Frank Agbat

Jack, LHO had an uncanny way of earning miniscule wages and somehow affording expensive things -- like transport to and from the USSR, repatriation loan repayment. A Minox camera certainly falls into that category. I remain convinced that following the money trail may lead us to new places as researchers. People tend to destroy all sorts of other documentation, but money trails have a nasty habit of hanging around. This is another opportunity to find one.

Hi John! (the question is slightly off-topic) The Zapruder camera has a fixed shutter speed which is equal to 1/35 of a second (1/40 of a second according to R. Zavada.) Therefore each film frame is invariably exposed during 1/35 of a second! The amount of light hitting the film is regulated by the opening of the diaphragm (iris.) Regards, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> At 18 frames per second (18.3 if you believe the fbi calculations) the shutter was 1/40th sec. 16 frames per second equates to 1/35th second. B&H and others in the industry at the time were moving toward the faster 18fps mode of operation. At least according to Zavada. The math does work out, though. Either way, it is safe to say that the frames were exposed at least 1/40th of a second. ---- I'm also with Mr. White on his opinion of the backyard photos... Fake!

I cannot locate my original analysis done about 7 years ago, so I redid it quickly (quality is not as good, since I worked from a better scan). Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack, Oustanding, and enlightening as always! Upon further review, I picked up on the whiteness of the shirt. It also strikes me that LHO's picture has more contrast than the rest of the frame. The other faces in the picture seem "softer" than LHO. Regards, Frank

Jack, Apart from the shoes (which seem out of place when compared to what everyone else is wearing), what are the clues that LHO might have been added to this photo? Regards, Frank

Hi David, Yes -- I'm familiar with, and hold great respect for, the work of both John Costella and Jack White in this arena. I've got some things in common with both gentlemen -- I hold a degree in physics and have experience in photography -- but I don't pretend to hold a candle to either of them in terms of overall expertise and experience! I'm merely presenting postulates and ideas at this point. You make a good point on the frame-rate. Mr. Zapruder's camera apparently managed 18.3 frames per second according to most reports I've seen. How precise this is, though, I do not know. It is what we have all been using to establish timelines/timebase for the event. Considering blur... Blur is normally considered a function related to the shutter speed of the camera. The longer the shutter of a camera is open, the more light gets to the film. However, if the exposed area contains motion, the greater the chance for blur. In general, more frames per second dictates shorter exposure time (faster shutter) per frame. Faster shutter in general reduces blur. My understanding of the B&H-414PD camera is that its shutter operated at 1/40th second, meaning the shutter was open for 0.025 seconds. The shutter would then close and the film would be advanced to the next frame prior to the next opening of the shutter. Other things that I'm not sure are known is the f-stop that was used. While I've read that there is virtual certainty that the "telephoto" setting and the "fixed focus" settings were used, the f-stop may not be so certain. (please correct me if my reading has lead me to an erroneous conclusion) The f-stop is important because it plays a role in "depth of field" -- that is -- what range of distances are objects "in focus". More musings later -- Regards, Frank

John, You've got an interesting idea here... I read your post a couple of days ago, and have been pondering it. Although I have no firm answers yet, there are a couple of things that come to mind. 1) The panning motion of the camera is non-linear. It is in the form of an arc. Technically, one must consider both angular velocity and linear velocity. 2) There is also the issue of angles involved. In this case, we have several known things -- linear distances between landmarks, frame-rate of the camera. However, angle of viewpoint and parallax needs to be considered when attempting to landmark a moving object with a moving camera against fixed points. However, I don't think any of these are show-stoppers. Don Roberdeau's plot of DP is incredibly useful for such things, among other things. Additionally, you have hit on another thing that I find interesting -- the use of the pixel as a unit of relative measurement. Of course there is the issue of projecting a 3D image onto a 2D surface. That is unavoidable. However, for relative measurements, the pixel might be useful. We know much about the optical characteristics of the Z-film camera -- including critical factors of focal-length, depth of field, etc. Using this information, any object in the Z-film could be placed within a sphere (or cone) 3-dimensionally based upon its 2-d X-Y and relative focus. This might lead to some additional insight to the placement of various objects. Regards, Frank

