The Zapruder Film is the most powerful evidence that irrefutably proves that the single head shot came only from behind, and all those Conspiracy Kooks who believe that there was two shots or that there was an exit hole in the back of Kennedy's head have been consistently providing the most stupid evidence that parts of the film have been altered and thus try to create doubt for the entire film.
Our very own Michael Griffith who endorses the most ridiculous and dumbass theories, all of which have been thoroughly debunked, is overwhelmingly threatened by the authenticated Zapruder Film. So Griffith makes the lamest amateur observations possible such as, he claims that Brehm's son natural movement has been altered, even though at that point of the film nothing happens?
That Summer's fall down has been altered even though everything else including Summers in the same frames show pure fluidity, but when I asked Griffith how "they" only isolated Summers, I'm met with the sounds of silence. And don't get me started on his frame removal nonsense because when I ask him, for example, if the Limo slowdown/stop was accomplished by removing some frames so why does all the background continually keep moving? and again he just stares back blankly and another diversion takes its place.
Anyway, the point of this thread is to completely destroy the last hopes of the devout CT, who mistakenly want to believe in a rear exit wound on the back of Kennedy's head.
Over at the Ed Forum which has been rapidly crumbling under the dictatorship of Old Iron Fist Sandy Larsen, a seemingly new member Keven Hofeling has been trying his best to present evidence of a rear head wound on Kennedy, all the while rejecting and shaming Pat Speer who is only presenting the multitude of reasons for why Hofeling is absolutely wrong. Btw Sandy, isn't shaming fellow members on your site supposed to be wrong, that is unless hypocritically, the shaming of the person has an alternate view to you?
Anyway, Hofeling has regurgitated this piece of deception which is about as misleading as you can get.
Apparently, according to Andrej Stancak someone altered the "colours to be in logarithmic scale" which at a glance of the altered Z319 is complete nonsense, the red filtering has changed all the colours and completely blown out any detail that would be expected with photos taken in log format.
Speaking from experience, my digital SLRs all had an option to take camera specific log photos which allowed for a more complete dynamic range, the initial photo is really low in contrast and appeared washed out and milky, so I needed to apply LUTs(Look up Tables) to bring back the colour and effectively there was more shadow detail, and highlights weren't overblown.
But the Zapruder Film is straight from exposed 8mm film and any additional filtering isn't going to make any enhancements and in fact as we will see, will only hide detail!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a "scholar" researcher saw my work, I was lucky enough to acquire some Very High Resolution TIFF scans down to the granular level, from a 2nd generation copy of Zapruder frames, and this is about as close as one can get to the original Zapruder Film.
1. For a start look at the colour variation between my copy of Zapruder Z319 to the altered copy of Z319, the amount of red filtering has spilled onto the grass, all the specular highlights and basically everything within the frame, so how is this supposed to be a truer representation of the original scene?
How many original colour photos from that day show red dead looking grass? Also take note of Kennedy's hair in the lower back of head region at Love Field which appears much, much darker because it's in shadow.
2. Now let's look at an extreme closeup of Hofeling's image and my close to original Zapruder Frame.
2a. The back of Kennedy's Jacket shows unrealistic blocky posterized artifacts in the the filtered version, and looks more naturally even in the original.
2b. The back of head shadow in the excessively filtered "logarithmically corrected" version has obliterated the fine feathering between the shadow and hair line, whereas the original isn't just a black blob with clean delineation but shows blended edges which would be impossible to paint onto the shadowed area, which on 8mm film is a the fraction of the size of a pin head.
3. The comparison of Z300 and frame Z317 almost a second later, in the Hi Res originals shows almost the exact same shading in the shadowed area and any slight variation is simply a product of a minor change of angle. Another factor that I never see discussed is, how on Earth do you create the perfect shade of matching "black" because the shadow area isn't pure black but a product of shadowed hair and illumination by the surrounding environment like the sky, grass, Limo etc. etc.. As soon as this "black patch" is simulated, like in Hofeling's Z317 deception, any fakery instantly stands out, whereas the original perfectly blends in with every other shadowed area.
4. Now to address the difficulty of painting out matter expulsion over a wildly divergent background, it's funny how frame Z317 was chosen because the rear head movement starts at Z314 and at frame Z315 there is no explosion of matter?
4a. We all know that at frame Z313 the explosion out the front is clearly visible.
4b. But at frames Z314-Z315 there is absolutely nothing being expelled from the rear of Kennedy's head, but we know from frame Z313 and if some of the Parkland Doctors were right, then there has to be something to be seen, right?
4c. And one last problem that needs to be addressed is how the heck do the alterationists repaint the entire region behind Kennedy's head? Because as can be seen in my conservative estimate, the amount of gore that needs to be covered up includes many varying contrasting areas which require a veritable smorgasbord of intricate recolouring, eg Jackie's arm, the Limo seat, the Limo trunk and the reflections, the specular highlights on the Limo trim, and the grass. But as to be expected from an unaltered original, all this area appears perfectly clean and natural and in no way is seen to be painted and don't forget that this entire area on 8mm film has the width of about a millimeter with some of the more intricate areas going down to a fraction of a millimeter and for our North American friends, 1 mm = 0.04 of an inch. And btw, this just gets more and more difficult for the would be CT artist, because as can be seen on the images above, these areas aren't just a flat plane of colour, but each area has varying shades of film grain and each these film grains are a fraction of a fraction of a millimeter, so in other words, good luck trying to paint and match areas with microscopic film grain the size of a few human hairs.
JohnM
