Saturday, February 28, 2015

Here is the shadow cast by a window frame.

You see that it's the same shape as the window frame itself, right?

OK, very well. Then, why is it that the window frame next to Jackie's hand is casting such an odd-shaped shadow that is totally not in keeping with its own shape?

Anyone? Anyone? Ain't Physics fun? 

Notice how the shadows are being cast to our left on the spectators on the far side. And it was actually very close to high noon. Officially, it was, what, maybe 12:20? But, Dallas is in the Central Time Zone which is based on the meridian that passes through New Orleans. So, Dallas keeps New Orleans time. And being east of Dallas, the sun reaches New Orleans before it reaches Dallas, as it sweeps its way across the sky from east to west. (Psst. I know it's the Earth that's really moving.) So, the result is that High Noon occurs earlier in New Orleans than it does in Dallas, so when it's Noon in New Orleans, it's really on 11:30 in Dallas, though the clocks say Noon. So, why such prominent shadows when it was so close to noon? Because of the time of year, late November, when the sun doesn't rise that high in the sky even at high noon.

And that brings us back to Jackie, her hand, and the window frame. There is nothing else but the window frame that could be casting that shadow on Jackie's hand. So, why is it the shape that it is?

How could a window frame, which consists of a vertical and horizontal span, cast a shadow of that shape?

Backes doesn't know how a shadow of that shape got on her thumb.

What, do you think he's keeping it to himself? He hasn't the foggiest idea. 

It's bogus, Backes! The arm being there is bogus. That's what it is. And that's why you can't explain it. 
Hey Backes! Did you hear me? I asked you what caused the odd-shaped shadow over the thumb.

It can't be from the window frame because that wouldn't cast a shadow shaped like that. So, what is casting it?

If you take the 5th, it will be taken the same way it is in court, as presumptive evidence of guilt: yours. You protect the killers of JFK every day of your life; it's what you do. 
That doesn't cut it, Backes. I knew it was a different camera and different film. So, you're not telling me anything I didn't already know. The possibility remains that they may have photoshopped that purple color in, and it's more than a remote possibility.

And speaking of colors, here's a good one of the seatback.

 It's pretty dark. Also, look here:

So, it makes this one look pretty suspect:

And I gave you a good reason why they may have wanted to lighten it: to distinguish Kennedy's form, so that his form would stand out against a lighter background. 

And frankly, I don't even care. If that's all they had done, I never would have started this. I just find it amusing that you refuse to admit the possibility of any color adjustments. They had the whole world of digital technology at their disposal to perfect the image, but they didn't do a thing. They used it as is, and how do we know that? Because Joseph Backes says so. Nope, the only image he challenges is this one:

As if they were stupid enough to think they could get away with falsely claiming to find that on Oswald. And you know something else? Even if you want to say that they were 100% sure that Oswald would be killed (and no such assurance existed; how did it work out for them killing Castro? Judy's poison never reached him) it still doesn't matter. Even with Oswald dead, evidence could have surfaced that Oswald definitely did something else, and it would have exonerated him posthumously which was just as bad for them. So, they NEVER in a million years would have done that, you dumb pluck. Only someone as dumb as yourself could think such a thing.  
And by the way, Backes: what's causing that pointed shadow on her thumb?

Of course, you think she's got only a nub of a thumb below the shadow. And that would make the area above the nub what? 

But regardless, what is causing the shape of that shadow? You've got that cone-like projection that's tied to something else next to it that looks like a distinct formation, but the only thing there is the straight side of the chrome frame. So, what is casting the shadow that we see on her thumb? (And it is her thumb. All of it is her thumb.) 

How can that purple thing be casting the shadow that's there? 
Sure, Backes, I'll admit I was wrong about the color reflection on the chrome. But you, apparently, have never heard the expression "All's well that ends well." And, I am very satisfied with how this analysis of mine worked out because, like the rat in a maze, I got to the end of it and won the cheese. It's all figured out now- by me.

And regarding the color reflection, why is it so bright pink in Zapruder and a rather dark purple in King?

In Zapruder, the color reflection on the chrome is the exact same shade of pink as Jackie's dress. In King, it is quite a bit darker. It isn't pink; it's purple. So, how come?  I'll let you run through the photobabble reasons, but here's one: they may have photoshopped it to make it darker because they wanted it that way.

So, I still may be right that they photoshopped that purple color. 

