Thomas H. Purvis

Let's not neglect the possibility that the Tomlinson stretcher bullet fell out of JFK's "shallow" back wound...which also negates the SBT, since it could not have fallen out of JFK's "shallow" back wound and still have caused ANY of Connally's wounds. That would make the stretcher bullet the result of shot number 1, and therefore you would need to add a conclusion "C" to your list. Well Karl, you have finally found the "Golden Fleece"! You have also finally located the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET"/aka, the one which disappeared. That particular bullet is the result of the third shot impact down in front of James Altgens position/aka the Stationing 4+95 impact. A. CE399, as stated above, merely lodged into the back of JFK. B. Z313 impact bullet severely fragmented as it skirted across the top of the skull of JFK from it's "Cowlick" entry point, sending a fragment to the wrist of JBC. C. The third/last/final shot/aka the only true "MAGIC" bullet struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline at the base of the rear of the neck, penetrated downwards through the head, exited in the frontal/temporal lobe, and thereafter went on to strike JBC in the back shoulder as he lay across the open area of the jumpseats, exposing his right rear shoulder to the downward path of the bullet. This, the true, "MAGIC" bullet, then penetrated through the chest of JBC, to exit and enter the left inner thigh. From that point it became truly "MAGIC" in that not only did it disappear, but it also allowed Specter; Shaneyfelt; & Company to create a shooting scenario in which all of it's wounds were blamed on CE399. My primary question being exactly why anyone would believe the assinine foolishness of "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

Personally, I would not bet on that! http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/18/us/1992-...ing-scared.html When one has one of the single largest "Jewish Lobby" financial warchest's ever assembled by a politician, "MONEY TALKS". With such financial resorces, one could expect a "Little Arlen" to emerge in the political arena at some point in time. "Shanin Specter, a Philadelphia lawyer and adviser to his father's campaign." Anyone here from Pennsylvania who may have attempted to assist Stephen Friend in his failed bid to oust Specter? His son also assisted with the failed campaign, but at least he may have learned a thing or two. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Freind_Chri..._818558988.aspx

It is probably not a relevant point but three of the suspects in the assassination of JFK came from Shreveport, Louisiana: Carl Jenkins, Edwin Collins and Jack Alston Crichton. General Edwin Walker was also traveling by plane into Shreveport at the time of the assassination. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It is most assuredly "not" relevant that you are of the opinion that the three named individuals meet some mythological qualification which makes them suspects in the assassination of JFK , as your listing of such individuals would fill a few pages. Nevertheless, this does not disqualify the potential significance of Shreveport, LA in the games which appear to have bearing on the assassination and events which may have lead to it as well a portions of the coverup. To begin: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/mckeown.htm Mr. PURDY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the first line of inquiry will be related to Mr. McKeown's connections and contacts with Jack Ruby. The man stated he had an option on a great number of Jeeps which were in Shreveport, Louisiana, and he desired to sell them to CASTRO at a very profitable figure.

Still unable to come to grips with your own failing at photo analysis I see Tom. Not to worry, you have LOTS of company here. This place is a target rich environment. You ever take that photo of your truck mirror yet? ROFLMAO! Maybe YOU can help old Varnell out, he sure needs it. Bentzer has him stumped. He thinks he sees a 1/8 inch fabric bunch (ever try to make a "bunch" that’s only 1/8 of an inch...oh well that’s another story) and a pointy black hand and arm. Poor guy, he's based his entire internet persona over the last few years on his arrogant claim that Bentzer proves that JFK's jacket fell and thus he has proven more than one shooter. Poor guy, what's he going to do now that his claim is busted, beyond a shadow of a doubt (or it a shadow erases all doubt...)? You think he's going to have any of that intellectual honesty he is always harping about and admit his error, or will he just be your standard variety CT and go on claiming he is correct regardless of the unimpeachable evidence that shows he is wrong. I'm voting for the latter, Varnell has already shown his complete lack of intellectual honesty, and he is way too invested in his fantasy to admit it is just garbage. Time will certainly tell. You, I don’t know, you seem a reasonable sort but you can’t seem the shake the CT photo analysis sickness. I’m still convinced it must be something in the air…. The (your) postings were of sufficient factual statements and analysis that they warranted a "reposting". And, anyone who has a tendency to "call um as I see um", (with an experienced and factual analysis) will (in my book) continue to stand well above the frequently silly as well as asinine claims which you so elequontly tend to tear apart. In the realm of "politically incorrect", one will, if they look to the far right, frequently find "Tom". Always a pleasure to observe and hold discussions with anyone who is repeatedly farther to the right than myself on the politically incorrect scale. Please recall the adversarial process through which I and one of the few "true shooters" to ever frequent this forum went through until a final meeting of the minds apears to have been achieved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_process And in keeping with the original discussion of Perspective (objective v. subjective) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007..._and_photo.html [b]I think it's safe to say a modified or staged photograph is "false". [/b]

