JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Robin Unger on September 30, 2018, 11:00:57 PM
-
Zapruder frame Z-242 appears to show Chaney's left red flashing light on
his motorcycle.
Jerry Logan first pointed this out to me.
It confirms Chaney's motorcycle position in relation to the SS follow up car and Hargis and Martin.
there has been some debate on the forums regarding Chaney's "actual position on Elm st", as seen in Altgens 6 at Zapruder frame z255 (12-frames after Z-242)
Zapruder frame Z-242 shows Chaney's LEFT side red flashing light, i have done a small GIF to demonstrate it.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrHQMwzIli4/WWGWb9c1ViI/AAAAAAAAAko/dyjf4b68MQADi0y9DD_7dvetV0fNHM3XwCLcBGAs/s1600/Chaney.GIF)
Z-242 Frame over Altgens 6 shows the position of the red flashing light seen in the Zapruder frame in relation to the red flashing light seen on Chaney's motorcycle
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6CkrmrAP6H4/WWGWn6nRDJI/AAAAAAAAAks/twnnSsZ6tH4SOQ9KrZcP_zERYAOqJ3m5QCLcBGAs/s1600/flashingredlight.GIF)
-
I made the GIFS above because i was sick of people saying that Chaney was riding next to Kennedy in the Altgen's 6 photo.
he wasn't, it only appears that way because of the perspective issue caused by Altgens telephoto lens on his Camera.
Chaney was actually riding on the right side at the front of the SS follow up car, he was directly in line with Hargis and Martin
who were also riding at the front of the SS follow up car.
-
I made the GIFS above because i was sick of people saying that Chaney was riding next to Kennedy in the Altgen's 6 photo.
he wasn't, it only appears that way because of the perspective issue caused by Altgens telephoto lens on his Camera.
Chaney was actually riding on the right side at the front of the SS follow up car, he was directly in line with Hargis and Martin
who were also riding at the front of the SS follow up car.
Thumb1:
-
I made the GIFS above because i was sick of people saying that Chaney was riding next to Kennedy in the Altgen's 6 photo.
he wasn't, it only appears that way because of the perspective issue caused by Altgens telephoto lens on his Camera.
Chaney was actually riding on the right side at the front of the SS follow up car, he was directly in line with Hargis and Martin
who were also riding at the front of the SS follow up car.
Chaney was riding next to Kennedy in the Altgen's 6 photo.
he wasn't, it only appears that way because of the perspective issue caused by Altgens telephoto lens on his Camera.
This is a very nice clear copy of Altgen's # 6 ....and in the background beyond the left side of the front bumper of the Lincoln the shadow of the windshield on Cheney's bike can be seen near the curb of Elm street. It's not difficult to prove that the shadow is being cast by the windshield by comparing the angle of the shadows cast by other objects in the photo.
Can you explain how the shadow of the windshield on Chaney's bike could be cast there if he was to the rear and near the fender of the Caddy???
Suggestion.... Notice the shadow of the left rear corner of the Lincoln being cast on the surface of Elm street......The angle from the shadow to up the corner of the car is exactly the same as the angle from the shadow that is seen beyond the front bumper and the windshield of Chaney's motorcycle.... Proving that the shadow beyond the bumper is being cast by the windsheild.......
-
Chaney was riding next to Kennedy in the Altgen's 6 photo.
he wasn't, it only appears that way because of the perspective issue caused by Altgens telephoto lens on his Camera.
This is a very nice clear copy of Altgen's # 6 ....and in the background beyond the left side of the front bumper of the Lincoln the shadow of the windshield on Cheney's bike can be seen near the curb of Elm street. It's not difficult to prove that the shadow is being cast by the windshield by comparing the angle of the shadows cast by other objects in the photo.
Can you explain how the shadow of the windshield on Chaney's bike could be cast there if he was to the rear and near the fender of the Caddy???
Suggestion.... Notice the shadow of the left rear corner of the Lincoln being cast on the surface of Elm street......The angle from the shadow to up the corner of the car is exactly the same as the angle from the shadow that is seen beyond the front bumper and the windshield of Chaney's motorcycle.... Proving that the shadow beyond the bumper is being cast by the windsheild.......
The shadow of Chaney's motorcycle falls behind the limo.
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
-
The shadow of Chaney's motorcycle falls behind the limo.
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Thank You Mark... For posting this informative photo
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
-
Last year there was a good post on Zapruder camera shutter shape. Actually, not a shutter but that part next to the film, I cannot remember the name of the part in this moment. I concluded that frames are actually extended and overlapping so at the yellow rectangle you actually see images that are not part of a frame above. Here we see Chaney bike exact position and you can see limo rear right part of a chromed bumper.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gJSGQVvd/z3291_zps5z1juuv9.jpg)
-
Zapruder frame Z-242 appears to show Chaney's left red flashing light on
his motorcycle.
Jerry Logan first pointed this out to me.
It confirms Chaney's motorcycle position in relation to the SS follow up car and Hargis and Martin.
there has been some debate on the forums regarding Chaney's "actual position on Elm st", as seen in Altgens 6 at Zapruder frame z255 (12-frames after Z-242)
Zapruder frame Z-242 shows Chaney's LEFT side red flashing light, i have done a small GIF to demonstrate it.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrHQMwzIli4/WWGWb9c1ViI/AAAAAAAAAko/dyjf4b68MQADi0y9DD_7dvetV0fNHM3XwCLcBGAs/s1600/Chaney.GIF)
Z-242 Frame over Altgens 6 shows the position of the red flashing light seen in the Zapruder frame in relation to the red flashing light seen on Chaney's motorcycle
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6CkrmrAP6H4/WWGWn6nRDJI/AAAAAAAAAks/twnnSsZ6tH4SOQ9KrZcP_zERYAOqJ3m5QCLcBGAs/s1600/flashingredlight.GIF)
At Z-233 you can begin to see the Reflection of the Chaney Motorcycle light/fender on the Passenger Side of the JFK Limo. This would trump the current Speculation surrounding the motorcycle position on Z-242 = being way back beside the Queen Mary.
-
Thanks Mark, i agree with your graphic depicting Chaneys motorcycle position, :)
Thanks Robin! You've always been one of the most sensible posters here :)
I guess it's lens distortion that makes the shadows seem to point more forward than they actually do.
-
Thanks Robin! You've always been one of the most sensible posters here :)
I guess it's lens distortion that makes the shadows seem to point more forward than they actually do.
"I guess it's lens distortion that makes the shadows seem to point more forward than they actually do."
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
-
The Muchmre film shows us Chaneys motorcycle position is the same as we see in frame Z-206
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB64sjleNYw/WGMqFkG690I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/8jtXjjfWtIIR3i_DnSuPDLCUOIIknhvQgCLcB/s1600/Muchmore%2B2.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Lost%20Bullet%20%20Frames/z206.jpg)
The Altgen's photo shows that Chaney was ALONGSIDE the Lincoln when JFK was first struck....
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
-
Walt Cakebread...Look at where Officer Chaney is located in the Bronson still photograph, then look at Officer Chaney's position in the first frame of his film showing Officer Chaney's position. Note that in both the still(which corresponds circa Z 231) and the film, Chaney is BEHIND the limousine, not beside it. Frames 242 adds further proof that Officer Chaney was not beside the limousine, but behind it and he is looking over his shoulder not at JFK, but perhaps at Hargis and Martin to see their reaction to what he heard? There is only a tiny gap of time between Z 242 and the first film frame exposed in Bronson's film. You have no proof to offer that Chaney is "beside" the limousine except your misinterpretation of the Altgens photograph.
http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/3/title-asc;jsessionid=9AF64B579842B4F3335D3ECA4F6E8A11?t:state:flow=69e485c6-a2a4-40bb-b813-2b17b2479c8b
-
The Muchmre film shows us Chaneys motorcycle position is the same as we see in frame Z-206
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qB64sjleNYw/WGMqFkG690I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/8jtXjjfWtIIR3i_DnSuPDLCUOIIknhvQgCLcB/s1600/Muchmore%2B2.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Lost%20Bullet%20%20Frames/z206.jpg)
Obviously, we are seeing Chaney's motorcycle slowing down & possibly coming to a STOP vs the JFK Limo and the Queen Mary Accelerating. Judging the position of the Chaney motorcycle during this sequence of film footage is ludicrous. I believe Officer Chaney Suddenly looking UP at the Picket Fence area is both startling and revealing. Here there are shots being fired, Chaney saw the POTUS's head explode, and he Suddenly does a head jerk AWAY from all of this and looks UP toward the Picket Fence area.
-
Wlat Cakebread...Look at where Officer Chaney is located in the Bronson still photograph, then look at Officer Chaney's position in the first frame of his film showing Officer Chaney's position. Note that in both the still(which corresponds circa Z 231) and the film, Chaney is BEHIND the limousine, not beside it. Frames 242 adds further proof that Officer Chaney was not beside the limousine, but behind it and he is looking over his shoulder not at JFK, but perhaps at Hargis and Martin to see their reaction to what he heard? There is only a tiny gap of time between Z 242 and the first film frame exposed in Bronson's film. You have no proof to offer that Chaney is "beside" the limousine except your misinterpretation of the Altgens photograph.
http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/3/title-asc;jsessionid=9AF64B579842B4F3335D3ECA4F6E8A11?t:state:flow=69e485c6-a2a4-40bb-b813-2b17b2479c8b
Mr Barber....Are you not smart enough to perform the simple instructions that I posted? I'm referring to the Altgens photo that Mark Ulrik posted.... The sun angles speak the truth....
Question... Is there any doubt that the Altgens photo has NOT been altered or tampered with? ( The altgens photo appeared in newspapers that evening so there was NO to time to alter the photo....
Can the same be said for the Z film? How many years passed by before the public go a glimpse of it?? Was there sufficient time to alter the Z film??
-
Obviously, we are seeing Chaney's motorcycle slowing down & possibly coming to a STOP vs the JFK Limo and the Queen Mary Accelerating. Judging the position of the Chaney motorcycle during this sequence of film footage is ludicrous. I believe Officer Chaney Suddenly looking UP at the Picket Fence area is both startling and revealing. Here there are shots being fired, Chaney saw the POTUS's head explode, and he Suddenly does a head jerk AWAY from all of this and looks UP toward the Picket Fence area.
At the time that Altgen's snapped the camera shutter for Altgen #6 Chaney was looking over his right shoulder at President Kennedy as he grabbed at his throat.......
-
Mr Barber....Are you not smart enough to perform the simple instructions that I posted? I'm referring to the Altgens photo that Mark Ulrik posted.... The sun angles speak the truth....
Question... Is there any doubt that the Altgens photo has NOT been altered or tampered with? ( The altgens photo appeared in newspapers that evening so there was NO to time to alter the photo....
Can the same be said for the Z film? How many years passed by before the public go a glimpse of it?? Was there sufficient time to alter the Z film??
Yes. The same can be said about the Zapruder film. You alterationists would be comical if it weren't so annoying. We saw Zapruder film frames in Life Magazine within days of assassination. We then saw other frames in other editions, The October 1964, the November 1966 issue. The frames from the film were also published within volume 18 of the Warren Report. So why are you saying such a ridiculous thing? People actually cut the frames out of volume 18 and watched the film by stacking them in order and then flipping the images to make the film move. So, I think you are just full of baloney.
-
At the time that Altgen's snapped the camera shutter for Altgen #6 Chaney was looking over his right shoulder at President Kennedy as he grabbed at his throat.......
Walt. President Kennedy NEVER, EVER "grabbed" or touched his throat! You haven't been paying attention o the Zapruder film.
President Kennedy's right hand covers his mouth. Left hand is beneath right hand, with the index finger partially curled and sticking up, while the remaining fingers are slightly curled. The extended index finger can be clearly seen in the Altgens photo, too. As the seconds pass, Kennedy turns his head slightly to his left without lowering his right hand, and now his right hand is level with his cheek. As soon as Mrs. Kennedy reaches her husband's left arm and pulls it slightly downward, he then brings his right hand down to his chest where it remained the rest of the way down the street until the fatal shot.
There is zero evidence or proof that President Kennedy's hands went anywhere near his throat, therefore, he never "grabbed' "clutched" or touched his throat. Period.
-
Walt. President Kennedy NEVER, EVER "grabbed" or touched his throat! You haven't been paying attention o the Zapruder film.
Walt. President Kennedy NEVER, EVER "grabbed" or touched his throat!
JFK's hands are up near his throat in the photo..... THAT's the point .... Chaney was looking over his right shoulder and looking at JFK when Altgen's snapped the photo.
What's JFK doing in Altgens #6???
President Kennedy's right hand covers his mouth. Left hand is beneath right hand, with the index finger partially curled and sticking up, while the remaining fingers are slightly curled. The extended index finger can be clearly seen in the Altgens photo, too. As the seconds pass, Kennedy turns his head slightly to his left without lowering his right hand, and now his right hand is level with his cheek. As soon as Mrs. Kennedy reaches her husband's left arm and pulls it slightly downward, he then brings his right hand down to his chest where it remained the rest of the way down the street until the fatal shot.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989originalhalfsizecrop.jpg)
There is zero evidence or proof that President Kennedy's hands went anywhere near his throat, therefore, he never "grabbed' "clutched" or touched his throat. Period.
-
Yes. The same can be said about the Zapruder film. You alterationists would be comical if it weren't so annoying. We saw Zapruder film frames in Life Magazine within days of assassination. We then saw other frames in other editions, The October 1964, the November 1966 issue. The frames from the film were also published within volume 18 of the Warren Report. So why are you saying such a ridiculous thing? People actually cut the frames out of volume 18 and watched the film by stacking them in order and then flipping the images to make the film move. So, I think you are just full of baloney.
Are you referring to the Z frames that were somehow printed out of sequence ?
-
Altgens 6 shows what Connolly said happened. He heard the first shot (JFK is already grasping his throat or thereabouts,) then turned to his right (as in shown in the photo) and when turning back to his left was hit by the next shot. He could hardly have turned to his right, if he had already been hit by the alleged throat bullet.
-
Altgens 6 shows what Connolly said happened. He heard the first shot (JFK is already grasping his throat or thereabouts,) then turned to his right (as in shown in the photo) and when turning back to his left was hit by the next shot. He could hardly have turned to his right, if he had already been hit by the alleged throat bullet.
Thanks Ray.... You've illuminated more information in the photo than I had realized was present.....You're right JFK has obviously been hit , Chaney is alongside the Lincoln looking over his right shoulder at JFK, whose hands are at his throat, and Connolly has not yet been hit by a bullet.....
One picture is better than a thousand words.....
-
Thanks Ray.... You've illuminated more information in the photo than I had realized was present.....You're right JFK has obviously been hit , Chaney is alongside the Lincoln looking over his right shoulder at JFK, whose hands are at his throat, and Connolly has not yet been hit by a bullet.....
One picture is better than a thousand words.....
You are wrong, Cakebread. His hands are not at his throat, they never went near his throat. The Altgens photo shows only his left hand, index finger extended, other fingers curled, and the hand is in front of his chin. His right hand-- by the time this picture was taken--is open and in front of his chest and continues to move downward onto his chest. You're right about a picture being netter than a thousand words, though, because this picture along with the Zapruder film proves that you haven't a clue as to what President Kennedy's hands did when he was shot!
Watch this GIF closely, and note where his hands are. Right hand covers the mouth, the left hand comes up directly under the right, meeting the right hand, left index finger is extended. When Mrs Kennedy takes hold of his arm and pulls his left arm involuntarily (since at the same time, she is turning her head to look at the governor) his left arm and hand remain in the same position until the fatal shot is fired. The right hand cupped over his mouth until Mrs. Kennedy takes hold of his left arm. As he turns his head to the left, his right hand opens slightly, and remains at the same height so that by the time he stops turning his head, the right hand is at cheek level, until beings it down, level with his chest. There is absolutely not one frame of the film showing him "grabbing his throat". https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/PopularGrotesqueIvorybackedwoodswallow
-
You are wrong, Cakebread. His hands are not at his throat, they never went near his throat. The Altgens photo shows only his left hand, index finger extended, other fingers curled, and the hand is in front of his chin. His right hand-- by the time this picture was taken--is open and in front of his chest and continues to move downward onto his chest. You're right about a picture being netter than a thousand words, though, because this picture along with the Zapruder film proves that you haven't a clue as to what President Kennedy's hands did when he was shot!
Stevie ol chum...I could not care less about the specifics of JFK's hands....You have acknowledged that "the hand is in front of his chin." and the last time I checked, the throat is to the rear of the chin.....
So JFK is reacting to being hit in the photo....But Connolly is NOT......And James Chaney is also reacting to JFK being hit.... He is alongside of the Lincoln and looking over his right shoulder at JFK.
-
Walt - The "hands" issue is a diversion. You got 'em on the run with the Officer Chaney position issue. As much as they might like, don't take their detour.
-
Stevie ol chum...I could not care less about the specifics of JFK's hands....You have acknowledged that "the hand is in front of his chin." and the last time I checked, the throat is to the rear of the chin.....
So JFK is reacting to being hit in the photo....But Connolly is NOT......And James Chaney is also reacting to JFK being hit.... He is alongside of the Lincoln and looking over his right shoulder at JFK.
It's C-o-n-n-A-l-l-y, Walt! Not "Connolly". You can't even spell the name of the governor corectly!
Watch this GIF closely, and note where his hands are. Right hand covers the mouth, the left hand comes up directly under the right, meeting the right hand, left index finger is extended. When Mrs Kennedy takes hold of his arm and pulls his left arm involuntarily (since at the same time, she is turning her head to look at the governor) his left arm and hand remain in the same position until the fatal shot is fired. The right hand cupped over his mouth until Mrs. Kennedy takes hold of his left arm. As he turns his head to the left, his right hand opens slightly, and remains at the same height so that by the time he stops turning his head, the right hand is at cheek level, until beings it down, level with his chest. There is absolutely not one frame of the film showing him "grabbing his throat". https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/PopularGrotesqueIvorybackedwoodswallow
The position of JFK's hands ARE in fact, crucial, because we have people like you and others making erroneous claims that his hands "clutched/grabbed/went to" his throat when they didn't!
As far as your ridiculous claims about Chaney...have at it. You are making yourself look even more foolish.
-
It's C-o-n-n-A-l-l-y, Walt! Not "Connolly". You can't even spell the name of the governor corectly!
And you can't even spell correctly, correctly.
-
Walt - The "hands" issue is a diversion. You got 'em on the run with the Officer Chaney position issue. As much as they might like, don't take their detour.
Thanks Royell....But "I" don't have em on the run.... He who controls the sun and the casting of shadows has em running for cover....
-
It's C-o-n-n-A-l-l-y, Walt! Not "Connolly". You can't even spell the name of the governor corectly!
Watch this GIF closely, and note where his hands are. Right hand covers the mouth, the left hand comes up directly under the right, meeting the right hand, left index finger is extended. When Mrs Kennedy takes hold of his arm and pulls his left arm involuntarily (since at the same time, she is turning her head to look at the governor) his left arm and hand remain in the same position until the fatal shot is fired. The right hand cupped over his mouth until Mrs. Kennedy takes hold of his left arm. As he turns his head to the left, his right hand opens slightly, and remains at the same height so that by the time he stops turning his head, the right hand is at cheek level, until beings it down, level with his chest. There is absolutely not one frame of the film showing him "grabbing his throat". https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/PopularGrotesqueIvorybackedwoodswallow
The position of JFK's hands ARE in fact, crucial, because we have people like you and others making erroneous claims that his hands "clutched/grabbed/went to" his throat when they didn't!
As far as your ridiculous claims about Chaney...have at it. You are making yourself look even more foolish.
KMA Stevie ol chum... Yer desperation is hanging out like the tongue of an exhausted dog....
"I guess it's lens distortion that makes the shadows seem to point more forward than they actually do."
Now it's "lens distortion"...... Ha,ha,ha, LOL!! :D
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
-
Walt - The "hands" issue is a diversion. You got 'em on the run with the Officer Chaney position issue. As much as they might like, don't take their detour.
Royell...You can be sure they are soilin their skivies when Craig Lamson sends me messages like this....
The message Mr Lamson sent you was:
So sad. You are too stupid to even understand how a camera records an image.
You are a moron.
Take the standard railroad tracks image. The tracks are the same distance apart. Yet as the recede towards the distance the appear toget close set together.
The exact same things happpen to shadows. It?s photo 101 and you fail.
The shadows don?t lie, you just can?t hear them telling you that you got it wrong. As usual.
How about someone else informing Mr Lamson that he's talking about perspective but perspective has ZIP effect in the case of the shadows of the corner of the Lincoln fender and the shadow of the windshield of Chaney's motorcycle....
-
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
Hi Walt. Did you notice the X marking the tip of the motorcycle shadow? (I added a question mark on the diagram to the right because of the uncertainties involved.) Where on the diagram would you place the X? You seem to think it's much closer to the front bumper shadow (A) than it is to the curb (B) in the background, but does it really seem so when you look at the photo?
-
Hi Walt. Did you notice the X marking the tip of the motorcycle shadow? (I added a question mark on the diagram to the right because of the uncertainties involved.) Where on the diagram would you place the X? You seem to think it's much closer to the front bumper shadow (A) than it is to the curb (B) in the background, but does it really seem so when you look at the photo?
Hi Mark...The Lincoln was / is.....21 ' 2 " long by 6' 3" wide....
Based on this known dimension of 6' 3" .....Elm street would be about 38 feet wide ....IOW the street is wide enough for SIX Lincolns side by side.....
The point being.... I doubt that the street was wide enough for six Lincolns.....So are you sure that your drawing is scaled correctly? And I don't believe you've laid the red A / B line at the correct angle....( acctually I don't know how you established that angle for the red line???
The SE corner of the TSBD can be seen behind Chaney's helmet, so It's not difficult to establish his position on Elm Street.
-
Hi Mark...The Lincoln was / is.....21 ' 2 " long by 6' 3" wide....
Based on this known dimension of 6' 3" .....Elm street would be about 38 feet wide ....IOW the street is wide enough for SIX Lincolns side by side.....
The point being.... I doubt that the street was wide enough for six Lincolns.....So are you sure that your drawing is scaled correctly? And I don't believe you've laid the red A / B line at the correct angle....( acctually I don't know how you established that angle for the red line???
The SE corner of the TSBD can be seen behind Chaney's helmet, so It's not difficult to establish his position on Elm Street.
The SE corner of the TSBD can be seen behind Chaney's helmet, so It's not difficult to establish his position on Elm Street.
Really? Clean your glasses.
-
Hi Mark...The Lincoln was / is.....21 ' 2 " long by 6' 3" wide....
Based on this known dimension of 6' 3" .....Elm street would be about 38 feet wide ....IOW the street is wide enough for SIX Lincolns side by side.....
(https://abload.de/img/chaneylimowidth6uf3i.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneylimowidth6uf3i.jpg)
-
(https://abload.de/img/chaneylimowidth6uf3i.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneylimowidth6uf3i.jpg)
I was mistaken....and in error .....The SE corner of the TSBD is not behind Chaney's helmet.....
How did you establish the angle for the red line, from the right front corner of the Lincoln to the point on the north curb of Elm street?
Using the photo and shadow of the right side of the Lincoln as base .......the red line is at about 162 110 degrees , but on your drawing the red line is at about 110 162 degrees in reference to the side of the Lincoln.
-
The SE corner of the TSBD can be seen behind Chaney's helmet, so It's not difficult to establish his position on Elm Street.
Really? Clean your glasses.
Sorry...My mistake.....
-
I was mistaken....and in error .....The SE corner of the TSBD is not behind Chaney's helmet.....
How did you establish the angle for the red line, from the right front corner of the Lincoln to the point on the north curb of Elm street?
Using the photo and shadow of the right side of the Lincoln as base .......the red line is at about 162 110 degrees , but on your drawing the red line is at about 110 162 degrees in reference to the side of the Lincoln.
HI Paul - Altgens 6 (A6) is supposed to be taken at z frame 255 -So the question is:
Is Officer Chaney along side the presidential limo in Altgens 6? - and is A6 actually taken around z255?
Here he is in Altgens 6 (motorcycle Officer Chaney all the way left)
I cut this piece of A6 out so you can see the small piece of Chaney's shadow just to the left of the limo and the lane markers to the right.
Zframe 255 does not show Chaney at all
You are correct Mike.... Which is stark evidence that the Z film is a fraud.....
-
Its the same old alterationist garbage, in order for them to prove alteration to Zapruder frame Z-255 they need to say that Chaney was riding NEXT to kennedy.
That way they can say, now look at frame Z-255 where is Chaney, he isn't there, so this is proof positive that the Z-Film has been altered. ::)
It's the alterationists that are "Not all there" Robin.
Here's one of them who escaped and joined this Forum. Confidentiality forbids me from revealing the member's identity. ::)
-
Its the same old alterationist garbage, in order for them to prove alteration to Zapruder frame Z-255 they need to say that Chaney was riding NEXT to kennedy.
That way they can say, now look at frame Z-255 where is Chaney, he isn't there, so this is proof positive that the Z-Film has been altered. ::)
Its the same old alterationist garbage, in order for them to prove alteration to Zapruder frame Z-255 they need to say that Chaney was riding NEXT to kennedy.
Robin, You could not be more wrong... at least in my case.... I don't really give a damn what the evidence shows....I'm merely interested in the truth, and the Altgens photo does not lie.... Chaney was right there alongside the Lincoln when Altgens snapped the photo. Others can make of that fact what they may.....
I,... like many other students of this case are sick and tired of the lies and those with ulterior motives for twisting the truth.
I'm extremely insulted by those who tell my my God given eyes and brain are deceiving me..... Mark Ulrik posted an excellent copy of Altgens photo and that photo is solid proof that Chaney was alongside the Lincoln when Altgens snapped the shutter.
-
HI Paul - Altgens 6 (A6) is supposed to be taken at z frame 255 -So the question is:
Is Officer Chaney along side the presidential limo in Altgens 6? - and is A6 actually taken around z255?
Here he is in Altgens 6 (motorcycle Officer Chaney all the way left)
I cut this piece of A6 out so you can see the small piece of Chaney's shadow just to the left of the limo and the lane markers to the right.
Zframe 255 does not show Chaney at all
You are correct Mike.... Which is stark evidence that the Z film is a fraud.....
In the following gif the right hand bike has been composited without resizing or any rotation over the front of the two other bikes, look at the how the shadow position changes as each bike moves more towards our left, why? And then explain why you think it's a good idea to compare shadows at different points across the width of the road?
(https://i.postimg.cc/2j9xFX9j/altgens6shadowbike.gif)
Which is stark evidence that the Z film is a fraud.....
The next week in LIFE magazine besides the actual head shot they printed a number of frames of the most important events from the Zapruder film, which when inserted back into the actual film shows a perfect match so taking into account arranging, printing, distribution and etc, these guys only had a few days to alter the film. Is it possible to alter 100's of Zapruder frames in a few days?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjRHTPZ1/Zap_life.gif)
JohnM
-
As your own words in the post above show, you are clearly an Alterationist who is trying to prove the the Z-film is a fraud.
So i stand by my original comments.
Its the same old alterationist garbage, in order for them to prove alteration to Zapruder frame Z-255 they need to say that Chaney was riding NEXT to kennedy.
That way they can say, now look at frame Z-255 where is Chaney, he isn't there, so this is proof positive that the Z-Film has been altered.
As your own words in the post above show, you are clearly an Alterationist who is trying to prove the the Z-film is a fraud.
That's NOT the primary motive....My primary motive is uncovering the truth.... I believe the Entire story of the Murder is a damned lie.... And the authorities lied to us and covered up the truth. I believe the Z film is a fake....But that's just one of the lies they dumped on us......
-
Interesting Zapruder GIF John. :)
Hi Robin yeah, to make any alterations you have to take into account the surrounding frames and then you have to perfectly integrate any changes at a microscopic film grain level and considering Zapruder's film was handheld, then you have to take deal with film blur which is caused by Zapruder himself and independently by the limo, the occupants, the bikes, the people and the scenery which all needs to have the appropriate motion blur applied in each and every direction to effectively sell the image and this level of detail needs to be factored into consecutive frames. Now acknowledging that we need more information than what is available to change each image then I'd really like to know how the alterationists explain how anything at all was altered?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjRHTPZ1/Zap_life.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/altgens/altgens-lumpkin-overlay.jpg)
-
... these guys only had a few days to alter the film. Is it possible to alter 100's of Zapruder frames in a few days?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wjRHTPZ1/Zap_life.gif)
JohnM
Then there's the even trickier (impossible) exercise in altering the other copies of Zapruder's film to effect consistency across them all and yet all within a few days.
-
KMA Stevie ol chum... Yer desperation is hanging out like the tongue of an exhausted dog....
"I guess it's lens distortion that makes the shadows seem to point more forward than they actually do."
Now it's "lens distortion"...... Ha,ha,ha, LOL!! :D
(https://abload.de/img/chaneyk6rd5.jpg) (https://abload.de/image.php?img=chaneyk6rd5.jpg)
Notice that the shadow of the front upper tip of the Lincoln's right front fender is clearly visible on the surface of Elm street. ( the shadow of the staff of the American flag is to the rear of the shadow of the fender corner. ) Draw a line from that fender corner shadow up to and through the corner of the fender .
Now notice the shadow that is being cast on the surface of Elm street just beyond the left side of the Lincoln's front bumper..... and draw a line from that shadow that parallels the line you drew previously....
Does that line pass through the left side of the windshield of Chaney's bike? Yes?.... Then it is the Windshield that is casting that shadow and it should be obvious that Chaney is ALONGSIDE of the Lincoln.
It's sooooo obvious that the angle of the red line in the photo is much different than the angle of the red line drawn on the drawing that is supposed to depict the location of Chaney and his motorcycle.
Using the shadow of the right upper edge of the car as base ( and the car is parallel with the street) The red line is at about 110 degrees ..... That red line on the drawing is at about 162 degrees..... The artist has attempted to move the motorcycle to the rear by depicting the angle as 162 degrees......
-
It's sooooo obvious that the angle of the red line in the photo is much different than the angle of the red line drawn on the drawing that is supposed to depict the location of Chaney and his motorcycle.
Using the shadow of the right upper edge of the car as base ( and the car is parallel with the street) The red line is at about 110 degrees ..... That red line on the drawing is at about 162 degrees..... The artist has attempted to move the motorcycle to the rear by depicting the angle as 162 degrees......
We know that the shadows of Motorcycle Officers Hargis and Martin fall at nearly 90 degrees to their right ....And the staff of the American flag on the fender also falls at 90 degrees to the Lincoln ..... So the shadow on the surface of Elm street beyond the front bumper falls at 90 degrees to the object that is creating the shadow.... Which is ...The windshield of Chaney's motorcycle.
-
If you put a line along the shadow of the front bumper on, Altgens6, then move it upwards, maintaining its angle, then the small shadow lines up with the shadow cast by the front of the car behind. Doesn't that mean Chaney's windshield was level with the front of the car behind?
-
We know that the shadows of Motorcycle Officers Hargis and Martin fall at nearly 90 degrees to their right ....And the staff of the American flag on the fender also falls at 90 degrees to the Lincoln ..... So the shadow on the surface of Elm street beyond the front bumper falls at 90 degrees to the object that is creating the shadow.... Which is ...The windshield of Chaney's motorcycle.
Your estimates are completely wrong, Walt. The sun position is known. It's in front and (to a lesser degree) left of the motorcycle officers - not directly to their left. The green lines in my drawing, next to the motorcycles, indicate the direction (and approximate length) of the shadows.
-
If you put a line along the shadow of the front bumper on, Altgens6, then move it upwards, maintaining its angle, then the small shadow lines up with the shadow cast by the front of the car behind. Doesn't that mean Chaney's windshield was level with the front of the car behind?
LOOK at the photo and think about it.....If Chaney had been beside the right front fender of the QM he would appear behind ( over the right shoulder) of the driver, (William Greer) of the Lincoln in the Altgen's photo.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens6fullframe.jpg)
-
LOOK at the photo and think about it.....If Chaney had been beside the right front fender of the QM he would appear behind ( over the right shoulder) of the driver, (William Greer) of the Lincoln in the Altgen's photo.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens6fullframe.jpg)
That depends on how far to the left of the car he was doesn't it? The people on the side of the road level with the rear car aren't behind Greer.
-
That depends on how far to the left of the car he was doesn't it? The people on the side of the road level with the rear car aren't behind Greer.
How do you know where the people on the curb were relative to the Queen Mary?
Notice the woman whose face appears above the American flag.....Wouldn't you agree that she's looking a little to her right and looking directly at JFK ? A line from that woman to JFK would pass behind Chaney..... If Chaney were further back and near the RF fender of the QM the line would pass in front of him.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens6fullframe.jpg)
You'll notice that the shadows of Hargis and Martin are cast slightly to the rear of a right angle (90 degrees) Their shadows fall at about 10 degrees to the rear of 90 degrees IOW their shadows fall at about 100 degrees. The same would be true for Chaney...... So IF Chaney's Shadow fell slightly BEHIND his right side it would not be visible on the surface of Elm street if he was near the fender of the QM.
-
How do you know where the people on the curb were relative to the Queen Mary?
I'm not claiming to know the relative position of those shown in the photography but imagine, if the photo included those level with the lead car then they would be on the far left, not behind Greer.
Notice the woman whose face appears above the American flag.....Wouldn't you agree that she's looking a little to her right and looking directly at JFK ? A line from that woman to JFK would pass behind Chaney..... If Chaney were further back and near the RF fender of the QM the line would pass in front of him.
She doesn't seem to be looking at JFK to me. She almost seems to be looking at the camera.
Your shadow point again seems to depend on the distance between Chaney and the side of the second car.
-
It's sooooo obvious that the angle of the red line in the photo is much different than the angle of the red line drawn on the drawing that is supposed to depict the location of Chaney and his motorcycle.
Using the shadow of the right upper edge of the car as base ( and the car is parallel with the street) The red line is at about 110 degrees ..... That red line on the drawing is at about 162 degrees..... The artist has attempted to move the motorcycle to the rear by depicting the angle as 162 degrees......
Walt, yes the line in the diagram is about twice that of the line in Altgens 6. But I see others problems that make the comparison invalid. First, Altgens was not directly in front of the limo and that decreases the perceived angle considerably. It is much less than you would see from directly in front of the limo
Second, anytime you take an overhead view and compare it to a photo taken at ground level the angles change. The angle you see from overhead will always be less than the angle you see from any other view. As an example taken from the backyard photos Oswalds shadow appears about 2 1/2 times greater than it would be from above because Marina was about 10 to 12 feet away and at about 4 feet high. I have duplicated this perspective and the large difference in perceived angles make comparison impossible unless you take the perspective into account.
Third, the comparison can show you the line of sight from Altgens but it does not tell you where along that line that Chaney is positioned. You could move him forward a bit in the overhead diagram while keeping him on that line of sight and end up with Chaney next to the limo.
The closest we can come to locating Chaney's position is to do a line of sight from above. Using the West map I found Chaney could not be next to JFK because the line of sight puts him within about one foot of the lime which is too close. His bike would be be in contact with the limo.
One other note for anyone doing an LOS for the limo or Chaney in Altgens 6. The West map shows the lane marker next to the limo's left front tire in the wrong location. An old overhead photo I found shows that the lane marker was mis aligned with the marker next to it by about 6 feet! So if you used that lane marker to get an LOS it will place Altgens 4 feet closer to the curb than the West map puts him. His location in the West map is correct but tat lane marker is not.
-
Walt, yes the line in the diagram is about twice that of the line in Altgens 6. But I see others problems that make the comparison invalid. First, Altgens was not directly in front of the limo and that decreases the perceived angle considerably. It is much less than you would see from directly in front of the limo
Second, anytime you take an overhead view and compare it to a photo taken at ground level the angles change. The angle you see from overhead will always be less than the angle you see from any other view. As an example taken from the backyard photos Oswalds shadow appears about 2 1/2 times greater than it would be from above because Marina was about 10 to 12 feet away and at about 4 feet high. I have duplicated this perspective and the large difference in perceived angles make comparison impossible unless you take the perspective into account.
Third, the comparison can show you the line of sight from Altgens but it does not tell you where along that line that Chaney is positioned. You could move him forward a bit in the overhead diagram while keeping him on that line of sight and end up with Chaney next to the limo.
The closest we can come to locating Chaney's position is to do a line of sight from above. Using the West map I found Chaney could not be next to JFK because the line of sight puts him within about one foot of the lime which is too close. His bike would be be in contact with the limo.
One other note for anyone doing an LOS for the limo or Chaney in Altgens 6. The West map shows the lane marker next to the limo's left front tire in the wrong location. An old overhead photo I found shows that the lane marker was mis aligned with the marker next to it by about 6 feet! So if you used that lane marker to get an LOS it will place Altgens 4 feet closer to the curb than the West map puts him. His location in the West map is correct but tat lane marker is not.
Referring to the West map..... It's possible to align several points with the obelisk ( or whatever that concrete column is called) that is seen behind Chaney in Altgen's #6.... By drawing lines from known points on the south face of the TSBD through that obelisk It's possible to place the various objects in Altgen's #6 .
-
Another way to estimate Chaney's position relative to the limo is to compare his image size with Hargis and Martin. You have to compare vertical measurements because the horizontal shrinks as you view them from the side, so Chaney's width is a little less. I cut and pasted comparing the distance from the headlight to the windshield crossbar and to the top of the windshield. Chaney's image is a little bigger than Martins and is almost the same as Hargis's image. So Chaney is at about the same distance to the camera as Hargis.
Even though Hargis and Martin are almost the same distance from the camera(Martin is maybe 2 feet farther away) Martin's image is noticeably smaller than Hargis. Chaney's image is almost the same size as Hargis' we can assume, based on the large difference between Hargis and Martin, that Chaney and Hargis are at the same distance give or take just a few inches.. Because of the angle Chaney is about 2 feet closer to the back of the limo than Hargis if he is the same distance from the camera.
