Well, here's something to chew on.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bear in mind, Robin, that these Groden models are of the skull after surgery to the head, where attempts were made to create the impression of consistency between the bulging "blob", the missing mass to the right-front on the cranial X-rays, the caption in LIFE magazine about frame 313, and Zapruder's appearance on television that evening, when he put his hand to the right-front of his head to show where the blow out had occurred. Nothing of this kind, of course, was seen at Parkland, some forty witnesses reported seeing the blow out at the back of the head, and Jackie reported that, from the front, he looked just fine, but that she had had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. I am certain you know all of this, but what Groden models is obviously missing from multiple frames, which you have presented here. Indeed, the "blob" itself is missing from frames like 372 and 374, where the genuine blow-out is visible--plus, what I take to be the skull flap, which is distinct from and not the same thing as the "blob". David Lifton has done brilliant work showing how the blow-out to the back of the head was increased in size prior to the autopsy by Humes himself, as Horne has discovered. I have used the image of a "footprint", where the "heel" seen at Parkland was increased to the size of a foot at Bethesda. I am still puzzled, however, that Tom Robinson's summary of the wounds he sustained, which is also part of "Revising Dealey Plaza", describes what appears to be the wound seen at Parkland (the "heel") and the bone flap, but not the massive cavity that Groden models here. Perhaps Doug's research resolves this inconsistency. You have to appreciate this.

Groden Scan 2

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

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson:

David Lifton: (my replies in purple)

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.

It’s become quite clear that your ability to read and comprehend is as lacking as your basic knowledge of the photographic process and the properties of light and shadow.

You made a very stupid claim about the sun being at high noon and doubting there should be a shadow at the back of JFK’s head. You based this, as usual, on blatant ignorance and handwaving. This is pretty much the industry standard fare for alterationists.

I suggested you back up your claim with simple measurements, and even presented you with the basic data to do just that.

So what do we get from Lifton…more ignorance!!

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.

Since we have seen your ignorance of the properties of light and shadow exposed above, let’s move forward to your latest gaffe.

You posit that the film “exhibits an opacity that is clearly artificial”. You base this on what experience? Your limited run through the duplication process making your z-film copy?

As I’m sure you are unaware, the loss of deep shadow detail is a normal byproduct of the duplication process, even when using purpose designed process films. Now if you start with a low contrast original, preferably a negative stock and a complete family of process films designed specifically for the job, chances are you can reduce the loss of detail.

Retaining shadow detail when your original film is arguably the most contrasty camera stock available....not very good odds. Film I might add is designed for direct viewing, not duplication.

Again this is nothing new. Anyone who has duplicated Kodachrome highlight detail is lost forever. Heck even when exposing the film in camera you lose massive amounts of dynamic range from the original scene. That means, based on where you place your exposure, you lose highlight detail or shadow detail, or both, because of the inherent contrast of the film,

Again this is photography 101 stuff. One would think that David Lifton, PhD, would have at least a basic knowledge of the subject he wishes to argue. That’s not the case. Instead we get arrogant and very ignorant handwaving and a decided desire to avoid at all costs the basic knowledge this technical argument demands.

I’m all for finding the truth, but I’m not interested in claims brought forth and based on ignorance.

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.

Nothing against the hardworking and talented guys and gals who create stunning wedding photography (and most have more knowledge of photography in a single finger that can be found in Litton’s entire brain), but I do Advertising photography. And quite frankly, sun angle data is quite useful when planning a location shoot with a big pile-o-money on the table. It's called professionalism. You should try some.

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?

Again you simply can’t read. I never said the issue was resolved at all. I said you have not made a case that there is a problem.

You simply display your gross ignorance of the process. How much light must be present? Just your standard clear sunny day. Nothing more.

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

Let me remind you, your ignorance is on full display.

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

Well, I’m sorry the technical knowledge you so woefully lack makes you squirm. The questions at hand are technical in nature. Your uninformed handwaving will no longer cut it, at least in a public forum. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

DSL

1/16/10; 2 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

Sorry to disagree, Robin. That mockup is after the SURGERY TO THE TOP OF

THE HEAD.

