Patrick Block

If Kellerman simply opens his door and steps out, he covers the right side of the President more easily than anyone e could simply with his presence with the car still rolling forward. He ends up right next to the President without taking a step. It's a ridiculous notion that he couldn't reach JFK to offer protective cover, and he could also have scanned the area to his right and behind with this action. Why does he need to vault over obstructions?

Also, it's perfectly obvious that the best description of what Kellerman actually did was cower as low to the floor as he possibly could while the bullets were flying and he had a job that still needed doing.

Greer is the most damned by inaction. Instead of doing his job of simply slamming down the gas pedal- which he had time to do whether he was my age or not...instead the man faciliates the assassination by greatly slowing the vehicle down so that the assassins have an easier shot.

Emory Roberts, in charge in the follow-up car, which was extremely close to the President's car, actually orders his men to not aid the President- and has the nerve to admit to this after the assassination to the Warren Commission. Hill goes anyways, to his credit. Roberts apparently fibs, and states this happened after the car was accellerating away. His lie is given away by Ready leaping off the running board, and being called back, with the President's car still mere feet away and barely rolling. Roberts also claimed a motorcycle was in the way.

So- if there is something between a President and an agent while shots are flying, the agents are supposed to let the President be killed?

Robert's report after the assassination is interesting in that he lies about the presence of an extra agent inside the car who was not there. Why? Does he really not know who is riding in that single car he is responsible for?

Perhaps he was feeling guilt over ordering an agent off the running board beside the President as it left the airport, which was captured in a now famous video, and felt he would get away with the lie, not realizing film of the assassination would escape the conspirators hands and become public in the far future.

Roberts additionally lies about the distance the President's car was from his car during the shots- he actually has the nerve to claim it was 20-25 feet away, and going 20 to 25 miles an hour!!

Finally, the real kicker is Robert's reward for a job well done. Instead of being fired for various lies and for giving the order to not go to the President's aid, this obviously successful conspirator in the President's death- someone who flagrantly broke his pledge to protect the President, and acted about as wretchedly as was humanly possible- this guy gets promoted for his efforts to the desired position of Inspector at Secret Service Headquarters. Nice payoff.

Among the Warren Commission's great whoppers is their description of the actions of the Secret Serice protection that day. Whenever we consider the value of their evaluation of the assassination evidence, it is an excellent idea to compare their keen observations of the Secret Serice detail's performance to arrive at the Warren Commission's real value as an investigating body.

The Commission's summary-

"The Commission finds that the Secret Service agents in the motorcade who were immediately responsible for the President's safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired. Their actions demonstrate that the President and the Nation can expect courage and devotion to duty from the agents of the Secret Service."

Mark Lane, in his latest book Last Word notes that it was almost as if Kennedy had survived.

No one has put more on the line for Lee Oswald than did Mark Lane.

Some of us here pretend to be Oswald champions. It's easy to blabber that he was innocent of wrongdoing on an internet board where there aren't any lasting consequences to careers, reputations and finances.

Lane stood up to the entire American government to see that Lee Oswald had at least a small voice to actually represent him. How easily we forget how lonely Lane's point of view was early on. The man is an American Patriot with more balls than anyone- any person I can think of.

Slandering him by saying he didn't do his utmost to get justice for Oswald- a person he didn't personally know, that he defended because it was only a basic right under our Constitution there wasn't anyone else going to try- that's a pretty low and cowardly blow in my opinion.

Anyone who seriously thinks they could do better ought to put their money where their mouth is, and go challenge the government's case in a court of law- and bring the real culprits to justice. No ones been convicted of the President's murder- it's an open case. Let them see how long they stand up to the pressures that would be brought to bear against them by the spooks and media- see if they can match Lane's integrity and stubborn resolve to pursue the truth.

Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

Mark Lane sacrificed a great portion of his life in becoming a shepherd of the weak, in my opinion. The agents of darkness have accosted his name for decades- but God knows who is who, and has been sorting this all out as the old xxxxheels who were part and parcel of the coverup of the assassination have been dying off.

God Bless Mark Lane.

It may have been touched upon...

wouldn't the SS have to be told some story that would elicit that poor a response?

An exercise that they were told about ahead of time perhaps... as there really is no way to explain the behavior away...

no two ways, Kellerman should have been over JFK after the first SOUND like a shot.

Greer... speeding off.

what could they have been told to make sure they 1) put the limo out front, and 2) didn't react?

had to have been pretty good.

With the top down on the limo as it rounded that sharp turn, and with more than one shooter, Kennedy was a sitting duck no matter what Greer or Kellerman, or Hill, for that matter, did.

I vehemently disagree with this. If Greer hits the gas, which was his most basic job- and he had six seconds to do this, instead of braking, the scenerio goes from a near stop target to an unpredictable, fastly accelerating target. How can his slowing the vehicle to a crawl not matter? Seriously.

