Question for Z-film experts

[Jerry Logan]

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO.

It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph.

So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald.

So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt.

Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI.

So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Pat,

I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera.

Jerry

Hello Pat!

Jerry, maybe the Secret Service thought the camera recorded 16 or 18 fps. Maybe. (The question arises how Life could possibly know the film speed without testing the camera)..

I think they probably called Bell & Howell. Even though the manual said 16 fps, by 1963 the cameras were being manufactured to run at 18 fps and in 1964 the manuals and specifications were updated to reflect the new standards. This is in the Zavada report. So the simple explanation is they called the manufacturer and asked. However, if you think there had to be testing, then it's important to remember that the Secret Service physically had Zapruder's camera on 12/3/1963 so they could have tested it at that time.

But then you're stuck trying to explain how the Secret Service re-enactment of 12-5 could possibly have concluded that Kennedy at frame 313 was 34 feet further from the sniper's nest than the re-enactment of 11-27, when BOTH used the Zapruder film...and WHY the FBI also concluded the head shot location was further than previously presumed.

Two points. First, I'm not sure the shot locations move around as much as you think. Sometimes they're talking about the distance from the sixth floor window to the President, sometimes they're talking about the distance from the window to the front of the limousine. Sometimes they're talking about the distance along the street to either the President or to the front of the car. It all looks incredibly sloppy and imprecise to me and half the time it's not clear at all that they're talking about the same thing.

However, even if we leave that aside and assume everybody is talking about the same thing - changing the location of the limousine does not change or solve their timing problem. The timing problem is created by the frame rate, not the cars location. A certain number of frames elapse between events - it doesn't matter where the limousine is, it only matters how many frames go by between shots. The car could have come to a dead stop in front of the TSBD so it's still there at 313 or it could be at the underpass at 313. It doesn't matter where the limousine is located, the only way to change the timing is to change the frame rate or move the events to different frames. Therefore, for the purposes of fitting in three shots from a slow, bolt-action rifle, there's no need or purpose in jacking around the locations. The locations don't affect the timing issue. If there is some underhanded moving about then it would most likely be to solve a trajectory problem because where the car is located does have a big effect on that issue.

Agent Howlett's 11-27 re-enactment performed BEFORE the Barrett memo claiming the camera recorded 24 fps had the first shot at 170 feet and the third at 260 feet. Roughly 90 feet. 24 frames per second means 22 fps. This suggests three shots were fired in barely four seconds. Although the NPIC numbers indicate someone believed the shooter could have fired shots as rapidly as two seconds apart, they most certainly would not have wanted to say the sniper did this twice in a row. It comes as no surprise then that the 12-5 re-enactment performed by Elmer Moore (who would go on to become Chief Justice Warren's "bodyguard" and keep a close eye on the conduct of the WC) had the first shot at 184 feet and the second at 294. This conveniently translates to a 5 second scenario. Now ain't that a coinky-dink. Still, it's possible this was just a coincidence. One wonders, however, why the only record in the Warren Commission's files of Agent Howlett's earlier re-enactment is an FBI report. This suggests the Secret Service destroyed all records of this earlier, more accurate re-enactment....hmmm... (If you know where we can find Agent Howlett's 11-27 report on the re-enactment please let me know...)

No, actually none of the distance changes affect the timing at all. If the first shot is at 190 and the last shot is at 313 then there are 123 frames between the first and last shot. If the camera runs at 24 fps then there are 5.125 seconds between the first and last shot. If the camera runs at 18.3 fps then there are 6.72 seconds between the first and last shot. If the camera runs at 16 fps then there are 7.68 seconds between first and last. The only way to give Oswald more time is decrease the frame rate or move the first and last shots to different frames. Adding or subtracting distance doesn't change the time interval between shots.

FBI Agent Gauthier, however, almost certainly knew of both Barrett's memo on Howlett's re-enactment on 11-27, and Barrett's memo on Zapruder's camera speed. His early reports on his reconstruction mention that the limo was moving 15 mph. Where else would he have got this?

