Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Here are some reminders of the strength of the evidence that there was a massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head, which is actually visible in frame 374, where the evidence that something is wrong with the film has been massive and compelling, but of course the public was not allowed to view the film until 1975, where the reasons for concealing it have become more and more apparent across time: And since the physicians at Parkland had the first opportunity (by medical experts) to examine the wound and describe it, here is a summary of some of their reports, which, like that chapter of MURDER (2000) that Tink likes to cite, was prepared by Dr. Gary Aguilar. The problem for Tink is that, like that chapter, which reported the consistency of the reports about this wound, it implies that the film has been faked: Since Tink has placed all of his eggs in the same basket--the slide set--it might be a good idea to ask if he, like David Mantik, has studied these slides and whether he observed the same anomalies, including the black patch in frame 317, that David observed. It is inconceivable that Tink would be taking such a strong stand--and repeatedly refer to the slide set as "definitive"--if Tink did not know exactly what it shows. Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I don't give a dang about the rest of the case as you well know. Slather some mustard on that baloney, Craig, it's getting mighty gamey. You've spent the last 4+ years defending the Single Bullet Theory to a point beyond absurdity. You're a die-hard, Kennedy-hating Lone Nutter, and anyone who follows your posts knows it. If thats your take Cliff it's dead wrong and we can now discard you opinions about other matters. You can't define reality from fantasy. A quick demonstration of Lamsonite lone-nuttery and I promise it won't go on and on. JFK on Houston St. His jacket collar occluded his shirt collar. http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/ikefinal.jpg A few seconds later JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally. His jacket collar occluded his shirt collar. One Nix frame later, JFK's shirt collar is visible after he leaned back. JFK's shirt collar is visible in every photo taken thereafter, a fact even Craig can't deny. JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously. You're up Craig. Impress us with your lone-nutter sputter. Edited January 12, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Josiah, Since you have your own copy of frame 317, as you have explained here, perhaps you could post it to this thread? You have the copy. You say it shows "nothing unusual". So there should be no reason for you not to post it here. And some of us are wondering how you can be faulting the Hollywood scan without viewing it? Why haven't you gone to visit with Sydney Wilkinson and taken a look? How can you be arguing re evidence you have never seen? Jim Yes, David, I guess I misunderstood you. The MPI transparencies confirmed what I had earlier seen in my own copy of frame 317 from 1966, in a copy of the frame that I got from Robert Groden and in a copy of the frame posted by Jack White. In all these, I detected no discernible difference in the shadow on the back of JFK's head and other shadows in the frame (on Connally, on JFK's back, etc.) If the back of JFK's head was doctored, it ought to show, don't you think? I found nothing unusual about the shadow. JT Yes, I noticed the same thing, David. Last June I spent two afternoons studying the MPI 4" by 5" transparencies at the 6th Floor Museum. They are glorious. Looking at Z317, it struck me that the shadow on the back of JFK's head is exactly like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame. This is what you noticed and it is even clearer in the MPI transparencies.What ever happened to the much-vaunted "Hollywood Seven." We don't even know who they are supposed to be and all we've heard from them is a deafening silence? And for how many years has their silence been deafening? Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others. What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head... I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively... yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes... and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th? Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I don't give a dang about the rest of the case as you well know. Slather some mustard on that baloney, Craig, it's getting mighty gamey. You've spent the last 4+ years defending the Single Bullet Theory to a point beyond absurdity. You're a die-hard, Kennedy-hating Lone Nutter, and anyone who follows your posts knows it. If thats your take Cliff it's dead wrong and we can now discard you opinions about other matters. You can't define reality from fantasy. A quick demonstration of Lamsonite lone-nuttery and I promise it won't go on and on. JFK on Houston St. His jacket collar occluded his shirt collar. http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k564/cliffvarnell55/ikefinal.jpg A few seconds later JFK leaned forward to chat with Nellie Connally. His jacket collar occluded his shirt collar. One Nix frame later, JFK's shirt collar is visible after he leaned back. JFK's shirt collar is visible in every photo taken thereafter, a fact even Craig can't deny. JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Obviously. You're up Craig. Impress us with your lone-nutter sputter. CNo lone nut anything Cliff, just the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. Your attempts to deny this fact are pure fantasy. You don't even know how the sun works. Deal with it Cliff, the SHADOW beat you. This information is neither pro or against any LN or CT theory. Its simply is what it is. And that of course simply drives you nuts. rock on Cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Craig, As I have repeatedly explained, the alleged "bunching" is a pseudo-issue, since the holes in the shirt and jacket ALIGN with the location of the wound as shown on the Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the death certificate signed by Admiral Burkley, and even the reenactment photographs, where Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" in order to make the "magic bullet" theory more plausible. David Mantik, however, has proven that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible, because cervical vertebra intervene. I explain all of this in"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. What is there here that you do not understand? It appears to me that you are, as you have done in the past, attempting to distract from the issues that Tink would just as soon not address. But you are in the process demonstrating conclusively that you do not care about the truth of the matter, because the claim you are making about "bunching" has already been blown out of the water. Even if you were right (about some temporary "bunching", which is most unlikely, since JFK wore custom-tailored shirts and jackets), it has no probative value at all, which proves your posts are mere