David Josephs

Sure thing JR.... Be nice too if MR. P weighs in on Mr. Ayoob's conclusions but I imagine like most things there are 10 sides to the issue, each with their own expert.... so this too goes nowhere. And where is Jim F???? I don't think it works both ways... if the bullet exploded it did not blow out the opposite side of anything... if the damage in front and above the ear is connected to the hole so many claim to have seen in the back, then what? From what I've seen of witness testimony there is indeed a difference between the very back of the head and the top side so many put their hands... how there can be that much difference in witness recollection is astounding, but there none the less. I've been studying the xrays and photos trying to see if they make any sense, as well as Pat's F8 chapter trying to find a correct orientation. Unless they were completely breaking from procedure... the scallp is pulled forward over the face... Given we see the "flap" on the right side of the photo once the pulled forward skin is placed at the top of the photo... be interesting to see how far that one wide crack continues toward the right front... So I guess, given the questionable source of the autopsy photos, we cannot reconstruct what occurred from these photos/xrays. But given what the witnesses saw and say... that flap being opened or closed might make a large difference.

"Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?" Can not speak for Mr. Williams, but you may rest assured that I am still around, watching others go around (frequently in circles) about the bullet entrance to the top rear of the head as well as exactly how (and why) this FMJ bullet managed to fragment in the manner which it did. (Hint): A full review of the anterior/posterior X-ray, along with the lateral X-ray, along with the X-ray of the skull fragments; and the testimony of Dr. Humes (coupled with the autopsy report), and evaluation of the bullet fragments found in the front of the Limousine, will sufficient answer the questions of anyone who properly evaluates this evidence. Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally create such a wound as that suffered by JFK?----------Nope! Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally fragment in the manner of which this one did?-------Nope! Did the FMJ Carcano bullet to the top rear of JFK's head severely fragment?------------Yep! Is there a simple and fully explainable explanation as to why this bullet acted in this manner, contrary to what one would think of as "normal" for a FMJ Carcano bullet?--------------------------------------Yep! Would it be considered as somewhat "normal" for a FJM Carcano bullet to fragment as well as create the damage to the skull & brain, provided that it struck anyone else in a similar manner?-------------Yep! Would it be a complete waste of time to attempt to convince "Conspiracy Theorist" of the simplicity of the facts related to this bullet impact to the rear of the head of JFK and it's resulting fragmentation as well as damage to the brain & skull of JFK?------------------------------------------------------------Yep! In event that one ceases to deal in "theory" and thereafter actually evaluates the factual evidence, would they be considerably more likely to come to the understanding as to why this FMJ Carcano bullet created the majority of the damage attributed to it as a result of it's impact, to include the WHY? this bullet fragmented in the manner which it did?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yep! Well Mr. P, this is what I found an expert to write about FMJ bullets and the JFK assassination thanks to Pat Speer's website. the non-quoted text are Pat's words. Please help me understand why we should be reading this information with an air of disbelief... or is what being said correct? Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll." So here we have a respected gun expert and author laying it all out...Kennedy's large head wound is not at all what one would expect from the ammunition used in Oswald's rifle, should it have impacted as claimed by the likes of Olivier and Sturdivan. His words also suggest that, if the bullet impacted as proposed by Olivier and Sturdivan, and Kennedy's head exploded as a consequence of the temporary cavity created by the bullet, blood and brain matter would most certainly have sprayed back out the entrance. But Ayoob doesn't stop there... "The evidence does not rule out the possibility that a hyper-velocity rifle bullet evacuated the President's cranial vault without any other bullet hitting him in the head. The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. Ask any homicide detective if he's ever seen a .30/30 round blow a man's head up at 55 to 60 yards, exploding the calvarium up and away from the body proper. Ask any hunter of deer-size game if he's ever seen the same thing at that distance. It happens only at very close range with that ballistic technology. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle." Here Ayoob re-stresses the point. Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do. They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance. This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 "for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability as most of us would perceive that to be." Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI) in Concord, New Hampshire from 1981 to 2009, and he now directs the Massad Ayoob Group (MAG).[1] Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.[2] Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on the Sportsman Channel in the United States. While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case.[5] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former president of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4] Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as chairman of the Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators’ and Trainers’ Association, and is an instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.[5] Ayoob is of Arab descent.[6][7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Tom, First off why do you call it a "Carcano" bullet... there are 6.5mm FMJ bullets and Carcano rifles... so calling it a Carcano bullet seems to be your way of leading the discussion to your own conclusions. THAT rifle and THOSE bullets from the hulls found on the 6th floor were not fired at 12:30pm on 11-22-63 and there is absolutely no proof that it or they were. I'm sorry I cant recall WHY you believe that the same FMJ bullet that is NOT supposed to fragment, does so in the case of hitting JFK in the back of the head - if he was indeed hit there. And if it did indeed fragment enough to leave that trail of particles in the xray... what opened the flap over his right ear? Oh, I forgot, explaining would be a waste of time.... even though the answer is so simply and fully explainable... that allows us to understand how a FMJ bullet leaves a VAPOR trail of particles so small they couldn't even be picked out... and how that bullet, and only that bullet, behaved that way. A waste... as is discussing with you the value of the ballistic tests that you somehow interpret to mean that someone fired that rifle and those bullets that day and from that window. So either a FMJ bullet behaves completely contrary to how/why it was manufactured (exploding and fragmenting on impact)- because you say so... or it was not a FMJ bullet that hit JFK in the head and therefore not from one of the three hulls found. Either way you have a large opening/avulsion in the back of the head and a hinged opening above the right ear, minute amounts of bullet fragments and only 1 bullet to account for it all... a FMJ 6.5mm hull. and if it hit at the top of the head... how do you explain all the damage to the skull floor? and if the bullet does explode or fragment, why didn't the damage radiate from the entry point as opposed to only being on one side of the head? Finally, is it possible for you to simply answer the questions, given the expert you presentyourself to be? No CT accusations, rhetoric or BS... if you've posted the answer before, a link will do fine Why should we believe that FMJ bullets behaved completely opposite of their intent and if so, how do you account for the damage to the head as reported by those in Dallas within the first 30 minutes. thanks DJ