And anybody from any country speaking any language can see the thumbnail and covered thumbnail in this picture.

 That's it, the thumb; there's no doubt about it, and you're a fool to deny it. But go ahead, Backes, keep going. I know where you're headed (mentally-speaking).  
One of the things that instigated me to get into the JFK assassination earnestly was the ridiculous program that appeared in 2011, The Lost Bullet, by Max Holland. In it, he claimed, rather matter of factly, that the first shot that missed hit the frame of the traffic light, bounced off of it, and traveled down the entire length of Dealey Plaza to hit the sidewalk and then graze James Tague. 

I thought it was absurd at the time, and I still think so. And David Von Pein agrees. This is by him: 

It turns out that in a written report called "The DeRonja-Holland Report: Technical Investigation Pertaining To The First Shot Fired In The Kennedy Assassination", which is a report that appeared online at the "Washington Decoded" website on November 20, 2011 (the same day the "Lost Bullet" program first aired on television), Max Holland had essentially eliminated the white spot on the traffic light as being a possible bullet hole way back in June of 2011 (see photo below). But Mr. Holland then went ahead and said it possibly WAS a bullet hole on the "Lost Bullet" special anyhow. That's a strange situation.

Here is the report:

It seems rather disingenuous and dishonest on the part of producer Robert Stone and the other people connected with the production of the "Lost Bullet" program to allow Mr. Holland's comments (regardless of when they were put on film) about a possible bullet defect in the traffic light to be aired in the special on 11/20/2011.

I suppose it's possible that the NatGeo producers just couldn't bear to edit out the one thing that was, by far, the biggest "new" revelation (or "bombshell", if you prefer that word) that came out of the one-hour "Lost Bullet" documentary. So, they just let the viewers think that the "defect" (white spot) that we see in the traffic light could possibly have been caused by a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.

But if that last statement I just made is correct, then if I were Max Holland, I'd be boiling mad and fit to be tied. Because the net result of the "Lost Bullet" program (as it aired on November 20th, 2011), plus factoring in the information produced in the "DeRonja-Holland Report" (which clearly has Mr. Holland's name on it as a co-author) is this:

A.) There's almost no way in the world that the "white spot" that we see on that traffic light (in the 11/27/63 Secret Service film) is the result of a bullet.

B.) Max Holland, five months before the "Lost Bullet" special aired, knew full well that Point A above is true.

C.) The National Geographic Channel went ahead and aired Holland's opinion anyway that the white spot could still be a bullet defect in the traffic light.

Any way you slice it, there's a bad odor coming from this whole "traffic light" situation, in my opinion.

I can tell David why they didn't make any retraction: the whole program was based on the theory. The whole idea was that Oswald didn't have just 6 seconds to shoot, but rather over 11. Of course, they didn't point out that even if the theory were true, it didn't do anything to lengthen the interval between the second and third shots.

But, the theory is not true, and let's point out that it could have been easily tested, and it didn't have to be in Dealey Plaza. They could have gone out to the desert and done it. But, even if the test was successful proving that it was possible, it would not have meant that it necessarily happened. 

So, it was very dishonest, irresponsible, and outrageous that they ever went with it. But, they did base the whole show on it, and if they had taken it out, what would they have had left? Nada. And that's why they didn't take it out. 

Another thing I would tell Steve Barber is that Jackie was definitely not grabbing for the window frame. That's because Jackie's thumb is behind the window. It is partially covered by the window frame, while the window frame is intact in the image; hence the frame is in front and the thumb is behind. 

To grab hold of it, her thumb would have to be in front of it. 

Furthermore, that is an action that would surely entail looking at the object she is grabbing. She wouldn't do it blindly. She would cast her eyes on it. But, it appears that Jackie is looking straight ahead and NOT in the direction her hand is going.

You have to think this stuff through, Steve. You know? 

Friday, February 27, 2015

In a private communication, Dennis Cimino came up with a great response to those who say the manipulation of the Warner photo doesn't matter because they didn't obfuscate anything of great importance.

"It is important because it shows their conviction that they can manipulate Americans at will and to any extent and without consequences, and with the confidence that Americans will be too stupid to notice. That makes it important."

Damn straight.  

Steve Barber:

It has always looked to me like she was holding onto the window, or starting to grab hold of it when this picture was snapped.  But let me tell you Ralph, there can be no "thumbnail" in the photo.  She had white cotton gloves on. 