He should have never been elected to the Senate after perptrating the fraudulent JFK assassination investigation, along with the WC, with the predetermined result dictated by LBJ. Chris ================================================================================ Chris: Exactly what "horse" was it that he "rode" into the Senate? (Answer: The WC) Specter had run as the Democratic Nominee for DA of Philidelphia, and was soundly defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter Specter became an assistant district attorney under District Attorney James Crumlish, and was a Democrat. At the recommendation of Representative Gerald R. Ford, he worked for the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican. 1967, he was the Republican Party standard bearer together with City Controller candidate, Tom Gola, in the mayoral campaign against the Democrat incumbent James H. J. Tate. One of their slogans was, "We need THESE guys to watch THOSE guys."[13] He served two terms as District Attorney for the City of Philadelphia. In 1976, Specter ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate and was defeated by John Heinz. In 1978, he was defeated in the primary for Governor of Pennsylvania by Dick Thornburgh.[14] After several years of private practice with the prestigious Philadelphia law firm Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Specter ran for the Senate in 1980, this time, successfully. He assumed office in January, 1981. ========================================= Then came the "switch" to the Republican Party which fully backed his entry into true politics through the election as the DA of Philidelphia, and then ultimately on to the US Senate. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Just perhaps a little "blackmail" along the way helped and assisted his "Career Jump". Not to mention the membership with a specific "Fraternity" of which many associated with the WC lie were also members. Just good ole US "Politics as Usual". Money/Greed/ & Power!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + Post #112 You are correct Don, I though better of posting my TRUE thoughts about you, and I edited my reply. My reply may have changed but my opinion of you has not. Why is my stance curious? I don't think JFK was a great president. I don't think that there is any real interest in America at large about the JFK case and I don't thing most Americans would give a tinkers damn if there were any wholesale changes to the disposition of the case. And after watching the mess that is the "critical community" in this case, that’s never going to happen anyway. Quite frankly Don, despite protestations to the contrary, all of this is nothing more than a parlor game. I was forced, in a manner of speaking, into JFK while I was a member of the JFKResearch forum. One aspect of history that I am interested in is the Apollo program. I'm an advertising photographer by trade and I was astounded by the gross disinformation being published on the web about the Apollo photographs claiming them to be altered. I began to study the alteration claims and test them to see if they were true. It was easy to show the claims were false. I actually enjoyed the process, it was entertaining and it was actually beneficial to my work, so I continued. The process of debunking the disinformation about the Apollo photography took me to the JFKResearch forum where Jack White was posting his disinformation about the Apollo photography. Soon after, Dellarosa decided that to try and protect his golden boy, he needed to change the rules so that you had to have an interest in the JFK case and to post about it to remain a member. So I did just that, and I found that the photo analysis of the JFK photography was even worse than that of the Apollo photography, and so I found yet another venue for my new found pastime. That’s were it stands today. I don't care which side is right, if Oswald did it, that’s ok by me, if it was GHWB shooting from the storm sewer, that’s fine too, because I really don't care. And I don’t think the rank and file in America care. What I do care about is being truthful about what the photography show, and I have the skill set to do just that. What I do upsets a lot of people, people who have a vested interest and “belief” in a worldview and who don’t like their cart being upset. I’ve taken a lot of heat from the ”critical community” over the last 6 years. So now I give I back just like it was, and is, given to me. I have the utmost dislike for those who peddle disinformation. A few choice examples come to mind, White, Costella, Varnell, just to name a few. I didn't think I could ever find people with as little knowledge about photography as those I found in the Apollo case, but low and behold, the JFK case is just full of them! On another thread you claimed my argument was ridiculous, when nothing could be further from the truth. That you believe Varnell’s claims about a hand and arm in an impossible position, as the geometry of the photos clearly shows, and a hand that’s pure black, which is at odds with all the basics of b/w tonality and even actual examples of that tonality shown in the same photo. Just fricking amazing, coming from people who claim "critical thinking" People have a choice, look at facts, and not fiction about the JFK photography and be intellectually honest about where that takes you. Or you can be like so many and ignore that which destroys your position and “believe” in some fantasy because it fits a certain worldview. I’ll take reality. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #115 Translated from Rigby speak..."I simply don't have a clue why both Zapruder and Altgens are perfectly correct. God, please don’t make me defend my foolish claim’” What’s the matter Rigby, you can't show us WHY your claim about the Z film is correct? You just expect us to believe you have a clue? How many more days do you need? Not getting much help over there at the Deep Paranoia Forum are you? Maybe you should learn to stay away from things that are simply beyond your limited ability to understand. You are just another of a very long line of CT's writing photographic interpretation checks their minds can't cash. Talk about entertainment! Maybe you should team up with Varnell. He’s having a really tough time with Bentzer. Can’t figure out where JFK’s hand is, or what tone it is. Can’t see the shadow evidence that blows his claim about there only being a 1/8 wrinkle on the back of JFK’s jacket in Bentzer out of the water…the boy is a world of hurt. Not that you would really be much help. After all you can’t figure out angle of view. Not much hope you can progress to something as difficult as how a simple shadow works. ROFLMAO! Hell even Jack White the “legendary” CT photo guru (now there’s humor for you) can’t even understand something as simple as how a shadow works. Jack White makes a fool of himself by failing to understand how shadows work. It must be something in the air that only affects CT crazies…seems to be a run on ignorant ct’s making ignorant photographic claims….. Why not make your case instead of running way? Or is that the best you can do? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Post #119 Did you actually pay attention when you read my post Don? Based on your reply it appears not. My interest is in the PHOTOGRAPHY Don. I find it challenging, rewarding educational and entertaining to study the claims CT’s make about the photography. You claim to want to find the truth, but when you endorse work like Varnell’s you are doing just the opposite. That makes you a hypocrite Don, and it s big part of my true feelings about you. You say my claims are predictable and redundant and you have heard them all before, but you can’t refute them. Let’s be honest here Don, I don’t make “claims” I deal in photographic truth. CT’s like Varnell make “claims.” If you have heard them all before then putting them to rest sould be easy. It’s your buddy Varnell who has it all wrong. Bentzer shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a cupped fold of fabric large enough to obscure the jacket and shirt collar at the base of JFK’s neck. This is unimpeachable. It’s not a matter of interpretation. If the photo is unaltered (and there is NO indication it is altered) then Bentzer proves that the jacket had not dropped at Z186. That puts a very different spin on what is the truth and what’s not, don’t you think? You should have paid more attention instead of getting caught up in your worldview. Let’s get real Don. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you somehow prove that there was a CIA (or whatever) involvement in the death of JFK. What’s it been, 45 years? Do you actually think anyone would really care beyond a few days of news coverage? Do you actually think it would change the fabric of the republic? And it’s a national security issue how? We have bigger fish to fry right now, this is ancient history, and I think you are tilting at windmills. Now pardon me, I still have CT photographic bubbles to burst. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10...thousand-words/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At a loss again I see Tom. Don't you hate it when you get your hat handed to you? But of course, when it comes to the photographic record, thats just commonplace for you. Ever get to taking that photo of your truck mirror with no light reflecting ROFLAO! You are at least good for a good laugh, thanks for that. ["b]What, no proof? I would have, at minimum, expected to see a photo of your wife's favorite potted plant as some form of corroboration.[/b]" Undoubtedly, there are some here who would actually think that you would do some true research and even utilize the existing Z-film in this research and presentations. Such as perhaps marking exactly where (what) you see as being Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post, and then offering it up for all to review and comment upon. NOT ME! After the tea kettle and whatever backend, I would expect to see your wife's potted plant as proof! Everyone! Craig sees Newman's head as well as the lower portion of the lamp post. We can all go home now as this terrible dilemma is now resolved. OH! I forgot! There are also those who see badgeman and other mytholigical creatures as well.

