JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 09, 2026, 05:55:03 PM
-
AP photographer James Altgens took a photograph that destroys the lone-gunman theory: Altgens 6. Everyone agrees that Altgens 6 was taken at right around Z255.
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact. The Warren Commission (WC) admitted that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) could not have caused the windshield damage. The WC assumed the damage was caused by a fragment from the head shot. However, the head shot did not occur until Z313.
As an important side note, I should mention that there is strong, mutually corroborating evidence that there was a hole in the windshield. At least eight witnesses in three different locations independently reported that they saw a hole in the windshield. One of the witnesses, a Dallas police officer, actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole. Several of the witnesses said the hole appeared to have been made by a bullet that hit from the front. For more information on this evidence, see Doug Weldon's chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
See also Dr. David Mantik's chapter titled "The Frontal Shot Through the Limousine Windshield" in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis (chapter 5).
I am not here to argue over the evidence of a windshield hole. My main point is that regardless of whether the windshield damage was just cracks or was a hole and some cracks, the lone-gunman theory has no plausible explanation for the damage.
WC apologists and mortal-error theorists who acknowledge that a bullet hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting may suggest that a fragment from this bullet hit the windshield. However, this is problematic for a number of reasons.
The windshield damage was 4-6 inches to the left of the rearview mirror (viewing from the back of the limo to the front). In order to hit the windshield at this location, a fragment from the pavement bullet would have had to first miss the riding handles on the back of the limo, then miss JFK and Jackie Kennedy, then miss John and Nellie Connally, and then miss the driver, William Greer.
Furthermore, in the MPI large-format transparencies of the Zapruder film, the windshield damage first appears in Z193 and is plainly visible again from Z215 to Z232 (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291). But the pavement strike occurred well before Z193 -- in fact, it occurred before Z166 (even according to Gerald Posner).
If a fragment had hit the windshield hard enough to crack it so early in the shooting, surely the driver would have noticed it and would have visibly reacted, since no other shots had been fired yet.
But, if the windshield was hit at around Z190, after at least one shot had already been fired, the driver, now nervous and distracted by having heard a rifle shot, may not have noticed the windshield hit, especially if a high-velocity bullet penetrated the windshield from the front.
Clearly, a windshield hit at Z190 could not have been done by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, even if we assume the windshield was hit from behind. Clearly, no fragment from the head shot could have caused the windshield damage, since the head shot occurred at Z313. And clearly, no fragment from the Z133-166 pavement bullet could have caused the windshield damage (indeed, WC apologists already have that bullet magically sending a large fragment streaking toward the curb near James Tague over 400 feet away).
-
AP photographer James Altgens took a photograph that destroys the lone-gunman theory: Altgens 6. Everyone agrees that Altgens 6 was taken at right around Z255.
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact. The Warren Commission (WC) admitted that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) could not have caused the windshield damage. The WC assumed the damage was caused by a fragment from the head shot. However, the head shot did not occur until Z313.
As an important side note, I should mention that there is strong, mutually corroborating evidence that there was a hole in the windshield. At least eight witnesses in three different locations independently reported that they saw a hole in the windshield. One of the witnesses, a Dallas police officer, actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole. Several of the witnesses said the hole appeared to have been made by a bullet that hit from the front. For more information on this evidence, see Doug Weldon's chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14rbFerR0QLDHK3wD2ZRxly5ungtICTwf)
See also Dr. David Mantik's chapter titled "The Frontal Shot Through the Limousine Windshield" in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis (chapter 5).
I am not here to argue over the evidence of a windshield hole. My main point is that regardless of whether the windshield damage was just cracks or was a hole and some cracks, the lone-gunman theory has no plausible explanation for the damage.
WC apologists and mortal-error theorists who acknowledge that a bullet hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting may suggest that a fragment from this bullet hit the windshield. However, this is problematic for a number of reasons.
The windshield damage was 4-6 inches to the left of the rearview mirror (viewing from the back of the limo to the front). In order to hit the windshield at this location, a fragment from the pavement bullet would have had to first miss the riding handles on the back of the limo, then miss JFK and Jackie Kennedy, then miss John and Nellie Connally, and then miss the driver, William Greer.
Furthermore, in the MPI large-format transparencies of the Zapruder film, the windshield damage first appears in Z193 and is plainly visible again from Z215 to Z232 (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291). But the pavement strike occurred well before Z193 -- in fact, it occurred before Z166 (even according to Gerald Posner).
If a fragment had hit the windshield hard enough to crack it so early in the shooting, surely the driver would have noticed it and would have visibly reacted, since no other shots had been fired yet.
But, if the windshield was hit at around Z190, after at least one shot had already been fired, the driver, now nervous and distracted by having heard a rifle shot, may not have noticed the windshield hit, especially if a high-velocity bullet penetrated the windshield from the front.
Clearly, a windshield hit at Z190 could not have been done by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, even if we assume the windshield was hit from behind. Clearly, no fragment from the head shot could have caused the windshield damage, since the head shot occurred at Z313. And clearly, no fragment from the Z133-166 pavement bullet could have caused the windshield damage (indeed, WC apologists already have that bullet magically sending a large fragment streaking toward the curb near James Tague over 400 feet away).
In the thread about the dented shell, I made the point that CTs have no interest in determining who killed JFK. Their whole game is finding excuses to deny it was Oswald. MTG's latest post is perfect example of this. This one he pulled out of thin air or more likely, a much darker place. I've looked at 4 different online copies of the Altgens 6 and I see nothing that resembles a cracked windshield in any of them. If the crack that was later discovered and photographed had been present in Altgens 6, that most certainly would be a game changer. CE399 did not cause that crack. There is no evidence the first shot struck anywhere inside the limo. Only a fragment from the head shot could have caused that crack. That is exactly what happened. But that hasn't stopped MTG from making this story up because he apparently doesn't have enough lame excuses to dismiss the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.
When MTG makes up excuses this bad, it makes me wonder if he is just here to troll and has no real interest in the JFKA.
-
A Dallas police officer actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole.
Who was that?
-
AP photographer James Altgens took a photograph that destroys the lone-gunman theory: Altgens 6. Everyone agrees that Altgens 6 was taken at right around Z255.
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact. The Warren Commission (WC) admitted that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) could not have caused the windshield damage. The WC assumed the damage was caused by a fragment from the head shot. However, the head shot did not occur until Z313.
...
Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.
-
Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.
It's my understanding that it was a two-ply laminated windshield, and that there was no through-and-through hole but the inner layer was cracked and the outer layer had lost a piece from the outward force of one of the bullet fragments from the Z-313 head shot that was found inside the limo.
ME: Was the windshield of JFK's limousine two-ply or three-ply?
Google AI: The windshield of JFK's 1961 Lincoln Continental limousine was two-ply (a standard laminated safety glass) at the time of the assassination. It was not bullet-resistant and contained only two layers of glass with a plastic interlayer, which was standard for luxury vehicles of that era.
-
Glanges was pretty sure it was a through and through bullet hole...
Covered up at the Rouge Plant 3 days later...
-
AP photographer James Altgens took a photograph that destroys the lone-gunman theory: Altgens 6. Everyone agrees that Altgens 6 was taken at right around Z255.
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact. The Warren Commission (WC) admitted that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) could not have caused the windshield damage. The WC assumed the damage was caused by a fragment from the head shot. However, the head shot did not occur until Z313.
As an important side note, I should mention that there is strong, mutually corroborating evidence that there was a hole in the windshield. At least eight witnesses in three different locations independently reported that they saw a hole in the windshield. One of the witnesses, a Dallas police officer, actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole. Several of the witnesses said the hole appeared to have been made by a bullet that hit from the front. For more information on this evidence, see Doug Weldon's chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
See also Dr. David Mantik's chapter titled "The Frontal Shot Through the Limousine Windshield" in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis (chapter 5).
I am not here to argue over the evidence of a windshield hole. My main point is that regardless of whether the windshield damage was just cracks or was a hole and some cracks, the lone-gunman theory has no plausible explanation for the damage.
