The flap on the right side of the head

[Ron Ecker]

I guess that the artist in your view also drew in the underside of the bone-plate in the Muchmore film, as well ... or did you not think to cross check any other films on this matter?

Yes, as strange as it seems, I did check Nix and Muchmore. In Nix the same debris shooting upward and forward seen in the Z film is faintly visible, as is the head snap, but no hint of a flap. I could see nothing in the Muchmore clip on the wounding, as the impact appeared to occur behind someone on the grass. But that may have been due to the quality of the web clip I was watching, so I appreciate the still from Muchmore. What the arrow in the still appears to be pointing to is the same red halo of blood seen in Z. If it is actually pointing to the underside of the bone plate or flap, it's even bigger than seen in Z, and also extends too forward, over his forehead, so I seriously doubt that's what it is.

is it your contention that some artist was able to draw in the bone plate in each frame and get the amount of blurring needed to make the alleged drawing match the data within that frame or is something else you have not considered ...

No, it is not my contention. Can't you read? Here is what I have concluded, to quote:

I entertain the possibility that the flap was added to the film. . . . I have seen nothing to falsify the hypothesis that the flap was added to the film, except possibly technical problems related to film alteration that I am not qualified to address, nor am I qualified even to address the work of those who have addressed it.

IOW I contend nothing. I "entertain the possibility." I don't know. Is this too technical for you?

Edited April 23, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Miller]

"Yes, as strange as it seems, I did check Nix and Muchmore. In Nix the same debris shooting upward and forward seen in the Z film is faintly visible, as is the head snap, but no hint of a flap. "

Could it be that the bone plate isn't seen in the Nix film because Jackie is between Nix and JFK and the distance to the limo is too great ....

"What the arrow in the still appears to be pointing to is the same red halo of blood seen in Z. If it is actually pointing to the underside of the bone plate or flap, it's even bigger than seen in Z, and also extends too forward, over his forehead, so I seriously doubt that's what it is."

Really - you content that the bone plate was too far forward in the Muchmore film and to large to match that in the Zfilm. let me ask you this ... what scaling process did you do to determine the flap was to large in the Muchmore film to match that seen in the Zfilm? Did you consider that the angle at which it was seen from each photographer may make a difference on how big it looks?

I have posted a similar clip many times on the forums ... does not the bone plate extend well out over JFK's forehead and face in Z313 before falling down ...

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

you content that the bone plate was too far forward in the Muchmore film and to small to match that in the Zfilm. . . . ... what scaling process did you do to determine the flap was to small in the Muchmore film to match that seen in the Zfilm?

Can't you read? I said "it's even bigger than seen in Z"

does not the bone plate extend well out over JFK's forehead and face in Z313 before falling down ...

I was referring to the "bone plate" in Muchmore. A slightly different angle than in Z, is it not?

[Bill Miller]

More food for thought ....

The alleged painting-in of the bone plate would not have to just occur on one Zframe (Z313), but on each and every frame following the head shot where the President's wound is still visible. As one can see - the frames have various levels of blurring going on idependently of one another and an artist would need to be able to not just paint on a bone plate, but also add the exact amount of blurring to mathematically match that which can be found in each individual film frame. The purposal for pulling this off without detection doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

"Can't you read? I said "it's even bigger than seen in Z""

Thanks for pointing out my error and I have since corrected it. Hoever, you forgot to mention what scaling process you conducted to make a determination that one flap was larger than the other ... was there an investigative scaling process that you conducted before making a determination?

"I was referring to the "bone plate" in Muchmore. A slightly different angle than in Z, is it not?"

Thank you ... that is a correct statement and it would effect how big the bone plate looked against JFK's head.

The bone plate is at least as wide as the distance from JFK's right ear to a point several inches in front of his nose even when his head is slightly turned away from the camera. The missing chuncks of hair from the top rear portion of JFK's head gives us an idea as to how much cranial space the bone plate covered, thus giving us a better idea of its actual size.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

you forgot to mention what scaling process you conducted to make a determination that one flap was larger than the other ... was their an investigative scaling process conducted by you before making a determination?

