David G. Healy

Thats a CGI animation isn't it ?

I've not seen it before so I'm not sure where it comes from...Maybe a video game or something ?

my assessment too... computer graphics animation

What it means is that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield, which is visible as a small, whilte spiral nebula

with a dark spot in the center, but which had to be cover-up because it was proof of a shot from in front. So after the limo had

been completely rebuilt at Ford--stripped down to bare metal and the windshield replaced, which Doug Weldon even confirmed

with the official at Ford who replaced it--the Secret Service fabricated a third windshield with cracks caused by a shot from the

rear to obviate the problem and create "new proof" of shots being fired only from behind, which has worked with some students.

Why Robin cannot bring himself to admit the obvious--that the damage shown is not the same in both--is simply beyond me.

Small stabilized GIF (stabilized using the rear view mirror

Looking at the two images layered on top of each other,and given the large difference in perspective of the two photographers , both in angle and distance.

Using the rear view mirror as a stabilization point, it is not out of the question that the two separate cracks seen in this GIF are infact in the same position on the windshield.

Excellent GIF, but they do not depict the same image. I do not know what that means.

Jack

I still have an open mind Jim

I re-evaluate the evidence as it presents itself.

Jack

I will check the providence of the FBI image

Here is something else to look at in the mean time.

so... did Abe Zapruder shoot the Zapruder film? What's the consensus and any DP film-photo proof? Proof, as in positively identifying Abe on that DP pedestal -- other than he said, she said.... real proof!

...

The film is exactly what brought the likes of John McAdams and his pals into existence in the first place.

AMEN! A fact that Paul May and David Von Pein won't touch...

If Fred Thompson was out there doing Jesse's gig - would we believe him?

huh? At this very moment Fred Thompson is out there selling *reverse mortgages* (on television-cable). To seniors yet! I doubt you'd see Ventura selling that kind of financial clap-trap...

Hi David; what i posted was the article that was asked for...i believe it as from the marsh collection as i have his intials on the folder...b

I see, thanks B..... David

Bernice... the link I posted is to Doug Horne's recent blog entry (last week)... David

...

Until there's an explanation for the lack of research efforts on this very subject, the only conclusion is that this is all a myth. No researchers on this subject? Come on - there ought to be droves of researchers going to the bottom of this?

...

from Judyth to the "other" film... you're really into the JFK assassination aren't ya there buddy-boy? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! What we need here are lone nuts that are a bit more "opaque"...

many thanks for posting this Doug Horne update, Bill Kelly....

see the link below:

http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/5665.html

Gary Mack: any comment, please?

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE

E-Mail From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time

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

Hello Dave,

What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]?????????

Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny?

For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a [deleted, so I don't get kicked off The Edu. Forum] when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great.

These people are just [deleted]. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud".

Regards,

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time.

Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.)

So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that.

By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't get it either.

I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film.

But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.'

Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene.

Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film.

But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~

And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended!

How's that for deliberate time-warping deception?

Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her.

Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times.

I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary,

Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)?

Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Sorry, I don’t. She [beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper.

And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends.

But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968.

I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too.

DVP

[My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]

Dave, perhaps you don't understand movie-making 101. A feature film BASED on a true story is not a documentary. Stone acknowledged this from the get-go. He changed names, he merged characters, he created conversations that never happened, he presented events that did happen out of order. The Beverly Oliver character in the movie is not even named Beverly Oliver. Stone added her character and others, most notably Mr. X, into the story so he could present an OVERVIEW of the claims regarding a conspiracy. That was the purpose of his film--an OVERVIEW of claims regarding a conspiracy. That was why he cited Marrs' Crossfire as a source, and not just Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. Garrison's book was just his VEHICLE for discussing the claims presented in other books.

If you read the published script, in fact, you'll see something you won't find elsewhere...FOOTNOTES. HUNDREDS of them. You see, while it's true that the film itself is, as Stone says, a counter-myth to the myth created by the Warren Commission, his film was not unlike the Warren Commission's report in that it was based on the statements and testimony of real people, and NOT made up from whole cloth, as so many like to claim.

So, while one can criticize the way Stone, and for that matter Garrison, put the evidence together, the charge that they invented the evidence is just not true.

you just blew Von Pein out-of-the-water...

Kamikaze Mike: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.

If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.

