Well, here's something to chew on.

[Robin Unger]

Hi Pat.

Is this what you wanted. ?

[David Lifton]

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame.

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow."

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic.

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . .

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example.

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm.

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there.

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible.

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious.

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question.

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jack White]

David...ask Tink to comment on this:

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Robin. What I am after is the second of these and the page following, which includes frame 374. You gave me page 359. What I need now is 360. Could you display them in a post? They are extremely relevant.

Robin, Would you please download my chapter from from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/

and, if you could, upload pages 16 and 17 of the chapter on this thread? Frame 374 matters. Thanks.

Zoomed Frames:

No Problem.

I will see what i can do.

This is Page 16 & 17

of a 26 - page PDF File. " UNDchapter 30.PDF "

I'm not sure this is exactly what you were after. ?

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Go to my chapter, "Revisiting Dealey Plaza", from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and on page 359 you can see Mantik's outline of "Area P" and compare it with the blow-out, visible in frame 374 on page 360.

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame.

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow."

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic.

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . .

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example.

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm.

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there.

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible.

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious.

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question.

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I kept working on it and finally removed all hues except solid black. Does this prove a patch was applied to cover the occiput?

Tink?????

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame.

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow."

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic.

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . .

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example.

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm.

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there.

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible.

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious.

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question.

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

You are way behind Lifton...your silly full flush left knowlegebase was busted way back here:

Liftons full flush left folly...blast it through...lol!

And if you want to know if the back of JFK's head should remain in shadow (and be soaked with blood) don't guess...calculate it. You do know how to find the sun angle don't you, being a PhD and all? Fetzer says that really means alot. Didn't help you with the full flush left thing but maybe you will do better with the sun angles. Heck I'll even give you a hint ...36.8 degrees. Now figure it out and see if the top of JFK's head just might have prevented the sunlight from falling on the back of it. See if that is still a good fit for your "guess".

After all, why shuck and jive, and guess...when you can measure?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, Would you please go to my chapter, "Revisiting Dealey Plaza", from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and on page 359 you can see Mantik's outline of "Area P" and compare it with the blow-out, visible in frame 374 on page 360.

I kept working on it and finally removed all hues except solid black. Does this prove a patch was applied to cover the occiput?

Tink?????

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Edited:

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

Jim asked me to post this.

[Jack White]

Jack, Would you please go to my chapter, "Revisiting Dealey Plaza", from http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and on page 359 you can see Mantik's outline of "Area P" and compare it with the blow-out, visible in frame 374 on page 360.

I kept working on it and finally removed all hues except solid black. Does this prove a patch was applied to cover the occiput?

Tink?????

Jack

Like this?

[Jack White]

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame.

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow."

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic.

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . .

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example.

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm.

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there.

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible.

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious.

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question.

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

You are way behind Lifton...your silly full flush left knowlegebase was busted way back here:

Liftons full flush left folly...blast it through...lol!

And if you want to know if the back of JFK's head should remain in shadow (and be soaked with blood) don't guess...calculate it. You do know how to find the sun angle don't you, being a PhD and all? Fetzer says that really means alot. Didn't help you with the full flush left thing but maybe you will do better with the sun angles. Heck I'll even give you a hint ...36.8 degrees. Now figure it out and see if the top of JFK's head just might have prevented the sunlight from falling on the back of it. See if that is still a good fit for your "guess".

After all, why shuck and jive, and guess...when you can measure?

Why shuck and jive and guess...when you can remove all the colors except black?

Jack

[Jack White]

Here is Jim's frame showing the occipital blowout.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jim asked me to post this.

Jim...click on actual size at top to see it much larger! It actually says TO SEE FULL IMAGE.

It is very readable at that size.

Jack

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Tink:

I'm pleased to see that this debate has caused you to go your attic and pull prints from over four decades ago. I'm sure it was not the most pleasant experience. You're revisiting events from forty-three years ago--November, 1966--when you were under a lot of pressure, facing the possibility that Life would prevent publication of your book (by preventing use of Zapruder frames) and so your were covertly copying Life's precious Z frames, using a Nikkon camera and a copy stand.

Quoting from your post, based on your current examination of these materials: "It is clear that the back of JFK’s head is in shadow in all the frames. However, the darkness of that shadow does not vary from frame to frame. Hence, it is just not the case that frame 317 is different from the rest in any discernible fashion with respect to the appearance of the back of JFK’s head. Some frames are clearer than others but what Horne says is there, sorry, is just not there!" UNQUOTE

". . .in shadow in all the frames. . . "?

Now that's an interesting assertion.

Built into that explanation is an "innocent explanation" for why the back of JFK's head is--my language now--blacked out in frame after frame. For you, apparently, its simply a matter of it being "in shadow in all the frames."

As someone who has studied this imagery for years--and has had the benefit of examining the 3 x 4" LIFE transparencies back in 1967, and then again in 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life, and--more important to me--the dramatically clear images on the Weitzman 35 mm Internegative (from which I made excellent Interpositives), I could not disagree more. The back of JFK's head is not "in shadow in all the frames". Rather, the back of the head--in precisely the area where the Dallas doctors observed an exit wound, is blacked out--that's right, opaque--in frame after frame.

And by the way, with regard to invoking the terminology of a "shadow". . . What, pray tell, is casting such a shadow, a shadow appearing on the back of JFK's head? A shadow is an absence of light caused by an interposed object. What is the intervening object? Did a large bird fly between Kennedy and the sun? Are we not at noon day sun? (And pardon me, but isn't there so much light, and isn't its intensity supposedly so great, that its forcing the images to go "full flush left"--per Lamson? But let's skip that subject for now, shall we?)

Here's my opinion, based on what I see.

