Frank Agbat

The light post strikes me as the most notable landmark that could be used to determine positioning. The crop also limits one's ability to use the TSBD windows as a possible landmark, but the entryway softens the impact of this omission.

John, Good catch on the mirror image. I looked at that area several times and concluded that "something was wrong" but hadn't quite put my finger on exactly what... One of the "forks" may be the legitimate shadow from the tree, but the other one could be from something else. However, I am at a bit of a loss to say what that "something else" might be. Nothing else over on the south side casts a shadow with the same orientation (oriented like the "/" symbol on the keyboard).

John, Thank you for clarifying the graph. I didn't quite understand what I was seeing. I've also looked in to the limo orientation on my own and I agree that a fragment would have to clear the front windshield at the very least. I was considering the possibility of a trajectory with declination and higher velocity, but this requires the projectile leaving the limo to exit from a side window, which doesn't go in the correct direction. So, we're back to 257-ish feet per second, 46 grains, and a curb... Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment... We need to consider conservation of momentum. If the resulting curb chip has a mass less than 46 grains and the collision happened to be nearly perfectly elastic in nature, the resulting chip *could* leave the curb with a velocity greater than 257fps. If it happened to be sharp *and rotating* as it left, it seems possible that a slicing (almost paper-cut or shaving-cut style) wound could have been possible. So, my devil's advocate postulate is more of a "slice" than a classic projectile-through-skin concept. Thoughts?? (And on another note -- I'm rapidly coming around to the notion of a shot from the south. I wasn't ignoring your previous attempt to talk about it; I just didn't have enough background on the concept to discuss it intelligently.)

Intriguing and thought-provoking as always, John. If I'm reading the plot correctly, this seems to indicate that a 45-grain projectile fired from a horizontal muzzle placed between the shades and the crossbar with a muzzle velocity of 1000fps would actually miss the curb on the high side, while the same with a lower muzzle velocity (257fps) would not even reach the curb when fired. Am I interpreting this correctly? {edit, as more thoughts came to me} It seems that you could work backwards and find the necessary muzzle velocity for a 45-grain projectile to strike the curb given the limo position, etc. It is obviously going to be closer to 1000fps than 257 fps... Once you have that value, you could calculate a reasonable terminal velocity, compute a reasonable value for kinetic energy at impact, and see if that is enough to chip concrete of a composition similar to that used in Dallas... {end edit} I honestly don't know what to make of this particular hypothesis yet, but I encourage it and others like it. When things that have long been assumed to be fact are called in to question, growth and understanding often occur.

John, This site contains an good collection of classical mechanics equations which you might find useful. (I've linked to the specific page on trajectories, etc, but there are many more pages if you click the "Index" link). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html#tra2 Of course, these are for "perfect" (i.e. frictionless + vacuum) conditions, but the equations represent the starting point of any trajectory computation. Likewise, when three dimensional conditions are brought into play, the additional axis must be considered, but the concepts are the same.

It has been a while since I looked into the "limo slowing" vs. "limo stopping" vs. "motorcade stopping" witness testimony, so I don't remember the percentages exactly. However, placing the actual number aside for a moment and going on semantics, it would be possible for the limo to "slow" and the motorcade to stop (as a result of the accordion effect, frequently seen in traffic). I have often pondered if this is what some people observed. However, there are a fairly large number of people who specified the limo in their witness accounts. None of the extant films show a near-stop condition from the limo, however. If frame-decimation occurred in the z-film, it had to occur in the others, too, and now we're down the alteration rabbit-hole (a passionate topic on this forum, and one which I prefer to avoid).

Not to put words in someone else's mouth... But I interpret this in the following way: Mr. Plumlee's team was dejected because they had failed their mission to protect the president, a leader whom they favored. Had some members of Mr. Plumlee's team been actively involved *in* the assassination, those members might have shown excitement rather than dejection. Because they left dejected, Mr. Plumlee concluded that none of his team had participated as successful shooter(s). Does this phrasing ring true?

John, What you are describing is mathematically called a "Trochoid." Specifically, for a wheel weight scratching the curb, the trace that will result is called a "curtate cycloid". Check out the following link, as it includes the parametric equations that describe this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CurtateCycloid.html Although I'm not necessarily ready to dismiss the Tague curb strike without more research, I do find your theory interesting, especially since there are stratches AND a lack of copper...