I think there is much to be learned from "following the money." It always tends to lead somewhere interesting, I have found... One thing that has always stuck with me, an impression that I have been unable to shake, is that LHO seemed to move around quite a bit -- nearly effortlessly -- in spite of a seeming lack of income. I'm not limiting this comment to simply domestic travel. He made it to Russia at the height of the cold war and back again. Airlines were almost certainly involved, and those were not the days of budget carriers and fare-wars. As the documents show, he effortlessly repaid a repatriation loan with a job that simply couldn't do so in the amount of time involved. Simply put, LHO was highly mobile. What is more, he was mobile without a visible means of support that would substantiate such. To borrow a colloquial phrase: 'dude was getting serious scratch from somewhere.' If we can hike the money trail, there is a good chance we'll find out more of the truth about LHO. Regards, Frank

Al, I've been intrigued with the South Knoll direction for quite some time now. It does a good job explaining certain aspects of the wound/event that other theories do not. I've always been bothered by the angle of entry from the TSBD not leading to orbital/facial damage -- especially placing the entry wound there the WC has it. I've often felt that Z313, if it came from behind at all, came in at a much flatter angle. These angles cause problems, too. The SS car, with the agents on the board, might produce angle problems for many of rear-shot scenarios; moreso for lower angle variants (2nd floor Dal-Tex, etc). The traditional GK position seems to explain the back+left motion, but the obvious lack of damage on the left hemisphere of JFK's skull creates obvious problems here, too. The questions I have about South Knoll shots are twofold. Jackie leaned forward and at Z312/313, at least from Zapruder's angle, appears to block certain angles from the south. The second question is how the dent on the limo chrome can be explained.

Mark, I like your line of reasoning. The selection of an "obscure" rifle also helps cement the "lone nut" mythos surrounding Oswald. I can hear it now. Discussion over the dinner table: "....of all the things to order... some EYE-Tallian rifle that nobody's heard of. He MUST be nuts! "

I think there are a number of reasons why certain documents from the cold-war era are still classified. I can think of only one that strikes me as legitimate: While it is true that technology has changed, the effective "human intelligence" gathering techniques are largely unchanged. We double computing power every few months, but people are still fundamentally people. I suspect that many of the remaining docs, however, contain evidence of activities ranging from "legally questionable" to "incidious."

Paul, I generally classify myself as "undecided" in the great debate of "Lone Nut" vs. "Conspiracy Theory," however I clearly have "CT" leanings. Why? I've read the Warren Commission Report, Gerald Posner's various writings, and viewed numerous LN/Warrenati sites. The bottom line is: "that dog don't hunt." The Warren conclusion doesn't sit well with me because it balances on the thinnest of edges. If ANY aspect of it is challenged, the entire house of cards crumbles. The chain of evidence is poor, the chain of custody of much of the evidence is poor, the overall handling of the crime scene and the aftermath thereof are shaky at best. Ballistic analysis is flawed, the timing of the shots is still very much in question (with the obvious exception of Z313), and I won't even get into the whole magic bullet debate. Eyewitness testimony is selectively ignored or discounted. Even the selection of the WC members is often in question, and there is nearly unanimous agreement that various agencies (notably the CIA) did not cooperate with the commission. Perhaps the WC felt forced to arrive at a conclusion, who knows. It certainly wouldn't have sat well with the public for them to conclude that "the case was handled so poorly that we really can't arrive at a solid conclusion." At the same time, conspiratorial behavior within the US Government -- or any Government, for that matter -- is nothing new (it wasn't invented with Watergate by any sense of the imagination). Cover-ups, covert operations, meddling, eavesdropping, spying, and the like is common modus operandi. The incentive for such actions is typically very simple -- power (with a side-dish of money, typically). Those that have it tend to want to keep it. The US Constitution recognized that and tried to put into place mechanisms to limit and balance this basic human desire. Those that desire power will circumvent that, if necessary, to satiate this. To further complicate the WC waters, many, MANY political assassinations are carried out in a much different manner than sniping from a distance. John Wilkes Booth was CLEARLY involved in a conspiracy to kill Lincoln yet STILL found the need to have his say. At the same time, though, I've read through plenty of CT sites that offer explanations from the sublime to the simply unbelievable. The list of possible suspects goes on and on, and there are sites dedicated to each. Many of these dogs don't hunt either, in my opinion. So for me, the jury is still out. I just don't think we have the whole story yet. Regards, Frank