Bill - It would be interesting to hear what these same doctors think of what is shown on the Z film... Great question. Have/Had they even been shown this evidence? But I would like to understand how this bullet which basically disintegrated, blow out the back of the head. I started a thread asking that same question and concluding that there HAD to be more than one head shot if both front and back get blown out. Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear? And one more example of the SIDE OF THE HEAD versus the BACK OF THE HEAD It is amazing the contrast in location between BOH and SOH

In the video he claims this ambulance took JFK from Andrews to the White House... in fact even the news caster repeats that. It gets corrected but... Was there another ambulance, this ambulance maybe, that took him from Bethesda to the White House the next morning?... or is this simply mis-speaking?

That's kind of my point Cliff... don't the ballistics of the bullets and the visual evidence seriously contradict with regards to the headshot(s)? And if the bullets Oswald supposedly used do not do what we saw "One bullet could not do all this damage" then there HAD to be other ammunition involved. If the bullet exploded/was fragible then there HAD to be another shot to cause the other head injury be it the front one or the BOH. By definition these bullets lose their enertia within the target.. that's why a hole is not blown out the other side of a deer when shot with these types of bullets. Both the BOH blowout and frontal "flap" could have been caused by a shot from the front or back - and you're right, unless the actual brain was dissected and analyzed, we may never know. If this xray if real then the vapor trail of particles across the top of the skull is indicative of a frangible bullet, not a FMJ leaving particles as it slices thru the target...