distractions. Now perhaps Tink will post his own copy of frame 317 and explain how he can reasonably contest the HD scan of the Hollywood group with having bothered to examine it. This situation is serious. Jim Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No lone nut anything Cliff, just the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner. Your attempts to deny this fact are pure fantasy. You don't even know how the sun works. Deal with it Cliff, the SHADOW beat you. This information is neither pro or against any LN or CT theory. It's an absolute requirement of the Single Bullet Theory. Thanks for confirming my point, Craig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) It's an absolute requirement of the Single Bullet Theory. Thanks for confirming my point, Craig. Cliff, can you read? This is at BETZNER. So unless you think he was shot at BETZNER (EDIT) rock on Cliff. Edited January 12, 2012 by Pat Speer Removed some unnecessary insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Martin, Thank you! This must be some kind of joke. He has access to the MPI frames and the slide set and he bases his argument on this? Unreal! Josiah, Since you have your own copy of frame 317, as you have explained here, perhaps you could post it to this thread? You have the copy. You say it shows "nothing unusual". So there should be no reason for you not to post it here. Jim, He already did. Post #230. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Craig, As I have repeatedly explained, the alleged "bunching" is a pseudo-issue, since the holes in the shirt and jacket ALIGN with the location of the wound as shown on the Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the death certificate signed by Admiral Burkley, and even the reenactment photographs, where Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" in order to make the "magic bullet" theory more plausible. David Mantik, however, has proven that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible, because cervical vertebra intervene. I explain all of this in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. What is there here that you do not understand? It appears to me that you are, as you have done in the past, attempting to distract from the issues that Tink would just as soon not address. But you are in the process demonstrating conclusively that you do not care about the truth of the matter, because the claim you are making about "bunching" has already been blown out of the water. Even if you were right (about some temporary "bunching", which is most unlikely, since JFK wore custom-tailored shirts and jackets), it has no probative value at all, which proves your posts are mere distractions. Now perhaps Tink will post his own copy of frame 317 and explain how he can reasonably contest the HD scan of the Hollywood group with having bothered to examine it. This situation is serious. Jim You are babbling again Jim. The fold in the jacket is REAL at Betzner. The shadows CONFIRM this as fact. Why don't YOU post this H7 scan so everyone can view it and come to their own conclusions? BTW Tink HAS posted his scan of 317. Perhaps you might want to get up to speed. Clearly you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) 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. Martin, Thank you! This must be some kind of joke. He has access to the MPI frames and the slide set and he bases his argument on this? Unreal! Josiah, Since you have your own copy of frame 317, as you have explained here, perhaps you could post it to this thread? You have the copy. You say it shows "nothing unusual". So there should be no reason for you not to post it here. Jim, He already did. Post #230. Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Observe the parallels between the modus operandi of Craig Lamson and of Josiah Thompson in this thread: Lamson posts and reposts about a "bulge" in the jacket that wouldn't make any difference even if it were true. Thompson repeats and repeats the importance of "early generation" frames, but offers us this blurry frame. I now confidently predict that the slides in The 6th Floor Museum will not correspond to what we have now. There will be major discrepancies, including with regard to the proofs of film fakery that we have produced. Craig, As I have repeatedly explained, the alleged "bunching" is a pseudo-issue, since the holes in the shirt and jacket ALIGN with the location of the wound as shown on the Boswell diagram, the Sibert sketch, the death certificate signed by Admiral Burkley, and even the reenactment photographs, where Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the description of the wound changed from his "uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck" in order to make the "magic bullet" theory more plausible. David Mantik, however, has proven that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible, because cervical vertebra intervene. I explain all of this in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. What is there here that you do not understand? It appears to me that you are, as you have done in the past, attempting to distract from the issues that Tink would just as soon not address. But you are in the process demonstrating conclusively that you do not care about the truth of the matter, because the claim you are making about "bunching" has already been blown out of the water. Even if you were right (about some temporary "bunching", which is most unlikely, since JFK wore custom-tailored shirts and jackets), it has no probative value at all, which proves your posts are mere distractions. Now perhaps Tink will post his own copy of frame 317 and explain how he can reasonably contest the HD scan of the Hollywood group with having bothered to examine it. This situation is serious. Jim You are babbling again Jim. The fold in the jacket is REAL at Betzner. The shadows CONFIRM this as fact. Why don't YOU post this H7 scan so everyone can view it and come to their own conclusions? BTW Tink HAS posted his scan of 317. Perhaps you might want to get up to speed. Clearly you are not. Edited January 12, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) 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." Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Observe the parallels between the modus operandi of Craig Lamson and of Josiah Thompson in this thread: Lamson posts and reposts about a "bulge" in the jacket that wouldn't make any difference even if it were true. How do you make it go away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You are babbling again Jim. The fold in the jacket is REAL at Betzner. The shadows CONFIRM this as fact. The jacket dropped into a grossly elevated position? Yeah, that's "scary" all right. But as long as they keep the sharp objects locked up, I'm sure Craig Lamson is quite harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Thompson repeats and repeats the importance of "early generation" frames, but offers us this blurry frame. Lets compare the Thompson 317 to the 317 you are now pimping... The Davidson posted 317 is on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now