Well, here's something to chew on.

[Craig Lamson]

Guided by the remarks of the Hollywood 7 quoted by Horne, I did my OWN STUDY to see if I could

replicate what they did. I slapped the image on my iMac screened, clicked a few control buttons,

and there it was...THE BLACK PATCH ON THE OCCIPUT.

We do NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE H7 RESULTS. Any fool with a computer can do this same

study if they have a graphics program that can subtract colors. All I did was instruct the Mac

to remove all color hues except black. The Mac did it all. I do not take credit...when all colors

are removed, all that is left is the BLACK PATCH. But Jerry wants MORE! Why?????

Please comment on iMac's graphic. We don't know when the H7 group study will be released,

but the iMac study is ready and available. Please direct your attention to IT.

Jack

Great job Jack! You identified the shadow on the back of JFK's head!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What have you missed, Lamson? Those of us who have studied the case have long known that the Zapruder film is not consistent with more than forty witnesses who reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head but no blow-out to the right-front. It is not rocket science to infer that the reason we don't see it is that it has been obscured. When Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), reported that Roderick Ryan had concluded that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, none of us was surprised. And when David Mantik discovered that the lateral cranial X-rays had been "patched" to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head, we did not have to draw the inference we had already drawn that the back of his head in the film had to have been obfuscated. That was something we already knew. And when I noticed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head in frame 374, none of us had to infer that the blow-out at the back of the head had been obscured in earlier frames--we were looking at the real blow-out! It has been proven again in the images posted by Robin Unger, the gifs from Bernice, Jack's new studies, and my pages 359 and 360. We already know the score!

Guided by the remarks of the Hollywood 7 quoted by Horne, I did my OWN STUDY to see if I could

replicate what they did. I slapped the image on my iMac screened, clicked a few control buttons,

and there it was...THE BLACK PATCH ON THE OCCIPUT.

We do NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE H7 RESULTS. Any fool with a computer can do this same

study if they have a graphics program that can subtract colors. All I did was instruct the Mac

to remove all color hues except black. The Mac did it all. I do not take credit...when all colors

are removed, all that is left is the BLACK PATCH. But Jerry wants MORE! Why?????

Please comment on iMac's graphic. We don't know when the H7 group study will be released,

but the iMac study is ready and available. Please direct your attention to IT.

Jack

Great job Jack! You identified the shadow on the back of JFK's head!

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

Now I have no idea why you think I or Jack would be trying to "put one over" on you. Surely you know better.

Jim.

I don't believe i have ever said that.

I also have never said that i beleive the autopsy photo's to be authentic.

I have also been a member on Rich's forum for the last 4-years, and try to help Jack and Bernice with the photographic studies where i can

I am sure that they are both familiar with my stance on the research.

I will give assistance to anyone, LN,CT,Alterationist.

I don't have any axes to grind, i have been sitting on the fence for the last 10-years and that is the way i like it.

I will leave the bickering and infighting to others.

The photographic work is my way of relaxing in my spare time, i don't need the agrivation associated with trying to take sides.

I will continue to help anyone and everyone who may need photographic assistance on any Forum,

That was my motivation for creating my image galleries.

So that all may enjoy, weather they be LN,CT, or Alterationist.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/

Cheers Jim

I hope that explains my situation a little clearer.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Craig Lamson]

What have you missed, Lamson? Those of us who have studied the case have long known that the Zapruder film is not consistent with more than forty witnesses who reported a massive blow-out to the back of the head but no blow-out to the right-front. It is not rocket science to infer that the reason we don't see it is that it has been obscured. When Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), reported that Roderick Ryan had concluded that the "blob" and blood spray had been painted in, none of us was surprised. And when David Mantik discovered that the lateral cranial X-rays had been "patched" to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head, we did not have to draw the inference we had already drawn that the back of his head in the film had to have been obfuscated. That was something we already knew. And when I noticed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head in frame 374, none of us had to infer that the blow-out at the back of the head had been obscured in earlier frames--we were looking at the real blow-out! It has been proven again in the images posted by Robin Unger, the gifs from Bernice, Jack's new studies, and my pages 359 and 360. We already know the score!

