|
|
 September 01, 2010, 12:32:07 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 109
|
Altgens is almost in the street, here (see below), I've draw lines to him being on (by) the curb. Z's axis is as far, as I can draw (here), towards the left-of-centre of the freeway sign, towards the tower's north-west corner. I'm being as extreme, within parameters of logical reason; to try to address the problem. And in doing so, I still have a massive problem; why have 45 frames separated what is obvious, HERE, from what is SEEN in the Z-frames'? The Z-frames have been seriously altered, FROM THE FREEWAY SIGN ONWARDS, from what I'm demonstrating HERE. Altgens-6 was wired across the world within a few hours, and then mass published. And so, is very unlikely, to have been doctored. You should all be able to determine, from my drawing, that the limo (including configured contents) isn't where it should be according to the Z-frames. Or, that Clapping-man isn't where he should be. Apron-man and Clapping-man, are shown by the Z-frames, to be approximately where the tips of the two blue lines in my drawing from Z end, that is, intersecting within the curb area, to Altgens-6's far right of frame. I'VE USED THE LANE LINE AS REFERENCE POINTS. What's truly remarkable about Altgens-6, is the fact, that one of the World's best combat-photographers, was where he was, at that time, and had his axis, focus, aperture, exposure, and camera, lens, and film selection the way he did, and then squeezed his SLR's shutter release when he did. QUITE POSSIBLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PHOTOGRAPH EVER TAKEN ON THIS PLANET. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 01:05:47 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
The first, second, forth, or fifth stripe, has nothing to do with this. I’m well aware from seeing over-head angles, from stills, and cine, where the lines are. In my earlier posts, I was confused as to why Mark was seeing five stripes, and not moving the limo back a stripe. (I was trying to get him to address the real problem, the Altgens-6 camera vertical axis.) My demonstration, and I know it’s not a proof, has a problem with the TSBD corner, and Dal-Tex alignment, that’s all. If you look at the WC’s photo’s, in this area (linked above), you will see that they don’t make any sense at all. Link (from above) given by Ian (thanks): As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDavid, I'm glad you're clear on the stripes. I don't see any alignment problems in the photograph. The relationship of the obelisk to the TSBD entrance and facade puts strict limits on where Altgens can be located E-W and N-S. The FBI reconstruction photo was taken a foot or so away from the actual location but everything lines up just as expected. Certainly there's nothing in the photo that puts it at Z209 unless you miscounted the stripes. Best, Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 01:07:21 AM by Jerry Logan »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 01:42:24 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 109
|
Jerry,
CE-900 'PHOTOGRAPH FROM RE-ENACTMENT’ has no ‘top-to-bottom’ detailing in it (drain pipe, or what ever it is) on the Dal-Tex, plus the roadside signs have now be removed, apart from one sign (it appears), that now, no longer holds the same horizontal line, to the decorative tiles (or bricks) of the TSBD.
How the hell could these people (experts) get this, this wrong,, without making an effort, to get it this wrong?
But I do see your point.
This whole thing is beyond me, I'll leave it with you and others from now on, please don't try to bring me back into this (like you did).
Thanks.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 01:52:14 AM by David Davies »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 01:55:38 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
Jerry,
CE-900 'PHOTOGRAPH FROM RE-ENACTMENT’ has no ‘top-to-bottom’ detailing in it (drain pipe, or what ever it is) on the Dal-Tex, plus the roadside signs have now be removed, apart from one sign (it appears), that now, no longer holds the same horizontal line, to the decorative tiles (or bricks) of the TSBD.
How the hell could these people (experts) get this, this wrong,, without making an effort, to get it this wrong?
David, That's why it's important to compare photos based on things that can't be moved like the obelisk, TSBD entrance, windows, and other relatively fixed features. We don''t have a very good copy of the FBI reconstruction photo and it's not full frame - but the differences are insignificant. If the FBI photographer had taken a step to the left he would have nailed it. It doesn't change the location of the limousine or the Zapruder frame number. They may not have gotten it exactly right because it was good enough for their purpose. Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 02:32:10 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 119
|
-------------------------
-------------------------
How HollyWood Makes movies comes to Dallas with new show
but did not bring money, Good thing Ruby was there and lawrence Meyers donation, What! The show still closed?