Hargis looks like he is at least 2 feet from the back of the limo so Chaney should be right at the rear bumper. The only way for Chaney to be next to JFK is if Hargis is riding next to the rear wheel, but he is way behind it.
-
Walt, yes I did that aligning the lane marker with the pillar and the TSBD and the lamppost and TSBD. But because the lane marker in the West map is wrong I spent a month or so placing Altgens 4 feet closer to the curb, which is wrong. Once I found the photo showing the lane marker is actually 6 feet farther down the street everything made sense.
-
Walt, yes I did that aligning the lane marker with the pillar and the TSBD and the lamppost and TSBD. But because the lane marker in the West map is wrong I spent a month or so placing Altgens 4 feet closer to the curb, which is wrong. Once I found the photo showing the lane marker is actually 6 feet farther down the street everything made sense.
Chris What sites on the TSBD did you use as the anchor point for the north end of the lines that passed through the Obelisk (pylon)?
-
Walt, the 4th window from the left is visible behind the lamppost's globe. The obelisk is only wide enough to block one column of windows to the left of the entrance so it has to be the 4th column behind the lamp post. The brick outcrop next to the 4th window gives us Chaney and the pillar at the entrance give us JFK.
-
Walt, the 4th window from the left is visible behind the lamppost's globe. The obelisk is only wide enough to block one column of windows to the left of the entrance so it has to be the 4th column behind the lamp post. The brick outcrop next to the 4th window gives us Chaney and the pillar at the entrance give us JFK.
Ah....Therein lies the problem......Perhaps we can sort this out ....I believe that you're correct the the fourth set of windows is behind the lamppost.... BUT the third set of windows is NOT "BLOCKED OUT" by the concrete pylon. The third set of windows on the second floor, is visible in the background above the pylon. And the center divider ( mullion) in that third set of windows is an excellent anchor point for a line from the TSBD, through the pylon, through the Lincoln hood ornament to the camera. Chaney is seen to the left ( West) of that line.
I'm sure that the TSBD window that is visible above the concrete pylon is the THIRD set of windows...
Using the plat that was created by the Surveyor Robert West .......And working very carefully to be as precise as possible, We can locate the middle of the third set of windows and draw a line through the pylon and on across Elm street . James Algens was at the Elm street curb at the southern end of the line drawn.
Incidentally.... I wouldn't bet the farm that the traffic divider line is located where someone says it is.......You may recall that the back wound was conveniently moved up to JFK's neck...... so moving a traffic divider line is no problem....
-
How do you know where the people on the curb were relative to the Queen Mary?
Notice the woman whose face appears above the American flag.....Wouldn't you agree that she's looking a little to her right and looking directly at JFK ? A line from that woman to JFK would pass behind Chaney..... If Chaney were further back and near the RF fender of the QM the line would pass in front of him.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens6fullframe.jpg)
You'll notice that the shadows of Hargis and Martin are cast slightly to the rear of a right angle (90 degrees) Their shadows fall at about 10 degrees to the rear of 90 degrees IOW their shadows fall at about 100 degrees. The same would be true for Chaney...... So IF Chaney's Shadow fell slightly BEHIND his right side it would not be visible on the surface of Elm street if he was near the fender of the QM.
This Altgens photo certainly did Not distort the position of the Hard Hat Guy standing next to the light pole. He held that same general position before, during & immediately following the assassination. Using the Hard Hat Guy as a Landmark is useful in this discussion.
-
This Altgens photo certainly did Not distort the position of the Hard Hat Guy standing next to the light pole. He held that same general position before, during & immediately following the assassination. Using the Hard Hat Guy as a Landmark is useful in this discussion.
Royell....I'm looking for feedback on my post ..... It's possible to accurately place the Lincoln on Elm street by using Robert West's plat of Dealy Plaza and the Altgens photo..... And it's possible to place Chaney alongside the Lincoln.
-
Walt, yes the line in the diagram is about twice that of the line in Altgens 6. But I see others problems that make the comparison invalid. First, Altgens was not directly in front of the limo and that decreases the perceived angle considerably. It is much less than you would see from directly in front of the limo
Second, anytime you take an overhead view and compare it to a photo taken at ground level the angles change. The angle you see from overhead will always be less than the angle you see from any other view. As an example taken from the backyard photos Oswalds shadow appears about 2 1/2 times greater than it would be from above because Marina was about 10 to 12 feet away and at about 4 feet high. I have duplicated this perspective and the large difference in perceived angles make comparison impossible unless you take the perspective into account.
Third, the comparison can show you the line of sight from Altgens but it does not tell you where along that line that Chaney is positioned. You could move him forward a bit in the overhead diagram while keeping him on that line of sight and end up with Chaney next to the limo.
The closest we can come to locating Chaney's position is to do a line of sight from above. Using the West map I found Chaney could not be next to JFK because the line of sight puts him within about one foot of the lime which is too close. His bike would be be in contact with the limo.
One other note for anyone doing an LOS for the limo or Chaney in Altgens 6. The West map shows the lane marker next to the limo's left front tire in the wrong location. An old overhead photo I found shows that the lane marker was mis aligned with the marker next to it by about 6 feet! So if you used that lane marker to get an LOS it will place Altgens 4 feet closer to the curb than the West map puts him. His location in the West map is correct but tat lane marker is not.
Altgens was not directly in front of the limo and that decreases the perceived angle considerably.
It's NOT a perceived angle.....The angle is a MEASURED angle which uses the shadow of the side of the Lincoln as base.....
-
Incidentally.... I wouldn't bet the farm that the traffic divider line is located where someone says it is.......You may recall that the back wound was conveniently moved up to JFK's neck...... so moving a traffic divider line is no problem....
For a start the WC initial draft said that the wound was slightly above the shoulder....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ford_files/image001.gif)
And Ford simply altered the language to more accurately reflect the actual Autopsy report.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xjPKxcHY/jfk_autopsy_report_base_neck.jpg)
JohnM
-
Royell....I'm looking for feedback on my post ..... It's possible to accurately place the Lincoln on Elm street by using Robert West's plat of Dealy Plaza and the Altgens photo..... And it's possible to place Chaney alongside the Lincoln.
Without fail, every single time a LN gets in a pickle regarding an assignation image they go into their "perspective" dance. BS: They want everyone to Rely on JFK assassination images until these same images disprove them. Then, what you see is Not what you get. The use of this hokey pokey is employed to explain the variance in the physical position of the Chism family. Willis/Black Dog Man pic displays the Chism Family standing almost underneath the Stemmons sign & close to rubbing elbows with the Umbrella Man. This position contradicts the Bronson images showing the Chism's standing well East of the Stemmons Sign down on the street.
-
Without fail, every single time a LN gets in a pickle regarding an assignation image they go into their "perspective" dance. BS: They want everyone to Rely on JFK assassination images until these same images disprove them. Then, what you see is Not what you get. The use of this hokey pokey is employed to explain the variance in the physical position of the Chism family. Willis/Black Dog Man pic displays the Chism Family standing almost underneath the Stemmons sign & close to rubbing elbows with the Umbrella Man. This position contradicts the Bronson images showing the Chism's standing well East of the Stemmons Sign down on the street.
Don't you believe perspective should be taken into account?
-
Don't you believe perspective should be taken into account?
Sure. But when you get into moving numerous people around by numerous Feet and also in various directions on the compass = Nope. Plus, these same people then want to then swear there is absolutely No distortion what-so-ever at any point on the Z Film which they absolutely swear by. They can Not have it Every which way but loose.
-
For a start the WC initial draft said that the wound was slightly above the shoulder....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ford_files/image001.gif)
And Ford simply altered the language to more accurately reflect the actual Autopsy report.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xjPKxcHY/jfk_autopsy_report_base_neck.jpg)
JohnM
Stop with the WC flim flam. The autopsy face sheet and the autopsy photo(s) match up. They were both done well before the WC crafted their LN/SBT Malarkey and then needing to relocate the position of the JFK BACK Wound.
-
Sure. But when you get into moving numerous people around by numerous Feet and also in various directions on the compass = Nope. Plus, these same people then want to then swear there is absolutely No distortion what-so-ever at any point on the Z Film which they absolutely swear by. They can Not have it Every which way but loose.
Okay, fair enough. I think each image needs to be judged individually since the conditions will very in each case. This opens up accusations of cherry picking and making things fit what you want to see of course, and this seems to be the case regardless of which 'side' is commenting.
-
Don't you believe perspective should be taken into account?
One thing to know about Storing is that never once has he ever proven any of his image alteration fantasies. And ironically he relies on the same imagery to prove the identities of various people within these images, go figure!
JohnM
-
The autopsy face sheet and the autopsy photo(s) match up.
Yes they do, so what's your point?
(https://i.postimg.cc/jSx6tnwq/But_Herbertits14cmbelowthemastoidprocess_zps0f106c78.jpg)
JohnM
-
For a start the WC initial draft said that the wound was slightly above the shoulder....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ford_files/image001.gif)
And Ford simply altered the language to more accurately reflect the actual Autopsy report.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xjPKxcHY/jfk_autopsy_report_base_neck.jpg)
JohnM
As we see on the autopsy face sheet and the autopsy photo, the wound is Not in the, "base of the right side of the Neck"
-
As we see on the autopsy face sheet and the autopsy photo, the wound is Not in the, "base of the right side of the Neck"
The injuries as seen in the autopsy photos can be joined and calculated to go on to Connally's elliptical wound in the front and back to Oswald's sniper's nest in the rear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8z6LN8N4/jfk_backz.jpg)
JohnM
-
If I would have questioned the West map at first it would have save me some hassle. The marker is correct in other maps but i found on overhead photo taken within a month or so and it proved the West map wrong.
I believe Altgens was standing 6 feet into the street as the West map shows and multiple lines of sight confirm.
As far as I can see you are right about the 3rd window and it seems to jive with what I measured? You said he was at the curb, did you mean exactly or was he in the street according to your measurements?
-
The closest we can come to locating Chaney's position is to do a line of sight from above. Using the West map I found Chaney could not be next to JFK because the line of sight puts him within about one foot of the lime which is too close. His bike would be be in contact with the limo.
Thumb1:
Even though these GIFs aren't absolutely accurate down to a foot and were made when I was just learning 3D they adequately demonstrate that for Chaney to be in that line of sight relative to Altens camera, places Chaney uncomfortably close to Kennedy's Limo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRTQRBNC/Altgens6sketchup_zpsovflpywr.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rF3Mx3Wv/ernie_suxaaass_zpshhe0t3ot.gif)
JohnM
-
Walt, I just took some more photos and retested this and it does in fact change the angle when you move from directly in front towards the side. The angle changed(decreased) by about 20 degrees. I was not duplicating the angles exactly so the 20 degrees is just a sample result but it demonstrate the change is dramatic. I also compared a photo from above to the photo i took directly in front. Going from above to approx 10 feet away and 5 feet high changed it from 20 to 60 degrees, then moving off to the side decreased it back to around 40 degrees.
So the actual measurement taken from above was 20. At a distance of 10 feet and 5 feet high changed it to 63 degrees. At 10 feet away and 5 feet high and moving off to the right of center(directly in front of the limo) reduced the angle by 20 degrees back to 40 degrees.
EDIT: I said 5 feet high but forgot it was on a table, so 2 feet high is correct. This is why my result had some extra unexplained distortion.
-
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/43351517950_556ab8223b_o.jpg)
-
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/43351517950_556ab8223b_o.jpg)
Mr Davidson.....Would would please post the north area of Robert West's map of Dealy Plaza? Can you post the area from the TSBD to about 100 feet south of the TSBD?
Thank You
-
The injuries as seen in the autopsy photos can be joined and calculated to go on to Connally's elliptical wound in the front and back to Oswald's sniper's nest in the rear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8z6LN8N4/jfk_backz.jpg)
JohnM
Stop the dodge. The autopsy face sheet & the autopsy photo clearly display a wound in the BACK of JFK. Ford's wording placed the wound at the, " base of the right side of the NECK". Indisputable Hanky Panky by the would be POTUS.
-
Stop the dodge. The autopsy face sheet & the autopsy photo clearly display a wound in the BACK of JFK. Ford's wording placed the wound at the, " base of the right side of the NECK". Indisputable Hanky Panky by the would be POTUS.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FzDzdWWC/base_of_neck.jpg)
https://www.drstephaniebarrett.com/2017/01/17/how-can-i-help-my-neck-pain/
(http://riversidespineandphysmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/shoulder.png)
http://riversidespineandphysmed.com/neck-pain/
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqkg7VLC/base_of_neck1.jpg)
http://www.qmagnets.com/neckshoulder.php
(https://i.postimg.cc/fWt0JDDY/base_of_neck1a.jpg)
http://shreenidhiphysio.com/physio/treatment/
(https://i.postimg.cc/8z6LN8N4/jfk_backz.jpg)
JohnM
-
Here is the West map for reference. Ignore the L.O.S. i have Altgens at, it was off by 4 feet.
-
This is waaaay to crammed with information and misinformation....
Would someone please post the map as West created it......
-
When going through whatever "calculations" you guys might be making, remember the WC Testimony of Ike Altgens and his Challenging the WC placement of his physical position on the South side of Elm ST.
-
When going through whatever "calculations" you guys might be making, remember the WC Testimony of Ike Altgens and his Challenging the WC placement of his physical position on the South side of Elm ST.
Royell.... If we could get a good copy of Robert West's plat of Dealey plaza posted, it's very simple to show that Chaney was alongside the Lincoln when Altgen's snapped the shutter.
-
Walt I really don't get your complaint. Is it just those few lines and boxes I drew that it is too crammed with info that you can't use it? There should be nothing that prevents you from plotting Altgens position. Anyway If you are going to prove Chaney was next to the limo I will give an honest look at your proof.
-
"Next to the Limo" takes in a Lot of territory. I would quibble with those that are claiming that Officer Chaney was Back alongside the Queen Mary. To me, that is too Far back even though the JFK Limo and the Queen Mary were fairly close together. Though the clarity is wanting, close scrutiny of the Martin Film will give you a rough idea as to the position of Chaney as the JFK Limo turned onto Elm and passed by the wall that wrapped around/capped the water pool on the corner of Houston/Elm St.
-
Walt I really don't get your complaint. Is it just those few lines and boxes I drew that it is too crammed with info that you can't use it? There should be nothing that prevents you from plotting Altgens position. Anyway If you are going to prove Chaney was next to the limo I will give an honest look at your proof.
Complaint??.... I'm in no position to complain.... I appreciate your attempt, and thank you for your efforts to provide Robert West's plat but...... It is a confused jumble of information.
Chis Davidson provided a portion of the plat I'd like to see posted....
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/43351517950_556ab8223b_o.jpg)
-
Ok, I see your point. Regarding Alt 6, what frame of the Z film do you believe it aligns with? I ask because I am trying to understand the logic of the argument that Chaney was next to the limo not at the rear bumper.
-
Ok, I see your point. Regarding Alt 6, what frame of the Z film do you believe it aligns with? I ask because I am trying to understand the logic of the argument that Chaney was next to the limo not at the rear bumper.
"Regarding Alt 6, what frame of the Z film do you believe it aligns with?"
Wow, Chris!!..... I haven't tried to determine where in the extant Z film the Cheney photo might fit..... The information provided by Chaney's photo tells us it obviously was taken several seconds after JFK was struck. ( How long does it take for a person to realize that a shooting has occurred? ) JFK has reacted to being hit, and Chaney is obviously alarmed , and Connally also has had enough time to react.... Jackie has had enough time to place her hand on JFK's left arm......
I'd guess that at around ten seconds has elapsed from the moment of impact of the first shot....And I'm sure you realize that the "experts" (liars) have told us that the entire shooting happened in six seconds. It's obvious that shots two and three have not yet been fired ......
-
It doesn't matter what Z frame we think Altgen's 6 aligns with.
What matters is understanding what was manipulated and how, by the WC, to make us believe it should align with Z255.
Here's some help:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/31314620908_0b65280407_b.jpg)
-
It doesn't matter what Z frame we think Altgen's 6 aligns with.
What matters is understanding what was manipulated and how, by the WC, to make us believe it should align with Z255.
Here's some help:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/31314620908_0b65280407_b.jpg)
Thank you Chris.... I don't know what the red lines depict.....But the red line that passes below the "T" in the word "street" is very close to a line from the center of the third window ( from the SE corner) on the 2nd floor through the hood ornament of the Lincoln....
Motor cycle officer Chaney is to the left (north) of that line ......And the Altgens photo shows that he is close beside the Lincoln.
-
Walt, as Chris Davidson says it does not matter which Z frame it really matches cause maybe they faked something. But my point is using Z film frames allows me to state a very specify position for the limo as it relates to the Z film. In other words I think in Altgens 6 the limo lines up with it's position in Z 255. Some say it was earlier and that would change the angles at bit when trying to place Chaney relative to the limo.
I am trying to figure out why people place Chaney next to JFK using Altgens 6. What is the basis for that?
-
Walt, as Chris Davidson says it does not matter which Z frame it really matches cause maybe they faked something. But my point is using Z film frames allows me to state a very specify position for the limo as it relates to the Z film. In other words I think in Altgens 6 the limo lines up with it's position in Z 255. Some say it was earlier and that would change the angles at bit when trying to place Chaney relative to the limo.
I am trying to figure out why people place Chaney next to JFK using Altgens 6. What is the basis for that?
Are you kidding? The extant Z film shows that there was no motorcycle officer alongside the Lincoln at Z frame 255.....But I don't understand how anybody cannot see that Chaney was right there alongside the Lincoln in Altgen's #6 And since that is true, the Z film is a fake.....
The shadows of Hargis and Martin show that their shadows fell slightly to the rear of 90 degrees of them...The same holds true for Chaney....And we can see the shadow of his windshield on the surface of Elm street just beyond the front bumper.
This isn't rocket science.....
-
I used the Plat map to do an los for Chaney. Altgens is at the curb in this map and I am not sure about that. But placing him at the curb allows for a greater distance between the red line and the limo. But even at the curb the line is too close to the limo. An Electraglide is 35 to 38 inches wide, about 1/2 as wide as the limo. If the bike was half way in between JFK and the rear bumper it would still be touching the limo. To allow for one foot clearance it has to be by the rear bumper.
-
Walt, are you saying the shadows are just slightly off a 90 degree angle compared to the direction the bikes are pointed? Because if you look at a map and compare the azimuth to Elm at around z255 it is 68 degrees away from the direction the bikes are traveling. If it is before 255 the angle increases!
I posted a bit about angles and perspective warping apparent angles in a photo. I sent you a photo comparison but I don't think it worked.
Here is an experiment anyone can do in one minute. You don't need a camera because this perspective problem is not about camera distortion. You need a protractor or even just a paper and pen to draw the angle seen.
Simply put two objects on a table to simulate the limo and the bike. Stand straight over it and record the angle from the front bumper to the bike. Not step back about 10 feet and record the angle you see. Just hold the protractor up in front of you. Now step one foot to the right to simulate Altgens angle off the limo. You will find the actual angle seen from above has radically changed in each of the other two positions. This means without compensating for perspective you will never have an accurate measurement of any angle.