What have YOU missed Jim? Oh..how about it no longer about "infering" anything. You want to PROVE the blob, bring some hard, technical data. Your inferences to other speculitive works as proof of even more speculitive works will not longer cut it.

First and foremost PRODUCE THE 6K SCAN YOU CONTINUE TO TRUMPET!

Case in point. You CLAIM you see a blowout in the rear in the frames from the Zapruder film, To suport that specious claim you offer Mantiks speculitive claim about altered x-rays.

What you don't do, nor can you do is remove all doubt that what you see in the film, as shown in the images posted by Robin, is not simply brain and blood matter running down via gravity onto the area of JFK's head near his right ear. How much time would have to elasped for a line of brain and blood to drain to the point of being visible? Could tha tbe the reason you don't see it until this point in the film?

I don't know, but neither do you. It fits the scene just a well as your black patch and rear blowout speculation.

SO don't tell us you know the score. You only THINK you know the score.

[Jerry Logan]

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

Jerry, I have enumerated numerous proofs that the back of the head has been obfuscated. I have published most of these proofs in HOAX and Noel has published others in BLOODY TREASON. I laid out the proof in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". We know the score, Jerry, and we know your game. Keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole (or, alternatively, keep piling it up higher and higher). No one really cares about what you think, especially since you have the ideal opportunity to show you are a real man and attempt to disprove what has been proven right on this forum! Go back and look at Robin Unger's images. View Bernice's nice gifs. Study what Jack has posted. Read my pages 359 and 360. That is real evidence that proves our case. All we have from you is a preference for a slide set that suffers from aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, is missing many frames, and has others in the wrong order! What kind of defense is that? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, you are not worth the bother. Produce a rebuttal or remain silent. The burden is on you, Jerry. Let's start with 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, and 374.

[Craig Lamson]

Guided by the remarks of the Hollywood 7 quoted by Horne, I did my OWN STUDY to see if I could

replicate what they did. I slapped the image on my iMac screened, clicked a few control buttons,

and there it was...THE BLACK PATCH ON THE OCCIPUT.

We do NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE H7 RESULTS. Any fool with a computer can do this same

study if they have a graphics program that can subtract colors. All I did was instruct the Mac

to remove all color hues except black. The Mac did it all. I do not take credit...when all colors

are removed, all that is left is the BLACK PATCH. But Jerry wants MORE! Why?????

Please comment on iMac's graphic. We don't know when the H7 group study will be released,

but the iMac study is ready and available. Please direct your attention to IT.

Jack

Just a small problem Jack, there is no pure black in the image you did your "study" on. A check of the rgb values at numerous places in the image section you used shows no pure black. And the funny thing is, the very darkest thing in the image was the lower left corner of JFK's jacket, not his head. That kind of blows the theory that the black patch was opaque, since it clearly was not. Its also not "solid" as the reproduction from the 6k scan shows. It has gradation from the edges to the center. So how good is that 6k scan anyways? Clearly it's no match to the imags you posted,. and no match for the copies of 317 posted on this forum as well. That eliminates a solid, black and opaque "patch.

Maybe these "pros" need better source material.....

Edited January 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

Jerry, I have enumerated numerous proofs that the back of the head has been obfuscated. I have published most of these proofs in HOAX and Noel has published others in BLOODY TREASON. I laid out the proof in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". We know the score, Jerry, and we know your game. Keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole (or, alternatively, keep piling it up higher and higher). No one really cares about what you think, especially since you have the ideal opportunity to show you are a real man and attempt to disprove what has been proven right on this forum! Go back and look at Robin Unger's images. View Bernice's nice gifs. Study what Jack has posted. Read my pages 359 and 360. That is real evidence that proves our case. All we have from you is a preference for a slide set that suffers from aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, is missing many frames, and has others in the wrong order! What kind of defense is that? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, you are not worth the bother. Produce a rebuttal or remain silent. The burden is on you, Jerry. Let's start with 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, and 374.

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Opps, Black patch fails...see above....

[Jack White]

Mr. Light ought to know that TRUE BLACK IS THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LIGHT REFLECTIVITY. However.

