidence of Tippit's blood on Oswald's clothing at the time of his arrest the likelihood that Oswald was Tippit's killer is greatly diminished.

Yeah, we know, you don't care who did it. That's your excuse everytime you're faced with evidence you can't explain.

BTW, Holding the feet of the evidentiary ignorant to the fire....that's REALLY priceless.

Grins ? You supply more grins to more people than most posters.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

Osswald? Who cares? Not me.

The jacket? Who cares? Not me.

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.

You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.

ROFLMAO.....you're a legend in your own mind.

But here's the problem.... if the jacket in the video IS the jacket found in the lot and worn by the Tippit killer, then there would have been gunpowder residue and blood splatter on it. And it would have been completely understandable for a killer escaping in public and in broad daylight, to attempt to avoid drawing attention to himself by discarding a jacket splattered with the blood of a victim.

That I have no problem with. Makes complete sense to me.

But if that jacket in the video is the GREY jacket, as you claim, there should be gunpowder residue and blood splatter on that as well. Yet, the color photographs supplied by Mr. Backes from NARA earlier in this thread show no such blood splatter on the jacket.

In addition, there is no report of Tippit's blood being found on Oswald's pants or shoes.

This is considered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and it simply isn't there.

Absent any PHYSICAL evidence that Tippit's killer was wearing the GREY jacket at the time of the murder, the GREY jacket can't possibly be the jacket we see in the video.

And absent any PHYSICAL evidence of Tippit's blood on Oswald's clothing at the time of his arrest the likelihood that Oswald was Tippit's killer is greatly diminished.

Yeah, we know, you don't care who did it. That's your excuse everytime you're faced with evidence you can't explain.

BTW, Holding the feet of the evidentiary ignorant to the fire....that's REALLY priceless.

Grins ? You supply more grins to more people than most posters.

Do have even the first clue Gil? Reading your posts shows you lost yours. Maybe you can buy one somewhere.

For the record, I've not claimed anything about any jacket, other that its POSSIBLE for exposure and post processing to account for the visual changes in the half tone jacket and the video jacket. I've also pointed out how human vision is easily fooled.

Do you see anywhere in all of this that I've claim anything about any specific jacket?

Since I deal ONLY in the photographic WHO DID IT is irrelevant.

Watching you squirm while tying to defend your flawed visual comparison...more than priceless.

Not to mention your "everything is faked" worldview...

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Osswald? Who cares? Not me.

The jacket? Who cares? Not me.

Gunpowder? Don't have a clue and don't care one way or the other.

Holding the feet of the photographically ignorant to the fire....priceless.

You are yet another predictable e CT. Thanks for the grins Gil.

ROFLMAO.....you're a legend in your own mind.

But here's the problem.... if the jacket in the video IS the jacket found in the lot and worn by the Tippit killer, then there would have been gunpowder residue and blood splatter on it. And it would have been completely understandable for a killer escaping in public and in broad daylight, to attempt to avoid drawing attention to himself by discarding a jacket splattered with the blood of a victim.

That I have no problem with. Makes complete sense to me.

But if that jacket in the video is the GREY jacket, as you claim, there should be gunpowder residue and blood splatter on that as well. Yet, the color photographs supplied by Mr. Backes from NARA earlier in this thread show no such blood splatter on the jacket.

In addition, there is no report of Tippit's blood being found on Oswald's pants or shoes.

This is considered PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and it simply isn't there.

Absent any PHYSICAL evidence that Tippit's killer was wearing the GREY jacket at the time of the murder, the GREY jacket can't possibly be the jacket we see in the video.

And absent any PHYSICAL evidence of Tippit's blood on Oswald's clothing at the time of his arrest the likelihood that Oswald was Tippit's killer is greatly diminished.

Yeah, we know, you don't care who did it. That's your excuse everytime you're faced with evidence you can't explain.

BTW, Holding the feet of the evidentiary ignorant to the fire....that's REALLY priceless.

Grins ? You supply more grins to more people than most posters.

Do have even the first clue Gil? Reading your posts shows you lost yours. Maybe you can buy one somewhere.

For the record, I've not claimed anything about any jacket, other that its POSSIBLE for exposure and post processing to account for the visual changes in the half tone jacket and the video jacket. I've also pointed out how human vision is easily fooled.

