David Von Pein

------------

A few Gallery images..... ------

Thanks, Robin. As I thought, some photo-faker has utilized the dirt on the window to create "Oswald's face". The same connect-the-dirt task can easily be performed in other parts of the same Depository window to create additional "faces" too. Like the one I've circled below. Looks like a woman this time. Maybe it's Dorothy Kilgallen. So it would seem as if dirt and pixels make very good "face maker" tools indeed.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-837.html

I agree, Tom.

Tom, The window sills in the TSBD were very low, as we can see in the photos below (CE 488 and 489). Someone of Oswald's height (5-feet-9), when standing, would definitely reach the upper windows, as seen here:

On the far left is CE482, which is the real Tom Dillard photo as it appears on Page 200 of Warren Commission Volume 17.....

You're not alone, Tom. Yesterday, I couldn't find the "Oswald face" either. Now I can see it clear as a bell. And once you find the right place to look, you'll easily be able to see it again from then on, every time you look at this image. I've added the yellow boxes around "Oswald" here.... And after looking at CE482 in the WC volumes again just now, I've got to tell you, I was quite surprised to find something in that same area of the window that generally lines up with the "Oswald face" in the "enhanced" and higher-quality image Vince Palamara posted yesterday. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call it a distinquishable "face" in CE482, but there are some similarities. It could very well be that a photo-faker has merely "enhanced" the dirt on the window panes and turned the dirt into Lee Harvey Oswald's face. The person who "enhanced" the image likely used Oswald's mug shot. (See the montage photo that I made in my next post.)

In addition to adding Oswald's face to the Dillard photo of the TSBD, the photo-faker(s) also played around with the tinting of the picture. It almost looks like it's been colorized slightly (check the color of the sky on the far right). Or maybe a better term might be: it's been given a sepia type of hue. The original photograph taken by Tom Dillard, of course, is a black-and-white picture (top photo below)....

Yes! I see it now. I don't know why I couldn't see it yesterday, but I sure do see it now. It would be nice if this "face" were real. But it's almost certainly a fake.

...

...

...

...

Here's the pic Vince wanted to post (click to make it full-sized).....

BUMP..... Has anybody ever followed up on this? And in the intervening 5 years since this forum thread was first started by Duncan MacRae on January 1st, 2010, has anyone been able to compare the 1964 test films with the assassination film taken by Abraham Zapruder on 11/22/63? Some background info on this topic.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-831.html

In his two-hour 2002 interview with Gary Mack, Buell Frazier goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the times that he did certain things on 11/22/63.... http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1 http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2

Correct.

Well, since Specter and everybody else connected with the investigation knew that the bullet that was found by Darrell Tomlinson was a bullet that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, it was pretty clear to Specter & Company that the bullet HAD to have come from Connally's stretcher. Should Specter have played the same "Bullet Was Planted" game that CTers have been playing for 51 years? Should Specter have seriously considered the notion that CE399 had been planted, even though he knew the bullet was found by Tomlinson while Connally was still in surgery with potential bullets still inside his body that no plotters could have possibly had any knowledge of? Such silly games are best played on the Internet. They shouldn't be played by responsible investigators.

Correct, Mark. Which is why Tomlinson's first testimony (his WC session) is certainly the best one to use. And in that testimony, he says over and over again "I'M NOT SURE" when asked which stretcher he took off the elevator. Tomlinson had no idea which one it was.

When did Tomlinson ever say he took FULLER'S stretcher off the elevator?

This doesn't help answer Pat Speer's question above about the AWOL Secret Service report, but I'll toss this in the pot for good measure anyway.... Two years later, in July 1966, Darrell Tomlinson told Ray Marcus that he found the bullet on the stretcher that he had taken off the elevator. .... MARCUS -- "You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?" TOMLINSON -- "I know it was." Tomlinson also told Marcus that the bullet the FBI showed him after the assassination "appeared to be the same one" he had found on the Parkland stretcher on 11/22/63. More here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-74.html Tomlinson also told CBS News in 1967 that the bullet was found on the stretcher taken off the elevator. He then completely changed his mind when asked about it in 1988 for NOVA/PBS. In '88, Tomlinson was absolutely positive that he found the bullet on the OTHER stretcher (the one NOT removed from the elevator). ~shrug~

I, for one, do not dismiss Arnold Rowland's account of seeing a "west side" gunman out of hand at all. He was almost certainly telling the truth about that part of his testimony (even though Vincent Bugliosi disagrees; and this is one of only a small handful of times I disagree with Vince's analysis and conclusions). And, in my opinion, the key to knowing that Arnold Rowland was truthful when he said he saw a man holding a rifle on the west end of the Depository's sixth floor shortly before 12:30 is the testimony of Rowland's wife, Barbara. (Plus Barbara Rowland's 11/22/63 affidavit as well, which corroborates her husband's version of events.) But the person Arnold Rowland saw that day on the west end of the Depository wasn't some unknown gunman. It was none other than Lee Harvey Oswald. That is almost certainly a fact, despite the "timeline" discrepancies that inevitably will crop up in a situation like this when many people are asked after an event to try and reconstruct the times when certain things occurred. But such timing discrepancies are not absolute proof of conspiracy or of multiple gunmen on the sixth floor. More here -----> JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / An Oswald Timeline -----

HENRY RYBKA, DON LAWTON, AND SECRET SERVICE CONFUSION AT LOVE FIELD: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

Not true at all. The jacket collar could be "hiked up" a little bit and still have some of JFK's white shirt visible. Why you think such a thing is a complete impossibility only shows how desperate you are to trash the totally reasonable (and feasible) Single-Bullet Conclusion. Plus: Why is it not possible in your world to have the collar portion of a person's jacket hiked up just SLIGHTLY and (at the same time) also have a different (lower) portion of that same person's jacket hiked up (or "bunched up") more than just SLIGHTLY? In the world of Cliff "Everything In The Whole JFK Case Revolves Around Kennedy's Clothing" Varnell, the above scenario of having President Kennedy's COLLAR only raised (or "hiked") a little bit but a lower portion of his suit coat hiked up a bit MORE than "just slightly" is something that couldn't happen in a million years -- even though several photos taken of JFK in the Dallas motorcade PROVE beyond all doubt that that very thing I just described regarding JFK's jacket WAS occurring when Mr. Kennedy was riding in his limousine through the streets of Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. You couldn't be any sillier if you tried, Clifford. Are you finished with your derailing of this thread yet, Cliff? Or can you talk about anything except that jacket and collar?

If you can't tell that Mr. Kennedy's jacket is hiked up a bit in the Croft photo, pity on you, Cliff. Because the "bunching" or "hiked up" nature of JFK's jacket in that particular picture couldn't be any more obvious. Cliff, you'd probably be better off jumping on the "Photo is fake" bandwagon regarding the Croft picture, rather than sticking to this odd stance: "...the jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of JFK's neck [in the Croft photo]." -- C. Varnell; 8/30/14 Related "Bunching" Note..... Just a few minutes (maybe less) before JFK entered Dealey Plaza, a man named Andre Leche took a home movie of the President's car on Main Street (his film wasn't discovered until November 2013), and President Kennedy's "bunched up" jacket is clearly visible in his film too (and in George Jefferies' film as well)..... Kennedy-Photos.blogspot.com/The Leche Film (Video & Photos)