He fails to tell us about how MANY SHADES OF BLACK there are.

A standard photographer GRAY SCALE uses 20 shades of "gray" from pure white(1) to pure black (20). As a longtime

photographer, I have several of these grayscales somewhere in a storage box.

20 shades are all that are used because the normal human eye can only distinguish between 20 shades. But

a computer has 256 shades of gray, from 1-256...meaning 12.8 shades of black on a computer grayscale.

So Mr. Light is misleading us by saying there are colors in the black. Of course there are, unless the black

is PURE BLACK (256).

Mr. Light's purpose is to obfuscate.

Jack

This attachment only has 16 shades of gray. I recall our darkroom scales having 20.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Jack White

[Jerry Logan]

Well I have to say that you're a remarkable fellow Jim. Now, you not only know what Doug Horne is going to do, you also know what I'm going to do in the future. Search back carefully Jim. I've said absolutely nothing about the black patch. I have nothing to prove because I haven't asserted anything about the patch. You've told us there's a patch there and I've said nothing about that. I've only asked you to show the scans so everyone can judge for themselves. So I should put up or shut up? To prove...nothing? You made the claim and your refusal to show the evidence is disturbing.

I did comment on the blonde babushka woman because that was obviously absurd and neither you or Jack want to continue with that hot potato - I guess you're content to leave Horne holding the fries.

On the 4x5s v. the scans I wrote nothing more or less than what Horne wrote about their reliability. In fact, I wrote exactly what Horne wrote. The fact that Horne is imprecise and you didn't read his work carefully isn't really my problem. You have no idea what I may or may not make of your confusion but you might wait until I've actually asserted something before asking me to prove it. Since I haven't had the honor of seeing the scans I have no idea of their quality so it would be silly of me to automatically conclude they're inferior without seeing them. It is true that I'm unwilling to agree that they're superior just because you say so but that's because I have reservations about your objectivity and photographic judgment, not because I think the 4x5s are somehow inherently superior.

It has nothing to do with me or what I may or may not do once you produce your evidence. You told everyone what the scans showed. You extended your word to everyone here. You're not going to discharge your debt to them by trying to make the discussion about me and what you imagine I may do. You claimed the scans show something. Let's see the scans. What were your words? "Put up or shut up."

You are a "one trick" pony, Jerry. You have made such a point about the 4x5 transparencies that, no matter how powerful the proof--and we are talking about gross alternations, not subtle ones that might require other sources--you are going to discount every argument not based on those 4x5 slides. So produce them! If you want to make a contribution--and I wouldn't care, even if you were highest-level CIA psy-ops--then produce the 4x5 slides that you have made such a to-do about. Really, Jerry, you have the connections to do it. Your failure tells me that you don't have the goods! Unreal! Alteration has already been proven, Jerry, in spades and right on this thread! You are too much, Jerry! Too much. Put up or shut up!

Jim,

Decaf is good, particularly this time of night. You may have missed some important points. First, I haven't tried to prove anything about the patch. I try not to reach conclusions until I see all the evidence. In previous posts you've declared that the scans are a game changer - they've pushed the burden of proof over to the other side who now has to demonstrate that the Zapruder film is not altered. Those are your words Jim, not mine. If it bothered you that I simply quoted Horne's own words back to you about the 4x5's, that's fine too. But you're going to have to forgive me if I'm take what you say with a little salt. Your and Jack's thirty years of experience brought us the blonde babushka woman so I'm not inclined to accept what either of you says just because you say it. And the fact that Horne mentions the blonds babushka in his book as evidence of alteration doesn't inspire particular confidence in his judgment.

But none of this really matters. You and Jack and Horne may or may not be exemplars of clear thought. If you can prove what you say then so be it. Whatever our personal faults or inclinations, all that matters is the evidence. So you've chewed up hours of thought and lots of disk space trying to avoid a simple request. You've said the scans show something. Show the evidence that the scans show that. For the life of me I don't understand how asking to see what you say you have is is somehow clouding an issue. All of the proofs that you and Jack have raised about the back of the head are meant to obscure what you said and now want to take back. Because what you said was "the scans show". So show us the scans.

