[NOTE -- IN ADDITION TO JIM DiEUGENIO,
A FEW OTHER CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE
QUOTED BELOW AS WELL.]
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:
The impossible large black "sharpie" patch over JFK's head can be seen on the Nth generation [Zapruder Film] frames.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
David J.,
Try doing the same zooming-in on Clint Hill's head at approx. frame 340 of the Z-Film and see if you think Hill's pitch-black head also resembles a "black sharpie patch".
From this 2015 discussion....
RON ECKER SAID:
What is casting the black shadow on the back of JFK's head here, when he is virtually face down? ....
DVP SAID:
What's causing the same kind of "blackness" to appear on the back of Clint Hill's head in the very same Z-Film frame? Was Hill's head "blacked out" by the conspirators too?....
BOB PRUDHOMME SAID:
Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.
DVP SAID:
In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here (click to enlarge the image)....
Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.
[...]
And...since no plotter or conspirator bent on altering or faking the Zapruder Film would possibly have had any need or desire to alter any part of Clint Hill's image in the film, then I think even most conspiracy believers would agree with me that the "blackness" that we see at the back of Clint Hill's head in frame 340 is legitimate, unaltered blackness being seen on his head.
Therefore, since Hill's "blackness" is real and legit in Z340, then why would anybody think that the similar "blackness" at the back of President Kennedy's head in Z317 (which is just 1.25 seconds earlier than Z340 in the very same home movie) is blackness that must have been added to the film by some unknown film-fakers?
It's time to stamp the "blacked out head" theory with this label --- DEBUNKED!
ROBIN UNGER SAID:
Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar....
DVP SAID:
Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision....
"JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet."
And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. Here's just one example--frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black here as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?
BRAD MILCH SAID:
Giving credit where it is obviously due, David, that was one hell of a smack you gave that grand slam. I could hear it way over where I was running my crab traps (and I wasn't even on the Internet!). They tell me the ball left the stadium so fast that it began to unravel & resembled a small meteor entering the atmosphere as gravity pulled it down. I wonder if it landed on the head of the 1st Z-film 'black patch' proponent.
It's always great to see a dedicated researcher step up to the plate & do his/her own visual analysis & not lean on self-proclaimed 'experts'. This isn't the first time you've caught things that have been overlooked by many others over the years, David. I don't expect it to be the last either.
I hear lots of crickets in the distance. You just may have astounded with such efficiency & effectiveness that all the air of your detractors has left their bodies, rendering them completely unable to respond?
Stranger things have happened.
Keep on keeping on, Mr. Von Pein!
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Brad:
Are you serious? I feel like Oskar Werner at the end of the courtroom scene in the film of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold.
You are going to compare an internet reproduced series of frames from god knows what a generation of Z film to what the Wilkinsons have done with a 6 K scan of a third generation copy projected on a wide screen auditorium?
You have to be joking. They are not remotely similar to each other. I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else. And it is as David Josephs describes it. And DVP should have asked to have seen it before he shot off his mouth and his typing fingers. But, IMO, he probably did not originate this either. He probably got it from Duncan [MacRae] or one of the ersatz named trolls on another forum.
I learned many eons ago that DVP does very little, if any, original work. He just roams around like McAdams and scoops up stuff without ever analyzing it before he dumps it here. All in order to create new installments on his site. (BTW, he did a similar scam when [Pat] Speer found a very likely area where the bullet hit JFK at the base of the head. He pointed somewhere else and said, "What about there?" It was not even close to what Pat had done. But that is what he is here for, to confuse.)
I myself am an agnostic on the issue. But the Wilkinson work is very interesting. I talked about the final obstacles they face on BOR [Black Op Radio]. You should listen to it. Then you would not be misled by Davey's fiasco, which recalls the B&W Z film where you can see the SS agent shooting Kennedy.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, let's see if the "Black Patch" conspiracy clowns can somehow get around Robin Unger's interesting GIF clip (below) which toggles back and forth between Zapruder frames 312 and 317 --- which, of course, is a comparison between a frame that was exposed in Zapruder's camera BEFORE President Kennedy was struck in the head (Z312) and another frame exposed in Mr. Z's camera AFTER the President was hit in the head with a bullet (Z317). Did the film-fakers decide to paste in a "black patch" over JFK's head at a point in time on the film which was before he was even struck by the fatal bullet? ....
