Another proof the Zapruder film has been faked

[Josiah Thompson]

Honestly David, it's very difficult to tell what we are seeing in these frames. In 335, Jackie's while glove may be hiding the lower part of JFK's head and giving the impression that the upper back part of his head is exploded backwards. Even on the MPI transparencies, it was extremely difficult to tell. You understand that I don't doubt for a minute the descriptions we get from Parkland. That we don't see exactly the same thing in the Zapruder film means only that all this was not visible in the milliseconds after the 313 impact. That's all.

JT

Josiah,

Cheers for your acceptional sparing efforts... but he aint gonna learn what he dont wanna know....

Not really sure why the discussion must center on z317 when z323 is the most obvious representation of this black-out...

and if deep in shadow, what is that white spot on his jacket collar where there should be nothing but shadow?

Does it not seem obvious that if we see the back of the head avulsed in 335/337... that this was present at 323?

At the bottom left of this black area is a portion of JFK's skull which has been blown out yet not in deep shadow...

Z337 makes the blow out to the back of the head obvious and also makes the xrays offered useless... his face and forehead where not affected yet the xrays show massive defects in these areas...

This was why Jackie's statement was removed... "from the front, nothing"

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT

[David Josephs]

Appreciate that position indeed....

Yet... it remains very difficult to imagine that the one piece of evidence offering the most definitive view of the assasiantion is authentic...

when so many less significant pieces are obviously not authentic...

In your heart of hearts... with virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald questionable

we would be allowed to see a film of what actually happened?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; what you are saying is that picture 203 was taken at a time when the President's car had actually gone down Elm Street to a point past this tree that stands at the corner here, in the grassy area, outlined by Elm Street and a little street that runs down by the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Z342... Altgens at 15 feet from JFK

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

'nuf said...

cheers JT...

Edited January 30, 2012 by David Josephs

[Josiah Thompson]

"Yet... it remains very difficult to imagine that the one piece of evidence offering the most definitive view of the assasiantion is authentic... when so many less significant pieces are obviously not authentic..."

Well, it might be the ridiculous system that placed the film of a homicide in LIFE's hands within 24 hours plus the proliferation of copies. It might be that this meant that this film ended up being protected from alteration by its unusual history and provenance. Would there really have been any real challenging of received opinion in this case if it weren't for the existence and survival of the Zapruder film? Challenges to the single-bullet theory? head shot from the rear, etc.?

By the way, both what Altgens and Brehm report is perfectly understandable when we understand they are talking not about 313 but about what happened less than a second later. This is what I'm working on.

JT

Appreciate that position indeed....

Yet... it remains very difficult to imagine that the one piece of evidence offering the most definitive view of the assasiantion is authentic...

when so many less significant pieces are obviously not authentic...

In your heart of hearts... with virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald questionable

we would be allowed to see a film of what actually happened?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; what you are saying is that picture 203 was taken at a time when the President's car had actually gone down Elm Street to a point past this tree that stands at the corner here, in the grassy area, outlined by Elm Street and a little street that runs down by the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

Z342... Altgens at 15 feet from JFK

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

'nuf said...

cheers JT...

[Cliff Varnell]

Would there really have been any real challenging of received opinion in this case if it weren't for the existence and survival of the Zapruder film? Challenges to the single-bullet theory?

The SBT was demolished by Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi '65-'66 on the basis of the clothing evidence.

Their analysis of the clothing-holes/T3-backwound has never been challenged -- non sequiturs don't count as a challenge, Tink.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/31st_Issue/vs_wounds.html

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

Edited January 31, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This has to be one of your weakest performances ever! By discussing frame 317, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the black patch is missing from frames 314, 315, and 316. The black patch is present in all of them. I have no idea why you also cite 312 and 313, which I do not find at the link you cite. But you are turning into a caricature of yourself. I think you had better back up and get a running start all over. David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

Edited January 31, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

If you go to <http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5803&fullsize=1> you will find 310, 311, 312, 313. The reason I cited 312 and 313 was because the shadow on the back of JFK's head looks the same in all these photos. Hence, your claim that it shows a "black patch" is just false.

