Craig Lamson

Lee, feel free to post any photos used by the media that you suspect have been altered. You HAVE been proven wrong Pat...that you wont admit it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. You were the perfect dupe in all of this...you thought you, along with White and Dolva had made this startling discovery based totally on ignorance...and you are plying this ignornace for all its worth. And looking more and more like a nutjob with each passing post. So please...PROVE you are right..come up with ANYTHING that you can claim is hanging over the side of the limo, and more importantly over the second chrome strip on the body, becusse if you want to continue to beat this dead horse thats what you will need. Physics DEMAND that an object be OUTSIDE the limo and OVER the lower chrome strip for it to be dark.... Balls in YOUR court...

LOL! Just say you don't understand and at least be honest about it.. sheesh! BTW, the WC photo shows you EVERYTHING you need to know when dealing with a claim that the dark spot in the lower chrome strip is a shadow or a reflection of the seat, hand or what ever. This is a slam dunk. You have been dunked. Period.

No the lower strip of molding is a triangle...none of it faces UP...all of the molding side that we see in the image faces towards the photographer. For ANYTHING to be reflected in that strip it MUST be actually hanging over the top of that piece of molding...putting it well outside of the limo..kind of like Hills foot. Its impossible for ANYTHING inside the limo..hand, seat whatever to be reflecting in the second strip of molding. Period. Full stop. End of story.

I guess I did not make myself clear enough... No John they do not reflect "because" they are black but rather because of their position relative to the trunk lid, the camera and the sky. They appear black inthe reflection because they are black. So please make me a drawing that shows HOW seat can reflect in a chrome strip that is angled towards the camera and not upwards like the trunk.

Sigh... They ARE the reflections of the handgrips...and yes EVERYONE who has a clue understands such. Lets review and perhaps you too can become an intelligent lighting Borg. From the camera angle in this image the highly reflective surface of the limo trunk "sees' the wide open sky. Its the wide open sky that is giving the black surface of the trunk the near white look. Why? Because the trunk is just like a mirror. It is not rendered near white because it is in full sun ( which it is). It is rendered near white because of what it reflects. (Which would be the sky) Product photography lighting 101. The handrails appear darker than the surrounding white area because they are BLACK and they are reflected in the trunk of the limo. Period. Full stop. End of Story. Pure reflectance...no shadows. I understand this stuff VERY well John, its my stock in trade... http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310

What is what John? Your messages seem to be coming from outer space. Can you be a bit more specfic?

It is what it is...and yes WE..that is those you actually UNDERSTAND what is happening in the photo in question KNOW its not possible AT ALL for the black object to be a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. You and other want to question that, be my guest. However, the rule of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection cannot be broken. 'given you the basis for self discovery on the the issue of lighting reflective surfaces and the rest is up to you. Either you and others can grasp the concept or not. But believe me the rest of us Borgs ( at lleast those who understand the concepts of lighing reflective surfaces for photography) KNOW its not a shaodw or a reflection.

My stand on this was made pretty clear in an post up thread...based on the images and now the Hills statments its appears to me the most likely "thing" for the blob to be is Hillls foot. Its also totally clear to me that the blob IS NOT a SHADOW, which in reading this very entertaining thread became the lynch pin piece of "evidence" for it to JFK's hand. Its also been entertaining to watch you shuck and jive once you threw your hat into the 'its a hand" ring. I was very amused as you decided to questions Hills statement because it contradicted your position that it was a hand...very funny stuff. As to the press changing the photo..sure they did...it appears they retouched the image beyond simple dodging. Not unusual at the time for a publication to retouch images so they would reproduce on crappy paper and on web printing presses. Many times from even worse quality wire photo originals. You don't like the fact that they modifed the original? Its a fact of life. A publication is not a historical document, and as long as the original image is un touched so what? Just wondering, did you get this bent out of shape when whatever publication it was (newsweek maybe) retouched that picture it ran on the cover of Condi Rice and made her look dark and evil? Or the X over the vice president on CNN and on and on and on...? The media dishonest and deceptive? Welcome to the real world.

What? you guys too old or too out of shape to try and hang your foot over the arm of a chair. Just did it here and its really no problem, actually its about the only way your foot would be placed when you are in a similar position. So how about either of you giving us any explanation for what IS hanging over the side of the Limo...we know its not a shadow or a dark reflection of anything...I would say that also a fair request....

