Discussion:
Z 317 There is no hole in the back of the head
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2018-04-18 01:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.google.ca/search?q=zapruder+frame+317&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiil4zllMDaAhUGPN8KHagiA7QQ_AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=526#imgrc=ayEElgq8CW1tZM:
Ace Kefford
2018-04-19 00:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
bigdog
2018-04-20 02:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
mainframetech
2018-04-21 04:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-22 00:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.
You are fond of saying you don't dismiss evidence and you usually tell us
that either right before or right after you dismiss evidence. In this case
you told us that right before you dismissed the Z-film.
mainframetech
2018-04-23 02:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.
You are fond of saying you don't dismiss evidence and you usually tell us
that either right before or right after you dismiss evidence. In this case
you told us that right before you dismissed the Z-film.
I DO NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE. But I may use it differently than you. I
DO NOT DISMISS the Z-film either, because it's such a good piece of
evidence for alteration.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-04-23 20:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.
You are fond of saying you don't dismiss evidence and you usually tell us
that either right before or right after you dismiss evidence. In this case
you told us that right before you dismissed the Z-film.
I DO NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE. But I may use it differently than you. I
DO NOT DISMISS the Z-film either, because it's such a good piece of
evidence for alteration.
Chris
But, but, Anthony Anthony proved the Z-file wasn't altered.
bigdog
2018-04-24 01:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.
You are fond of saying you don't dismiss evidence and you usually tell us
that either right before or right after you dismiss evidence. In this case
you told us that right before you dismissed the Z-film.
I DO NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE. But I may use it differently than you. I
DO NOT DISMISS the Z-film either, because it's such a good piece of
evidence for alteration.
Which is nothing more than your excuse for dismissing what it shows.
mainframetech
2018-04-25 21:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
WRONG! Once again you are purveying disinformation. I do NOT dismiss
evidence, though I may use it differently than you. The alteration of the
Z-film is proof of a conspiracy, only an idiot would pass up such good
proof.
You are fond of saying you don't dismiss evidence and you usually tell us
that either right before or right after you dismiss evidence. In this case
you told us that right before you dismissed the Z-film.
I DO NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE. But I may use it differently than you. I
DO NOT DISMISS the Z-film either, because it's such a good piece of
evidence for alteration.
Which is nothing more than your excuse for dismissing what it shows.
REPEAT: I DO NOT DISMISS EVIDENCE. It all has a use at some point,
even the fakes. And the Z-film is such a good piece of evidence of
fakery.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-04-21 14:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
Like most of the buffs he displays a kind of black blot in his logic path
when it comes to viewing and assessing evidence and witness statements.
For thosse buffs, anything that supposedly favors the buff's theory is
good, solid evidence, while anything that refutes the buff's theory is not
seen, not definite, altered or ignore. You can't beat that system.
mainframetech
2018-04-23 02:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Then there is Chris's tactic of claiming the Z-film was altered which is
his excuse to dismiss it. It's his way of dealing with all inconvenient
evidence.
Like most of the buffs he displays a kind of black blot in his logic path
when it comes to viewing and assessing evidence and witness statements.
For thosse buffs, anything that supposedly favors the buff's theory is
good, solid evidence, while anything that refutes the buff's theory is not
seen, not definite, altered or ignore. You can't beat that system.
Not much evidence there. Nothing to debate.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-04-20 02:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Good guess, but it seems clear enough to realize that there is a black
blot right where the 'large hole' is, and it continues through more
frames. It covers the hole nicely so that it looks like shadow!