Nic, When it comes to Politics, I'm certainly no liberal. I'm a Libertarian, to be honest about it. I tend to be fiscally ultra-conservative (small government, lower taxes, less nuisancesome regulation, personal responsibility, etc) but socially moderate to liberal (government has no business in my private life, get off my back, etc). It doesn't matter to me if an elected official is a Republican, a Democrat, or of a different party. America is OUR country, OUR elected government. ONLY the voters (and our duely legislated laws) have the right to remove that person from office. Neither a lone nut gunman nor a conspiratorial cabal holds that right over the voters. Yes -- I, too, am offended and deeply concerned that the public is more interested in J-Lo or whatever slut-du-jour is in vogue at the time than in serious topics. I don't know if it is just my perception as I grow older or if it is actual fact, but it seems to be getting worse as time passes. Regards, Frank

Is the "Trade Mart" that was the destination of the motorcade the same "Trade Mart" in which Clay Shaw was involved? I've always been curious about this... If the destination forced the route, then perhaps investigating the selection thereof is as important as the route itself...

I've certainly not made up my mind about Mr. Arnold or the Badgeman, nor am I as well versed on these photographs as others on this forum. However, I will say that the "Badgeman" image, both in the "Arnold" figure and in the "Badgeman" figure have lighting characteristics that appear to be consistent with the actual position and angle of the sun that day. I'm certainly not endorsing one view or another. Merely, I'm pointing out that the photograph can not be ruled *out* due to inconsistent lighting. Regards, Frank

Nic -- Very well said. People ask me about my fascination with history. I always tell them that history repeats itself for several reasons: 1) The planet doesn't change very much or very quickly 2) People don't learn from their own history 3) People don't change very much or very quickly Add these three together and we see why history is destined to repeat itself... In this case, we are actively being *prevented* from learning, thus the repetition of history is all but assured. If one doubts, consider the fates of MLK and RFK, just to name a few. I, for one, want to learn from our history and not see it repeated. Regards, Frank

Hi Ron, You raise a good point in questioning the logic behind selecting a M-C 6.5mm instead of a more viable weapon. I don't pretend to have answers, only thoughts that popped in to my mind. 1) The general public is terribly uneducated about firearms. Many simply have no exposure to firearms. Others have been fed years and years of misinformation/disinformation by the media (who, in my opinion, clearly have an agenda when it relates to guns). They simply fall in line with what they're told... Convincing images of police discovering and holding aloft a rifle (which, at first glance looks menacing and powerful) blocks out the questions from the pundits. 2) A 6.5mm of *any* variety could be considered a plausible choice in painting the portrait of an eccentric, lone nut assassin. The "nut" picked some oddball foreign rifle rather than a tried-and-true Garand or Springfield. 3) 6.5mm rifles never really caught on in this country as a hunting rifle. This would reduce the pool of people even more who had direct, timely information about the possible performance limitations of this particular flavor of 6.5mm. Mix all this together with an agressive "we've got the lone assassin" campaign (which plays strongly to the public's emotional desire to know who and why) and only us "fringe lunatics" start to ask questions. Just some thoughts... Frank

Hi Nic, People tell me I've always been on the "paranoid" side of the coin, albeit not to the point of needing a visit from "some nice doctors in white robes who have a comfortable room for me." I don't really know if this research has made me any more in this direction or not. Perhaps it has, but that is hard to say. I've always recommended that people keep their wits about them when working on something like this. A *healthy* dose of skepticism never hurts either. If you start seeing complex, international conspiracies as the reason you are always stuck at a certain red light, though, it may be time to re-address the level to which you are taking things. Regards, Frank

