Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

Pat,

I had a debate on another forum (not related to JFK BTW) about the back of the head photographs.It was my opinion that when confronted that a Forensic Panel concluded that the photograph was not tampered with...I stated that the forgers could have taken a picture of a picture,which the tampering would not be evident.I still stand by this assessment.

Edited by Michael Crane
Corrected the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head).

But in the version you posted above, we can clearly see most/many of the individual hairs on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area. So that's obviously not a "black patch" there. (Or did some clever fellow using Paint Shop decide to fake the picture by adding in the individual hairs on JFK's cranium? Maybe some CTer can advance that theory now.) :)

BTW, those individual hairs are also easily visible in a couple of the black-and-white autopsy photos I've seen of the back of JFK's head as well. And one of those pictures I have on my computer is (I think) a second-generation print sent to me by researcher John Fiorentino several years ago. The picture, as I understand it, was sent to John by David Belin. (Forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption, John. I discuss that photo here [two-thirds of the way down the page]).

But even that version you posted, Micah, will still probably not sway the opinion of some of those "black patch" CTers, because there's still a little bit of a dark area in the lower-right. So some CTers can still cling to the "black patch" theory even with that "brightened up" version of the photo (even though some of the exact same type of "blackness" can be seen in various other portions of the photo too).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Isn't having an entry wound near the EOP is just as bad as having a big exit wound there? There's not enough damage to the cerebellum to warrant such a deflection, so the bullet must've just grazed it. Therefore, the large head wound had to be created by a separate shot. And we have mountains of evidence for the EOP wound. The EOP wound was the official story for a long time, and was always the official story for the doctors who handled the body and made the records. Other autopsy witnesses mention it too.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

DVP,

This photo of the back of JFK's head just doesn't match other photographs we have of the back of JFK's head -- that's my main problem with this discourse so far.  

I posted an alternate photo suggesting the back of JFK's head was blasted away, but you dismissed it promptly.  Well, let's try again with another model, this one modeled on the words of Dr. McClellan of Parkland Hospital.   Also, let's look at his WC testimony.  It seems impossible, IMHO, to reconcile the good doctor's words with the photograph you keep suggesting was JFK's head.

SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out....

To illustrate this better, I attach a photo of the clay model of McClelland's words.  It is obvious from this clay model that it can never match the intact and tidy back-of-head that you and others here claim is JFK's head.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

jfkbulletheadwound.jpg

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Pat,

Why did you crop the bottom portion off?

Anyway, to see whether or not there is a 3D effect, one really needs to look at the photo pair with a stereoscope.

I didn't crop it. Groden cropped the second BOH photo when he published it in The Killing of A President, from which this scan was made. I simply matched up the two photos as best I could and made a morph. As the morph shows the area in question (the supposed matte) there was no need for me to spend the time and money to create a scan from the full-sized picture subsequently published by Groden (in his ridiculously over-priced book Absolute Proof.)

As far as the stereoscope... you're quite incorrect. Groden and Mantik have claimed the central part of the photo on the back of the head appears flat through a stereoscope, because it is a matte, a photographic patch that is identical on the two photos. The morph shows that the central part of the two photos are not identical, and that there is a subtle shift in the perspective on the back of the head consistent with the rest of the photos, and that, in any event, it does not simply lay there flat, as it would if it were the same exact image taken from the same exact angle. It is, in fact, "absolute proof" that Groden and Mantik spewed nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

DVP,

This photo of the back of JFK's head just doesn't match other photographs we have of the back of JFK's head -- that's my main problem with this discourse so far.  

I posted an alternate photo suggesting the back of JFK's head was blasted away, but you dismissed it promptly.  Well, let's try again with another model, this one modeled on the words of Dr. McClellan of Parkland Hospital.   Also, let's look at his WC testimony.  It seems impossible, IMHO, to reconcile the good doctor's words with the photograph you keep suggesting was JFK's head.

SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound?

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out....

To illustrate this better, I attach a photo of the clay model of McClelland's words.  It is obvious from this clay model that it can never match the intact and tidy back-of-head that you and others here claim is JFK's head.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

jfkbulletheadwound.jpg

Paul: Please email me at DSL74@Cornell.edu   I have a question. Thanks. DSL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head).