1. Sam Holland's hearing shots from and detection of smoke form behind the grassy knoll and his finding of weird prints there.

2. Lee Bowers testimony about the cars coming into that area, the flash of light, and then the man shoving something back into the trunk of the car.

3. Joe Smith's testimony about the false SS men up on the knoll.

4.The testimony of Newman, Hudson and Zapruder about the shots coming form behind them.

5. J.C. Price's testimony about a man running toward the parked cars near the rail line with something in his hand that may have been a head piece.

6. The FBi report declassified in 1977 about a couple of men behind the picket fence who appeared to be aiming a wooden stick or something two days before the murder.

7. The gaping avulsive wound to the rear of Kennedy's skull.

8. The rocketing back of Kennedy's entire body in the Zapruder film therefore obeying the laws of physics and Newton's laws of motion. Plus the fact that the neuromuscular reaction, jet effect and goat films have all been exposed as being BS.

9. THe fact that there is simply too much brian damage as reported by Doug Horne and others to account for just one bullet. Plus the fact that John Stringer disowned the brain photographs in the Archives.

10. Tom Robinson's testimony before the ARRB.

11. The fact that in the Z film, the explosion near the front of the head resembles that of a frangible bullet.

12. Jackie crawling out the back of the car to pick up debris expelled from the exploding skull. Plus the fact of her uncensored testimony about the appearance of JFK's head to her right afterwards.

13. How David Mantik has fit the Harper fragment into the rear of the skull.

Not one shred of evidence huh? You are such a joke you make DVP look sophisticated.

1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it.

2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister?

3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy?

4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes?

5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence.

6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds.

7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet.

8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you.

We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target.  

This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot.  The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average.

So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch:

Lets take the Carcano as an example:

As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs  since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3%

So

1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs.

With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target?

37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs.

How would we achieve this?

An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle.

So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs

which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs.

7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle.

so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs

We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm.....

how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs

so lets grab 5 of those

we are now at 36,804 ft lbs.

damn still short......by......196 ft lbs!

so lets go back shopping and get......

1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy

  

We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs....

So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with:

2-.50 cals

2-.308cals

5-.45 acp's

1-.22 cal

and a carcano

all at the same time.

really now.........

Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"?

"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel

responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony

before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of

the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding

capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no

such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no

frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are

produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger

weapons."

9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert.

10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals.

11. No frangible bullet: See number 8.

12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk.

13. Man you really are behind the times huh?

There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy.

ahh, you ARE nervous, son. btw, your frangible bullet expert, "Such bullets and the breakup

products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays." He ever show an x-ray depicting frangible bullet breakup example? Or do we have to take your word for what he said?

Ya post a lot of mumbo jumbo above, can you cite any of the above or are you just another lone nut noise maker, Sgt Mikey? Just curious

I love it when Delusional DiEugenio gets all riled up. It's incredibly fun (and funny).

...

funnier than watching a WENDY'S franchise going in across the street from your artery clogging KFC? Amazing!

Brilliant thread, Mike..Garrison was corrupt....that's it....brilliant analysis, richly annotated, filled with disturbing factoids...Oh Wait..you haven't done anything but started a provocative thread title.

Never came across you before..be sure to ignore your posts in the future, so, something came outta this..

If thats all you have to offer Steve please do disregard my posts. I dont think I would even notice.

no sweat, you won't be making the nutter varsity anytime soon... <lone nut boring>

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

it's a shame JFK was murdered, dies in a very public way, sitting next to his wife... yet you say its a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized? Little righteous indignation goes a long way here, me thinks.

Creating intellectual POV's concerning investigation of this case is, to me not only futile, but a complete waste of time... and certainly does NOT do justice to history... this is murder, plain and simple... plain old detective work, that's the ticket!

CT Sylvia Meagher:

. . as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment (Accessories After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).

CT Harold Weisberg:

as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour" (Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991; reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, 221). "Garrison was a tragedy," Weisberg wrote in a letter in 1998.

Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy (First Paragon House paperback edition, 1989), in "Update . . . November 1991:"

Those who have long labored to uncover the truth about Dallas might be expected to be happy about [the movie] J.F.K. In a sense they are . . .

[but] three-time Oscar winner Oliver Stone . . . has made some bizzare decisions. From a vast array of scholarship, he picked a book by Jim Garrison, former District Attorney of New Orleans, as his main source work. . . .

