Craig Lamson 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. Who said the jacket dropped? Oh yes Varnell. Sadly that did not happen as we can see and prove in Betzner. The Varnell fantasy continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Who said the jacket dropped? It's obvious from the images I posted. Your lone-nut fanaticism doesn't allow you to process that fact. 'Nuf said. Edited January 12, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Since this thread appears to be heading off the tracks, let me attempt a correction. One of the reasons cited for believing the Z-film has been altered is the dark area on the back of JFK's head. To my understanding it is proposed that this is unusual, and can not be explained by the proposition it is shadow, made more contrasty by the copying of the film. And so, might I make a proposal? Why doesn't someone study the shadows in the films of JFK on Main St., and compare them to the shadows in the Z-film? If there is a huge disparity, it would lend credence to the claim the patch was added. If not... well, we'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Who said the jacket dropped? It's obvious from the images I posted. Your lone-nut fanaticism doesn't allow you to process that fact. 'Nuf said. No cliif, it has been shown more than once WHY your attempt at analyzing those images are an epic fail. But in the end they mean nothing since the fold at Betzner is unimpeachable. If you want to continue your drubbing open a new thread or bring back an old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Since this thread appears to be heading off the tracks, let me attempt a correction. One of the reasons cited for believing the Z-film has been altered is the dark area on the back of JFK's head. To my understanding it is proposed that this is unusual, and can not be explained by the proposition it is shadow, made more contrasty by the copying of the film. And so, might I make a proposal? Why doesn't someone study the shadows in the films of JFK on Main St., and compare them to the shadows in the Z-film? If there is a huge disparity, it would lend credence to the claim the patch was added. If not... well, we'll see... Clearly that (or something similar) is what is EXPECTED from the H7 and those here making this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) The painted-in black patch is visible in both, even more so in the Davidson than in the Thompson. Do you seriously believe that the members of this forum do not see through your transparent diversions for Tink? And the side of Connally's head appears to have MORE SHADOW in the Thompson than in the Davidson. In comparison with both in the Davidson, if the shadow in the Thompson were real, it should be darker in the Davidson. I am gaining the impression of incremental changes in the photographic record to cover-up. Tink needs to respond to my posts #338 and #339, as well as explain his reliance upon an inferior frame. 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. 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) The painted-in black patch is visible in both, even more so in the Davidson than in the Thompson. Do you seriously believe that the members of this forum do not see through your transparent diversions for Tink? How dense can you be Fetzer? The question is not IF there is a shadow/patch on the back of JFK's head. Sheesh, get up to speed. Edited January 12, 2012 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 ... BTW, this is not a waste at all. I don't know why you would characterize it as such. **IF** true, that Z-frame proves conspiracy murdered JFK... LHO could not of fired from in front of AND from the TSBD 6th floor at the same time.... hmm, I was not aware the archival film frame I saw in LA, NARA upgraded to 3rd generation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The painted-in black patch is visible in both, even more so in the Davidson than in the Thompson. Do you seriously believe that the members of this forum do not see through your transparent diversions for Tink? How dense can you be Fetzer? The question is not IF there is a shadow/patch on the back of JFK's head. Sheesh, get up to speed. chill dude... you can't waltz around -or- sidestep this one... tis what happens when you live by WCR faith ALONE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 chill dude... you can't waltz around -or- sidestep this one... tis what happens when you live by WCR faith ALONE The only ones 'waltzing" here are the 'its a patch" crew. "I see it, just believe me" ROFLMAO! You can do better than that dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 chill dude... you can't waltz around -or- sidestep this one... tis what happens when you live by WCR faith ALONE The only ones 'waltzing" here are the 'its a patch" crew. "I see it, just believe me" ROFLMAO! You can do better than that dave. course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) As you persist in your silliness in discounting the obvious, if optical scans showed that the black patch is definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film), would you concede that the film was altered? If not, why not? If not, precisely what would constitute proof for you? (And please be very specific.) Here's the frame that Davidson has posted on this thread: Here's the frame that Thompson has posted on this thread: The painted-in black patch is visible in both, even more so in the Davidson than in the Thompson. Do you seriously believe that the members of this forum do not see through your transparent diversions for Tink? How dense can you be Fetzer? The question is not IF there is a shadow/patch on the back of JFK's head. Sheesh, get up to speed. 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 course I can Craig... you're no moron, you understand the implications that Oswald (if NOT the patsy) was not working alone, thus, a conspiracy murdered JFK. You do understand the political-operational cancer THAT created for this country wayback in '63 don't ya? Living the lie for political expediency, for the good of the country if you will (and I'm sure there is some basis for that position)? OUCH! If that's the case what's your take on rooting out the issue? THEN move on? Ya think the Red, White and Blue will collapse or something? I certainly don't! We're much bigger and better than that! I see dave wants to play bait and switch too. Must be an epidemic of "I can't prove the patch is a patch so I'll try another approach". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 As you persist in your silliness in discounting the obvious, if optical scans showed that the black patch is definitely irregular (compared to appropriate control areas in the film), would you concede that the film was altered? If not, why not? If not, precisely what would constitute proof for you? (And please be very specific.) Then show us the data that defines this irregularity. That has been asked time and time again and all you give us is, "I see it, believe me". Once we see the data that defines the basis of this claim we can then investigate to see if it is valid. Since the claim is yours (now by default) it is your responsibility to provide the proof. It's surely not mine to define HOW you must prove your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josiah Thompson Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Thanks Craig for this. I should tell you that the semi-circular penumbra in the photo is most likely from an overhead flourescent light fixture that I could not turn off during the copying process. I took the photo to a San Francisco lab and had it scanned as you point out to grain level. I attach a certification from the lab. I think Pat Speer has put the issue correctly. In the LIFE magazine 4" by 5" transparencies that I worked with (close-up shown) and in the 4" by 5" transparencies I studied this June at the 6th Floor Museum, there is nothing remotely odd about the back of JFK's head. The shadow there appears just like all other shadows that we see. If you go downstream in copies, contrast build-up apparently makes the back of his head look odd. The same thing has happened before with people working from inferior copies of the Zapruder film and reaching preposterous conclusions. How many years has it been since the promissory note of the H7 started circulating? Two years? Three? Nothing important can be done until they either come forward with their results or silently fold their tents and fade away. Agreed by everyone, the best copies of the Z film are sitting in Dallas at the 6th Floor Museum. It would have been nice if the National Archives had simply scanned their own copies of the MPI transparencies and released them to the public at a nominal price. They didn't. It would be nice if the 6th Floor Museum would do the same thing and maybe they will. I've urged them to do that. But neither Gary Mack nor I make such decisions. For now, we are at least in the position that the transparencies can be viewed by simply making an appointment. I have seen them. They are glorious and they end this argument definitively. Professor Fetzer, Ph.D., says that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has viewed these transparencies and says they confirm a black patch at the back of Kennedy's head. Swell. I say that is simply not the case. I say that either Mantik or Fetzer is just making that up, that the transparencies show the opposite. And it's easy to see who's right... just go and take a look at them. There is one other point I'd like to make. Concerning the back of JFK's head subsequent to Z 313, what you see on the Zapruder film is also what you see in the Moorman photo, Nix and Muchmore. There are frames from the Z film that apparently show some disturbance of hair at the back of the head. It's very difficult to tell what you have. But the Moorman photo is taken from the left side and fairly close-in. It matches what we see in the Zapruder film at the same instant.. Z 315. According to Mr. Block, Z 315 is the frame when efforts were first begun to conceal a massive blow out of the back of JFK's head. If so, how come this is not apparent in the Moorman photo? You want to say that it too was faked up? Good luck. 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." 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