Comparing the White Jacket to CE 162

[Gil Jesus]

Two jackets in two black and white films.

On the left is a still from a video taken in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene. It shows a policeman displaying what Dallas Police radio broadcasts described as a white jacket which was recovered from underneath a 1955 Olds that was parked in the lot.

Initial police broadcasts identified Tippit's murderer as wearing a white jacket.

On the right is CE 162, Oswald's grey jacket. The WC said that this was the jacket recovered from under the car.

Given that both of these jackets were filmed with black-and-white film, if CE 162 is the jacket on the left, shouldn't it be in the same greyscale as it is on the right ? I can see it being a shade or two off maybe due to lighting, but these two jackets aren't even close.

Is there anyone out there who believes that these two are the same jacket ?

Edited September 9, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[William Kelly]

Two jackets in two black and white films.

On the left is a still from a video taken in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene. It shows a policeman displaying what Dallas Police radio broadcasts described as a white jacket which was recovered from underneath a 1955 Olds that was parked in the lot.

Initial police broadcasts identified Tippit's murderer as wearing a white jacket.

On the right is CE 162, Oswald's grey jacket. The WC said that this was the jacket recovered from under the car.

Given that both of these jackets were filmed with black-and-white film, if CE 162 is the jacket on the left, shouldn't it be in the same greyscale as it is on the right ? I can see it being a shade or two off maybe due to lighting, but these two jackets aren't even close.

Is there anyone out there who believes that these two are the same jacket ?

Is there a photo of Oswald's jacket found a week after the assassination under the window sill of the first floor lunchroom?

Thanks, BK

[Gil Jesus]

Maybe this one ?

CD 496, pg. 22:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=22

Edited September 9, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

Two jackets in two black and white films.

On the left is a still from a video taken in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene. It shows a policeman displaying what Dallas Police radio broadcasts described as a white jacket which was recovered from underneath a 1955 Olds that was parked in the lot.

Initial police broadcasts identified Tippit's murderer as wearing a white jacket.

On the right is CE 162, Oswald's grey jacket. The WC said that this was the jacket recovered from under the car.

Given that both of these jackets were filmed with black-and-white film, if CE 162 is the jacket on the left, shouldn't it be in the same greyscale as it is on the right ? I can see it being a shade or two off maybe due to lighting, but these two jackets aren't even close.

Is there anyone out there who believes that these two are the same jacket ?

read and learn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

[Joseph Backes]

Two jackets in two black and white films.

On the left is a still from a video taken in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene. It shows a policeman displaying what Dallas Police radio broadcasts described as a white jacket which was recovered from underneath a 1955 Olds that was parked in the lot.

Initial police broadcasts identified Tippit's murderer as wearing a white jacket.

On the right is CE 162, Oswald's grey jacket. The WC said that this was the jacket recovered from under the car.

Given that both of these jackets were filmed with black-and-white film, if CE 162 is the jacket on the left, shouldn't it be in the same greyscale as it is on the right ? I can see it being a shade or two off maybe due to lighting, but these two jackets aren't even close.

Is there anyone out there who believes that these two are the same jacket ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

There are 4 color photos of a grey jacket that NARA has made available

The description in the 3rd photo is interesting:

Gray man's jacket with M size collar, laundry mark 30, zipper opening, name tag created in California, MAURICE HOLMAN".

On inside of jacket are initials of police officers WEB and GMD. There is also a laundry tag on bottom of jacket B 9738.

Joe Backes

Edited September 9, 2011 by Joseph Backes

[Gil Jesus]

There are 4 color photos of a grey jacket that NARA has made available

The description in the 3rd photo is interesting:

Gray man's jacket with M size collar, laundry mark 30, zipper opening, name tag created in California, MAURICE HOLMAN".

On inside of jacket are initials of police officers WEB and GMD. There is also a laundry tag on bottom of jacket B 9738.

Joe Backes

Thanks for those photos. It certainly shows that CE 162 is darker than the jacket depicted in the video. One thing I find interesting is that BOTH jackets appear to have two elastic sections in the back at the waist. When fully contracted, they create creases in the material directly above them. I would say that they appear to be the same KIND of jacket, but I have my doubts about the color based on other evidence.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

read and learn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

ROFLMAO...and what evidence do you have regarding the exposure of this specific photo and video ?

Exposure has nothing to do with the difference in the color of these two jackets. If the film's exposure was in excess to make a grey jacket appear to be white, then ALL of the items in it would ALSO have been overexposed to some degree. You can't overexpose only the jacket and nothing else in the video. Nothing, however, in the background or foreground of the video indicates that other items were overexposed.

IOW, the exposure is correct. But nice try.

