David G. Healy

Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

Then it's time for these "experts" to prove their case. After all they have had what, a couple of years now?

So show us the proof.

How hard is it?

experts? who said anything about "experts"? PROFESSIONALS ! Wishing and hoping' there Craigster?

The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.

Lets see what it is they might have.

Ground zero...

Z film

Gen 1:

Master Color negative, optical blowup

Gen 2:

Master positive print

Gen 3:

Working color negative(s)

Gen 4:

Working color print(s)

Gen 5:

Hollywood 7 negative

So Fetzer, what is it?

speaking of what is it? what Photoshop algorithm did you use on Dr. Thompson's .jpg frame?

The "forensic copy" that the Hollywood group has been studying is earlier than you suggest and shows the details of each frame comparable to what Pat Block has reported. I have visited with them and seen what they have. It is remarkable for its clarity and its detail.

All the above is meagre hearsay as far as this forum is concerned, until you can provide evidence that all of the above is as you say it is.

At the moment, the Hollywood 7 studies are just a propoganda rumour.

You are normally not one to hold back evidence, what's the problem in this instance?

All Z-film related postings here are mere hearsay and opinions dude. Unless you, of course, spend your time sitting in the archives gazing....

This thread has new, recent "professional input", unlike yours and some other uninformed "opinions". Without professional chops, I'm afraid your opinion drops to the bottom of the pile... Now imagine this: folks that really do understand Photoshop, AfterEffects, film and photo image composition, and manipulation are monitoring this thread... Plenty of folks have seen the Hollywood Z-film images -- professional film colorists AND matte artists **KNOW** what they're looking at....

So.... until you can provide Z-film authenticity and in-camera original verification (which you can't and/or won't do) you're simply advancing old news, old news that's had a thousand holes blown into it over the past 10 years (especially the last 10 years)... Old news advanced by the same DP history preservers of yore (for 45 years now)... What's fascinating is those very preservers of DP history and adherents don't seem to enjoy the advances we've made in the image technology field... maybe we should let them in on 3D commercial film making...

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.

TRY MEASURING IT. You do understand how to do that, don't you?

Lets use the Davidson image for example:

31x31 pixel average

JFK's head shadow 25,26,21 rgb

JFK's jacket shadow 17,18,16 rgb

Kellermans head shadow 26,29,22 rgb

And the blackest black, and still not crushed...the unexposed film base, plus fog 5x5 pixel average 11,4,1 rgb.

LMAO! above is subject to your computer monitors gamma setting.... no benchmark, hence useless....

..the one above the ear there the scalp has been blown away...leaving a hard edge and the hard edge created by the ear.

What kind of Bravo Sierra are you talking about now Craig?

Can we see your pixel count or interpolation method for this study?

The edge of the wound and the ear are quite visable. Are you too blind to see them? No interpolation needed...and more pixels than you can imagine. All in due time....this is shaping up to become a wonderful game.

Then we move to mistake two, Patrick's claim the back of the head should move more into the light and the frames progress. Sadly he gets that wrong too. Playing the frames as a gif and UNDERSTANDING the relationship of the head to the sun shows the shadows move exactly as expected and that expected movement is NOT one that adds more light to the back of the head.

Well I see the master of light Vermeer hath spoken. Show us how you claim to now know the expected is as expected. Kennedy's head was not cubic in shape! You are generalizing something rather than being specific.

Not at all. The position of the sun is very well known. The angle of incidence is also well known. We can SEE how JFK's head moves. THE ONLY WAY OFR MORE LIGHT to reach the back of his head is for his head to continue to lean forward. It goes backwards. Simple lighting 101, you you just failed.

And finally mistake three. The shadow in no way looks "painted in"? Review the frames and observe the shadows on Jackie and Kellerman's hair. Better yet MEASURE. THEM. I have. There is nothing unusual about the shadow on the back of JFK's head. The head shadow is consistent with the rest of the shadows in the frame. In fact its not even pure black. The back of JFK's coat is darker than his shadowed hair! And the shadow if his hair is well above film base plus fog. Are you going to tell me the black paint was transparent?

Your basing this on assumptions, you have no evidence to support said assumptions. You would never pass the Daubert standard. But please continue I am in need of more humor whilst performing my morning ritual.

No, I'm not basing this on any "assumptions". It is based on DIRECT MEASUREMENTS. Learn to read. Then flush your post away. it is made of the same material in your bowl.

The testimony of an expert is only as good as the data he presents. His credentials really mean nothing if he gets it wrong.

And we all now know that Jim DiEugino has a very strong grasp on what testimony means. Unlike your bias Lamson.

Jim has his head firmly planted in a moist dark area. As we can see yours is as well. Testimony is only as good as the facts it presents. This is 1963 tech. It is basic stuff. And even that is beyond your grasp.

Bub bye.

ya gotta except defeat with grace Craigster... you've had a good lone nutter-xxxxx run....gotta be a giant among man! Carry on!

...

So Jim, while DSL makes a lot of sense, we really do not know if anyone was working with a camera original after that weekend....

...

Let me explain a simple fact of Z-film life to you and others: you, can't prove that the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original, housed at NARA is in fact the *actual* in-camera original, therefore, what you see in this thread is all speculation, on all of our parts... O-P-I-N-I-O-N

Having said that: in this specific thread, some speculation and explanation regarding Z-film authenticity comes from more "informed-experienced" folks than others... explaining your own expertise-experience in matters such as possible film alteration might lend to your contribution here. Just a suggestion, after all we do get a lot of uninformed opinion concerning this specific subject matter and those new to the ways of Photshop-like software packages...

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.

We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.

These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.

JT

...I am certainly no photo expert...

couldn't agree more, Dr. Thompson? The above image of yours (for our consideration) is, ah, how do I say it without offense, worthless...