Kellerman and Greer both reported the limousine was traveling between 12 and 15 mph. So he created a limiting case by assuming the top possible speed? i.e. the furthest the limousine could have been from the TSBD if the limousine were traveling at the top speed provided by Greer and Kellerman.

Even worse, the FBI's re-enactment had the first shot at 167 feet and the third at 307 feet. 140 feet. How on Earth does the distance traveled during the shooting grow "accidentally" from 90 feet to 140 feet, only to shrink back to 90 feet or less during the WC's re-enactment?

As I said, they may be trying to solve a trajectory problem or they may just be hopelessly confused. Gauthier's original exhibits for the WC demonstrated that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots, right? So it hardly seems like they were exactly operating on all cylinders.

Either the Secret Service and FBI were INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT and far worse a threat to national security than the likes of 100 Oswalds, or were LIARS reporting dutifully to a corrupt President. I'm not sure which one is worse.

(P.S. I'm well aware that Tom Purvis thinks the SS and FBI's re-enactments were accurate, and that the WC's latter one disguised that there was shot after frame 313, but he deliberately avoids all the FBI and SS memos indicating they thought the third shot was the head shot at frame 313 even while placing it 30 feet or more further down the road.)

Best to you,

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

If I recall correctly, 16MM MOVIE CAMERAS run at 24fps for normal speed.

I have always thought that the (ahem) "original" Zapruder film was shot in 16mm.

Maybe this contributed to the confusion.

Jack

Hello Mr. White,

Yes, that's a possibility. If it's true, what do you think was processed and slit at Kodak Dallas that night? And what was it that Jamieson copied?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry...nobody really knows. but my opinion is that there were several films shot from the grassy knoll

that day, and that the extant Z film is a composite of selected images. The perps would not risk shooting

their big event in just an amateur's 8mm. I believe that at least one 16mm film was shot, and one or more

8mm films. At least one of the films was shot from the Z pedestal by someone (not Abe). The NPIC processed

and studied a film that DEFINITELY was not the extant film.

Jack

Thanks Mr. White.

So Kodak Dallas and Jamieson weren't necessarily in the know, but Zapruder and Sitzman must have been.

Is that correct? What do you think about the Hesters?

Jerry

[Jack White]

If I recall correctly, 16MM MOVIE CAMERAS run at 24fps for normal speed.

I have always thought that the (ahem) "original" Zapruder film was shot in 16mm.

Maybe this contributed to the confusion.

Jack

Hello Mr. White,

Yes, that's a possibility. If it's true, what do you think was processed and slit at Kodak Dallas that night? And what was it that Jamieson copied?

Best regards,

Jerry

Jerry...nobody really knows. but my opinion is that there were several films shot from the grassy knoll

that day, and that the extant Z film is a composite of selected images. The perps would not risk shooting

their big event in just an amateur's 8mm. I believe that at least one 16mm film was shot, and one or more

8mm films. At least one of the films was shot from the Z pedestal by someone (not Abe). The NPIC processed

and studied a film that DEFINITELY was not the extant film.

Jack

Thanks Mr. White.

So Kodak Dallas and Jamieson weren't necessarily in the know, but Zapruder and Sitzman must have been.

Is that correct? What do you think about the Hesters?

Jerry

Jerry..In my opinion, Zapruder, Sitzman and the Hesters are all suspicious. They all knew more than we

thought they new. Yes, they all knew more than we know about them. The were not all necessarily

witting participants, but they knew SOMETHING.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do?

Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game...

P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks.

You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable.

Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed...

Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get.

Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word.

"Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda."

You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist.

This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize.

Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least.

As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this.

http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg

The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest.

A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle.

If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away.

But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook?

[Craig Lamson]

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do?

Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game...

P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks.

You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable.

Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed...

Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get.

Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word.

"Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda."

Yea, and since you are unwilling to alter your false statements about the fold of fabric on JFK's Jacket in Croft and since your error has been pointed out numerous times, you are deliberately spreading this false information. End of story.

You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist.

It's not a "minor" point. The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof.

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable.

So where does THREE INCHES plus of folded fabric on JFK's back in Betzner leave your argument that the PROVEN fabric bunch on JFK's back in both Croft and Betzner is ...how did you put it..."a Bunch of baloney".

Oh yes, it leaves your argument IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY.

This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize.

Well Pat since you, like most CT's can't seem to deal with unimpeachable fact that destroys a theory in which you are well vested, this deserves to be exposed to the light of day. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers.

Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least.

There was at least THREE inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner. For this I have provided unimpeachable proof using the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. I've even providede experimental, empirical evidence to back it up. So now, given your listed defination of disinformation, you claim I an a disinformationalist. Amazing. Not only is your intellectual honesty in question your logic is as well. You need to learn the first rule of holes Pat.

As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this.

No, I understand your failed and very silly argument completely. You however seem ill-equipped to understand why your argument is pure caca. BTW, Hunt is correct.

http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg

The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest.

A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle.

And here you fail. The large portion of the fold as seen in Croft is to the LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back as proven by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. You simply can't refute this unimpeachable fact with your continued, and ignorant handwaving. Never mind that once we get to Betzner it has been proven this fabric bunch is THREE plus inches of fabric! So again what does three inches of PROVEN fabric fold do to your claims

If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away.

I've provided proof of concept images that support my work, can YOU say the same? You can't? Amazing...just handwaving for Pat.

But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can pretend to "disagree" untill the cows come home, but it will not change the fact that your work is provably wrong and you refuse acknowlege this fact. I really don't know what you have posted on the rest of your website but if its anything like the drool you have posted about the jacket bunch....

FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook?

Misguided? You knowing post false information and somehow pointing out his fact is misguided? Amazing. Tell us Pat, exactly what is it you are claiming to do in regards to the record in the JFK case?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

So Pat. speaking of 'truth", have you corrected your disinformation at patspeer.com about the bunch in JFK's jacket in Croft. It has been proven with unimpeachable evidence that your claim is simply BALONEY. All in the interest of intellectual honesty, you know. Pretty hard for you top beat on someone else when you do the same don't you think?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo!

You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really?

As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything

Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft.

I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible.

You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca.

And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth.

As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand.

Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do?

Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game...

P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks.

You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable.

Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed...

Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get.

Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word.

"Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda."

Yea, and since you are unwilling to alter your false statements about the fold of fabric on JFK's Jacket in Croft and since your error has been pointed out numerous times, you are deliberately spreading this false information. End of story.

You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist.

It's not a "minor" point. The evidence provided in Croft is unimpeachable. There is a large fold of fabric TO THE LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. The laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sun in relation to JFK in Croft prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you consider this unimpreachable evidence "arcane" speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty or rather lack thereof.

When we move past Croft and on to Betzner we find the same fold obscuring JFK's jacket collar. This too is unimpeachable due to the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Given the jacket collar is at least 1.25 inches tall, this fold of fabric including returns equals at least 3 inches of fabric. Again unimpeachable.

So where does THREE INCHES plus of folded fabric on JFK's back in Betzner leave your argument that the PROVEN fabric bunch on JFK's back in both Croft and Betzner is ...how did you put it..."a Bunch of baloney".

Oh yes, it leaves your argument IN THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY.

This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize.

Well Pat since you, like most CT's can't seem to deal with unimpeachable fact that destroys a theory in which you are well vested, this deserves to be exposed to the light of day. Sorry if it ruffles your feathers.

Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least.

There was at least THREE inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner. For this I have provided unimpeachable proof using the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. I've even providede experimental, empirical evidence to back it up. So now, given your listed defination of disinformation, you claim I an a disinformationalist. Amazing. Not only is your intellectual honesty in question your logic is as well. You need to learn the first rule of holes Pat.