And there's more evidence that the shooter's jacket was white:

a.) the witnesses who described the shooter's jacket as white

( 7 H 69 )

b.) the subsequent Dallas Police broadcast describing the shooter's jacket as white

( 4 H 185 )

and c.) the police witness who described the jacket found in the parking lot as white

( 7 H 30 )

I doubt Ansel Adams would have an answer for those. Do YOU ?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

read and learn...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

ROFLMAO...and what evidence do you have regarding the exposure of this specific photo and video ?

No more than you. But I do have k percentages

Exposure has nothing to do with the difference in the color of these two jackets. If the film's exposure was in excess to make a grey jacket appear to be white, then ALL of the items in it would ALSO have been overexposed to some degree. You can't overexpose only the jacket and nothing else in the video. Nothing, however, in the background or foreground of the video indicates that other items were overexposed.

Really, NOTHING is overexposed in the video and NOTHING is underexposed in the still? Are you aware the jacket is is mid zone 3 inte video? And its mid zone 4 in the POOR halftone copy? Wow, a half a stop over for the video repro and a 1/2 stop under for the halftone is all it takes to equalize....IF the images you posted are even close to correct, which you have no way of knowing.

Now is is there any indication the vidoe is a half sop over? Lets look at a shadowed fold of the dark blue uniform, Correctly exposed it should fall in a high zone 9, just barely showing detail. It falls mid zone eight, about the equal of 1/2 stop of over exposure.

But of course all of this implies we know the images we see have not been processed for curves, or levels.

In other words, your argument is swiss cheese.....

IOW, the exposure is correct. But nice try.

IOW, you simply don't have a clue, but nice try.

And there's more evidence that the shooter's jacket was white:

a.) the witnesses who described the shooter's jacket as white

( 7 H 69 )

b.) the subsequent Dallas Police broadcast describing the shooter's jacket as white

( 4 H 185 )

and c.) the police witness who described the jacket found in the parking lot as white

( 7 H 30 )

I doubt Ansel Adams would have an answer for those. Do YOU ?

Sure I do, people are easily confused about tone. But nice try though....

Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Gil Jesus]

[

First, you implied that the "white" jacket was actually the grey jacket which was overexposed in the video.

Now, you're implying that the white jacket only appears to be white because of ( quoting your chart above ) "relative surrounding ( squares of ) dark and the fact that our vision compensates for some sort of shadow".

You CAN'T be serious.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE GET THIS STUFF FROM ?

There's neither any darkness surrounding the jacket nor any shadow ON IT to alter the perception of its color in the video. Therefore, this chart has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're seeing in the video.

I have to hand it to you WC supporters. You certainly aren't embarrassed to argue a point to complete absurdity.

And you STILL haven't addressed the reports that the jacket was white.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

[

First, you implied that the "white" jacket was actually the grey jacket which was overexposed in the video.

I did no such thing. I pointed you to an article on the zone system. If you can't get this correct where else are you failing?

Now, you're implying that the white jacket only appears to be white because of ( quoting your chart above ) "relative surrounding ( squares of ) dark and the fact that our vision compensates for some sort of shadow".

You CAN'T be serious.

No again you can't seem to follow even a simple discussion, so how can you even begin to follow a logical argument. You wanted to know how light gray could have been mistaken for white. I gave to a graphic the shows humans often mistake tonality.

WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE GET THIS STUFF FROM ?

From reality, you should try it sometime instead of believing everything is fake....

There's neither any darkness surrounding the jacket nor any shadow ON IT to alter the perception of its color in the video. Therefore, this chart has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we're seeing in the video.

There you go again, your inability to read and comprehend is simply STUNNING! I've never argued the tonal range in the video is perceptual, Quite the contrary, I've argued it is TECHNICAL. But it should noted that in the video the body of the jacket is in zone 3, which is a long way from white.

I have to hand it to you WC supporters. You certainly aren't embarrassed to argue a point to complete absurdity.

Since I don't "support" either side, and have said so repeatedly, the embarrassment falls on you. And lets not mention how absurd your original allegation in this thread really is...

And you STILL haven't addressed the reports that the jacket was white.

Of course I have, you simply choose to ignore reality....

Edited September 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Oh no.

Lammy is having one of his "expert" fits again.

Oh no, jimmy d is having one of his "photographic incompetence" fits again.

[Gil Jesus]

And you STILL haven't addressed the reports that the jacket was white.

Of course I have, you simply choose to ignore reality....

Really ? So far all you've provided is a link to a study about tones in black and white photos and films and a chart showing how shades of grey can deceive the eye using shadows. I don't remember you mentioning anything about what the witnesses said. Are you suggesting that the witnesses viewed the jacket in black and white and greyscale ?

[Gil Jesus]

Oh no.

Lammy is having one of his "expert" fits again.

EXPERT ?

This guy posts links to research that has absolutely nothing to do with the video. The research involves tones of grayscale and how shadows and darkness adjoining a color can deceive the eye into thinking that color is lighter than it is. But it's not applicable in this case because there are no shadows or darkness around the jacket that would alter one's perception of the color.