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 03:02:38 AM
|
Full Member
Posts: 109
|
Jerry,
Sorry, but I post and then edit, my fault, I shouldn't do that should I?
(See my previous post.)
Besides, my problem isn't so much with CE-900, it's with what I first posted on this thread; I can't get Altgens-6's camera axis to Z's Altgens’s place (or there’ish).
It's just having all this other conflicting (or agreeing) data, that one has to deal with, this is the problem, as far as I can see, Hill and Moorman shadows, etc..
“That's why it's important to compare photos based on things that can't be moved like the obelisk, TSBD entrance, windows, and other relatively fixed features.”
I thought I was doing this, in my first post to this thread (using two very large buildings and road markings). Altgens had legs, and was mobile, and the limo had wheels, I agree, if that’s all you mean.
I still don’t think this makes sense … something not right here.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 03:10:01 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
Jerry,
Sorry, but I post and then edit, my fault, I shouldn't do that should I?
(See my previous post.)
Besides, my problem isn't so much with CE-900, it's with what I first posted on this thread; I can't get Altgens-6's camera axis to Z's Altgens’s place (or there’ish).
It's just having all this other conflicting (or agreeing) data, that one has to deal with, this is the problem, as far as I can see, Hill and Moorman shadows, etc..
“That's why it's important to compare photos based on things that can't be moved like the obelisk, TSBD entrance, windows, and other relatively fixed features.”
I thought I was doing this, in my first post to this thread (using two very large buildings and road markings). Altgens had legs, and was mobile, and the limo had wheels, I agree, if that’s all you mean.
I still don’t think this makes sense … something not right here.
David, I'm not trying to draw you back in so feel free to ignore my question if you like. What is it, exactly, that you feel doesn't line up properly? We've bounced around a lot of items, so I'm unclear about what you think doesn't fit. Best to you, Jerry
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 04:30:28 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 562
|
Jerry, The WC/whoever has Altgen's position as #3 in this photo. Why!! They moved him up Elm. I wonder what "from that #3 position" a Altgen's reproduction would look like. Notice the difference in the angle of the lane divider too. chris  Chris, Number 3 is where Altgens placed himself in his WC testimony. He did this from memory and used the word approximate. I think the main error in the FBI reconstruction was that they didn't place him in the street for the photo - they left him on the curb, as in Zapruder, so the photo is very close East-West, but off North-South. Hence, also, the lane marker angle. Best, Jerry Edit: As Mark noted earlier - our perspective is distorted when we use angled photos. We either need a direct overhead photo or a plan to get an orthogonal view of the area. Try different positions out w/Don's map and see how a photo higher up Elm would look. LOS is Altgens to lamp post. Limo model properly angled for your giffing pleasure :>)  Jerry, 1 1/2 months before Altgen's WC testimony, it appears he gives a deposition to the FBI. He places himself across the stairs. At the WC interview, he's puts himself much farther up Elm. The WC version also reads, as if he is describing being in 2 distinct spots, some 15 feet apart. He is a professional photographer, he knows where he was, at some point refocused within 15 feet for a photograph, but in less than 2 months time, his stated physical positioning doesn't agree. thanks, chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 04:59:49 AM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
Jerry, The WC/whoever has Altgen's position as #3 in this photo. Why!! They moved him up Elm. I wonder what "from that #3 position" a Altgen's reproduction would look like. Notice the difference in the angle of the lane divider too. chris Chris, Number 3 is where Altgens placed himself in his WC testimony. He did this from memory and used the word approximate. I think the main error in the FBI reconstruction was that they didn't place him in the street for the photo - they left him on the curb, as in Zapruder, so the photo is very close East-West, but off North-South. Hence, also, the lane marker angle. Best, Jerry Edit: As Mark noted earlier - our perspective is distorted when we use angled photos. We either need a direct overhead photo or a plan to get an orthogonal view of the area. Try different positions out w/Don's map and see how a photo higher up Elm would look. LOS is Altgens to lamp post. Limo model properly angled for your giffing pleasure :>) Jerry, 1 1/2 months before Altgen's WC testimony, it appears he gives a deposition to the FBI. He places himself across the stairs. At the WC interview, he's puts himself much farther up Elm. The WC version also reads, as if he is describing being in 2 distinct spots, some 15 feet apart. He is a professional photographer, he knows where he was, at some point refocused within 