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-21 04:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Good guess, but it seems clear enough to realize that there is a black
blot right where the 'large hole' is, and it continues through more
frames. It covers the hole nicely so that it looks like shadow!
So you don't think a large hole would show up at all if it is in shadow.
Note that Jackie's face is also in shadow yet it contrasts clearly with
her dark hair. Why would you think if a large portion of the BOH had been
blown out we wouldn't be able to see the blood and brains.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-22 00:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Good guess, but it seems clear enough to realize that there is a black
blot right where the 'large hole' is, and it continues through more
frames. It covers the hole nicely so that it looks like shadow!
So you don't think a large hole would show up at all if it is in shadow.
WHat shadow? Show me. A large hole does not show up in the Moorman photo.
Post by bigdog
Note that Jackie's face is also in shadow yet it contrasts clearly with
her dark hair. Why would you think if a large portion of the BOH had been
blown out we wouldn't be able to see the blood and brains.
mainframetech
2018-04-22 00:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Good guess, but it seems clear enough to realize that there is a black
blot right where the 'large hole' is, and it continues through more
frames. It covers the hole nicely so that it looks like shadow!
So you don't think a large hole would show up at all if it is in shadow.
Note that Jackie's face is also in shadow yet it contrasts clearly with
her dark hair. Why would you think if a large portion of the BOH had been
blown out we wouldn't be able to see the blood and brains.
A face is almost white, blood and brains would be darker. But there
is a black blot there, and not very well done either.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-20 18:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Good point. But don't be surprised if the buffs who can see all kinds of
things in the pixels suddenly take the opposite tack and say it's not
clear enough to be certain.
Irony Alert! (copyright 2016 John McAdams)

It is the WC defenders who see dancing pixels in the Hughes film and
claim that it shows Oswald shooting from the sniper's nest.

Have you ever done any pixel drawings? No. You know nothing about pixels.


But back to your subject line, first you have to accept the fact that the
Zapruder film is authentic. Did you prove that it is? No. Who proved that
for you, because you were too lazy to do it? As the one who actually
proved it, I can tell you that there is no hole in the back of the head.
Why do you think there has to be one? Because you know nothing about head
wounds?
Amy Joyce
2018-04-21 04:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.

Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=zapruder+frame+317&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiil4zllMDaAhUGPN8KHagiA7QQ_AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=526#imgrc=wvTtajxoKWk7nM:
bigdog
2018-04-22 00:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
mainframetech
2018-04-23 02:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.

Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-04-23 20:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.

Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-25 01:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
    Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
     Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake
piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color.  Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Well, in all real cases of alteration some should be real which some are
fake.
Post by Jason Burke
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
Ace Kefford
2018-04-25 22:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
The alterationists have a great thing going. Not only do they get to pick
and choose what evidence is real and what evidence is altered based on no
objective criteria but simply on what they want to believe is real or
altered, but also which parts of the otherwise real evidence are altered.

And then of course comes the next step of "interpreting" the evidence that
they claim is not altered.

Finally, although I might be skipping some steps, is making up a fanciful
story that covers all of their interpretations of their favored evidence
or parts of evidence no matter how unlikely or more often impossible that
story is in the real world, while of course omitting the mountains of
evidence that show their tale does not reflect reality.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-27 00:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Jason Burke
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
The alterationists have a great thing going. Not only do they get to pick
and choose what evidence is real and what evidence is altered based on no
objective criteria but simply on what they want to believe is real or
altered, but also which parts of the otherwise real evidence are altered.
And then of course comes the next step of "interpreting" the evidence that
they claim is not altered.
Finally, although I might be skipping some steps, is making up a fanciful
story that covers all of their interpretations of their favored evidence
or parts of evidence no matter how unlikely or more often impossible that
story is in the real world, while of course omitting the mountains of
evidence that show their tale does not reflect reality.
Yes, that's exactly how they approach it. Not all; but the general
approach is to follow that pattern. This is how conspiracists approach
every event, not just the JFK assassination. It's the same pattern with
9/11 and Pearl Harbor (e.g., the claim that FDR allowed it to happen), et
cetera.

Humes is both a conspirator - he altered the wounds - and someone who
revealed the conspiracy - he was heard mentioning the surgery (that he
performed!) on the head. The x-rays and photos are faked but they reveal
the frontal shot. The FBI covered things up but also revealed in the
Sibert/O'Neill report that same conspiracy that altered the wounds. The Z
film shows a shot from the front but also shows alteration; it's both
legitimate and illegitimate.