Perhaps someone will make arrangements for YOU to see the frame, yes frame... that's all that's needed to prove Zapruder film alteration, yes? (p.s. the secret? think 'contrast')

It's not secret son that belief in the WCR these days is purely a matter of FAITH. Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome kinda FAITH. Informed common sense not withstanding....

Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search!

density becomes you....

your only retreat, son!

lmao.... 3D model to determine shadow location? Is this turning into the Dale *see my emmy* Myers school of photo interpretation? Come on craigster, LMAO!

There's a few others here that I suspect have seen these frames, some, the entire 35mm *in-motion* film.

You got a problem with Farid? And yes you might be surprised to know who has seen what...

So step up the the plate dave and take a swing. That would be a novel idea for you.

swing at what, a wiffle ball? Perhaps someone someday soon will show Farid a frame or two, blows non-conspiracy right out of the water... Appears even Jimmy D. is getting a chance to see...

the question dude is this: did someone (not who) screw with the NARA held, in-camera original Z-film? If so, why? Focus son!

You are woefully uninformed. No internet in the cage?

It's not secret son that belief in the WCR these days is purely a matter of FAITH. Lone Nut-SBT-LHO did it all by his lonesome kinda FAITH. Informed common sense not withstanding....

Say, by-the-way, did you guys ever, EVER find a lone-nut leaning film-photo compositor, expert yet? Oh-well, its only its been 10 years since you started the search!

...

(I'm glad to see that everyone here agrees that we'd all be better off with access to the original scans!)

John

been my mantra for years Dr. John. Great to seeya, mate! Hope you and your family had a great Christmas.

David

lmao.... 3D model to determine shadow location? Is this turning into the Dale *see my emmy* Myers school of photo interpretation? Come on craigster, LMAO!

There's a few others here that I suspect have seen these frames, some, the entire 35mm *in-motion* film.

You got a problem with Farid? And yes you might be surprised to know who has seen what...

So step up the the plate dave and take a swing. That would be a novel idea for you.

swing at what, a wiffle ball? Perhaps someone someday soon will show Farid a frame or two, blows non-conspiracy right out of the water... Appears even Jimmy D. is getting a chance to see...

the question dude is this: did someone (not who) screw with the NARA held, in-camera original Z-film? If so, why? Focus son!

[snip]...

Your failures in this regard have reached epic proportions.

Now if you think the blur disparity is somehow suspect...MAKE YOUR CASE.

Or leave....

Craig,

You are trading in double talk. It is obvious. I haven't time for bafoons who masquerade as know-it-alls.

Let's see... where is that "IGNORE A MEMBER" option again? Oh yeah, there it is. Goodbye.

Translated from Burnhamspeak...I'm toast, I NEED to run away...FAST.

Nothing new here, you are in over your head.

I see you're still living in fantasy-land, eh? LMAO!

You just knew someone would open the cage and them it out....

Lots of interesting stuff on the table, will you or Costella actually step up to the plate?

I've seen the frames, know the Z-film imagery pedigrey-lineage, what's to step up to? The 1963 imagery-frames don't lie... You and most Z-film non-alteration advocates have a problem, Indiana.

Martin Hay has stated he would be interested in hearing my opinions on whether or not the Zapruder Film has been altered, and he has pointed me to this thread. I am new to the boards, and I think I should introduce myself as far as my "credentials" go for discussion on matters relating to old fashioned physical film.

I've mostly been involved with drawing and writing the "classic" Disney characters for the past 20 years. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and their family members and antagonists. I work in pencil, pen and paint, all of it the non-computer, old school way.

I have collected animation/comic art for almost 30 years. I've owned background art, cels, drawings, multiplane setups from the whole history of traditional animation, from Gertie the Dinosaur up to The Little Mermaid. I've worked to restore some of the early Snow White material. I am intimately familiar with paint on celluloid.

I love movies, and early in my teens, I was torn between becoming a movie director or comic artist.

The illustrator in me eventually won out, but in my teens, and in college, I was constructing super 8 films with friends, editing them on my own equipment. In college, I got my hands on 16 mm equipment by taking film classes. I took film history classes, made short films and belonged to the college film program while also staffing the college newspaper as the official cartoonist.

In school I tested extremely highly in abstract reasoning and mechanical comprehension. I've always had the ability...the passion, really, for visualizing any three dimensional constructions in my head. This ability extends to written plans- I'm great with directions for putting that complicated toy together that frustrates everyone else. I have the knack for intuitively understanding what something on paper looks like when built. I have extremely good focus.

Most important to this thread, because of my long interest in the Kennedy Assassination, and my working in the industry that I do, I was offered the opportunity nearly two years ago to view the exposure-neutral HD scan of the individual frames of the 35mm dupe negative created from the forensic copy of the Zapruder Film from the National Archives and Records Administration.

I've compared frames from this new digital copy to frames from the Costella Edit, and also to the MPI Frames. Both of these older copies are inferior in that they apparently have been modified to make them more visually attractive and the details have been considerably muddied- they are much less crisp than in this new digital scan. I am frankly still amazed at the difference in visible detail, and I am quite surprised no other private researcher has not broken down and spent the money to have this done before in order to acquire the very best possible copy.

It should be pointed out that I am not one the "Hollywood Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book. I am just an independent party who happens to love film and work for Disney who lucked into this opportunity as a casual researcher.

I spent many hours looking at the pertinent frames around 310-340 and after a lot of thought about it, I got permission from the owner of this splendid copy of the Zapruder Film to show frames from it in a casual setting to a friend of mine. This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party.

His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America.

He could see for himself that this jet black patch on the rear of the President's head still had straight edges. This artifact is present in the image that David Josephs has posted right here on this thread...it's just better defined, clearer and more obvious in the more recent neutrally scanned copy.