-
I used the Plat map to do an los for Chaney. Altgens is at the curb in this map and I am not sure about that. But placing him at the curb allows for a greater distance between the red line and the limo. But even at the curb the line is too close to the limo. An Electraglide is 35 to 38 inches wide, about 1/2 as wide as the limo. If the bike was half way in between JFK and the rear bumper it would still be touching the limo. To allow for one foot clearance it has to be by the rear bumper.
Chris I believe you're approaching the problem backwards...... There are TWO solid immovable structures seen in the Altgens photo that can be used as points of reference ..... The concrete plyon behind Chaney... and the center of the third window from the SE corner on the second floor of the TSBD. Using Robert West's plat you can scribe a straight line from the center of the window through the concrete pylon and on to the south side of Elm street. Since the hood ornament of the Lincoln falls on that line you can know exactly where the hood ornament was relative to the surface of Elm street .....And then you can place the entire car on the street at the moment Chaney took the picture. Since the figure of Chaney falls on the left side of that line and the shadow of his motorcycle is visible on the surface of Elm street .....You can place him right alongside the Lincoln....
-
I believe the shadow analysis is flawed as I explained which leaves the line of sight. The question is where along that line is Chaney sitting. Paul's two images illustrate an opinion but do not provide any measurements to show that the first image matches the second. Where Chaney is, is not determined by his position behind the headlamp or hood ornament or in between. That only shows the los he is on not where he sits along that line of sight. it only verifies one coordinate. If you could reproduce Pauls images with and overhead view it would prove your case.
I am open to considering peoples claims and will give it a fair chance. I would like to ask for you and any other folks interested to take me up on testing the shadow perspective issue for yourselves. It will only take one to two minutes to test it. As I said in that post you only need a protractor or papa and pen. I am confident that we will be on the same page regarding the distortion of perspective after you test it.
When we look at a picture an assume that something is obvious just because it intuitively looks right it is not scientific. It is not rocket science, that is true, but it is not regular science either. We really suck at trying to evaluate a 2 dimensional image of a 3d world. I never would have guessed that shadow angles can change by over 30 degrees by just stepping back a few feet.
I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.
-
Paul, this image denotes a line of sight through the limo to Chaney , that is fine. But it only verifies one coordinate. This image does not tell you where he is along that line of sight. Maybe he is next to JFK but he could also be farther back along that line which puts him behind JFK. The single coordinate shown here does not give the info needed to place Chaney where you have him in your second image. If you plot the Altgens line of sight from overhead I think you will find the 35 to 38 inch wide bike does not fit next to JFK cause it would overlap with the limo. Even halfway back to the rear bumper it would still touch the limo. Unless someone can prove that the line of sight shown in A.6 allows the bike to fit next to the limo I think we have to accept the imperial evidence dawn from the Altgens line of sight.
-
I believe the shadow analysis is flawed as I explained which leaves the line of sight. The question is where along that line is Chaney sitting. Paul's two images illustrate an opinion but do not provide any measurements to show that the first image matches the second. Where Chaney is, is not determined by his position behind the headlamp or hood ornament or in between. That only shows the los he is on not where he sits along that line of sight. it only verifies one coordinate. If you could reproduce Pauls images with and overhead view it would prove your case.
I am open to considering peoples claims and will give it a fair chance. I would like to ask for you and any other folks interested to take me up on testing the shadow perspective issue for yourselves. It will only take one to two minutes to test it. As I said in that post you only need a protractor or papa and pen. I am confident that we will be on the same page regarding the distortion of perspective after you test it.
When we look at a picture an assume that something is obvious just because it intuitively looks right it is not scientific. It is not rocket science, that is true, but it is not regular science either. We really suck at trying to evaluate a 2 dimensional image of a 3d world. I never would have guessed that shadow angles can change by over 30 degrees by just stepping back a few feet.
I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.
I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.
Why do you think the motorcycle wouldn't fit? There is about 16 feet between the right side of the Lincoln and the north curb of Elm street....
Regarding the shadows of the motorcycle officers .....Their shadows fall just a few degrees from perpendicular or 90 degrees from their bodies which are casting the shadows.
The point is:....the shadow of Chaney's windshield is seen on the surface of ELM street just beyond the car's bumper.....and that means the cycle had to be alongside the car.
-
What exactly does this wire diagram proof other than the bike position changes as the observers position changes?
-
That red line represents Chaney's position. He is somewhere along that line of sight. At each point along that line it also represents his distance from the side of the limo which increases the farther back along the los that he is positioned. That tells us how close his handle bar is from touching the limo. The bike is 38 inches wide so it extends out 17 inches to each side of that red line. At the position near JFK there is less than 17 inches between the line and the limo so his handle bars would hit the limo. He need at least 10 inches clearance between his bike and the limo. He would not fit near JFK, only farther back near the rear bumper.
Regarding shadows, we know the azimuth and we know where the bikes were pointed between 200 and 270. It is simply a fact that the angle of those shadows at Z 255 point more than 60 degrees to the rear at about 140 degrees. The evidence, the azimuth and the direction those bikes were facing, is indisputable. Every other photo of that day verifies the azimuth. Of course you see 90 because of PERSPECTIVE. If you see 90 you can be sure it is other than that because perspective does not allow you to take an accurate measurement. The closer to the ground you are the more angles move towards a horizontal position. That is why it looks closer to 90.
I mentioned 2 ways you could test your theories that only take a couple of minutes. You should test your observations. You can just take the map and draw a line for the azimuth and another for the direction of the bike. You will see the shadow does not extend out at 90 degrees it is 140! That is another very simple way to test it.
-
Seriously Paul, your camera position is waaay too close, you've got the software and reasonable models so try again and place your camera in Altgens position and let's see what happens.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fwTWmgg/pauls1steffort.gif)
Here is the panorama from Zapruder's pedestal and we see from left to right, the lamp post from Chris's map, then the Altgens 6 frame and finally on the far right is Altgen's position a few second after he took the shot. Whereas it appears that Paul has his Altgens position closer than Brehm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0N9RvjNP/zap_to_altgens.jpg)
Here's Chris's map and this really should have silenced all this Chaney next to the Limo nonsense.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1972/43351517950_556ab8223b_o.jpg)
JohnM
This so called "panorama" depiction from the Z pedestal is hilarious. The distance between Apron Man and the Babushka Lady/Brehms is Atrociously Exaggerated calling into question the placement of all other eyewitnesses depicted on it.
-
Still waiting for someone to explain how we can see the reflection of the Chaney motorcycle on the side of the JFK Limo at Z 233 and Not have the motorcycle positioned next to/alongside the Limo.
-
Because the rule of reflections is the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. So Z is looking at the side of the limo from a shallow angle of maybe 30 degrees. What he sees in not what is right next to the limo, he sees what is at a 30 degree angle behind the limo. That is more evidence that Chaney was behind JFK.
-
Still waiting for someone to explain how we can see the reflection of the Chaney motorcycle on the side of the JFK Limo at Z 233 and Not have the motorcycle positioned next to/alongside the Limo.
Thumb1:
Nice pick up, Einstein.
The reflection of the Police bike on the rear of Kennedy's Limo indicates that the Police bike was where it was supposed to be, how about that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzYG8sdn/2_limo_bike_zap_233zzb.jpg)
(https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/u13l1c1.gif)
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/The-Law-of-Reflection
JohnM
-
Thumb1:
Nice pick up, Einstein.
The reflection of the Police bike on the rear of Kennedy's Limo indicates that the Police bike was where it was supposed to be, how about that!
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzYG8sdn/2_limo_bike_zap_233zzb.jpg)
(https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/u13l1c1.gif)
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/The-Law-of-Reflection
JohnM
I would like to put a team together and try to find the same make and model of the camera and lens that James Altgens was using and go to DP along with a few staunch conspiracy theorists who believe that Chaney was beside JFK and "looking right at JFK" in the Altgens picture, along with a few "lone nutters" so we have a fair number of pros and cons. There is the actual replica of the limousine already in Dallas, all that's needed is someone on a motorcycle to put this nonsense that Chaney is riding next to JFK, to bed.
-
That red line represents Chaney's position. He is somewhere along that line of sight. At each point along that line it also represents his distance from the side of the limo which increases the farther back along the los that he is positioned. That tells us how close his handle bar is from touching the limo. The bike is 38 inches wide so it extends out 17 inches to each side of that red line. At the position near JFK there is less than 17 inches between the line and the limo so his handle bars would hit the limo. He need at least 10 inches clearance between his bike and the limo. He would not fit near JFK, only farther back near the rear bumper.
Regarding shadows, we know the azimuth and we know where the bikes were pointed between 200 and 270. It is simply a fact that the angle of those shadows at Z 255 point more than 60 degrees to the rear at about 140 degrees. The evidence, the azimuth and the direction those bikes were facing, is indisputable. Every other photo of that day verifies the azimuth. Of course you see 90 because of PERSPECTIVE. If you see 90 you can be sure it is other than that because perspective does not allow you to take an accurate measurement. The closer to the ground you are the more angles move towards a horizontal position. That is why it looks closer to 90.
I mentioned 2 ways you could test your theories that only take a couple of minutes. You should test your observations. You can just take the map and draw a line for the azimuth and another for the direction of the bike. You will see the shadow does not extend out at 90 degrees it is 140! That is another very simple way to test it.
I would like to debate this further but until we have Robert West's plat of the north side of Dealey Plaza there is nothing to debate.
-
I would like to put a team together and try to find the same make and model of the camera and lens that James Altgens was using and go to DP along with a few staunch conspiracy theorists who believe that Chaney was beside JFK and "looking right at JFK" in the Altgens picture, along with a few "lone nutters" so we have a fair number of pros and cons. There is the actual replica of the limousine already in Dallas, all that's needed is someone on a motorcycle to put this nonsense that Chaney is riding next to JFK, to bed.
Your line would place Officer Chaney at Any point upon it. That line therefore does place Officer Chaney alongside the JFK Limo.
Your suggestion regarding the usage of a Knockoff Altgens camera/lens should also be applied to a Knockoff Zapruder camera/lens setting. Let's see if Any portion of The Wall, Black Dog Man Nook, or further portions of the Picket Fence/Parking Lot are captured.
-
I will give Paul credit for making an effort by posting his computer graphics.
Unlike Storing and Cakebread who just flap there gums with text,text,text.
I agree .... The endless texting is tiring.... It's frustrating to try to show what I believe reveals the factual truth.
I'm incapable of posting the plat that Robert West created, and without it, it's impossible to make my point clear.
I'm not unreasonable....But I strongly believe that Chaney was right there alongside the Lincoln when Altgens snapped the shutter.
-
I agree .... The endless texting is tiring.... It's frustrating to try to show what I believe reveals the factual truth.
I'm incapable of posting the plat that Robert West created, and without it, it's impossible to make my point clear.
I'm not unreasonable....But I strongly believe that Chaney was right there alongside the Lincoln when Altgens snapped the shutter.
I don't see what you see Walt and think you are mistaken. Good that you are open to discuss it though.
-
Your line would place Officer Chaney at Any point upon it. That line therefore does place Officer Chaney alongside the JFK Limo.
Your suggestion regarding the usage of a Knockoff Altgens camera/lens should also be applied to a Knockoff Zapruder camera/lens setting. Let's see if Any portion of The Wall, Black Dog Man Nook, or further portions of the Picket Fence/Parking Lot are captured.
Your line would place Officer Chaney at Any point upon it. That line therefore does place Officer Chaney alongside the JFK Limo.
Yes, and if that line is inaccurate and rotated only a couple of degrees counter clockwise it's entirely possible to fit Chaney's bike in that area.
-
Sounds good. We will need to post an accurate line of sight drawn on the map to measure the clearance between the limo an Chaney.
-
Your line would place Officer Chaney at Any point upon it. That line therefore does place Officer Chaney alongside the JFK Limo.
Yes, and if that line is inaccurate and rotated only a couple of degrees counter clockwise it's entirely possible to fit Chaney's bike in that area.
This is why I brought up Altgens under oath disputing the position the WC assigned him on Elm St.
-
Chaney supposedly gunned his motorcycle, and spoke to Currie while the Currie car was under the overpass.
More fairy tales, i suppose you Alterationist loonies think that Chaney was erased from Altgens 7 and the Bell and zapruder films
No Chaney here :D
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/altgenscontactsheetone_lowscan.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/444.JPG)
Robin, it might contradict the film but too many good witness saw him ride forward and that the motorcade was stopped at the time. Chaney and both agents in the back seat and Curry confirm it happened in the plaza not on the onramp. The story that it happened on the onramp is full of problems and I will post a thread on it. Several of the bike cops in front of Curry also witness Chaney's ride forward. While it is hard to see how they could have altered the film we can't write off such consist testimony either. If they did take out the limo stop from the film they would have to take out Chaney's ride forward too because if the limo does not stop there is no time for Chaney to ride forward.
-
Robin, frame 234 verifies that Chaney is visible and those two streaks are the front of his bike. Because the image is more the front of the bike than the side we can be sure it is pretty far back along the LOS. Not next to JFK
-
Agreed :)
BUT in reference to Altgens 6 we need to look at frame Z-255
theses guys are saying that Chaney was next to kennedy in Z-255
therefore in their Alterationist universe Chaney's reflection in the Limo should also be present in frame Z-255
Please identify... "These guys".....
-
John Mytton's map of reflection angle illustrates an important point. Even with this steep angle the bike would not fit next to the limo. The bike extends 19 inches (I think I said 17 elsewhere, that was a lie.) to each side of that line. The width of the limo is 78 inches. So take 1/4 of the width of the limo and see where you can make that length fit in between the limo and the line representing the angle of reflection. I think you will find it has to be back by the rear bumper.
-
Yes Robin, the point I was addressing is the idea about reflections and why we do see Chaney in the reflection when he is not alongside the car.
-
You know who you are, and so does everyone reading this thread
If one of these guys is Walt Cakebread ( me) then you're attributing something to me that I'm not sure is true.
I do believe it is very easy to confuse readers by posting pictures that are akin to an ink blot...
-
All i see in Z-255 is some white streaks ?
I am waiting Storing ::)
show us this CLEAR image of a motorcycle reflected in the side of the Limo. ????
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Cold%20Case%20JFK%20frames/255.jpg)
The claim was Z-233. It's on page 1 of this thread. This is why law enforcement along with the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community for 54+ years have Failed to solve this case. Their attention to Detail was/is sorely lacking.
-
To my eyes the reflection in frame Z-234 appears to show a portion of Chaney's front tire and white tire fender, also the left side "red" flashing light, indicating how far back he was in relation to the Limo.
The front tire and fender of Chaney's bike can be seen just to the right of Umbrella man's umbrella....
-
The front tire and fender of Chaney's bike can be seen just to the right of Umbrella man's umbrella....
You're onto them Walt and they do Not like it. The Visual Aid CARTOON provided above is the JFK Old Guard Research Community once again stating an Opinion as if it were fact. They sit around and do their blah, blah, blah as a group, come up with conclusions based on Pure Conjecture and Cartoonish based thinking, and then run around spouting it off as being fact. The same goes for their repeatedly claiming we are seeing Officer Chaney underneath the Triple Underpass on the McIntire Photo. Pure Hob Gobbled Opinion brought to us by the Same Community Of Minds that repeatedly rubber stamped/echoed the mis ID of Mumford for close to 40 years. Their track record is absolutely horrendous and continues to stymie the solving of this case.
-
You're onto them Walt and they do Not like it. The Visual Aid CARTOON provided above is the JFK Old Guard Research Community once again stating an Opinion as if it were fact. They sit around and do their blah, blah, blah as a group, come up with conclusions based on Pure Conjecture and Cartoonish based thinking, and then run around spouting it off as being fact. The same goes for their repeatedly claiming we are seeing Officer Chaney underneath the Triple Underpass on the McIntire Photo. Pure Hob Gobbled Opinion brought to us by the Same Community Of Minds that repeatedly rubber stamped/echoed the mis ID of Mumford for close to 40 years. Their track record is absolutely horrendous and continues to stymie the solving of this case.
You're onto them Walt and they do Not like it.
I don't know if i'm "onto them"..... I'm not trying to expose or embarrass anybody.... I simply believe there is something really fishy smellin,... and I'm convinced that Chaney was right alongside the Lincoln when Altgen's snapped the photo.
Nobody has produced anything that refutes that idea..... And it's ovbious that Altgens was not where LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon" cover up committee told us he was when he snapped the shutter.
-
Sounds good. We will need to post an accurate line of sight drawn on the map to measure the clearance between the limo an Chaney.
Not only do we need a accurate LOS.... We need to locate the Lincoln as accurately as possible.
I believe Altgen's snapped the photo from a site that is different from the one that LBJ's Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee presented.
-
Not only do we need a accurate LOS.... We need to locate the Lincoln as accurately as possible.
I believe Altgen's snapped the photo from a site that is different from the one that LBJ's Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee presented.
This is Exactly what Altgens was defiant about during his WC Testimony. He said something along the lines of based on the shutter speed setting he had placed on his camera, there was No Way from that distance his camera would have produced a focused photo. Altgens was a Pro Photographer and pros Know Exactly what they have their equipment set at. Altgens and his camera is no different than a pro sniper and his rifle. Both know the tools of their trade inside and out.
-
Not only do we need a accurate LOS.... We need to locate the Lincoln as accurately as possible.
I believe Altgen's snapped the photo from a site that is different from the one that LBJ's Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee presented.
If Altgens snapped the photo from a different location then they photoshopped the image in a big way because multiple lines of sight put Altgens in the street where the WC says he was. If that is faked then there really is no use debating the position of Chaney based on Altgens 6.
-
Not that I disagree with you Robin but if Altgens walked directly backwards along that line of sight he would be back on the grass and 20 feet farther West. Of course only one line of sight would remain the same, the others would be off. but you would still have that same view of the street while being on the grass if he zoomed in a bit.
-
Storing/Cakebread
HEAVY on speculation, Light on proof
just more lip flapping and Text,Text,Text
If you two are an example of the "new gaurd" then god help the future of JFK Research after the old gaurd are gone.
Altgens 6 (field of view) Credit: Martin Hinricks
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/WavingpersonsTowner-MartinviaAltgens.jpg)
Thank you for posting this ....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/WavingpersonsTowner-MartinviaAltgens.jpg)
Robin, you will probably disagree , and you "may" be able to PROVE that I'm wrong .....But Here's what I see....the Altgens photo shows the center of the third window from the SE corner of the TSBD, aligns with SW corner of the concrete pylon behind Chaney and that line extends through the hood ornament of the Lincoln. In this drawing the Lincoln is at least a full car length too far east ......And Altgens is depicted as being about thirty feet too far west.
-
The WC knew where Altgens was standing using the extant Z film.
Altgen's testimony occurred July 22, 1964.
#3 isn't close to his known position.
Mr. LIEBELER - Wait just a minute now--at this point, as you ran across, you were along Elm Street; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I ran across and reached up into--well, the curb area on the west side of Elm Street.