If he posted research that had been done on this specific video in support of his theory, then THAT would be evidence of something. But instead he supplies his theory and opinion that this is what the camera sees and what the witnesses saw ( without any proof that this actually occurred ) and calls that REALITY !!!

He suggests that the jacket in the video only appears to be white and that likewise, it only appeared to be white to the witnesses who described as such.

If that is "reality", and we can't trust photographs, videotape and even our own two eyes, how can one be sure of ANYTHING one sees ? How could anyone ever give testimony in a court case about what they saw ?

ROFLMAO

There seems to be a deeper problem with this guy.

He seems to have a problem with people who think "everything is faked". I don't believe EVERYTHING is faked. I know a lot of conspiracy theorists believe they are. I can't talk about UFOs or Bigfoot or 911 and such because I simply haven't done any research about them. But one thing I do know and that is IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD. That being the case, we must expect some people to be hostile toward whatever is presented showing that evidence was in fact tainted and toward those who present it.

BTW, I know he claims to be impartial, but for an impartial guy. he sure likes to take potshots at people.

But he has more problems than that.

One involves the chain of custody of the grey jacket that ( he claims) only LOOKED white.

If you look at the photos Mr. Backes posted from NARA earlier in this thread, you'll notice that the GREY jacket ( CE 162 ) contains the intitals of the authorities who handled it.

I see "WEB" for Sgt. W.E. "Pete" Barnes

I see "PMS" for FBI agent Paul M. Stombaugh

I see "JFG" for FBI agent John F. Gallagher

One of the officers who handled the "white" jacket at the scene of its discovery was Capt. W.E. Westbrook.

Westbrook's initials are NOT on the grey jacket.

In fact, none of the officers who were present at the discovery of the jacket marked their initials on the GREY jacket.

And THAT'S REALITY !!

Edited September 11, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Craig Lamson]

Oh no.

Lammy is having one of his "expert" fits again.

EXPERT ?

This guy posts links to research that has absolutely nothing to do with the video. The research involves tones of grayscale and how shadows and darkness adjoining a color can deceive the eye into thinking that color is lighter than it is. But it's not applicable in this case because there are no shadows or darkness around the jacket that would alter one's perception of the color.

You are kidding, Right? You keep making the same mistake over and over again. What great work. The study I posted was NOT in reply to your silly objections about the vidoe. They were in reply to your questions about witness testimony and WHY people MIGHT mistake light gray for white. Is it NOW your claim that there were no shadowed or highlighted areas in the scenes as witnessed by the people you quote? Might I suggest you research the first rule of holes? LMAO!

If he posted research that had been done on this specific video in support of his theory, then THAT would be evidence of something. But instead he supplies his theory and opinion that this is what the camera sees and what the witnesses saw ( without any proof that this actually occurred ) and calls that REALITY !!!

Reality is being able to understand simple words on a webpage. You keep FAILING at that reality.

He suggests that the jacket in the video only appears to be white and that likewise, it only appeared to be white to the witnesses who described as such.

All quite possible. And you have yet to exclude these possibilities

If that is "reality", and we can't trust photographs, videotape and even our own two eyes, how can one be sure of ANYTHING one sees ? How could anyone ever give testimony in a court case about what they saw ?

If you DON'T understand that I can make a black cat appear light gray and a white cat appear dark gray in a photograph and understand HOW that happens you simply not mentally equipped to participate in this discussion. Based on your silly statements and inability to read simple words, it appears you are ill equipped.

ROFLMAO

There seems to be a deeper problem with this guy.

He seems to have a problem with people who think "everything is faked". I don't believe EVERYTHING is faked. I know a lot of conspiracy theorists believe they are. I can't talk about UFOs or Bigfoot or 911 and such because I simply haven't done any research about them. But one thing I do know and that is IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST OSWALD. That being the case, we must expect some people to be hostile toward whatever is presented showing that evidence was in fact tainted and toward those who present it.

We are not talking about UFO's, Bigfoot or anything else. This is about JFK and this conversation in directly ABOUT the JFk case. We see your general level of ability to understand simple concepts failing once again. Did I mention the first rule of holes to you?

Present all the evidence you wish but don't be surprised when the value and correctness of your work is shown to be faulty.

BTW, I know he claims to be impartial, but for an impartial guy. he sure likes to take potshots at people.

Post decent work and it might not be the subject of correction.

But he has more problems than that.

One involves the chain of custody of the grey jacket that ( he claims) only LOOKED white.

If you look at the photos Mr. Backes posted from NARA earlier in this thread, you'll notice that the GREY jacket ( CE 162 ) contains the intitals of the authorities who handled it.

I see "WEB" for Sgt. W.E. "Pete" Barnes

I see "PMS" for FBI agent Paul M. Stombaugh

I see "JFG" for FBI agent John F. Gallagher

One of the officers who handled the "white" jacket at the scene of its discovery was Capt. W.E. Westbrook.

Westbrook's initials are NOT on the grey jacket.

In fact, none of the officers who were present at the discovery of the jacket marked their initials on the GREY jacket.

And THAT'S REALITY !!

One needs to laugh out loud and gil's complaint about provenance when he leads of his study using images with unknown levels of processing. Can he say pot, meet kettle?

You want to babble on questioning if the procedure to initial evidence was faithfully carried out on every investigation in Dallas in 1963 be my guest. Quite frankly I'm just not interested. I'll keep my remarks centered on the photographic and vision related portions of your "work"

[Gil Jesus]

You want to babble on questioning if the procedure to initial evidence was faithfully carried out on every investigation in Dallas in 1963 be my guest. Quite frankly I'm just not interested. I'll keep my remarks centered on the photographic and vision related portions of your "work"[/size][/color]

BABBLE ?

EVERY investigation ?

I thought we were talking about the "crimes" of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Photographic and vision portions of my work ?

There's a lot more problems with this piece of evidence than just what a camera or human eye sees.

Didn't the police broadcast of the discovery of the jacket describe the jacket as white ?

Then 279 comes in and says, "We believe the suspect on shooting this officer out here got his white Jacket, believed he dumped it in this parking lot behind the service station at 400 block West Jefferson across from Dudley House. He had a white jacket we believe this is it."

"You do not have a suspect, is that correct?"

"No, just the jacket lying on the ground."

--testimony of Chief Jesse Curry describing the transcipt of the Dallas Police radio broadcasts on 11/22/63.

( 4 H 185 )

A police officer at the scene of the discovery described the jacket as white:

Mr. BELIN. All right, now, prior to that time had there been any recovery of any items of clothing?

Mr. HUTSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When did that occur?

Mr. HUTSON. That occurred while we were searching the rear of the house in the 400 block of East Jefferson Boulevard at the rear of the Texaco station. Behind cars parked on a lot at this location, a white jacket was picked up by another officer. I observed him as he picked it up, and it was stated that this is probably the suspect's jacket. The original description was that he was wearing a white jacket.

( 7 H 30 )

The original broadcast of the description of the Tippit shooter came from Helen Markham, but she was NOT the only one who described the shooter's jacket as being white:

Mr. BALL. Who told you he had on a white jacket?

Mr. POE. Mrs. Markham told me first.

( 7 H 69 )

The Commission counsel never asked Poe to name what other witnesses told him the jacket was white.

But at least one male witness described the jacket as white:

Mr. OWENS. Yes--we were informed by a man whom I do not know, that the suspect that shot Officer Tippit had run across a vacant lot toward Jefferson, and thrown down his jacket, I think he said, white, I'm not sure.

---DPD Sgt. Calvin "Bud" Owens

( 7 H 79 )

I find it interesting that two witnesses on two different sides of the street and who had two different viewpoints of the jacket wouldn't identify CE 162 as the jacket the killer was wearing.

Mr. BALL. I have here an exhibit, Commission Exhibit 162, a jacket. Did you ever see this before?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No; I did not.

( 3 H 312 )

Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?

Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.

( 3 H 347 )

Dallas Police Capt. W.R. Westrbrook couldn't remember who the officer was who found the jacket:

Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; behind the Texaco service station, and some officer, I feel sure it was an officer, I still can't be positive pointed this jacket out to me and it was laying slightly under the rear of one of the cars.

Mr. BALL. What was the name of the officer?

Mr. WESTBROOK. I couldn't tell you that, sir.

( 7 H 117 )

He also couldn't remember who the officer was who he turned the jacket over to.

Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, I did, when I left this scene, I turned this jacket over to one of the officers and I went by that church, I think, and I think that would be on 10th Street.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?

Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.

Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?

Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And you turned it over to whom?

Mr. WESTBROOK. Now, it was to this officer--that got the name.

Mr. BALL. Does your report show the name of the officer?

Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; it doesn't.

( 7 H 118 )

ROFLMAO...exactly the jacket they found ?

HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY KNOW THAT THAT JACKET WAS "EXACTLY THE JACKET WE FOUND" IF HE HADN'T MARKED THE JACKET AT THE SCENE ??

And BTW, he was never asked by counsel how he knew.

There are some serious problems with the chain of custody with this evidence. The video is only the icing on the cake.

When you take the witness descriptions of the killer's jacket as white, add to that the DPD description of the jacket they found as white, add to that Capt. Westbrook's inability to remember who discovered the jacket or who he turned it over to, the appearance of a white jacket in the B&W video and the absence of any markings on the GREY jacket from any of the officers present at the jacket's discovery and you got a pretty good argument for EVIDENCE TAMPERING.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Gil Jesus