As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this.

No, I understand your failed and very silly argument completely. You however seem ill-equipped to understand why your argument is pure caca. BTW, Hunt is correct.

http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg

The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest.

A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle.

And here you fail. The large portion of the fold as seen in Croft is to the LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back as proven by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. You simply can't refute this unimpeachable fact with your continued, and ignorant handwaving. Never mind that once we get to Betzner it has been proven this fabric bunch is THREE plus inches of fabric! So again what does three inches of PROVEN fabric fold do to your claims

If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away.

I've provided proof of concept images that support my work, can YOU say the same? You can't? Amazing...just handwaving for Pat.

But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can pretend to "disagree" untill the cows come home, but it will not change the fact that your work is provably wrong and you refuse acknowlege this fact. I really don't know what you have posted on the rest of your website but if its anything like the drool you have posted about the jacket bunch....

FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook?

Misguided? You knowing post false information and somehow pointing out his fact is misguided? Amazing. Tell us Pat, exactly what is it you are claiming to do in regards to the record in the JFK case?

appears most here (with the exception I suspect of new member and Josiah Thompson water carrier Jer Logan), are getting upset with you there son.... apparently they're FINALLY getting onto your game... well, there's always that alter ego Shutterbun at alt.conspiracy.jfk fame, that alias of late seems to be getting its rearend kicked too, imagine that.... sigh, so many aliases, so few nutter-trolls left and so little time....

Carry on!

Edited August 28, 2009 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

appears most here (with the exception I suspect of new member and Josiah Thompson water carrier Jer Logan), are getting upset with you there son.... apparently they're FINALLY getting onto your game... well, there's always that alter ego Shutterbun at alt.conspiracy.jfk fame, that alias of late seems to be getting its rearend kicked too, imagine that.... sigh, so many aliases, so few nutter-trolls left and so little time....

Carry on!

I'm not suprised to see intellectually dishonest CT's and trolls (see mirror David) be a wee bit upset. After all, I've thrashed many of their long held but oh so ignorant theories. That's sure to leave a mark. And I notice you can't seem to find the stuff to refute any of my work either. All you have left are xxxxx posts. Kind of a sad state of affairs for you eh?

As for rear ends getting kicked, thats not a problem for me, but for you and yours however, its another story. I see J.P.Costella and J.H. Fetzer are still hiding under a rock somewhere because of these...

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm

The truth seems pretty hard for the CT's to stomach these days. And it seems to refute.....

[Pat Speer]

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself.

To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide.

There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder.

Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see.

But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing?

Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket.

And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself.

To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide.

There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder.

Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see.

But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing?

Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket.

And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

Quit babbling and deal with this simple fact Pat, the fold of fabric on JFK's back is, for the most part, TO THE LEFT of the centerline of his back. How do we know this? The simple fact that the top edge of this fold is in sunlight and we can see the SHADOW LINE created by JFK's. neck FALL OVER the top of this fold. UNIMPEACHABLE. Everything else you and your band of friends are pushing is simply caca.

Here is the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck and falls over the shirt collar, over the jacket collar, over the jacket back, down into the fabric fold, back up again and finally crossing over the top of the fold. Note that this is EXACTLY how the unbending of light, shadow and angle of incidence DEMANDS the shadows fall in Croft....and imagine that...they do!

The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence trump all of your mindless handwaving. Thats how the real world works Pat, If the top edge of fold is in sunlight, it is to the left of the centerline of JFK,s back. If we can see the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck, that shadow MUST be at or near the center line of JFK's back. WHy? because of the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Amazing how this worls, don't you think?

Lets look at a diagram of the sun in relation to JFK's body as seen in Croft and see if the theory matches reality.

Gee, the theory and reality match perfectly..imagine that.

Yo and your friends need to get over it Pat, because you screwed up BIGTIME. The fold of fabric seen in Croft is just that, a fold of fabric and the bulk of it is LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. That is unimpeachable

One simple little shadow. Amazing don't you think? This simple little shadow throws a major monkey wrench into the world of JFK CT's. Why? Because it proves in an unimpeachable manner that there was at least three inches of fabric folded on JFK's back at Betzner. You can't say the jacket fell, because thats not true. If you want to discredit the single bullet theory you must now account for this three plus inches of fabric as seen in Betzner.

I don't give a hoot about the rest of the argument. I deal in the photos and what they say. The photos say in an unimpeachable fashion that there was three plus inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner and that this fold for the most part was left of the centerline of JFK's back in Croft. Simple, sweet, concise and backed by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

Trumps the heck out of your ignorant handwaving.....

[Pat Speer]

Craig, your response once again demonstrates that you don't even understand the issues involved. The bullet hole on the clothes places it around the T-3 level of Kennedy's spine. Now the line among many CTs is that this alone proves the single-bullet theory impossible. There are two ways around this, however. Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter proposed that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up on his neck, and that this brought the bullet hole on the clothes up to the level of the back wound depicted on their autopsy drawings--at the base of the neck, around C5-C6. This, of course, seemed unlikely, and aroused much suspicion in the conspiracy research community circa 1966. No one then, or now, has been able to demonstrate that this could happen, without clothing being bunched up ABOVE Kennedy's collar. (If you think you can demonstrate this, fire away.)

But this issue was brushed aside in 1978, when the HSCA FPP acknowledged that the autopsy photos proved that the wound was NOT at C5-C6, as depicted on the drawings, but at T-1, on Kennedy's back. They then found another way around the bullet hole location and claimed the single-bullet theory trajectory still worked because Kennedy leaned forward as he passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Well, this was laughable, as Kennedy was behind this sign for only a second. Even more shocking, the committee, based upon the photographic and acoustic evidence, concluded the SBT shot occurred BEFORE Kennedy went behind this sign...AT A POINT THAT THEIR MEDICAL PANEL CLAIMED THE SBT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

So...in the years since 1978 the LN community has returned to claiming the bullet hit Kennedy around C5-C6. They do this without acknowledging that this is in defiance of the last medical panel to look at the photos, and even the autopsy doctors. You see, when the original autopsy doctors were shown the photos in 96...UNDER OATH...they acknowledged that yes, indeed, the back wound was on the back and not in the location depicted in the drawings they submitted to Specter and the WC.

NOW, although you seem to be operating under the delusion I have many "friends" in the research community who have been led astray by my interpretation of the Croft photo, the FACT is that many CTs, perhaps most, think the back wound in the autopsy photo is still incompatible with the bullet hole location on the clothes. I, however, have long pushed that the clothes WERE SLIGHTLY BUNCHED, and that this bunching of the clothes lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the level of T-1, and that the back wound photo, therefore, would appear to be legitimate.

I also have long held that this bunching was not significant enough to lift the level of the bullet hole to C-5/C-6, where most LNs place the entrance wound (in bold defiance of the medical experts).

So...when I came across the John Hunt article claiming the Croft photo showed there to be enough bunching to lift the bullet hole to the traditional LN entrance location, and noticed that he drew a line straight out from the back of Kennedy's neck in order to demonstrate the amount of clothing in his proposed "bunch", I decided to get a better look at this photo. Sometime after, Bill Miller posted the color Croft online, and I saw what I suspected. The furthest part of the "bunch" from Kennedy's neck, as designated by a green curve on your photo, WAS NOT sticking straight out from Kennedy's neck, but was on the right side of Kennedy's back, in his shoulder area, only seen at an angle. This is perhaps best demonstrated by following Kennedy's back line in the photo. Based upon the appearance of his left shoulder, it is absolutely clear to me that his back is not in profile and that the far part of his back in the photo is on the right side of his back. Now follow this back line upwards. When you get to the neck area there is indeed a bunching of the clothing. This appears to me to be on the right side of Kennedy's jacket.