You will find only a sprinkling of references to Garrison in this book. His probe has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles. As Esquire magazine pointed out this November, there were things director Stone did not at first know about Garrison. About his separation from the U.S. Army, "following diagnosis that he was in need of long-term psychotherapy." About his "close association with organized crime, whose soldiers and capos he rarely prosecuted . . . " About "the bribery and income-tax evasion trials in which he was exonerated."

Yet, even when he did learn these things, Stone persisted in his association with Garrison and a bunch of other buffs, so-called witnesses and experts whom serious observers dismiss as cranks or worse. . . .

Can anybody rationally explain how Jim DiEugenio endorses Garrison and defends him almost religiously? Of course DiEugenio also believes in 8-10 shots from three different locations. Leads me to ask....who's the more serious "nut".......Garrison or DiEugenio?

Thoughts on this from CT's?

we understand your lone nut confusion... a simple statement will clear this up for you and other lone nuts (and trolls),

"perhaps now you can fathom the cancer that has infected this country since 1963..."

and, you'll notice Harold was the only 'professional' investigator (with appropriate credentials and understood how governmental investigations went) of the bunch above. Having discussed a few issue of this case with Harold, I can say, he may of been a tad jealous and frustrated with Jim Garrison who basked in the lime-light, later, not to mention Stone (a highly decorated Vietnam veteran-101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles) who, as you know, at the drop of a hat could raise millions for ANY of his film project(s)... and Harold after all, had to self-publish his books? You can figure it out, yes?

Closest we have these day's to Harold, probably Jimmy Di... today's lone nut nightmare, as your interest displays...

Carry on Sgt Mikey.

David,

You still haven't convinced me Oswald was on the Sixth Floor of TSBD at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63

Gee, what a surprise.

Fact is, of course, that NO AMOUNT of evidence would EVER convince you that Oswald was on the Sixth Floor of TSBD at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. Face it.

DAVID, I REALLY AM OPEN TO PERSUASION. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CAN'T FACE THE FACTS THAT OSWALD WAS ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILDING AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS, WAS ON THE SECOND FLOOR WITH A COP AND GIVEN A BYE BY TRULY, WHILE SOMEONE ELSE WAS EYEBALLED IN THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER'S WINDOW BY MS. MONEYHAM. WHO WAS THAT GUY IF NOT OSWALD OR THE SNIPER?

Brennan and Eunis Amos [sic; Bill means Amos Euins here; but it's a cute transposition of Amos' name] are both important witnesses who eyeballed the Sixth Floor sniper, but Amos saw a man with a bald spot on his head (not Oswald)...

Have you seen Jean Davison's work on Euins' "bald spot" testimony?

YES, I HAVE, AND DON'T BELIEVE EUINS SAID PATTERN BALD, AS SHE NOTES OSWALD WAS A LITTLE SHORT ON THE SIDE, BUT HE SAID BALD SPOT ON TOP, A VERY SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTE AS SOLID AS A TATTOO.

It's yet another case of conspiracy theorists looking at an apple and seeing an apricot.

Davison's work on this matter indicates that Euins was describing a person with a receding hairline JUST LIKE OSWALD'S.

Check the aaj forum for more details (from sometime in early or mid 2010).

AND ITS NOT APPLES AND APRICOTS. IT'S GUILT OR NOT GUILT, AND IF NOT GUILTY, THEN WHO IS THE GUILTY ONE?

I COULD ACCEPT OSWALD BEING THE LONE ASSASSIN, IF THE EVIDENCE WOULD SO INDICATE, BUT THEN, BEING SOMEONE TRAINED IN THE CRAFTS OF INTELLIGENCE, A FORMER DEFECTOR TO USSR, A MEMBER OF THE TARGETED FPCC, A VISITOR TO THE RUSSIAN AND CUBAN EMBASSIES IN MEXICO CITY, THE SUBJECT OF MULTIPLE IMPERSONATIONS, YOUR ASSASSIN FITS THE PROFILE OF A COVERT OPERATOR, AND WAS NOT THE DERANGED, LONE NUT AS YOU TRY TO PORTRAY HIM.

WHETHER THE PREPACKAGED PATSY OR THE LONE ASSASSIN, WHAT HAPPENED THERE WAS A CAREFULLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED COVERT OPERATION, AND NOT THE RANDOM, MEANINGLESS ACT OF A NUT CASE.