I don't expect anyone here on the boards to take my word on something they haven't seen with their own eyes, but the image posted here on this board ought to be enough for you to remain open minded on the subject until the new and clearer images are published.

Look at the image of 317. Look at Connally's head. Look at JFK in 312, before he is hit, and consider the fact that as he topples over to his left, into Jackie, that the entire right side of his face and head are falling into the light...not into shadow the way Jackie is, she is bent face down to the right and entirely in shadow. His entire head ought to be getting LIGHTER, not turn jet black inside of a geometric shape.

By all logic, more sunlight is hitting this blacked out area than before when the President was sitting upright. The image makes no sense at all...the "edges" are profound.

I've studied these new frames very closely. The "black patch" appears out of the blue, NOT on frame 313 or 314 as one would think it would, but in frame 315. Find a decent copy of the film and compare frames 314 and 315. The blackness simply appears magically in 315, it's extremely obvious in the new digital film. It doesn't take much imagination to know what you are looking at. It is artwork,-"painted effects", as my friend put it.

This following is strictly my opinion, my observations of these frames outside the context of the assassination itself.

It looks to me as if the painting in of the back of JFK's head starts at 315 and continues through most of the clearer fames that follow. Of those frames, there is an additional pass by a more artistic talent who blurs the edges of these blacked out areas so that they more closely blend in with the President's hair EXCEPT for frame 317. Frame 317 was neglected by the special effects man, and we are left with a strictly artificial, geometric edge all around this blacked out section. You are looking at the raw black patch, unretouched. It is obvious, and you dont have to be a film technician or artist to see it in the MPI film, though, it is much sharper in Wilkerson's new digitial scan, which isn't altered to be pleasingly colored. In other words, other copies of the Zapruder film available to researchers today have been altered to make them more "artistically pleasing" for an audience. This effectively muddys details.

The frame I handled of 317 was huge in information content. 72.9 MB of content in the single frame by itself.

The only explanations I have for the lack of polish on frame 317 is that it was accidentaly skipped over by the technicians working on the film, or, it was intentionally left in by someone who didn't care for the activity they were engage in, and wanted it discovered.

The way the frames were constructed this way- a pass to add black patches where there was a big hole in JFK's head, and then, a second pass to fuzzy up straight and unnatural edges, suggests a team of film professionals working in an assembly line sort of fashion. Probably the lesser technician blackened in the frames, and a more talented hand did the final finish work.

Earlier in this thread, respected author and long time researcher Josiah Thompson, (his book was the third I ever read on the assassination), describes a recent visiting of the 6th floor museum and examining the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies. These images certainly ought to come close or even surpass the clarity of these new digital frames. They ought to be a generation closer to the original film. If the "black edges" on frame 317 are not present in these images at the Sixth Floor Museum, a close comparison of the two pieces of evidence should certainly be possible in the future.

If the MPI transparencies and the forensic copy of the film do not match exactly, it is evidence of additional alteration having taken place.

Which frankly, wouldn't surprise me in the least, since the visual evidence in the case throughout the years has proven tamper-prone, starting with the 26 volumes blatant switching around of Zapruder frames to make the President appear to fall forward.

I mean, how many times can brains be lost, autopsy reports go missing? How can sizable occipital bone from the back of the President's head evaporate into thin air? Tissue slides be vaporized? Just where does a mauser with a variable scope attached to it disappear to?

In the course of this case, President Kennedy's rear entrance bullet wound to his skull traveled some four inches over the course of a few years, according to the official investigations that followed the death of the President.

Oswald managed shots at a moving target under a specific, narrow time frame that the FBI and the America's very best riflemen could not duplicate on a still target with bench rests and all the time in the world for their first shot, using the exact same rifle with a scope that was adjusted by shimming to make it more accurate than when Oswald used it.

Is evidence of a black patch on the rear of President Kennedy's head extant in Zapruder REALLY that hard to believe in, when it's visible to your own eyes?

I suspect that the difficulties that long time researchers have with even contemplating this scenario is mostly psychological. We've studied these images for so long, and have come to base so many conclusions on them, that we have come to trust them like one trusts John Wayne in the movies.

The covered up hole on 317 is just as much movie magic as the characters Mr. Wayne played. It's not the actual state of the back of the President's head.

I don't need more evidence than these blacked out frames to come to a conclusion about this film. They stand there as evidence themselves, and are what they are. The more you know about film, the more likely you will recognize these images for what they are- but you don't have to be an expert to see it.

And it's more blatant in the crisper digital frames, which surely will be published eventually.

Further proof, that rather resoundingly buttresses the evidence of alteration are all the witnesses who saw the orange sized exit wound on the back of the President's head. Scores of witnesses saw it....most of them medical professionals.

For a number of years the HSCA tried to hide the truth about the Bethesda witnesses, fibbing right in their report that the withheld testimony disagreed with the Parkland doctors about the wounds.

The heads of the HSCA then sealed the records of these key witnesses until a point where a lot of us would be dead.

Lo and behold, when the ARRB opened these Christmas packages early, these Bethesda witnesses mention the hole existing as well....which means, beyond a reasonable doubt by anyone's standards anywhere, that the HSCA lied to the American people to hide the truth about the wounds on the rear of the President's skull.

Yet, here we are, in this thread, with the smoking gun of Zapruder alteration right in front of us, and many here argue that there is no black paint on the rear of the President's head.

The Emperor wears no clothes.

Long live the stealthy new kings, living in the wings of the Republic.

Interesting post, but of course I don't share you views.

Just a few questions.

When will these frames be released?

There is an IMPORTANT change in the side of JFK's head from 315 to 317. The side of his head was blown open. The only area in 317 that has a sharp edge shadow transition is direct above the ear, exactly where the portion of his skull is missing. So how does your claim reconcile this??