Kellerman and Ready's basic job was to cover the President with their bodies. They also had six seconds to try and do this. Hill stated he was looking the wrong way, and missed Kennedy's reaction to the first shot and lost precious time. So, if Kellerman and Ready had acted promptly and had at least attempted to do their fundamental functions, there is at least a possibility of getting between JFK and that final bullet. Ready would not have had to actually reach JFK to position himself between the Oswald window and a bullet, and Kellerman also might have gottern between a front shooter and JFK without having to actually have reached the President.

Hill, looking the wrong way and presumably hung over, still made the effort to place himself in harms way in a way no other Secret Service member even bothered to attempt. He also has stuck to the right rear fist sized head wound for all these decades, no doubt against great pressures posed against him we can only imagine. Hill is the only one.

It's clear that Roberts and Boring were part of the plot. Probably Sorrels, Blaine, Kellerman and Greer were also compromised.

Over the ages, when kings, dictators, presidents and emperors fall to coups, it's those loyal bodyguards that inevitably are bought that make such things possible. No difference here, just because it happened in the USA, we tend to be idiots about the subject because of our delusions of being somehow superior to the rest of the human race.

Hill was a last minute addition due to Jackie's personal request. It's not really surprising that this basically loyal and decent man was the only one that acted according to his job description. We need to open our eyes to the truth.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. -Thomas Jefferson

Anyone who hasn't read Last Word should get a copy. I'm very much looking forward to Citizen Lane!

Ms. Moore posted the CIA eyes-only secret document where the spooks discuss how to discredit researchers who question the Warren Report. They discuss influencing the media and using assets to put forth what they want American's to hear, and generally stample on the Constitution's idea of a Free Press...but there is a more subtle and interesting bit in there too.

I've always found this line, where they talk about their direct involvement in the assassination, quite enlightening.

The CIA-"Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation."

No wonder they didn't want to let that scrap of paper loose, eh?

looks like i am in the minority on this. What President Obama did was right. al-Awlaki & Kahn threaten to do terrorist attacks on their fellow American Citizens. In that since they foreated that Citizenship and became targets for attack themselves. I knew i will get alot of feed back on this. I am ready for that.

So- if you yourself threaten to attack another American, you feel that your Citizenship as an American is forfeit? The CIA should be able to blow you away from a distance if they "think" you have threatened another American, with no trial?

Isn't this exactly the reason we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, to keep our rights to a fair trial, and the "decisions" that effect us spread out into the hands of three different parts of the Government, so that no one group or person can decide our fate?

Since you are ready for the feedback, I'd enjoy hearing your careful exploration of what you just said. And President Obama didn't "do" this. He listened to people in the shadows working outside the Constitution make the judgement that these persons were guilty of a crime, and with no trial, he gave the same persons permission to then execute from the shadows at a distance the accused American, who was offered no defense council, had no opportunity to speak in their own defense, and who is a member of no country we are at war with.

What the President did was "right"? Have we fallen so far into fascist like control that just being the "leader" now makes anything he does fine, because the "leader" happens to be the American President?

In my opinion, we need to start thinking with our brains, and not hide behind the American Flag letting some sick, misplaced nationalistic 21st century sense of manifest destiny lead to a gestapo run state- which is exactly what is happening with these recent events.

The "Two Men In Dallas" 5-part video was great. For those who claim that the initial identification of the rifle found on the 6th floor as a Mauser was just an innocent mistake, look at the affidavit that Seymour Weitzman swore out- it's full of detail, and obviously was made by someone who was positive about what he was identifying. Throw in Boone's simultaneous identification of the rifle as a Mauser, and then look at that CIA memo, written on 11/25/63, that listed the 6th floor weapon as a Mauser, and a reasonable person would have to assume that the rifle found there was a Mauser.

I have no idea why a Mauser was apparently found on the 6th floor, or when and where the Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted for it, but it seems pretty clear that it happened that way.

I know that not all researchers believe in Roger Craig's credibility. Imho, he was one of the few members of Dallas law enforcement who actually tried to do his job that day. He unquestionably suffered tremendously because he told the truth and refused to change his story. In my mind, he was a true hero.

I'm all aboard with your assessments of Roger Craig. He is a patriot of the highest caliber, who suffered rather than lied about the truth of what he saw.

There is a tendency to forget that the photos which tend to prove his honesty turned up well after he made his statements. Fritz claimed Craig was never present at the station when Oswald was brought in at all, that Craig was a xxxx- and then the photo showing Craig looking on turned up, proving just whom the xxxx was.

Similarly, Craig mentioned seeing the station wagon Oswald looka-like and driver, and afterwards the photo of him looking up at the car he dedscribes seeing at precisely that right moment in time turned up. What are the odds of this happening?

It's almost like God or fate intervened to provide proof of Fritz's barefaced lies and Craig's basic integrity.

