Why Altgens 6 Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Royell Storing]

Zapruder's camera was a recording device. If it didn't record something in 1963, we can't just add something in 63 years later and still claim it is the Zapruder film. AI can't perform magic. It can create the illusion of magic.

   Not talking about "AI". For whatever reason You're stuck on "AI". A = "Artificial". Not talking about anything "Artificial".

[Mark Ulrik]

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

Weldon used a version printed in one of Groden's books for his presentation, but was at least honest enough to admit that he wasn't able to convince Groden. Here's an even clearer version from Groden's 2013 book. Notice the caption. Would you care to tell us where you see the supposed damage to the windshield? That was a rhetorical question, btw. We all know that you'll run for the hills like you always do.

[Mitch Todd]

Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.

So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage? Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage? I mean, he proves this for all to see in his 1999 presentation. Did you even bother to watch the video of the presentation?

And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film? If you spend a small amount of money and buy the DVD of the MPI version and play it on a large HD flat screen TV, you can see the damage with your own eyes in at least a few of the pre-Z256 frames that Dr. Mantik discusses. We both know your theory of the shooting has no plausible explanation for that damage, which is why you won't admit its existence.

MTG: So never mind that Weldon demonstrated with a huge enlargement of Altgens 6 that the photo shows windshield damage?

Weldon's "enlargement" was to project a page from one of Groden's books onto a screen. The printing processes used to manufacture books do not treat photographs very well; Weldon's presentation is then based on an inferior copy of the original. Maybe a multigenerational copy. There are better copies of the photo out there, and they show that the "damage" isn't damage, or even near the windshield. just like I've said.


MTG: Never mind that Waldon also demonstrated that some subsequent printed versions of Altgens 6 were altered to conceal the damage?

He points to *one* copy of the photo where there is a straight black line cutting through part of the "spiral nebula." This does not appear in the better copies I refer to, so why make an issue of it? It's just a red herring.


MTG: And what about the windshield damage visible in some of the pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film in the MPI large-format version of the film?

I've seen it. It's a specular highlight caused by the sun reflecting off of the rearview mirror. That's why it disappears less than a second after it appears. Damage to the windshield wouldn't suddenly vanish like that.


MTG: We both know....

Your mind-reading skills are about as good as your photogrammetry.
 

[John Corbett]

The CTs never bother to consider how dumb it would be to place a shooter in front of the limo. Whether on the bridge or on the ground, he would be in full view of the spectators. The shooter would have to fire through an angled windshield which raises the possibility of deflection. The shot would have be threaded between the four occupants seated in front of JFK. Last but not least, what sense would it make to shoot JFK from the front if the plan was to pin the shooting on a lone gunman firing from behind.

CTs don't care if their arguments make sense. They just want to argue Oswald wasn't the assassin.

[Royell Storing]

The CTs never bother to consider how dumb it would be to place a shooter in front of the limo. Whether on the bridge or on the ground, he would be in full view of the spectators. The shooter would have to fire through an angled windshield which raises the possibility of deflection. The shot would have be threaded between the four occupants seated in front of JFK. Last but not least, what sense would it make to shoot JFK from the front if the plan was to pin the shooting on a lone gunman firing from behind.

CTs don't care if their arguments make sense. They just want to argue Oswald wasn't the assassin.

   Your thinking is strictly "1 Dimensional". You wanna go directly in front of the Limo, you do not consider "compartmentalize", etc. You're stuck on the 6th Floor and 11/22/63 concepts and technology. 

[Tommy Shanks]

   Your thinking is strictly "1 Dimensional". You wanna go directly in front of the Limo, you do not consider "compartmentalize", etc. You're stuck on the 6th Floor and 11/22/63 concepts and technology.

Better than being stuck with imaginary policemen wearing only one glove, an imaginary getaway car and HUUUUGE gates!

[Royell Storing]

Better than being stuck with imaginary policemen wearing only one glove, an imaginary getaway car and HUUUUGE gates!

      And why do you believe that the Sixth Floor Museum has Not released that last 1/2 of the Darnell Film? You know, that last 1/2 that gives us a very good look at the Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop walking across the train yard and toward/down the Elm St Extension. We are close to 2 yrs now between the release of the 1st half of the Darnell Film and the continued radio silence outta the Sixth Floor Museum.