Jerry

Jerry, I have enumerated numerous proofs that the back of the head has been obfuscated. I have published most of these proofs in HOAX and Noel has published others in BLOODY TREASON. I laid out the proof in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid". We know the score, Jerry, and we know your game. Keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole (or, alternatively, keep piling it up higher and higher). No one really cares about what you think, especially since you have the ideal opportunity to show you are a real man and attempt to disprove what has been proven right on this forum! Go back and look at Robin Unger's images. View Bernice's nice gifs. Study what Jack has posted. Read my pages 359 and 360. That is real evidence that proves our case. All we have from you is a preference for a slide set that suffers from aspect ratio and pincushion distortion, is missing many frames, and has others in the wrong order! What kind of defense is that? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, you are not worth the bother. Produce a rebuttal or remain silent. The burden is on you, Jerry. Let's start with 314, 315, 316, 317, 372, and 374.

[Robin Unger]

Animated GIF

Containing ( 14 - Zoomed Frames ) from JFK The Movie.

it may take a while to load.

[Bernice Moore]

Robin..''.I will give assistance to anyone, LN,CT,Alterationist.

I don't have any axes to grind, i have been sitting on the fence for the last 10-years and that is the way i like it.''

yes he does, no he doesn't from what i have ever seen, and yes he does and yes he has..and that's imo...b..carry on carrying on..

Edited January 17, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[John Dolva]

Jack, (pedantically it's 256 shades from 0 to 255) The eye perception varies, but basically the black end and the white end are grouped into near (and for most, totally) indistinguishable steps with ''black'' containing more indistinguishable steps than white. As to the gray in between it's a matter of individuals. Some can distinguish more of the varations than others and one can also train the brain to distinguish more. Also in these discussions, if one is to rely solely on perception which is an organic function, calibrating ones monitor is worthwhile (as well as on occasion cleaning the screen). However there are ways to represent digrammatically, graphically, the gradations so it need not be a dispute over what this or that individuals retinal rods and cones send to the brain for processing.

EDIT ADD : eg here's a 3D representation of the scale you posted

Edited January 17, 2010 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

Mr. Light ought to know that TRUE BLACK IS THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF LIGHT REFLECTIVITY. However.

He fails to tell us about how MANY SHADES OF BLACK there are.

A standard photographer GRAY SCALE uses 20 shades of "gray" from pure white(1) to pure black (20). As a longtime

photographer, I have several of these grayscales somewhere in a storage box.

20 shades are all that are used because the normal human eye can only distinguish between 20 shades. But

a computer has 256 shades of gray, from 1-256...meaning 12.8 shades of black on a computer grayscale.

So Mr. Light is misleading us by saying there are colors in the black. Of course there are, unless the black

is PURE BLACK (256).

Mr. Light's purpose is to obfuscate.

Jack

This attachment only has 16 shades of gray. I recall our darkroom scales having 20.

No Jack, pure black in rgb values is R=0 R=0 B=0. This is DIGITAL not analog.

In addition the "black" seen your image DOES have a color, it is NOT a neutral black.

Wanna try again or continue to look foolish. in addition the "black" seen your image DOES have a color, it is NOT a neutral lackl.

[Jack White]

Jack, (pedantically it's 256 shades from 0 to 255) The eye perception varies, but basically the black end and the white end are grouped into near (and for most, totally) indistinguishable steps with ''black'' containing more indistinguishable steps than white. As to the gray in between it's a matter of individuals. Some can distinguish more of the varations than others and one can also train the brain to distinguish more. Also in these discussions, if one is to rely solely on perception which is an organic function, calibrating ones monitor is worthwhile (as well as on occasion cleaning the screen). However there are ways to represent digrammatically, graphically, the gradations so it need not be a dispute over what this or that individuals retinal rods and cones send to the brain for processing.

EDIT ADD : eg here's a 3D representation of the scale you posted

Interesting. Thanks. I agree that scales start at 0. But as a matter of common understanding,

many do not consider 0 a number. If I say there are 256 shades, but black is number 255,

people will say "what is number 256?" ...so I say 1-256. You are also correct on perception.

It is much easier to discern differences on the light end of the scale than the dark end.

Jack