Finally are you aware that a 3d model has been created to check the shadow location on the back of JFK's head at 317 to locate the size and shadow of expected shadow and has found it to be correct?

lmao.... 3D model to determine shadow location? Is this turning into the Dale *see my emmy* Myers school of photo interpretation? Come on craigster, LMAO!

There's a few others here that I suspect have seen these frames, some, the entire 35mm *in-motion* film.

Hi Patrick,

Welcome aboard.

Thank you for your expert opinion on the Ztoon.

In case you haven't watched the new film "The Lost Bullet", here is another version of 317 for you.

This is the best I've been able to acquire.

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

Fortunately, it sounds like you have something much nicer to work with.

chris

And here's a close up taken directly from the DVD, saved in BMP and the crop saved in PNG format.

No painted in patch at the back of the head.

get a grip son.... the contrast in this image is so far out of whack its pathetic..... what is the lineage your posted image? how many generations is it from the alleged NARA held, in-camera Z-film?

[snip]...

Your failures in this regard have reached epic proportions.

Now if you think the blur disparity is somehow suspect...MAKE YOUR CASE.

Or leave....

Craig,

You are trading in double talk. It is obvious. I haven't time for bafoons who masquerade as know-it-alls.

Let's see... where is that "IGNORE A MEMBER" option again? Oh yeah, there it is. Goodbye.

Translated from Burnhamspeak...I'm toast, I NEED to run away...FAST.

Nothing new here, you are in over your head.

I see you're still living in fantasy-land, eh? LMAO!

Martin Hay has stated he would be interested in hearing my opinions on whether or not the Zapruder Film has been altered, and he has pointed me to this thread. I am new to the boards, and I think I should introduce myself as far as my "credentials" go for discussion on matters relating to old fashioned physical film.

I've mostly been involved with drawing and writing the "classic" Disney characters for the past 20 years. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and their family members and antagonists. I work in pencil, pen and paint, all of it the non-computer, old school way.

I have collected animation/comic art for almost 30 years. I've owned background art, cels, drawings, multiplane setups from the whole history of traditional animation, from Gertie the Dinosaur up to The Little Mermaid. I've worked to restore some of the early Snow White material. I am intimately familiar with paint on celluloid.

I love movies, and early in my teens, I was torn between becoming a movie director or comic artist.

The illustrator in me eventually won out, but in my teens, and in college, I was constructing super 8 films with friends, editing them on my own equipment. In college, I got my hands on 16 mm equipment by taking film classes. I took film history classes, made short films and belonged to the college film program while also staffing the college newspaper as the official cartoonist.

In school I tested extremely highly in abstract reasoning and mechanical comprehension. I've always had the ability...the passion, really, for visualizing any three dimensional constructions in my head. This ability extends to written plans- I'm great with directions for putting that complicated toy together that frustrates everyone else. I have the knack for intuitively understanding what something on paper looks like when built. I have extremely good focus.

Most important to this thread, because of my long interest in the Kennedy Assassination, and my working in the industry that I do, I was offered the opportunity nearly two years ago to view the exposure-neutral HD scan of the individual frames of the 35mm dupe negative created from the forensic copy of the Zapruder Film from the National Archives and Records Administration.

I've compared frames from this new digital copy to frames from the Costella Edit, and also to the MPI Frames. Both of these older copies are inferior in that they apparently have been modified to make them more visually attractive and the details have been considerably muddied- they are much less crisp than in this new digital scan. I am frankly still amazed at the difference in visible detail, and I am quite surprised no other private researcher has not broken down and spent the money to have this done before in order to acquire the very best possible copy.

It should be pointed out that I am not one the "Hollywood Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book. I am just an independent party who happens to love film and work for Disney who lucked into this opportunity as a casual researcher.

I spent many hours looking at the pertinent frames around 310-340 and after a lot of thought about it, I got permission from the owner of this splendid copy of the Zapruder Film to show frames from it in a casual setting to a friend of mine. This friend is the Director of what today is what is regarded as probably the finest special and visual effects film studio in the world. I've known him for ten years, and he is one of the most straightforward and sensible people I've ever met. I didn't ask him his opinion about the assassination. I gave him no background whatsoever about the medical witnesses and the hole on the rear of the President's head, or anything else. All I did was offer him a blind-look at a few frames of the new, digital copy of the Z film starting at frame 311 to see what he had to say as a neutral, but expert party.

His reaction was exactly the same as mine. He was horrified at the obviousness of the black painted-in artwork present on frame 317. He went from interested professional casually examining a colleagues curious request to a man who suddenly was faced with alteration to this vital evidence which sits in the National Archives of the United States of America.

He could see for himself that this jet black patch on the rear of the President's head still had straight edges. This artifact is present in the image that David Josephs has posted right here on this thread...it's just better defined, clearer and more obvious in the more recent neutrally scanned copy.

I don't expect anyone here on the boards to take my word on something they haven't seen with their own eyes, but the image posted here on this board ought to be enough for you to remain open minded on the subject until the new and clearer images are published.

Look at the image of 317. Look at Connally's head. Look at JFK in 312, before he is hit, and consider the fact that as he topples over to his left, into Jackie, that the entire right side of his face and head are falling into the light...not into shadow the way Jackie is, she is bent face down to the right and entirely in shadow. His entire head ought to be getting LIGHTER, not turn jet black inside of a geometric shape.

By all logic, more sunlight is hitting this blacked out area than before when the President was sitting upright. The image makes no sense at all...the "edges" are profound.

I've studied these new frames very closely. The "black patch" appears out of the blue, NOT on frame 313 or 314 as one would think it would, but in frame 315. Find a decent copy of the film and compare frames 314 and 315. The blackness simply appears magically in 315, it's extremely obvious in the new digital film. It doesn't take much imagination to know what you are looking at. It is artwork,-"painted effects", as my friend put it.