The blowout was to the occiput, much lower to the back and much smaller.

The blowout was about the size of a baseball or tennis ball.

The Z film is fake, so what it shows has been altered to aid the coverup. You

may be correct that the mockup matches the Z film, but that is meaningless.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very nice, Bernice. We can clearly see the bulging out to the right-front, to which I refer as the "blob". Great work! Thanks.

b..

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim / Jack

I am not taken in quite that easily.

The blowout to the back i ONLY SEE in the few frames i posted showing the curved light coloured area at the back of the skull.

I don't see it anywhere else.

This is where i see the large cavity on the "top of the head" where the skull flap has flipped over, and is hanging down.

this was later flipped back into position by jackie ( I beleive she made a comment to the effect that she was trying to hold his skull on ) the skull flap was then held in position by the coagulated blood and matted hair.

[Robin Unger]

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim.

Just for the record i am not an Alterationist.

BUT, this is the one area of the case where we can agree that the images have been altered

The autopsy images just don't add up, i beleive that they have been manipulated in some way.

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

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 Jerry Logan

[Jack White]

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim / Jack

I am not taken in quite that easily.

The blowout to the back i ONLY SEE in the few frames i posted showing the curved light coloured area at the back of the skull.

I don't see it anywhere else.

This is where i see the large cavity on the "top of the head" where the skull flap has flipped over, and is hanging down.

this was later flipped back into position by jackie ( I beleive she made a comment to the effect that she was trying to hold his skull on ) the skull flap was then held in position by the coagulated blood and matted hair.

Robin...you are TOO TRUSTING that all the photos are REAL. They are not.

Your analyses are good, but they are analyses in many cases of faked images.

Not just Zapruder is faked, but also many of the still shots.

But thanks for all of your GREAT photo work! Your collection is a great asset.

Thanks for sharing!

Jack

Edited January 16, 2010 by Jack White

[Robin Unger]

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim / Jack

I am not taken in quite that easily.

The blowout to the back i ONLY SEE in the few frames i posted showing the curved light coloured area at the back of the skull.

I don't see it anywhere else.

This is where i see the large cavity on the "top of the head" where the skull flap has flipped over, and is hanging down.

this was later flipped back into position by jackie ( I beleive she made a comment to the effect that she was trying to hold his skull on ) the skull flap was then held in position by the coagulated blood and matted hair.

Robin...you are TOO TRUSTING that all the photos are REAL. They are not.

Your analyses are good, but they are analyses in many cases of faked images.

Not just Zapruder is faked, but also many of the still shots.

But thanks for all of your GREAT photo work! Your collection is a great asset.

Thanks for sharing!

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I appreciate the comments.

To be honest i can't tell you if the images are 100% authentic or not ?

unfortunately, they are all we have to work with, so it's either use those, or pack up my bags and go home.

Slight clarification Jack.

I believe there was a hole at the back of the head.

AND a large cavity on top of the skull. !

(In out shot )

But i have no idea from which direction the shot came. ?

Cheers.

Robin.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Jack White]

Robin...AND EVERYONE. Read these previously unseen handwritten comments

from Dr. McClelland about the head wound in the occiput.

I accidentally found this 10-year old image today in my computer while searching

for something else!

I believe Jim and David Mantik will especially appreciate the doctor's comments

in his own handwriting.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

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

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robin, You have been taken in. This is a fake photograph. I am surprised that you did not know this already. FAKE!

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim / Jack

I am not taken in quite that easily.

The blowout to the back i ONLY SEE in the few frames i posted showing the curved light coloured area at the back of the skull.

I don't see it anywhere else.

This is where i see the large cavity on the "top of the head" where the skull flap has flipped over, and is hanging down.

this was later flipped back into position by jackie ( I beleive she made a comment to the effect that she was trying to hold his skull on ) the skull flap was then held in position by the coagulated blood and matted hair.

Robin...you are TOO TRUSTING that all the photos are REAL. They are not.

Your analyses are good, but they are analyses in many cases of faked images.