I didn't use any scaling process except what is built into my eyesight. The pinkish area looks like it could be the explosion of blood seen in Z313. It extends too far out from his head to be the flap. In fact I don't know what it is. It looks like some sort of artifact in the image. Something has been done to this image, has it not? This looks to me like film alteration. I see nothing like this in the clip I've watched or in the frames I have saved. There are other places in the image with the same pink color. What are those pink blotches scattered through the grass of the knoll? Are those all blood or pieces of bone plate? How can that be?

[Bill Miller]

I didn't use any scaling process except what is built into my eyesight. The pinkish area looks like it could be the explosion of blood seen in Z313. It extends too far out from his head to be the flap. In fact I don't know what it is. It looks like some sort of artifact in the image. Something has been done to this image, has it not? This looks to me like film alteration. I see nothing like this in the clip I've watched or in the frames I have saved. There are other places in the image with the same pink color. What are those pink blotches scattered through the grass of the knoll? Are those all blood or pieces of bone plate? How can that be?

The frame from Muchmmore came from Groden's DVD and a Gif I made long ago before any of this foolishness stuff ever came up.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I've just been reading Mantik's chapter on the Z film in Murder in Dealey Plaza, and he addresses this issue on p. 349. What he says sounds reasonable to me. This is the start of my look into the question of authenticity, and Mantik himself says there are objections to the Z film alteration notion "some of which admittedly cannot be answered easily or with finality." That may be the bottom line in the end. While some alternation scenarios go over the top IMO, the question of whether any part of the film could have been altered effectively may be ultimately unanswerable. So what else is new in the JFK assassination.

Let's address one of the things Dr. Mantik said about his belief that the Zapruder film may be altered .... Mantik writes,

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film."

Mantik then explains that there is no loading fog because the part of the film where Zapruder and Sitzman and Hester are filmed before the motorcade, had been cut off. The first thing I would like to know is whether Mantik sought to find out if the other home movies of Zapruder's had "loading fog" and if so, should it really be seen in the motorcade sequences as Mantik claims. It would seem important to me for Mantik to test his conclusion just to be sure he had his facts straight. If there was no loading fog seen in other reels of film that Zapruder had shot, then it would appear that Mantik was in partial error which allowed him to inccorectly tell his readers something that wasn't totally factual.

I then went to Groden (a photographical expert) to find out if Mantik had gotten it right concerning when 'loading fog' should be seen in a film. Groden writes,

"This is only true at the beginning of the film, and only for a few inches on the outer winds of the film. The anti-hilation backing layer built into the film prevents the light from fogging the film past that point. Period! Past the firat foot, you would never see fogging. In fact, the opening home movie section of the film in Zapruder's back yard DOES have fogging."

Mantik failed to mention this in his article ... it appears that Dr. Mantik wasn't aware of an anti-hilation backing layer built into the film that prevents the light from fogging the film past the first several inches. I hope that now you understand why I said in a previous post that I wouldn't go to Groden for my medical advice ... because along the same line of thinking ... I wouldn't want to rely on a medical doctor for my photographical advice.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Allan Eaglesham]

The proof is in the pudding. I don't understand what I see in the film, so I smell a rat. If someone can reconcile what the film shows with eyewitness testimony from Parkland -- and I wish someone could -- my opinion will be that the film was altered. How or when I don't know -- but my eyes tell me that something is mighty queer. Bill can talk about "bone plates" till the cows come home...

Allan

Nice analogy, Allan ... if you don't understand something, then one should smell a rat. Should this rule also apply to not understanding how steam engines work, or how they get the ship inside the little bottle, or how planes get their lift so to fly, and so on? Many people don't know how a camera is able to take a picture, thus should they also consider something sinsiter is going on because of this? There are certain things about having to alter a Kodachrome II film that would give the alteration away ... according to experts. They say that those signs are not present on the Zapruder film, so where does that leave us? It's like someone saying that there must be a way to get the yoke out of an egg without penetrating the shell ... don't tell me it can be done - show me ... show the experts. Until then, it is just another chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling because he doesn't understand what's really happening.