John, An interesting post, indeed -- thank you. For me, I found it interesting that the location of the second gunman was on the overpass, left of where the traditional knoll gunman was believed to be. This got me thinking... I've been reviewing the Z-film and comparing it with Don R.'s fantastic diagrams. I didn't quite realize that JFK was facing as far to the left. This exposes a larger area of the right side of his head to the "left gunman" than I ever realized. I've always felt that the kill shot "ran shallow", raking front to back (or back to front) just inside the skull. An inch or so to the right and it would have missed. The TSBD has always struck me as being too elevated for this shot to *not* damage the right eye orbital. I've always preferred the Dal-Tex lower floor option for this reason. I've been pondering Al Carrier's theory that the headshot in Z313 came from the left (not from the traditional grassy-knoll location, but from the "other" knoll, or overpass) for quite some time. I had never quite understood the roots of this theory nor its plausibility. However, this article has me thinking again about Al's ideas... The pool of blood on Don's map has always puzzled me (NorthEast of Cupola #4). However, if the head shot came from the south knoll/overpass, this is a *very likely* location for someone to have been hit with a fragment. In the excitement, adrenalin could have kicked in and they might not even realize that they were struck with something or were cut/bleeding. The key question becomes -- who was there that might have been cut by a bullet fragment? Personally, I'm going to spend a lot more time considering the south knoll shooter and the implications thereof. Regards. Frank

I've always found JBC's choice of words to be intriguing... "My God, they're going to kill us all!" I understand that in the heat of the moment, the choice of words may not be as well thought-out as under normal conditions. However, I might expect something like: "Holy &(*&@%*@ !!!" or "Get down!!" or even "We're all going to die!!" But I have always been puzzled by the phrase: "...they're going to kill us all!" Perhaps it is nothing, or in the heat of the moment his actual impression (or knowledge?) slipped past the censor...

I was reading a game-hunting related web page a few days ago, specifically because it had a section talking about 6.5mm ammunition. It mentioned several flavors of 6.5mm (Mannlicher was one, Carcano was listed separately, and one or two others). The interesting comment that I noted from this site was that the 6.5mm never really caught on as a hunting round in the USA. It did mention that some big game hunters preferred it, even for elephant hunting, because of the bullet's ability to penetrate deep into a target. The rationale for this was credited to excellent sectional density of the bullet. http://www.chuckhawks.com/6-5mm_rifle_cartridges.htm I notice, however, that they weren't talking about WCC or SMI military-issue rounds in this article. I also found it interesting that they commented on the relatively low recoil of the 6.5 round. As a confirmed skeptic, though, I'd like to hear what other folks have to say about the feasibility of a 6.5mm FMJ round creating the Z312/313 headwound. Regards, Frank

Hi Jack, I've been interested in photography since my first visit to a darkroom well over 30 years ago (sheesh -- it doesn't seem that long ago!!). Honestly, though, I only credit myself with about 15-20 years of "serious" photographic experience. I took lots of pictures (some good, many bad!), not seriously studying or excelling at either the art or the science side of photography. However, I had a bit of a 're-birth' in the photographic field in the mid-late 1980's when I had the opportunity to work on some imaging-related research projects. These projects forced me to improve my understanding of light, optics, and the various methods we have for image capture (film, ccd, etc). I've since focused, admittedly, more in the technical/scientific side of imaging than in the art of taking "good" (aka artistic composition, etc) pictures. **** I've often thought that something of great value to the research community would be a repository of ultra high-quality scans/digitizations of the photographic and film evidence. I know that this could be a monumental task, and probably not one that could or would ever be "complete." I, for one, do not have any idea how to gain access to the original negatives/slides/images, etc. Nor do I know the feasibility of even approaching such a challenge. Perhaps some folks with more experience in this area could comment (should this be a separate thread? I don't want to hijack our discussion of the missing windows....) Regards, Frank

Jack, I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading in what I posted, only to point out that film does not have the luminance capabilities of the eye. This is true for slides, negatives, and prints. Your point is well taken on prints vs. negatives or slides -- Print film, in general, is more forgiving on an overexposure than slide film, while slide films will (generally) render more useful recoverable data in the low-light areas. The amount of useful recoverable data is, however, finite and is a function of the delta between the scene's luminance range and the exposure. When the technician creates a print from a negative, another narrowing of the range occurs, and a decision on exposure (of the print) is made again. Even the original development process can skew the centerpoint of the luminance range if the technician pushes or pulls the negative/slide by an f-stop or two. ** A key point that comes out of this is that if one wants to perform photographic analysis of these images, it is vital to start with the best possible source and to understand the nature/behavior of that source. If one starts with a poor-quality scan of a print of a negative, compresses that image with a lossy compression algorithm like jpeg, then attempts to digitally zoom the image, the results will be useless. (Please -- nobody take offense. I'm not referring to anyone's work specifically with this comment.) Regards, Frank