The man was doing his job that day and witnessed important events. The long filmed interview of him shows a very modest, humble, simple man caught up in events much larger than himself. His basic honesty is proven beyond doubt by the later photo discoveries. He also "feels" entirely credible.

Attempts were certainly made on this simple, honest man's life. He may have been murdered, or killed himself in depression from the wounds he recieved and the constant pressures put to him.

Either way, Craig is one of the tragic, brave persons lost in this horrible crime- and a true American Patriot we ought to remember with reverance- in my opinion.

In my opinion, his story has all the elements of a great documentary or movie unto itself. His story would make a great and moving film.

It might be quite worthwhile for someone with audio skill to take those hard to decipher bits about the black cadillac and see what else is hiding there in the background. There is quite a bit of background chatter that might prove salvagable and of vital interest to the case.

I've read Doug Horne's five-decker work three times. I think it's the very best single source on all things autopsy related to the assassination- and it is a fascinating read, well worth the cost- a must have set for those interested in the truth.

Mr. Morrow, you make this grievious error in your review of that bit of propaganda 'how to not think'.

"The author is one of the least respected JFK researchers..."

I would offer the observation that calling this gentleman a "JFK researcher" is akin to calling Jack the Ripper a surgeon. A surgeon tries to save lives with a knife...Jack took them violently. Just wielding a scalpel and using it to cut living flesh does not a surgeon make.

A JFK researcher looks for the truth about what happened that dark day in Dallas. The author of "how to not think" is not interested in the truth. He is interested in making sure that the treason committed that day remains hidden from everyone else.

If he himself knows the truth and is being paid to do this by the organization involved in the assassination, it logically follows that he is committing treason himself.

A JFK researcher he is not.

It's fascinating to me the way JFK's assassination tipped this gentle and respected artist into becoming more of a radical activist for many of the causes JFK believed in and worked towards.

In many ways, I think much of the turmoil of the sixties can be followed back to Nov. 22. While these terrible men who killed the President succeeded in overthrowing our government, people sensed the truth, and many made a stand where and when they could.

Norman Rockwell today is looked at as a traditional, conservative painter, (as far as his approach to painting goes). He is remember mostly for the very comfortable images of America that seem to paint a tranquil and idylic country.

It's ironic we today forget these more important statements he made as he reacted to the murder of President Kennedy and his anguish at the corruption of the country he loved.

Thanks for the great and interesting thread.

The casual and slipshod way the cops are escorting the tramps is quite remarkable. The President has just been shot down right here a very short while back. No one knows if there might be a whole host of assassins, a huge plot, or if the country was being taken over by Soviets or something. The entire planet is shocked, laden with grief, disbelief and anger. Why are these Dallas policemen treating these guys like they would a high school student who set a bag of poop on fire in the school hall?

These bums aren't handcuffed, guns aren't pointed at them, and the cops who just had this crime occur in their city on their watch are handling them much too casually for my liking. One cop is uselessly out front and isn't looking at the tramps. That leaves one cop to keep an eye on them. Wouldn't any cop be at his most alert status at this time? If this is how the Dallas police treated Presdential assassin suspects, how the heck would they treat suspects who committed more minor crimes like burglary or rape? No handcuffs for those suspects too? Do they treat people suspected for little crimes like that to donuts?

I find this lack of concern similar to the 12 hours of concerted questioning of Oswald by the Dallas police, FBI, Secret Service and God knows who else resulting in a total of a couple sheets of very rough, extremely sketchy hand written notes. The Dallas Police's stenographic and taping skills are only matched by the vigilant escorting abilities of it's officers, apparently.

Here is a picture of my copy of tramp "Gedneys's" book. How many here knew he actually wrote a book? Obscure, aint it?

Are people here on the boards aware that one of the "tramps" authored a book in 2001 on his career as a bum?

Mark Lane has stated in print that of all the persons he has ever spent time with and interviewed, Abraham Bolden has perhaps the greatest integrity.

I made it a point to buy his book in paperback form, and after reading it, searched out a hardback and got Mr. Bolden to sign it for me. He an I are friends on Facebook, and I make it a point to see what he is up to from time to time. He is always cordial and goes out of his way to respond in detail to any questions I have.

The book offers a unique perspective into that time you can find nowhere else.

I am happy to join the group signing the petition to help clear this patriot's good name. Mr. Bolden is another of the many casualties caught up in the treasonous events that unfolded.

He deserves to be remembered as someone who saw wrongs done, and did his very best to right them, at great cost to himself. You can bet that if this alert and brave young agent had had a place on that followup car, JFK's odds of surviving would have greatly increased.

It's no longer a question. JFK was killed because of his interest in Peace. He had a vision of a world where countries spent their resources on their people's needs- on science, social issues, bettering Mankind and helping one another.

The High Cabal, Military Industrial Complex- whatever you want to call them, wanted the wealth and power that continuing small, controlled wars would bring to them.