Do you see anywhere in all of this that I've claim anything about any specific jacket?

Since I deal ONLY in the photographic WHO DID IT is irrelevant.

Watching you squirm while tying to defend your flawed visual comparison...more than priceless.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, please.

Don't insult us. Which is what the above reply does.

You do believe the WC. Even though you have never read it.

And every one of your "principles" always comes down on the side they were right.

You name the controversy, your "principles" back the WC.

In that regard, you are like the FBI's "experts".

Sheesh Jim, you insult yourself.

Either the principles are correct or they are not. Either you can refute them or you can't.

That's the end of the story and your silly attempts to paint it otherwise point directly to the desperation you face at seeing your scared ox getting gored.

You think I have it wrong, then simply PROVE it. Your lame attempts to change the subject shows just how weak your counter arguments really are.

BTW, did it ever occur to you that there are others who can correctly apply proper photographic principles? And that YOU and your cohorts might be incapable?

After all they apply EQUALLY to everyone.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Andric Perez]

The clouds prove, IMO, that a gray object can look white depending on how much light reaches it. (sunny day vs. cloudy day, outdoors vs. indoors).

Why are clouds often gray at the bottom and white at the top? Here's the answer from a 2003 article in the USA Today unrelated to the JFK assassination:

By Jack Williams, USATODAY.com

Q: Why are rain clouds gray? Do they turn from white to gray and if so, how?

sun illuminates the tops of these towering cumulus clouds, making them white, while the bottoms are dark gray.

NOAA

A: Imagine taking off in an airplane on a rainy day with the sky covered by gray clouds. As your airplane flies through the clouds, the sky becomes brighter and brighter and eventually you see bright sunlight and look down: the tops of those gray clouds you've flown through.

Now, the clouds are white.

link

Before coninuing to read this comment, I invite readers to google "clouds" and go to "images" and you will see how many different shades of gray/white can be seen in the same cloud.

The images shown in this threads are apples vs. orange (jacket in sunlight vs. jacket indoors). Was more light hitting the jacket outdoors? My guess is yes.

Note that nobody has noticed any different in the shape of the jackets, perhaps because there is another apples vs. oranges situation: One image shows the back of the jacket, the other image shows the front. Only the color has been an issue of contention in this thread.

A second point I want to make is that labeling the left-side jacket as "white" is complicated, because the sleeves are even whiter than the rest of the jacket. This is further proof that grays can be easily affected by lighting conditions. I have two hypotheses:

1) The Oswald look-alike seen at 2pm fleeing in a car killed Tippit and planted the jacket as he rounded Jefferson St. around 1:10-1:20pm, and then took refuge in El Chico restaurant until 2:00pm; or

2) Oswald did kill Tippit as he realized he was being set up and could not trust anyone anymore. In fact, CT researcher Pat Speer believes that the tests performed on Oswald's hands suggest that he killed Tippit (but did not shoot JFK):

SPEER: That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them. This once again suggests—it is by no means conclusive--that Oswald fired his revolver on November 22, 1963. If this is so, moreover, then Oswald is undoubtedly the leading candidate for the murder of Officer Tippit. If one is to use gunshot residue tests to suggest that Oswald shot Tippit, however, one must simultaneously acknowledge that these same tests failed to indicate that Oswald killed Kennedy, and that this absence speaks volumes.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention

I'm split on whether an imposter framed Oswald or he shot Tippit; all I know is I find the two-jacket theory the least plausible of all three.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Andric Perez

[Gil Jesus]

I'm split on whether an imposter framed Oswald or he shot Tippit; all I know is I find the two-jacket theory the least plausible of all three.

I'll go you one better.

Oswald wasn't wearing the grey jacket on the afternoon of 11/22.

CE 2009 is a document of an interview with Buell Wesley Frazier. In it, Frazier told the FBI that when he gave Oswald a ride to Irving on the evening of 11/21, Oswald was wearing the grey jacket.

Frazier's recollection is supported by Marina Oswald's testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?

Mrs. OSWALD. On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that Exhibit 150?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems he had that jacket, also.

Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit 162?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

( 1 H 122 )

In addition, Charles Givens testified that he saw Oswald on the morning of the assassination at about 8:30 and that Oswald was wearing "a grey looking jacket."