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams? If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up. So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

Jim F wrote: The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible bullet exploded after entering his right temple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet Frangible: Designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety, to limit environmental impact, or to limit the shoot-through danger behind the intended target. Exploding: Similar to the incendiary bullet, this type of projectile is designed to explode upon hitting a hard surface, preferably the bone of the intended target. Not to be mistaken for cannon rounds or grenade with fuse devices, these bullets have only a cavity filled with a small amount of low explosive depending on the velocity and deformation upon impact to detonate. Usually produced for hunting airguns with the intent of increasing the bullets effectiveness. Jacketed Lead: Bullets intended for even higher-velocity applications generally have a lead core that is jacketed or plated with gilding metal, cupronickel, copper alloys, or steel; a thin layer of harder metal protects the softer lead core when the bullet is passing through the barrel and during flight, which allows delivering the bullet intact to the target. There, the heavy lead core delivers its kinetic energy to the target. DJ: "Back and to the left" and supposedly thru and thru Now maybe I just don't get it.... if it was a FMJ bullet we could expect it to go thru the skull as intended, and not fragment, disintegrate or explode. If this was an exploding/frangible bullet - which based on the particle trail (if the xray can be accepted as real) looks like it may have been, if it exploded.. what exactly was propelled thru the back of the head causing the gaping hole? thanks DJ

A better shot of the white car... seems to have had the time to back into its spot right in front of the emergency entrance... doubtful that other cars were already there for that maneuver (edit: my mistake... pilot car FOLLOWED the limo to Parkland so was not there before limo to park as they did... but still may be the car..) DJ

Maybe in this one? Not sure what I'm looking for though.... Maybe the white police car next to the limo?

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics. Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee. Excellent link Michael.... that weapon is very similiar to the 2004 patent application for the "ice" bullet gun earlier in this thread... even to the point that "multiple straws can be used"... except the new gun actually creates the slug as part of the process.... Bottom line - To dismiss technological solutions that appear "impossible" in present day is somewhat narrow minded imo.... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton. After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks His (James Callender) crowning success came with the exposure, in his pamphlet History of 1796, of a sexual relationship between Alexander Hamilton and a married woman, Maria Reynolds, the subsequent blackmail against Hamilton, and Hamilton's alleged financial corruption. Callender presented compelling evidence of adultery, but in 1797's Sketches of the History of America he wrote that the affair was merely a distraction from Hamilton's more nefarious offense: partnering with Reynolds' husband in corrupt financial dealings.[8] Hamilton vehemently denied being a party to any improper financial matter, although he confessed to the adultery. According to Callender, that was just a smokescreen. Although the financial charges were never proven, Hamilton never again held public office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thomas_Callender Callender eventually targeted Jefferson, revealing that Jefferson had funded his pamphleteering. After denials were issued, he published Jefferson's letters to him to prove the relationship. Later, angered by the response of Jefferson supporters, which included the smear that Callender had abandoned his wife, leaving her to die of a venereal disease,[15] Callender wrote in a series of articles that Jefferson fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings. "which helped unleash our modern scandal culture" - is this man just now waking up? Evidence that Nixon was corrupt and the Kennedy's fought fire with fire... and started a few fires on their own.... If this was the beginning of a series ultimately linking Nixon to the assassination thru Bush and Operation 40 so be it.... but it sure doesn't feel that way

Thanks for the high res enlargement. I once asked Harry about it, and he assured me the bright area was not retouched. Your enlargement plainly shows that was not so. I believe it was an open gate in the fence which had to be hidden. On the other side of it is the drain grate leading to the storm sewers, a site many believe held a gunman, who hid his rifle in the drain pipe and walked away after firing through the gate. Jack Jack... Above you write NOT RETOUCHED yet the text says it was RETOUCHED... ?? And if it was open, why didn't all the people we see there in yet another photo simply walk thru it? EDIT: mis read it...you say it was retouched... sorry I agree, it was retouched - just wondering why now. and From the 1967 view there doesn't appear to be a gate in the middle of that picket fence... Was this changed?