Mr. LIEBELER - Across Elm Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you.
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.
Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)
Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Now, when you took the picture of the caravan turning from Main Street to the right on Houston Street, you then ran across this Dealey Plaza?
Mr. ALTGENS - Down this way; yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Along the lawn part.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - To the point marked No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/CE354.png)
-
The LOS for Altgens 6 using 1978 Drommer plat (red line in the middle) and WC final plat July 1964 (red line at bottom).
The difference being what frame#(Z255 and Z249) is depicted by the WC with the limo in position.
The WC did not have access to Drommer back in 1964.
What needs to be altered, to even out the bottom lane marker which lies just ahead of the limo front, with its matching top lane marker?
Once you figure that out, look at Altgens 6 again for a match.
Disregard top red line.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Altgens2Gen.png)
-
It doesn't matter what Z frame we think Altgen's 6 aligns with.
What matters is understanding what was manipulated and how, by the WC, to make us believe it should align with Z255.
Here's some help:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1908/31314620908_0b65280407_b.jpg)
The WC CE884 chart listed Z161 and Z168 as the same physical location = 7 frames apart.
The WC CE884 chart listed Z166 and Z171 as the same physical location = 5 frames apart.
The difference between Z249 and Z255 = 6 frames.
Lightbulb starting to flicker???
-
Not only do we need a accurate LOS.... We need to locate the Lincoln as accurately as possible.
I believe Altgen's snapped the photo from a site that is different from the one that LBJ's Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee presented.
To me we have to get the accurate line of sight through the pillar and the lamppost to the TSBD, that will allow us to find the exact location of the limo. Where do you think Altgens was and how do you account for the lines of sight that put him at the WC location?
-
Cutler plat showing Altgens location just across from the steps.
I agree with Cutler and others who have him in this location.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/61.jpg)
Yeah. Why would anyone believe the actual WC Testimony of Altgens and his corroborating his physical position with the setting on his camera vs a pirate map with the equivalent of an "X marks the spot"? Hilarious, yet once again we see exactly why this case remains unsolved after 54+ years. Opinions have been cavalierly accepted/rubber stamped and then endlessly repeated until they are accepted as Fact. This has been the M.O. of both law enforcement as well as many members of the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community.
-
Chris
That (3) position marked on the WC photo is too far East, if Altgens were in the centre of the grassy area that close to Elm / Houston corner we would see him in Bronson. ( we don't )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BRONSON.jpg)
Robin,
I'm not the one that said Altgens is where #3 is on CE354.
The WC knew when they asked Altgens to locate his position where he actually was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.
Liebeler should have corrected Altgens testimony then and there.
It is obvious to most, that Altgens didn't place himself anywhere near where he appears on the extant Z film.
-
You don't even need the windows
the edge of the white column lines up with the the Limo hood ornament.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989originalhalfsizecrop.jpg)
You don't even need the windows the edge of the white column lines up with the the Limo hood ornament.
The hood ornament is NOT a stationary point of reference.....it is a movable object. The TSBD and the concrete pylon are fixed points of reference. Since we know that the center of the third set of windows on the second floor of the TSBD aligns with the southwest corner of the concrete pylon, then we can scribe a line from the center of the window through the corner of the pylon and on to the triple underpass. The hood ornament of the lincoln was on that line when Altgens snapped the photo... and obviously Altgens camera was also on that line.
-
I'm not sure what rule I've broken.... What do you mean ..."space between line rules?"
Posts with more than one line of empty space at the start of a post, at the end of a post, between text lines, before or after quotes and/or before or after images, including in between images, may be deleted.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,204.0.html
-
You don't even need the windows the edge of the white column lines up with the the Limo hood ornament.
The hood ornament is NOT a stationary point of reference.....it is a movable object. The TSBD and the concrete pylon are fixed points of reference. Since we know that the center of the third set of windows on the second floor of the TSBD aligns with the southwest corner of the concrete pylon, then we can scribe a line from the center of the window through the corner of the pylon and on to the triple underpass. The hood ornament of the lincoln was on that line when Altgens snapped the photo... and obviously Altgens camera was also on that line.
The lamppost can also be used to verify the LOS over the top of the concrete pylon. The anchor point for the line that passes through the street light is right edge (east)of the fourth window ......
-
Let's get Real here and just Look at the photo. How on Earth would this Altgens photo capture the Large, LOW Headlight in the center of Chaney's motorcycle if he were positioned at the (R) rear of the JFK Limo, or alongside the Queen Mary? The further Back you move Chaney, the More the view of his motorcycle is obstructed by the JFK Limo, the people inside it, the Queen Mary, and the SS Agents Standing on its' (R) Running Board. The visibility of that Large, LOW, Headlight completely destroys Chaney being physically positioned elsewhere. Slam Dunk. This also explains why this photo is usually Cropped on the Chaney Headlight side of the Photo.
-
Let's get Real here and just Look at the photo. How on Earth would this Altgens photo capture the Large, LOW Headlight in the center of Chaney's motorcycle if he were positioned at the (R) rear of the JFK Limo, or alongside the Queen Mary? The further Back you move Chaney, the More the view of his motorcycle is obstructed by the JFK Limo, the people inside it, the Queen Mary, and the SS Agents Standing on its' (R) Running Board. The visibility of that Large, LOW, Headlight completely destroys Chaney being physically positioned elsewhere. Slam Dunk. This also explains why this photo is usually Cropped on the Chaney Headlight side of the Photo.
Not if it moves back and to the left, along the LOS lines shown. That's what LOS means isn't it?
-
Let's get Real here and just Look at the photo. How on Earth would this Altgens photo capture the Large, LOW Headlight in the center of Chaney's motorcycle if he were positioned at the (R) rear of the JFK Limo, or alongside the Queen Mary? The further Back you move Chaney, the More the view of his motorcycle is obstructed by the JFK Limo, the people inside it, the Queen Mary, and the SS Agents Standing on its' (R) Running Board. The visibility of that Large, LOW, Headlight completely destroys Chaney being physically positioned elsewhere. Slam Dunk. This also explains why this photo is usually Cropped on the Chaney Headlight side of the Photo.
Excellent point Royell.....AND Chaney's reflection would not be seen on the hood of the Lincoln if he were back near the QM.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
Robin, Thank you for posting this nice clear copy of Altgen's # 6
-
Comparison view of the motorcycles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WFKw037m/altgens-6-ue-large-best2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WFKw037m)
-
Comparison view of the motorcycles.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WFKw037m/altgens-6-ue-large-best2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WFKw037m)
Thanks for your input, Ray.... Perhaps we can finally destroy the nonsense about Chaney being back by the QM when the photo was snapped....
The photo casts serious doubt about the authenticity of the Z-Film, and that's why the WC apologists (aka LNers) are soilin their skivvies..
The photo also shows that the Lincoln would have been obscured beneath the tree at the time of the shot that JFK is reacting to.
-
This is a perfect example of another Created & Repeated JFK Urban Legend. Once again, done so by the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community. And it also explains why this Altgens photo is usually Cropped to chop off the headlight of the Chaney Motorcycle. That Altgens photo Un-Cropped resolves this Bogus 'issue" all by itself.
-
You can see people on the sidewalk through the window too and they are well behind both cars.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
Robin, I am sincerely thankful that you posted this copy of Altgen's #6.....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
You can clearly see that the west corner of the Concrete pylon aligns with the center of the third window from the SE corner on the second floor of the TSBD. And the street light aligns with the east side of the fourth window. These points can be used to determine where the camera was located when the photo was taken.
Chaney's left arm and hand is visible through the passenger window beside Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman.... You can even see Chaney's wrist watch behind his fingers which are gripping the motorcycle's handlebar.
-
Paul, when determining a line of sight you take objects that line up vertically in the foreground and background and plot them from overhead. From overhead it does matter what height anything is. It also does not matter how long the bike is. you only use a single point like Chaney's helmet and whatever single point is directly above his helmet in the background. If you want to find the location of the headlight you don't need the length of the bike, you just do a line of sight for the headlight itself.
-
Paul.....You can see solid stationary objects in the Altgens photo that also appear on the plat. The concrete pylon. the street light and the TSBD are objects that were / are ANCHORED to a known location. It's a POC to see that the west corner of the concrete pylon aligns with the center of the third window from the SE corner, of the TSBD .... That's just like aiming a rifle Paul...... Rear sight with front sight ..... You can draw a line from the center of that third floor window through the west corner of the pylon and on to the triple underpass . (Elsie Dorman was behind the third window on the fourth floor and her name is written on the plat) Since the hood ornament of the movable object ( the Lincoln) falls on that line you can locate that car on the plat and you can locate Altgens by drawing a line from the east side of the fourth window through the street light and on to the triple underpass.....The point that those two lines meet is the spot where Altgens was standing when he snapped the photo.
-
The motorcycle headlight says it all. Move Officer Chaney backward and his headlight is obstructed by the JFK Limo. Well, unless you also move Chaney to the extreme North. This is where that Altgens Photo has placed those die hards that refuse to admit they got it Wrong for decade after decade. When do we get to the point where they claim Chaney hit something in the road and bounced his motorcycle cycle 1 foot straight up? Ridiculous in the face of the Altgens Photo.
-
Paul, when determining a line of sight you take objects that line up vertically in the foreground and background and plot them from overhead. From overhead it does matter what height anything is. It also does not matter how long the bike is. you only use a single point like Chaney's helmet and whatever single point is directly above his helmet in the background. If you want to find the location of the headlight you don't need the length of the bike, you just do a line of sight for the headlight itself.
when determining a line of sight you take objects that line up vertically in the foreground and background and plot them from overhead. From overhead it does matter what height anything is.
when determining a line of sight you take objects that line up vertically in the foreground and background ( just like aiming a rifle) and plot them from overhead. From overhead it does (not) matter what height of anything is.
In the case of the Altgens photo it's obvious that the west corner of the concrete pylon aligns with the center of the third window (from the SE corner of the TSBD ) Thus you can use the center of the third window as the anchor point for a line that runs through the corner of the pylon and on to the triple underpass. Since the hood ornament of the Lincoln falls on that line it's possible to locate the Lincoln on Elm street at the time the photo was snapped.
-
In Altgen 6 the Zoom lens makes it appear as though the TSBD doorway was right next to the white concrete column.
In reality the doorway is some distance away from the white column.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/P1010018.jpg)
No the TSBD entrance does not appear to be beside the pylon....It appears to be in the background .....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
-
In Altgens 6 the Zoom lens males it appear as though the man in the suit was standing next to the woman and child, and that they were standing just behind the white column.
They were NOT standing together, and were not just standing behind the white column.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image1.jpg)
Robin, What is that dance you doing called?
-
No the TSBD entrance does not appear to be beside the pylon....It appears to be in the background .....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
Anyone that looks at that photo and believes they are seeing the pylon beside the TSBD needs to have their peepers checked out. Maybe this Peeper Problem explains the erroneous interpretation of the Altgens photo. Then again, maybe they are just afraid to Admit they cavalierly rubber stamped an erroneous Claim for decades?
-
Anyone that looks at that photo and believes they are seeing the pylon beside the TSBD needs to have their peepers checked out. Maybe this Peeper Problem explains the erroneous interpretation of the Altgens photo. Then again, maybe they are just afraid to Admit they cavalierly rubber stamped an erroneous Claim for decades?
In medical terms....It's called Crainialrectalitis.......
-
Robin, What is that dance you doing called?
I think he should call it the "Zoom Chicka BOOM". The "Boom" is his head exploding as he melts down with his numerous photogs using numerous Zoom lenses excuse. Sad
-
Regarding Chaney's hand seen through the window.
we can also clearly see the black mans white shirt and black trousers.
Man (1) is atanding on the sidewalk
Altgen 6 / Croft Credit: Martin Hinrichs
Altgens Zoom lense makes things in the backround appear closer than they really are.
The sightline from Altgens to the corner of the concrete pillar east of the lamp post passes over the hood ornament on the front of the limo. Chaney is north (left) of that. It seems to me that your drawing has misplaced either Altgens or the limo or both: (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Chaney_sightlines_AM.jpg)
There were two motorcycle riders on each side. Chaney and Jackson were to the right (north) side of the motorcade. In Altgens, we can only see one. Where is the other one?
We can see a motorcycle front wheel pull up to the side of the president's car in z307 (sprocket area below z307 appears as double exposure at top of z308). Do we know that that is Chaney?
-
The sightline from Altgens to the corner of the concrete pillar east of the lamp post passes over the hood ornament on the front of the limo. Chaney is north (left) of that. It seems to me that your drawing has misplaced either Altgens or the limo or both: (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Chaney_sightlines_AM.jpg)
There were two motorcycle riders on each side. Chaney and Jackson were to the right (north) side of the motorcade. In Altgens, we can only see one. Where is the other one?
We can see a motorcycle front wheel pull up to the side of the president's car in z307 (sprocket area below z307 appears as double exposure at top of z308). Do we know that that is Chaney?
Andrew try reversing that LOS from the center of the third window ( see Elsie Dorman circled) through the west corner of that concrete pylon.....and on to the triple underpass .... Then do the same starting at the east side of the fourt set of windows and deaw the line through the street light and on to the triple underpass .......The point where the two lines you've drawn meet is where Altgens was standing ....and the place where the first line you drew line would pass through the hood ornament of the Lincoln is where the Lincoln was. I believe you'll discover that Altgens was in the street in the south traffic lane north of the "Mary Moorman " location on the plat. And he was in fact only about 25 feet from the Lincoln.
-
It's called perspective 101
Many people over the years have fallen into the Altgens 6 perspective trap.
I argued with Cinque for years over the same thing
It's called perspective 101...
Are you sure...It looks like the Boogey Woogey, Two step, Side step...
-
Andrew try reversing that LOS from the center of the third window ( see Elsie Dorman circled) through the west corner of that concrete pylon.....and on to the triple underpass .... Then do the same starting at the east side of the fourt set of windows and deaw the line through the street light and on to the triple underpass .......The point where the two lines you've drawn meet is where Altgens was standing ....and the place where the first line you drew line would pass through the hood ornament of the Lincoln is where the Lincoln was. I believe you'll discover that Altgens was in the street in the south traffic lane north of the "Mary Moorman " location on the plat. And he was in fact only about 25 feet from the Lincoln.
I just realized that the tree can be aligned with the east corner of the TSBD entrance and used for a third LOS......
-
Walt, YES, I left out the word 'not' which changes the meaning a bit.. So we agree on that. The point about the headlight proving it is close because it would be obscured by the limo if it was farther away, I think , is backwards. Altgens is slightly above the hood looking down to it. So as his line of sight continues past the limo it allows him to see lower and lower as the LOS moves away from the limo. Look at the people behind Chaney, you can see almost all the way down to their feet. The crown of the road may affect this too.
-
Andrew, all I see in 307 is Hargis and Martin. Chaney's front fender becomes visible at 310 in the extra area below the bottom sprocket hole. But 3 seconds have elapsed since frame 255 which aligns with Alrgens 6 so it does not offer any usable info.
-
Walt, YES, I left out the word 'not' which changes the meaning a bit.. So we agree on that. The point about the headlight proving it is close because it would be obscured by the limo if it was farther away, I think , is backwards. Altgens is slightly above the hood looking down to it. So as his line of sight continues past the limo it allows him to see lower and lower as the LOS moves away from the limo. Look at the people behind Chaney, you can see almost all the way down to their feet. The crown of the road may affect this too.
I don't like referring to images..... Not everybody can see what's right in front of them. ( I think bias distorts their vision)
However The photo itself provides all the information necessary to perform three reverse LOS lines ......Line "A" from the center of the third set of windows on the second floor of the TSBD south through the west corner of the concrete pylon and on to the triple underpass, Line "B" starting at the east edge of the fourth set of windows through the street light to the right of the Lincoln and on to the triple underpass....and Line "C" starting at the east side of the entrance to the TSBD through the tree to the east of the pylon and on to the triple underpass ..... The point where the three lines meet is where Altgens was standing on the traffic lane on the south side of Elm.... And the spot where Line "A" would pass through the Lincoln Hood ornament is the spot where the Lincoln was when Altgens snapped the photo.
-
The Altgens Zoom lens effect must be taken into account when studying the Altgens 6 photo
Note when using the 55mm telephoto lens the pink bottle stays the same size, but the blue bottle appears larger
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Focal_length.jpg/220px-Focal_length.jpg)
Thumb1:.
I'm sure Paul has mucked about with where Altgens was standing and found that putting Chaney right next to the Limo from Altgen's actual position makes a recreation of Altgens 6 impossible so again he's placed his virtual Altgens camera far too close, perhaps even closer than Brehm and son. So from Paul's closer vantage point we naturally see that Chaney is relatively smaller as compared to the Limo and that in Altgens 6 the background in comparison to the Limo becomes more compressed as the camera moves further away.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8n96DQ8/altgens6-paul3d.gif)
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MatureFatherlyAcouchi-size_restricted.gif)
The Altgens Zoom lens effect must be taken into account when studying the Altgens 6 photo
Thumb1: Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Z6R22NH/zap255-altgens6.jpg)
JohnM
-
What did I tell you? Now they are Forced to move Chaney North into the slow lane. They moved him (E)/Backward, and Now they also want move him (N)/toward the Knoll. Just remember when doing this Hokey Pokey with Chaney that the Chism Family with their little kid are standing in the street/slow lane. Chaney was assigned the position closest to the (R) passenger side of the Limo. Jackson was assigned to be on the outside/(R) of Chaney. If Chaney is moved into the slow lane, then Jackson is positioned close to the curb and heading straight at the Chism Family. Chaney's motorcycle headlight continues to be a flat-out killer for the Chaney Movers and Shakers.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/FhSUp0R.jpg)
This visual aide is a complete Joke. How wide is the slow lane?
-
This visual aide is a complete Joke. How wide is the slow lane?
You can't read a map, you haven't got a clue, why do you bother?
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxYSP6rx/storingneedsanewhobby.gif)
JohnM
-
Andrew, all I see in 307 is Hargis and Martin. Chaney's front fender becomes visible at 310 in the extra area below the bottom sprocket hole. But 3 seconds have elapsed since frame 255 which aligns with Alrgens 6 so it does not offer any usable info.
The tip of a motorcycle front fender is just becoming visible in z309, which is actually part of the exposure for z308. The whole wheel becomes visible a few frames later.
It is interesting that we never see Jackson in the zfilm. But Jackson and Chaney are riding side by side up Houston as seen in Hughes' film. So can we not assume that in the zfilm Jackson is always out of view to the left side of the frames? In z308 and after we could be seeing Jackson's motorcycle.
In earlier frames, e.g. 193 we see Chaney on the right side at a position that appears to be well ahead of the QM security car an possibly up to the back of the President's car. Is it not possible that Jackson was farther ahead?
-
Jackson was supposed to ride behind and to Chaney's right. The Nix film shows Him behind Chaney till some point after the head shot.
-
The tip of a motorcycle front fender is just becoming visible in z309, which is actually part of the exposure for z308. The whole wheel becomes visible a few frames later.