IN THIS 2015 DISCUSSION, ROBIN UNGER SAID:
Taking into account that the head is deformed in frame Z317, to my eyes the dark "Shadow area" in Z317 / Z312 [seen in the GIF below] appear very similar....
DVP SAID (IN 2015):
Fabulous. It's now getting harder to keep up with the revised "new" theory that conspiracy theorists will now have to embrace in order to keep their "Blacked Out Head" theory alive and well. Here's the latest revision....
"JFK's and Clint Hill's and Nellie Connally's heads (and maybe a lot more heads too that nobody has even noticed yet) have been artificially blacked out in all post-Z313 frames of the Zapruder Film. Plus, JFK's head has also been artificially blacked out in frame 312, which is one-eighteenth of a second BEFORE he was even hit in the head by any bullet."
And, of course, we can also go back earlier in the Z-Film and find many more frames which show the "blackness" on the back of JFK's head BEFORE he was even shot in the head. ... One example [being] frame 275. And what about Roy Kellerman too? His head looks pretty black [in Z275] as well. Does that mean Kellerman's head has been "blacked out" by film-fakers in Z275?
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What about that Z312/317 comparison, Sandy? Do you really think somebody put a black patch over the back of JFK's head in Z312---before the time of the fatal head shot? (Those film-fakers were thorough, weren't they?)
And they must have also painted in the black blob in Z311 too....
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg
And in Z310....
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z310.jpg
And 309....
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z309.jpg
(Should I keep going back to the beginning of the film?)
SANDY LARSEN SAID:
I think they would color the preceding frames as necessary, so that there isn't a sudden change in shade.
However, I don't think they intended on using quite that dark of color. Mixing paint can get... um... hairy. :)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.
BRAD MILCH SAID:
@Jim DiEugenio....
Quote: "Brad, are you serious?" -- Jim DiEugenio
Very much so, Jim. I look at everything written & posted here at EF [Education Forum] as a college student deciding on what to offer his/her professor on any given paper/topic on the JFK subject. Just like the adversarial processes are a necessary element of a 'fair trial' (both Prosecutor & Defense are required to present a case as 'fair' to a jury), David Von Pein's observations & comments are a necessary element of a 'fair' debate. A student turning in a lop-sided paper is likely to have it rejected & handed back by a professor (that professor possibly being you, Jim!).
Is the judicial adversarial process perfect? Nope. I'm still waiting for OJ's prosecutors to present the 'low speed chase' into his murder trial. A televised event I wasted a couple of hours watching on my TV that I'll never get back that somehow was left out of the trial. How did that happen?
David could have just as easily written off the images seen in the Z-film as products of bad photography. Or a faulty camera lens. Or cheap film. Or gremlins that monkey around with stuff in laboratories late in the night. I gave him credit where it looked to me it was due.
As for you, I haven't missed a Len Osanic Black Op radio show featuring you as a guest in the past several years. Len won't interview David. He really should. It would liven up his show. Like you, I'm agnostic on film & photo alterations simply because I have no expertise in that subject. .... I learned early in life not to trust film images. Even today, I check my windows ever so often just in case a giant ape is about to smash through the window & grab me out.
What's always been missing from the narrative is the stories of the technicians who performed the suspected allegations. The folks operating the optical printers & painting stuff on rectangular glass 'cells'. Those folks that did the actual work. What happened to them in 53 years?
I have a question for everyone interested in this thread: How is it that bootleg autopsy images of President Kennedy are taken as genuine? Didn't they all get slipped into the public consciousness by a SS agent? The same SS agency that has been accused of standing down while JFK was slaughtered. The same SS agency that supposedly desecrated JFK's corpse, removed bullets from it & hid it in AF-1's cargo bay? The same SS agency that allegedly shot JFK while acting as his trusted chauffer? The same agency that allegedly shot JFK in the head from behind with an AR-16 military rifle & killed him?