WC apologists and mortal-error theorists who acknowledge that a bullet hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting may suggest that a fragment from this bullet hit the windshield. However, this is problematic for a number of reasons.
The windshield damage was 4-6 inches to the left of the rearview mirror (viewing from the back of the limo to the front). In order to hit the windshield at this location, a fragment from the pavement bullet would have had to first miss the riding handles on the back of the limo, then miss JFK and Jackie Kennedy, then miss John and Nellie Connally, and then miss the driver, William Greer.
Furthermore, in the MPI large-format transparencies of the Zapruder film, the windshield damage first appears in Z193 and is plainly visible again from Z215 to Z232 (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291). But the pavement strike occurred well before Z193 -- in fact, it occurred before Z166 (even according to Gerald Posner).
If a fragment had hit the windshield hard enough to crack it so early in the shooting, surely the driver would have noticed it and would have visibly reacted, since no other shots had been fired yet.
But, if the windshield was hit at around Z190, after at least one shot had already been fired, the driver, now nervous and distracted by having heard a rifle shot, may not have noticed the windshield hit, especially if a high-velocity bullet penetrated the windshield from the front.
Clearly, a windshield hit at Z190 could not have been done by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, even if we assume the windshield was hit from behind. Clearly, no fragment from the head shot could have caused the windshield damage, since the head shot occurred at Z313. And clearly, no fragment from the Z133-166 pavement bullet could have caused the windshield damage (indeed, WC apologists already have that bullet magically sending a large fragment streaking toward the curb near James Tague over 400 feet away).
The link for Weldon's chapter on the hole in the windshield has been fixed. Sorry about that.
-
Glanges was pretty sure it was a through and through bullet hole.
Covered up at the Rouge Plant 3 days later.
Of course.
The Rouge Plant was just another cog in Steve "I am a Leninist" Bannon's Deep State-Administrative State and/or Jimmy D'Eugenio's Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex that killed JFK and Jimi Hendrix, too!!!
-
MG: A Dallas police officer actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole.
TG: Who was that?
DPD officer Stavis Ellis.
Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.
Seriously? Well, this is a first. You're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6.
Folks, again, the link for Weldon's chapter on the hole in the limo's windshield has been fixed. I had the wrong link in the first version of the OP. Here it is again:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
But I repeat that this thread is not intended to debate the evidence of a hole in the windshield but to show that the lone-gunman theory cannot explain the windshield damage seen in Altgens 6 and in the Zapruder film.
-
Show us the damage that is "undisputedly" visible in Altgens 6.
MARK - I agree. This "undisputedly" stuff with respect to Altgens 6 and possible windshield damage is pure BS: Thanks for maintaining a "standard of proof" around here.
-
Seriously? Well, this is a first. You're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6.
Are you for real? No one has ever disputed that the windshield was damaged, but is the damage visible in Altgens 6? Undisputedly? Your (w)hole argument depends on it, so I was hoping that it wouldn't be too inconvenient for you to actually show us.
-
DPD officer Stavis Ellis actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole.
Stavis Ellis doesn't say that in this YouTube video.
He says, "You could put a pencil through it."
Unless you can provide us with a quote in which he says he or Chaney actually put a pencil through it, you're a liar.
It seems to me that you lie a lot.
-
Tom Graves: Stavis Ellis doesn't say that in this YouTube video.
He said it emphatically when he was interviewed by Doug Weldon. Let me guess: You can't bring yourself to read Weldon's chapter on the hole in the windshield.
Are you for real? No one has ever disputed that the windshield was damaged, but is the damage visible in Altgens 6? Undisputedly? Your (w)hole argument depends on it, so I was hoping that it wouldn't be too inconvenient for you to actually show us.
Are you for real? I didn't say anyone disputed the windshield was damaged. Can you read?
I said I've never met anyone who has denied that windshield damage can be seen in Altgens 6. It can also be seen in Altgens 7. Good grief, Roy Schaeffer noticed and talked about the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. This has been discussed in many books.
I'm curious: Do you also deny that windshield damage can be seen in a number of Zapruder frames before Z233, especially in the MPI large-format version of the film?
So it's looking like the LNer tactic is going to be to just deny that Altgens 6 and pre-Z233 Zapruder frames show windshield damage. You're gonna say, "I don't see that!" Well, no one can force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.
The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.
Here's what Dr. Mantik says about the windshield damage in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis:
On Friday, November 20, 2009, I viewed the first generation, large format MPI transparencies of the Zapruder film at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas with Sydney Wilkinson, a Zapruder film expert. The MPI transparencies had incredible clarity. The first sign of windshield damage appears at Z-193. This is uncannily consistent with the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) conclusion that JFK was hit in the throat at Z-190. Quite naïvely, as I examined the MPI images, I had forgotten this NPIC conclusion, so my observations were quite unbiased.
In these MPI images, this windshield site is obscured during Z-203 to Z-214, but the damage is visible (consistently at the same site) in Z-215 to Z-232. It is especially obvious in Z-229 and Z-230, but it is more difficult to see after Z-232. The windshield damage in the Zapruder frames appears at the same site as seen in Altgens 6 and Altgens 7. Roy’s description is also consistent with this.
I would emphasize that if the shot had occurred earlier than Z-222 (i.e., that was Roy’s selected frame), then a windshield transit would have been more likely—because the windshield elevation would have been higher. The Altgens 6 photograph (Figure 5.4) was taken at about Z-255, just thirty frames after Z-225 (i.e., less than two seconds later); it shows windshield damage consistent with a South Knoll shot. Shaeffer was the first to notice this windshield damage that lay very near JFK’s left ear (in the Altgens 6—see Figure 5.4). He observed that “the small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole.”
Of note, the official view is that the windshield damage was caused by a fragment from the headshot; that is nonsense, of course—because the headshots occurred after Z-300, far too late to affect the windshield at Z-255.
Figure 5.4: Altgens 6. The circle highlights damage to the windshield. The damage to the windshield can also be seen in Altgens 7 (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), taken as the limousine sped toward the Triple Overpass. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291)
-
Of course.
The Rouge Plant was just another cog in Steve "I am a Leninist" Bannon's Deep State-Administrative State and/or Jimmy D'Eugenio's Military Industrial Intelligence-Community Complex that killed JFK and Jimi Hendrix, too!!!
I'll stop you when you are wrong...
The media was caught paving the road with heroin overdose disinformation in Jimi's case...All designed to cover up the fact they were failing to pursue evidence of homicide...
-
[...]
Did Dallas Police officers carry pencils with them back in the day?
-
The link for Weldon's chapter on the hole in the windshield has been fixed. Sorry about that.
Aren't you the guy who just chastised me for my formatting errors?
-
Did Dallas Police officers carry pencils with them back in the day?
We are talking about DPD MOTORCYCLE Officers. They are issued (1) pencil and 2 MOTORCYCLE GLOVES.
-
DPD officer Stavis Ellis.
Seriously? Well, this is a first. You're the first person I've ever encountered who has disputed the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6.
You're the first person I've come across that proposed Altgens 6 shows damage to the windshield.
Folks, again, the link for Weldon's chapter on the hole in the limo's windshield has been fixed. I had the wrong link in the first version of the OP. Here it is again:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
But I repeat that this thread is not intended to debate the evidence of a hole in the windshield but to show that the lone-gunman theory cannot explain the windshield damage seen in Altgens 6 and in the Zapruder film.
No windshield damage is seen in the Altgens 6 photo. Altgens 6 has been widely available for the 35 years I have debated the JFKA online. You are the first person I've come across who has made this claim. If the windshield was already cracked, whether the missile went through it or not, it would indeed refute the lone gunman theory but since this is something you just made up, it does no such thing. If Altgens 6 showed windshield damage, somebody would have brought it up before now. It shows how desperate you are to make a point that you would simply make something like this up when it is so obvious there is no windshield damage showing in Altgens 6.