Ralph Cinque: 

Steve, I don't understand people who say that. I know you can't "see" the thumbnail, but you can't "see" the fingers or the palm or the thumb itself either because they are all covered by the glove. Her whole hand is covered with a glove. Get it? So, if you can claim to see, by it's form, a finger, why can't claim to see, by its form, a thumbnail? I am talking about the bed of the nail. It has a shape and a form, and through a thin tight-fitting glove, it can be seen. 

Our inclusion of Jack White is not based on anything he said in 2007 or 2010 but of what he said in 2012. Based on interactions and communications he had with Jim Fetzer before his death in 2012, Jim, as Chairman of the OIC, instructed me to include him as a senior member, and I did. Yes, bpete, Jack White was one of us. 
Now time for another musical interlude. This is that old standard Sweet Lorraine, but what a band performing it: Nat King Cole on piano, and he was fabulous. He played the piano like it was effortless, like he was born knowing how. Buddy Rich on drums, and nobody was better. Charlie Shavers on trumpet, Eddie Safranski on bass, Lawrence Brown on trombone, Harry Carney on baritone sax- all greats- and the vocalist- the incomparable Frank Sinatra. They called themselves the Metronome All-Star Band, and the year was 1946.

I told you, Backes. Jack White was one of us. That was 2007, so a long time ago, but when Jim Fetzer started showing him our work, Jack became even more convinced that it was Oswald in the doorway. He was right about that. He was right about the Backyard Photos being altered. And he was right about the Zapruder film being altered. And you're not good enough to sweep the leaves from his gravesite. 
You know, you guys have been going about this all wrong. Some of my smarter opponents, in response to this, have said:

"So, they dazzled up the photo? So what? It was for the cover of the magazine, and they wanted to make it as striking as possible. There was nothing forensic involved. Nobody was being killed at the time. So, what difference does it make? It's something that goes on all the time, and everyone is aware of it."

I don't happen to agree with that opinion. Although the photo is not forensic, it is highly historical. For goodness sake, JFK was going to get his head blown off in just a few minutes. I say that makes it a very historical photo, and I don't think historical photos should be messed with.

Nevertheless, I don't say they don't have a point, and with that, it comes down to a difference of opinion, and you pretty much have to leave it at that. 

But no, not you guys. You have to fight every last thing. Never give up anything, eh? Fight everything on principle. Refuse to even grant that they may have enhanced colors using advanced technology. It was 2013, and they had all this digital technology at their disposal to enhance photos, but they did NOTHING. Didn't even brighten a single color. 

And all you're doing is endorsing my position, that messing with historical photos is NOT OK. Thanks for the support. 

You can tell that the girl in the TIME photo has both legs in front of the mother by making this comparison. On the left, the girl is straddling her mother and making contact with her foot- holding on for dear life. On the right, you can see both shoes, but furthermore, you can look into the photo and see the depth of it. The girl's outer foot, closest to us, is miles away from the mother.

The way her right forearm ends bothers me. It really bothers me. I don't see it being captured that way, so blunt at the end. Show me another picture like that. 

I love this collage. Do you see what I mean? She was sitting. She was no more being held than George was. 

In this collage, Jackie's hand looks relatively larger on the right because she is closer to the camera. On the right, it looks relatively smaller because she is farther from the camera.

So, it makes it very odd that her hand should be so big here when it was outside a little outside the car. That's far. Yet, her hand looks huge. There is no diminished effect from her hand being so far away. 

This is a valuable collage because the positions are very similar. 

Notice that on the right, her hand isn't getting to the top of that window. It isn't even reaching as high as the ledge of the car. In order to get to the top of the window, she would have to straighten her arm. She's not doing that on the left; her elbow is bent. 
Question: Presumably, the shadow across Jackie's glove is being cast by the window frame, but why is it shaped the way it is? Wouldn't a linear object cast a linear shadow?

Remember that for a while Backes thought that the peaked shadow was her thumb. But, what is causing the shape of the shadow we see? 
I like this picture because it clearly shows that Jackie couldn't get her hand to the outside of that window without straightening her arm.

Could she get her hand to the outside of that window with a bent elbow? NO WAY!

This shot shows the relative sizes of Jack and Jackie's hands, no doubt magnified by his closer proximity to the camera. But, the same applied here, so why does Jackie's hand look so large? And imagine if her hand was open. 