It is interesting that we never see Jackson in the zfilm. But Jackson and Chaney are riding side by side up Houston as seen in Hughes' film. So can we not assume that in the zfilm Jackson is always out of view to the left side of the frames? In z308 and after we could be seeing Jackson's motorcycle.
In earlier frames, e.g. 193 we see Chaney on the right side at a position that appears to be well ahead of the QM security car an possibly up to the back of the President's car. Is it not possible that Jackson was farther ahead?
"In earlier frames, e.g. 193 we see Chaney on the right side at a position that appears to be well ahead of the QM security car"
In Altgens #6 The front bumper of the QM is nearly touching the rear bumper of the Lincoln......And Chaney and his motorcycle is alongside the Lincoln.
Robin this photo is a MUCH wider view than Altgens .... #6 right side was at the SW corner of the Daltex...and the Left side was at tyhe west edge of the fourth window from the SE corner of the TSBD.
-
Jackson was supposed to ride behind and to Chaney's right. The Nix film shows Him behind Chaney till some point after the head shot.
In the Nix film, I don't see either Chaney or Jackson until after the head shot and at that point they appear to be side-by-side. They then appear to slow down as the car takes off with Chaney slowing down more rapidly as Jackson appears to go ahead.
-
Notice how they Now run away from the Altgens Photo? It remains the PROOF In The Pudding. Their Pirate Maps, their diagrams with Guesses as to the position of Altgens, etc = Deflection. They can Not get away from the Chaney Motorcycle Headlight being Unobstructed/visible on the Altgens Photo. Case Closed
-
Here he comes the forum lurker, right on time to pedal his spam.
Your just a useless troll who is bitter and twisted because you don't have the skills to do what i do.
Robin....I've always thought you were one of the better members who could post and exchange ideas without resorting to insults. and I respected you for that. I admire your skills and applaud your research ...... try to stay outta the gutter.
-
Easy for you to say Walt.
I try to help you and get spammed by Storing for doing so.
If he is your mate, you need to get better friends.
You don't know me Walt, when i am attacked i always take off the gloves.
There have been times when Royell has attacked me too.....So what. That's his option .....
-
Brian, in 232 we can see the trunk area and Chaney is not there. He has to be farther back as the reflection in the limo indicates. I cannot find any antenna other than of Hargis and Martin. There is something above the Stemmons but it is glare of the windshield of the SS follow up Cadillac.
-
Chaney enters a few frames after the start of the Elm St. sequence. It is a blurry mess but you can trace Chaney backwards to find him at the start. Here is a short video I did on a related issue and shows Chaney entering and tracks him for a few frames. The copy of the video does not have any text or audio with it, it is not public. It can be confusing because there is a stationary image on Newman's blouse that looks just like the image of Chaney's head/helmet and Chaney rides right into it and merges with it. A strange anomaly for sure, but if you track Chaney, and then Jackson a few frames later, you find the image on Newman's blouse is neither of them.
-
To address Roy's original point I have a simple thought experiment. First, I think because we can see the surface of the hood it means that Altgens camera was slightly above the hood level looking down to it. If that is true then Altgens line of side was downward. It will of course continue on a straight line so when it passes the limo it has to continue downward. That means we would see more and more of the headlight as it moves farther from the limo, not less of it.
If you look over the hood at the people behind Chaney you can see that we see them all the way down below the knee. Actually if you look at the women right in from of the limo you can see the hood lines up with their shin. Add 6 inches for the curb and it still only aligns with their thighs. Those thighs are not higher than the hood unless they are maybe 9 feet tall. That is proof the line of sight goes downward and reveals more of the headlight not less.
-
Paul
You do realize that you have just "CONFIRMED" what i have been saying .
you have the tip of Chaneys front tire and the tip of the queen marys front tire in line across Elm st. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/qWrdBGM.jpg)
-
Paul,
No, that would not include the door-handles according to the schematic.
Even though JFK was somewhat of a moving obstacle within the limo, he was the mark used (WC manipulated of course) for plotting.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/q4SyKrZ.jpg)
-
Paul, your photo does seem to match the Altgens line of sight and so we should be able to tell which lane markers you are pointing to for the limo and Chaney's positions. Doesn't Altgens line of sight show Chaney's lane marker to be the one behind the limo marker when you plot it on a map from Altgens LOS? In fact Altgens photo does not show the Thornton sign so the lane marker next to the limo marker is not even visible in the picture. It has to be the one behind it.
By the way the plat map puts the limo lane marker in the correct position but the West map does not. The limo marker was offset from it partner and started about 6 further down Elm.
-
Yes the West map has some errors proven by overhead photos from the time. Not all of the maps are wrong so one has to be. West is the inconsistent one but a quick search of 'overhead delay plaza' will give some images taken weeks after. So yes the map is wrong.
How do you trust counting lines you can barley see and why do you trust that over the overhead LOS. We can see 4 of 5 on the right but the left side is a guess. Don't guess just look at the line of sight. If you disagree with the LOS the try to do your own. But you will not be able to figure a line of sight that puts the partner for number 5(Limo front wheel) in the frame. Also the fact that the Thornton sign is not in the frame means that lane marker CANNOT be. That is literal proof that your Chaney marker is the 4th set.
But that alone does not prove Robin's point. Chaney could still be closer to the camera along that line of sight. He could be just beyond/behind the lane marker or on the camera side.
-
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
JohnM
-
Nice GIF John, looks good. :)
-
This is a good one Paul..... Do you understand my point?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/WavingpersonsTowner-MartinviaAltgens.jpg)
Which frame of the Zfilm is supposed to correspond with Altgens #6?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/WavingpersonsTowner-MartinviaAltgens.jpg)
Using this plat and the altgens photo it can be determined where Altgens was standing when he snapped the picture. And it's also very obvious that DPD officer Chaney was on his motorcycle beside the Lincoln with an alarmed look on his face as he looks at President Kennedy.
-
Find the yellow curb stip in Zapruder and you will see Altgens standing just to the right of it.
-
Strange how Nobody wants to attribute an iota of a "perspective" issue to even a single frame of the Z Film. Then again, no it isn't.
-
Find the yellow curb stip in Zapruder and you will see Altgens standing just to the right of it.
It seems that you've forgotten that I do NOT rely on the Z film for anything!.... I believe it's a fake and therefore it can't be used to prove ANYTHING!
THe photo that you posted yesterday seems to have disappeared....I'm referring to the photo that was taken a day or two after the murder.....which shows the freshly painted yellow curb.....
-
Put two and two together, the photo i posted yesterday showed Altgens LOS
the photographer was standing on the grass next to the yellow curb strip.
Altgens is seen in Zapruder standing next to the yellow curb strip.
And you are still trying to find Altgens standing location.
Hello, anybody home. :D
-
Put two and two together, the photo i posted yesterday showed Altgens LOS
the photographer was standing on the grass next to the yellow curb strip.
Altgens is seen in Zapruder standing next to the yellow curb strip.
And you are still trying to find Altgens standing location.
Hello, anybody home. :D
Excuse me.... I guess I missed the plat in which you marked Altgens location on a plat of Dealey ... Could you post it again?, and the photo that showed the freshly painted curb.
-
Put two and two together, the photo i posted yesterday showed Altgens LOS
the photographer was standing on the grass next to the yellow curb strip.
Altgens is seen in Zapruder standing next to the yellow curb strip.
And you are still trying to find Altgens standing location.
Hello, anybody home. :D
Nope...Nobody home... But how is that relevant to Altgens location? As I recall Altgens said that he had steppeddown off the curb and was on the street when he snapped the photo.
-
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
JohnM
An additional potential benefit, due to LadyImage, aka BlueCoatLadyImage, being visible to viewer's far left, is the indication of the location of GloriaCalveryImage relative to the Presidential Limousine at the time of the Altgens6 photograph. FWIW, viewer's right to left, visible BlueCoatLadyImage, and then out of camera range, based on other indicative positioning, KarenWestbrookImage, KaranHicksImage, CarolReedImage, and GloriaCalveryImage.
-
Nope...Nobody home... But how is that relevant to Altgens location? As I recall Altgens said that he had steppeddown off the curb and was on the street when he snapped the photo.
(https://i.imgur.com/sQcThlQ.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/sQcThlQ.jpg)
Thank you Robin.... It seems to me that the LOS from the middle of the third windo through the southwest corner of the concrete pylon lies about four feet north of the spot where you've placed the yellow "X".
(https://i.imgur.com/sQcThlQ.jpg)
-
It is my best guess on his location, ( It's not set in stone ) only when a proper Altgens 6 re-enactment is done will the exact location will be discovered.
(https://i.imgur.com/QewaeiU.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/sQcThlQ.jpg)
The freshly painted yellow curb should appear to Altgens left .....It seems to be missing. Can you explain where the yellow went?
Perhaps the creator of the film was using Pepsdent......
-
Altgens LOS to the corner of the Dal-Tex building.
(https://i.imgur.com/gwofW2M.jpg)
-
Yellow strip
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Cold%20Case%20JFK%20frames/346.jpg)
-
And where does John Mytton place Chaney in Altgens 6
Still riding the white lane markers Walk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
-
Not everyone trusts the maps but maybe doing an LOS using a google Earth image instead of a map would give the real location. I will give that a try.
-
Brian, I looked at a couple of 'French' enhanced Z films and can't locate anything that would be Chaney's antenna. Could you describe where you see it relative to the Stemmons sign? Could you give a specific frame when it lines up with something like the Stemmons sign poles and let me know if it is just the tip of it or more?
-
Not everyone trusts the maps but maybe doing an LOS using a google Earth image instead of a map would give the real location. I will give that a try.
Hooorah...Atta Boy, Chris.... There's not a iota of doubt in my mind that Altgen #6 DOES NOT correspond to Z 255.... I'm totally convinced that Chaney was right there along side the Lincoln when Altgen snapped the shutter..... If there's some way that you can do a reverse LOS from the three fixed points on the TSBD that are seen in Altgens photo and draw the LOS lines to the triple underpass......That would be very helpful.
-
Why the triple underpass? You explained to someone earlier that the lines of sight will converge at Altgens location. If we traced 3 LOS back to the underpass they will all fall at different locations since they converge at Altgens they will separate as they go West. I can still do it but why, is there some photographic evidence you are using for comparison?
I know your opinion on Chaney's position but if you base it on that 90 degree shadow of Chaney you have to be wrong. Angles change a lot when viewed at a shallow angle. So what is actually 90 degrees from above, which is the correct measurement, will change by 40 degrees or so. What I have learned studying perspective vs my own eye is our intuitive understanding when trying to understand the 3d world as portrayed in a 2d picture is totally messed up. What you measure at 90 degrees is absolutely, physically, imperically, scientifically, verifiably not 90 degrees.
I think the evidence so far has not pinned down where Chaney is along that line of sight. But I am now adjusting my own measurements which allow Chaney to be much closer to Jfk than I thought before. That is because I now see that while the LOS nails Altgens position, the limo has a slightly different LOS when you place it according to Altgens LOS. I find the reason is the limo was not facing in the exact same direction as the street. The Los of things like the far right headlight with the handhold on the turn,k visible above the light, prove the limo was facing 4 degrees farther North than the direction of the street. The street changes by 4 degree in 20 feet so Greer would only have to take his eyes of the road for a second or two for the limo to be offset by 4 degrees.
The implication is rotating the limo 4 degrees creates more room for Chaney to get closer to JFK before his handle bar touches the limo. It helps but the problem is Chaney's handle bar would come in contact with the limo at the point where it is alongside JFK. I can't see Chaney ever allowing his handle bar to get closer than 10 inches from the limo at the absolute minimum. That is why I place him back by the bumper.
-
I figure Altgens camera to be one foot above the hood of the limo and his distance to the hood at 60 feet. That means as the light travels from Chaney, to the hood, to Altgens camera, it changes in elevation by 4 inches per 20 feet. Chaney could easily be 20 feet away from the limo and still be reflected in it. If we could see what part of Chaney is reflected in the hood it would tell us a lot about his distance, but I can't make out much in that image.
-
Why the triple underpass? You explained to someone earlier that the lines of sight will converge at Altgens location. If we traced 3 LOS back to the underpass they will all fall at different locations since they converge at Altgens they will separate as they go West. I can still do it but why, is there some photographic evidence you are using for comparison?
I know your opinion on Chaney's position but if you base it on that 90 degree shadow of Chaney you have to be wrong. Angles change a lot when viewed at a shallow angle. So what is actually 90 degrees from above, which is the correct measurement, will change by 40 degrees or so. What I have learned studying perspective vs my own eye is our intuitive understanding when trying to understand the 3d world as portrayed in a 2d picture is totally messed up. What you measure at 90 degrees is absolutely, physically, imperically, scientifically, verifiably not 90 degrees.
I think the evidence so far has not pinned down where Chaney is along that line of sight. But I am now adjusting my own measurements which allow Chaney to be much closer to Jfk than I thought before. That is because I now see that while the LOS nails Altgens position, the limo has a slightly different LOS when you place it according to Altgens LOS. I find the reason is the limo was not facing in the exact same direction as the street. The Los of things like the far right headlight with the handhold on the turn,k visible above the light, prove the limo was facing 4 degrees farther North than the direction of the street. The street changes by 4 degree in 20 feet so Greer would only have to take his eyes of the road for a second or two for the limo to be offset by 4 degrees.
The implication is rotating the limo 4 degrees creates more room for Chaney to get closer to JFK before his handle bar touches the limo. It helps but the problem is Chaney's handle bar would come in contact with the limo at the point where it is alongside JFK. I can't see Chaney ever allowing his handle bar to get closer than 10 inches from the limo at the absolute minimum. That is why I place him back by the bumper.
I merely used the triple underpass as a point to draw the lines.....But I did say the point where the lines intersect is where Algens was located and in truth the lines could stop at that point....
the problem is Chaney's handle bar would come in contact with the limo at the point where it is alongside JFK.
You're right....Chaney would be alert to keep the left end of his handlebar away from the Lincoln....BUT his left hand which is gripping the handlebar is visible beside Roy Kellerman's right shoulder.....
-
And where does John Mytton place Chaney in Altgens 6
Still riding the white lane markers Walk:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
Hi Robin, the GIF is irrefutable and put's Chaney in a line with the other bikes, exactly where he was right through Dallas but unfortunately I only had Paul's confusingly arrow riddled version of the later recreation of Altgens 6 and because it's so important I would like to make a cleaner GIF, if you have the original could you post it? Thanks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
JohnM
-
yup, thanks.
-
Hi Robin, the GIF is irrefutable and put's Chaney in a line with the other bikes, exactly where he was right through Dallas but unfortunately I only had Paul's confusingly arrow riddled version of the later recreation of Altgens 6 and because it's so important I would like to make a cleaner GIF, if you have the original could you post it? Thanks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxthCVV4/chaney1.gif)
JohnM
Absolutely No "Gif" which uses a Re-Creation to arrive at a conclusion is "irrefutable Proof" of anything. This is why we have so many JFK Urban Legends connected to this unsolved case. For 54+ years people have been making claims and then supporting them with what They brand as "irrefutable Proof". The above is a perfect case on point. Pure 100% Farmer John Bologna.
-
Walt, I get your intention now, I will do the LOS.
Yes Chaney's hand is seen next to Kellerman but he could be next to the limo or farther away along Altgens line of sight. Every single observation made by all of us has not resolved that basic issue of where along the LOS Chaney sits.
I do think because the camera is only one foot above the limo we should see way more of Chaney in the hood. I would think we would see him extend half way to the hood ornament.
-
I attempted to simulate the Altgens 6 scene, along with a view from Zapruder's POV and as an overhead. Chaney's position was animated from essentially half way embedded into the limo out to 10 feet of perpendicular distance (x) from the limo. For each 1 foot of x there are about 3.9 feet of eastward movement to maintain Altgens LOS. My biggest concern is that after placing the scene in Altgens I need to use Zapruder frame 249 rather that 255. I'm not sure yet how I will resolve this question. For better news, the MC jocky's helmets are rendered bright orange, for visibility, and to recognize my Houston Astros!!!
201810142053 Chaney Altgens Zapruder Overhead..gif
(https://i.imgur.com/I6SehhK.gif)
-
Walt, I get your intention now, I will do the LOS.
Yes Chaney's hand is seen next to Kellerman but he could be next to the limo or farther away along Altgens line of sight. Every single observation made by all of us has not resolved that basic issue of where along the LOS Chaney sits.
I do think because the camera is only one foot above the limo we should see way more of Chaney in the hood. I would think we would see him extend half way to the hood ornament.
Chaney's hand and fingers could possible correctly proportioned to Roy Kellerman's right arm if Chaney was twenty five or thirty feet away from Kellerman.... Chaney's hand would appear much smaller ( compared to Kellerman's arm) if he was 25 or 30 feet to the rear of Kellerman.
-
I attempted to simulate the Altgens 6 scene, along with a view from Zapruder's POV and as an overhead. Chaney's position was animated from essentially half way embedded into the limo out to 10 feet of perpendicular distance (x) from the limo. For each 1 foot of x there are about 3.9 feet of eastward movement to maintain Altgens LOS. My biggest concern is that after placing the scene in Altgens I need to use Zapruder frame 249 rather that 255. I'm not sure yet how I will resolve this question. For better news, the MC jocky's helmets are rendered bright orange, for visibility, and to recognize my Houston Astros!!!
201810142053 Chaney Altgens Zapruder Overhead..gif
(https://i.imgur.com/I6SehhK.gif)
That's a really nice simulation, it takes everything into account. Did you get the initial position of the limo using the lane marker by the front wheel? I ask because it's position is incorrect in the West map by a factor of 6 Z frames. If you align the limo to the lane marker in the West map it pushes the limo back to frame 249.
According to your map and calculations the bike would have to move backward 8.75 feet from it's starting point. Imbedded 17inches + a 10 inch clearance for safety = 2.25 feet x 3.9 = 8.75 feet backward movement along Altgens los. I think the issue of handle bar clearance is the strongest evidence yet that Chaney is no closer than 3/4 of the way back to the rear. bumper.
-
Brian there is a red light that appears in 242 on the left side of the sprocket hole. That is likely Chaneys left from red light
-
Chaney's hand and fingers could possible correctly proportioned to Roy Kellerman's right arm if Chaney was twenty five or thirty feet away from Kellerman.... Chaney's hand would appear much smaller ( compared to Kellerman's arm) if he was 25 or 30 feet to the rear of Kellerman.
That is a tough judgement call comparing Kellerman's arm. Check out JFK's Left hand. He must have been making a really tight fist because his knuckes are so white you can see each one clearly. Compare Chaney's hand to JFK and Chaney's hand looks smaller.
-
I think so but people who disagree don't accept the Z film as real. It may well be faked in part, this part, who knows.
-
Brian there is a red light that appears in 242 on the left side of the sprocket hole. That is likely Chaneys left from red light
Yes that was the whole point of me starting this thread, look at my first post.
The red light on the left side of Chaney's motorcycle seen in Zapruder frame Z-242 ???
it was first pointed out to me by Jerry Organ
-
The overhead is from June 24, 1964.
The Stemmons Sign had been removed.