-
I think it would be worthwhile to quote more of what Dr. Mantik says about windshield damage in Altgens 6 and in pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film:
Roy Schaeffer of Dayton, Ohio, claims first discovery of the windshield damage seen in the Altgens 6 photographs. No one has disputed this. Schaeffer was at the Dayton Daily News when he received the Mary Moorman and the Altgens 6 photographs and removed them from the Thermofax machine at 7:15 a.m., on Saturday, November 23, 1963. He is considered “an expert of the highest order, with intricate knowledge of the newspaper business of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s and beyond.” Schaeffer, in his unpublished article, “A Matter of a Reasonable Doubt,” claimed that Z-222 shows the windshield hole.
At Z-230, a white dot of reflected light is visible on the limousine windshield. As viewed from the front, this appears just above and to the right of the rearview mirror (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3: Z-230. The circle identifies damage to the windshield. Z-230 is a fair representation of the windshield damage I saw on the first generation MPI images at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. . . .
I asked Roy Schaeffer when he had first noticed the windshield damage. Here is his reply in an email to me on October 30, 2021:
Dr. Mantik,
It was near Christmas of 1963, after learning at Willard’s garage of bullet damage to the Presidential Limousine. I then noticed the bullet hole in the Presidential Limousine from looking at the Saturday Evening Post near New Years that year.
I told two editors from the Dayton Daily News that I remember, one Carl Byers, staff writer, and then Lou Rotterman, Washington Bureau Chief. You have to remember Ralph McGill was Pres. of the Atlanta Constitution. I also told later Jim Nickols, writer and friend at the Dayton Daily News. That was as far as it went. At that time, I was an Apprentice.
I didn’t notice the bullet hole on 11/23/1963. My father had been a friend of Humphrey since 1930. Sadly, when my father died in 1968 my mother got rid of all their correspondence. After that, from time to time, I would mention it at the newspaper. As far as going to the outside media, I didn’t until 1991, Channel 22, ABC news, Dayton.
Roy Schaeffer (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 287-289, 343)
Anthony Edward DeFiore discussed the windshield damage seen in Altgens 6 and used to have good-quality enlargements of Altgens 6 on his website that enabled you to see the damage, but his site is no longer active.
Here is a YouTube video titled JFK - Altgens Photo 6 Colorized: Bullet Hole Clearly Visible In Windshield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRCeb0Yv94&t=3s)
I should have titled this thread "Why Altgens 6 and Pre-Z256 Zapruder Frames Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory," because the windshield damage is even more visible in the MPI large-frame version of the Zapruder film in a number of frames before Z256. You can get the MPI version on DVD and view it yourself. Here's one link to it:
https://www.mpihomevideo.com/products/image-of-an-assasination-a-new-look-at-the-zapruder-film-dvd
I can see windshield damage in Z227-230 in my copy of the MPI version when I view it on my 55-inch HD flat-screen TV. As Dr. Mantik notes, the damage is especially visible in Z229-230. I do not have the advantage of viewing individual large-format transparencies as Dr. Mantik was able to do at the Sixth Floor Museum, but I can see with my own eyes the damage he describes as being readily visible in Z229-230 on my DVD copy of the MPI digitally enlarged version of the film.
-
Are you for real? I didn't say anyone disputed the windshield was damaged. Can you read?
I said I've never met anyone who has denied that windshield damage can be seen in Altgens 6. It can also be seen in Altgens 7. Good grief, Roy Schaeffer noticed and talked about the windshield damage visible in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. This has been discussed in many books.
I'm curious: Do you also deny that windshield damage can be seen in a number of Zapruder frames before Z233, especially in the MPI large-format version of the film?
So it's looking like the LNer tactic is going to be to just deny that Altgens 6 and pre-Z233 Zapruder frames show windshield damage. You're gonna say, "I don't see that!" Well, no one can force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.
The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.
Here's what Dr. Mantik says about the windshield damage in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis:
On Friday, November 20, 2009, I viewed the first generation, large format MPI transparencies of the Zapruder film at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas with Sydney Wilkinson, a Zapruder film expert. The MPI transparencies had incredible clarity. The first sign of windshield damage appears at Z-193. This is uncannily consistent with the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) conclusion that JFK was hit in the throat at Z-190. Quite naïvely, as I examined the MPI images, I had forgotten this NPIC conclusion, so my observations were quite unbiased.
In these MPI images, this windshield site is obscured during Z-203 to Z-214, but the damage is visible (consistently at the same site) in Z-215 to Z-232. It is especially obvious in Z-229 and Z-230, but it is more difficult to see after Z-232. The windshield damage in the Zapruder frames appears at the same site as seen in Altgens 6 and Altgens 7. Roy’s description is also consistent with this.
I would emphasize that if the shot had occurred earlier than Z-222 (i.e., that was Roy’s selected frame), then a windshield transit would have been more likely—because the windshield elevation would have been higher. The Altgens 6 photograph (Figure 5.4) was taken at about Z-255, just thirty frames after Z-225 (i.e., less than two seconds later); it shows windshield damage consistent with a South Knoll shot. Shaeffer was the first to notice this windshield damage that lay very near JFK’s left ear (in the Altgens 6—see Figure 5.4). He observed that “the small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole.”
Of note, the official view is that the windshield damage was caused by a fragment from the headshot; that is nonsense, of course—because the headshots occurred after Z-300, far too late to affect the windshield at Z-255.
Figure 5.4: Altgens 6. The circle highlights damage to the windshield. The damage to the windshield can also be seen in Altgens 7 (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), taken as the limousine sped toward the Triple Overpass. (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291)
What a joke you are! It tends to raise a red flag with reasonable people when Jim Fetzer and his collaborators claim to have discovered something new, but with you it seems to automatically become undisputed fact.
Let's turn back time and give the word to Fetzer in Assassination Science (1998).
What [Fetzer collaborator] Schaeffer noticed is that, slightly to the right and barely above the upper-right-hand comer of the center-mounted rear-view mirror (looking toward the vehicle as it is displayed in the photograph), there is something that has the appearance of a small spiral nebula at exactly the location the President's left ear would be visible were it not obscured by a white image. The small spiral nebula has a dark spot at the center, strongly suggesting a through-and-through bullet hole. This is quite different from the windshield that the Secret Service produced, which shows a star-like configuration.
Groden (1993), p. 36, has published photos of both, side by side.
Here's what Groden had to say in The Killing of a President (1993). Notice that even he doesn't see any damage (my emphasis below).
Taken by Ike Altgens just after the first four [sic!] shots, the photo (right) shows the windshield of the President's car with no sign of damage from gunfire.
So what did Fetzer's collaborator discover? See below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dw990Wr5/nebula-groden.png)
Hmm, that doesn't look entirely convincing to me, but let's hear what serious researchers like Barb Junkkarinen, Jerry Logan & Josiah Thompson think.
ETERNAL RETURN: A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD? (2009) (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/)
The feature in the photograph that Fetzer believes is a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield he describes as “a small spiral nebula.” Good copies of the Altgens photo show it to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255.
Since the late 1960s, it has been well-known that Altgens #6 (taken at Z 255) shows an undamaged windshield while Altgens #7 (taken seconds later) shows damage to the windshield. Hence, whatever damage was incurred by the windshield it was incurred during this time interval. More importantly, the location and character of damage to the windshield showing in Altgens #7 matches what we see in a later photo of the windshield taken during Frazier’s examination. A photo of the limousine taken at Parkland Hospital may also show damage to the windshield at the location apparent in the Altgens and FBI photos.
Can you still claim, with a straight face, that it's an undisputed fact that the damage is visible in Altgens 6?
The crop below is from the best scan I have of the image. Gee, could that "nebula" above JFK's left shoulder actually be from the clothing of a person in the background, as suggested by Junkkarinen, et al?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3wHDBBjt/nebula-corbis.jpg)
-
Here's Z260.
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z260.jpg
Does anybody see damage to the windshield?
-
The problem is that you guys have no bullet that can explain the pre-Z256 windshield damage. But, rather than admit this, it looks like you're going to claim that no such damage existed before Z256.
I don't think any of us can explain things that exist only in your head. We don't hear the voices either.