http://www.primary-surgery.org/ps/vol2/html/sect0017.html Would we consider Perry "inexperienced"??? OPENING THE TRACHEA If you are inexperienced, make a 5 cm vertical incision starting just below the patient’s cricoid cartilage, as in A, Fig. 52-4. When you have had several successes, make a transverse incision 5 cm long 2 cm below the border of his cricoid cartilage. Cut through the patient’s subcutaneous fat, and his cervical fascia ©. CAUTION! (1) From now on use blunt dissection. Use it to raise short flaps and expose his anterior jugular vein and the underlying muscles. Use blunt dissection to define and separate the fibrous median raphe between his right and left sternohyoid muscles. His sternothyroid muscles lie slightly deeper, find them and retract them laterally. You will now see the isthmus of his thyroid gland and part of his trachea. They vary considerably. If the isthmus of his thyroid is small, there is no need to divide it. If the isthmus of his thyroid is large and interferes with your approach to his trachea, divide it. Make a small horizontal incision through his pre–tracheal fascia over the lower border of his cricoid cartilage. Put a small haemostat into the incision and feel behind his thyroid isthmus and its fibrous attachment to the front of his trachea (D). When you have found the plane of cleavage, use blunt dissection to separate the isthmus from the trachea. Put a large haemostat on each side of the isthmus, and cut it. Later, oversew the cut surfaces or tie them (E). Put sutures into the skin edges ready to close the wound round the tube later. Insert a tracheal hook below his cricoid cartilage and pull his trachea forwards and upwards (not illustrated). Have a sucker and a catheter ready. CAUTION! Control all bleeding before you open the patient’s trachea. Cut the membrane below its second or third ring transversely, and keep the sucker near the opening. Then stand clear. If there is blood in his trachea, he will cough it everywhere. Turn a flap (F) containing his second tracheal ring downwards and insert the tube. The flap will act as a guide to direct the tube into his trachea and will make changing it easier. A flap largely eliminates the great danger of a tracheostomy, which is inability to replace the tube quickly when it has come out accidently. When the tube is safely in place, stitch the flap to his skin. CAUTION! (1) Don’t disturb his first tracheal ring. (2) Don’t remove any trachea. (3) Don’t incise more than 40% of the circumference of his trachea, or severe stenosis may follow. Inject 2 ml of lignocaine into the stoma in his trachea; he will tolerate the tube more easily with his mucosa anaesthetized.

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw. This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in" Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily. Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy? thanks DJ

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw. This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in" Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily. Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy? thanks DJ

Thanks Frank... Curious though... why not seal the building then go to the 6th floor window FIRST and work their way from there. They went floor by floor from the bottom up, other than Baker who of course found nothing but that unidentified man coming down the steps between the 3rd and 4th floors. Even Sawyer, who is there very early, simply runs up to the 4th floor with 2 other officers, looks around and comes down, alone... what was that??? The funneling of people to the TSBD conclusion was indeed very interesting in the moments after the assassination. Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. Well at least the Chief and the Sheriff got it right!

DH... didn't Hathcock usually shot from 500 to 2000 yards from his target... there was nothing to get away from in many cases. Besides, there is also the fact that on Houston, all eyes that followed JFK would be looking directly at the TSBD whereas down the road a bit all eyes on JFK makes it less likely that a 6th floor sniper would be seen or identified other than what might be considered "plants"... 30, 5'10", 165 lbs... and again... and again... and again. If he can't be placed at the window, and he can't, what does it matter what he MIGHT have done or SHOULD have done. The real assasins, who were in place and ready to fire from about 12:10 on (just about when JFK was supposed to pass by) waited until JFK was in the kill zone with the knowledge that a shooter would be no more than 20-40 yards away for the last 3-5 seconds of the DP trip. AND IT STILL TOOK A NUMBER OF SHOTS TO FINALLY HIT HIM IN THE HEAD.... So the real question is whether or not the back, throat and JC shots were intended or simply poor marksmanship?