How can anyone trust that particular agency agents with anything tangible if some or all of its agents are guilty of those (and other) high crimes?
The gory JFK autopsy photos presented in this thread all came from questionable sources, yet they have been presented here at EF in this thread as if Moses came down from the mountain with them still smoking. I don't trust any of them. As far as I'm concerned, until the Kennedy family officially releases some or all of JFK's autopsy photos, the public hasn't seen them.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Brad:
I guess I should repeat this: I have seen the Wilkinson's work in its original form.
That makes a large difference. They have a third generation copy of the [Zapruder] film which they then transferred to a four K digital scan.
Having seen that on a large screen, I can tell you that DVP did not even hit a foul ball with that ridiculous Clint Hill comparison. But the point is he did it without consulting the original evidence. The Wilkinsons will show their work to anyone who wants to see it. If DVP was a serious person, which he is not, he would go ahead and call them, and arrange it. He could write it off as a business trip since there are various KFC's near there. Just call one up and go in and look at how it's managed and it's a write off.
But he won't, and I guarantee he will not. Just like he never went to NARA, as he said he would [DVP INTERJECTION: This is a complete lie uttered by DiEugenio; see later text], to prove that Todd's initials are on the Fantasy Bullet. Because that is just not him. He sits back at his desk, surfs around, and then posts anything that fits his fancy. And then when people object, he puts it on his site, but cuts out the last word from our side. Thereby positing a phony argument. I know, I have seen it.
See, it's not enough to post evidence. The important thing is the analysis. As Bob Tanenbaum told me once, you must do a qualitative analysis of each witness you put on and each exhibit you place before the jury. If you do not do that, then any good defense lawyer will blindside you. And he faced some good ones like Barry Scheck. But it was his preparation that made Bob unbeatable. He never lost a murder case, and he was Deputy Chief of Homicide in NYC.
So that is my message to you. Just DVP putting something up and then asking some bombastic question, that is not enough. It's the analysis that matters. In other words, is this really worthy of comparison? Does it really match the original circumstances. In this case, as with his Pat Speer bullet hole comparison, it's not. I mean, you can get many poor copies from the nth generation and say, look see? Recall, the whole imbroglio with the Black and White Z film that went through ten generations and you could see the SS agent shooting Kennedy? Well, that was false. And so was DVP's here.
BRAD MILCH SAID:
Jim,
What you are describing was called 'shuck & jive' in the area I was partially educated at as I grew into a young adult. It's another way of describing when someone who knows better loads a gullible, trusting person with utter BS.
I appreciate the schooling, kind, learned, distinguished & esteemed Good Sir!
PAUL TREJO SAID:
Brad,
I would like to recommend to you the 900-page book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).
[...]
It is my opinion, as well as Jeff Caufield's, that General Walker did lead the Dallas Police to assassinate JFK, and if LHO had killed General Walker, then, yes, JFK would have served eight years.
[...]
As for DVP himself -- I regard him as one of the famous skeptics like the Amazing James Randi -- who go around saying No to everything. DVP sticks close to the Warren Report -- but that door swings both ways. First, most of the WC testimony is true. But also, many WC witnesses contradict DVP, so that he must cover his eyes and his ears while he reads much of it.
Also, DVP keeps the CT community honest. I disagree with DVP's conclusions, but I like the fact that he weeds out our weaklings -- and we have a lot of them.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I know it makes most conspiracy theorists roll their eyes and sigh heavily with boredom whenever I do this, but nevertheless I'm going to post the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book anyway, because (IMO) there is no better reference book to consult than Vincent's "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the many sub-topics associated with the assassination of President Kennedy.
These "RH" excerpts pertain to the topic of "Alleged Zapruder Film Fakery"....
[Quotes On:]
"I want to address one of the craziest allegations that conspiracy buffs have ever latched onto in their efforts to pull the conspiratorial wool over the eyes of gullible people everywhere. The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power — the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film."
