Tink Thompson's Untrue Fact

[Craig Lamson]

I was going to say that you were looking at the arm of Jackie's pink suit but, I see you are pointing out something a bit higher. I really can't say for sure if that is red or not.

I don't suppose you consider this evidence of a rear exit wound, do you?

Nope, not willing to play that guessing game...

[Pat Speer]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

1. The bullet entrance discovered at autopsy was low on the back of the head, and nowhere near the location you've circled.

2. If that is ejecta, it came from the top of Kennedy's head, which had traveled forward several inches from the moment of the bullet's impact.

[Craig Lamson]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

1. The bullet entrance discovered at autopsy was low on the back of the head, and nowhere near the location you've circled.

2. If that is ejecta, it came from the top of Kennedy's head, which had traveled forward several inches from the moment of the bullet's impact.

Nice guess....

And then there was the cowlick....

Guesses, guesses everywhere, and ejecta to the rear.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

1, There was no cowlick entry, Craig.

2. The HSCA, which believed there was a cowlick entry, also accepted ITEK's study, which concluded no ejecta from the back of the head was visible in the film.

3. The ejecta from the front of the head, moving in the direction of the head--which you believe is an exit--extends much farther from the head than the ejecta from the back of the head, which you believe is moving in the opposite direction of the head. This makes little sense, and is best by explained by the logical deduction, which you in your ignorance called a guess, that this ejecta came from the top of the head.

There is of course the slight possibility this ejecta came from the back of the head, but that this ejecta dispersed rapidly upon exit, to the extent it couldn't be picked on the film up beyond an inch or so behind Kennedy's head. That is why I suggested this be tested in the first place.

[Craig Lamson]

1, There was no cowlick entry, Craig.

2. The HSCA, which believed there was a cowlick entry, also accepted ITEK's study, which concluded no ejecta from the back of the head was visible in the film.

3. The ejecta from the front of the head, moving in the direction of the head--which you believe is an exit--extends much farther from the head than the ejecta from the back of the head, which you believe is moving in the opposite direction of the head. This makes little sense, and is best by explained by the logical deduction, which you in your ignorance called a guess, that this ejecta came from the top of the head.

There is of course the slight possibility this ejecta came from the back of the head, but that this ejecta dispersed rapidly upon exit, to the extent it couldn't be picked on the film up beyond an inch or so behind Kennedy's head. That is why I suggested this be tested in the first place.

Reality check Pat, the entry point is still being debated 50 years later. She'll we find some thread on this very forum to verify that observation? Just a big bunch of guesses.

And this rear ejecta,mwhich everyone says is not there is clearly there extending more than an inch from the back of the head...interestingly in the same location and nearly the same intensity as the discovery test.

That's the facts, you just keep guessing, it's what you do oh so well.

[Len Colby]

Len Colby said:

"Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames."

If what you say is true, don't you find it rather amazing that frame z313 of the Zapruder film not only seemed to capture ejected material going upwards from JFK's brain in mid-flight, it also seems to have captured the same piece of skull bone in several locations above JFK's head as it shot upwards?

z313.jpg

So do I take it you disagree with Daniel that we can't see ejecta? Due to the low resolution and frame rate it was possible but far from certain ejecta would be recorded. It would be instructive to know the shutter speed as well.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Len Colby

[Robert Prudhomme]

Len Colby said:

"Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames."

If what you say is true, don't you find it rather amazing that frame z313 of the Zapruder film not only seemed to capture ejected material going upwards from JFK's brain in mid-flight, it also seems to have captured the same piece of skull bone in several locations above JFK's head as it shot upwards?

z313.jpg

So do I take it you disagree with Daniel that we can't see ejecta? Due to the low resolution and frame rate it was possible but far from certain ejecta would be recorded. It would be instructive to know the shutter speed as well.

Mr. Colby

I think you misunderstood me here. If you look at z313, there appears to be objects travelling almost vertically from the top of JFK's head which some researchers claim to be pieces of skull bone. Some researchers even feel that the numerous pieces are one single piece of bone.

Until you posted that reply to Mr. Gallup, it had not occurred to me that the ejecta was, by your calculation, possibly moving at a speed approaching 700 feet per second.

Although the question is how could this camera, taking exposures at a rate of 18.3 frames per second, have possibly captured this piece of bone as several exposures in one frame, the real question is how did this camera capture the individual pieces of bone at all? This camera obviously did not have a fast shutter speed, judging by the blurring of bystanders as opposed to the sharpness of the limo. The ejecta, at your calculated speed of 700 feet per second, should, at the very most, have only left a blur on z313.

[Michael Crane]

So,in the one X-ray posted on page 5,could that the piece of rubber that mortician Stroble placed in back of the head?

Edited May 20, 2013 by Michael Crane

[Daniel Gallup]

David, I have never used the Z-film to prove anything because I find the lack of debris exiting the avulsive wound in the right rear of the head as proof of alteration. 10 years ago Bill Miller on Lancer responded that the debris exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to capture.

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695

Funny-- Toni Foster in her 2000 interview with Debra Conway said the "spray went behind him." So Toni could see easily what the camera could not.

LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle

Therefore I argue nothing from the film. Yet you seem to take the film seriously. May I pose the question then to you: how do you account for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head? ITEK confirmed there are no debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head in the extant film

I assume you have a citation handy.