Lets start with the right side image of the pillar. The rounded corner at the top goes dark ...because dark is being reflected in the chrome. In this case the dark is the darker blue of the sky at the zenith. This is not uncommon to see the sky gradate from lighter at the horizon ( due to seeing through more of the atmosphere and pollutants) and darker at the zenith. This is simply REFLECTED in the chrome. Now for the small chrome strip beside the window on the far side of the car...it is not dark because it is in shadow, but rather that it is angled in such a manner that what is reflected in it is the dark interior of the car. Lets move the the left hand image. Nothing that darkens the chrome is a shadow but rather SOMETHING DARK, like the seat or the coat sleeve that is being REFLECTED in the chrome. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Of course that has been my point all along, that a shadow from the seat CANNOT cause the chrome to be dark...it HAS to be a reflection or an object blocking the chrome from the camera. As to the foot/ hand I'm not 100% certain its a foot but based on other images its appears to be the most likely option. One thing is for certain...the dark area is NOT a shadow. Some object HAS to be in place over the chrome or something DARK has to be reflected into the chrome. Since there is nothing dark to reflect into the chrome it has to be an object OVER the chrome. If this is JFK's hand then what is HANGING OVER THE SIDE OF THE CAR? His Elbow? That would be a neat trick. Bill has a very valid point...you need good images to study or you are just spinning your wheels. And You also need to understand the light and how photography works if you want to make any meaningful studies. At least you seem willing to learn. Jack on the other hand.....

Again John, thank you for making my point,,,again...the chrome is not being made dark by a shadow. Period. There is noting in the Miller image to reflect dark in the chrome strip on the side of the body...nothing. In any instance a shadow from the seat WILL NOT MAKE THE CHROME DARK! Believe what you want, I know better. Anyone with any experience lighting chrome for photography knows better. You want to make it dark you either have to relfect bard into the chrome or place an object between the chrome and the camera. Blood...there is no evidence that I am aware that a large stain of blood was running down the side of the4 limo in this location. Show me some evidence ... until then we are left with it being a foot and we can throw this silly hand business in the dustbin. You are grasping at straws...

There was no mention as to what the standing height of the camera was in the duplicate film test as compared to Zapruder's. As you know, the higher the camera - the more distance between curbs will be present. Zapruder also had his camera on auto-zoom ... did Chris do the same? Despite a 'Rush to Judgment' on Jack's part to claim something is afoul ... some causes for the alignment differences was not considered ... and if considered - they certainly were not discussed. However, these variances can be rectified by simply scaling the overlay correctly. Hopefully Chris will see this animation and realize that his film wasn't all that bad at attempting to duplicate Zapruder's film. Bill Miller Its also not a good idea to compare the recreation film to a frame from the Costella combined edit version of the film. Costella has applled at least two different digital transformations to his frames ( the exact method of these image transformations have never been released). These transformations have changed critical internal and external aspects of the original zapruder frame making them worthless for this exercise. The recreation frame needs to be compared to an UNALTERED (the Costella frames ARE altered) Zapruder 416 to be of any value.

Lets just deal with the main trust of my original post...the "black" chrome. Your example image does indeed show black chrome but it is not because of a lack of direct light ( in fact its just the opposite it is well illuminated) It is black because what it "sees" (what is shown as the reflection in the chrome) is not a bright and broad light source. You have simply made my original point for me. In Miller photo, the chrome is white or light not because it has is illuminated by the bright sun but rather its is reflecting the wide open sky. If this image was in color the chrome would in fact be blue tones to match the sky. Now here is the deal breaker the dark object over the chrome being the seat shadow. If the object WAS a shadow from the seat being cast over the chrome strip it cannot be rendered as black. Why? Because even thought the direct sunlight that would be blocked by the seat might darken the chrome, NOTHING is blocking the main source of the lighting on the chrome which is the wide ope sky which is is also behine and above the photographer. The entire point is that unless you were to totally block the view of the chrome with an object ( like a foot) from the camera it will appear as a light strip, shadow from the seat or not. Forget it being a shadow making the chrome black because that just not possible. This is product photography lighting 101 stuff. Just like playing pool..angle of incidence equals angle of reflectance.

What exactly are you trying to say here? And to what point?