The 5th set of lane markers from the east end of Elm appear to match the plotted lane markers.
Moving (JFK within the limo) along the LOS connecting Altgens, the lane marker and the horizontal structure (white in color) = a range from extant z250-z255 to match Altgen's 6.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1970/30390018517_884d68ce77_o.png)
-
Chaney's position as he proceeded down Elm st.
Riding the white lane markers, and his front tire was just in front of the queen mary in the gap between the rear of the Limo, and the front of the follow up car.
The Alterationists can not prove my observations wrong, despite all their lip flapping and the pages and pages of TEXT.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Lost%20Bullet%20%20Frames/z183.jpg)
-
The overhead is from June 24, 1964.
The Stemmons Sign had been removed.
The 5th set of lane markers from the east end of Elm appear to match the plotted lane markers.
Moving (JFK within the limo) along the LOS connecting Altgens, the lane marker and the horizontal structure (white in color) = a range from extant z250-z255 to match Altgen's 6.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1970/30390018517_884d68ce77_o.png)
When i first started to try to match Altgens 6 to a Zapruder frame.
I would open up a large version of Altgens 6, and then go to the Zapruder frames and look for.
(1)-the position of JFK's head, arms and hands.
(2)-the position of Jackies head,arms and white gloves
(3)-the position of connally's head and shoulder during the head turn
(4)-the position and shape of the stars and stripes flag on the front of the limo
My opinion Z-255, but i did also look at Z-254 for a long time
-
Robin I accept your original argument but proving it through Altgens 6 alone is it's own puzzle, which is fascinating to explore. If the Z film was accepted it would also prove Chaney was not where they say he is cause he obviously is not there in z255.
-
Robin I accept your original argument but proving it through Altgens 6 alone is it's own puzzle, which is fascinating to explore. If the Z film was accepted it would also prove Chaney was not where they say he is cause he obviously is not there in z255.
Thanks Chris
Their rationale for Chaney not appearing in Z-255 is that someone somewhere altered the frames to REMOVE Chaney.
I would ask them these question:
Why on earth would anybody want to Remove Chaney from the Z-film ?
If Z-255 how many other frames was Chaney excised from ?
Why wasn't Chaney excised from Altgens 6 ?
Why wasn't Chaney's motorcycles reflection taken off the back of the limo in Z-255
Some clean up operation, who was running the "Operation Remove Channey" the 3-stooges
Inquiring minds want to know . :) :D ;)
-
The overhead is from June 24, 1964.
The Stemmons Sign had been removed.
The 5th set of lane markers from the east end of Elm appear to match the plotted lane markers.
Moving (JFK within the limo) along the LOS connecting Altgens, the lane marker and the horizontal structure (white in color) = a range from extant z250-z255 to match Altgen's 6.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1970/30390018517_884d68ce77_o.png)
Good plat Chris
I see the LOS line goes from the edge of the white colum, though the hood ornament, and on to Altgens standing location. :)
-
The overhead is from June 24, 1964.
The Stemmons Sign had been removed.
The 5th set of lane markers from the east end of Elm appear to match the plotted lane markers.
Moving (JFK within the limo) along the LOS connecting Altgens, the lane marker and the horizontal structure (white in color) = a range from extant z250-z255 to match Altgen's 6.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1970/30390018517_884d68ce77_o.png)
Hi Chris....Thank you for presenting this ....However you've drawn the line across the concrete pylon at the east corner of the pylon....The LOS actually crosses the WEST corner.....and that moves Altgens camera position several feet to the north......
-
That is a tough judgement call comparing Kellerman's arm. Check out JFK's Left hand. He must have been making a really tight fist because his knuckes are so white you can see each one clearly. Compare Chaney's hand to JFK and Chaney's hand looks smaller.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
Robin, Thank you for posting this nice clear copy of Altgen's # 6
Robin, I believe there is no problem ...
Chris, Chaney's hand seems to be the correct size when comparing it to Kellerman's head.....And If Chaney were back behind the Lincoln near the right front fender of the QM....his hand would not be visible because it would be behind Kellerman.
-
Good plat Chris
I see the LOS line goes from the edge of the white colum, though the hood ornament, and on to Altgens standing location. :)
The hood ornament is a MOVING site. It is NOT fixed.... The location of the hood ornament can be determined by starting at the center of the third window of the TSBD and drawing a line through the WEST corner of the pylon and on to the triple underpass A second LOS line can be drawn from the east edge of the fourth window through the street light and on to the triple underpass and a third LOS line can be drawn from the east edge of the TSBD entrance through the tree and on to the triple underpass.... The point where that three lines intersect is the point where Altgens was standing when he snapped the photo.
-
Thanks Chris
Their rationale for Chaney not appearing in Z-255 is that someone somewhere altered the frames to REMOVE Chaney.
I would ask them these question:
Why on earth would anybody want to Remove Chaney from the Z-film ?
If Z-255 how many other frames was Chaney excised from ?
Why wasn't Chaney excised from Altgens 6 ?
Why wasn't Chaney's motorcycles reflection taken off the back of the limo in Z-255
Some clean up operation, who was running the "Operation Remove Channey" the 3-stooges
Inquiring minds want to know . :) :D ;)
(1) Why do we Not See the JFK Limo make the turn onto Elm St on the Z Film? (2) Why does the JFK Limo SUDDENLY "Poof" Appear on the Z Film? There are other Missing Z Film images as the Limo travels down Elm St, but bringing those up now would only muddle The Issue currently under discussion. You're assuming the conundrum of Officer Chaney centers on Chaney. This is definitely not the thought of an "inquiring mind". It is the sole thought of a Closed Mind. The Z Film is Not a portrait of Officer Chaney. It captured peripheral images vs that which researchers over the last 54+ years have foolishly & repeatedly Focused on. Open your Mind/Thought Process while also opening your field-of-vision. Of course, breaking away from those that have Told you How to think for several decades will result in your becoming an outcast. Just know that legitimately searching for the truth never comes without consequences. Man Up
-
(1) Why do we Not See the JFK Limo make the turn onto Elm St on the Z Film? (2) Why does the JFK Limo SUDDENLY "Poof" Appear on the Z Film? There are other Missing Z Film images as the Limo travels down Elm St, but bringing those up now would only muddle The Issue currently under discussion. You're assuming the conundrum of Officer Chaney centers on Chaney. This is definitely not the thought of an "inquiring mind". It is the sole thought of a Closed Mind. The Z Film is Not a portrait of Officer Chaney. It captured peripheral images vs that which researchers over the last 54+ years have foolishly & repeatedly Focused on. Open your Mind/Thought Process while also opening your field-of-vision. Of course, breaking away from those that have Told you How to think for several decades will result in your becoming an outcast. Just know that legitimately searching for the truth never comes without consequences. Man Up
I believe the extant Zfilm was first seen by the pubic when Jim Garrison showed it on the Johnny Carson show.....Isn't that right?
At any rate the government kept that film under wraps for a decade....And they've been desperate to sell it to the trusting, naive, pissants ever since.... Some suckers still refuse to see that it's a damned fake.....
-
When asked two simple questions you both duck and weave, and try to divert from answering my direct and specific questions ,so i will ask it again.
Your rationale for Chaney not appearing in Z-255 is that some one some where altered the frames to REMOVE Chaney.
(1)-Why on earth would anybody want to Remove Chaney from the Z-film ?
(2)-If Chaney was removed from frame Z-255 how many other frames was Chaney excised from ?
If you can't answer these two simple questions, then your whole "Chaney was removed from the Z-frames scenario" is just a dumb theory that hasn't been thought through very well.
A mystery "who dun it" in search of a motive.
(http://brothers-ink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Peter-Sellers.jpg)
-
In Z-233 Chaney is behind the Stemmons sign, his motorcycle still positioned on the white lane markers.
Zapruder frame composite.
(https://i.imgur.com/M5GLk0x.jpg)
Your Childish Cartoon(s) and sophomoric conjecture Fail to Prove the position of Officer Chaney. Even YOU admit Chaney is "behind the sign". Where EXACTLY Chaney is = Guess work on your part. "The Man With The X-Ray Eyes" you are Not.
-
Walt you have already demonstrated that you understand 'line of sight'. Chaney's hand would not disappear behind Kellerman because Chaney moves back AND OUT keeping him in the same position relative to the limo. As far as hand size, the kellerman comparison contradicts the JFK's hand comparison. Comparing to JFK's hand is better because JFK is at the same distance as you say Chaney is. You are also comparing hand vs hand not hand vs face. I would take the JFK's hand comparison over Kellermans, or i would throw them both out as unreliable.
At this point the evidence is pretty solid that the LOS shows Chaney would be too close to the limo, that is the issue to address.
-
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot, but the Nix and Z films show he did not ride forward. Yet 3 of the 4 people in Curry's car said he did ride up to them and that he told them the president has been hit.
If the limo stop was removed from the Z film it would leave no time and space for Chaney to ride forward AHEAD of the limo and speak to Curry. So Chaney's ride forward would have to be removed too.
That theory does not effect Chaney's position in 255. I think separate issues may have been conflated. There is another conflated theory around Chaney's testimony that he "Looked back just in time to see the president hit in the head". People think that Chaney is looking back at the president in Altgens 6 and that confirms his testimony. But Chaney was talking about the headshot at 313.
Chaney talking about 313 enforces the removal theory because he is not next to the limo in 313 so he can't "look back"towards Kennedy. But imo, when he said 'look back' he meant 'look back from where he had been looking' instead of 'looked backwards'.
-
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot, but the Nix and Z films show he did not ride forward. Yet 3 of the 4 people in Curry's car said he did ride up to them and that he told them the president has been hit.
If the limo stop was removed from the Z film it would leave no time and space for Chaney to ride forward AHEAD of the limo and speak to Curry. So Chaney's ride forward would have to be removed too.
That theory does not effect Chaney's position in 255. I think separate issues may have been conflated. There is another conflated theory around Chaney's testimony that he "Looked back just in time to see the president hit in the head". People think that Chaney is looking back at the president in Altgens 6 and that confirms his testimony. But Chaney was talking about the headshot at 313.
Chaney talking about 313 enforces the removal theory because he is not next to the limo in 313 so he can't "look back"towards Kennedy. But imo, when he said 'look back' he meant 'look back from where he had been looking' instead of 'looked backwards'.
The questions surrounding the movements of Officer Chaney could have easily been cleared up by the Old Guard JFK Assassination Researchers back when the Main Players were still around and talking. It is obvious by the line of Q/A employed by WC Lawyers that they had No desire to get into these issues. The Old Guard should been all over these Issues/Unanswered Questions, but as usual they remained asleep at the switch. "The JFK Horsemen" over on You Tube is an Excellent 2 Part Presentation dealing with DPD Officer Chaney, the other DPD Motorcycle Cops that were positioned around the JFK Limo, a possible Limo STOP, and other related issues immediately following the Kill Shot. I highly recommend viewing "The JFK Horsemen" on You Tube.
-
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot, but the Nix and Z films show he did not ride forward. Yet 3 of the 4 people in Curry's car said he did ride up to them and that he told them the president has been hit.
If the limo stop was removed from the Z film it would leave no time and space for Chaney to ride forward AHEAD of the limo and speak to Curry. So Chaney's ride forward would have to be removed too.
And that is the problem that that the Alterationists need to explain.
If a such large number of frames were supposedly removed from the Zapruder film the Limo Stop, Chaney's ride forward to the underpass.
To make the two films sync, all of the corresponding frames in Nix would have to be removed as well ???
What we see in Nix tells a different story
We see the heashot, immediately after it the Limo slows to a crawl, as the Limo slows to almost a stop, Channey and Jackson hit the brakes and the queen mary passes them.
At this point Chaney is left behind as greer guns the Limo and speeds off towards the underpass, at which point we see a large gap open up between the limo and the rest of the motorcade, who are still situated in the area next to the grassy knoll steps.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/0309.jpg)
In Altgens 7 we see the lead car and we see the limo heading for the underpass ( there is no one else seen in Altgens 7 )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/overpass3.jpg)
In Nix we see the heashot, immediately after the headshot the Limo slows to a crawl, as the Limo slows to almost a stop, Channey and Jackson hit the brakes and the queen mary passes them.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UpVHD04f4jw/WE_27UHWZII/AAAAAAAAAQk/yJK5XwOLMucDfCtzzzcPs3nPtzw6bvEAQCLcB/s1600/NixSlowZoomed.gif)
-
And that is the problem that that the Alterationists need to explain.
If a such large number of frames were supposedly removed from the Zapruder film the Limo Stop, Chaney's ride forward to the underpass.
To make the two films sync, all of the corresponding frames in Nix would have to be removed as well ???
What we see in Nix tells a different story
We see the heashot, immediately after it the Limo slows to a crawl, as the Limo slows to almost a stop, Channey and Jackson hit the brakes and the queen mary passes them.
At this point Chaney is left behind as greer guns the Limo and speeds off towards the underpass, at which point we see a large gap open up between the limo and the rest of the motorcade, who are still situated in the area next to the grassy knoll steps.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/0309.jpg)
In Altgens 7 we see the lead car and we see the limo heading for the underpass ( there is no one else seen in Altgens 7 )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/overpass3.jpg)
In Nix we see the heashot, immediately after the headshot the Limo slows to a crawl, as the Limo slows to almost a stop, Channey and Jackson hit the brakes and the queen mary passes them.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UpVHD04f4jw/WE_27UHWZII/AAAAAAAAAQk/yJK5XwOLMucDfCtzzzcPs3nPtzw6bvEAQCLcB/s1600/NixSlowZoomed.gif)
To add support to Robin's post, the Charles Bronson still shows Chaney in the position behind the limousine, just as the Zapruder film shows. The Bronson still corresponds circa Zapruder film frame 230. (https://i.imgur.com/mLEZITB.jpg)
-
Where did Chaney ever say anything about "darting forward" during the shooting?
(1) WHERE do you believe that Chaney spoke with Curry? (2) Were Chaney & Curry STOPPED during their conversation?
-
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot, but the Nix and Z films show he did not ride forward. Yet 3 of the 4 people in Curry's car said he did ride up to them and that he told them the president has been hit.
If the limo stop was removed from the Z film it would leave no time and space for Chaney to ride forward AHEAD of the limo and speak to Curry. So Chaney's ride forward would have to be removed too.
That theory does not effect Chaney's position in 255. I think separate issues may have been conflated. There is another conflated theory around Chaney's testimony that he "Looked back just in time to see the president hit in the head". People think that Chaney is looking back at the president in Altgens 6 and that confirms his testimony. But Chaney was talking about the headshot at 313.
Chaney talking about 313 enforces the removal theory because he is not next to the limo in 313 so he can't "look back"towards Kennedy. But imo, when he said 'look back' he meant 'look back from where he had been looking' instead of 'looked backwards'.
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot,
Who believes that Chaney was removed (from the Z film?)
I believe it was a mistake that the film creators made.....They didn't deliberately remove Chaney from the film they were creating...They simply forgot that Chaney was alongside the Lincoln whe JFK was reacting to being hit.....And probably forgot that Altgens had recorded that scene in his 6th exposure.
Consequently they are now compelled to try to cover up that mistake......
-
(1) WHERE do you believe that Chaney spoke with Curry? (2) Were Chaney & Curry STOPPED during their conversation?
You didn't answer the question, so why are you asking me a question? A question in response to my questions is not an answer.
-
You didn't answer the question, so why are you asking me a question? A question in response to my questions is not an answer.
Thumb1:
They are just fumbling around in the dark making it up as they go Steve.
I just posted photo's and a Nix Gif showing that Chaney was no where near the overpass as the lead car and the Limo approached it, and they totally ignored it. ( They have their Alteration rose colored glasses on. )
-
The theory that Chaney was removed is based on his testimony that he rode forward past the limo right after the head shot,
Who believes that Chaney was removed (from the Z film?)
I believe it was a mistake that the film creators made.....They didn't deliberately remove Chaney from the film they were creating...They simply forgot that Chaney was alongside the Lincoln whe JFK was reacting to being hit.....And probably forgot that Altgens had recorded that scene in his 6th exposure.
Consequently they are now compelled to try to cover up that mistake......
They simply forgot
Who was in charge of this bungled Gov/CIA project to "Remove Chaney from the Z-film" The marks bros
I guess They simply forgot about Altgens 7 as well, and the fact that it shows NO Chaney anywhere near the underpass as Curry is about to enter it.
-
Steve, there is a video on Youtube taken that day where he says he did. He also gave statements. Chief Curry confirmed it in his statements. The 2 agents in the back seat also gave statements confirming it. Hargis also confirmed it. He said Chaney jammed it it first and raced forward to notify Curry. Lead bike cop Ellis also mentioned it is his interview. He said chaney met him and they both motored over to Curry to tell him.
In the 80's Gary Mack claimed Curry and Chaney came to him independently and said it really happened on the Stemmons onramp. That is an absurd story because by the time they where on the onramp Curry had been notified 5 different ways that the president was hit or shots were fired. They were already racing to Parkland when Mack Claimed that Chaney tried to catch up to Curry to tell him the president was hit.
Chaney was giving the most important time critical message of his career yet instead of using the radio he is supposed to try and catch Curry, but He did not know Curry was going to slow way down on the onramp and he was about 800 feet behind Curry. He would have been Chasing him down the freeway but old cop bikes(I had one) are no faster than the limo after the first couple seconds of acceleration. I don't see Mack's story as credible
-
Walt if they took the limo stop out they would have to take out Chaney too. With the limo stop gone there is no time or space for Chaney to ride forward a few hundred feet to Chaney because he could not get out ahead of the limo. By the time he stopped to tell Chaney the limo would go racing past them.
-
You didn't answer the question, so why are you asking me a question? A question in response to my questions is not an answer.
Why would I answer a question you made Directly to Brian?
-
Chaney said after telling Curry Ellis reassigned him to the lead bikes with Lumkpin and Grey. That is why he is not in Altgens 7.
Lead bike cop Ellis said the whole motorcade had come to a stop and he rode back to Curry where he met Chaney. Curry's car was stopped short of the underpass.
Another implication of this is that the Macintyre photo would have to be altered to take out Chaney and add Ellis.
I have never understood how those three cops look like they are putting along at 25 to 30 mph and the limo is only about 2 seconds behind there current position and must be doing 50mph.
I say that because not only are they 3 abreast when turning onto the onramp, friggen Lumpkin has his left hand in his lap! Being the middle guy when going around a curve means you have to watch your ass. At high speed the middle person is going to fall back a bit and not ride with one hand and a pleasant smile on their face. Not starting a new debate I just had to rant about it.
-
Walt if they took the limo stop out they would have to take out Chaney too. With the limo stop gone there is no time or space for Chaney to ride forward a few hundred feet to Chaney because he could not get out ahead of the limo. By the time he stopped to tell Chaney the limo would go racing past them.
OK Chris....I admit I haven't given much thought as to WHY Chaney doesn't appear beside the Limo in the Z film.......I just asumed it was blunder when they created the fake record.....
However, nobody will ever change my mind about what I see in the Altgens photo. I'm absolutely convinced that my eyes are telling me the truth.... That Chaney was right there looking over his left shoulder and alarmed by seeing JFK in distress after hearing a gunshot.