Bill

Bill:

Context.

Allan

[Ron Ecker]

Mantik writes,

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film."

Well, I'm not as ignorant of photography as I thought I was. I had a home movie camera too back in those days (I made a short Western called Low Noon with it). I remember "loading fog," though I didn't call it that (I can't repeat what I probably called it), but it was lost in the fog of history until now.

That said, you have certainly gone out of your way to read Mantik wrong. You say that he didn't do his homework to see if loading fog should "really be seen in the motorcade sequences as Mantik claims." You say "it appears that Dr. Mantik wasn't aware of an anti-hilation backing layer built into the film that prevents the light from fogging the film past the first several inches."

Mantik doesn't claim that loading fog should be seen in the motorcade sequence. Why would he? He calls it "loading" fog for a reason (he also calls it "initial" fog), it only appears at the beginning of a film, or the "pre-motorcade segment," which Mantik says was cut out of certain copies.

So why in the world do you think Mantik would expect to see loading fog, a phenomenon that he clearly understands, in the motorcade sequence? Just so you can then attack him for it? I believe this is called constructing a straw man.

I don't even know why Mantik brings it up. I don't know what cutting from copies any pre-motorcade segment that may show loading fog has to do with the question of altering the film. It sounds to me like simply good editing by the copiers. But that said, you've gone through a bunch of rigamarole to attack him for saying something that he didn't say.

[Bill Miller]

"Mantik doesn't claim that loading fog should be seen in the motorcade sequence. Why would he? He calls it "loading" fog for a reason (he also calls it "initial" fog), it only appears at the beginning of a film, or the "pre-motorcade segment," which Mantik says was cut out of certain copies. "

Ron - the motorcade doesn't start at the begining of the film reel ... Zapruder had shot home movies on the reel long before going to the plaza, then there was Sitzman next to the Hester's and then the motorcade. If I understand Groden correctly, the loading fog comes into play at the beginning of a reel ... not each time the camera is stopped and started again.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

So Mantik apparently assumed that the Sitzman/Hester segment was the beginning of the film when it wasn't. That's not what you attacked him for, but if he made that incorrect assumption, so what? Why should Mantik have gone to the trouble of finding out what Zapruder may have filmed before going to Dealey Plaza? Maybe he filmed some puppy dogs or kitties at his home, but the little critters aren't in the copies of his film. So what?

[Bill Miller]

So Mantik apparently assumed that the Sitzman/Hester segment was the beginning of the film when it wasn't. That's not what you attacked him for, but if he made that incorrect assumption, so what? Why should Mantik have gone to the trouble of finding out what Zapruder may have filmed before going to Dealey Plaza? Maybe he filmed some puppy dogs or kitties at his home, but the little critters aren't in the copies of his film. So what?

Why ... because if Mantik is making claims on false assumptions, then he is misleading people like yourself who look at what he says and just assumes he knows what he is talking about. Alteration claims seem to be born from false assumptions and are designed to mislead the ignorant.

Bill

[Ron Ecker]

This is so petty and twisted it's not worth arguing about. Mantik did not mislead me, I read him clearly, he said there is loading fog at the beginning of a film. Even I knew that. You claimed, falsely, that he thought there ought to be loading fog in the motorcade sequence, which is ridiculous and he didn't even suggest such a thing. So who is misleading whom? That is, trying to.

[Bill Miller]

This is so petty and twisted it's not worth arguing about. Mantik did not mislead me, I read him clearly, he said there is loading fog at the beginning of a film. Even I knew that. You claimed, falsely, that he thought there ought to be loading fog in the motorcade sequence, which is ridiculous and he didn't even suggest such a thing. So who is misleading whom? That is, trying to.