Oh Tom, how is the weather down there in the abyss? If you don't know how the process works, how in the world can you analyze what you see? The correct answer is you can't. The ghost images of the bottom of the lamppost are there as is Newmans head. 303, 304 305, 306 and 307 for the head.... 278, 279, 280,281, 282 and 283 for the bottom of the lamppost...... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ What, no proof? I would have, at minimum, expected to see a photo of your wife's favorite potted plant as some form of corroboration. How about at least a "reverse image" of your tea kettle or "whatever"? The ole "reverse image" trick is always good to fool a few. Do you also see butterflies and sailing ships in the clouds as well. Perhaps you are ready to graduate up to "Badgeman"!

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. [b]"Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base."[/b] First off there Lamsuk, it would be irrelevant to the issue whether I possess any knowledge whatsoever in how the "ghost image" is created, as my knowledge (or lack of) is not the issue. The issue, simply stated, resolves around a filming process which for the great majority of it's content, has a "ghost image" which correlates with an image which is located at the top and the bottom of the normal field of view within the specific frame of the film. Now, completely irrelevant as to whether I even have the most miniscule grasp of exactly what/how the Ghost Image is created, we have progressed to an area of the film in which the Ghost Image contains the front fender of a motorcycle which, by demonstrated and documented other photographic evidence, can not be of either of the two motorcycles which were to the left rear (jackie's side) of the Presidential limousine. Therefore, whereever this image was generated from, it did not come from within the normal field of view for this frame of the Zapruder film. Which has lead the few who have examined this anomoly (without a great amount of thought I might add) to conclude that this motorcycle fender belonged to the motorcycle driven by Policeman Chaney who was riding to the right rear (JFK's side) of the Presidential Limo. Which would have to mean that the motorcycle fender image was created by a Ghost Image which was coming from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for a frame of the film. Several problems arise from this: 1. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is this the only section of the Z-film which demonstrates such an anomoly? 2. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER than the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is it that absolutely NONE of the lower section of the Lamp Post appears in this manner. 3. In event that this image came from an object which was LOWER then the normal field of view for the normal film frame, exactly why is it that absolutely none of the Newman Family can be observed in any such images as they most assuredly would have appeared in any film which was demonstrating photographic images of this lower elevation. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z277.jpg Through http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z305.jpg

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. As has been noted once before, your ability to read is quite suspect, and since I've told you in detail the principles the photos I posted illustrate, I'll let you continue your search to find your behind with both hands. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. So tell us Tom, are the logos curved and shiney? Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. They have of relevance as the are, you on the other hand, not so much. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. How would you know Tom? You don't understand the subject matter. Ludicrous is however the perfect description of your recent attempts to discuss photography. Stick to maps Tom, that way you wont look so ignorant. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Then how come you are having such a hard time understanding how it hqppens? Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. I guess you simply can't grasp the very basic principles at play here. Its not suprising, given the general content of your postings. I don't feel sorry for you. Sometimes ignorance just like yours just can't be overcome. You are trapped in your warped worldview. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film??? Actually I would LOVE to see a photo of your mirror not reflecting lighy, that would be quite a feat. When can we expect it? Your actually doing real world research would be a huge step forward compared to your current method of doing a google and the not understanding what you read. I'm not holding my breath, based on your past performance, that the real world will have any effect. [b]"Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base."[/b] First off there Lamsuk, it would be irrelevant to the issue whether I possess any knowledge whatsoever in how the "ghost image" is created, as my knowledge (or lack of) is not the issue. The issue, simply stated, resolves around a filming process which for the great majority of it's content, has a "ghost image" which correlates with an image which is located at the top and the bottom of the normal field of view within the specific frame of the film.