Now, I guess you think this is to the left of the midline. So be it. The ISSUE, Craig is not where this bunching is, but whether or not it lifts the bullet hole to the level of C5/C6 as claimed by the LN community. To me it is 100% clear that this bunching, no matter what side of the back on which it relies, only lifts the clothing an inch or two above its normal location on Kennedy's back.

If you think otherwise, then you should try to prove it. You can do this by 1) re-creating the photo using a stand-in and some clothing, or 2) perform a detailed analysis of the photo in which you present measurements and what you believe in the photo to be the eventual location of the bullet hole on the clothing.

Feel free to do either. But your continued harping about my sending out "disinformation" (when in fact you don't even understand the discussion) will go unacknowledged.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself.

To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide.

There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder.

Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see.

But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing?

Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket.

And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

Quit babbling and deal with this simple fact Pat, the fold of fabric on JFK's back is, for the most part, TO THE LEFT of the centerline of his back. How do we know this? The simple fact that the top edge of this fold is in sunlight and we can see the SHADOW LINE created by JFK's. neck FALL OVER the top of this fold. UNIMPEACHABLE. Everything else you and your band of friends are pushing is simply caca.

Here is the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck and falls over the shirt collar, over the jacket collar, over the jacket back, down into the fabric fold, back up again and finally crossing over the top of the fold. Note that this is EXACTLY how the unbending of light, shadow and angle of incidence DEMANDS the shadows fall in Croft....and imagine that...they do!

The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence trump all of your mindless handwaving. Thats how the real world works Pat, If the top edge of fold is in sunlight, it is to the left of the centerline of JFK,s back. If we can see the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck, that shadow MUST be at or near the center line of JFK's back. WHy? because of the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Amazing how this worls, don't you think?

Lets look at a diagram of the sun in relation to JFK's body as seen in Croft and see if the theory matches reality.

Gee, the theory and reality match perfectly..imagine that.

Yo and your friends need to get over it Pat, because you screwed up BIGTIME. The fold of fabric seen in Croft is just that, a fold of fabric and the bulk of it is LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. That is unimpeachable

One simple little shadow. Amazing don't you think? This simple little shadow throws a major monkey wrench into the world of JFK CT's. Why? Because it proves in an unimpeachable manner that there was at least three inches of fabric folded on JFK's back at Betzner. You can't say the jacket fell, because thats not true. If you want to discredit the single bullet theory you must now account for this three plus inches of fabric as seen in Betzner.

I don't give a hoot about the rest of the argument. I deal in the photos and what they say. The photos say in an unimpeachable fashion that there was three plus inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner and that this fold for the most part was left of the centerline of JFK's back in Croft. Simple, sweet, concise and backed by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

Trumps the heck out of your ignorant handwaving.....

ahem... please comment on Speer's comment in post #55 this thread.... Time for you to get on the same page.... btw, who does your graphics, they stink?

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, your response once again demonstrates that you don't even understand the issues involved. The bullet hole on the clothes places it around the T-3 level of Kennedy's spine. Now the line among many CTs is that this alone proves the single-bullet theory impossible. There are two ways around this, however. Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter proposed that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up on his neck, and that this brought the bullet hole on the clothes up to the level of the back wound depicted on their autopsy drawings--at the base of the neck, around C5-C6. This, of course, seemed unlikely, and aroused much suspicion in the conspiracy research community circa 1966. No one then, or now, has been able to demonstrate that this could happen, without clothing being bunched up ABOVE Kennedy's collar. (If you think you can demonstrate this, fire away.)