Even the zany Garrison would have never believed that the latest big rage in the conspiracy community today is its charge that the film, through alteration, is a forgery, created by photographic experts (hired by the "conspirators") in an effort to conceal the truth about the shooting in Dallas and frame Oswald.
Can you imagine that, folks? The deliriously wacky conspiracy buffs are now claiming that the Zapruder film itself, the film of the assassination, is a hoax, a fraud, a forgery. What's next? Kennedy is still alive in a suite on the top floor of Parkland Hospital? G. Gordon Liddy was the grassy knoll assassin? Oswald was, as rumored, Ruby's illegitimate son? Just stay tuned to the buffs' wacko network.
[...]
One would think the "alterationists" (the name applied to those in the conspiracy community who believe the Zapruder film was altered) would have a difficult time with the fact that the Zapruder film shows that the back of the president's head always looks intact (negating the conspiracy position that there was a large exit wound to the rear of the president's head) and also shows a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head (validating the Warren Commission's and HSCA's position that the head wound shot came from the president's rear, not the grassy knoll). But where there's a will there's a way.
Alterationist David Lifton, while conceding "it wasn't easy" for the conspirator-forgers of the film to do it, claims that they "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal the large exit wound, and "painted on" what looked like a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head. But Lifton offers no evidence to support his absolutely incredible allegation, nor is he troubled in the least, apparently, by the fact that Zapruder testified that while viewing the motorcade through his telephoto lens he saw the right side of the president's head open up and "blood and everything" come out.
[...]
The list of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and anomalies seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of amateur Internet-based film experts who take up the challenge of finding the "proof of conspiracy" that they believe is imbedded somewhere in the frames of Zapruder's film, just waiting to be extracted, like DNA from a crime scene.
Most of this thoughtless nonsense is sold on the strength of what is theoretically possible today using modern computer technology. However, twenty-first-century technology is hardly a measuring stick for events that allegedly occurred more than four decades ago. In fact, there is nothing simple about the kinds of wholesale changes that are alleged to have been made during the course of altering the Zapruder film, even with today's technology.
[...]
Since the alleged conspirators couldn't have known at the time that it was Zapruder's film, not any of the many others, that they had to seize because it was the only one that captured the entire assassination sequence, their only going after his film makes absolutely no sense. If we're to govern our reasoning on this issue by common sense, the above reality, all by itself, would tell any reasonable person that the Zapruder film was not altered.
Another reason why it's obvious the Zapruder film was not altered is that, as we know, at the very heart of nearly all conspiracy arguments is the contention that the fatal shot to the president's head came from the grassy knoll to the president's right front, not from the right rear where Oswald was. We also know that the head snap to the rear has convinced Americans more than any other thing that, indeed, the head shot came from the president's front, and this, without an explanation, exonerates Oswald at least as to the fatal shot.
Since the whole alleged purpose of the forgery of the Zapruder film, per the conspiracy theorists, was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman and conceal the truth from the American public (the truth, per the buffs, being that the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll), if there were one thing, and one thing only that the forgers would have altered, they would have altered the Zapruder film to make it look like Kennedy's head had been violently thrust forward (indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was), not backward, as the film shows.
Instead, if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists, the conspirator-forgers decided to alter everything else in the film, including the height of a spectator, but not the most important thing of all, the head snap to the rear. Leading alterationist Dr. David Mantik claims that the conspirator-forgers excised frames that he said would have shown "tissue debris" from Kennedy's head going backward. "Backward going debris would have been overwhelming evidence of a frontal shot (or shots) and would have posed too serious a threat to the official story of only posterior [from the rear] shots."
But if the forgers would delete the backward movement of the spray, they all the more so would want to delete the much more visible head snap to the rear.
[...]