that's a great point Pat.... "...which affords the sniper a chance to escape" Given the MASSIVE amount of incriminating evidence conveniently left behind the previous 3 months, and given the assumption that Oswald was indeed a LONE NUT ASSASSIN... the only inconsistency is his attempting to escape at all. The crazed, lone nut killer left himself COMLETELY DEFENSELESS by dropping the rifle with its one bullet left? Whether it be the 2nd floor or the roof of Dal-Tex - shooting down Elm not only is the best shot and escape location but conveniently lines up with a 6th floor SE corner shot (Dal-Tex roof that is). I seem to remember that Dal-Tex was "Searched" but very limited at best... anyone go up to the roof? My point being that a shooter there wouldn't even have to leave in a hurry like the mysterious men leaving the back of the TSBD right afterward... And let us not forget that while standing at the South face of the Picket Fence, JFK just gets closer and bigger with each second. DJ

Oswald was not at the 6th floor window when the car turned onto Houston or any other time after 11:55 that day. If he was, and was indeed a LONE ASSASSIN, then common sense does suggest he would have taken his first and best shot as JFK approached him I think this illustrates pretty well that as the limo approaches there is plenty of time in which the angle of the shot is steep enough to clear anything that may be in the way like the windshield or bow. The "Anomaly" would be that a triangulation of fire was awaiting him off Elm Street halfway down Dealey Plaza with a final gunman not 30 yards from him at the GK. David... first, place Oswald at the window when the shots were fired... if you can do that then we can talk about what he may or may not have done and why. If you can't get him there when the motorcade was SUPPOSED to have passed that window, in the midst of the other armed men seen on the 6th floor at the time, why bother talking about what he did there?

Thanks Bill... once again. DJ

Easy to see how your frame grab and my originals/enhancements are of the same quality... You're way smarter than that Duncan... I've seen you work with photos... if you have taken that frame and determined it is simply the back of his head and is NOT blocked out in that and many other frames... as opposed to Doug Horne with the access and the purpose and the resources... so be it. Covering up some things on the film to obscure reality versus the mass, synchronated changing of ALL the evidence Obscure the holes and eliminate the blood spray versus the clandestine acquisition, changing and replacing of many, many pieces of evidence. Definitely up the CIA's alley, yet why go thru all that troble when the first option accomplishes the same thing without all the legwork?

So Zapruder, Nix, Muchmoore, Altgens, Bronson, etc... were all altered???? Kind of hard to see how all of these were changed to obscure their being in the street, just to cover zapruder. I have seen that interview with Jean/Moorman... Don't know what to tell you other than moving them to the grass in every instance is a bit of a stretch... the mystery continues...

David, There is no black "square" What you are looking at is his hair. The square appearance on the particular area of the image which you posted, has been caused by someone over "enhancing" the image, causing mega pixelation and distortion of the image content. Whatever you say Duncan... this image was done to show the head travel and was not enhanced. And I thought it was Horne who saw the 35mm enlargements abd said that blcak swquare seemed to just hover over the frame as with a variety of other frames with black and white blobs covering the front and rear of his head.... Believe what you will... looks pretty obvious to me. I forget who posted the clear z337 frame saying "they missed this one" in the alteration.. Look at the original z317.. there's a blacked out area in the back of his head there as well..... Makes more sense to me to "cover it up" then to try and align each and every one of the OTHER photos and films you mention in that other thread you started.... But for you, or me, to definitively say one way or another is not possible at this point. DJ

Thanks Karl... can you post the question this drawing is in response to please.... they were well down the street from where those "X"s are and the dotted line indicates to me she moved. Even if she was in the street for a second, they were both back on the grass at the time of the photograph and well before that time as evident in a number of images I posted. DJ