Tink Thompson's Untrue Fact

[Craig Lamson]

Martin, for your consideration.

Lets look at this another way.

In the attached image, look at the edge of the grass above the curb. It's black/dark because it is in shadow.

Compare the left side of the image with the right, just behind the head. Can you see the change in tone, behind the head, where the ejecta is located, compared to the darker tone on the left?

I have given you two versions of the same crop, one with more contrast to make the tone change easier to see.

[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.

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.

1) frame rate is not the same as shutter speed the latter was 1/40 second

2) I did not calculate 700 ft/sec it was a rough guesstimate from a layperson, I used it illustrate roughly how fat the debris could have gone between frames. Apparently Sherry did a study that was far more in depth than her posts here, the former might have a calculation as to the velocity

3) to me all we can see is a blur

Edited May 20, 2013 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

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.

Come'on she must have realized she was a witness to history and people might be interested in her recollections That aside we still have the woman Posner interviewed and the problem with lack of eyewitness reliability especially after so much time. If you think what she said contradicts the Z-film it's reason to doubt the former not the latter

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 film's "provenance is uncertain" only to alterationists. And you either did not read or misunderstood her posts here. They were not "based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film" but rather it disputed a claim by Costella which supposedly proved it was fake. You are engaging in circular thinking. Actually paddle-ball is a more fitting analogy.

The limo stop,

I see you seem to have unquestioningly accepted Fetzer's fishoil many witnesses only said it slowed which is consistent with the Z-film, other only said other parts of the motorcade. Most witness made no such observation.

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.

Sorry but unlike Costella and you Sherry is an expert her analysis trumps yours

[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.

1) frame rate is not the same as shutter speed the latter was 1/40 second

2) I did not calculate 700 ft/sec it was a rough guesstimate from a layperson, I used it illustrate roughly how fat the debris could have gone between frames. Apparently Sherry did a study that was far more in depth than her posts here, the former might have a calculation as to the velocity

3) to me all we can see is a blur

Mr. Colby

I accept that the velocity of ejecta at 700 feet per second was a guesstimate. That being said, though, outside of the bullets, would you not agree that the ejecta from the head wound in z313 was moving an incredible amount faster than anything else in the entire film?

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Daniel Gallup]

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.

Come'on she must have realized she was a witness to history and people might be interested in her recollections That aside we still have the woman Posner interviewed and the problem with lack of eyewitness reliability especially after so much time. If you think what she said contradicts the Z-film it's reason to doubt the former not the latter

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 film's "provenance is uncertain" only to alterationists. And you either did not read or misunderstood her posts here. They were not "based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film" but rather it disputed a claim by Costella which supposedly proved it was fake. You are engaging in circular thinking. Actually paddle-ball is a more fitting analogy.

The limo stop,

I see you seem to have unquestioningly accepted Fetzer's fishoil many witnesses only said it slowed which is consistent with the Z-film, other only said other parts of the motorcade. Most witness made no such observation.

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.

Sorry but unlike Costella and you Sherry is an expert her analysis trumps yours

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

[Len Colby]

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done.

Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving.

As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were,

Edited May 21, 2013 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Len Colby

[Daniel Gallup]

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done.

Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving.

As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were,

The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedly shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails. And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film. The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets. That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom. The emperor is naked, and too many believe he is still clothed. Now go out and earn that Nobel Prize.

[Robert Prudhomme]

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Mr. Colby

Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do such things as circle parts of photos. Believe me when I tell you it is all I can do to post a photo to a website.

However, I will try to describe to you the unblurred pieces as best I can. They are rather obvious, so it should not be that difficult.

If, looking at z313, you look just above Jackie's head, it is possible to see what appear to be four small white pieces, presumably of skull bone, that are ascending from JFK's head in an almost straight line. I believe I read some research material that claimed this is actually a single piece of skull bone captured several times in the one exposure but, I cannot recall where it was I read that.

[Len Colby]

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Mr. Colby

Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do such things as circle parts of photos. .

The process is rather simple:

1. right click the image and choose the option “Copy Image” or “Save image as...”

2. Open Paint, it's in Windows 'Accesories' folder

3. If you copied the image click 'Paste. If you saved it open it.

4. Chose an oval (or other shape if you prefer) from the “Shapes” box in the menu bar, chose a color (yellow or blue are usually good) that will show up clearly

5. draw oval(s) around the object(s)

6. save the image

7. upload it here or better yet to a photohosting site. The latter is quite simple, some allow you to host images without having an account.

Sorry but I looked at the photo you posted and don't see the bits you're talking about.

[Len Colby]

The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedly shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails.

There are dozens of things alterationists claim are proof or at least evidence the film was faked, why not drag in 'Mooreman in the street' or the turn on Elm Street etc. etc.? Turning every thread into a fruit salad is unproductive. The supposed stop has already been debated here a few times and is irrelevant to this thread.

And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film.

Perhaps but it is quite relevant to topic under discusion.

The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets.

LOL and any conclusions Itek made that contradict what you believe can be dismissed. Hillarious that you claim a study you vaguely remember having read about years ago “is determinative”. The question is not so much whether blood much blood spray etc. can be seen but whether or not the amount seen is than is less than should have been recorded.

That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom.

Logical inferences based on ignorance are “hand-waving” and I agree you are an expert on that.

As for the top speed of blood splatter according to a document from an Australian university “A medium velocity force moves blood between five and 50 metres per second...A high velocity force moves blood greater than 50 metres per second.” So the bottom end for high velocity spatter is 164 ft./sec. It does not indicate what the top possible speed is but there is a 10x variance for medium velocity spatter (which is not to say I think 1640 fps [1120 mph] is possible).

http://www.clt.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/112508/fsb05.pdf

Edited May 21, 2013 by Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done.

Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving.

As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were,

easily

The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedlyen shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails. And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film. The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets. That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom. The emperor is naked, and too many believe he is still clothed. Now go out and earn that Nobel Prize.

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David G. Healy]

...

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

akin to saying black levels (contrast ratio) aren't crushed in the "alleged" Zapruder film.... you get back in line and please, try again!

[Craig Lamson]

...

There is no lack of debris at the back of the head. It is easily seen. Please try again.

akin to saying black levels (contrast ratio) aren't crushed in the "alleged" Zapruder film.... you get back in line and please, try again!

ROFLMAO! You are a really funny guy....

And the "contrast ratio (LMAO) has what to do with the ejecta? Oh yea, NOTHING. More healy nonsense.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Prudhomme]

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Mr. Colby

Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do such things as circle parts of photos. .

The process is rather simple:

1. right click the image and choose the option “Copy Image” or “Save image as...”

2. Open Paint, it's in Windows 'Accesories' folder

3. If you copied the image click 'Paste. If you saved it open it.

4. Chose an oval (or other shape if you prefer) from the “Shapes” box in the menu bar, chose a color (yellow or blue are usually good) that will show up clearly

5. draw oval(s) around the object(s)

6. save the image

7. upload it here or better yet to a photohosting site. The latter is quite simple, some allow you to host images without having an account.

Sorry but I looked at the photo you posted and don't see the bits you're talking about.

Mr. Colby

Thank you for the instructions. Here is z313 with the debris circled for you.