Up is up but also, when needed, down; and down is down but also, when
necessary, up.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-28 00:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Jason Burke
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
The alterationists have a great thing going. Not only do they get to pick
and choose what evidence is real and what evidence is altered based on no
objective criteria but simply on what they want to believe is real or
altered, but also which parts of the otherwise real evidence are altered.
And then of course comes the next step of "interpreting" the evidence that
they claim is not altered.
Finally, although I might be skipping some steps, is making up a fanciful
story that covers all of their interpretations of their favored evidence
or parts of evidence no matter how unlikely or more often impossible that
story is in the real world, while of course omitting the mountains of
evidence that show their tale does not reflect reality.
Yes, that's exactly how they approach it. Not all; but the general
approach is to follow that pattern. This is how conspiracists approach
every event, not just the JFK assassination. It's the same pattern with
9/11 and Pearl Harbor (e.g., the claim that FDR allowed it to happen), et
cetera.
Humes is both a conspirator - he altered the wounds - and someone who
revealed the conspiracy - he was heard mentioning the surgery (that he
performed!) on the head. The x-rays and photos are faked but they reveal
the frontal shot. The FBI covered things up but also revealed in the
Sibert/O'Neill report that same conspiracy that altered the wounds. The Z
film shows a shot from the front but also shows alteration; it's both
legitimate and illegitimate.
Up is up but also, when needed, down; and down is down but also, when
necessary, up.
Silly. You are conflating.
mainframetech
2018-04-29 00:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by Jason Burke
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Chris
So parts is fake and parts is real.
Good thing we have Chris to sort all of this out for us.
The alterationists have a great thing going. Not only do they get to pick
and choose what evidence is real and what evidence is altered based on no
objective criteria but simply on what they want to believe is real or
altered, but also which parts of the otherwise real evidence are altered.
And then of course comes the next step of "interpreting" the evidence that
they claim is not altered.
Finally, although I might be skipping some steps, is making up a fanciful
story that covers all of their interpretations of their favored evidence
or parts of evidence no matter how unlikely or more often impossible that
story is in the real world, while of course omitting the mountains of
evidence that show their tale does not reflect reality.
Yes, that's exactly how they approach it. Not all; but the general
approach is to follow that pattern. This is how conspiracists approach
every event, not just the JFK assassination. It's the same pattern with
9/11 and Pearl Harbor (e.g., the claim that FDR allowed it to happen), et
cetera.
As a proud CT, I'm here to put that falsity to bed. I found that the
white blob in the photo in question was Jackie's glove.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Humes is both a conspirator - he altered the wounds - and someone who
revealed the conspiracy - he was heard mentioning the surgery (that he
performed!) on the head.
I'll have to clear up your errors here too. Humes was NOT a
conspirator. He was a military person that HAD to follow orders, as long
as he was given a good excuse for them, and there is such an excuse. He
also did NOT "reveal" any conspiracy, he simply tried half jokingly to
distance himself from the work he had done himself, so that the
clandestine work wouldn't be obvious. Either he got away with it, or no
one called him on it.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The x-rays and photos are faked but they reveal
the frontal shot.
Yet another error! Many of the 'leaked' autopsy photos were OBVIOUSLY
faked or altered to fool the onlookers. The bullet hole that got through
in one photo was missed by the person filtering the photos and X-rays to
remove any proofs of plotting or multiple shooters. Surely when hiding
proof of multiple shooters that photo would have been left out or altered
too, but it wasn't because it was missed. Even the medical panels missed
that evidence.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The FBI covered things up but also revealed in the
Sibert/O'Neill report that same conspiracy that altered the wounds.
There were many individuals in the FBI in Dallas on this case. Some
were involved in covering up any sign of multiple shooters. Sibert and
O'Neill were not covering up any such situations. They reported what they
saw and heard, as best we can tell.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The Z
film shows a shot from the front but also shows alteration; it's both
legitimate and illegitimate.
How did you determine that the Z-film shows a frontal shot? The
'official' report says it was from behind. And the film does indeed show
alteration, frames missing at the critical point so the slowdown to almost
a stop doesn't show as obviously, and changes in the stances of some of
the people on the midfield grass. Did you bother to check the evidence
videos of these proofs? Doubtful. Here they are again for you:




Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Up is up but also, when needed, down; and down is down but also, when
necessary, up.
The usual opinions that count for nothing. Use evidence and proofs.
Choose an example and speak to it, not in general, which is a method to
avoid being argued with.

Chris
Steve BH
2018-05-06 00:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
As a proud CT, I'm here to put that falsity to bed. I found that the
white blob in the photo in question was Jackie's glove.
Yeah? You can see both Jackie's hands in 325 and 326, and neither one of
them is the white blob on JFK's head, which you can also see.

So explain that, genius.
mainframetech
2018-05-06 23:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
As a proud CT, I'm here to put that falsity to bed. I found that the
white blob in the photo in question was Jackie's glove.
Yeah? You can see both Jackie's hands in 325 and 326, and neither one of
them is the white blob on JFK's head, which you can also see.
So explain that, genius.
Well, I see her right arm out of the limo behind JFK waving in the air
with a white glove on, and her left hand in his lap, but a bit darker,
possibly from blood coloring it.

Of course, the film is a bit blurry, but that's what I see.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-24 01:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
mainframetech
2018-04-25 21:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different then you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull, which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-26 17:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different then you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.

Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-27 22:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different then you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Excellent. Paint can detect things that the human eye can't.
It can even see 50 shades of grey.
BOZ
2018-04-29 00:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different then you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Excellent. Paint can detect things that the human eye can't.
It can even see 50 shades of grey.
I SAW 50 SHADES OF GREY. I COULD NOT BELIEVE MY EYES. TERRIBLE MOVIE.
mainframetech
2018-04-29 00:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-29 22:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
mainframetech
2018-05-01 02:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.

There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-02 04:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
mainframetech
2018-05-03 01:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.

I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
hole in the BOH, and who drew a picture of where the hole was in the BOH:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-04 12:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
Then don't the conspirators also have to alter all the other films to
match what you think is an altered Zapruder film? Even films they did
not know about at the time? They have to travel back in time to alter
the Bronson film?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
You mean after the brain had been removed? They had to remove SOME skull
bone to remove the brain.
Post by mainframetech
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-04 13:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-05 01:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Because those were at 2 different times. Before the autopsy and then
after. Maybe you don't realize it, but the skull fell apart when the
autopsy doctors unwrapped the head. They had to remove pieces of the skull
to take the brain out.
mainframetech
2018-05-05 14:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-06 01:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.
What this illustrates is how unreliable witnesses are by themselves. There
are so many varied placements of the blowout yet you want to assume that
the ones who placed it in the rear are correct. Other witnesses have
placed it higher and on the right side. I don't rely solely on witnesses
to figure out where the blowout was. You do that and you cherry pick the
ones you choose to believe. We have films, photos, and x-rays to tell us
definitively where the blowout was and it was on the upper right side of
the head. Exactly where the Z-film shows it. Exactly where Zapruder and
Newman placed it. Exactly where the AR placed it. Exactly where the leaked
photos and x-rays place it. Exactly where the review panels who saw the
original photos and x-rays placed it.
mainframetech
2018-05-06 23:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.
What this illustrates is how unreliable witnesses are by themselves. There
are so many varied placements of the blowout yet you want to assume that
the ones who placed it in the rear are correct. Other witnesses have
placed it higher and on the right side. I don't rely solely on witnesses
to figure out where the blowout was. You do that and you cherry pick the
ones you choose to believe. We have films, photos, and x-rays to tell us
definitively where the blowout was and it was on the upper right side of
the head. Exactly where the Z-film shows it. Exactly where Zapruder and
Newman placed it. Exactly where the AR placed it. Exactly where the leaked
photos and x-rays place it. Exactly where the review panels who saw the
original photos and x-rays placed it.
You have to start dealing with real world circumstances here. In
determining the cause of death, I used physical information first, such as
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area (you know, the one you can't
see) which showed a shot probably from a rifle. This implied that there
would be a large exit hole at the BOH, which proved to be true when over
39 witnesses saw that blowout. And what did YOU use when you were reading
the WCR? Faith?