That "version" of the BOH photo was admittedly created by the way the doctors pulled and held the scalp over the open wound

The impossible large black "sharpie" patch over JFK's head can be seen on the nth generation zframes...

When the rest of the blacks on this frame behave as they should, yet the black over the right rear of JFK's head forms the shape of a square, colored directly onto the frame.

This I believe is 323...

As you can see in the large image, the square in no way matches the contours of JFK's head, and unlike the black around Jackie's face, cannot be "contrasted" away.
If it were simply the shadow, it would behave like the Jackie shadows...  it doesn't 'cause it can't.

"Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know..."

Here's what it looks like on the film...  like a black square hovering over the exit area...

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as the stereoscope... you're quite incorrect.

No, what I said is correct. In your morphed image there is no way to tell if the lower area of the stereo pair are views from different angles or from different (panned) positions. (Or something else.) Plus the bottom is missing.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Josephs said:

The impossible large black "sharpie" patch over JFK's head can be seen on the nth generation zframes.

David J.,

Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch".

From a 2015 discussion.....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?....

Z-Film-Clint-Hill.png


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge)....

Z-Film-BOH-Comparison--Clint-Hill-And-JFK.png

Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.

[...]

And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head.

Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers?

It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED!

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving credit where it is obviously due, David, that was one hell of a smack you gave that grand slam. I could hear it way over where I was running my crab traps (and I wasn't even on the Internet!). They tell me the ball left the stadium so fast that it began to unravel & resembled a small meteor entering the atmosphere as gravity pulled it down. I wonder if it landed on the head of the 1st Z-film 'black patch' proponent.

It's always great to see a dedicated researcher step up to the plate & do his/her own visuals analysis & not lean on self-proclaimed 'experts'. This isn't the first time you've caught things that have been overlooked by many others over the years, David. I don't expect it to be the last either.

I hear lots of crickets in the distance. You just may have astounded with such efficiency & effectiveness that all the air of your detractors has left their bodies, rendering them completely unable to respond?

Stranger things have happened.

Keep on keeping on, Mr. Von Pein!

Brad Milch

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brad:

Are you serious?  I feel like Oskar Werner at the end of the courtroom scene in the film of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. 

You are going to compare an internet reproduced series of frames from god knows what a generation of Z film to what the Wilkinsons have done with a 6 K scan of a third generation copy projected on a wide screen auditorium?

You have to be  joking.  They are not remotely similar to each other. I have seen the Wilkinson scan.  In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else. And it is as David Josephs describes it.  And DVP should have asked to have seen it before he shot off his mouth and his typing fingers.  But, IMO, he probably did not originate this either.  He probably got it from Duncan or one of the ersatz named trolls on another forum.  I learned many eons ago that DVP does very little, if any, original work.  He just roams around like McAdams and scoops up stuff without every analyzing it before he dumps it here.  All in order to create new installments on his site.  (BTW he did a similar scam when Speer found a very likely area where the bullet hit JFK at the base of the head.  He pointed somewhere else and said, "What about there?"  It was not even close to what Pat had done.  But that is what he is here for, to confuse.) 

I myself am an agnostic on the issue. But the Wilkinson work is very interesting. I talked about the final obstacles they face on BOR. You should list to it.  Then you would not be  misled by Davey's fiasco, which recalls the B & W Z film where you can see the SS agent shooting Kennedy.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
 

David J.,

Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch".

From a 2015 discussion.....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?....

Z-Film-Clint-Hill.png


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge)....

Z-Film-BOH-Comparison--Clint-Hill-And-JFK.png

Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.

[...]

And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head.

Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers?

It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED!