Memo to bpete: There was some depth to the seatback, and that's why your idea is pretty goofy.

I have grave concerns about the authenticity of the image used by TIME magazine on its cover for the 50th commemoration of the JFK assassination in November 2013. Here is the cover:

What do you see when you look at this? It's Jack and Jackie waving at the adoring crowd, right? And look how their arms go up in unison, in the same trajectory. It's like a plane taking off, isn't it? What were the chances they would capture a picture like that? 

Well, that is not what it is. It appears that Jackie is facing straight ahead and looking straight ahead, and I don't doubt that she was. But, her arm was veering off to the side. One way you can tell, is that the metal frame of the window is in front of her hand. 

You see the purple box, right? That's the window frame. And you see that it is uninterrupted, right? That means that her hand was behind it. The frame was closer to us than her hand. So, her hand was behind the window. 

And, if you're wondering why the window frame looks purple, it's because it was reflecting light from her pink dress. We even see it in the Zapruder film.

Why does it look pink in the Zapruder film and purple in the TIME photo? That I can't tell you.

First, a little history. The TIME photo was one of three taken by H.Warner King, a Dallas jewelry wholesaler. After his death, his daughter Sonya King found them among her father's possessions. She wound up giving them to TIME magazine for publication, and I don't know if money changed hands. So, these photos were not published until 2013. Here is the totality of the photo in question.

So, Jackie's left arm is actually hanging over the left side of the car as she is looking straight ahead. That's rather weird in itself as behaviors go because usually your arm and your eyes are oriented the same way. But, let's take a close look at what her hand is actually doing. She isn't waving. 

Jackie has got her hand externally rotated. That is the palm side of her hand that we are seeing, and that is why her thumb is on the left. And her hand isn't opened. Stick out your left hand with the palm side up. You notice that your fingers extend a lot farther than your thumb, right? Well, why don't we see her fingers extending beyone her thumb here? It's because her fingers are curled. She is making a partial fist. It's something like this:

What is very distracting is the white stripe in the road to the left of her thumb. And from a distance, it looks like a thumb itself. Look again at the magazine cover. At first glance, and from a distance, doesn't it seem like that stripe is her thumb, and that it's her right hand raised?

So, because of the two-dimensionality of the photograph, it seems like that's her right arm and her right hand, and the road stripe is her thumb. What were the chances that that stripe would be there? I call it the Lucky Stripe. And what helps you make the mistake is the cue you are getting from JFK because that is what he is doing: waving with his right arm. It's like they are a tandem couple doing the same thing. But, it's a complete optical illusion. It's her left arm, not her right; and it's veering off to the left, not going straight ahead; and she isn't waving with it at all. Who would wave with a fist? Maybe Che Guevara, but not Jackie Kennedy. 

Some have tried to claim that Jackie was reaching for the window frame to hold on to it, but there are two arguments against that. The first is that her thumb is behind the frame, and it would have to be in front of the frame for her to grab it. The second is that she wasn't looking that way, and when we are trying to do something with your hands, you don't do it blindly; you look in the direction that you're doing it. But, her eyes and her hand were not on the same track.

Why are her fingertips green in the photo when she was wearing white gloves? I do not know. 

So, what was Jackie's total position at that moment? It was something akin to St. Francis Assisi.

That is basically it, except of course that he was standing, and she was sitting. 

So, do you think she was really doing that at that moment? I have my doubts. 

For one thing, I don't think her arm could reach. In the photo, Jackie's elbow is bent, and we can't see her upper arm. If her upper arm was extended in front of her, we would see it, but we don't. 

We really can't see her upper arm there, but we know where it is. And her elbow is bent. That means that she is not using the length of her upper arm to contribute to the action, to take her hand where it is going. 

This is the closest image we have which duplicates her action in the disputed photo. But notice that here, as her arm reaches leftward, so too is she turned leftward and looking leftward. That is normal. That's what you expect. The head and the eyes lead, and the body follows. But notice that in order to reach that ledge by the window, her arm is straightened. Her elbow isn't bent. She needs to use all the length that she has in her arm and forearm in order to deliver her hand to its destination. So, how in the other picture, did she get her hand there with a bent elbow? I don't think she could do it. There just wasn't enough length to cover the distance.

But now, look at this. You see this guy's hand?