I'm of the opinion its not a hand because if what you and other consider to be the shadow of the seat on the side of the car. If it were a shadow the chrome strips would not be rendered as black. They might appear a bit darker than the rest of the strips in the area of the shadow but stil lnot black. True that if it was a shadow they would be shielded from direct sunlight but not shielded from their main source of light which is the entire sky. In photography you must remember that when photographing shiny objects, you are not photographing the object itself persay but rather what is reflected in the object...in the case of the chrome rail it would be the sky. No it appears to be something blocking the chrome strips, not something shading them from the sun.

It started again this morning...trojan Agent 13 and a bunch of java byte virus's when opening this web page. Andy/John, you have a probem.

ROFLMAO! You keep spinning like that Jim and you are sure to auger yourself all the way to China!

I received several trojans and a few pop up viruses trying to attach to my computer at work while viewing the JFK Debate site. This happened for around 4 days straight at from June 10th on. Luckily, the viruses were repelled or "quarantined" by my virus protection. But I started to wonder why would someone post viruses on the site. I had the same problem and had to re-instal Norton firewall. It tied my computer up almost a day. I think there are nasty people out there who would like nothig better than see this place crash and burn. But John has great protection and we have rather good firewalls as well. Dawn Was it a student, or someone else? Did someone want to discourage us from sharing information on the JFK Assassination? Aww-- that's paranoid thinking. -- Bill Grote If I remember correctly this was an attack from Russia...might be wrong about that...but this place was not the only one hit. I read a news article in the same time frame that a section of a Circuit City forum devoted to home theater got hit with the same attack. It happened do to a hole in the forum software that was exploited, and the CC forum has the same software as this one. So unless home theather is somehow connected to JFK, the only thing I see going on is some bad people wanting to infect as many computers as possibe with adware. So from this information we can deduct that Russians, seeking revenge for Kennedy's assasination, are spreading capitalism in the form of adware viruses. Naaaw! THAT is an enigma wraped within an enigma. Wait a minute! -- Bill Now thats funny!

I received several trojans and a few pop up viruses trying to attach to my computer at work while viewing the JFK Debate site. This happened for around 4 days straight at from June 10th on. Luckily, the viruses were repelled or "quarantined" by my virus protection. But I started to wonder why would someone post viruses on the site. I had the same problem and had to re-instal Norton firewall. It tied my computer up almost a day. I think there are nasty people out there who would like nothig better than see this place crash and burn. But John has great protection and we have rather good firewalls as well. Dawn Was it a student, or someone else? Did someone want to discourage us from sharing information on the JFK Assassination? Aww-- that's paranoid thinking. -- Bill Grote If I remember correctly this was an attack from Russia...might be wrong about that...but this place was not the only one hit. I read a news article in the same time frame that a section of a Circuit City forum devoted to home theater got hit with the same attack. It happened do to a hole in the forum software that was exploited, and the CC forum has the same software as this one. So unless home theather is somehow connected to JFK, the only thing I see going on is some bad people wanting to infect as many computers as possibe with adware.

Wonderful...a photo taken who knows when ( how about some DETAILS please) and uncited "experts" claiming the cut is not from a torch (how about a plasma cutter?). Sheesh and then we see its from Bollyn. How compelling. Do the required legwork and get back to us.

Wanna try again? http://home.flash.net/~jwjfk/

I am guessing that possibly the message was supposed to self-destruct after you had read it, but the timer was set incorrectly. If it wasn't that, then the only other thing you might do is check your forum tools option and see if you have somehow accidently put a check in the box next to the "disappearing ink" option. Bill I'm more inclined to think that a naked "spook" was tapping into Jacks internet connection. He is the most dangerous photo expert in America don't you know. I'm sure the secret agents are all lined up ready to get a crack at him.

I second what Jack White has said, first go check out all of the nutjob sites he has suggested and also check out his "research" in to the apollo photography. Then, when you can keep food down again and your side has quit hurting from laughing so hard check out http://www.clavius.org for some real science and a healtly dose of facts that support that Apollo was real. When you have more questions head on over to http://www.apollohoax.net for more reality and science based talk with people who actually have the training and experience in the science involved in the nmoon missions. And finally check out Evan Burtons massive and very complete debunking of Jack Whites nonsense inthis section of this very forum. I'm confident that if you do in fact have a decent head on your shoulders you will find that all the talk of a "moon hoax' is nothing but the ramblings of the ignorant.

Wow your "grasp" of logic is almost equaled by your "grasp" of basic photographic principals....

Once again you prove that HONESTY is not your strong suit. You are a disgrace to photographers everywhere....