They couldn't control this young, brave, visionary leader and turn him around to their way of thinking. They had him killed by the CIA. The CIA concocted a brilliant plan, used assets in the press and government to ensure they would get away with it.

No need to leave earth to find answers. Just like a thousand assassinations before it throughout history, JFK was felled from within by people working under him in our own government.

The most troubling single thing about the assassination is the way our "free" press threw in the towel to tyranny. Few patriots stepped up. The news organizations happily took the handful of silver offered and did what they were told. Partly at first this was because the plot offered up a false "Soviet involvement" that was used to induce people to cooperate and lie to avoid a 3rd World War. This was no excuse in later years- greed and power trumped patriotism and the Truth for most.

Since the assassination, a great many false leads pointing at all manner of assassins has been spread like so much propaganda popcorn in the hope of keeping researchers from arriving at the Truth.

Aliens wielding death-rays would have been a much preferable way to go, for JFK, America and her Constitution, in my opinion.

From my copy-

The Ends of Power H.R. Haldeman with Joseph DiMona. Times Books. 1978.

I would search on eBay for a copy. It's not a rare or expensive book.

Nixon's Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman inadvertantly blew the lid off Nixon's knowledge of the CIA's ivolvement in the assassination in his book "The Ends of Power". I always find it much more convincing when someone reveals something like this without even realizing he is doing so, rather than someone who is directly trying to pound his little round pegs into square holes to force a conclusion.

Nixon had the nerve, once he was in trouble over his merry little CIA burglars breaking-in to the Watergate, of trying to throw JFK's assassination into Helms face. He sent Haldeman and Ehrlichman to Helms to clearly threaten the CIA with what he knew about the crime, and inferred that Hunt was involved in JFK's death and might cause a real ruckus for everyone.

This, of course, is part of the famous tape Nixon did himself in with. Some of the tape remains, and quite a lot has never been revealed.

"The Ends of Power" is a mind blowing little book that quite a lot of researchers have missed. Nixon treats the JFK Assassination like it's just another political tool- secret information that he has had laying around to use as a leverage with the CIA when he gets himself in trouble.

Haldeman assumes in the book that Nixon's information has to do more with the CIA withholding information or lying about minor details in their role in the crime, instead of directly planning the hit....but anyone well read on the actual subject will be astute enough to put 2+2 together and come up with the correct answer here.

Helms nearly has stroke when Haldeman brings up the subject at Nixon's request. Haldeman never does understand exactly what it is Nixon is getting at.

Super interesting book, written from the point of view from an insider never quite altogether "in the loop". It's history, and it's my favorite sort o book to read...full of the "edges of the truth" rather than an attempt to prove something from the outside looking in with an agenda that might color one's perspective.

Mr, Thompson, here is my complete post from the older thread, which touches on all the issues you bring up here. Basically, once any officials who were not a part of the conspiracy knew of the existence of the film, those involved in the assassination could hardly destroy it- and the way the film was treated did remove it from the view of the American public for decades.

A head shot from behind and another from the front is the likely scenario deduced from Dr. Mantik's work. There is a fair amount of evidence that suggests this may have been what occured.

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains.

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

Here is what NARA itself has actually declared about Ms. Wilkinson's copy of the film that she received from them.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA early this past year.

---In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original."

I find Mr. Thompson's proposal of two hits to the head perfectly viable. I agree with him completely, as I stated in my very first posts, that there is no sign of a rearward exit wound at frames #313-314.

The artwork- the "blacking out" of the rear of the President's head begins at precisely frame #315 and not before. The easiest way to come to grips with the existance of the artwork is to take any really decent copy of the film, and view frames of Kennedy and the whole car before frame #315 and view the frames from #315 onward. The artwork is immediately apparent.

In my earlier post which Mr. Thompson did not respond to, I explained clearly the likely reason the conspirator's altering the film "blacked in" the exist wound but left in the violent head snap backwards. (It's quite possible my post got buried in the huge morass of arguments, and he never read it.)

The black patch artwork could be accomplished with relatively simple work. Removing the head snap could not be done in a short period of time with a more minimal staff and equipment.

It's a matter of "what could be accomplished" in the window in which the conspirators had to work.

I still think everyone on both sides should take a breath and stop with the name calling and attacks. Both sides are guilty of it. It only causes dissension, when in fact, people who are interested in the truth ought to be looking at their common ground.

Mr. Thompson, could I hear the rest of your opinion on the nature of the shots? Are you thinking a head shot from the front and rear? Or two from the front?

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains.

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

My recent posts have strongly pointed out the way those who murdered the President isolated the Zapruder Film for decades from the American public using their assets in the media.

No one has attempted to debate even one point of the many I have detailed in my last post. This is a bit surprising to me.

Instead, someone has attributed me as saying the sprocket area of the film was altered in one day. I assume they hope to hide in the cover of almost 50 pages of posts the fact that this is just a plain falsehood- I never once mention the inter-sprocket images because they are invisible in the record until decades later. Mr. Healy makes excellent observations about this. That is a separate matter from the work on the black patch, which is visible early in the record.