He is, obviously, closer to the camera than she is. He is right in front of the camera. So, why is she covering up the terminal digits of his fingers?

The fingers are composed of three small bones called phalanges. So, there is a proximal phalange, a middle phalange, and a distal phalange. What we're seeing here are just his proximal and middle phalanges. The distal phalanges of his index and middle fingers are being covered up by her wrist. But, how could she do that from the car? And, I believe we are seeing the tip of his index finger rising above her wrist. 

Jackie Kennedy isn't the only troubling image in this photograph. Just as jarring to my eyes is the image of a little girl and her mother who are spectators. 

So, the mother is waving with her right arm, and presumably, she is holding the little girl with her left arm. Except that being held is NOT what that girl is doing. That girl is sitting. How do I know? Because she's in a sitting posture. You see those angles? Those angles are the indication of someone sitting. And I don't mean on her mother's arm. First, her mother wasn't strong enough to do that. Women don't hold kids with their arms alone. They lean and shift and do things to get the child's weight distributed over their body so that their relatively weak arms don't have to support the whole load alone. But, in this case, we're not talking about "arms" but rather "arm."  We are expected to believe that that girl's weight is plopped on top of that woman's one arm, and she is supporting her that way, and without even flinching. It's as though the girl was as light as a feather. 

In the photograph on the left, you know that George Costanza is sitting, and even if you couldn't see his seat, you can tell from his position that he is sitting. It's the same for the little girl. 

Furthermore, even if the woman was strong enough to do it (and I assure you she was not) her arm would not have been a stable enough surface for the girl to be sitting on so upright like she is. She is really sitting up straight, as we were told to do in school. She isn't slouching at all. You need a firm, solid surface underneath you to do that.

So, the only way that picture makes sense is if there was a post or a bench or some other firm, solid surface that the girl was sitting on next to her mother. But, what could have been there? It's a street corner. I can't think of anything.

So, it looks to me like that girl was plopped into the picture in front of the mother. Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, maybe there was something showing that they didn't want shown. Look at the man behind them. Doesn't he look like he could be a Secret Service agent?

Maybe something was sticking out on him, such as a gun holster. 

If you're thinking that the girl was sitting on the mother's hip bone, straddling her, she's not. That's a completely different look.

 And, if you look closely, you can see that, on the right, both of the girl's legs are in front of the mother.

So, she is not straddling her mother, and there is just no way her mother could be supporting her. Either you have to come up with an object that that girl was sitting on in that spot, or it doesn't pass the smell test. And, if she were sitting on an object, why wouldn't she face forward? Why sit sideways and have to turn your head? 

There are other problems with this photograph pertaining to shadows and colors, and I think a heck of a lot of photoshopping was done to it.  But, here is one last point, just for good measure.

Here is the shadow cast by a window frame.

You see that it's the same shape as the window frame itself, right?

OK, very well. Then, why is it that the window frame next to Jackie's hand is casting such an odd-shaped shadow that is totally not in keeping with its own shape?

Anyone? Anyone? Ain't Physics fun? 

But, let me make something clear: I do not think this has any bearing on the assassination itself. It's not like anything nefarious was happening at that moment. But, if they altered this photo to the extent that I believe they did, it shows a willingness to deliberately deceive the public with fraudulent images.  That's false images rendering false information. And if they were willing to do that, particularly to create a false impression of Jackie waving when she was not waving, what would they have been willing to do to hide Oswald in the doorway? And he was most certainly in the doorway at the time of the shots.

Again, I realize that nothing crucial was going on at that moment, but still, it appears to my eyes to be an incredible amount of altering of a very historical photo. And look how their arms are. Does it remind you of anything? 

It's almost like they are both doing Heil Hitler salutes. 

Is there a subliminal message here? Jack and Jackie paying homage to the Almighty State like all good Americans should?

If TIME magazine did as much manipulation of an important historical photograph as I think they did, what does it say about their attitude towards Americans? Are they out to inform them or indoctrinate them? 

I encourage TIME magazine to respond to this and explain exactly what they did to that photograph. 

This is what former Navy test pilot and OIC senior member Dennis Cimino said about it:

"It is important because it shows their conviction that they can manipulate Americans at will and to any extent and without consequences, and with the full confidence that Americans will be too stupid to notice. That makes it important."

I couldn't have said it better, and I couldn't agree more.