But this issue was brushed aside in 1978, when the HSCA FPP acknowledged that the autopsy photos proved that the wound was NOT at C5-C6, as depicted on the drawings, but at T-1, on Kennedy's back. They then found another way around the bullet hole location and claimed the single-bullet theory trajectory still worked because Kennedy leaned forward as he passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Well, this was laughable, as Kennedy was behind this sign for only a second. Even more shocking, the committee, based upon the photographic and acoustic evidence, concluded the SBT shot occurred BEFORE Kennedy went behind this sign...AT A POINT THAT THEIR MEDICAL PANEL CLAIMED THE SBT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

So...in the years since 1978 the LN community has returned to claiming the bullet hit Kennedy around C5-C6. They do this without acknowledging that this is in defiance of the last medical panel to look at the photos, and even the autopsy doctors. You see, when the original autopsy doctors were shown the photos in 96...UNDER OATH...they acknowledged that yes, indeed, the back wound was on the back and not in the location depicted in the drawings they submitted to Specter and the WC.

NOW, although you seem to be operating under the delusion I have many "friends" in the research community who have been led astray by my interpretation of the Croft photo, the FACT is that many CTs, perhaps most, think the back wound in the autopsy photo is still incompatible with the bullet hole location on the clothes. I, however, have long pushed that the clothes WERE SLIGHTLY BUNCHED, and that this bunching of the clothes lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the level of T-1, and that the back wound photo, therefore, would appear to be legitimate.

I also have long held that this bunching was not significant enough to lift the level of the bullet hole to C-5/C-6, where most LNs place the entrance wound (in bold defiance of the medical experts).

So...when I came across the John Hunt article claiming the Croft photo showed there to be enough bunching to lift the bullet hole to the traditional LN entrance location, and noticed that he drew a line straight out from the back of Kennedy's neck in order to demonstrate the amount of clothing in his proposed "bunch", I decided to get a better look at this photo. Sometime after, Bill Miller posted the color Croft online, and I saw what I suspected. The furthest part of the "bunch" from Kennedy's neck, as designated by a green curve on your photo, WAS NOT sticking straight out from Kennedy's neck, but was on the right side of Kennedy's back, in his shoulder area, only seen at an angle. This is perhaps best demonstrated by following Kennedy's back line in the photo. Based upon the appearance of his left shoulder, it is absolutely clear to me that his back is not in profile and that the far part of his back in the photo is on the right side of his back. Now follow this back line upwards. When you get to the neck area there is indeed a bunching of the clothing. This appears to me to be on the right side of Kennedy's jacket.

Now, I guess you think this is to the left of the midline. So be it. The ISSUE, Craig is not where this bunching is, but whether or not it lifts the bullet hole to the level of C5/C6 as claimed by the LN community. To me it is 100% clear that this bunching, no matter what side of the back on which it relies, only lifts the clothing an inch or two above its normal location on Kennedy's back.

If you think otherwise, then you should try to prove it. You can do this by 1) re-creating the photo using a stand-in and some clothing, or 2) perform a detailed analysis of the photo in which you present measurements and what you believe in the photo to be the eventual location of the bullet hole on the clothing.

Feel free to do either. But your continued harping about my sending out "disinformation" (when in fact you don't even understand the discussion) will go unacknowledged.

You are babbling once again Pat, which was what I expected. If you had any intellectual honesty you would have simply admitted your error and changed your webpage. Instead you try in vain to defend the indefensable.

The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence demands that the shadow indicated by the green line be LEFT of, or at the centerline of JFK's back. It CANNOT be on his right shoulder as you suggest. Now given this unimpeachable fact, we are left with two options, either Pat Speer is posting willful disinformation or when it comes to things photographic he is dumber than a box of rocks. Take your choice.

You seem to agree that there is a fabric fold on Croft but then you state that this fold only " only lifts the clothing an inch or two". Did you pull this number out of the same dark, smelly place you found your silly statement about the right shoulder? Sheesh! Just how did you "measure" this inch or two of fabric?