The original Zapruder film was proved to have been shot using Zapruder's camera, which effectively eliminates the alterationist argument that the film is actually a forgery of selected frames created by using an optical printer. In 1998, at the request of the ARRB, Roland J. Zavada, the retired standards director for imaging technologies at Kodak, and Kodak's preeminent 8-millimeter film expert, analyzed the "out-of-camera" original film (i.e., the actual film that Zapruder had loaded into his camera on November 22, 1963), several first-generation copies, and a number of prints of the Zapruder film, as well as the actual Bell & Howell camera used by Zapruder to create the film.
Edge print codes embedded in the original film show that the film was manufactured in 1961 at Kodak in Rochester, New York, and processed (i.e., developed) in November 1963, both of which are very strong indications that the film being examined was, indeed, the original film. The processing number 0183, perforated vertically along the width of the film (a common practice used to match up processed films with customer orders), was traced to the Kodak developing laboratory in Dallas where Zapruder took his film to be processed.
The link between the processing number (0183) and Zapruder's film was confirmed by the technicians involved in the developing process, and proves that the Zapruder film, as we know it, was developed in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and not at some other time and place after alterations had been made.
Further, Zavada concluded that whatever "anomalies" there were in the Zapruder film "can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of [Zapruder's] Bell & Howell 414 PD Camera."
[...]
Even hypothetically assuming that a forgery were possible, the forgers would have had to alter the original Zapruder film before any copies were made, since an altered copy could immediately be exposed as a fraud when it was compared with the original. But we know from the record that Abraham Zapruder kept the original film in his possession until it was sold to Life magazine on Saturday, November 23, 1963, which means, of course, that no one could have altered the film before then. Yet by that time, multiple copies of the film were already in the hands of the Secret Service and the FBI, both of whom were, in turn, making second- and third-generation copies for their files.
Or do the alterationists want us to believe that the "conspirators" altered the original film after these second- and third-generation copies had been made? But in that case, any one of the copies could expose the fact that the original had been altered.
The fact that each of the many copies of the Zapruder film matches all others as well as the original film proves beyond any doubt that no alterations were made.
[...]
Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.”
Burgess tells of the enormous complexity, and ultimate futility, of such an endeavor. He writes, “Any attempted modification would necessitate [as Lifton says] the enlargement of the film to 35 mm (to maintain clarity, and reduce changes in color saturation and balance, contrast, and grain), various types of optical printing with traveling mattes, and then reduction back to 8 mm. The conspirators would have to begin by rear-projecting each frame onto the back of an animator’s drawing table and tracing each successive frame of Kennedy onto a piece of paper. This is known as rotoscoping . . . Then an animator would have to animate the ‘blob’ by drawing it onto the successive rotoscoped images of Kennedy’s head. These drawings would then be transferred to animation cels and painted. The area around the painted wound on each cel would then be painted black. Another set of cels would then be copied, but with the wound painted black and the rest of the cel clear. These images would then be filmed with an animation camera onto two sets of film, one with the wound surrounded by black (film 1) and the other with a black blob floating in mid-air on clear film (film 2). This is a traveling matte. Next the Zapruder film enlargement would be run through an optical printer with film 2 on top in correct frame register, producing film 3. This film would show a black hole where the wound should be. Film 3 would then be rewound and film 1 (the wound surrounded by black) would be run through the printer exposing film 3 again. Since black does not expose the film, the surrounding black of film 1 wouldn’t expose the already exposed Zapruder film and, if the copying of the cels was done exactly and the job was done properly on a high quality optical printer, the painted wound would fit right into the unexposed hole in film 3 like a moving jigsaw puzzle piece. Film 3 is reduced back to 8 mm and there you have it: faked Zapruder film.”
“Unfortunately,” Burgess writes, “this would and could never work, for a number of important reasons.” He goes on to give several independent reasons, just one of which being the poor quality of the image to start with resulting in a final version that would be “so murky as to be almost useless, even with fine grain, low contrast 35 mm masters and specialized color duping film, a new development in 1963.”