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-08 01:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.
What this illustrates is how unreliable witnesses are by themselves. There
are so many varied placements of the blowout yet you want to assume that
the ones who placed it in the rear are correct. Other witnesses have
placed it higher and on the right side. I don't rely solely on witnesses
to figure out where the blowout was. You do that and you cherry pick the
ones you choose to believe. We have films, photos, and x-rays to tell us
definitively where the blowout was and it was on the upper right side of
the head. Exactly where the Z-film shows it. Exactly where Zapruder and
Newman placed it. Exactly where the AR placed it. Exactly where the leaked
photos and x-rays place it. Exactly where the review panels who saw the
original photos and x-rays placed it.
You have to start dealing with real world circumstances here. In
determining the cause of death, I used physical information first, such as
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area (you know, the one you can't
see) which showed a shot probably from a rifle. This implied that there
would be a large exit hole at the BOH, which proved to be true when over
39 witnesses saw that blowout. And what did YOU use when you were reading
the WCR? Faith?
So you started with your desired conclusion and worked backward.
mainframetech
2018-05-08 23:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.
What this illustrates is how unreliable witnesses are by themselves. There
are so many varied placements of the blowout yet you want to assume that
the ones who placed it in the rear are correct. Other witnesses have
placed it higher and on the right side. I don't rely solely on witnesses
to figure out where the blowout was. You do that and you cherry pick the
ones you choose to believe. We have films, photos, and x-rays to tell us
definitively where the blowout was and it was on the upper right side of
the head. Exactly where the Z-film shows it. Exactly where Zapruder and
Newman placed it. Exactly where the AR placed it. Exactly where the leaked
photos and x-rays place it. Exactly where the review panels who saw the
original photos and x-rays placed it.
You have to start dealing with real world circumstances here. In
determining the cause of death, I used physical information first, such as
the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area (you know, the one you can't
see) which showed a shot probably from a rifle. This implied that there
would be a large exit hole at the BOH, which proved to be true when over
39 witnesses saw that blowout. And what did YOU use when you were reading
the WCR? Faith?
So you started with your desired conclusion and worked backward.
As usual, you failed to answer the question. The WCR sold you a bill
of goods, and you bought it all hook, line and sinker. It even had you
spouting what you tried to call 'evidence' that proved nothing.