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Ok, Time for you to shine Pervis. First tell us about the nature of the process that creates ghost images, and why they have nothing to do wiht images at the bottom of the frame. I'm guessing you can find some information on google to fill in the gaps in your limited knowlege base. Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image. Another chance to show us your ability at reasoning. Tell us why, again based on your understanding of the phtographic process WHY we should expect to see Newman in the frames you presented, namely 312, and 321? We surely would not want anyone to precieve you as stupid , now would we? Personally, I am still (eagerly I might add) awaiting information relative to the speed (horizontal movement) of your tea pot, through it's varied lighting conditions and reflective angle changes, in order that I may determine (to my limited ability) exactly what relevance it truly has on the Zapruder film. Surely you are not proposing that the motorcade actually STOPPED, and therefore your Teapot Dome Experiment actually has at least this degree of credence and validity. Of course, the headlights on the motorcycles are in fact round and shiny, not that much unlike a teapot. Perhaps if one would rotate your photo horizontally, then it just may actually have relevance. As it and your other "whatever" stands, they represent two of the single most ludicrous examples in attempting to either prove or demonstrate a point, that I personally have ever encountered. Most simple morons know that light can be reflected. Claiming that these two photographs have significant bearing on the subject matter('s)/medium; varied lighting conditions; ever-changing reflective angles; and continually moving camera eye of Abraham Zapruder's camera, is quite indicative that you know virtually nothing in regards to research protocal. Wanna see a photo of my truck mirror reflecting light?????? If I also include one in which it is not reflecting light, will that prove anything in regards to the Z-film???

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera. Which should eventually bring us around to the point of questioning: In event that the "Ghost Image" is going to now come from an image which is located BELOW the normal field of view, exactly why would it be that we see absolutely nothing of the Newman Family, and especially, the red clothing of Gayle Newman???? And exactly why is it that in previous exposures of the film such as those which include the lamp post: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z279.jpg The "Ghost Image" has absolutely nothing to do with any image which is at the bottom of the film and is in fact an image which comes from the top of the film (IE: The top of the lamp post). Exactly what magical property did the Zapruder Camera have in that it could mysteriously create a "Ghost Image" of a motorcycle fender located below the normal field of view, yet omit a red-clothed person as well as the lower portion of a lamp post which were also supposedly below the normal field of view, from creation of a similar Ghost Image.

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. "P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg I would suppose that, were Chaney's motorcycle front fender a "Ghost Image", then we could effectively state that Chaney and his motorcycle are not to be found within the normal field of view of the camera.

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle. Tom, Point well taken. Since you mentioned the lane divider within the ghost image area, would that divider( which is a part of the adjacent frame) show a different angle between curbline and lane divider. chris Chris; The "simple" answer is of course yes! Even were it merely a single photograph. The more complicated version would also include the potential "tilt" change which Zapruder most probably incorporated into his filming as he progressively panned from left to right and attempted to follow the downhill slope of Elm St, as well as the angular difference at which Elm St. progressively extended farther from the camera. Even the lane divider line which is closest to the curb would, over a given distance (from photo centerline), would demonstrate a minor degree of seperation from true parallel. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/lrd9901.html Other manipulations of perspective which create an illusion of depth, include convergence (8, 9, 10) and foreshortening. Convergence is the term used to describe the effect created of parallel lines apparently coming together in the distance. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Perhaps if one were to utilize the "known known" it would assist in many things. That being the downhill slop/grade of Elm St. which for all applicable purposes was a (-) 3-degrees. (3 degrees and 8 minutes to be exact) In fact, one may want to apply that knowledge here. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z272.jpg

If you actually had a functioning brain you might actually learn to read.... We shall not hold or collective breaths. Actually: "Stupid is as Stupid Does"[/b] (Forest Gump) And, I would remind the reading public that it is not I who is attempting to post a singular photograph of a tea kettle as well as the backend of a whatever, which photographs were taken under fixed and controlled lighting conditions and reflective angles, and convince that these photographs actually have some probative value in determination of anything relative to the motion picture film made by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/63. About like my stepping out into the yard and moving about until such time as I can achieve a "reflective glare" from the outside mirrror of my truck, taking a photograph, and thereafter offering it as being some sort of proof that all images which we think we should see in the Z-film, yet can not see, are the end result of reflective glare due to the lighting angles, surface orientation of the reflective plane, even though there exists an everchanging positions of all essential items, to included a panning camera. Personally, I am neither that stupid nor do I wish to be percieved as being so. Be my guest Craig!

Actually, utilizing anything which we are informed represents the Z-film, is shaky. However, as has been previously stated by others, until such time as the "In Camera Original" film is made available for a complete forensic examination by those who are now becoming aware of some of the anomolies for which the film should be examined, then we have to attempt to demonstrate our points to the best that we can with the evidence which we have at hand. However! In addition to the highly unusual "blotch" on the helmets of the motorcycle policemen, one just may want to take a look at the windshield visor in pre-Z277 frames and then compare that with post-Z277 frames. Nice "blue-tint" there!