This silly way of trying to score points in a debate- ignoring what a debater actually says and pretending he addressed some other subject they wish to discuss, is a sign of desperation for any debater. It is deception and worthy of no researcher.

It is similar to a debater abandoning his reasoning and irrationally tossing slurs and insults out instead of discussing valid points the other side has made.

Both are clear, obvious signs that the debate has ended, and you have won a victory on that particular subject.

Please try and refrain in the future from posting that I said something here that I never wrote.

Sydney Wilkinson, who paid to have the dupe negative element of the forensic copy in the National Archives made, has kindly agreed to let me share the following information she has received from NARA.

Below is a part of one of Ms. Wilkinson's private emails to me, where she shares her dupe neg element's genealogy which was sent direct to her from NARA this past year.

This isn't hearsay, nor a rumor nor even science-fiction. It's an official declaration from NARA to the owner of the negative element-

--- In Feb., 2011, Daniel Rooney, Supervisory Archivist at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland informed me in an email that

the lineage of our 35mm dupe neg. is:

Zapruder Camera Original 8mm - NARA 35mm Interneg - NARA 35mm Interpos - Our Dupe Neg

Consequently, he stated, "Your film negative can be said to be 3rd generation from the original." 

A Simple Question

The Zapruder film has been a thorn in the government's side since it first led the Secret Service and the FBI to conclude in December 1963 that Connally was hit by a separate bullet. When it was shown on TV by Bob Groden in 1975 it provided the muscle of public opinion to get the case reopened.

Let's say you are some mysterious intelligence outfit that brought off the assassination and now has to cover up the fact that JFK was shot in the head from the right front. Isn't the simplest and most effective solution to seize the Zapruder film as soon as anyone knows what it in it? "I'm sorry, Mr. Zapruder," says Forrest Sorrels, "but the Secret Servide will have to take this film as evidence." Doesn't that about take care of the whole problem. Why go to the trouble of faking up parts of the film when the simplest solution is just to seize the damn thing? Then weeks or months later some "accident" can befall the film while it's in storage... a fire, a flood, a loss in transit.

But let's say that the myserious intelligence outfit decided to fake up parts of the film.

Why on earth would they leave the massive left backward snap in the film and just cover up some blood and brain at the back of Kennedy's head? The left backward snap is the most graphic evidence of a shot from the right front. It was seeing that that brought about the formation of HSAC. Why leave that in and only paint in a little patch at the back of JFK's head?

JT

That's a perfectly logical question, and I'll take a shot at it.

The Conspiracy was carefully planned and polished by professionals- that mysterious intelligence agency you describe- it was the CIA. They had already accounted for or stopped any real investigation of the crime by insuring that the search would stop with Oswald, by creating the "Oswald visit's the Soviet Chief Assassin" scenario in Mexico City. Everyone would be head over-heels in their enthusiasm to blame Oswald alone to avoid a conflict of massive proportions with the Soviets.

With their man already pre-planned and waiting in the wings to lead the WC to the "correct" conclusion, those that planned the coup knew only the most shallow of purely political "investigations" would take place.

They made sure that they got full control over the film, by having a company "friendly" to them (Life Magazine, headed by former psyops and propaganda guru C. D. Jackson) purchase it, and insuring that the film would never be shown publicly as a motion picture by this huge news giant- ever.

Haven't you ever found it curious that Life Magazine paid all this additional money (100,000.00 of additional cash), and never even bothered to try and recoup it's additional investment with a documentary or news program?

Why purchase the motion picture rights for an additional 100k $ if they weren't going to publish it? Does anyone believe the fairy tale that they were saving the country from the horror of publishing the images? I mean...really?

Look at the publishing history of frame #317. How many times have decent color images of it popped up, in the early decades after the assassination?

Why is it missing? It's among the clearest images of Jackie and the rest after the head shot.

Those dealing with the film would have had to deal with honest law enforcement /intelligence/Secret Service agents not involved in the plot. What if Forrest Sorrels was not a part of the plot? Under these conditions, could they just destroy the film?

Once outsiders knew the film existed, it couldn't very well be destroyed altogether. All it would take is one honest individual's interest in the film's existence to keep it from being destroyed.

In my opinion, as someone who has worked with both super8 and 16mm film- these "blacked out" back of head frames suggest a shortage of time to do much work on the film. They most likely used self-matting aerial imaging to accomplish their work with the film, rather than more complex and multi-step matte work.

This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.

It suggests to me the conspirators were on a very tight schedule.

I know Mr. Fetzer and others have theories that a lot more advanced, traveling matte work was done with the film. I am personally not convinced of this. I'm not inclined to argue against it...but in my opinion aerial imaging is a more likely solution that answers your astute questions about the obvious artwork on the back of JFK's head.