Chris

Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Thank you for pointing out the dark spot with no contrast within it,
making it a more likely film addition to cover the real large hole in the
BOH seen by Over 39 eyewitnesses.
So you are dismissing what the film shows.
Careful, you're getting ridiculous again! Your interpretation of the
what the film shows, differs from what I see in the film. That is not
dismissal, just different opinions.
You don't accept what the film shows. You claim it is a fake. That is a
dismissal.
WRONG! That is a different interpretation of what is seen by all.
If it is a fake, then we need the evidence so that we can more easily
prove the fake.
There is no evidence the film is a fake. It is all supposition by you to
give you and excuse to dismiss it.
WRONG as usual! There is evidence the Z-film is altered to show
certain things, including to shorten the time that Greer stopped the limo
during the shooting.
There are witnesses and independent analyses showing that the z-film is
altered. And there are hundreds of pages of proof in volume 4 of 5 by
Douglas Horne called "Inside the ARRB".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although we must also consider that the white item is a fake piece of
bone they put in the film at that point, and Jackie's hand can be seen as
a light tan color. Not easy to tell in that photo.
Of course. Dream up all kinds of imaginary modifications to the film
because that film shoots down just about everything you choose to believe.
Since this valuable piece of evidence is in direct conflict with your core
beliefs, you choose to believe it is the evidence that is fraudulent
rather than entertain the possibility that it is your beliefs that need
modification.
Try and listen to yourself making such a silly argument! I looked at
the things that Amy put forward and I see something different than you or
her. I see a white something that reminds me of a fake bone from the
skull,
We are all well aware of the fact you see many things that don't exist.
As do you, having proved it just now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which should be at least a bit pink from having been lately in the
head under the scalp, and over the brain. Yet it's a bright white, while
Jackie's hand is a light tan color. That's what I see. And what I see is
no more or less important than what you see.
It is hardly bright white but the portion that does appear bright is a
product of the midday sun shining directly down on it. Since this happened
in November, the sun would be high in the southern sky at that time of
day. That bone flap is sticking out and it is catching rays that are not
shining directly on the right side of the head.
Either way you look at it, the hand will be light tan, as most
Caucasian people's hands are. If they were white, even in the sun, the
person would be dead or have some other malady.
I've been referencing the frame posted in the OP. That is a bone flap on
the side of JFK's head. The later frame which I believe you posted also
shows that bone flap but Jackie's white glove is visible beyond the top of
JFK's head as he begins to fall to his left.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Just for grins I copied frame 317 into Photoshop and clicked on that
bright spot with the eyedropper to determine the color of it. It is
definitely a very pale pink. The hue values are 230 red, 202 green, and
196 blue. By comparison, a perfectly white spot would have a value of 255
for all three hues.
Forget it. I solved it by checking following frames. Jackie is
wearing white gloves. So any pink you were seeing might be film
distortion of some kind. I doubt she was wearing a pink shaded pair of
gloves.
There is no film distortion. The bone flap is clearly visible in every
frame following the head shot until JFK disappears from view. It could not
be more obvious. Amazing a guy who sees bullet holes that aren't present
can't see the obvious flap of skull hanging down on the right side of
JFK's head, hinged just above the ear. This is the same bone flap seen by
Zapruder through his viewfinder and Newman with his naked eye.
Jackie is not wearing pink gloves. Her gloves are white as was the
protocol in 1963. The bone flap is seen in the photo, but was altered
into the film.
Amazing how you put absolute faith in witnesses claiming Z-film alteration
yet you dismiss two of the closest witnesses to JFK when the headshot
struck who describe seeing the same thing the Z-film shows. That would be
Zapruder and Newman. Zapruder described that on live TV before his film
was ever developed so he couldn't have been influenced by what the Z-film
later revealed. At about the 0:50 mark he puts his hand to the SIDE of his
head and describes JFK's head opening up, exactly what the Z-film shows.
You seem easily amazed. I don't put "absolute faith" in the Z-film
alteration like you put it into the WCR theories and narrative. I use
facts and common sense and witnesses and such to determine what I think.
Are we supposed to take you seriously when you tell us that?
Post by mainframetech
I believe witnesses that were under no stress and seeing form CLOSE
positions. Here's an example from someone that was closer than almost
anyone in the case, Tom Robinson, mortician, who helped fill the large
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
Why do you suppose he put the hole dead center while all your other
witnesses had it to the right?
Here you go again! Swearing to everyone that witnesses will not
exactly match each other, and when it happens in reality, you can't take
it and start making complaints. Face it, you complain only when you don't
like the outcome.
What this illustrates is how unreliable witnesses are by themselves. There
are so many varied placements of the blowout yet you want to assume that
the ones who placed it in the rear are correct. Other witnesses have
placed it higher and on the right side. I don't rely solely on witnesses
to figure out where the blowout was. You do that and you cherry pick the
ones you choose to believe. We have films, photos, and x-rays to tell us
definitively where the blowout was and it was on the upper right side of
the head. Exactly where the Z-film shows it. Exactly where Zapruder and
Newman placed it. Exactly where the AR placed it. Exactly where the leaked
photos and x-rays place it. Exactly where the review panels who saw the
original photos and x-rays placed it.
The blowout is not a bullet hole. It is a piece of skull bone sticking
out.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-23 16:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
A shadow doesn't turn everything in it pitch black. It simply darkens
whatever it is cast over but there is still contrast between items of
differing color. Note that Jackie's face is in shadow but it contrasts
with her dark hair. Likewise if there had been a gaping hole in the back
of JFK's head, the blood and brain would contrast against his hair.
Which photo do you want us to look at? Be specific. If you don't know
how to use a browser, go visit your local grammar school and ask for
some help.
Steve BH
2018-04-24 21:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
Wrong. You can see her left arm through a flap of JFK's hair. You can see
through loose hair.
mainframetech
2018-04-26 01:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
Wrong. You can see her left arm through a flap of JFK's hair. You can see
through loose hair.
Here's one of the images of the scene we're talking about:

Loading Image...

Note Jackie's arm ad follow it from her shoulder through to the hand,
and you should come out at the light tan hand on JFK. Higher up on his
head is a white blob, which I believe is a fake put there to show a bullet
exited from other than the BOH.


Here's another photo where you can follow the arm down to where the
hand should be, and the white blob is just sort of attached to the side of
the head:

Loading Image...

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-27 00:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
Wrong. You can see her left arm through a flap of JFK's hair. You can see
through loose hair.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1st-of-4-640x448.jpg
Note Jackie's arm ad follow it from her shoulder through to the hand,
and you should come out at the light tan hand on JFK. Higher up on his
head is a white blob, which I believe is a fake put there to show a bullet
exited from other than the BOH.
What you call a white blob is nothing more than the sunlight reflecting
off the interior of the bone flap. Note that the left side of Jackie's
pink suit also appears white due to the fact it is in direct sunlight.
Post by mainframetech
Here's another photo where you can follow the arm down to where the
hand should be, and the white blob is just sort of attached to the side of
http://jfkhistory.com/328.png
Again, this is nothing more than sunlight reflecting off the inside of the
bone flap. Your level of analysis is on par with those who convinced
themselves that the sunlight reflecting off Kellerman's head was in fact a
pistol in the hand of Greer. Haven't hear anyone promoting that one lately
but it is the same kind of nonsense.
mainframetech
2018-04-29 00:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by Amy Joyce
Most of the time we can't see the back of the head to determine the
damage. Either a dark shadow or "black marker" covers it up. Seeing that
the darkness extends past the side of the head at various points we know
that one or the other is so dark we shouldn't expect to see anything.
However at one point after the head shot Jackie's white glove (on her left
hand, located on the other side of him) can be seen through his head.
Obviously we shouldn't be able to see the glove through his head if there
wasn't a hole there!
Wrong. You can see her left arm through a flap of JFK's hair. You can see
through loose hair.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1st-of-4-640x448.jpg
Note Jackie's arm ad follow it from her shoulder through to the hand,
and you should come out at the light tan hand on JFK. Higher up on his
head is a white blob, which I believe is a fake put there to show a bullet
exited from other than the BOH.
What you call a white blob is nothing more than the sunlight reflecting
off the interior of the bone flap. Note that the left side of Jackie's
pink suit also appears white due to the fact it is in direct sunlight.
Go check again. Following frames show that Jackie is wearing white gloves. The white blob on top of JFK's head must be a glove.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's another photo where you can follow the arm down to where the
hand should be, and the white blob is just sort of attached to the side of
http://jfkhistory.com/328.png
Again, this is nothing more than sunlight reflecting off the inside of the
bone flap. Your level of analysis is on par with those who convinced
themselves that the sunlight reflecting off Kellerman's head was in fact a
pistol in the hand of Greer. Haven't hear anyone promoting that one lately
but it is the same kind of nonsense.
As to nonsense, yours just now is a good example. See above.

Chris
Loading...