Does anybody cite the "lapel flip" as evidence anymore?

There are basically two ways a spot in a film can change appearance.  The actual surface that is exposed there can change, e.g., a jacket swings open revealing a shirt, or the illumination can change.  It did not take me long to conclude long ago that the "lapel flip" was really illumination change and not clothing movement but it took a really long time to understand just the basics of what is happening there.  I think I have a reasonable case that what is seen in 222-224 is illumination from somewhere around the base of the windshield is traveling parallel to the side of the car and illuminating the frame of the small window, the vertical part of the handhold mounted in front of Connally, and Connally's chest through the space in between.  Things change because the car is turning slightly.  I think it has to be a double reflection off curved surface(s) or something like that for the reflection to change as much as it does with the car turning as little as it does,  I actually can't detect that it is turning there but it is turning left shortly after that.  I can make a very simple case that suggests that illumination is the cause and that would be more of a case than anybody has ever made for clothing movement.  The only one I have ever heard is "What else can it be?"  I pursued this off and on over the years because I wanted to know what the hell was happening there and because I thought it had great embarrassment value.  I am afraid most of the embarrassment value is gone, but it does appear that there may be a delicious irony.  This might place Connally too far to the outside for the SBT to work there.

David Wimp wrote:There are basically two ways a spot in a film can change appearance.  The actual surface that is exposed there can change, e.g., a jacket swings open revealing a shirt, or the illumination can change.  It did not take me long to conclude long ago that the "lapel flip" was really illumination change and not clothing movement but it took a really long time to understand just the basics of what is happening there.  I think I have a reasonable case that what is seen in 222-224 is illumination from somewhere around the base of the windshield is traveling parallel to the side of the car and illuminating the frame of the small window, the vertical part of the handhold mounted in front of Connally, and Connally's chest through the space in between.  Things change because the car is turning slightly.  I think it has to be a double reflection off curved surface(s) or something like that for the reflection to change as much as it does with the car turning as little as it does,  I actually can't detect that it is turning there but it is turning left shortly after that.  I can make a very simple case that suggests that illumination is the cause and that would be more of a case than anybody has ever made for clothing movement.  The only one I have ever heard is "What else can it be?"  I pursued this off and on over the years because I wanted to know what the hell was happening there and because I thought it had great embarrassment value.  I am afraid most of the embarrassment value is gone, but it does appear that there may be a delicious irony.  This might place Connally too far to the outside for the SBT to work there.

David, these types of things are not often discussed here, but we do have a professional photographer as well as a television cameraman as members, so if any of us can respond with confidence, it would be those guys.

The first sentence of that post was supposed to be-- I think the lapel flip is one of the silliest things in all of JFK assassination lore.  I have a special hatred of it and really would like to kill it dead.  It seems most people have accepted that, even if it is clothing movement, it isn't evidence.  But it isn't even clothing movement.

David Wimp wrote:The first sentence of that post was supposed to be-- I think the lapel flip is one of the silliest things in all of JFK assassination lore.  I have a special hatred of it and really would like to kill it dead.  It seems most people have accepted that, even if it is clothing movement, it isn't evidence.  But it isn't even clothing movement.

Thanks for clarifying David.