You say, "David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed." No, I didn't notice. I thought David and I were just discussing several points. Unlike you, I don't see every discussion... every conversation... as a threat to my manhood. What on earth are you so afraid of that makes the world appear filled with people conspiring against you and every discussion a combat to the death. Once again, I ask the questions you've left unanswered in this discussion:

And what of the arguments presented? What about Lady #8 and the perfect alignment of her tan purse with what you have been calling the "nebula?" What about the photo posted that showed Billy Lovelady wearing a shirt on the afternoon of November 22nd that matched the shirt shown in the Altgens photo? What of your inability to answer Craig's question about Lovelady's purported v-neck T-shirt? What about Pat Speer's point that you mistook a shadow on Lovelady for a v-neck T-shirt? What of the point that Oswald's supposed v-neck T-shirt is just an ordinary T-shirt that had been grabbed by the cops? You claim incorrectly that the "nebula" blocks Kennedy's left ear from sight. Nonsense. When you're called on it, you can't defend it. So what do you do? You retreat to la-la land? The people who point out your errors are part of some grand conspiracy. And the photos... the photos that show clearly you're wrong... they've been messed with. You keep using the same escape hatch. They're conspiring against me, Mommy, and the photographs have been faked up!!

JT

This has to be one of your weakest performances ever! By discussing frame 317, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the black patch is missing from frames 314, 315, and 316. The black patch is present in all of them. I have no idea why you also cite 312 and 313, which I do not find at the link you cite. But you are turning into a caricature of yourself. I think you had better back up and get a running start all over. David Josephs is doing quite a good job of defeating you, in case you haven't noticed.

Professor Fetzer, Ph.D.'s, self-proclamations of "victory" are about as reliable as a Newt Gingrich stump speed (nor does the resemblance end there!). With respect to his ever-mountiing series of claims, eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. For weeks, he has been claiming that the ordinary version of the MPI video offers some confirmation for the claimed 317 "black patch." For example, among the specious self-congratulations Fetzer sends himself below is this: "And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too." You can go to Robin Ungar's very excellent web site and check out frames from the MPI video by clicking on: http://www.jfkassass...5804&fullsize=1 Right around there you can also find other Zapruder frames from the MPI video. What does the back of JFK's head look like in Z 317? Exactly like what the back of JFK's head looks like in 312, 313, 314, 314, 315, 316... there's a big old shadow there that matches other shadows in the frames.

Confronted with the actual frames, Fetzer can now argue either (1) Robin Ungar has messed with the frames. OR (2) The frames don't show what they clearly show. OR (3) It doesn't matter becuase the version of 317 in LA trumps all this. Most likely, we will not hear this claim made again.

JT

Calli,

You really need to find yourself another client, because this guy has turned into a joke. He long

ago sold his soul for a mess of pottage. If you are unfamiliar with our history, here's a sketch:

First I defeated him over Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, which he endorsed even while he was

trashing the book, by pointing out that, if Aguilar was right, then the Zapruder film was FAKED.

Then I defeated him over the Umbrella Man, where, after he had gone out of his way to endorse

Louis Witt as the Umbrella Man, I pointed out that Louis Witt was also a LIMO STOP witness.

And I defeated him over his abandonment of the "double-hit" account in SIX SECONDS (1967),

by noting that Richard Feynman, Nobel-Prize winning physicist, had independently confirmed it.

And I defeated him again over Clint Hill's testimony of nearly 50 years, of pushing Jackie down,

lying across their bodies, peering into the fist-sized wound, and "tumbs down" before the TUP.

And I defeated him again about Chaney's motoring forward, which was confirmed by Chief Curry,

Forrest Sorrels, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Clint Hill, and even Roy Kellerman. Unbelievable!

And again about the black spot on frame 317, observing that it is present on 3rd generation copies

of the film and in MPI's own motion picture, which means it should be on The 6th Floor slides, too.