I've carefully read Doug Horne's information about the film's trek to Rochester, and his work tends to confirm my opinion that the more likely scenario is one hectic day of frantic work to make the film merely passable for the consumption of an expressed few who might have the "honor" of watching it. After all, Mr. Thompson, this was a film that was heavily suppressed from the public- and yet it is a part of American History, and it's hard to argue that this basic evidence doesn't belong to every American citizen.

Perhaps a few frames of the film were dropped completely to get rid of obvious evidence of clear strikes. That would be a matter of making invisible optical cuts of individual frames when the new movie was assembled using an optical printer- difficult, but an editing matter a good technician could overcome without a spate of animators. Maybe a cut to eliminate the turn and a visible street hit. It would also be possible, without too much time, to blur a couple of damning frames.

These are the kinds of alterations that harried conspirators could make on the fly rather quickly.

It's also quite possible that those altering the Zapruder film could also have pulled off adding the perceived "blob" to the film via aerial imaging. The process allows for opaque artwork to be added "on top" on an existing image...and this area of the film is quite alarmingly inconsistent from frame to frame, as if it were painted-in art on top of the real film. This would have been done on animation cels using an animation stand, installed as part of an optical printer modified for aerial imaging work.

They would need talent to accomplish this though, of the sort you associate with Hollywood.

If the "blob" is artwork, suddenly most everything Mr. Lifton has theorized for all these years rather logically and neatly works.

I am not 100% sold on the blob being artwork, but it is really the only viable alternative to logically solve the issues with the huge mass of witnesses who saw only the rearward wound- in my opinion, of course.

On the matter of the headsnap.

How would someone remove this using aerial imaging? You couldn't. You can't just drop out the frames....the car would jump down the road. Removing the headsnap required more time and resources than these conspirators had to work with. They just couldn't pull it off, and had to move ahead with a less than perfect film. That is why it remains. 

There are limitations to what could be accomplished with the technology available in 1963- especially under the time considerations involved here.

They knew that Life Magazine was compromised at the top and in the service of their organization, so that a clear copy of the film wouldn't fall into public hands in their lifetimes- and it didn't.

"So what, if the truth came out in fifty years?", they might have thought.

I understand your initial concerns, Mr. Thompson, and I think this quite specifically and logically addresses all of your well thought out questions.

Now, we will eventually be able to look at the very best available possible copy of the film, outside of traveling to NARA ourselves, thanks to the patriotic and motivated Ms. Wilkinson and her willingness to shell out the cash for research purposes. (Unless someone nefarious and treasonous stops her before she does so.)

I wish her Godspeed in her work.

Hi Kathy,

Yes, initially NARA informed Ms. Wilkinson her dupe neg was 5th generation, and Horne was told this from Wilkinson and published the information in his big book. NARA itself discovered they were mistaken this past year, I understand, and informed the researcher of their mistake. I didn't read this anywhere...it's not on the internet, I was informed of this directly.

The term "element" in the film world is generally used to describe what you get when you take a "positive print" and create a "dupe negative", which is the preferred method in the film world when you want something that you are going to work with or study closely....a dupe negative is a "negative element", or an "element" for short. Typically, in movie making you make release prints from dupe negatives.

*squints at the last paragraph*

Yeah, right, that make sense.

Wilkinson, yes. I can't believe I spelled it like that. Editing that to correct it, thank you Jim.

We have not met in person, only via phone and emails.

Greetings again Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your nice and well thought out response. I have to admit that you make me feel a bit nervous. I have a very dog-eared copy of your book, I suppose it is a first edition, and I've read the thing nearly to death.

You are one of the early "2nd generation" of researchers who followed the initial wave of books on the assassination. I grew up reading your book. You exhibited creativity and careful thought in your volume, and while perhaps I didn't agree with everything you wrote, you always made me pause and consider matters further in the case.

Much of your research life has involved this little bit of film. I remember your early writing about the movement of the President's head- and the basic trust of the reliability of the contents of this home movie must be an issue that you care deeply about.

I don't blame you one bit for your being careful about taking that first step into really accepting the notion that this film has been tampered with, but I hope that you are still young enough at heart, and open minded to the possibilities of conspiracy after the fact in the faking of raw evidence in this case.

I quite agree with you on a number of the things you state.

It is indeed confusing trying to sort through the various "versions" of the film. One needs to be cautious. If a person is using images of the Zapruder similar to the image you posted, and trusted all these decades, and the frame shows Governor Connally with a black shirt collar and makes Jackie's roses invisible, naturally it is not a reliable image for looking at the President's hair for an honest evaluation of whether there is alteration or not. All versions that show a similar lack of basic details would need to be avoided. I have a little list of basic things to look for when contemplating newly discovered images- it's just wise to do so and be careful.

You are exactly right about the perennial problem of basic access to the Zapruder Film. You hit the nail squarely on the head. Ever since Mr. Zapruder sold it to Life Magazine, it has been squirrelled away from the American public in a secretive, illusive, and frankly most suspicious way.