William, Thank you -- it does provide a great deal of clarity. I took the liberty to compare your notes with Don Roberdeau's survey of DP. Unfortunately, Mr. Roberdeau's fabulous work does not show much of the South Knoll and Pergola area. However, by mentally superimposing your drawing with his, I get a much better notion of the angles involved. I also had to take a dose of my own medicine. I realized that Jackie appears closer to JFK in the Z-film due to the distance compression effect that certain types of lenses (telephoto, zoom, etc) tend to introduce. Cross-referencing the appropriate Z-frames with, for example, the Moorman polaroid clears this up in a jiffy. I also considered any potential Z-Axis impediments. Again, the side-window on the limo looked like it might come into play. However, when cross-referencing is done, any elevation from the south would easily eliminate this as a possible obstruction. One thing really jumped out at me while I was performing this exercise. On Mr. Roberdeau's drawing, he notes the following: "Couch testifies that he, L'Hoste, and several other persons saw an 8" to 10" pool of blood here." An arrow points to a red dot on the sidewalk that extends parallel to the Elm Street extension. If one extends a line from this point through the limo location at Z313, and continues it onto the south knoll, it leads to a point that matches your drawing with chilling precision. Of course, I don't know if this has any bearing on anything!

I've spent some time contemplating the south knoll shooter concept. The one nitpicking piece that I've never seen really answered has to do with the SK shooter's line of site. While the position of JFK, his lean angles and facing angles are seemingly well understood, most of the models do not include Jackie. I suspect this is because she is generally considered ancillary in understanding the shooting models. However, from the SK, does Jackie's position, especially at the head shot, come into play? Does she block a potential shooter?

Tom, Thank you for providing additional clarity. There are many things in your post that I need to ponder and consider.

I did a series of posts on Lancer about a year ago, with some supporting footage from the Z-film provided by Bill Miller that shows that you have hit the nail PRECISELY on the head as to why the magic bullet is not possible. The position and orientation of JBC's shoulders, in addition to the way he was gripping the famous white Stetson, exclude the traversal of the bullet through his wrist. My argument centers on the fact that his torso and shoulders are rotated a few degrees clockwise, relative to the position of the seat. At Z-225, his torso is turned toward Zapruder. His shoulders have comfortably followed this clockwise rotation, and his arms following his shoulders naturally. This position is favorable and consistent with his back, chest, and thigh wounds and a bullet fired from the back right of the limo and from elevation. However, the wrist wound becomes problematic. The shoulder position is consistent with a seated position, torso turned, and the right hand resting ON or even OUTSIDE of the RIGHT thigh -- a position completely unworkable with the SBT. JBC's wrist damage did NOT occur at this time. His wrist simply wasn't in the right place. (I also believe, but have not had the time or resources to prove, that if hat and wrist were in the Dale Myers or Posner positions, we would see the hat prior to its first appearance, due to the way he is holding it in later frames.) The secret to breaking the SBT is all in the hat, so to speak...

Tom, So, if I gather correctly, central to your conceptualization is a post-z313 final shot, with all shots coming from behind the limo? I ask this because I've spent some time pondering a post-313 shot. However, it doesn't seem to jibe with the majority of witness testimony, at least on the surface. What about Tague? How and when was JBC wounded? Was the same type of ammo used for all three shots? Is the z-film, as it exists, unaltered and complete (and, as such, useful as an accurate time line)? I don't think I'm learning disabled, but I do want to make sure I thorougly understand what you are postulating.

Interesting... AltaVista has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams as #3 HotBot has Spartacus at #1, McCIAdams not to be found on the first few pages... Webcrawler has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams at #5 MetaCrawler has Spartacus at #2, McCIAdams at #4 McAfee Site Advisor (which I recommend as a tool to protect your browser) shows McCIAdam's site has having "Some Users" (i.e. moderate traffic) Spartacus, on the other hand, shows has having "Many Users" (i.e. heavy traffic). (there is only one rating higher than "many users" which is "lots of users" -- yahoo, for example, scores this rating.) Google has, for quite some time, sacrificed credibility for profit. The fact that businesses can pay to have "sponsored links" indicates right from the start that Google is far from impartial (the sponsored links are rarely the best link to follow, by the way, for almost anything). Based on similar issues in the past, it would not surprise me in the least if Google had sold out to "other" interests -- interests that may wish to control the global flow of information.