15 feet for a photograph, but in less than 2 months time, his stated physical positioning doesn't agree. thanks, chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginChris, I can't think of a better example than this to illustrate all the confusion that results when we rely on witnesses for exact details of complicated events. Altgens 6 speaks for itself. It could have been taken from one and only one location so we know almost exactly where he was standing at the time of the photo. The location of the limousine in the photo is the same location as seen in Zapruder 255. The occupants of the vehicle are in the same configuration as Zapruder 255 and the US flag on the limousine shows the same position as Zapruder 255. Maybe he took another photo further up the street that was "disappeared." It seems clear to me that Altgens is talking about the shot he took (Altgens 6) and the shot he didn't take (when he was 15 feet from the President) but who knows or will ever really know. Maybe he just took Altgens 6 and the FBI guy or Altgens had a different concept than you about the meaning of "across from the steps." (Like the steps of the Pergola for example, not the steps up the grassy knoll.) My point is, the photo is the hard data. We can speculate about meanings and the fact that people can really mean something and still be inaccurate - but the photo is dead clear and shows the same thing as Zapruder 255. Best to you, Jerry Edit: As an example, suppose that Altgens is actually at the position marked 3. Look at how the obelisk would fall against the TSBD features - the photo doesn't look that way because he wasn't in that location when he took the picture. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 06:49:34 AM by Jerry Logan »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 07:40:57 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2451
|
Altgens was some distance down Elm St. To see just how far, try to find him in Bronson. Note the Umbrella man and DCM positions, DCM has his fist raised in the air As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAlso try to find Apron Man, and the black man in the suit. Altgens 6 perspective is very deceptive. In Altgen's 6 Brehm looks to be just in front of Apron Man, but in reality they are quite a distance apart. This is why in the Zapruder frames you can't just draw a straight line from the Stemmons sign across to the other side of the road , and then say that is where Apron Man and the dark man in the suit were standing.
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 11:40:18 AM by Robin Unger »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 08:41:14 AM
|
Super Member
Posts: 1856
Germany
|
were the FBI using the same camera as Altgens ? i think it is impossible to 100% reproduce a photograph like this. The re-enactment pic is a bit off vertically and in zoom (i think). 
-------------------------
-------------------------
"ich bin ein Berliner" As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 07:30:43 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 562
|
Jerry, The WC/whoever has Altgen's position as #3 in this photo. Why!! They moved him up Elm. I wonder what "from that #3 position" a Altgen's reproduction would look like. Notice the difference in the angle of the lane divider too. chris Chris, Number 3 is where Altgens placed himself in his WC testimony. He did this from memory and used the word approximate. I think the main error in the FBI reconstruction was that they didn't place him in the street for the photo - they left him on the curb, as in Zapruder, so the photo is very close East-West, but off North-South. Hence, also, the lane marker angle. Best, Jerry Edit: As Mark noted earlier - our perspective is distorted when we use angled photos. We either need a direct overhead photo or a plan to get an orthogonal view of the area. Try different positions out w/Don's map and see how a photo higher up Elm would look. LOS is Altgens to lamp post. Limo model properly angled for your giffing pleasure :>) Jerry, 1 1/2 months before Altgen's WC testimony, it appears he gives a deposition to the FBI. He places himself across the stairs. At the WC interview, he's puts himself much farther up Elm. The WC version also reads, as if he is describing being in 2 distinct spots, some 15 feet apart. He is a professional photographer, he knows where he was, at some point refocused within 15 feet for a photograph, but in less than 2 months time, his stated physical positioning doesn't agree. thanks, chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginChris, I can't think of a better example than this to illustrate all the confusion that results when we rely on witnesses for exact details of complicated events. Altgens 6 speaks for itself. It could have been taken from one and only one location so we know almost exactly where he was standing at the time of the photo. The location of the limousine in the photo is the same location as seen in Zapruder 255. The occupants of the vehicle are in the same configuration as Zapruder 255 and the US flag on the limousine shows the same position as Zapruder 255. Maybe he took another photo further up the street that was "disappeared." It