BILL KELLY

Excellent post Bill Kelly...

Therein lies a huge problem that lone nut trolls have (and have had for 40+ years), especially with those who COULD and WOULD accept Oswald as guilty IF case facts and evidence (as understood today (04-03-2011) pointed directly to LHO. REASONABLE DOUBT with the WCR? Of course there is!

do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon

Of course. The proof has been on the table since 1963-1964. You just refuse to accept

the obvious, honey lamb.

wishful thinking, conjecture AND a solo eyewitness account (with

documented eyesight problems no-less) OBVIOUS proof? Since 1964? The

WCR? Grow up hon! Have to do much better than that!

Needless to say, the Von Pein disinformation sites will NOT be included.

I'm heartbroken.

...

do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon.

Thanks for posting this review, John.

David Healy

If I'm in the National Gallery checking out a Cezanne or a Hopper, I can also quickly reach in my pocket and enter the wacky world of David Von Pein.

Glad to see you can't live without my wackiness, Lee boy. You're even compelled to enter my wacky world when you're with your family, at the Gallery, or "on the Tube".

You must be a glutton for punishment. And you must also love being bored to death, eh?

What a strange little man.

You see how your brain is fried? You think I come on here just to see what crap you're spouting? I come to see primarily what the intelligent members are discussing - and then once I'm through learning stuff I check out your nonsense. All whilst sitting outside Westminster Abbey...

If you can't buy Kentucky Fried Chicken at Westminster Abbey, DVP will have no clue as to what, or where the place is....

Maybe you should try standup with Jay Leno in Hermosa Beach on Saturdays in the summer.

Yeah, I could follow your hilarious lead-in act, entitled: "I Think Everything's Fake In The JFK Murder Case".

I doubt that the crowd could laugh any more after listening to your hysterical act, however.

one can always tell when you're in the evade and split mode..... carry on!

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

...

ya need glasses, dude!

No glasses required at this end, dude, just non delusional common sense.

an this alteration of Zapruder Film frame means what hon? Ya think everyone around here buys your nonsense? LMFAO!

Now anyone who claims to be unable to see the defect at the back of the head will be hard pressed to justify any such denial.

The light greyish looking area being hit by sunlight on Kennedy's leftward tilted head, and seen in frames Z372 through to Z375, is the area from where the flap originated, and as is clearly seen in the frames provided by Robin, is on the side of his head, NOT the back.

...

ya need glasses, dude!

Very nice work Robin... although I doubt preservers of the 1963 historical, Dealey Plaza film photo record will pay much attention... not in their best interests...

I had another question about the film as well... when you can get to it...

please excuse me if we've been over this before... there is a periodic flash of a white identification type stripe along the left side of the film...

How is it that the intersprocket image can be seen either behind or on top of this white area?

Wouldn't that ID stamped into the white area preclude an image from being seen there?

thanks

DJ

That strip along the left edge is "edge print" which tells the type of film it is along with other identifying data. That was exposed on the film at the factory before being shipped out for sale. During exposure in the user's camera, anything spilling onto that edge from the scene being filmed becomes a double-exposure with the edge print. There's no "behind" when you double-expose film. The light falling on the film is cumulative, whether it's in the normal image area or in the edge print area. A double-exposure is the same no matter where it happens on a piece of film. The images are mixed together. Only an exposure to almost white or fully white would keep any other image from possibly appearing. In other words, if enough light from any exposure blows out all further ability to show detail, no other exposures will create an image - the film has accepted all the light it can for that spot on the film. Each exposure makes the spot on the film whiter/lighter until it can't change any more.

There are some slight oddities in the way the edge print appears on that film compared to the few thousand feet of 8mm Kodachrome film I own going back in time much before 1963. Possibly the most important one is that none of my Kodachrome film (which was developed by Kodak, of course, and most if not all in Dallas) has any edge print from processing to show the plant location (such as "D" for Dallas as Zavada claims was done).

I hope that helps clear some of this up for you.

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

Greg, let me know if I can add anything more. I haven't rec'd any email notices of replies here on the forum before even though I tried to set my preferences to send them.

I asked Roland Zavada a few years back if KODAK could manufacture double 8mm film with NO edge data. His answer, YES.