( 6 H 349 )

So if Oswald wore the grey jacket to Irving and wore it to work the next morning, and left the building without a jacket:

a.) how did his blue jacket get to the TSBD ?

b.) how could the grey jacket be at Oswald's roominghouse for him to take on the afternoon of the 22nd ?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Ed LeDoux]

b.) how could the grey jacket be at Oswald's roominghouse for him to take on the afternoon of the 22nd ?

It can't.

Not without help.

Excellent post Gil!

Fraizer said only thing he remembers about oswalds clothing on the 22nd was he was wearing a gray jacket.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=783

Edited September 18, 2011 by Ed LeDoux

[Gil Jesus]

b.) how could the grey jacket be at Oswald's roominghouse for him to take on the afternoon of the 22nd ?

It can't.

Not without help.

Excellent post Gil!

Thanks Ed. But there's more evidence that Oswald wore the grey jacket to work that morning. It comes from the testimony of Marrion Baker:

Mr. BELIN. Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?

Mr. BAKER. At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.

( 3 H 257 )

The Commission tried to pass off the brown shirt ( CE 150 ) as the "light brown jacket" Baker saw, which is of course, preposterous. The grey jacket would have been easily mistaken for light brown by a witness who saw it only for a fraction of a second. But a button-down dark brown shirt ? No way. Commission counsel tried to bully Baker into saying that Exhibit 150 was the jacket he saw, but Baker relented:

Mr. BAKER. I could have mistaken it for a jacket, but to my recollection it was a little colored jacket, that is all I can say.

( ibid.)

One wonders why in light of Baker's testimony, he was not shown exhibit 162, the grey jacket, and asked if he could identify that jacket as the one Oswald was wearing.

But Commission counsel never did anything of the sort.

If Oswald had the grey jacket on when Baker saw him in the lunchroom, he had to have left the building wearing it.

That certainly creates a lot of questions regarding the observations of Mary Bledsoe.

BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS SAGA:

In her affidavit, Earlene Roberts said that when Oswald left the roominghouse, the jacket he had on was a "dark color".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0224a.htm

She also testified that the jacket was darker than CE 162:

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that.

( 6 H 439 )

And while Commission counsel showed Mrs. Roberts exhibit 162, the grey jacket, it never showed her exhibit 163, the darker blue jacket.

This just blows me away !! Here the Commission has two witnesses, Baker and Roberts, who describe jackets that match Commission exhibits, Baker's description matching exhibit 162, the grey jacket in the TSBD and Roberts matching exhibit 163, the blue jacket going out the door of the roominghouse, and NEITHER WITNESS IS SHOWN THE EXHIBIT THEY'RE DESCRIBING !!!

Instead, Baker is shown the brown shirt, CE 150 and Roberts is shown the grey jacket, CE 162.

And this doesn't come from one counsel member, this comes from two different attorneys, Belin and Ball.

Simply unbelieveable.

I have no formal training in courtroom procedure, IOW, I'm not a lawyer, but I have a hard time believing that this is an oversight on the part of two different Commission counsel.

Was counsel trying to hide the fact that they had the jacket issue half-assed backwards ? Was the grey jacket the one he wore to Irving and to work the next day and the blue jacket the one he changed into at his roominghouse ?

If that be the case, he didn't kill Tippit. How do we know ? Because the FBI examined the blue jacket for gunpowder residue and there was none.

So why would the FBI examine the blue jacket for gunpowder, which OFFICIALLY had nothing to do with either murder and was "found" 24 days after the assassination, and not the grey jacket, which the DPD claimed they recovered in a parking lot a block or so away from the crime scene just minutes after the crime ?

Doesn't make sense, does it ?

The Commission claimed that Oswald wore the darker blue jacket to work that morning, left it at the TSBD in flight from the murder scene, boarded a bus and a taxi in shirt sleeves, went to his room, put on the GREY jacket, then resumed his escape on foot, when he was stopped by Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit, who Oswald then gunned down in cold blood.

I know that earlier in this thread I gave the opinion that Oswald was wearing the grey jacket when he entered the Texas Theater, but the more I dig into this jacket issue, the more doubt rises in my mind that Oswald was wearing the grey jacket when he left his roominghouse.

Could it be that at the time of the Tippit murder, Oswald had been wearing the darker blue jacket ?

If so, the evidence indicates that

a.) he was innocent and

b.) Lammy's research is irrelevent.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Gil Jesus