Not just Zapruder is faked, but also many of the still shots.

But thanks for all of your GREAT photo work! Your collection is a great asset.

Thanks for sharing!

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I appreciate the comments.

To be honest i can't tell you if the images are 100% authentic or not ?

unfortunately, they are all we have to work with, so it's either use those, or pack up my bags and go home.

Slight clarification Jack.

I believe there was a hole at the back of the head.

AND a large cavity on top of the skull. !

(In out shot )

But i have no idea from which direction the shot came. ?

Cheers.

Robin.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You are not "an alterationist", but "we can agree that some of the images have been altered"? What kind of nonsense is this? Images you have posted, including frames 372 and 374, clearly show the blow-out to the back of the head. You have even identified it with arrows. It corresponds closely in its shape and area to the what David Mantik labeled "Area P" (for "Patch") in his studies of the X-rays. Jack has posted pages 359 and 360 from my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", which shows them. Now since the blow-out we see in those frames is not visible in earlier frames--roughly, from 314 to 339--how can you possibly doubt that the film has been altered? A blow-out reported by more than forty witnesses and the Parkland physicians, which is visible in frames 372 and 374, is not visible in frames 314 to 339 BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN BLACKED OUT! Even if you did not agree with the finding of the Hollywood film experts, surely you cannot deny that THIS INCONSISTENCY ITSELF PROVES ALTERATION! Now I have no idea why you think I or Jack would be trying to "put one over" on you. Surely you know better. I am simply stunned that you continue to believe the Groden color-photos are genuine, when they are clearly fakes!

Robin, Don't be taken in. These are fake photos. Groden and I discussed that in Dubuque some time ago. I know Pat Speer thinks they are real, but they are not. Compare them with the photos and diagrams used by the HSCA, which are also fake, and you will see that they are not even consistent with the length of his hair. Humes was asked during this deposition whether the subject was given a shampoo and a haircut during the autopsy, to which he replied, "No, no, no, no, . . ." Don't be taken in. Pat seems to have gone off the deep end of the pool. You don't want to go there. The color photos are fakes.

Groden Scan 3

Jim.

Just for the record i am not an Alterationist.

BUT, this is the one area of the case where we can agree that the images have been altered

The autopsy images just don't add up, i beleive that they have been manipulated in some way.

Edited January 16, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jerry Logan]

Jim, this is really simple. You've made a lot of claims based on what you and others think you see in the scans. You haven't actually presented a single scan and the reason you offered for not presenting the scan is invalid. You can download the file to a free sharing site, publish the link, and anyone can see it even if it can't be published here. Now, apparently, you don't have the files. I would have thought you'd like to see them for yourself before announcing what's in them to the world. Whatever your personal standards, why would you or Doug Horne fear presenting a single scan if it's so definitive? Saying you have proof isn't the same thing as offering proof and you know it. So let's see one or, if you want to really wow us, two. 317 and 372. What everyone wants to see is the evidence Jim, not your description of it. And frankly, it's odd that you're having trouble presenting it.

I never implied anything about the files. I don't have them. That was Doug Horne's note, if you reread it. I can ask Doug about it, but they are apparently far too large to be uploaded here. In any case, as I have explained, if you want to run a counter-op (argument), you need to present evidence to the contrary. We have demonstrated, over and over again, that images in the extant film have been altered. The blow-out, for example, which can be seen in frames 372 and 374, for example, is missing in earlier frames. That is conclusive evidence of fakery. And you are too sophisticated not to know that you are tacitly shifting the burden of proof to those of us who have ALREADY proven our case. The burden is on you to rebut the evidence we have adduced, not upon us to provide even more! If you can rebut us, then do it!

Jim, all I asked you to do was post one of the already existing files so everyone could see and measure for themselves instead of taking your and Dr. Mantik's word for it. http://www.wuala.com/en is free. You strongly implied that the only reason we can't see them is that they are too large to be transmitted over the internet. I've offered you a free, well-known solution to that problem. I'm certain that - however limited your resources - you can afford free. Is there some reason you don't want everyone to see the files for themselves?

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