This following is strictly my opinion, my observations of these frames outside the context of the assassination itself.

It looks to me as if the painting in of the back of JFK's head starts at 315 and continues through most of the clearer fames that follow. Of those frames, there is an additional pass by a more artistic talent who blurs the edges of these blacked out areas so that they more closely blend in with the President's hair EXCEPT for frame 317. Frame 317 was neglected by the special effects man, and we are left with a strictly artificial, geometric edge all around this blacked out section. You are looking at the raw black patch, unretouched. It is obvious, and you dont have to be a film technician or artist to see it in the MPI film, though, it is much sharper in Wilkerson's new digitial scan, which isn't altered to be pleasingly colored. In other words, other copies of the Zapruder film available to researchers today have been altered to make them more "artistically pleasing" for an audience. This effectively muddys details.

The frame I handled of 317 was huge in information content. 72.9 MB of content in the single frame by itself.

The only explanations I have for the lack of polish on frame 317 is that it was accidentaly skipped over by the technicians working on the film, or, it was intentionally left in by someone who didn't care for the activity they were engage in, and wanted it discovered.

The way the frames were constructed this way- a pass to add black patches where there was a big hole in JFK's head, and then, a second pass to fuzzy up straight and unnatural edges, suggests a team of film professionals working in an assembly line sort of fashion. Probably the lesser technician blackened in the frames, and a more talented hand did the final finish work.

Earlier in this thread, respected author and long time researcher Josiah Thompson, (his book was the third I ever read on the assassination), describes a recent visiting of the 6th floor museum and examining the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies. These images certainly ought to come close or even surpass the clarity of these new digital frames. They ought to be a generation closer to the original film. If the "black edges" on frame 317 are not present in these images at the Sixth Floor Museum, a close comparison of the two pieces of evidence should certainly be possible in the future.

If the MPI transparencies and the forensic copy of the film do not match exactly, it is evidence of additional alteration having taken place.

Which frankly, wouldn't surprise me in the least, since the visual evidence in the case throughout the years has proven tamper-prone, starting with the 26 volumes blatant switching around of Zapruder frames to make the President appear to fall forward.

I mean, how many times can brains be lost, autopsy reports go missing? How can sizable occipital bone from the back of the President's head evaporate into thin air? Tissue slides be vaporized? Just where does a mauser with a variable scope attached to it disappear to?

In the course of this case, President Kennedy's rear entrance bullet wound to his skull traveled some four inches over the course of a few years, according to the official investigations that followed the death of the President.

Oswald managed shots at a moving target under a specific, narrow time frame that the FBI and the America's very best riflemen could not duplicate on a still target with bench rests and all the time in the world for their first shot, using the exact same rifle with a scope that was adjusted by shimming to make it more accurate than when Oswald used it.

Is evidence of a black patch on the rear of President Kennedy's head extant in Zapruder REALLY that hard to believe in, when it's visible to your own eyes?

I suspect that the difficulties that long time researchers have with even contemplating this scenario is mostly psychological. We've studied these images for so long, and have come to base so many conclusions on them, that we have come to trust them like one trusts John Wayne in the movies.

The covered up hole on 317 is just as much movie magic as the characters Mr. Wayne played. It's not the actual state of the back of the President's head.

I don't need more evidence than these blacked out frames to come to a conclusion about this film. They stand there as evidence themselves, and are what they are. The more you know about film, the more likely you will recognize these images for what they are- but you don't have to be an expert to see it.

And it's more blatant in the crisper digital frames, which surely will be published eventually.

Further proof, that rather resoundingly buttresses the evidence of alteration are all the witnesses who saw the orange sized exit wound on the back of the President's head. Scores of witnesses saw it....most of them medical professionals.

For a number of years the HSCA tried to hide the truth about the Bethesda witnesses, fibbing right in their report that the withheld testimony disagreed with the Parkland doctors about the wounds.

The heads of the HSCA then sealed the records of these key witnesses until a point where a lot of us would be dead.

Lo and behold, when the ARRB opened these Christmas packages early, these Bethesda witnesses mention the hole existing as well....which means, beyond a reasonable doubt by anyone's standards anywhere, that the HSCA lied to the American people to hide the truth about the wounds on the rear of the President's skull.

Yet, here we are, in this thread, with the smoking gun of Zapruder alteration right in front of us, and many here argue that there is no black paint on the rear of the President's head.

The Emperor wears no clothes.

Long live the stealthy new kings, living in the wings of the Republic.

Patrick.... welcome to this forum.

Belief in the alleged Zapruder Film is an act of FAITH by lone nutters, WCR supporters and SBT adherents. It (the film) provides a comfort zone if you will... When it comes to the Z-film common sense goes out the window, in fact discussing Z-film alteration (ANY alteration) brings out self proclaimed photogs, even those that haven't picked up a camera for years.... don't let them get you down, when discussing image Kennedy related imagery topics insist on film-photo imagery lineage AND sources.... only way to keep the Z-film faithful in line...

Well, to the best of my knowledge, none of those films had the "ghost panel" problem, where the Nix and Muchmore were the ones that needed to be redone to not contradict the Zapruder. Tink has observed that the films collectively are in close correspondence, so if we know there are problems with the Zapruder, then we know that the Nix and Muchmore have been revised to conform to it.

The only adjustments that had to be made were with regard to overlap in relation to the events that were changed to produce the new Zapruder. But some of those photos have been altered. Altgens could not recall having taken the limo with Clint Hill on the back step, for example, which has to have been faked to conceal the actions that he took at the time, as he himself has reported.

Are we to suppose you think there could have been at least sixteen (16) witnesses who reported a limo stop WHEN THERE WAS NO LIMO STOP? Is that something you would have done? Do you know ANYONE who would report a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever) if there had NOT BEEN a limo stop (automobile accident, whatever)? And they included the motorcycle escort officers.

Rereading this, I take it you do not understand that we are talking about RESHOOTING IN A LAB--IN PARTICULAR, THE LAB AT KODAK IN ROCHESTER. I can't believe you would suggest PHYSICAL REENACTMENTS OF SOME KIND. That is so absurd that no one has ever suggested anything like that--apart from the actual reenactments for the Warren Commission. That is bizarre.

Tell me, Jim.

Did "they" also reshoot what needed to be shot in Muchmore, Nix, Bronson, Dorman, Paschall, Bell, Martin, Hughes, Moorman, Croft, Betzner, Willis and Altgens, all at the same location, on the same day(s)in order that all of the images would be in sync with each other?

No, Jim.

What is bizarre, is that you and other supporters of this wacky theory fail to understand, that if the Zapruder film is faked, then all of the known films, and photographs showing the same Geographical areas at the same time as the Zapruder film must also have been faked and altered accordingly in the same lab and at the same time for on site comparision purposes, in order to implement the alleged synchronization process, ie, Zapruder, Muchmore, Bronson and Nix.

It's simple logic, a logic which does not require having a PHD of any kind.

well now there something which may, just MAY, prove your photo research is worth something anyway (something which Bill Miller never did, although requested multiple times). Establish a baseline comparisons (side-by-side comparisons) of all Nov 22nd 1963 DP films... full frame comparisons (in motion), off of in-camera originals with declared lineage including signed affidavits. Dude, till then, you and Lammie are just other roving opinions, I could care less if you think your the second coming of Ansel Adams...O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S

The Zapruder film as we see it today is flawed. All the whining won't change that.

So SHOW US the film (in motion) comparisons!

I have just signed a contract with Trine Day Publishers to write my autobiography. In general scope, it will cover my role with William F. Buckley, David Franke, Marvin Liebman and Gov. Charles Edison in founding the modern conservative movement in the 1950’s and early 1960’s; the JFK assassination-Watergate linkage; the crimes of LBJ; key events in subsequent years; and how and when I concluded that the conservative movement had been hijacked by sociopaths and opportunists. Publication date: early 2013.

congratulations...

In 1967, shortly following his indictment of Clay Shaw, Garrison discussed the various conspiratorial forces out to destroy his investigation, and the many charges being leveled at him. Next, he said, he expected them to accuse him of "child molesting." As Patricia Lambert notes, in light of later events, this statement sounds like a preemptive strike.(51)

In 1969, a prominent New Orleans family briefly considered pressing charges against Garrison for the sexual molestation of their thirteen-year-old son. In the end, concerns for privacy and the safety of their son caused the family to drop the matter, but the head of a local citizens' watchdog committee informed the Orleans Parish Grand Jury of the matter, and someone on the Grand Jury leaked word of the story to columnist Jack Anderson. Off the record, Anderson confirmed with Grand Jury foreman William J. Krummel, Sr., that the Grand Jury was looking into the matter. Krummel was afraid to speak for the record, he said, because "I'm afraid that if I say so [in public], they'll [the DA's office will] want to throw me in jail."(52)

Anderson confirmed the story with the boy's family and decided to devote one of his columns to it. Noting that one of the family members "is one of the most respected men in the South," Anderson reported that the Grand Jury was investigating the allegation that Jim Garrison had molested a thirteen-year-old boy in June 1969 at the New Orleans Athletic Club. The Grand Jury ultimately declined to pursue the matter, however, and the story faded away.(53)

In 1993 Patricia Lambert was granted interviews with several family members, including the victim and an older brother who was present when the incident occurred. In exchange for a pledge of anonymity, the brothers agreed to relate what had happened.(54)

The two boys accompanied their father every Sunday to the New Orleans Athletic Club; it was a "family ritual," the older brother explained. The three were alone in the club's swimming pool when Jim Garrison approached them and struck up a conversation. In accordance with the club's rules, all were swimming nude; to reduce contamination, bathing suits were not allowed, as the pool's salt water could not be chlorinated. After chatting briefly, Garrison invited the three to join him in the club's Slumber Room. The brothers would have preferred to decline the offer, as they had no interest in taking a nap in the middle of the day. "No, we ought to go," their father insisted, "he's talking about the Kennedy assassination and we might find out something."(55)

The three accompanied Garrison to the Slumber Room, which resembled a "dormitory bunk room"; it was rectangular with an aisle down the middle and a row of beds on each side. Both brothers recall how dark the room was, as there were no windows. "You shut the door," the older brother recalls, "and it was black." "Everybody get into bed and I'm going to turn off the light," Garrison said, and they all complied. The younger brother took "a cot way to the back," while Garrison took the cot next to him; the father and older brother were on the other side of the room. "I don't know if Garrison set it up that way or not," the younger man says. "Because all he had to do was sit on the edge of his bed, reach across, which he did, you know, and lift the blanket."(56)

"When Garrison first did it," the younger boy recalls, "my eyes were not adjusted to the dark and I . . . could just make out the image of somebody. And . . . when somebody lifts up a blanket and sticks their hand under there -- and he didn't really grab. He just fondled a bit and then he sat back down and I jumped up and I went over to my brother and said, '[name deleted], are you playing a joke on me?' . . . I didn't know what was going on. . . . And [his brother] said, '[name deleted], go back to bed. Daddy's going to be really mad at you if you cause any trouble in here.' So I went back. He thought I was just being a little kid, you know. So then when [Garrison] did it again and I could tell who it was . . . then I went back to my brother and told him . . ."(57)

The older brother went to their father and said they had "to leave right now." Their father, oblivious to what had happened, objected until he realized something was seriously wrong. Outside the Slumber Room, the older brother explained to their father what had happened, "and he was visibly shaken." The father went to retrieve his clothes from another room, and while he was gone Garrison came out of the Slumber Room.(58)