He then goes on to discuss “the problem of registration,” keeping each frame in the same relative position. He writes that “it was easy . . . to describe the process of rotoscoping and optical printing, but it would have been impossible for anyone to have been able to maintain perfect registration of the [fake] wound on the head. Without perfect registration the wound would move around on the head, as if it weren’t attached. This goes for movement in all three dimensions. Not only would the animated [fake] wound have to move back and forth and up and down in perfect synchronization with Kennedy’s head, but it would also have to shift with changes in depth and angle; it would have to show foreshortening in exact calibration with Kennedy’s head movements. This is impossible since even a half a grain’s shift would cut the animated wound free of Kennedy’s head and make it look like some grotesque free-floating balloon. In the film, the wound is firmly part of Kennedy’s head. Indeed, part of the flap in front actually flops about in reaction to the violence of Kennedy’s head movements. Such virtually invisible ‘finessing’ in a process already unbelievably complex is simply impossible.” ('Fourth Decade', September 1994, pp.5–7)"
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Pages 504-511 and Pages 350-351 of Endnotes)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey kept on saying he was going to NARA to prove John [Hunt] was wrong.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I never said anything of the kind. I have never once EVER said I was planning to make a trip to the National Archives and Records Administration.
DiEugenio is making up crap from whole cloth.
In fact, in the discussion linked here, I even made fun of Jim for suggesting that I could have just walked right into NARA and demanded to see CE399. (Hilarious notion there.)
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey once said he was going to NARA. And he was going to prove John Hunt was wrong by finding Elmer Lee Todd's initials on CE 399.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bull. Such a thing never happened. I never ever made any such statement or comment about planning to go to NARA. DiEugenio, as I said, is just inventing crap out of thin air. Please stop doing that, Jim. Okay?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Hooey, yes you did.
Ok, so just drop it.
It was just your usual gassy utterances from a professional bloviator.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nope. Never happened. Your imagination is just running rampant (as always).
REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But has anyone even bothered to look at the intensity of the "blackness" of Clint Hill's head when examining the "Wilkinson scan" of the Zapruder Film?
In other words, when viewing the Wilkinson HD scan, has anyone performed the type of comparison like the one I did on a lower-quality version of the Z-Film (comparing Clint Hill's head to JFK's head) to see whether or not the "black" levels are the same or totally different in shading and intensity?
If such a direct "Hill vs. JFK" comparison hasn't been done for that Wilkinson material, and if nobody has even paid any attention to Clint Hill in the Wilkinson scan (has anyone?), then how can we know that Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct when he said this recently: "I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else"?
Now, to be fair, maybe somebody has done a direct comparison of Clint Hill's head with President Kennedy's in the "Wilkinson scan". I don't know for sure. That's why I asked.
But even if someone has done such a comparison and has concluded that a "black patch" has definitely been artificially placed over the back of JFK's head in many frames of the Zapruder home movie, I still wonder how those CTers can explain the fact that high-quality autopsy photos of JFK's head (like the one below) pretty much prove, via the presence of individual hairs that are visible in the right-rear section of the head, that President Kennedy most certainly did not have a huge gaping hole in the back of his head when he was on the autopsy table at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of 11/22/63....because there most certainly is not a "black patch" over the back of JFK's head in this autopsy photograph:
IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
According to Greg Parker, he will have some very interesting revelations about the Paines in his upcoming Volume 3 of his series on Oswald.
PAUL TREJO SAID:
OMG, not more Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, Paul, there's always some "very interesting revelation" lurking just around the corner, according to Jim DiEugenio.
Just like early last year, when James made this bold assertion with respect to the debate about Oswald's Postal Money Order....
"Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing." -- Jimmy D.; January 8, 2016
The end result of the above "blazing guns" of Armstrong was ..... absolutely nothing (AFAIK).
And David Lifton's "Final Charade" is supposedly going to be the next big "bombshell" book on the JFK case, hammering the final nails in the Warren Commission coffin. As if every last piece of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt is going to suddenly go sliding down the drain because of Mr. Lifton's persistent efforts. If he can manage that trick, then he's a miracle worker.
David Von Pein
February 29, 2016
February 13-19, 2017
March 21, 2017