I'd like to interject a couple of things related to photography and the way film works if I may. I'm not taking sides or trying to create ill feelings -- just sharing some general comments that may help to explain *some* of the things we're seeing in these pictures. * Film, in general, is less sensitive to light than the human eye, and has a lower range of acceptable intensities (luminance) than does the human eye. Simply put, below a certain amount of light, the films response will be minimal, while the human eye can still function quite well. Likewise, above a certain amount of light, the film will be, in effect, saturated while the human eye has no problem dealing with that amount of light. We typically need a flash indoors to take a picture (although our eyes can see just fine). Likewise, if we allow too much light on the film outdoors ("overexpose") the entire picture will wash out. EYE: Pitch Black *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Blindingly Bright FILM: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underexposed *--------* Overexposed. . . . . . . With this in mind, one must setup their camera so that the *majority* of the scene they are photographing falls within the acceptable luminance range of the film. This is accomplished using three different factors: 1) f-stop (the size of the camera's aperature, and also determines depth of field) 2) shutter speed (how long the aperature is open 3) speed of the film (faster film needs less light to react, but is more grainy) You have to decide what portion of the scene to set your camera for. If the photographers in question set their cameras for a bright, sunny day, it is not surprising at all that darker areas are lacking details. Note that most simple, "amateur" cameras have a fixed aperature that is usually quite small (f=22 in many cases). Less light gets in, so they bias toward bright, outdoor scenes. * The intensity of falls off inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The greater the distance, the less the intensity -- but by a power of 2, not in a linear fashion. Distant objects are more likely to appear dark on film even if our eye can see them. * Most Black & White film does not respond evenly to all colors. B&W tends to be very responsive to blue and much less responsive to red. This is why many black and white photos do not show much cloud or sky detail. The intense blue washes out (overexposes) that area of the scene. Various clothing may 'show up' better than others on B&W film. Taking all this into account leads me to several comments: 1) Those areas on the grassy knoll that appear VERY dark in pictures would NOT have been that dark to witnesses' eyes. 2) Dark, hidden areas in the Dal-Tex building as shown in Altgens probably didn't look like that to the witnesses' eyes. 3) Film-based movie cameras tend to need a lot of light, and are going to be biased toward accurate representation of brighter scenes. 4) Knowing the grain characteristics of the film/movie film we're looking at might help determine what "murky" areas might contain real, salvageable information and which are just chemical "noise". (B&W film tends to have a finer grain than color film). Just some items to consider when looking at these pictures. Regards, Frank

Dawn, I understand your concern, and I've experienced the same feeling on occasion. This forum and Lancer do seem to be generally constructive, in my opinion. I have not really looked much at Wim's so I cannot comment on it. There is certainly plenty of momentum lost to bickering and name calling. I fear that we, as a community, might lose a gifted prospective researcher or ignore a theory (and the possible related discoveries, tangents, etc) due to this. I suspect a lot of this comes from the pure drive and passion of those who pursue this subject. It is quite unique in that regard -- 41+ years later, and it can still engender passionate debate. In the grand summary, though, I've learned things from the various discussions on these forums that I doubt I would have picked up anywhere else. Regards, Frank

Jim, Very well said! I don't pretend to have any answers about LHO, but I am reasonably certain from all the reading I've done that he was far more complicated than many people gave him credit for -- most especially the Warren Commission. I always found their treatment of LHO was specifically slanted to paint him in a certain light. There are *so* many inconsistencies in the records regarding LHO that it is a virtual certainty that we have yet to learn the full extent and scope of what (and who) he was involved with. There are clear signs that he had a variety of connections and associations that were not fully explored when the WC considered the case. About the only thing that I'm "certain" of is that it was no coincidence that LHO was in/around Dealy Plaza on November 22nd. The what and the why is still largely speculative. Regards, Frank