I'd like to see something from Kodak on what they found. The light to me is too low to the ground to be a gun. It could be the reflection off something, assuming it is on the original film. Depends on if they analyzed the master or a copy. If they studied a copy and the fleck was on the master then yes, it would appear on the film transfered from the master to the copy.
I still think this is not a gun shot and probably has some simple explanation. Heck, it could be a tin can next to a tree that caught the sunlight. Dunno, I wasn't there.
But I stand by the interlacing explanation as I can see the horizontal lines in the image. The flaring is likely a product of this. I'll wait to read the procedure Kodak did to determine it is on the film and what reference they used.
But for me frankly, even if the light is on the film it still has many explanations and interpretations. I can only base a determination on what is presented. That point of light is being affected by interlacing, as most of the light sources on it are. That is a fact.
The camera is shifting here causing the angle to reveal what appears to be a stump or other natural object behind the light. I do not see a shooter.
So for me nothing has changed. I'm open to what Kodak has to say. But at this point and with what has been released here I still think it is an artifact on the film. Be that artifact a reflection or a emulsion source.
I think it's great that somebody actually went back to a film to look. Good comparative analysis is needed.
I also have no issues with being wrong if I am. But for now and with what is here, I'm sticking to my guns. No muzzle flash.