Did you read Mantik clearly, Ron? Here is a quote from MIDP that Mantik wrote ...

"Because film is unavoidably exposed to light when it is loaded into a camera, all developed film should contain loading fog, but none is seen in the motorcade sequence in the extant film."

Now I have run that statement by several researchers and they all said that Mantik has implied that fog should have been seen in the motorcade sequence. I assume Mantik said this because he didn't note that the reel Zapruder was shooting from had already had home movies ahead of the Dealey Plaza footage, but regardless of his options for excuses - HE SAID IT NEVERTHELESS!

Now let me share some more information with you that Mantik didn't feel necessary to tell you. Did you know that film will not always have fog detectable on the first few inches of the reel. There are people who will load their film in a dark place so not to allow light to get to their film, but when they load their cameras in a lighted area - they can expect 'fog' on the first couple of inches of the film. So if someone ever assumes that all films should show loading fog - they would be incorrect.

Now there is a sure fire way that is known to photo analyst to tell if an image has been altered by placing something onto the film that wasn't originally there. The process is called a 3D examination. My understanding is that while Jack doesn't mention doing it to the suspected frames that he contends is altered ... I am willing to bet that he has seen Z312 and Z313 by way of this method. What happens is that by looking at one frame with one eye and the other frame with the other eye ... you will accomplish a 3D effect. What this accomplishes is exposing any areas that were added to the film after its original exposure. For instance, if the bone plate was painted onto the film as you have suggested, then by way of the 3D examination process, one would see the alteration hanging above the original image ... in this case it would be the painted on bone plate floating above the image of JFK's head. If the bone plate is part of the original image, then it will not be floating above JFK's head, but rather be right down on it as it should be. Gary Mack reminds me that the HSCA photo panel examined the JFK autopsy photos - and possibly the Z film - this same way, according to either the panel's report and/or their public testimony. I believe the term used was "Steroscopy".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0012b.htm

Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered?

FOG DOES NOT ALWAYS MAKE IT ONTO A FILM -

Now let me share some more information with you that Mantik didn't feel necessary to tell you. Did you know that film will not always have fog detectable on the first few inches of the reel. There are people who will load their film in a dark place so not to allow light to get to their film, but when they load their cameras in a lighted area - they can expect 'fog' on the first couple of inches of the film. So if someone ever assumes that all films should show loading fog - they would be incorrect.

THE 3D EXAMINATION -

Now there is a sure fire way that is known to photo analyst to tell if an image has been altered by placing something onto the film that wasn't originally there. The prcoss is called a 3D examination. My understanding is that while Jack doesn't mention doing it to the suspected frames that he contends is altered ... I am willing to bet that he has seen Z312 and Z313 by way of this method. What happens is that by looking at one frame with one eye and the other frame with the other eye ... you will accompplish a 3D effect. What this accomplishes is exposing any areas that were aded to the film after its original exposure. For instance, if the bone plate was painted onto the film as you have suggested, then by way of the 3D examination process, one would see the alteration hanging above the original image ... in this case it would be the painted on bone plate floating above the image of JFK's head. If the bone plate is part of the original image, then it will not be floating above JFK's head, but rather be right down on it as it should be.

Unless I am mistaken, didn't Mantik use this same idea/process when he looked at the autopsy photos so to tell if they had been altered? I'm pretty sure that he mentions looking at them in 3D.

THE BUILDING UP OF EMULSION GRAINS

The Zapruder film has emulsion grain on it. To alter an image within that small piece of film, one would need to transfer the 8MM film onto 35MM film so to enlarge the image to a point where one could do the alterations. 35MM film also has emulsion grainson it and when the altered image is sent back to 8MM size ... it now has more than double the emulsion grains it had beforehand. This would be another give away to an expert in detecting such things. It certainly would be noticeable to even a laymen had only select frames been altered, while others remained in their original condition.

Bill

Edited April 24, 2006 by Bill Miller