seems clear to me that Altgens is talking about the shot he took (Altgens 6) and the shot he didn't take (when he was 15 feet from the President) but who knows or will ever really know. Maybe he just took Altgens 6 and the FBI guy or Altgens had a different concept than you about the meaning of "across from the steps." (Like the steps of the Pergola for example, not the steps up the grassy knoll.) My point is, the photo is the hard data. We can speculate about meanings and the fact that people can really mean something and still be inaccurate - but the photo is dead clear and shows the same thing as Zapruder 255. Best to you, Jerry Edit: As an example, suppose that Altgens is actually at the position marked 3. Look at how the obelisk would fall against the TSBD features - the photo doesn't look that way because he wasn't in that location when he took the picture. Jerry, They had to push Altgen's position (#3 on the aerial) up Elm so it would sync with the altered position of the SchoolBook Depository in the same photo. The corner of the depository is marked with a blue line in each photo. Google aerial was reduced to 55.5% to match the existing WC aerial. chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 08:30:52 PM
|
Sr. Member
Posts: 374
|
Jerry, The WC/whoever has Altgen's position as #3 in this photo. Why!! They moved him up Elm. I wonder what "from that #3 position" a Altgen's reproduction would look like. Notice the difference in the angle of the lane divider too. chris Chris, Number 3 is where Altgens placed himself in his WC testimony. He did this from memory and used the word approximate. I think the main error in the FBI reconstruction was that they didn't place him in the street for the photo - they left him on the curb, as in Zapruder, so the photo is very close East-West, but off North-South. Hence, also, the lane marker angle. Best, Jerry Edit: As Mark noted earlier - our perspective is distorted when we use angled photos. We either need a direct overhead photo or a plan to get an orthogonal view of the area. Try different positions out w/Don's map and see how a photo higher up Elm would look. LOS is Altgens to lamp post. Limo model properly angled for your giffing pleasure :>) Jerry, 1 1/2 months before Altgen's WC testimony, it appears he gives a deposition to the FBI. He places himself across the stairs. At the WC interview, he's puts himself much farther up Elm. The WC version also reads, as if he is describing being in 2 distinct spots, some 15 feet apart. He is a professional photographer, he knows where he was, at some point refocused within 15 feet for a photograph, but in less than 2 months time, his stated physical positioning doesn't agree. thanks, chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginChris, I can't think of a better example than this to illustrate all the confusion that results when we rely on witnesses for exact details of complicated events. Altgens 6 speaks for itself. It could have been taken from one and only one location so we know almost exactly where he was standing at the time of the photo. The location of the limousine in the photo is the same location as seen in Zapruder 255. The occupants of the vehicle are in the same configuration as Zapruder 255 and the US flag on the limousine shows the same position as Zapruder 255. Maybe he took another photo further up the street that was "disappeared." It seems clear to me that Altgens is talking about the shot he took (Altgens 6) and the shot he didn't take (when he was 15 feet from the President) but who knows or will ever really know. Maybe he just took Altgens 6 and the FBI guy or Altgens had a different concept than you about the meaning of "across from the steps." (Like the steps of the Pergola for example, not the steps up the grassy knoll.) My point is, the photo is the hard data. We can speculate about meanings and the fact that people can really mean something and still be inaccurate - but the photo is dead clear and shows the same thing as Zapruder 255. Best to you, Jerry Edit: As an example, suppose that Altgens is actually at the position marked 3. Look at how the obelisk would fall against the TSBD features - the photo doesn't look that way because he wasn't in that location when he took the picture. Jerry, They had to push Altgen's position (#3 on the aerial) up Elm so it would sync with the altered position of the SchoolBook Depository in the same photo. The corner of the depository is marked with a blue line in each photo. Google aerial was reduced to 55.5% to match the existing WC aerial. chris As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginChris, You sly dog! You had me going there for a minute! It does sort of look like CE 354 has moved the TSBD into the middle of Houston. But, your horizontal rotation obscured the fact that the photo is not a direct overhead, but rather an oblique shot from the west. Because of the oblique angle the top of the TSBD seems to fall into Houston but that's a result of the angle from which the photo is taken. The corner is where it always was - this is a good example of the unexpected effects of perspective. Best to you, Jerry 
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
|