-
I think it would be worthwhile to quote more of what Dr. Mantik says about windshield damage in Altgens 6 and in pre-Z256 frames of the Zapruder film:
Roy Schaeffer of Dayton, Ohio, claims first discovery of the windshield damage seen in the Altgens 6 photographs. No one has disputed this. Schaeffer was at the Dayton Daily News when he received the Mary Moorman and the Altgens 6 photographs and removed them from the Thermofax machine at 7:15 a.m., on Saturday, November 23, 1963. He is considered “an expert of the highest order, with intricate knowledge of the newspaper business of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s and beyond.” Schaeffer, in his unpublished article, “A Matter of a Reasonable Doubt,” claimed that Z-222 shows the windshield hole.
At Z-230, a white dot of reflected light is visible on the limousine windshield. As viewed from the front, this appears just above and to the right of the rearview mirror (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3: Z-230. The circle identifies damage to the windshield. Z-230 is a fair representation of the windshield damage I saw on the first generation MPI images at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. . . .
I asked Roy Schaeffer when he had first noticed the windshield damage. Here is his reply in an email to me on October 30, 2021:
Dr. Mantik,
It was near Christmas of 1963, after learning at Willard’s garage of bullet damage to the Presidential Limousine. I then noticed the bullet hole in the Presidential Limousine from looking at the Saturday Evening Post near New Years that year.
I told two editors from the Dayton Daily News that I remember, one Carl Byers, staff writer, and then Lou Rotterman, Washington Bureau Chief. You have to remember Ralph McGill was Pres. of the Atlanta Constitution. I also told later Jim Nickols, writer and friend at the Dayton Daily News. That was as far as it went. At that time, I was an Apprentice.
I didn’t notice the bullet hole on 11/23/1963. My father had been a friend of Humphrey since 1930. Sadly, when my father died in 1968 my mother got rid of all their correspondence. After that, from time to time, I would mention it at the newspaper. As far as going to the outside media, I didn’t until 1991, Channel 22, ABC news, Dayton.
Roy Schaeffer (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 287-289, 343)
Anthony Edward DeFiore discussed the windshield damage seen in Altgens 6 and used to have good-quality enlargements of Altgens 6 on his website that enabled you to see the damage, but his site is no longer active.
Here is a YouTube video titled JFK - Altgens Photo 6 Colorized: Bullet Hole Clearly Visible In Windshield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRCeb0Yv94&t=3s)
I should have titled this thread "Why Altgens 6 and Pre-Z256 Zapruder Frames Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory," because the windshield damage is even more visible in the MPI large-frame version of the Zapruder film in a number of frames before Z256. You can get the MPI version on DVD and view it yourself. Here's one link to it:
https://www.mpihomevideo.com/products/image-of-an-assasination-a-new-look-at-the-zapruder-film-dvd
I can see windshield damage in Z227-230 in my copy of the MPI version when I view it on my 55-inch HD flat-screen TV. As Dr. Mantik notes, the damage is especially visible in Z229-230. I do not have the advantage of viewing individual large-format transparencies as Dr. Mantik was able to do at the Sixth Floor Museum, but I can see with my own eyes the damage he describes as being readily visible in Z229-230 on my DVD copy of the MPI digitally enlarged version of the film.
So Schaeffer has, "...intricate knowledge of the newspaper business..."? So what. This has absolutely Nothing to do with his ability to examine a JFK Assassination Photo hot off that 1963 "Thermofax machine". Seriously?
-
A few follow-up points:
I found a video of Doug Weldon's presentation on the windshield damage at the 1999 JFK Lancer conference. In the presentation, Weldon spends some time talking about the damage visible in Altgens 6 while showing an enlargement of Altgens 6 on the jumbo screen (which appears to be about 6 feet tall and 10 feet wide). The segment starts at 1:40:34 in the video.
Doug Weldon JFK Assassination Conference Presentation: Kennedy Limousine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxeqAXCOzKg)
I'm citing Weldon's presentation in part to show that we've known for many years that windshield damage is visible in Altgens 6.
Part of the evidence of a hole through the windshield is the fact that Kennedy had two small holes in his right cheek. Tom Robinson, one of the morticians, noticed the holes and plugged them to keep them from leaking embalming fluid. He didn't notice the holes until he started the embalming process and saw embalming fluid leak through them and saw a slight discoloration them begin to appear in them.
A number of scholars have suggested that small particles from the windshield shot hit Kennedy's right cheek, and that a larger glass fragment hit him in the throat. The glass fragment would have been hard to see on the chest x-rays and could have easily been missed. Also, the glass fragment's range would have been limited, which could explain the damage to the right lung slightly below and to the right of the throat wound.
BTW, Robinson told the HSCA that he saw a small wound in the area of JFK's right temple. No wonder his HSCA testimony was sealed. (It was released by the ARRB in the 1990s.)
-
A few follow-up points:
I found a video of Doug Weldon's presentation on the windshield damage at the 1999 JFK Lancer conference. In the presentation, Weldon spends some time talking about the damage visible in Altgens 6 while showing an enlargement of Altgens 6 on the jumbo screen (which appears to be about 6 feet tall and 10 feet wide). The segment starts at 1:40:34 in the video.
Doug Weldon JFK Assassination Conference Presentation: Kennedy Limousine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxeqAXCOzKg)
Since there is no windshield damage in Altgens 6, that makes the whole presentation irrelevant.
I'm citing Weldon's presentation in part to show that we've known for many years that windshield damage is visible in Altgens 6.
Why do you keep saying "we"?
Part of the evidence of a hole through the windshield is the fact that Kennedy had two small holes in his right cheek. Tom Robinson, one of the morticians, noticed the holes and plugged them to keep them from leaking embalming fluid. He didn't notice the holes until he started the embalming process and saw embalming fluid leak through them and saw a slight discoloration them begin to appear in them.
A number of scholars have suggested that small particles from the windshield shot hit Kennedy's right cheek, and that a larger glass fragment hit him in the throat. The glass fragment would have been hard to see on the chest x-rays and could have easily been missed. Also, the glass fragment's range would have been limited, which could explain the damage to the right lung slightly below and to the right of the throat wound.
Anyone who would come up with something that silly is no scholar. I do like how you throw that word around loosely to try to give these clowns credibility. It isn't working.
BTW, Robinson told the HSCA that he saw a small wound in the area of JFK's right temple. No wonder his HSCA testimony was sealed. (It was released by the ARRB in the 1990s.)
Not surprising given it's proximity to the exit point.
-
AP photographer James Altgens took a photograph that destroys the lone-gunman theory: Altgens 6. Everyone agrees that Altgens 6 was taken at right around Z255.
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact. The Warren Commission (WC) admitted that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) could not have caused the windshield damage. The WC assumed the damage was caused by a fragment from the head shot. However, the head shot did not occur until Z313.
As an important side note, I should mention that there is strong, mutually corroborating evidence that there was a hole in the windshield. At least eight witnesses in three different locations independently reported that they saw a hole in the windshield. One of the witnesses, a Dallas police officer, actually put a pencil through the hole to confirm it was a hole. Several of the witnesses said the hole appeared to have been made by a bullet that hit from the front. For more information on this evidence, see Doug Weldon's chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6ZGjLK6v3U-iRFMZ6JlyvvZwkPZ-Y_J/view?usp=sharing)
See also Dr. David Mantik's chapter titled "The Frontal Shot Through the Limousine Windshield" in his 2024 book The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis (chapter 5).
I am not here to argue over the evidence of a windshield hole. My main point is that regardless of whether the windshield damage was just cracks or was a hole and some cracks, the lone-gunman theory has no plausible explanation for the damage.
WC apologists and mortal-error theorists who acknowledge that a bullet hit the pavement behind the limousine early in the shooting may suggest that a fragment from this bullet hit the windshield. However, this is problematic for a number of reasons.
The windshield damage was 4-6 inches to the left of the rearview mirror (viewing from the back of the limo to the front). In order to hit the windshield at this location, a fragment from the pavement bullet would have had to first miss the riding handles on the back of the limo, then miss JFK and Jackie Kennedy, then miss John and Nellie Connally, and then miss the driver, William Greer.
Furthermore, in the MPI large-format transparencies of the Zapruder film, the windshield damage first appears in Z193 and is plainly visible again from Z215 to Z232 (David Mantik, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 289-291). But the pavement strike occurred well before Z193 -- in fact, it occurred before Z166 (even according to Gerald Posner).
If a fragment had hit the windshield hard enough to crack it so early in the shooting, surely the driver would have noticed it and would have visibly reacted, since no other shots had been fired yet.
But, if the windshield was hit at around Z190, after at least one shot had already been fired, the driver, now nervous and distracted by having heard a rifle shot, may not have noticed the windshield hit, especially if a high-velocity bullet penetrated the windshield from the front.
Clearly, a windshield hit at Z190 could not have been done by a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window, even if we assume the windshield was hit from behind. Clearly, no fragment from the head shot could have caused the windshield damage, since the head shot occurred at Z313. And clearly, no fragment from the Z133-166 pavement bullet could have caused the windshield damage (indeed, WC apologists already have that bullet magically sending a large fragment streaking toward the curb near James Tague over 400 feet away).
If you look carefully at a good copy of Altgens 6, you'll see the complete right edge of the rearview mirror, unbroken, along the left side of the alleged "windshield damage." In fact, the right side of the "damage" is bounded by the mirror on the left and by JFK's shoulder on along the bottom. The only way that could happen is if the mirror and JFK were in the foreground with respect to the "windshield damage." Therefore, whatever the alleged damage is, it's in the background behind the mirror. It's not on the windshield at all. This destroys the idea that the windshield damage occurred before frame 255.
-
The assassination researcher Barb Junkarrein addressed the question of the "hole through the windshield" and specifically whether Altgens 6 shows a hole here:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/
Key graf: "Good copies of the Altgens photo show it [i.e., the alleged hole or "spiral nebula" crack] to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255."
-
If you look carefully at a good copy of Altgens 6, you'll see the complete right edge of the rearview mirror, unbroken, along the left side of the alleged "windshield damage." In fact, the right side of the "damage" is bounded by the mirror on the left and by JFK's shoulder on along the bottom. The only way that could happen is if the mirror and JFK were in the foreground with respect to the "windshield damage." Therefore, whatever the alleged damage is, it's in the background behind the mirror. It's not on the windshield at all. This destroys the idea that the windshield damage occurred before frame 255.
To suggest that MTG would ever violate his loyalty oath to Fetzer and his collaborators is like asking a zebra to alter its stripes. The likelihood is negligible.
-
The assassination researcher Barb Junkarrein addressed the question of the "hole through the windshield" and specifically whether Altgens 6 shows a hole here:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/
Key graf: "Good copies of the Altgens photo show it [i.e., the alleged hole or "spiral nebula" crack] to be not a feature of the windshield. Rather it is a pattern formed by the gathering of fabric in the dress of a woman spectator standing in the background. The Altgens #6 photo demonstrates that the limousine windshield is not damaged at Zapruder frame 255.
Already posted (and predictably ignored by MTG).
-
Barb Junkkarinens disproved the Altgens 6 windshield crack years ago. Can Michael T. Griffith be man enough to admit he’s very wrong and that the whole purpose of starting this thread is moot?
-
Barb Junkkarinens disproved the Altgens 6 windshield crack years ago. Can Michael T. Griffith be man enough to admit he’s very wrong and that the whole purpose of starting this thread is moot?
If MTG were to admit he was wrong, that would take a heap of admissions.
-
I have seen some really stupid posts by Griffith, but this one takes the cake!
I usually don't read his tripe, but this one caught my eye because of its special type of absurdity.
-
I have seen some really stupid posts by Griffith, but this one takes the cake!
I usually don't read his tripe, but this one caught my eye because of its special type of absurdity.
You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.
I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.
Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.
-
You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.
I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.
What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.
Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.
Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.
-
What makes you think your musings are worth reading. The stuff you post is silly enough. We don't need to go on a scavenger hunt to find further evidence of your silliness.
Not nearly as strong as forensic evidence.
Look how Barb Junkkarinen researched this question vs. how Michael Griffith looked into it (Junkkarinen was a conspiracist not a lone assassin believer). She didn't uncritically accept any claims about seeing a hole, she looked into them, tried to re-create where they were, what they could see. Were they credible? She sifted through the evidence pro and con, weighed them, and came to a conclusion. Whether it was right or not is second to the question of *how* she studied the issue.
Michael Griffith simply accepts the bullet hole claims (how would a spectator not at the scene know what caused the "hole"?), does no deeper research into the accounts, dismisses counter claims and then concludes that the evidence by itself "refutes" the long assassin theory.
Meanwhile, at the same time he accepts the acoustic analysis which theorized there was no frontal shot at that time. It didn't happen they said. If he believes the acoustics analysis then he can't believe in a early frontal shot and certainly not here at circa Z 260 or so.
-
You guys say this about every item of evidence that you can't explain.
I'm guessing you haven't bothered to read any of the articles and videos that I've linked in previous replies.
Would you care to offer an explanation for the evidence that Weldon presents, for starters? No, of course not. When at least eight witnesses in three different locations independently confirm something, such corroboration is usually considered to be very strong evidence.
The lack of damage to the windshield in Altgens 6 has already been pretty thoroughly explained. Yourf OP fails completely at that point, and can't be resuscitated by anything Weldon presented.
-
The lack of damage to the windshield in Altgens 6 has already been pretty thoroughly explained. Yourf OP fails completely at that point, and can't be resuscitated by anything Weldon presented.
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.
-
Another surreal denial that simply ignores contrary evidence.
The things you imagine are not evidence of anything except your overly imaginative mind.
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?
Never mind that Weldon is as goofy as 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? 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.
I didn't know Mantik had bought into the silly early windshield damage claim. That erodes his credibility even further if such a thing is possible.
-
The things you imagine are not evidence of anything except your overly imaginative mind.
Never mind that Weldon is as goofy as MTG.
I didn't know Mantik had bought into the silly early windshield damage claim. That erodes his credibility even further if such a thing is possible.
Technology is making things clear with respect to the JFK Assassination. Steve Barber just proved this with his thread detailing that JFK NEVER Clutched at his throat. The higher definition images on the Zapruder Film prove this. If there are now JFK Assassination Images of higher detail, we need to give these images our serious consideration.
-
Technology is making things clear with respect to the JFK Assassination. Steve Barber just proved this with his thread detailing that JFK NEVER Clutched at his throat.
I don't know anybody other than Nellie Connally who thought JFK clutched his throat. Why would anyone need technology to figure that out?
The higher definition images on the Zapruder Film prove this. If there are now JFK Assassination Images of higher detail, we need to give these images our serious consideration.
There's only so much modern technology can do to enhance the Z-film. It can enlarge it, sharpen the images, etc. but if the film didn't initially capture something, technology can't magically insert it with authenticity. There's a fine line between AI enhancements and AI alterations. AI has the capability of creating false versions of the Z-film. Things CTs have alleged for years are now possible with AI.
-
I don't know anybody other than Nellie Connally who thought JFK clutched his throat. Why would anyone need technology to figure that out?
There's only so much modern technology can do to enhance the Z-film. It can enlarge it, sharpen the images, etc. but if the film didn't initially capture something, technology can't magically insert it with authenticity. There's a fine line between AI enhancements and AI alterations. AI has the capability of creating false versions of the Z-film. Things CTs have alleged for years are now possible with AI.
What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.
-
What we see above is in line with, "If God had wanted Man to fly, he would have been born with wings". Primitive Thinking.
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.
-
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".
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tThcng2Y/117-crop.png)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.
For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.
The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.
And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures.
The official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.
Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.
"The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view?usp=sharing
-
Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.
For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.
The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.
And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures.
The official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.
Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.
Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!
Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.
(https://i.ibb.co/4wBzyKr8/Vertical-parallax-gate-bolt-to-screen-HSCA-2.jpg)
Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.
I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.
Here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-A, and by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMkVDLsy/Oswald-backyard-a-c-parallax.gif)
Knowing that you would claim that the other two backyard photos could be identical and just to rain on your parade, here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-B, and again by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/m28xvHVr/Oswald-backyard-b-c-parallax.gif)
To address your comment regarding "camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll)" not being addressed, I've already told you, shown you and further proved that Oswald's camera tilted upwards(pitch). No offence but are you mentally retarded?
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqG7zQZN/ce133a-ce133b-perspective.gif)
While making these above and below comparisons and to line up the gap in the fence palings I had to rotate(roll) the photos so the fence gap could line up and as witnessed in all comparisons, objects either side of the lined up fence gap/s move simultaneously away and towards the camera which illustrates, and you guessed it(yaw)!
(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZsSfQrh/griffithsnightmare.gif)
I shouldn't need to say this yet again but here I go, your assertion of "microscopic differences" has no bearing on objects as they exist in the "real World", the HSCA were taking measurements from a vastly scaled down photo and when the measured objects are relatively measured in the "real world" as opposed to a tiny photographic representation, the HSCA example of the distance between the gate bolt to the bottom of the screen behind is NOT microscopic and the distance between these two objects is "HUGE" as compared to your microscopic nonsense! And the amount of objects that show a parallax change is indeed "VAST", so stop misrepresenting and misquoting me!
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs6x3DQx/Parallax-HSCA-gate-latch-to-screen-door.gif)
BTW, whenever you try to refute the photographic/film evidence you continue to make the most childish amateurish mistakes which are all easily disproved, you really need a new hobby!
JohnM
-
I guess we can add photo analysis to the fields in which MTG has no expertise but chooses to pontificate about anyway.
-
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Name‑dropping crackpots doesn’t do much for your argument, I'm afraid. If the damage in the photo really were as obvious as you keep insisting, wouldn't you have been able to show it graphically by now?
-
Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.
Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.
For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.
The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.
And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures.
The official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.
Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.
"The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view?usp=sharing
MTG: Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."
No, a bullet hole though automotive safety glass --specifically the "frosted" area around the hole-- reflects white no matter the viewing angle so long as you can see the face of the glass.
MTG: Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer
So where are the "high quality enlargements" that show the damage? Without those, this is just name-dropping a cavalcade of crackpots, as Mark Ulrik has already noted.
MTG: Regarding my photogrammetry
You still have no idea what you're talking about, when you talk about photogrammetry.
And the Gish Gallop you just launched is nothing more than an attempt at a diversion and a fringe reset. All the claims you just made have already been destroyed in other threads.
-
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.
The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.
If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?
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.
Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing. It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there. A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.
Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.
Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.
I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!
To address your comment regarding "camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll)" not being addressed, I've already told you, shown you and further proved that Oswald's camera tilted upwards(pitch). No offence but are you mentally retarded?
While making these above and below comparisons and to line up the gap in the fence palings I had to rotate(roll) the photos so the fence gap could line up and as witnessed in all comparisons, objects either side of the lined up fence gap/s move simultaneously away and towards the camera which illustrates, and you guessed it(yaw)!
I shouldn't need to say this yet again but here I go, your assertion of "microscopic differences" has no bearing on objects as they exist in the "real World", the HSCA were taking measurements from a vastly scaled down photo and when the measured objects are relatively measured in the "real world" as opposed to a tiny photographic representation, the HSCA example of the distance between the gate bolt to the bottom of the screen behind is NOT microscopic and the distance between these two objects is "HUGE" as compared to your microscopic nonsense! And the amount of objects that show a parallax change is indeed "VAST", so stop misrepresenting and misquoting me!
BTW, whenever you try to refute the photographic/film evidence you continue to make the most childish amateurish mistakes which are all easily disproved, you really need a new hobby! JohnM
You are a genuine quack on this issue. I answered every one of these arguments in the thread on the backyard rifle photos, but here you are repeating them again as if they're still valid.
The HSCA PEP was talking about the movement of the camera "in the real world" when the photos were allegedly taken. Do you not understand this?
As I asked you before, if the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" between the backgrounds of the two backyard photos, why did they report that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416)?
Again, the PEP's ultimate aim was to determine if the camera moved "in the real world" between each exposure of the film, and they found that it moved only "slightly to the left" and "slightly downward," that its vertical movement was "very small." And, again, they didn't even measure to determine if the camera moved angularly. Why not?
And, no, the backyard photos they analyzed (133-A and 133-B) are not "tiny photos." I debunked this falsehood in the backyard rifle photos thread, but you just keep repeating it. Here's what I pointed out to you about your "tiny photos" claim:
"Tiny photos"? Huh? The HSCA PEP admitted that 133-A DeM, which is much clearer than 133-A, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). The PEP was able to make large high-quality prints with 133-A DeM.
Remember? Do you ever wonder why the PEP never described 133-A and 133-B as "tiny photos"?
The distances between background objects were so small that they could only be detected via “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405). This wasn't because the photos were "tiny," but because the background differences themselves were extremely small.
This is not a bit surprising, since the PEP determined from these measurements that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and down. If the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, the camera movement would have been far, far greater.
One of your comments deserves special attention:
To address your comment regarding "camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll)" not being addressed, I've already told you, shown you and further proved that Oswald's camera tilted upwards(pitch). No offence but are you mentally retarded?
This comment is further proof that you have no clue what you're talking about and are trying to bluff and bluster your way through. I guess the PEP experts must have been retarded, because they didn't even measure for angular movement, but only for the camera's horizontal and vertical position.
You haven't "proved" anything about the camera's upward tilt. Your goofy graphics are not proof of anything. To determine the camera's angular movement, you would need to do more photogrammetric measurements, not just measurements designed to detect a change in the camera's horizonal or vertical position.
Yes, your graphics are indeed goofy. You talk like you really don't understand what the PEP experts said or did.
Folks, compare John Mytton's comments with my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view?usp=sharing)
-
The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.
If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?
Why do you assume anyone tried to obscure anything?
Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing.
Says the guy who sees a bullet hole where none exists.
It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there. A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.
You and a few other kooks are the only ones who do.
You are a genuine quack on this issue.
Irony alert.
I answered every one of these arguments in the thread on the backyard rifle photos, but here you are repeating them again as if they're still valid.
They are. Your silly counterpoints are not.
The HSCA PEP was talking about the movement of the camera "in the real world" when the photos were allegedly taken. Do you not understand this?
As I asked you before, if the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" between the backgrounds of the two backyard photos, why did they report that their photogrammetric measurements found that the camera moved only “slightly to the left” and only “slightly downward” between exposures, and that the camera’s vertical movement was “very small” (6 HSCA 178-179; 2 HSCA 416)?
Again, the PEP's ultimate aim was to determine if the camera moved "in the real world" between each exposure of the film, and they found that it moved only "slightly to the left" and "slightly downward," that its vertical movement was "very small." And, again, they didn't even measure to determine if the camera moved angularly. Why not?
And, no, the backyard photos they analyzed (133-A and 133-B) are not "tiny photos." I debunked this falsehood in the backyard rifle photos thread, but you just keep repeating it. Here's what I pointed out to you about your "tiny photos" claim:
"Tiny photos"? Huh? The HSCA PEP admitted that 133-A DeM, which is much clearer than 133-A, was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). The PEP was able to make large high-quality prints with 133-A DeM.
Remember? Do you ever wonder why the PEP never described 133-A and 133-B as "tiny photos"?
The distances between background objects were so small that they could only be detected via “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” (2 HSCA 398, 405). This wasn't because the photos were "tiny," but because the background differences themselves were extremely small.
This is not a bit surprising, since the PEP determined from these measurements that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left and down. If the photos had been taken in the manner claimed by the official story, the camera movement would have been far, far greater.
One of your comments deserves special attention:
This comment is further proof that you have no clue what you're talking about and are trying to bluff and bluster your way through. I guess the PEP experts must have been retarded, because they didn't even measure for angular movement, but only for the camera's horizontal and vertical position.
You haven't "proved" anything about the camera's upward tilt. Your goofy graphics are not proof of anything. To determine the camera's angular movement, you would need to do more photogrammetric measurements, not just measurements designed to detect a change in the camera's horizonal or vertical position.
Yes, your graphics are indeed goofy. You talk like you really don't understand what the PEP experts said or did.
Folks, compare John Mytton's comments with my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos." (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view?usp=sharing)
It's truly amazing how one man could believe in so many myths.
-
Here's the unsolvable problem that Altgens 6 poses for the lone-gunman theory: It shows damage to the windshield of JFK's limousine. Nobody disputes this fact.
Someone should compile a list of the ridiculous claims that you have made over the years. You are a sad strange little man. No damage to the windshield can be seen in Atgens 6. There isn't a single Lone Nutter who believes that the windshield was damaged before the head shot. And only very few conspiracy theorists maintain that damage is visible in Altgens 6. They are a fringe element.
-
Someone should compile a list of the ridiculous claims that you have made over the years. You are a sad strange little man. No damage to the windshield can be seen in Atgens 6. There isn't a single Lone Nutter who believes that the windshield was damaged before the head shot. And only very few conspiracy theorists maintain that damage is visible in Altgens 6. They are a fringe element.
Concise and to the point.
-
Someone should compile a list of the ridiculous claims that you have made over the years. You are a sad strange little man. No damage to the windshield can be seen in Atgens 6. There isn't a single Lone Nutter who believes that the windshield was damaged before the head shot. And only very few conspiracy theorists maintain that damage is visible in Altgens 6. They are a fringe element.
Your point(s) should be enough to carry the day. You're better than the "sad little man" stuff.
-
The saddest little man was Sandy Larsen who abused his moderator power to bail out the Prayer Man people with the lie that the clearly-seen dress neckline on Prayer Man in the 6th Floor Museum copy was a CIA forgery designed to conceal Oswald's work shirt collar...
Something the reformed new administration at The Education Forum won't allow any review of lest people realize they are an incestuous den of bogus evidence-intimidating crooks...
I'm sure Larsen, if he were still alive, would enthusiastically back the put-people-on-ignore missive by administrator Iler...
-
The saddest little man was Sandy Larsen who abused his moderator power to bail out the Prayer Man people with the lie that the clearly-seen dress neckline on Prayer Man in the 6th Floor Museum copy was a CIA forgery designed to conceal Oswald's work shirt collar...
Something the reformed new administration at The Education Forum won't allow any review of lest people realize they are an incestuous den of bogus evidence-intimidating crooks...
I'm sure Larsen, if he were still alive, would enthusiastically back the put-people-on-ignore missive by administrator Iler...
The CIA altering Oswald's work shirt into a dress neckline is Cinque worthy. You're Not doing your cause any favors with these wild claims.
-
The CIA altering Oswald's work shirt into a dress neckline is Cinque worthy. You're Not doing your cause any favors with these wild claims.
Dear Stormtrooper Storing,
I think you've got it backwards.
Doyle's saying Larsen claimed that the evil, evil, evil CIA made the Oswald figure look like a woman.
Are you saying that's what the evil, evil, evil CIA did?
-- Tom
-
The Davidson enhancement of 2016 showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man and ended the issue...The Prayer Man people solved that problem by getting rogue moderator James Gordon to ban me on BS site rules violations he refused to substantiate and then focused on the strawman of calling for the original films...After all, by calling for the original films they were seeking the truth and not just using cheap tactics to avoid addressing the Davidson enhancement...In 2024 the 6th Floor Museum released its 1st generation copy of Darnell that, because it was a film to film copy, showed the clearly-visible female dress neckline of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man...This second discovery was corroborating, reinforcing proof that Prayer Man was Stanton...The Prayer Man people had successfully fragmented the research community in to the Deep Politics Forum, The Education Forum, and the successor to ROKC known as "Jacks"...Each of these was controlled by favoring moderators who kept the Prayer Man issue from ever gaining traction...It was when the research community was forced to give an opinion on the dress neckline that Larsen implemented his strategic lie and claimed the dress neckline was forged...Larsen was forced in to this because the only other alternative was admitting the grandiose Education Forum was a gang of hacks who had their asses handed to them by a guy they ridiculed and banned...The clique that did that has now doubled down and are posting instructions on how to put people on ignore...
A credible website addresses the forgery claim and takes a second look at it with the best researchers and best evidence...An uncredible website draws back to its core clique and posts threads on how to put people on ignore...That thread is read-only and the comments are locked...And it originates from "The Moderation Team"...Ben Cole puts hope in this new administration...
-
The Davidson enhancement of 2016 showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man and ended the issue...The Prayer Man people solved that problem by getting rogue moderator James Gordon to ban me on BS site rules violations he refused to substantiate and then focused on the strawman of calling for the original films...After all, by calling for the original films they were seeking the truth and not just using cheap tactics to avoid addressing the Davidson enhancement...In 2024 the 6th Floor Museum released its 1st generation copy of Darnell that, because it was a film to film copy, showed the clearly-visible female dress neckline of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man...This second discovery was corroborating, reinforcing proof that Prayer Man was Stanton...The Prayer Man people had successfully fragmented the research community in to the Deep Politics Forum, The Education Forum, and the successor to ROKC known as "Jacks"...Each of these was controlled by favoring moderators who kept the Prayer Man issue from ever gaining traction...It was when the research community was forced to give an opinion on the dress neckline that Larsen implemented his strategic lie and claimed the dress neckline was forged...Larsen was forced in to this because the only other alternative was admitting the grandiose Education Forum was a gang of hacks who had their asses handed to them by a guy they ridiculed and banned...The clique that did that has now doubled down and are posting instructions on how to put people on ignore...
A credible website addresses the forgery claim and takes a second look at it with the best researchers and best evidence...An uncredible website draws back to its core clique and posts threads on how to put people on ignore...That thread is read-only and the comments are locked...And it originates from "The Moderation Team"...Ben Cole puts hope in this new administration...
Why is any of this an issue? None of it sheds any light on the JFKA. It is just a bunch of screwballs trying to make something out of nothing.
-
Why is any of this an issue? None of it sheds any light on the JFKA. It is just a bunch of screwballs trying to make something out of nothing.
They require a grand "Deep State" / "Administrative State" conspiracy for psychological reasons.
-
The Davidson enhancement of 2016 showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man and ended the issue...The Prayer Man people solved that problem by getting rogue moderator James Gordon to ban me on BS site rules violations he refused to substantiate and then focused on the strawman of calling for the original films...After all, by calling for the original films they were seeking the truth and not just using cheap tactics to avoid addressing the Davidson enhancement...In 2024 the 6th Floor Museum released its 1st generation copy of Darnell that, because it was a film to film copy, showed the clearly-visible female dress neckline of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man...This second discovery was corroborating, reinforcing proof that Prayer Man was Stanton...The Prayer Man people had successfully fragmented the research community in to the Deep Politics Forum, The Education Forum, and the successor to ROKC known as "Jacks"...Each of these was controlled by favoring moderators who kept the Prayer Man issue from ever gaining traction...It was when the research community was forced to give an opinion on the dress neckline that Larsen implemented his strategic lie and claimed the dress neckline was forged...Larsen was forced in to this because the only other alternative was admitting the grandiose Education Forum was a gang of hacks who had their asses handed to them by a guy they ridiculed and banned...The clique that did that has now doubled down and are posting instructions on how to put people on ignore...
A credible website addresses the forgery claim and takes a second look at it with the best researchers and best evidence...An uncredible website draws back to its core clique and posts threads on how to put people on ignore...That thread is read-only and the comments are locked...And it originates from "The Moderation Team"...Ben Cole puts hope in this new administration...
In 2024 The Sixth Floor DID NOT Release their ENTIRE 1st Generation Copy of the Darnell Film. The Sixth Floor did Not provide any footage that Darnell filmed after he filmed the motorcade going down Elm St. This missing footage includes the train yard segment revealing the Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop walking along the string of passenger train cars and then his going toward/down the Elm St Extension. The Sixth Floor also did Not release the short Darnell filmed segment showing the area between the short wall running down from Zapruder and the Picket Fence. That I know of, Darnell is the ONLY photog that captured that Black Dog Man/Badge Man area immediately after the assassination. The Sixth Floor has been sitting on this Darnell footage for 2 yrs now.
-
The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.
If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?
Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing. It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there. A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.
MTG: The print of Altgens 6 in Groden's book is a good-quality print.
Photographs reproduced in books are never particularly good, especially for the kinds of analysis that Weldon was attempting. Too many compromises need to be made to transfer between media and conform to the requirements of mass production. What we now have available on the internet is far superior to what you can find in TKOAP or Trask's POTP.
'
If there's no damage in the area identified by Weldon and many others, why were two subsequent reproductions of Altgens 6 altered to obscure that area, one by a diagonal line and the other by bleaching out the area altogether? Why alter the photo in the very area identified as showing a hole and/or damage if there's nothing there?
Or, whatever happened to two copies had nothing to do with the alleged "damage" and Weldon (via you) tried using the highly-scientific method known throughout the industry as "insinuation."
Well, again, I can't force you to admit seeing what you don't want to admit seeing {...} A long list of other researchers can see damage there, but you say you don't see it.
I see that the "spiral nebula" is something that is behind the rearview mirror. Anyone who says different is suffering from a bad case of wishful thinking.
It's been some time, but I saw high-quality enlargements of the suspect area in Altgens 6, and I could see damage there.
You need to have your eyes examined. If that doesn't fix the problem, then examine your own head.
-
So, if a shot was fired through the windshield and hit JFK in the throat Prior to Altgens 6, where did this shot originate from? I have not seen any Proof that the alleged "hole" in the windshield even lines up with JFK at any point prior to Altgens 6. And then there's the issue of the alleged shot missing SA Greer, SA Kellerman, and Gov Connally. This is more Ed Forum BS:
-
Why is any of this an issue? None of it sheds any light on the JFKA. It is just a bunch of screwballs trying to make something out of nothing.
Because under The Education Forum and Jim DiEugenio the CT community has taken a serious wrong turn and ran the credibility of JFK research on to the rocks via Greg Parker and Bart Kamp...This single issue and the corruption around it has railroaded and paralyzed good JFK research and made the JFK internet a trench warfare battle zone of no progress and confusion...It isn't the Lone Nutters who are doing this it is that idiot Jim DiEugenio and his tendency towards generating gangs and cliques of favorites over good research...Jim is in it for the ego satisfaction and he has a whole internet of sycophants that take that bargain and help him along with it...That group just succeeded in putting a prime DiEugenio Bahookie-kisser, Andrew Iler, in dictatorial control of The Education Forum and its "Moderator Team" (All DiEugenio suck-ups)...
The reason it is an issue is because the good evidence DiEugenio has helped railroad out of view with his corrupted methods is clearly establishing that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...The Education Forum makes itself the welcomed home of unlimited bullsh*t that fills its annals with years of detailed fodder yet carefully stays away from the important necessary conclusions this evidence leads to...And they do it under the implied premise that they are the ultimate researchers with the best methods - all kept safe by wicked censorship and banning controlled by a core group of favored members (The Moderator Team)...They have the balls to suggest this assumption of superior status to the degree of giving instruction on how to put people on ignore...The whole time protecting the bogus Prayer Man theory with some of the worst corruption and dishonesty in research history and allowing no counter evidence...All headed off by false accusations of rules violations...
Why is it an issue?...Because the Prayer Man subject has successfully prevented a solving of the conspiracy single handedly...And it has been done by a creep researcher, Bart Kamp, who is protected from fair playing field adversarial debate by a group of dominating hacks, bullies, frauds, and suck ups who see the Prayer Man theory as a short route to insider status in the research community...
-
The reason it is an issue is because the good evidence DiEugenio has helped railroad out of view with his corrupted methods is clearly establishing that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination.
Just what evidence would that be that establishes Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the assassination?
-
Just what evidence would that be that establishes Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunchroom during the assassination?
Literally ALL the evidence...
Every single witness to Oswald's whereabouts puts him in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Truly & Baker, new witness Sarah Stanton, Dougherty, Carolyn Arnold, Oswald himself, Buell Frazier (who said Oswald's partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple were seen on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table), and James Hosty who said Oswald admitted he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination...
There are no witnesses to Oswald being outside on the front steps top platform during the assassination...Frazier said Oswald wasn't there...Yet the dysfunctional CT community keeps insisting Oswald was there out front in order to indulge lunatic fringe researchers and their pet theories...
-
Because under The Education Forum and Jim DiEugenio the CT community has taken a serious wrong turn and ran the credibility of JFK research on to the rocks via Greg Parker and Bart Kamp...This single issue and the corruption around it has railroaded and paralyzed good JFK research and made the JFK internet a trench warfare battle zone of no progress and confusion...It isn't the Lone Nutters who are doing this it is that idiot Jim DiEugenio and his tendency towards generating gangs and cliques of favorites over good research...Jim is in it for the ego satisfaction and he has a whole internet of sycophants that take that bargain and help him along with it...That group just succeeded in putting a prime DiEugenio Bahookie-kisser, Andrew Iler, in dictatorial control of The Education Forum and its "Moderator Team" (All DiEugenio suck-ups)...
The reason it is an issue is because the good evidence DiEugenio has helped railroad out of view with his corrupted methods is clearly establishing that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...The Education Forum makes itself the welcomed home of unlimited bullsh*t that fills its annals with years of detailed fodder yet carefully stays away from the important necessary conclusions this evidence leads to...And they do it under the implied premise that they are the ultimate researchers with the best methods - all kept safe by wicked censorship and banning controlled by a core group of favored members (The Moderator Team)...They have the balls to suggest this assumption of superior status to the degree of giving instruction on how to put people on ignore...The whole time protecting the bogus Prayer Man theory with some of the worst corruption and dishonesty in research history and allowing no counter evidence...All headed off by false accusations of rules violations...
Why is it an issue?...Because the Prayer Man subject has successfully prevented a solving of the conspiracy single handedly...And it has been done by a creep researcher, Bart Kamp, who is protected from fair playing field adversarial debate by a group of dominating hacks, bullies, frauds, and suck ups who see the Prayer Man theory as a short route to insider status in the research community...
So you were rejected. So what? This Forum does Not carry crying towels.
-
Literally ALL the evidence...
WOW. You've really zeroed in on it.
Every single witness to Oswald's whereabouts puts him in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room
Just who might that be?
...Truly & Baker, new witness
Baker was on his motorcycle on Houston St. when the shots were fired. Truly was watching the motorcade from in front of the TSBD. They would have needed x-ray vision to see Oswald in the lunchroom. Try again.
Sarah Stanton, Dougherty, Carolyn Arnold,
Are you saying these people saw Oswald in the lunchroom when the shots were fired.
Oswald himself
Well I guess that settles it. Oswald said he was in the lunchroom when the shots were fired? Why would we doubt his word about that?
Buell Frazier (who said Oswald's partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple were seen on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table),
Did Frazier see Oswald at the table with his cheese sandwich and apple?
James Hosty who said Oswald admitted he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination...
And of course, we have no reason to doubt that. <chuckle>
There are no witnesses to Oswald being outside on the front steps top platform during the assassination...Frazier said Oswald wasn't there...Yet the dysfunctional CT community keeps insisting Oswald was there out front in order to indulge lunatic fringe researchers and their pet theories...
You are correct. No witness said Oswald was on the front steps during the shooting and no witness saw Oswald in the second floor lunch room during the shooting. No one provides Oswald with an alibi. From my perspective, the people who claim Oswald was on the front steps during the shooting are no more or less loony than those who insist he was in the second-floor lunchroom during the shooting.
The only witness who said he saw Oswald during the shooting was Howard Brennan. He said Oswald was in the 6th floor sniper's nest firing the rifle. He is corroborated by Oswald's fingerprints on the boxes in the sniper's nest, his palm print on the murder weapon, his shirt fibers on the butt plate of the rifle, and his palm print on the bag that contained fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. There's also a paper trail establishing Oswald ordered the murder weapon from Klein's and pictures of him holding the rifle. I guess all that is no reason to believe Oswald was the assassin.
As for all the other people you mentioned, not one of them saw Oswald in the lunch room when the shots were fired and thus do not establish his presence there when the shots were fired.