And now he comes here again to insist that the small, white spiral nebula is NOT THERE when it

OBVIOUSLY is there, right where JFK's left ear would be if his left ear were visible. (See below.)

Where Doug Weldon, in his brilliant chapter on the Lincoln limousine, explained how perfectly

the hole aligns with a trajectory from the above-ground sewer opening and the throat wound.

Where Jim Lewis has fired high-velocity rounds through junked cars and found that they not only

make a spiral nebula of the kind in the Altgens but the sound of a firecracker as they pass through.

But Tink will admit NONE OF THIS. He seems to believe his silver-tongue is sufficient to undo any

quantity of evidence. Whom should we believe: Tink or our lying eyes? That's his on-going refrain.

JT

I always love it when the troops show up in force. It didn't matter which scan of the Altgens

we began with, since Robin has provided even better, which reinforce the point. Thompson

even congratulated him for posting these superior photographs. But look at what they show!

Tink doesn't like our starting point. So what? Who cares? I knew this would be examined in

detail. And, as in the case of the bullet hole in the windshield, what Robin has been posting

affords a closer look at the images, WHICH CONFIRM THE HOLE AND THE ALTERATIONS.

I love these arguments about how something could not have happened WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY

DID HAPPEN. Does anyone looking at this scan have any doubt that one or even more of

the figures who were to DM's left/front (our right/front) have had their images obfuscated?

The ops were tracking Lee and knew where he was every moment of them. How could they

do otherwise? So when they saw the Altgens, THEY KNEW THEY HAD A PROBLEM, which

the accommodated by altering the images. That they could do it follows from THEY DID!

Robin has made a number of highly useful contributions here, including his observation,

in response to Gary Mack--they REALLY ARE pulling out all the stops on this one!--that

an expensive image he had obtained WAS NOT WELL-DEFINED IN THE DOORWAY AREA.

How much proof do we need that the Altgens has been altered? And what other reason

could they have had for doing that than that someone was in the photograph who wasn't

supposed to be there? I know we aren't all rocket scientists, but this situation is obvious.

And having a lot of unworthy sources support a bad argument does not turn it into a good

one. That Tink, Glenn Vilkund, Craig Lamson, and Steve Duffy are here singing from the

same song book does not inspire my confidence in their dedication to the search for truth.

[Craig Lamson]

This has to be one of your weakest performances ever! By discussing frame 317, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the black patch is missing from frames 314, 315, and 316.

Actually Patrick Block, who you love to mention, tells us the "patch" starts at 315.....

I guess this "I see it just believe me" thing you have going is not all it's cracked up to be. Be nice if you all "see" it the same. ROFLMAO!

[Calli Robertson]

Responses in red:

oh-my goodness, ya got something to sell son, just sell it! Don't be offended cause some don't buy what you're peddling....

Nothing to sell, not sure how anyone can be buying.

A "few" facts, there's plenty of websites providing JFK assassination image related imagery, hundreds, thousands even .gif animations, thousands upon thousands, (perhaps a hundred thousand) of assassination (of dubious quality and lineage) images posted, reviewed and opined upon. Unfortunately, most of it, if not ALL of it: a complete waste of time. Why? Ya see dude, these photo-film website "treasures", although put together by thoughtful folks, are a waste of time, not to mention bandwidth when it comes to documenting the actual-provable-legitimate assassination photographic record. They opine, undocumented, unprovable opinion, simple as that!

Well, it's nice to know some are making the effort whether you think most, or all, of the record was altered, or not. Now, every piece of photographic evidence IS 'out there', no matter the lineage. By that reason, they are documenting the altered versions, making them 'proof' of alteration. Now, apart from NOT being able to prove they were altered, then how is it a waste of time?

Now, a case in point, a recent thread concerning a documented, 3rd generation, 35mm blowup of the 8mm Zapruder film, bought and paid for, delivered by NARA to a "professional" Hollywood based group with, and get this, son: a provable and documented lineage DIRECT off of the alleged in-camera original Zapruder 8mm film stored at the National Archives. Now that is something you can sink your research teeth and skills into, yes?