Definitive proof?-------------Absolutely not. Much better than photographing a Tea Pot and then indicating as if it were some sort of prima facie proof that it could not and should not happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat... There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot. I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat. "There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot." Which statement is highly indicative of the futility in attempting to explain anything (be it medical evidence or the survey evidence). The "Final Shot" impact has not and does not change from the SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, when compared with the FBI Survey Plat of 2/7/64. They both contend that the third/last/final shot impact was, directly in front of James Altgens location, at survey stationing 4+95. For the last time Pat: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963. Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that? Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here. Mr. McCLOY. It may be received. Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now! Personally, since I was not present, I can not state as fact whether Simmons was given the true SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, or whether he was given the "updated" survey plat which was done for the FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat which was generated on 2/7/64. However! I can state as fact that CE585 IS NOT the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and is in reality the updated FBI assassination re-enactment and survey plat of 2/7/64. As, CE585 contains the "2/7/64" revision date down at the bottom of the plat. Just as does my full size copy of the FBI Survey Plat, and which "updated/revision" does not appear on the original SS Survey Plat of 12/5/63. Now Pat. In event that you still can not grasp this concept of "revision", might I suggest that you either enroll in your local community college (or even some good high schools) and take a course in mechanical drawing, or else have someone sit down with you and walk you through it by the numbers: 1. A drawing is made. 2. Anytime that a change is made to said drawing, it is given a revision number and or 'updated" change in date. All of which information I long ago provided. The "RED" demonstrates the revision/updated date of 2/7/64, which confirms this as being the FBI Survey Plat of that date. And, as I have repeatedly explained: Well then, here is a "tad" more for those who are new to the train ride. Just so that they are aware that I seldom resort to utilization of either the crystal ball or the rectal extraction methods of evidence evaluation. "Just so that they are aware that I seldom resort to utilization of either the crystal ball or the rectal extraction methods of evidence evaluation." http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z276.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z277.jpg

Agreed. The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side. chris "The ghost image cycle has to be one of the two cycles flanking JFK's side." NOPE! An error in logic there Chris. Merely that it can not be either of those two motorcycles as seen on the left-hand (Jackie's)side of the car. Now, if one assumes no alteration whatsoever to the Zapruder film, then of course the correct answer would be that it would have to be created by the image of a motorcycle which was on the right-hand (JFK's) side of the limousine. However, in event that one were to assume some slight "tinkering" with the Z-film and it's "Ghost Image", then one could assume that it could be of a motorcycle from either side of the street. And it is of course most curious that the background surrounding this "Ghost Image" shows nothing but the green grass, with absolutely no indications of the light grey background of the road bed or any white striping affecting the tint of the green surrounding areas. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg P.S. As you may be aware, this Ghost Image is attributed as being the front fender of Officer Chaney's motorcycle.

Just to make certain that we are all in the same boat (even if paddling in different directions). http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z320.jpg The "Ghost Image" can not be either of the two motorcycles located on the left side of the Presidential Limo, as: The front fender of motorcycle#1 is actually behind the limo and fully obscurred from the line-of-sight of Abraham Zapruder, And, the front fender of motorcycle#2 is behind motorcycle#1 and is also obscurred from the line-of-sight of Abraham Zapruder.