Even after the American taxpayers pay millions of dollars for the thing in recent times, the copyright holds it under lock and key in a most un-American spirit. It sits deteriorating and unrestored in the National Archives. We are extremely lucky, in my opinion, that someone with the patriotism and curiosity of Ms. Wilkinson came along and paid the considerable sum to have modern technology preserve the film's content in the best possible manner.

The film, slides, prints are all a part of American History, a history that the American public has paid for using much more than mere dollars. The government should long ago have made excellent copies made available free in libraries, and since 1993, ought to have high quality digital versions online for researchers everywhere.

It's little wonder there is confusion with so very much secrecy. It isn't surprising that public confidence in our government has generally plunged downhill since that day in Dallas. Adding the black patch to the film amounts to treason- as is any alteration to any of the films or photos from the assassination, if the point was to hide the truth from the American people.

It's a big issue. It's important, and I can understand everyone's extreme concern that such things happen here in the USA.

Thank you too, very much, for your well presented four points on the hierarchy of the copies of the Zapruder Films and transparencies, though, you are incorrect about them, which might add some new insights for both you and everyone when considering the accuracy of Ms. Wilkinson's HD neutral scan.

The Wilkinson 35mm dupe negative was declared last year by NARA to be a 3rd generation element.

This, of course, is huge and important news. It destroys the notion of it having later generation problems. It insures this carefully handled HD digital scan of the Zapruder Film, which was created in a professional Hollywood studio using the best equipment by seasoned film pros, is going to be the finest complete record of the details of the assassination- assuming it is someday released!

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the discussion wasn't over- that this was the "tip of the iceburg", and, so it is.

I stated earlier at the start of my posting in this thread that I don't expect people to listen to me and change their long held views, I'm just one artist with one opinion.

What I am hoping is that I have piqued your interest in the matter, and that you all- those who think there was alteration and those who are not sure, will look a little harder at that black patch of artwork on the rear of JFK's head, and consider what this means when combined with the other long existing hard evidence of an occipital exit wound on the rear of the President's skull.

To sum up some of that basic evidence-

1. The rear of the President's head in the historical Zapruder film, which was itself hidden from the public for decades, has clear evidence of simple alteration, with a black patch masking the rear of JFK's head after the headshot.

2. Dozens, perhaps scores of witnesses, most of them medical professionals, all saw and testified to an exit-sized hole on the rear of the President's head- in this same blacked out area. The HSCA tried to hide the testimony of many witnesses at Bethesda who saw the same rearward hole that the Parkland folks did. The ARRB released the testimony for all to read.

3. A piece of bone described as occipital skull bone by 100% of the doctors who handled and described it was found at the scene, studied at the Methodist Hospital, and delivered to the FBI/Admiral Burkley who promptly "lost it" forever. It exists in photos only because the honest doctors who first viewed it took pictures of it that couldn't be ignored.

Each piece of this evidence to a frontal shot that exited from the rear was tampered with in one way or another. The film altered, witnesses influenced to change testimony in later interviews, occipital skull bone destroyed.

To accept this as reality, you do not need multiple film tampering events involved. Zapruder remains virtually alone in clearly visually showcasing the right rear of the President's head after impact.

It is really irrelevant to me whether the car stopped or not. I don't care about the wealth of other accusations about the film- I am neutral when it comes to much of the material claiming various other irregularities in the film.

I'll stick with what is obvious, provable, and deals with matters that I am very experienced in. Paint, celluloid, simple equipment, and a small window of time to work with the film.

Mr. Thompson, I think this evidence only supports your basic premise, found so long ago in your book, that a bullet or bullets hit JFK from the front.

Perhaps you would agree it would be best to view Ms. Wilkinson's 3rd generation element, officially designated so by NARA itself, and compare it directly to the images you have seen at the Sixth Floor Museum before dismissing the neutrally scanned HD footage.

I'd like to see the Sixth Floor material myself, and sniff the roses, as it were. Thank you for that advice. Is it permissible, do you know, to take in materials to make comparisons, that sort of thing? Do I need to make an appointment well in advance, or can one walk in with the request?

I am indebted to Doug Horne's work with the ARRB in introducing me to the zealous and intelligent researchers in Hollywood who decided to do more than talk about the film, and I would like to publicly thank him for his sacrifice in publishing his monumental research book on the medical evidence. At around 100$ for all five volumes, it was the best value of information per dollar of any of the hundreds of books on the assassination I've ever purchased.

Best regards,

Patrick

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=23077

http://24.152.179.96:8400/A524C/317.png

The links to the #317 Frames being discussed ^

Hello Mr. Thompson-

I'd like to address your post and the interesting image you've posted. Thanks for sharing this and taking the time to debate with someone brand new here. I think that a lot of the posters on the boards, on both sides of the issue, cause wedges to to be pushed between researchers outside of the facts of the evidence being presented with rudeness and a sort of lack of any kind of respect. A helluva a lot more progress towards resolution on many issues, like this one, would result a lot quicker if people didn't constantly rub things in other parties faces to make them defensive and more willing to consider evidence quietly, rather than causing them to want to brawl with one another.