Jack, Spot on! Artifacts, plus the way the human brain interprets shapes and patterns will lead people down the path of doom (so to speak). The example you shared is a classic case of this! Another point that is relevant to mention here is that various digital compression techniques used to save images also introduce loss and artifacting. Although the resulting images are much smaller in size (and thus more portable). JPEG, for example, is one (of many) digital image formats that introduce loss and artifacting. I've seen any number of well-intended attempts at analysis that start with a 100K Jpeg that has been digitally "zoomed", etc, etc. The various "faces" and other "details" that people "see" are probably nothing but jpeg blocking and aliasing that happen to form a 3-dot pattern (ie. a "face").

Dawn, You may very well be correct. There are many folks who say that we are living *right now* in the "golden age of the Internet." They theorize that in the future, regulation, profit, greed, spam, viruses, censorship, and any number of other things will creep up to render the future 'net a shell of its former self. Somehow, "security" will enter the equation. I argue that we have already passed the Zenith and are heading downward as we speak. It would be nice to think that the proverbial genii is out of the bottle. However, I think that might be underestimating the people's (or should I say "sheeples") willingness to sacrifice freedom for "security." I'll take my chances on freedom, thank you!

Personally, I find it rather disturbing that the personal e-mail of a forum member is being abused in such a manner. Disagreement with some of Jack's postulates is not license to inappropriately send e-mail to his private address. Honestly, it strikes me as chickensh*t to do so (pardon my bluntness). If you've got something to say, use the forum. Secondly, the amount of ad-hominem attacks that take place on this forum (and they are not limited to one 'camp' or another) is a real turn-off. It is completely possible to have a difference of opinion without resorting to the name-calling and other slurs that end up flying around on this forum. I know that this post is going to change a damn thing. There are obviously some old and deep-running waters of discontent here, undoubtedly spilling over from other venues. However, the negativity and downright viciousness that rears its head on this forum doesn't do ANYTHING to advance the case toward conclusion. We don't all have to agree or even get along, but we can at least be respectful and civil. The conspiracy is assured of perpetual success if we're always fighting each other. Not only will we go nowhere, but we risk alienating younger researchers who might otherwise have been willing to take up the gauntlet.

I agree with what Frank says. I should have said "for practical purposes of APPROXIMATING what the original shows". I said "almost perfectly within certain parameters", which is CORRECT but not very specific. Frank is technically correct that the information IS LOST in the SPACES BETWEEN THE DOTS. However, the parameters I did not detail get rather technical, having to do with DOTS PER INCH and what the unaided eye can perceive. As an art director for fifty years, I ordered thousands of halftones made. Parameters to consider begin with the paper to be used and the printing process (lithograph or letterpress). Briefly, the better the paper and the better the printing process, the greater quality of the halftone. Letterpress newspaper of halftones commonly used 65-line screens...but present day newspapers use lithography and 120-line screens. Letterpress halftones on good paper commonly required 110-line screens, but letterpress is now totally obsolete, with lithography accounting for virtually all printing, and most lithograph screens now 133-line to 300-line. So all halftones are not equal in quality loss. The finer the screen, the less the loss. AS FAR AS PERCEPTION BY THE UNAIDED HUMAN EYE IS CONCERNED, A QUALITY HALFTONE OVER 133-LINE CAN BE COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL COPY AND THE UNAIDED EYE CANNOT PERCEIVE THE DIFFERENCE. In press checks, I did this hundreds of times...comparing the press sheet to original photos. A printer's loupe (8x) was used to examine the dots for crispness...but the unaided eye could not see the dots. But Frank is correct...some loss occurs in the halftone process, but it is not always observable without magnification. Jack Jack, Well said and agreed. I also wanted to agree that some of the newer litho processes maintain color registration and numerous other parameters with amazing precision. The results can be quite impressive indeed. The problem of halftone loss shows up best under magnification, as you pointed out. As such, when one attempts to enlarge a small portion of such an image, the results are exactly what John is experiencing. The small area, in effect, just doesn't have enough dots when halftoned to faithfully reproduce small features. With a descreen process during either scanning or image adjustment, the image may end up looking even better to the naked eye, but the small features are unreliable, as they have been approximated by software. Your image shows this concept quite nicely. The image looks good to the eye and doesn't seem to have any moire pattern, at least not that I could see easily. While this is a good image, I would not expect to be able to determine if, for example, a gentleman waaaay off in the distance had forgotten to shave! Such tiny detail, even if the film/lens was able to resolve it, would probably not survive the halftone process. What John needs, if he wants to analyze features in the 6th floor window, is a scan that doesn't use a halftoned image as its source (and preferrably doesn't have jpg compression artifacts, either). Respectfully, Frank