Now that we have established you don't have the first clue about the location nor the size of the fabirc fold in Croft, lets move on the to three plus inches of fabric fold on JFK's back as seen in Bentzer. Instead of repeating the argument, you can find it all here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=14561&hl=

Varnell spent two weeks trying in vain to refute the unimpeachable fact that there was 3 plus inches of fabic folded upward on JFK's back as seen in Betzner. This fold of fabric obscured the jacket collar, making the amount of fabric elevated ABOVE the bottom of the jacket collar 3+ inches. And it was the wonderful shadow in Croft, the one you can't seem to understand, that provides the proof.

So unless you can provide experimental, empirical evidence that refutes the unimpeachable facts I've detailed in the above mentioned thread you are left with three plus inches of fabric folded above the bottom of JFK's jacket collar as seen in Betzner.

As I have stated more than once, I don't support nor deny the SBT. I simply don't care. However the facts are quite clear, unimpeachable, that there was 3+ inches of fabric fold elevated ABOVE the bottom of JFK's jacket collar in Betzner.

What you choose to do with this information is your business. How I report your use of this unimpeachable fact is mine.

Your move.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself.

To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide.

There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder.

Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see.

But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing?

Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket.

And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

Quit babbling and deal with this simple fact Pat, the fold of fabric on JFK's back is, for the most part, TO THE LEFT of the centerline of his back. How do we know this? The simple fact that the top edge of this fold is in sunlight and we can see the SHADOW LINE created by JFK's. neck FALL OVER the top of this fold. UNIMPEACHABLE. Everything else you and your band of friends are pushing is simply caca.

Here is the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck and falls over the shirt collar, over the jacket collar, over the jacket back, down into the fabric fold, back up again and finally crossing over the top of the fold. Note that this is EXACTLY how the unbending of light, shadow and angle of incidence DEMANDS the shadows fall in Croft....and imagine that...they do!

The unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence trump all of your mindless handwaving. Thats how the real world works Pat, If the top edge of fold is in sunlight, it is to the left of the centerline of JFK,s back. If we can see the shadow that is cast by JFK's neck, that shadow MUST be at or near the center line of JFK's back. WHy? because of the unbendable laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence. Amazing how this worls, don't you think?

Lets look at a diagram of the sun in relation to JFK's body as seen in Croft and see if the theory matches reality.

Gee, the theory and reality match perfectly..imagine that.

Yo and your friends need to get over it Pat, because you screwed up BIGTIME. The fold of fabric seen in Croft is just that, a fold of fabric and the bulk of it is LEFT of the centerline of JFK's back. That is unimpeachable

One simple little shadow. Amazing don't you think? This simple little shadow throws a major monkey wrench into the world of JFK CT's. Why? Because it proves in an unimpeachable manner that there was at least three inches of fabric folded on JFK's back at Betzner. You can't say the jacket fell, because thats not true. If you want to discredit the single bullet theory you must now account for this three plus inches of fabric as seen in Betzner.

I don't give a hoot about the rest of the argument. I deal in the photos and what they say. The photos say in an unimpeachable fashion that there was three plus inches of fabric folded on JFK's back in Betzner and that this fold for the most part was left of the centerline of JFK's back in Croft. Simple, sweet, concise and backed by the unbending laws of light, shadow and angle of incidence.

Trumps the heck out of your ignorant handwaving.....

ahem... please comment on Speer's comment in post #55 this thread.... Time for you to get on the same page.... btw, who does your graphics, they stink?

Oh I will davie...or shall I say I have.

Maybe you can help poor Pat out by finding a way to refute the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3"+ fabric fold on JFK's back in Betzner elevated ABOVE the bottom of his jacket collar.

Of course D.Healy is all blow and no show....

[William Kelly]

Can any camera expert confirm that a wind-up camera with a spring cannot be perfectly timed?

And that Zapruder's camera was a wind-up.

So the Z-film, even if unaltered, cannot provide a timing for the events.

Thanks,

BK

[Wade Rhodes]

Hello All,

I found this page on the Merry Ferrell page, it has Joe O'Donnell stating he removed 10 feet of the original Zapruder film under the request of Jacqueline Kennedy!!! Fabrication or Truth?

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=432