The board ought to be a place one can come and learn, ask questions, and contribute.

I think your image answers a lot of the questions I've had about how it is people can be puzzled by what seems perfectly obvious to me. You've had this image of yours to study now for decades, and clearly, there is no sign of any black patches in this image. It's no wonder you are perplexed!

The image I used of frame #317 isn't 'mine' as you phrased it. I want to make it clear to begin with that I borrowed it here on this thread. It isn't the HD neutral scan I was discussing-but it is a reasonably clear but much smaller 1.34mb image that poster Chris Davidson offered up. (The HD scan frame is nearly 73mb large so it has way more raw information). I don't want to steal Chris' thunder. It's a very nice image. He said it is from a recent documentary, I think.

I'm re-adding a link to it here so we can all take a close look at both your image, and the other, to see which contains more actual detail and a truer likeness to the reality of the situation.

I am not a scientist or an expert in digital technology, but I am a painter. I work in oils, guache and delicate watercolors, and I expect my eye for details in color- hue, value, that sort of thing, is as good as anyones. I've included a shot of my "full portrait" I sent in for my avatar on the site, so you can see I actually am someone who deals in lines and color, full time, professionally.

I am sure you will agree with me that if a person has two photos, and one shows important details that the other completely loses, that the details on the more complete photo is more accurate...assuming you have a test object to prove these things exist. Everyone agree?

Let's look at the image you have trusted for these many decades, and which you have used to initially base your impression that there is no "jet black patch" on JFK's noggin. Let's check out Jackie's red and green stemmed roses. I'm including a link of a regular news type photo of the car that is very clear that includes everything I will discuss for comparison purposes.

In my borrowed version of frame #317, which is as you noted a higher contrast image than the better neutral scanned HD frame, we see a central, larger rose surrounded by green leaves. There are two, or three, very small buds or partial roses, that are quite hard to discern. One near Jackie's shoulder. One directly below the large obvious one, and perhaps one to the right of those, but that is highly debatable. In any case. Flowers visible. Test photo confirms them existing.

In your image, you can't make out the subject are flowers at all, you only know there are flowers existing there at all is because of the frame I borrowed from Chris Davidson's post.

You could make an equally convincing argument, using your frame, that there are "no roses" in frame #317, just as there is "no black patch", because both are invisible in your frame, are they not?

Is this not a fair representation?

What does this say about the quality of your image to judge the President's hair and the black patch?

On Davidson's frame of 317, Connally is clearly and undeniably wearing a white collar and dark jacket. In your frame, no white collar is visible at all. You can see the shape of it at the rear of the jacket, but the white is completely obscured and looks the same as the black jacket because of the muddiness of the overall image overwhelming the true detail of his collar.

Again, look at the good test photo of the motorcade showing which collar is accurate.

If the frame you have been looking at for all these decades shows Connally's white shirt collar to be black, is it fair to judge the President's hair against the black patch? Which of our two frames more fairly depicts the actual reality of Frame #317?

Do you see the problem you have here, and fully understand why you can't see the very real jet black patch in your image?

I honestly can understand your frustration in having to cope with rethinking things you long ago thought resolved.

I hope you will agree with me here that the frame I am using reasonably depicts the red roses, Connally's white collar, the interior blue doorframe between Jackie and Nellie, the nature of the subtle highlights on top of each person's head, and also the state of the President's hair, with it's very real jet black artwork with unnaturally defined edges.

Even without the much clearer and less contrasty Wilkerson HD scan, the obvious nature of the artwork on the President's head stands out vividly in this particular frame. If you look closely at the rear of the back of Kennedy's head at #317 and compare it to #312, they are utterly different in appearance.

This is because JFK has a black painted-in patch starting at frame #315 of the film. His hair on the back of his head is brown before this, jet-black after, if the frame is focused at all.

#317 is unique in that it appears that the black patch has not been integrated into the rest of JFK's hair like it has been in every other frame. In other words, it shows the edges of the physical artwork.

Someone stated earlier that in frame #317 that the patch isn't really black. I can't comprehend how anyone could not see this as the blackest of jet black unless they have serious vision issues. The patch is black.

In the higher definition neutral scan, which hasn't crushed the blacks for aesthetic reasons, like is normally done in a commercial film, the blackest things on the frame are the black patch on JFK's head, and the side of the car. Everything else has degrees of darkness. This makes the artwork more obvious there than here. In this frame I used, Jackie's shadow, and Connally's coat are very black too.

I hope you will give some thought to my posts. I understand perfectly well the shock involved in contemplating this sort of blatant alteration. It is not easy to digest- for any of us.