I still like that 'alleged in-camera' bit...

There's all sorts of flash-in-the-pan, DP film-photo commentators around, especially when it's desirous to support the current, 6th floor museum film-photo record... and, I'll add, nor is it the 6th Floor's responsibility to attest to and/or prove the validity of the images in their charge -- not their job...

True, almost everyone in here. This includes yourself. I also don't care what the 6th Floor thinks.

So my friend.... shell out a grand, get yourself that 3rd generation, 35mm Z-film, get someone competent to analyze the frames, do the work, post your results with affidavits -- no sense whining over spilled milk.

No. $1000 bucks for a 3rd generation 'ALLEGED' in-camera original? That's nuttier than a squirrels dinner, old man. Besides, how much image quality is lost from a hi-res scan-PNG that can be posted to anyone of these 'useless' websites? I came looking for answers to questions I posted previously, on the photos and films, hoping someone would come forwards with some logical scenarios, so far nothing. That's NOTHING, in case you missed that one too. Instead, I get the predictable 'photos are useless' response, then I'm pointed towards buying an over-priced copy of an alleged Z-film. Great.

In response to my first post, you should have said said 'No', it would have saved half an hour of my life trying to make this reply seem less condescending than yours.

[Calli Robertson]

Calli,

This is one of those cases where I can say, "Asked and answered". Next you'll be telling us that there really was no LIMO STOP and that the BLACK PATCH in frame 317 is a figment of our imagination. And do you REALLY THINK that they would have REMOVED THE LIMO STOP and CHANEY MOTORING FORWARD from some films BUT NOT OTHERS? You need to give all of this some serious thought, because the superficiality of your reasoning is embarrassing. Bernice, James, and others have posted a lot of evidence you need to study, because your views are not supportable.

Jim

I've already given it some serious thought, thanks. I'll stick by my conclusions. You have NO unimpeachable proof that Chaney passed the limo before the triple underpass. The 'other' evidence being posted is non-existant, ie: Simmons obviously referring to Hargis, Zapruder being taken grossly out-of-context re: his film ID. It still doesn't help you. You write, above, about Chaney's removal from 'some films' like it is a certainty. I beg to differ. You have zero proof ANY film alteration happened to remove him. I have had even less comeback from anyone on the film questions I put down. Why do you think the technical guys are steering clear of backing you up, or trying to explain it to me, save whining about alteration? Simple, they won't touch it. YOUR view is lacking support.

As for the limo, there is no doubt that it slowed down, that much is certain, whether it stopped completely is debatable.

As for the 'black patch' in frame 317? I'm not qualified to determine what I see. Possible wound at rear? Not sure, as I've said, I'm not qualified. I'm just 'opine' like most folks, apparently. I'm using Image Analyzer, nice head's up from John Dolva...thanks, on various sizes of screen from 17"-50".

Thanks,

Calli.

[John Dolva]

Interesting Calli. ( of course all credit for the program goes to its dedicated creator, pretty amazing proggie. My way of supporting him is to promote it. I'm glad it is found useful. ) Unfortunately there is no linux version, but if I was using it today I would create a 'depthmap' (grayscale copy) and use the color image as texture to use the 3d plugin and set the scale to various numbers (and use the various color mapping features to spread various image values (for different textures) and probably use gauraud smoothing and turn the 3d model to study the 'patch' and see how it differs from other areas (on what is likely an already thresholded or compressed values image.)

edit add: as it uses 0 as black it is best seen from the back (the model) and to avoid having to enable a couple of things in the menu to be able to do this just invert the depthmap or z-buffer (grayscale 0 > 255) so the texture is 'draped' over the inverted grayscale (black is now 255). An anomaly in the 'patch' compared to whatever else is on the image should be easily seen.. If it sucks up to much processing power a crop'll deal with that.

Edited February 5, 2012 by John Dolva