"I walked up to him," the older brother recalls, "and I said, 'You son of a bitch, you pervert, you queer.' I was livid. I couldn't believe this guy tried to molest my little brother. I was really into Garrison's face. I was really threatening him. I was enraged. I may have put my hands on him. I know I scared him because he said, 'You're assaulting me and I'm going to have to defend myself.' And he went back toward his locker and I remember I could see in his locker there was a gun hanging in there -- like a .38 snub-nose revolver -- hanging in a shoulder holster on a hook in his locker. At that point I became very concerned that Garrison was going to shoot me and I remember seeing, to my surprise, that there was another man who witnessed this. A man in his sixties, by the lavatories. I remember thinking, oh, good, there's a witness to this, but he left the area because he didn't want to get involved. By this time my father had gotten dressed and sort of caught me at the tail end of this altercation. He was five-feet-ten-inches and I vividly remember him walking up to [the six-foot-six-inch] Garrison and he took his finger and he started poking him in the stomach and he said, 'You fooled with the wrong people this time. You're not going to get away with this.' Garrison said, 'You're crazy. I don't know what you're talking about.' And he said something to the effect that 'I'm going to have your son arrested for assaulting me.' At that time we left. We went home."(59)

Somehow word had gotten out about the incident, because their phone began "ringing off the hook" with people urging the family to press charges. The father called a relative, an attorney, who advised against taking any action; he thought "terrible harm" would come to the younger son and that they "would never prove anything." In fact, the family became so concerned for the boy's safety that they began picking him up from school everyday. "They thought something was going to happen to me," he recalls. "I went to see the Kevin Costner movie -- which made me sick, to glorify him like that. I saw Stone in the Napoleon House [café] one day -- I wanted to tell him about this. But it's so awkward."(60)

Journalist David Chandler, who had once been quite friendly with Garrison (the DA had been best man at Chandler's 1965 wedding) insisted to Patricia Lambert that the Slumber Room incident was merely the tip of the iceberg. Garrison was "basically a pedophile," Chandler alleged, claiming first-hand knowledge of Garrison's preferences for adolescent girls, "around sixteen and younger."(61)

All the while, of course, the DA could be sure that the power of his office would protect him from suffering any consequences; none of his victims dared to risk a public confrontation with the man. For their part, the two brothers of the Slumber Room incident remain angry to this day about what happened, but all involved feel that they would have fared much worse had they pressed charges. In light of the tactics Garrison used in his assassination probe, it hardly seems far-fetched to expect him to have gone to similar lengths, or worse, should his own life and career become jeopardized by his actions.

From: Jim Garrison's Investigator Bill Gurvich Speaks:

Gurvitch also mentioned that he had been the investigator who had later obtained affidavits indicating that Garrison had sexually molested a 15 year old boy in the New Orleans Athletic club in about 1970. Gurvitch stated that his involvement in this episode came about because he was a member of the club and heard of the story from the father of the boy involved. Gurvitch stated that he secured affidavits from the boy, his father, and the boy's brother, and tried to get the city authorities to press charges against Garrison. He stated that the authorities wouldn't touch the case however, and the boy's father was reluctant to make the alleged incident public.

For additional details, see Patricia Lambert's ground-breaking and highly regarded book analyzing the Garrison investigation which provides compelling evidence that establishes that Jim Garrison was undoubtedly a pedophile: False Witness.

Conclusion: Jim Garrison was indeed a child molester!

And, I was once of the opinion that I was the only one here who was sufficiently foolish enough to attempt to cast a few unsavory facts about Jimbo.

Tom

P.S. I got your back!

Enjoy his back, Tom... The dude still can't convince anyone here who has a modicum of case knowledge that LHO acted alone and the WCR wasn't a farce...

Sgt Mikey simply needs an audience at the cost of JGarrison's defects or not of character... So he advances nothing other than wasting bandwidth. Have a nice Christmas.

Is this right?

the so called pristine bullet lodged itself backwards in JFK with a portion continuing on.

The second bullet fragmented 312-313.

The third lodged in Connalys leg and disappeared.

Closer than most!

1. CE399 penetrated only a short distance (base-first). Striking the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae in a base-first attitude, this sheared a 4.5mm width lead protrusion(which had squeezed out the bullet base) from the base of the bullet.

The lead core protrusion exited the anterior throat of JFK and is responsible for the small anterior throat wound.

The lead core protursion was recovered and is one of those fragments found in CE840, which by the way, weighed 0.9 grains.

(P.S.) It is no coincidence that the "punch-type" back wound of JFK measured 4mm X 7mm, and the deformed(flat) base to CE399 also measured 4mm X 7mm.

Just as it is no coincidence that a portion of the copper jacket base to CE399 was removed at some point while this bullet was in the National Archives.

The copper jacket base to this bullet contained "impact damage" created as a result of impact with a bone of the vertebral column, as well as having a "raised" edge completely around the perimeter of the bullet base.

Which edge could have been created ONLY by the bullet having passed through a material of such density that it litterally "stretched" the copper jacket backwards.

(P.P.S) The "abrasion collar" of the back wound (as determined by the HSCA as being located at the bottom edge of he wound of penetration, is merely the result of the end-over-end tumbling of the bullet as it struck JFK in the back.

Thereby creating this (direct contradiction to normal ballistics) abrasion collar at the bottom of the wound penetration as opposed to being located at the top of the wound pentration.

(P.P.P.S) The back wound of JFK has it's longest axis (7mm wide) in the horizontal, as opposed to the normal downward striking of a bullet, which causes the longest axis to be in the verticle.