1. The back of the head is in fact deliberately blacked out ---frame after frame after frame.

2. This cannot be "explained" by the concept of a "shadow."

3. I am deliberately using quotation marks on the word "shadow" because I think this attempt to "explain" constitutes a strained and artificial attempt to account for data that is inconsistent with your strongly held belief that the film is authentic.

4. Regarding your belief about the Z film's authenticity: That belief is your Rock of Gibraltar, the very center of your universe. For you, this is not just about "the car stop" or "the back of the head"--although both are powerful indicia of falsification. For you, the stakes are much higher. After all, you're the writer who--in good faith, I believe--wrote the words that (when it came to Dallas) the Zapruder film was the closest thing to "absolute truth." Perhaps you believed that at the time. But, unfortunately, it is anything but. The Zapruder film is (that is, "was") a forger's paradise. The Zapruder film, in its current incarnation, is like a check to which zero's have been added---seriously changing the amount; but you simply refuse to believe that. So there is a more powerful dynamic at work here, and the stakes are indeed much higher--not only for you, but for everyone else on what I shall call "your side" of the debate. For if the President's wounds were altered, and if the imagery of this event was manipulated, your side's entire concept of what happened in Dallas in November 1963 is shown to be invalid--totally invalid. And you, in particular, because of the special position you held at Life, are particularly vulnerable. I have no reason to believe that you were cognizant of film forgery back in 1966. Certainly, I was not, and so I'm assuming you weren't either. But you had a privileged position at Life Magazine, and wrote a book that grew out of that position, and the special access you had to some very special evidence. So, in my opinion, you're now in the position of a bank teller who unwittingly cashed checks that were phony, and is now defending the transaction, insisting the checks you cashed were genuine--insisting on the integrity of a bank customer who presented these forgeries at your window. Candidly, I'm surprised at the lack of vision. Those who maintain the view that nothing is wrong with the Zapruder film seem to think that researching this case comes down to focusing on the elusive search for a "second assassin." That's their "conspiracy"--and it hasn't changed much since 1966. Unfortunately, that is NOT the issue. The stakes are higher, and the issue is in fact much bigger: its fraud in the evidence: The deliberate falsification of the autopsy conclusions--via alteration of the body--and the civilian imagery, as well. That's the "big picture." The blackened out area at the back of JFK's head happens to be one manifestation of what's going on here; it is just one example. The car stop is another. And there is more. But (apparently) you will have none of it, you defend the sanctity of your much beloved 1966 "reality," and so you seek "innocent explanations" for all this. Essentially, you invoke mass misperception of velocity (when the issue is the car stop); or, misperception of wound observations by trained doctors when it comes to where wounds are located (when it comes to the head wounds) etc. For you and those on your side, Dealey Plaza has turned into the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing was perceived properly (you in effect say) and so that explains all the problems with the evidence. But none of that is true, of course. The problem is with the evidence, not with the witnesses. But, back to the subject at hand. . .

4. The blacked out area (you now concede is present in frame after frame, but falsely attribute to "shadow") is particularly noticeable when the back of JFK's head is pointed at (i.e., "exposed to") Zapruder's telephoto lens in frames 321, and 323. But 317 offers another example.

5. The artificiality of the "patch" is particularly noticeable if one varies the density of light--as when one is "dodging" a still photo in photography lab. The trapezoidal contour of the patch, for example, is very noticeable in Z frame 317, as Horne published in black and white. When digitized properly, it is very obvious that there is a trapezoidal area that is opaque. And the patched area can be seen in frame after frame on the Z fllm.

6. The blackened out area is opaque. It is not possible to discern hair or scalp or anything of the sort beneath the blackened out area. (FYI: This is in stark contrast to frames 335 and 337 on the Z film, where the phony painted on "exit wound" has a translucent quality, and JFK's head beneath, can in fact be seen. I suppose that's because there is a basic difference between "adding on" imagery, and "blacking out" something that is already there.

Yes, the blackened out area IS there; and its not a misperception. I'm sure that if densitometer measurements were done, the rather obvious border of the patch, or the artwork, or whatever it is, could be readily detected. But I really do not believe that is necessary. I trust my own eyes, and I'm sure that if these frames are properly digitized, the patch job that was done will be readily perceivable, and highly visible.

7. I don't like making predictions, but here's a safe bet: the stakes are sufficiently high that the Sixth Floor Museum will line up "experts" who will denigrate, seek to "explain" and claim to "not see" what is clearly there. But ultimately, and largely because of the Internet, none of this will matter, because the world has moved on, and everything has changed. Neither you, nor I, will have exclusive access to this imagery. The whole world will be the jury. Because of the Internet, attempts to fuzz up the issue, and to turn this into an "argument from authority" will fail.

"Experts" are not necessary to "see" what is obvious.

I ask you, Tink Thompson, when are you gong to "come around" and "see" not just "the patch," but the bigger picture, as well? You were involved in writing a book that was based on forged evidence. Are you capable of understanding that? Will you ever accept it? Can you deal with it? That is the question.

DSL

1/15/1- 7:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

You are way behind Lifton...your silly full flush left knowlegebase was busted way back here:

Liftons full flush left folly...blast it through...lol!

And if you want to know if the back of JFK's head should remain in shadow (and be soaked with blood) don't guess...calculate it. You do know how to find the sun angle don't you, being a PhD and all? Fetzer says that really means alot. Didn't help you with the full flush left thing but maybe you will do better with the sun angles. Heck I'll even give you a hint ...36.8 degrees. Now figure it out and see if the top of JFK's head just might have prevented the sunlight from falling on the back of it. See if that is still a good fit for your "guess".

After all, why shuck and jive, and guess...when you can measure?

Why shuck and jive and guess...when you can remove all the colors except black?

Jack

Cat got his tongue!