I see you are babbling again there perv.... Lots of different surface textures and reflectivity, and even quite specular surfaces like a sheet of glass is diffuse to a degree. Standard stuff for those skilled in the craft of lighting. That however leaves you in the lurch. Oh the kettle has plenty of bearing, if you had bothered to digest the information I spoon fed you. I'll ask again Tom, and maybe this time the subject of the exercise just might sink into that mushie spot between your ears. What color is the kettle? Exactly the same color as the one seen in the Zapruder film. OH! I forgot. There is no shiny reflective kettle seen in the Zapruder film, is there????? So, does your shiny kettle have a whole lot of bearing on something which is not seen within Dealey Plaza?? I won't waste your precious time in a continuation of showing additional photographs of the Presidential Parade in which, for some mysterious reason, one can continually observe the DPD logo's on the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Must be some sort of magnet anomoly within Dealey Plaza which just would not allow them to appear. What color are those logos Tom? You keep sprinting right by that question. Is there a shiny LOGO in Dealey Plaza? What color is that logo Tom? There is a LOT of information for you to digest in those simple photos of a kettle. Now I know thats NOT what you want to do. Like the good CT you are,you would rather run with some harebrained notion that someone altered the LOGOS so you can't tell which way the head are turned. Reality be damned! You gottta keep your worldview intact regardless. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Correct! It is absolutely "beyond" me as to how anyone could fantasize that a singular staged photograph of the rear-end of their "whatever" as well as a similar photograph of a tea kettle serves as proof that throughout the multiple frames of the Z-film, which has ever-changing lighting conditions as well as reflective angles, one should not be able to ever see the darker image of the DPD logo's against he white background of the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Perhaps it has some bearing on the exact speed at which your tea kettle was travelling????? It SURE is beyond you. I offered illustrations to help you understand your failed positon, and you were,...well...just to ignorant to make the connections. I'm really sorry you can't, or won't understand as your continued failure to answer simple questions illustrates. Simple principles blasting right over your head. Its a shame really, but it appears you are simply beyond help, hopelessly trapped in your warped worldview. You need to REALLY observe the real world Tom, you have a LOT to learn. So I'll ask again, just for grins..were the logos shiney and what color were they? And I will ask again, what was the speed of your shiny tea kettle, exactly how many different changes in lighting scenarios did it go through, and exactly how many times did it change it's angle of reflection in regards to the light source origin as compared to the filming location. The "connections" of reflected (diffused) light from a single fixed position object, filmed from a single fixed position camera, with a single fixed position light source have little bearing on the photographic conditions which existed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. That you continue to attempt to pass off such photographic image garbage as some sort of "proof" is indicative that, although you may have spent a long time in the photographic industry, you quite apparantly did not learn too much. Any first year law student could and would make a complete fool of you in any court of law, with such completely non-corroborative evidence.

Would everyone (or at least most) concur that the "ghost image" is not and can not be of either of the two motorcycles which are on the left-hand side (Jackie's side) of the Presidential Limo???

Next item up for bid: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg The old "Ghost Image"

See Post#9 for the correct answer. P.S. Others at least figured out that CE585 showed the date 2/7/64 long prior to my having confirmed it with the full size copy of the "revision date" written in. Perhaps you should take up golfing or something of that nature.

I see you are babbling again there perv.... Lots of different surface textures and reflectivity, and even quite specular surfaces like a sheet of glass is diffuse to a degree. Standard stuff for those skilled in the craft of lighting. That however leaves you in the lurch. Oh the kettle has plenty of bearing, if you had bothered to digest the information I spoon fed you. I'll ask again Tom, and maybe this time the subject of the exercise just might sink into that mushie spot between your ears. What color is the kettle? Exactly the same color as the one seen in the Zapruder film. OH! I forgot. There is no shiny reflective kettle seen in the Zapruder film, is there????? So, does your shiny kettle have a whole lot of bearing on something which is not seen within Dealey Plaza?? I won't waste your precious time in a continuation of showing additional photographs of the Presidential Parade in which, for some mysterious reason, one can continually observe the DPD logo's on the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Must be some sort of magnet anomoly within Dealey Plaza which just would not allow them to appear. What color are those logos Tom? You keep sprinting right by that question. Is there a shiny LOGO in Dealey Plaza? What color is that logo Tom? There is a LOT of information for you to digest in those simple photos of a kettle. Now I know thats NOT what you want to do. Like the good CT you are,you would rather run with some harebrained notion that someone altered the LOGOS so you can't tell which way the head are turned. Reality be damned! You gottta keep your worldview intact regardless. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Whatever Tom, its just beyond you. Enjoy your fantasy, it really suits you. Correct! It is absolutely "beyond" me as to how anyone could fantasize that a singular staged photograph of the rear-end of their "whatever" as well as a similar photograph of a tea kettle serves as proof that throughout the multiple frames of the Z-film, which has ever-changing lighting conditions as well as reflective angles, one should not be able to ever see the darker image of the DPD logo's against he white background of the motorcycle policemen's helmets. Perhaps it has some bearing on the exact speed at which your tea kettle was travelling?????