Citation? I'll have to look it up, but it is something I read years ago. Hopefully other members of the forum have the citation. I rather thought this was old news and trivially accepted. I see Pat Speer has commented, so let's leave that issue behind. As to Toni Foster's eye-witness testimony, the reason she didn't come forward is that until Debra Conway interviewed her in 2000, no one else had. You can't blame her for that. I do recommend you read that interview. Go to Lancer and you will easily find a PDF of the interview. Look up the summer 2000 KAC. Debra tells me that there is also a DVD with that interview on it. I highly recommend it to you, as you seem doubtful that she was there in Dealey plaza (even though she is a prominent feature in the Z-film). As for Sherry Fiester, Debra's sister, her analysis is based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film, a notion I find untenable. It is not science to base one's conclusion on an a film whose provenance is uncertain. The limo stop, and the lack of ejecta out of the back of Kennedy's head, which , despite your protestations, should be the most outstanding feature of the film, show the film for the fraud it is. Blood and brains do not travel 700 ft/sec. Period. A piece of bone might if struck properly, but watery blood and brains, no way. You can't match an avulsive wound in the occipitoparietal area with a great loss of brain in the rear of the head (including cerebellar tissue) with a total lack of ejecta. Match the McClelland diagram of Kennedy's wounding with Z 313 and I will give you a Nobel Prize in physics.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Daniel Gallup

[Daniel Gallup]

David, I have never used the Z-film to prove anything because I find the lack of debris exiting the avulsive wound in the right rear of the head as proof of alteration. 10 years ago Bill Miller on Lancer responded that the debris exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to capture.

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695

Funny-- Toni Foster in her 2000 interview with Debra Conway said the "spray went behind him." So Toni could see easily what the camera could not.

LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle

Therefore I argue nothing from the film. Yet you seem to take the film seriously. May I pose the question then to you: how do you account for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head? ITEK confirmed there are no debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head in the extant film

I assume you have a citation handy.

It seems you're not familiar with the true importance of the observation "there was no blood spatter from the back of the head apparent in the Zapruder film."

1. This is not a CT observation. Itek Corporation was hired by CBS to study the film in the 1970's, and came to this conclusion. CBS then used this conclusion to refute the CT argument a bullet exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. This study was subsequently introduced into evidence by the HSCA, and cited repeatedly by Vincent Bugliosi in his LN monster Bible, Reclaiming History.

2. Sherry Fiester, Debra Conway's sister, and a professional blood spatter analyst, has in recent years come to a similar conclusion. This did not convince her that the Z-film was fake, as you seem to think, but that the fatal bullet impacted at the supposed exit--(The same same conclusion I came to from studying the x-rays and medical evidence.) Her 2012 book, The Enemy of the Truth, goes into this matter in detail, and demonstrates, quite clearly, that recent studies in blood spatter suggest that blood spatter would have been apparent at the back of the head in the Z-film, should Kennedy have actually been hit on the back of the head at Z-313. In other words, this isn't CT conjecture, it's SCIENCE.

3. When the Discovery Channel was preparing for its program Inside the Target Car, they asked LN Chad Zimmerman to suggest some tests, that could help clear up some issues of contention. He, in turn, asked the members of aaj to suggest some tests. I pushed that a re-enactment be conducted, and that this re-enactment be filmed by a camera like Zapruder's, using the kind of film used by Zapruder, from a similar distance....to see if blood spatter at the back of the head would be apparent. Zimmerman agreed this was a good idea. When the program was aired, of course, there was no mention of such a test. Apparently, one was never conducted. This demonstrated, at least to me, that the program was designed to argue against conspiracies, and not include any test that might lend substance to the possibility Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter. If so, they messed up. During one of the re-enactments, the shooter missed the back of the simulated head and hit it on its top, right side, where I believe the bullet killing Kennedy impacted. The resultant explosion was quite similar to the explosion of Kennedy's head at 313, while the explosions of the skull from a bullet hitting in the "correct" location at the back of the head in the cowlick area, were not remotely similar. This "missed shot" was, not surprisingly, never shown in the program. But it was put up online. And for that we can be grateful.

Pat, where was the shooter firing from in the simulation?

[Pat Speer]

The take cut from Inside the Target Car, in which the shooter missed the back of the simulated head and hit the right side of the head, (and inadvertently reproduced the explosion pattern of Kennedy's skull), was of the shooter firing from the sniper's nest, Daniel.

I discuss the program Inside the Target Car--and the implications of its tests--in chapter 16c at patspeer.com. It's a fairly short chapter by my standards. And it's a chapter that makes my status as a CT more than clear. You might find it of interest.

[Craig Lamson]

Actually it appears there is plenty of ejecta from the back of his head in 313....

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

Why am I not surprised...

How about all the red at the back his head and the read behind his head over the grass.....

Craig,

I believe, based on the work of guys like Dr. Joseph Riley, Dr. Randy Robertson, and Dr. Donald Thomas, that a shot probably exited the area you've circled. So it would obviously suit my purposes to say that I see the "plenty of ejecta from the back of the head" that you see. But I'm afraid, like Robert, I just don't see it.

YMMV. I work on a very tightly color managed system on well profiled and calibrated monitor. I have no problems at all seeing the red over cyan grass.

However, I have no idea how well your monitor is profiled and calibrated nor how your browser deals with embedded color profiles. And quite frankly I have no idea how Photobucket deals with color profiles either.

Welcome to color management 101.

I can guarantee that every monitor used by every member of this forum shows something different, and wont' be close to any standard unless they have been profiled and calibrated using a dedicated hardware/software calibration system.

This is subtle coloration, there to be sure but not smack you in the face bold.

So again, ymmv.

[John Dolva]

I wonder what color one gets when light from green grass passes through a reddish mist? I think image analyzer can be used as a kind of software colorwheel absent a program that pernits layering with transparencies.

[Craig Lamson]

I wonder what color one gets when light from green grass passes through a reddish mist? I think image analyzer can be used as a kind of software colorwheel absent a program that pernits layering with transparencies.

It's actually more a cyan color for the grass and since red and cyan are opposites the result would be gray. I've mentioned this many time before, but good thinking John.

[John Dolva]