(P.P.P.P.S) The reason for the "punch-type" penetrations through the coat; inner liner of the coat; and shirt worn by JFK is merely a result of the bullet striking with it's "flat-base" forward. Which, not unlike a paper-punch, punched out the fabric from the items of clothing.

(P.P.P.P.P.S) Which, also, contradictory to normal ballistic fact, also carried considerable fabric from the clothing down into the wound of entry into the back of JfK.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That should sufficiently explain why Dr. Humes could insert his finger, as well as (later) a stainless steel probe down into the back entry wound of JFK, without the lprobe (or his finger) finding any pathway for the bullet.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As far as the second shot (which happens to be the Z312/313 impact, this is the "cowlick" entry which the HSCA found.

Due to a variety of reasons, this bullet (abnormally) fragmented and the fragments passed through the upper area of the parietal lobe of the brain of JFK, creating immense damage.

And, just as stated by JBC's Parkland Dr. a fragment from this bullet "escaped" and is responsible for the wrist wound of JBC.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now! Onward to the true "MAGIC BULLET" (the one that pulled the disappearing act)

First off, this bullet struck JFK in the head also.

JFK was approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. from the Z312/313 impact when this bullet struck.

And, since I am neither smarter than, nor more qualified than the elements of the SS and FBI, this also happens to be the impact location which each of these government agencies determined as the third shot impact, and so noted on their respective survey plats. (SS--12/5/63)--(FBI--2/7/64)

Which happens to have struck at survey stationing 4+95. (as opposed to stationing 4+65.3 for the Z313 impact)

Now! After having penetrated through JFK's head (having struck in the EOP region of the skull, the bullet exited JFK's head in an area of which considerable damage already existed from the Z312/313 impact.

The INTACT bullet thereafter continued on (downwards) to strike JBC in the right shoulder as he lay across the jump seats with his head in Nellie's lab, thereby exposing his shoulder and back to the flight of the bullet as well as the cerebral tissue which was blown forward from the head of JFK.

And, as they say, now you know the rest of the story:

Being:

Why JBC's coat got washed and laundered, as the back of the coat would have been covered with cerebral tissue, which could not have occurred with the Z313 impact as a result of the back of the jump seat would have prevented cerebral tissue from having been blown forward and striking all over the back of JBC's coat.

As well as, the bullet penetration into JBC's back was elongated slightly to the horizontal.---Which the WC attempted to blame on a bullet that was "yawing".

When, one places JBC leaned over across the jump seats, then the elongaged horizontal wound of entry now becomes a correctly oriented downward wound of entry that is in fact elongated vertically, as it should be.

The bullet then, of course, penetrated throuogh the chest of JBC and exited to thereafter enter his leg.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But, then again, this may in fact be more than one wants to know about the FACTS of the assassination, as it certainly puts a crimp in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza.

Tom.

P.S. It is all now a matter of "published record", of which The JFK Assassination Museum" is now in possession. (along with a few others who appear to be quite adept at understanding simple facts.)

The above which, at a minimum: a *cover-up* in the murder of JFK. Thanks for your work Tom Purvis! Have a nice holiday.

Ok Dean, from one King fan to another say no more. Sounds like another hit. He went into a bit of a spiral after his accident imo. Sounds like he's back. Thank you.

Yes John, he is back

I suppose he is back, as a story-teller. But he is yet to establish himself as the thinker he ought to be. He has recycled an old Quantum Leap episode and made it seem original. But that doesn't excuse his bald-faced lie he's read tons of books on the assassination and that all of them--even the conspiracy books--depict Oswald as an attention-starved nut. I mean, what a bunch of crud. Some of his flock might even take him seriously. His claim Oswald beat his wife is also revealing of bias, as no one really knows what went down between Marina and Lee besides Marina, and she, to this day, refuses to portray him as a cruel wife-beater.

I mean, does his book even deal with the medical evidence, and its problems? I'd suspect not. Like Hoover and the FBI, King's "investigation" appears to have begun and ended with Oswald. Could he have done it? Well, yeah. "And look, the DPD and FBI found some evidence! Well, that seals it!" Never mind that a frame-up--to the outside, and to one only looking at Oswald--would look quite like Oswald did it. Never mind that the FBI's and Army's tests proved it highly unlikely Oswald could pull off the shots with that rifle.

In short, it's clear King is a featherweight thinker in the ring with a heavyweight issue.

It seems Pat most writers who perceive their American dream slipping away want to do a book on the JFK's assassination... their faith has been challenged, go figure.

One of my favorite Andy Rooney segments is this one from 1991 (regarding Oliver Stone's film "JFK"):

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/andy-rooney-on-oliver-stone.html

let's have an order of *crispy* in honor of a guy who turned his back on JFK... ya need a life, hon!

There is no credible evidence that Judyth Baker knew or ever met, a single person related to the JFK-case, mentioned in this book.

appears you and Blackburst are losing to the Team Judyth PR machine... Momentum is building. Perhaps old Martin Shackleford was right, eh?

Bill Kelly posted such a graph, here.:

http://jfkcountercou...overnment-poll/

Thanks Tom, here's a better one, that is very clear.

JFKcountercoup

and two more -

JFKcountercoup: Pew Trust In Government Poll Graphs

There has been a lot of analysis and examination of these polls,

but few of these acute observers dare mention the spike that began

shortly after the assassination, or even mention the origins of the decline.

How Americans View Government | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

analysis of Post 9/11 Spike:

poli.haifa.ac.il/~terror/pages/maamarim/ar2.pdf

Thank you very much, Bill (and Tom Scully).

Bill...

Is the below referenced graph available anywhere on the web?

quote-Doug on

"I published the graph used by Phillips as Figure71, in my own book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board,"published in 2009 and still available at Amazon.com). Study of the graphreveals that this trust starting dropping precipitately after January of 1964."

quote-Doug off

Thanks,

David