Well, here's something to chew on.

[David Lifton]

Craig Lamson:

If you think the persistently blacked out area at the back of JFK's head can be "explained" by citing the sun angle "of 36.8 degrees," you are living in a dream world.

That is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What counts is not your theory about sun angles, but whether the film exhibits an opacity that is clearly artificial. As to the superficial appearance of precision in your latest post--about the "sun angle" being the explanation ("Heck I'll even give you a hint ...36.8 degrees") --I can only wonder: what will you cite next: perhaps the Tide tables at the Santa Monica beach? Or the statistics on when we will next have a full moon? Your appearance at scholarship and erudition is laughable when put next to the obvious images of a completely blacked out back of the head head. Its not only laughable, it shows your complete contempt for the truth and an arrogant dismissal of what is truly some of the most critical evidence in this case. Apparently, you wish to make yourself (and your supposed expertise) the issue, rather than the abysmally obvious effort to alter the film.

I strongly urge you to take your "sun angle" data and put it to good use the next time you are hired to photograph an outdoor wedding.

As for your supposed explanation of "full flush left"--no, that issue has not been resolved at all. I know you think differently, because once you--the Oracle--has spoken, you apparently believe that constitutes a final verdict. Sadly (for you), that is not so. I don't know that this will ever happen, but I welcome a test in which Zapruder's camera is put at full zoom, faces a clock with a sweeping second hand going round and round, and the light intensity increased, a notch at a time. I agree with Rollie Zavada--there will be increased penetration of the inter sprocket area with increased light intensity. But when will we achieve "full flush left" and--even more important--"beyond full flush left", and achieve that effect frame after frame after frame--just as the existing (and supposedly "camera original") Zapruder frames show? Just how much "light blasting" will be necessary to achieve that, Mr. Lamson. . . perhaps after the camera has melted?

Let me remind you that the device being tested is Zapruder's camera, and not a laser weapon.

Try to keep that in mind the next time you treat us all to another effusion of your "expertise."

DSL

1/16/10; 2 AM

Los Angeles, CA

[Jerry Logan]

[...........

Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)!  And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size.  (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Robin Unger]

In all of the frames below, i see a distinct blowout to the back of the head.

[Craig Lamson]

In all of the frames below, i see a distinct blowout to the back of the head.

Just for the record, can you poitj us to the area you consider the "blowout" to the back of the head Thanks

[Bernice Moore]

HERE'S GRODEN'S FRAME 317 AS HAS BEEN POSTED IT'S THERE IT IS NO ARTIFACT...B

[Robin Unger]

Frame Z-317

Taken from A.B.Smith Version of Zapruder Film.

Full Frame:

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Frame Z - 323 Crop

[Bernice Moore]

b..

[Bernice Moore]

b..

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jerry, There now exists far more than prima facie proof that there was a massive blow-out to the back of the head, which is actually visible in frames 372, 374, and others, that this massive blow-out was painted over in black (see the many frames being posted here now, which confirm the 6k study), and that the "blob", which has been variously described as a bulging out of brains to the right front, which is the most conspicuous feature of these frames, has been painted in, but which is missing from other frames Doug has identified. Since genuine features wound not be present in some frames where they should appear but absent from others, clearly their very existence demonstrates by itself that the film has been altered. David Mantik has confirmed that the blow-out to the back of the head has been painted over in black in the 4x5 transparencies, too. The case is closed. If you want to try to rebut it, Jerry, then you bear the burden of proof, which, I infer, with your lawyerly background, you already knew. So if you are serious, then why are you playing games and attempting to shift the burden of proof? I have no doubt that your resources vastly exceed those of all of us on the alteration side (Jack and me and David M. David H. and David L.) by many times. So why don't you put some of that wealth to work on the side of truth? Purchase some of the relevant frames, Jerry, and post them here. That would be making a constructive contribution.

[...........

Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)!  And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size.  (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

In all of the frames below, i see a distinct blowout to the back of the head.

Just for the record, can you poitj us to the area you consider the "blowout" to the back of the head Thanks

Just for the record

It's the greyish looking curved area at the back of the head, approx in line with the right ear.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan.

[Jack White]

[...........

Each one of these 4096 x 3112 pixel "6K" scans (sometimes called "4K" by the research group because they are cropped) consists of an amazing 12.75 million pixels of information (4096 x 3112=12,746,752 pixels)!  And each one of these frames is 72.9 MB in size.  (Too big to be transmitted on the internet.)

Jim, this is extremely good news. As Doug Horne has noted on his blog, the digital files are the key. Unfortunately, no one except a select few have actually seen the scans so all we've had to work with is the word of the lucky few. Fortunately, we can in fact share very large files over the internet so everyone can see what you're talking about. Just go here, buy a premium membership and download your 72.9 MB scan of frame 317 so everyone can see exactly what you mean.

Jerry

http://www3.bigupload.com/upload2.php?r=1&...bar=&flash=

http://www.hyperfileshare.com/

or free: http://www.wuala.com/en

Sarcasm is a refuge of those who, having seen proof, demand additional proofs.

Jack

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan 2

This is EXACTLY how i see the wound to Kennedy's head in the Zapruder Frames.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Groden Scan 3

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger