The Law of Unintended Consequences

[Craig Lamson]

John,

I find it rather odd that this frame has none of the sharpness and

definition that has historically been associated with Ektachrome.

Its KODACHROME Jim...KODACHROME.

Part of the problem for Lifton is he went the optical route, which involves yet another pass through a lens. Far better to do contact for 1 to 1.

[Josiah Thompson]

Really fascinating! I gotta say, you sure do tell it as it is.

The "missing bullet" copy of Z 317 is apparently quite downstream of other copies. When I look at the Lifton copy of Z 317, it certainly reminds me of what I saw in the MPI transparencies recently and what I remember from the old LIFE transparencies. It also is not far from my own close-up of 317 that I'm coming to recognize is a tad out of focus.

So let's ask the best question we can. David apparently has a high resolution scan of Z 317. If he agreed to cooperate, what tests would you think might be run on the scan to determine whether any artwork, any patch, had been imposed on it? Perhaps we don't have to wait on either the Hollywood Seven or the 6th Floor Museum to resolve this question. Perhaps we could do it ourselves. Why don't we forget for awhile which tribe we're supposed to belong to and operate as genuine scholars trying to resolve a question that has come up? I'd like to work with you, John, on getting this resolved. If David Lifton would provide also 316 how about stereo pair viewing of 316 and 317? Or if the claim is that 316 has also been patched up, how about 312 and 317? What do you think should be done?

JT

Fascinating.

This is my opinion:

Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.

The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.

With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.

It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.

I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:

So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.

Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])

John

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.

We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.

These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.

JT

I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about.

So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives."

Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame.

Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false).

But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element.

That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1".

Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive.

As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film.

Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame.

I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE.

I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website.

Click on this link and compare:

http://www.assassina.../zfilm/z317.jpg

Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me.

To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film.

DSL

1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 13, 2012 by Josiah Thompson

[John Costella]

[Edited to stop sunglasses-smiley appearing when I wanted to label the second point with ( b ) ]

Jim,

I'm simply analysing the blackness of the back of the head. I understand the history of Lifton's material, its strengths, and its limitations. I've sat down with Lifton on several occasions, as well as emailing with him since our conference in 2003, and reading Pig on a Leash and watching the videos of his presentation at the conference numerous times. His material is not the absolute theoretically best-quality possible, but it's pretty close to the source, and it's pretty close to the best now available to us, from the descriptions given here. (And he at least has a go at uploading images from it for us to analyse.)

The blackness of the back of the head in Lifton's 317 is not anomalous. That's all I'm saying.

(1) Agree completely

(2) Agree completely

(3) Agree completely

(4) Pass

I can agree with you on (1), (2) and (3) and still do a scientific measurement. Indeed, I reckon many would agree with you on (1) and (2), and maybe even (3), even if they react violently to any suggestion that the sacred cow Z film has been fiddled with.

(I think the 1-2-3-4-knockout sequence fallacy probably has a name in philosophy, which you'd tell me if I were in your position and you were in mine, but I don't know enough about philosophy to name it myself.)

But let's back up a little here. Are we losing sight of the forest for the trees here? To believe that the back of the head looks like it's been blacked out leads to one of two conclusions:

(a) That the Z film is genuine, but someone painted over the back of the head.

( B ) That the Z film has been fabricated out of other footage, and the back of the head was blacked out in that edited-together material.

(a) is easily testable: go to the National Archives and see if there's black paint on the camera-original. I'm sure that someone's looked at it, and it's not covered in black paint.

But neither you nor I believe (a) anyway. So what about ( B )?

Well, why on Earth would someone go to the trouble of fabricating a fake film, and put in images of JFK's head that with a patch so black and so sharp that they were clearly not physically consistent with being taken through the Z camera?

(OK, I'll concede that David Mantik showed that that is the case with the X-rays, but I think someone in the 1960s would think it much less likely that the autopsy X-rays would ever be available to view AND that someone like David Mantik would get access to the originals AND that he'd use an optical densitometer on them.)

The amount of work required to fabricate the Z film far exceeds the inconvenience of making sure that the back of JFK's head is a colour consistent with the rest of the frame. And that's what we see in Lifton's scan: even Jackie's hair has darker bits, and the limo door near the Connallys is even darker.

You know my opinion of Doug Horne. His effusive writing about this "Hollywood" connection -- I'm still to see anything concrete from the Hollywood caper -- makes me prefer even Craig Lamson on his worst day.

If there's something in this back of the head thing, I'd love to see it.

But I jumped onto this thread because of the possibility that these high-resolution early-generation scans might finally see the light of day -- not because I have any hope that it will shed any light (no pun intended) on the back of the head controversy. I'm actually surprised that we've been able to knock out one aspect, thanks to David Lifton.

I think this is all pure decoy and misdirection. There's plenty to look at in good-quality high-resolution scans. But they've got everyone looking at the President -- AGAIN. Can't we ever learn that mistakes are far more likely away from the main point of interest?

John

John,

I find it rather odd that this frame has none of the sharpness and

definition that has historically been associated with Ektachrome.

Could you discuss this? I found the frames being studied by the

Hollywood group to have far better definition. Why is that, mate?

Just to make sure we understand each other, you are not denying:

(1) that many witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head;

(2) that the Parkland physicians described the blow out at that location;

(3) that Mantik discovered the blow out had been "patched" in the X-rays;

(4) that the blow out can actually be clearly seen in the later frame 374.

From which it follows the blow-out WAS covered up by a black patch,

which has been confirmed by Pat and the Director and the Hollywood

group who are studying a 3rd generation copy we have of the archived

film. So whatever your take on the blackness issue, YOU ARE NOT NOW

DENYING THAT THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IS "PATCHED".

Jim

Fascinating.

This is my opinion:

Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.

The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.

With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.

It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.

I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:

So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.

Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])

John

Edited January 13, 2012 by John Costella

[Josiah Thompson]

Way to go, David!! This is a real contribution to our understanding. Thanks a million!

JT

Mr. Block, your post of Z317 seems to be quite contrasty. I wonder is that isn't because (as far as I know) the scan was made from a fourth generation copy. If everything goes well with this and I don't screw up the attachment process, I'll be posting my own version of frame 317. I made this transparency from the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies in November 1966. It has been in my custody ever since. it is a 35 mm transparency in Ektachrome. The 4" by 5" transparencies were made from the original film by LIFE's photolab. It has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows. In addition, my series of transparencies do not show anything of the changes that you describe. The back of JFk's head looks the same in both Z312 and Z317.

We keep going back to the problem of how successive copying of the film introduces artifacts or appearances that aren't there in the original. Since it has been agreed for several years that the MPI transparencies in the 6th Floor Museum are far superior to the forensic edition of the film, why didn't you take a look at that? I did last June and found the results stunning. Like my own copy that I'm posting as an attachment,Z317 in the MPI transparencies has none of the contrast buildup that your scan shows.

These discussions have been going on for years. I am certainly no photo expert but I am told that a 3D study of Z 317 would disclose immediately and definitively whether anything had been painted in on the back of JFK's head. Am I right about this? If so, wouldn't a 3D study be the quickest,easiest and cheapest way to resolve the question? You folks are down in Hollywood where this kind of a study could be pretty easily arranged. The rest of us have our hands tied because we don't have the scans you folks keep talking about and are using as evidence.

JT

I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about.

So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives."

Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame.

Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false).

But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element.

That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1".

Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive.

As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film.

Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame.

I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE.

I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website.

Click on this link and compare:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg

Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me.

To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film.

DSL

1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

John,

I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he

might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make

an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about

its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the

frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.

If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also

disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING

IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,

Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about

the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.

Jim

[Edited to stop sunglasses-smiley appearing when I wanted to label the second point with ( b ) ]

Jim,

I'm simply analysing the blackness of the back of the head. I understand the history of Lifton's material, its strengths, and its limitations. I've sat down with Lifton on several occasions, as well as emailing with him since our conference in 2003, and reading Pig on a Leash and watching the videos of his presentation at the conference numerous times. His material is not the absolute theoretically best-quality possible, but it's pretty close to the source, and it's pretty close to the best now available to us, from the descriptions given here. (And he at least has a go at uploading images from it for us to analyse.)

The blackness of the back of the head in Lifton's 317 is not anomalous. That's all I'm saying.

(1) Agree completely

(2) Agree completely

(3) Agree completely

(4) Pass

I can agree with you on (1), (2) and (3) and still do a scientific measurement. Indeed, I reckon many would agree with you on (1) and (2), and maybe even (3), even if they react violently to any suggestion that the sacred cow Z film has been fiddled with.

(I think the 1-2-3-4-knockout sequence fallacy probably has a name in philosophy, which you'd tell me if I were in your position and you were in mine, but I don't know enough about philosophy to name it myself.)

But let's back up a little here. Are we losing sight of the forest for the trees here? To believe that the back of the head looks like it's been blacked out leads to one of two conclusions:

(a) That the Z film is genuine, but someone painted over the back of the head.

( B ) That the Z film has been fabricated out of other footage, and the back of the head was blacked out in that edited-together material.

(a) is easily testable: go to the National Archives and see if there's black paint on the camera-original. I'm sure that someone's looked at it, and it's not covered in black paint.

But neither you nor I believe (a) anyway. So what about ( B )?

Well, why on Earth would someone go to the trouble of fabricating a fake film, and put in images of JFK's head that with a patch so black and so sharp that they were clearly not physically consistent with being taken through the Z camera?

(OK, I'll concede that David Mantik showed that that is the case with the X-rays, but I think someone in the 1960s would think it much less likely that the autopsy X-rays would ever be available to view AND that someone like David Mantik would get access to the originals AND that he'd use an optical densitometer on them.)

The amount of work required to fabricate the Z film far exceeds the inconvenience of making sure that the back of JFK's head is a colour consistent with the rest of the frame. And that's what we see in Lifton's scan: even Jackie's hair has darker bits, and the limo door near the Connallys is even darker.

You know my opinion of Doug Horne. His effusive writing about this "Hollywood" connection -- I'm still to see anything concrete from the Hollywood caper -- makes me prefer even Craig Lamson on his worst day.

If there's something in this back of the head thing, I'd love to see it.

But I jumped onto this thread because of the possibility that these high-resolution early-generation scans might finally see the light of day -- not because I have any hope that it will shed any light (no pun intended) on the back of the head controversy. I'm actually surprised that we've been able to knock out one aspect, thanks to David Lifton.

I think this is all pure decoy and misdirection. There's plenty to look at in good-quality high-resolution scans. But they've got everyone looking at the President -- AGAIN. Can't we ever learn that mistakes are far more likely away from the main point of interest?

John

John,

I find it rather odd that this frame has none of the sharpness and

definition that has historically been associated with Ektachrome.

Could you discuss this? I found the frames being studied by the

Hollywood group to have far better definition. Why is that, mate?

Just to make sure we understand each other, you are not denying:

(1) that many witnesses reported the blow out at the back of his head;

(2) that the Parkland physicians described the blow out at that location;

(3) that Mantik discovered the blow out had been "patched" in the X-rays;

(4) that the blow out can actually be clearly seen in the later frame 374.

From which it follows the blow-out WAS covered up by a black patch,

which has been confirmed by Pat and the Director and the Hollywood

group who are studying a 3rd generation copy we have of the archived

film. So whatever your take on the blackness issue, YOU ARE NOT NOW

DENYING THAT THE WOUND AT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD IS "PATCHED".

Jim

Fascinating.

This is my opinion:

Lifton's scan is almost as close as we can get to the "camera original" film. If I've got the processing pipelines correct, it's one "generation" further from the original than MPI. (If I recall correctly, MPI only optically blew up each frame once, and scanned the results. Lifton's is a copy of the Weitzman copy.) But it was taken from an internegative created decades before MPI's blow-ups, avoiding any degradation of the "camera original" in the interim. In terms of its reproduction of colour and intensity, that's important.

The resolution of the Lifton scan isn't great. A scan of one of the blowups would be preferable, from the point of resolution (i.e. the question of "sharp edges"). So let's leave that to one side.

With regard to the "blackness" of the back of the head, the resolution is more than sufficient: it's quite a large area that we're examining.

It doesn't take long with any imaging program to determine that, in Lifton's scan, the back of JFK's head is not as black as other parts of the scan. Part's of Jackie's hair are darker than any part of the back of JFK's head. And the boundary region around the frame is significantly darker.

I've attached a copy of Lifton's scan in which the intensity levels have been stretched out, for the purpose of showing, visually, what I've just described:

So, to me, any claims that the back of the head is "pure black" do not appear to be supported.

Does that mean that this imagery hasn't been edited? Of course not. Everyone here knows that I believe the Z film to be a complete fabrication. But the "blackness" argument doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Whether there are the "sharp edges" that make those who have viewed some of these materials believe that it looks edited is a separate question, which might be answered if Lifton is able to scan one of his larger blowups. Tink is absolutely correct that earlier-generation copies must always trump later generations (as long as they can be trusted, etc.). (I tend to trust Lifton's materials, although not necessarily his computer skills. [i've sure David won't take offence at that.])

John

[John Costella]

Tink,

"Crossed in the mail", 21st century style. I've just finished my post saying that I think the back of the head is a distraction.

I also know that when you go after an issue with as much gusto as "Moorman in the Street", that you know with high confidence that the extant photographic evidence has nothing to hide.

I also know (after 11 or so years of it) that when your tone softens, and you invite me to join in with scholarly research with you, that you know what I'll find, and you're very happy with what that outcome will be.

But I do enjoy getting down to the truth, so let me propose a compromise: I'll give you my opinion of the back of the head, on any material you're able to send to my side of the planet (electronically, by mail, carrier pigeon, or otherwise), if any such material has the FULL FRAME at that resolution.

That's not really what I want -- I'd prefer ALL parts of ALL frames of ALL copies at as high fidelity and resolution as possible -- but, as I said, this proposal is a compromise.

John

Really fascinating! I gotta say, you sure do tell it as it is.

The "missing bullet" copy of Z 317 is apparently quite downstream of other copies. When I look at the Lifton copy of Z 317, it certainly reminds me of what I saw in the MPI transparencies recently and what I remember from the old LIFE transparencies. It also is not far from my own close-up of 317 that I'm coming to recognize is a tad out of focus.

So let's ask the best question we can. David apparently has a high resolution scan of Z 317. If he agreed to cooperate, what tests would you think might be run on the scan to determine whether any artwork, any patch, had been imposed on it? Perhaps we don't have to wait on either the Hollywood Seven or the 6th Floor Museum to resolve this question. Perhaps we could do it ourselves. Why don't we forget for awhile which tribe we're supposed to belong to and operate as genuine scholars trying to resolve a question that has come up? I'd like to work with you, John, on getting this resolved. What do you think should be done?

JT

[Josiah Thompson]

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

And on the basis of such a GROSSLY INFERIOR copy, he wants to insist that a conspicuous feature that's

OBVIOUSLY THERE is not there? Why should anyone take Tink seriously? He has discredited himself.

Actually the question is should anyone take you seriously?

You have NO CLUE what versions of 317 Tink has viewed over the years. You are simply making a baseless assumption.

I grabbed my copy of Tinks 317 crop and did a quick Photoshop curve adjustment to it. The file attached is this adjustment.

The original image (as seen) was 120mb in size at 16 bit. It was scanned at 4000dpi. It is scanned down to grain level.

Clearly this image has faults. The most blatant is the fact that there is a reflection of the camera right over JFK. This is not surprising. Tink made this slide using an improvised copy setup, "on the sly". and he is not a professional photographer.

Second the image appears to be made on regular reversal film. Tink states Ektachrome. It appears from the contrast build that this is in fact the case. A professional duplication would have been done on duplication stock which requires tested filtration to achieve proper results.

Third the image was scanned to film grain level. This adds level of 'noise' above the image detail that makes measurements difficult.

Finally the image appears underexposed.

So where does that leave us? Is the image of no value?

Of course not. It adds yet another data point to the mix. It shows, as best possible given the faults, what was present in the Life 4x5 color transparencies.

And clearly the Davidson image being touted has faults as well. It is FILLED with compression artifacts and it is contrasty.

No one in their right mind would say that the 6k scan made by the H7 has no value. Given its lineage it is surely a valuable asset.

I for one cant wait to see the presentation of both the scan and the data that attempts to prove the claim that the image is retouched.

Sadly all we have now is, "I see it, just believe me."

Josiah or Craig,

What 4x5 transparencies were used that eventually give us what we see today (frame 317) from Josiah.

Common elements seen on the MPI and Lost Bullet frames.

I do not see them on the enhanced version Craig created from Josiah's frame.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/CA8AD/Common.png

chris

Josiah,

Yes, they do not appear on those two frames.

Neither do the scratch marks that the other's possess. Well, actually the scratch marks are there, they have been cleaned up.

Which leads me to believe the two spots I specifically pointed out were also cleaned up in those two specific frames.

That's why I wanted to know what 4x5 transparencies you used.

Now, David Lifton has posted another version which appears to match yours in terms of these marks(non-existent) they are.

It appears David and your's possibly came from the same original source?

And, it appears the "MPI" and "Lost Bullet" frames could have come from the same original source, especially if MPI did some clean up (scratches eliminated) work to theirs, which I'm pretty sure they did.

But they all did not originate from the same original source.

chris

[Cliff Varnell]

So cliff, exact where did I contradict my earlier denial? Your fantasy take here should be quite anusing.

When Jim D. asked you where I was wrong in my characterization of your politics you wrote:

"On all counts jimmy".

Then you betrayed your long-established hatred of liberals with the crack:

"I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure."

In the past you were more free with your contempt of liberals in general and the Kennedys in particular, but now you have to be coaxed.

Now I'm a Kennedy hater?

You hate all lefties, Craig. Why are you trying to deny this?

Sheesh Cliff you have gone off the deep end.

Yes it is about fantasy and reality. You live in a fantasy world while I live in the real world.

rock on ...

That's an interesting claim. If you live in the real world you should have no trouble replicating your claims about Kennedy's clothing.

You should no difficulty showing us how you elevate 3+ inches of jacket fabric and 3+ inches of shirt fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar resting normally just above the base of the neck.

How does that work, Craig? Show us. You've been making this claim for going on 5 years without ever once demonstrating this fantastic event. Not once. Ever.

Why is that?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But you never offer any proof, Craig, only endlessly repeated assertions.

"It's there because I say it's there" -- proclaims the mighty Lamson!

Show us with a suit coat and a tucked in custom made dress shirt how this scenario of yours occurs, in the real world.

It's time to put up or shut up, Craig. If you can't pull it off in your "real world" you need to scoot along.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[John Costella]

Jim,

You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it.

In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it.

I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.)

But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong.

In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time.

So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof.

Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable.

I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some.

John

John,

I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he

might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make

an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about

its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the

frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.

If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also

disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING

IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,

Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about

the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.

Jim

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Chris, for your reply. You understand that my posted close-up came from the LIFE transparencies and these were made in the LIFE photolab directly from the originl. The more I look at these, the more it seems to me that I got the focus a tad wrong.

Question: Did you post a story from the Houston Chronicle for 11/22/63 giving the results of a press interview with Officer James Chaney?

JT

Tink, Chris posted the article for me (Thanks again, Chris!) and I immediately typed it up and added it into my database of witness statements. In recent days, I have come to realize that Chaney had spoken to KLIF radio well before he spoke to WFAA, apparently within minutes of the shooting. I have added his statements to KLIF as well.

Here's my updated list of James Chaney's earliest statements.

James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Although he was the closest witness behind the President at the time of the shooting and had a private conversation with Jack Ruby the next day, Chaney was never questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on KLIF radio, reportedly around 12:45 PM, as transcribed by Harold Weisberg from the KLIF album The Fateful Hours) "On the first shot we thought it was a motorcycle backfire. I looked to my left and so did President Kennedy, looking back over his left shoulder, and when the second shot struck him in the face then we knew someone was shooting at the President... He slumped forward in the car. He fell forward in the seat there." (Note: some sources have it that Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” in one of his first interviews, but I can not find a primary source for these quotes.) (11-22-63 interview with Bill Lord on WFAA television, apparently in the early evening) “I was riding on the right rear fender... We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (11-24-63 article in the Houston Chronicle, posted online by Chris Davidson) "A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin's first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President's car. From the sixth floor to the President, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe during World War II, with experience in sharpshooting. 'When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,' Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot hit him. 'It was like you hit him in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled 'Let's get out of here!'' Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building. 'I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,' Chaney said. 'A piece of his skull was lying on the floor of the car,' Chaney said."

[David Lifton]

I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure.

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda.

Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it?

Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling.

To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323.

To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound.

Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all.

Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317.

Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis.

For example:

1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis

At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely.

(2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis

Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything."

Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.)

DSL

1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right.

Edited January 13, 2012 by David Lifton

[Cliff Varnell]

Isn't it interesting that Craig Lamson demands "extraordinary proof" from the Alterationists but refuses to offer any kind of proof for his pet SBT theories?

Isn't it interesting that Craig ridicules Alterationists and accuses them of saying "I see a black patch therefore it is" and then he turns around and makes the same kind of noise about "unimpeachable 3+ jacket folds" in the Betzner photo?

Behold the Lamson, Lord of Light and Shadow!

Edited January 13, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

So cliff, exact where did I contradict my earlier denial? Your fantasy take here should be quite anusing.

When Jim D. asked you where I was wrong in my characterization of your politics you wrote:

"On all counts jimmy".

Then you betrayed your long-established hatred of liberals with the crack:

"I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure."

Boy your fevered brain is working OVERTIME. My dad is a union liberal. My sister is a dedicated liberal. I love them to pieces. My favorite neice and nephew who I love like a son and daughter are liberal. Heck I just voted for a DEMOCRAT in our local election in November. And did I tell you that I also voted for Clinton. You see cliff this is what happens when you lose control. Your Fantasy WORLD overtakes you. You simply don't have a clue.

In the past you were more free with your contempt of liberals in general and the Kennedys in particular, but now you have to be coaxed.

I don't like liberal policy. But anyone who thinks its ok to dislike PEOPLE because of something like politics is batty. That would mean YOU cliff.

Now I'm a Kennedy hater?

You hate all lefties, Craig. Why are you trying to deny this?

See above, you have lost it completely. All because I've destroyed your silly jacket nonsense. What a pity.

Sheesh Cliff you have gone off the deep end.

Yes it is about fantasy and reality. You live in a fantasy world while I live in the real world.

rock on ...

That's an interesting claim. If you live in the real world you should have no trouble replicating your claims about Kennedy's clothing.

You should no difficulty showing us how you elevate 3+ inches of jacket fabric and 3+ inches of shirt fabric entirely above the base of the neck without displacing the jacket collar resting normally just above the base of the neck.

How does that work, Craig? Show us. You've been making this claim for going on 5 years without ever once demonstrating this fantastic event. Not once. Ever.

Why is that?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But you never offer any proof, Craig, only endlessly repeated assertions.

"It's there because I say it's there" -- proclaims the mighty Lamson!

Show us with a suit coat and a tucked in custom made dress shirt how this scenario of yours occurs, in the real world.

It's time to put up or shut up, Craig. If you can't pull it off in your "real world" you need to scoot along.

Shessh CLiff, CROFT shows you everything you ask for at least as far as the jacket is concerned, because we can't see the shirt inside of it. I have provided pages and pages of proof and you still can't figure out how sunlight works. Its over for you cliff. And you know what makes it all so much better? A SIMPLE SHADOW beat you. One tiny line passing over the shirt and jacket collar on JFK destroyed your 10 year fantasy world just like that.

I'll be happy to rake you over the coals once aging cliff, if that's is what you want. Just start another thread or bring back the old one. The result wont change, you are still going to lose. Deal with it.

And that cliff is reality.

The varnell fantasy lives.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, John, you should know better than to think that I would want you to "take sides". That is not in me. I

am taken aback that, in this frame from Lifton's treasure trove, there is so little of value. I must conclude

that some versions of the film make certain forms of fakery more conspicuous. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT

THIS BLOW-OUT WAS CRUDELY PAINTED OVER IN BLACK. I don't know why this frame doesn't show it.

And I must admit that your remarks about the passengers being thrown forward commits a blunder. It is

occurring at a time when THE LIMOUSINE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCELERATING. What is the probability

that ONE of the passengers would be THROWN FORWARD when they should be being PULLED BACK?

And in this case there are SEVERAL. I don't know why, mate, but I fault you because you are wrong.

In fact, unless I have missed something, I don't see where you have even acknowledge that the blow out

has been patched, when that is OBVIOUS. So I have several difficulties with you in this exchange, none

of which have to do with any presumptions about "taking sides". My inference is that we have reached

the limits of your competence and that the Hollywood experts, Pat and the Director, simply know more.

And scientific reasoning is based upon observation, measurement, and experiment--but all considered

within the framework known as "inference to the best explanation". Given your agreement with me on

(1), (2), and (3), it should already be apparent that the blow-out was patched. The oddity, as I see it, is

that the Lifton frame does not make it show up better and that you seem reluctant to admit the obvious.

So if your position is that you were simply reflecting on the relative lack of strong contrast in Lifton's

frame, then I reiterate my question: why should a feature that LEAPED OUT TO THE FILM EXPERTS

be so muted in the case of Lifton's frame? Something is wrong here, where I see no indication that you

are providing any explanation. That rather bothers me, but perhaps the others can explain it for me.

Jim,

You're missing the point. I accepted the amateurishness of the art work when I read the 1000-word footnote about it in Lifton's Best Evidence, back when you sent me a copy back in 2002. I've never stopped accepting it.

In today's jargon, it was a "blink" reaction from Lifton, and film experts who have seen it.

I accept it the same as I accept the "blink" reaction of David Healy, and other film experts, when they see the limo gliding down Elm Street like a gondola down a street in Venice. Such reactions from seasoned experts are valuable. (See the "Blink" book for their power -- and limitations.)

But the next step is to find scientific proof that something is wrong. And that's where this whole back of the head debate has gone wrong.

In the case of the limo floating down Elm, we have other "wrong-looking" evidence, like the front four occupants all lurching forward to a non-existent (in the extant film) braking event. (Let alone all the witnesses who saw something different!) But again, this is not scientific evidence. (Well, not physical scientific evidence -- apologies for my arrogance as a physicist of equating scientific proof with physical proof.) It's physically possible for people to lurch forward at the same time.

So I think you keep mistaking my acceptance of the overall "feel of the case" with my higher demands for something to be declared a scientific proof.

Now, if the back of the head were blacker than the surrounds of the frame (or possibly the same blackness, and blacker than anything else in the film, but not necessarily in this case), then that would have been physical proof. Just like David Mantik's proof of the impossible density of bone in the autopsy X-rays through optical densitometry -- that is a physical proof, and (unless he is subsequently shown to have made an error) is irrefutable.

I'm a little surprised, after all of our collaboration, and your knowledge of the history and philosophy of science, that you still doubt my motives any time that my opinion of the scientific evidence diverges from your own. Maybe I'm more Aspergery than the average bear; maybe it's difficult for some to see me agreeing with Tink or Lamson, even slightly. Apologies if I don't "take sides" as religiously as some.

John

John,

I added a paragraph you missed, no doubt because you were writing:

And I am puzzled why a feature of the film that POPPED OUT to the

Hollywood film restoration experts, to Patrick Block and the Director

of what today is regarded as probably the finest special and visual

effects film studio in the world would appear relatively bland in this

frame for which David Lifton has described the origin. WHY IS THAT?

Now Craig has corrected me (Kodachrome, not Ektachrome) and he

might have explained this, since it may have required Lifton to make

an additional pass. But it seems to me that, if Lifton is right about

its origin, this frame should be sharper and better defined than the

frames being studied by Sydney's group, when it is instead inferior.

If you can account for this anomaly, I would appreciate it. We also

disagree about the vividness and amateurishness of the PAINTING

IN of the patch. I don't know why, mate, but the Hollywood gang,

Pat and the Director are surely right about this. Something about

the Lifton frame suppresses it. This was amateurish art work.

Jim

Edited January 13, 2012 by James H. Fetzer

[John Costella]

Again, the back of the head is the same darkness as other parts of the frame, and the door is darker than the back of the head.

I can save you the trouble of dealing with Lamson: motion blur. Connally has no face either. The camera is [pretending to be] panning backwards at the same rate as JFK's head is [pretending to be] going back and to the left (relative to the limo). Look at the door handle to get a fix on the amount of blur. That (and maybe some motion on Jackie's part) is enough to explain it away. (Note: physically possible -- that's my criterion.)

(People who believe the Z film to be genuine, ignore words in [square brackets].)

(There's plenty we can all agree on, scientifically, even if we can't agree on the square brackets.)

J

I'm quite proud to be a conservative Jim, far better than being a liberal to be sure.

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda.

Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it?

Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling.

To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323.

To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound.

Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all.

Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317.

Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis.

For example:

1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis

At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely.

(2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis

Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything."

Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.)

DSL

1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right.