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

 

LMAO! debunked? debunked? Don't give up that fry cooking day job of yours Von Pein. You haven't a clue, nor the sources to make statements like "debunked." Son, I doubt you know the difference between 16mm film and digital videotape. Give it a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's see if the "Black Patch" conspiracy clowns can somehow get around Robin Unger's interesting GIF clip which toggles back and forth between Zapruder frames 312 and 317 --- which, of course, is a comparison between a frame that was exposed in Zapruder's camera BEFORE President Kennedy was struck in the head (Z312) and another frame exposed in Mr. Z's camera AFTER the President was hit in the head with a bullet (Z317). Did the film-fakers decide to paste in a "black patch" over JFK's head at a point in time on the film which was BEFORE he was even struck by the fatal bullet? ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html#Comparing-Z312-And-Z317

ROBIN UNGER SAID:

Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar....

Z312-And-Z317-Motion-Clip.gif


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision....

"JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet."

And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. ... One example [being] frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black [in Z275] as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:


Z-Film-BOH-Comparison--Clint-Hill-And-JFK.png
 


No DVP, there is no debunking. Look.....

First, let's compare JFK's, Jackie's, and Clint Hill's hair colors. Here they are together in a single photo::

60f53ce65e746c2e300af3d1405ce065


Clint Hill's hair is MUCH darker than both JFK's and Jackie's. Indeed, it is close to being black. Jackie and JFK's hair colors are brown. JFK's hair is noticeably lighter than Jackie's.

Okay, now let's look at a fair Z317 comparison:

kennedys_hair_colors.jpg

Zoom in if necessary.

Now do a fair comparison, where the sun is not shining on either his or her hair. Compare the darkness of the hair on the back of JFK's head to that of Jackie's hair. JFK's hair is MUCH darker than Jackie's, and in fact is black! Even though, as we saw above, in reality JFK's hair is lighter than Jackie's!

Granted, Clint Hill's hair does look very dark in the Z frames. But that's because his hair IS very dark.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about that Z312/317 comparison, Sandy? Do you really think somebody put a black patch over the back of JFK's head in Z312---before the time of the fatal head shot? (Those film-fakers were thorough, weren't they?)

And they must have also painted in the black blob in Z311 too....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg

And in Z310....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z310.jpg

And 309....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z309.jpg

(Should I keep going back to the beginning of the film?)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I learned many eons ago that DVP does very little, if any, original work.

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Even though I've made a half dozen requests, he [DVP] still will not tell us his "expert" qualifications in regard to the JFK assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've never once in my life ever said I was any kind of a JFK "expert". Never. And I've never said I am a "researcher" either. Because I'm really not. I'm just a person interested in JFK, his life, and his death, and I choose to post a lot of stuff about JFK on my sites.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I make no claim to be a serious researcher, and Davey-poo does.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an absolute lie right there. And Puffer surely knows it.

I have never ever "claimed" to be a "serious researcher". In fact, I like to stay away from that particular word--"researcher". I'd rather consider myself an "interested party with some common sense when it comes to properly evaluating the evidence in the JFK murder case".


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You have never told us the magic key to telling the difference between real evidence and evidence set up to frame someone.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Anybody can claim "THE EVIDENCE IS ALL FAKE".

But that's simply a crutch used by CTers (and defense lawyers like Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck in the O.J. Simpson case) because they know they don't have anything else they CAN argue. Because if the evidence is not fake, then Oswald The Resident Patsy is guilty. Period.

It's a cop-out to bellow about "fake" evidence at every turn in the road, Garry. Can't you see that it's merely a cop-out utilized by desperate CTers looking for any excuse to set LHO free?

Plus, there are Oswald's own ACTIONS to carefully consider and evaluate too. That's apart from the physical evidence that LHO left behind in both of the murders. Oswald ACTED like a guilty person, didn't he?

Do innocent people poke cops in the face and exclaim "It's all over now" and then pull out a gun?

It's the physical evidence PLUS Oswald's own guilty-like actions that--together--spell out the answers in the JFK and Tippit cases. And if Oswald wasn't working alone on 11/22/63, then his co-plotters need a new line of work --- because those guys were worthless to Oswald on November 22 in Dallas.

And the Warren Commission had absolutely NOTHING to do with either of the following two very important things:

1.) The collection of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's movements and actions on November 21 and 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
September 3-4, 2015

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1014.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...