John, Please keep in mind that computers can NOT recover data that is lost in the halftone process. Once a photograph is halftoned, the data that was originally available is lost. The halftone process reduces, in effect, both the bit-depth AND the resolution of a photograph. Descreening and other digital algorithms do a very good job of approximating what might have been in the original. To the eye, the resulting image is improved notably. However, the actual truth of the matter is that the results are an approximation based on the available halftone dots and the algorithm used. So yes, various techniques (moire reduction, multisampling, descreening, smoothing, etc) can improve the visual appearance of an image dramatically to the eye, they cannot recover lost information. Haltoning is not a lossless compression technique. Quite the opposite -- it is tremendously lossy as the resolving power of the film (lines per millimeter) is often far greater than even hundreds of dots per inch in the printing process. As such, once a photograph has been half-toned, the only real usefulness of the resulting image is macroscopic examination. So when Jack says, "Remarkably a computer may be programmed to REVERSE THE HALFTONE PROCESS almost perfectly within certain parameters. This is called DESCREENING.", I must respectfully disagree, at least to some extent. As I noted above, these algorithms are inevitably approximations. Within small areas, it is conceivably possible that you could get lucky and have results that appear to be perfect. However, when the images are compared digitally, the actual scan elements / pixels are different. If I get some time today, I'll try to post an example of what I'm talking about.

The suicide would be prefaced by a complete destruction of reputation and loss of career. This is the same way "uncooperative" members of the press are handled.

Hi John, I don't think the problem you're seeing is scanner-related, but is source-related. The process used to print the photograph in question created the problem, and scanning will not correct it. This is why I keep harping about the need for a high-resolution repository of scans from the best available (preferrably original) sources... The concept of multisampling is relatively simple. If you sample each pixel more than once and average the results, the effects of a mis-sample, bit-jitter, noise, etc. will be reduced. Of course, the penalty is that the time to scan is much longer. Also, if your native driver (the driver that came with your scanner) doesn't support multisampling, you'll have to find an aftermarket (third party) driver that will both work with your system and your hardware.

Answers? Pardon my frankness (pun intended), but you've GOT to be kidding me!! The number of "answers" I have is statistically meaningless when compared to the number of questions I have... However, I do want to point out that your original questions 17,18, and 19 are specifically related to the photographic record: I brought up this topic specifically because there are very few actual lone nutters (or, as you amusingly call them, "lone neuters") on this forum. However, there seems to be a notable willingness to incorrectly label people in different CT "camps" as such (or by any number of other pejorative titles). If we spend so much effort and release so much venom fighting each other, we will never be able to turn our collective intellectual guns on the real issues. Now -- so as not to derail the original intent of this thread, I add two more questions: (58) Why was an honest-to-goodness murder investigation using the accepted practices (evidence collection, evidence handling, investigative techniques and the like) NEVER conducted? (59) Why was jurisdiction illegally seized away from the Texas authorities?

John, It should be noted that there are those on this forum who label anyone who questions or does not believe photo/film alteration theory a "lone nutter." This line of logic is a fallacy (not too dissimilar from "you're either with us or against us"). It is entirely possible to be both a conspiracy theorist AND to believe that the photographic / filmographic record is intact. I am certainly in the "undecided/questioning" camp, yet firmly believe that a conspiracy took place. My addition to this list: (32) How was LHO able to correctly identify the parties who were standing in front of the TSBD just moments before the shooting if he was, as the WC states, on the sixth floor preparing to fire a rifle? Correct identification points more toward the veracity of the "in the lunchroom having a coke" statement.

I think he's reaching into his holster with his left hand in this photo, causing the jacket to bulge underneath. Thoughts? I find their actions to be extremely suspicious. In the aftermath, these two are the picture of cool amidst what is otherwise chaos. They are either completely clueless, indifferent, or consumate professionals. Another thing that is interesting in the photo above is the obvious filming/photographic position of the Babushka lady.

Worst thread ever.