-
Thanks Chris
Their rationale for Chaney not appearing in Z-255 is that someone somewhere altered the frames to REMOVE Chaney.
I would ask them these question:
Why on earth would anybody want to Remove Chaney from the Z-film ?
If Z-255 how many other frames was Chaney excised from ?
Why wasn't Chaney excised from Altgens 6 ?
Why wasn't Chaney's motorcycles reflection taken off the back of the limo in Z-255
Some clean up operation, who was running the "Operation Remove Channey" the 3-stooges
Inquiring minds want to know . :) :D ;)
Their rationale for Chaney not appearing in Z-255 is that someone somewhere altered the frames to REMOVE Chaney.
There's no doubt that Chaney does not appear alongside the Lincoln in the Z film frame 255.....
Why wasn't Chaney excised from Altgens 6 ?
The photo had already been published in thousands of publications.......
Why wasn't Chaney's motorcycles reflection taken off the back of the limo in Z-255
Why wasn't Chaney's motorcycles reflection taken off the back of the limo in Z-255
Your dreamin.... How can you identify the image as Chaney's and his motorcycle? How do you know that the reflection isn't that of Douglas Jackson?
-
Cakebread quote:
Your dreamin.... How can you identify the image as Chaney's and his motorcycle? How do you know that the reflection isn't that of Douglas Jackson?
So you DISAGREE with Storing Walt, are you saying that he is DREAMING.
This is Storings Quote from page 1 of this thread.
At Z-233 you can begin to see the Reflection of the Chaney Motorcycle light/fender on the Passenger Side of the JFK Limo. This would trump the current Speculation surrounding the motorcycle position on Z-242 = being way back beside the Queen Mary.
-
Quote from: Robin Unger on October 10, 2018, 01:12:37 AM
To my eyes the reflection in frame Z-234 appears to show a portion of Chaney's front tire and white tire fender, also the left side "red" flashing light, indicating how far back he was in relation to the Limo.
The front tire and fender of Chaney's bike can be seen just to the right of Umbrella man's umbrella....
You have a short memory walt, you are the one who is dreaming ::)
i told you that you were just making this stuff up as you go.
This was your post from page 13 of this thread
This is the frame you were refering too Walt , Z-234
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Lost%20Bullet%20%20Frames/z234.jpg)
-
Cakebread quote:
Your dreamin.... How can you identify the image as Chaney's and his motorcycle? How do you know that the reflection isn't that of Douglas Jackson?
So you DISAGREE with Storing Walt, are you saying that he is DREAMING.
This is Storings Quote from page 1 of this thread.
At Z-233 you can begin to see the Reflection of the Chaney Motorcycle light/fender on the Passenger Side of the JFK Limo. This would trump the current Speculation surrounding the motorcycle position on Z-242 = being way back beside the Queen Mary.
You are continuing to confuse Z-233 which I Specifically reference vs Z-255. Take a Deep Breath, Focus, and then Proceed. You are all over the place
-
Chaney said after telling Curry Ellis reassigned him to the lead bikes with Lumkpin and Grey. That is why he is not in Altgens 7.
Lead bike cop Ellis said the whole motorcade had come to a stop and he rode back to Curry where he met Chaney. Curry's car was stopped short of the underpass.
Another implication of this is that the Macintyre photo would have to be altered to take out Chaney and add Ellis.
I have never understood how those three cops look like they are putting along at 25 to 30 mph and the limo is only about 2 seconds behind there current position and must be doing 50mph.
I say that because not only are they 3 abreast when turning onto the onramp, friggen Lumpkin has his left hand in his lap! Being the middle guy when going around a curve means you have to watch your ass. At high speed the middle person is going to fall back a bit and not ride with one hand and a pleasant smile on their face. Not starting a new debate I just had to rant about it.
Chris - Greatly Appreciate the research You have obviously put into this subject. Sgt Ellis is often over looked even though he was in charge of the DPD Motorcycle Escorts surrounding the JFK Limo. It is a sad commentary that the Old Guard JFK Assassination Researchers that continue lurking on the fringe of this Forum have Not put in the time that You have researching this area of the JFK Assassination. Of course, if they did, they would be forced to admit that they are Now Locked into these Erroneous positions due to having foolishly joined the echo chamber and drank the Kool-Aid decades ago.
-
Do the Math Storing
Zapruder camera speed 18.3Fps
Moving down Elm st from the Z-233 Chaney position to the Z-255 Chaney position
Thats a difference of just (22) Zapruder frames
a fraction over 1-second in time
-
Cakebread quote:
Your dreamin.... How can you identify the image as Chaney's and his motorcycle? How do you know that the reflection isn't that of Douglas Jackson?
So you DISAGREE with Storing Walt, are you saying that he is DREAMING.
This is Storings Quote from page 1 of this thread.
At Z-233 you can begin to see the Reflection of the Chaney Motorcycle light/fender on the Passenger Side of the JFK Limo. This would trump the current Speculation surrounding the motorcycle position on Z-242 = being way back beside the Queen Mary.
I could care less WHO thinks they can identify a person in that ink blot of a reflection..... Douglas Jackson was riding outboard ( to the right ) of James Chaney...... The reflection could be Jackson's. We simply don't know anything for a fact ...EXCEPT ...Chaney was beside the Lincoln when JFK was reacting to being shot.....
-
Zapruder frame Z-242 appears to show Chaney's left red flashing light on
his motorcycle.
Jerry Logan first pointed this out to me.
It confirms Chaney's motorcycle position in relation to the SS follow up car and Hargis and Martin.
there has been some debate on the forums regarding Chaney's "actual position on Elm st", as seen in Altgens 6 at Zapruder frame z255 (12-frames after Z-242)
Zapruder frame Z-242 shows Chaney's LEFT side red flashing light, i have done a small GIF to demonstrate it.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrHQMwzIli4/WWGWb9c1ViI/AAAAAAAAAko/dyjf4b68MQADi0y9DD_7dvetV0fNHM3XwCLcBGAs/s1600/Chaney.GIF)
Z-242 Frame over Altgens 6 shows the position of the red flashing light seen in the Zapruder frame in relation to the red flashing light seen on Chaney's motorcycle
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6CkrmrAP6H4/WWGWn6nRDJI/AAAAAAAAAks/twnnSsZ6tH4SOQ9KrZcP_zERYAOqJ3m5QCLcBGAs/s1600/flashingredlight.GIF)
Z-242 Frame over Altgens 6 shows the position of the red flashing light seen in the Zapruder frame in relation to the red flashing light seen on Chaney's motorcycle
Really?? Let's see if you can solve a simple logic problem and do simple arithmetic .... Camera snapping 16 images per second ..... How could a camera record a flashing light in one frame ?....
-
You are continuing to confuse Z-233 which I Specifically reference vs Z-255. Take a Deep Breath, Focus, and then Proceed. You are all over the place
He's desperate Royell..... And that causes his confusion. He seems to think that simply because we both recognize that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat that we are bound to agree on every point...... And when you think about that...it's absurd. We've reached our conclusion by separate paths, so we differ on things we've learned along the way......
-
Quote from: Robin Unger on October 10, 2018, 01:12:37 AM
To my eyes the reflection in frame Z-234 appears to show a portion of Chaney's front tire and white tire fender, also the left side "red" flashing light, indicating how far back he was in relation to the Limo.
You have a short memory walt, you are the one who is dreaming ::)
i told you that you were just making this stuff up as you go.
This was your post from page 13 of this thread
This is the frame you were refering too Walt , Z-234
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Lost%20Bullet%20%20Frames/z234.jpg)
Actually ...Being completely candid ....I never noticed that the discussion was NOT about frame 255..... So I commented about Chaney's position at Frame 255..... The bottom line for me is.... The Z film is a fake.....so it can't be used to support any point except if the point is that the film doesn't match what witnesses saw and recorded with their cameras.
-
Do the Math Storing
Zapruder camera speed 18.3Fps
Moving down Elm st from the Z-233 Chaney position to the Z-255 Chaney position
Thats a difference of just (22) Zapruder frames
a fraction over 1-second in time
If you are going to quote me, (which is a Wise thing for You to do), get it right. I specifically said Z-233.
-
You are correct in highlighting a possible JFK Limo STOP as being a Serious Problem. The CURRENT Z Film has the action going down in roughly 6 Seconds. Therefore, everybody/everything has to fit within this 6 second time frame. This time frame even extends to Wiegman. The JFK Limo is allegedly pictured going under the Triple Underpass during Wiegman's filming. Therefore, Wiegman is credited for being on-the-ground and moving around 3 seconds Prior to the Kill Shot being fired. This Contrivance is another JFK Assassination Urban Legend which has been repeated over-and-over until it is now accepted as fact. The Z Film being under lock-n-key up for its' initial 12 years of existence & the Original Nix Film being MIA is No Co-Inkydink.
The Z Film being under lock-n-key up for its' initial 12 years of existence & the Original Nix Film being MIA is No Co-Inkydink.
You are sooooo right!.....
But...How long did they work on creating the extant Z film before they decided to lock it away?? Did someone purloin a copy before they finished their dirty work, and they were forced to leave it as it is today....
I'm sure that there were honest men who were employed by the various agencies who KNEW with absolute certainty that there was a massive cover up being perpetrated, but they were helpless because they simply could not stand up to the power behind the cou d e'tat.
But they ( an honest FBI agent) might have obtained a copy of some of the frames of the the Z film that was being "worked on" and When Hoover became aware that they would never be able to display their Z film he simply ordered it to be put in his vault.....
-
Z-242 Frame over Altgens 6 shows the position of the red flashing light seen in the Zapruder frame in relation to the red flashing light seen on Chaney's motorcycle
Really?? Let's see if you can solve a simple logic problem and do simple arithmetic .... Camera snapping 16 images per second ..... How could a camera record a flashing light in one frame ?....
Maybe i need to dumb this down for you Walt.
when i say "red flashing light" i am refering to the lights function, it's what they do, they flash off and on
Watch the Hughes and Muchmore film taken at the corner of Main and Houston.
-
Maybe i need to dumb this down for you Walt.
when i say "red flashing light" i am refering to the lights function, it's what they do, they flash off and on
Watch the Hughes and Muchmore film taken at the corner of Main and Houston.
To my eyes the reflection in frame Z-234 appears to show a portion of Chaney's front tire and white tire fender, also the left side "red" flashing light, indicating how far back he was in relation to the Limo.
Hmmmm.... Me thinks you prevaricate....
-
The Z Film being under lock-n-key up for its' initial 12 years of existence & the Original Nix Film being MIA is No Co-Inkydink.
You are sooooo right!.....
But...How long did they work on creating the extant Z film before they decided to lock it away?? Did someone purloin a copy before they finished their dirty work, and they were forced to leave it as it is today....
I'm sure that there were honest men who were employed by the various agencies who KNEW with absolute certainty that there was a massive cover up being perpetrated, but they were helpless because they simply could not stand up to the power behind the cou d e'tat.
But they ( an honest FBI agent) might have obtained a copy of some of the frames of the the Z film that was being "worked on" and When Hoover became aware that they would never be able to display their Z film he simply ordered it to be put in his vault.....
Well, if you have something that is Securely under Lock-N-Key, what's the hurry? This could even be regarded as a "work in progress". As technology advances, so too then the work project advances. This destroys the argument that 1963 technology limited what could be done to the Z Film.
-
I could care less WHO thinks they can identify a person in that ink blot of a reflection..... Douglas Jackson was riding outboard ( to the right ) of James Chaney...... The reflection could be Jackson's. We simply don't know anything for a fact ...EXCEPT ...Chaney was beside the Lincoln when JFK was reacting to being shot.....
Willis 5
Zapruder frame Z-202
Are you serious Walt :D Look at where Jackson is at frame Z-202
Frame Z-233 is just (31) frames away ( That is less than 2-seconds )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/202-tile.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
-
Well, if you have something that is Securely under Lock-N-Key, what's the hurry? This could even be regarded as a "work in progress". As technology advances, so too then the work project advances. This destroys the argument that 1963 technology limited what could be done to the Z Film.
HUH?? A work in progress on what was supposed to be original, unaltered, evidence??
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...As the technicians worked on "the work in progress" perhaps some of their work disappeared ( a few critical frames) Someone grabbed a souvenier, or something to use as blackmail, or evidence to be produced in court. Hoover would have known that he would never be able to display their dirty work because the frames missing could expose the whole big lie. Thus he locked the Z film away from public view.
-
Willis 5
Zapruder frame Z-202
Are you serious Walt :D Look at where Jackson is at frame Z-202
Frame Z-233 is just (31) frames away ( That is less than 2-seconds )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/202-tile.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
Robin What part of---" I believe the Z film is a fake"-- are you having trouble understanding?
Why do you continue to cite fake evidence?
-
Willis 5
Zapruder frame Z-202
Are you serious Walt :D Look at where Jackson is at frame Z-202
Frame Z-233 is just (31) frames away ( That is less than 2-seconds )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/202-tile.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
It's obvious that Martin, Hargis, and Jackson, are in a line and Chaney is ahead of that line....We don't know if he was rapidly accelerating at the time.... But the photo does support the argument that Chaney was NOT in line to the right of Martin and Hargis....
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
-
It's obvious that Martin, Hargis, and Jackson, are in a line and Chaney is ahead of that line....We don't know if he was rapidly accelerating at the time.... But the photo does support the argument that Chaney was NOT in line to the right of Martin and Hargis....
(http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg)
JohnM
-
(http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg)
JohnM
What frame of the extant Z film would the Moormam polaroid corespond with?
(http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg)
-
What frame of the extant Z film would the Moormam polaroid corespond with?
Why do you care?
Robin What part of---" I believe the Z film is a fake"-- are you having trouble understanding?
Why do you continue to cite fake evidence?
JohnM
-
It's obvious that Martin, Hargis, and Jackson, are in a line and Chaney is ahead of that line....We don't know if he was rapidly accelerating at the time.... But the photo does support the argument that Chaney was NOT in line to the right of Martin and Hargis....
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
Every time some says "It's Obvious", you know the wool is being pulled over your eyes. Prove It
-
Every time some says "It's Obvious", you know the wool is being pulled over your eyes. Prove It
OK....It's obvious TO ME that Chaney is ahead of Jackson, Hargis, and Martin
(https://i.imgur.com/Q3Zs1Zs.jpg)
-
Your a hypocrite Cakebread.
After just posting to me about " how many times do i have to tell you the Zapruder film is fake"
and then in the next post, you are asking John mytton to cite which Z-Frame the Moorman Polaroid equates too.
-
Why do you care?
JohnM
You got it John. :)
Nice catch with the Moorman Polaroid.
-
Z-315
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Mary_Ann_Moorman_Krahmer.jpg)
How many motorcycle officers are seen on the left side ( drivers side) of the cars?
(http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg)
Who is the motorcyle officer seen on the left side of the cars in the photo? Isn't that Hargis? Who was the man that Moorman was there to photograph?
-
How many motorcycle officers are seen on the left side ( drivers side) of the cars?
(http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MoormanPolaroid1.jpg)
Who is the motorcyle officer seen on the left side of the cars in the photo? Isn't that Hargis? Who was the man that Moorman was there to photograph?
I believe that Moorman was there to get a photo of Billy Martin who was riding his motorcycle on the outboard left of the limo... The officer in the Moorman photo is Bobby Hargis, who is a few feet ahead of Martin, and Martin's right hand is visible on the handbar of his bike. If the Moorman polaroid corresponds with frame Z 315 ( and it seems that it does) then why isn't the debris from JFK's head wound visible . Isn't it accepted that JFK was struck at Z 312....
-
I believe that Moorman was there to get a photo of Billy Martin who was riding his motorcycle on the outboard left of the limo... The officer in the Moorman photo is Bobby Hargis, who is a few feet ahead of Martin, and Martin's right hand is visible on the handbar of his bike. If the Moorman polaroid corresponds with frame Z 315 ( and it seems that it does) then why isn't the debris from JFK's head wound visible . Isn't it accepted that JFK was struck at Z 312....
The almost Immediate disappearance of the JFK "Halo" is 1 of the areas that CIA Image Expert Dino Brugioni designated as differing between the Z Film he Examined on 11/23/63 and the Current Z Film in circulation. As to the Moorman Photo, once again we have another piece of Evidence that has been Tainted by Law Enforcement. According to Moorman, the finger print extending Up from the bottom right corner of the pic was Not present when she surrendered her photo to law enforcement. This tainting of the photo DQ's it from being considered whatever the issue under discussion might be.
-
Moorman full frame copy made by FBI
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Full_frame_version_of_copy_made_by_FBI.jpg)
-
Moorman 5 - Z-315
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Z315.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Moormancrop2.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Moorman_005.jpg)
-
Jean hill taking Mary Moormans Polaroid, Moorman has the copy she snapped of Jean Hill in her hands.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides09005.jpg)
-
I was looking at the high def Moorman photo that Robin posted and besides the wound on top of Kennedy's head, you can make out the shape of the rear edge of the skin flap and allowing for the change in perspective and the flexibility of dislocated skin it looks to be the same edge as seen in the autopsy photos.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6z9mKSc/gorez1.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://i.imgur.com/P4vmKkY.jpg)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjNmkPMz/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)
JohnM
-
I was looking at the high def Moorman photo that Robin posted and besides the wound on top of Kennedy's head, you can make out the shape of the rear edge of the skin flap and allowing for the change in perspective and the flexibility of dislocated skin it looks to be the same edge as seen in the autopsy photos.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L6z9mKSc/gorez1.gif)
JohnM
If Everything you have highlighted/outlined on Moorman was a wound, it would extend down into a portion of the forehead. Way too much damage in that easily visible area to be missed at Parkland.
-
If Everything you have highlighted/outlined on Moorman was a wound, it would extend down into a portion of the forehead. Way too much damage in that easily visible area to be missed at Parkland.
I think Mytton is trying to be a magician again, and make people believe they see something that isn't really there....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Mary_Ann_Moorman_Krahmer.jpg)
I can't see any damage to JFK's head in this Moorman photo....
-
This is Moorman image enlarged. showing the back of the head wound (an image by Tom Wilson from A Deeper Darker Truth by Phillips.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKttvSt/Back-of-head-wound.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
This is Moorman image enlarged. showing the back of the head wound (an image by Tom Wilson from A Deeper Darker Truth by Phillips.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKttvSt/Back-of-head-wound.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Rubbish in the extreme. That much of the top of the head wasn't blown off, which is is a known fact. Not even the doctors, whom you conspiracy buffs constantly use as proof of a frontal shot, saw what Wilson claims he sees in the Moorman photograph.
-
Rubbish in the extreme. That much of the top of the head wasn't blown off, which is is a known fact. Not even the doctors, whom you conspiracy buffs constantly use as proof of a frontal shot, saw what Wilson claims he sees in the Moorman photograph.
Agree. The More people play around with legit JFK assassination images, (Mytton included), the more these Images get Distorted. You add the Conjecture which is Always attached to them = JFK Urban Legend seedlings.
-
Rubbish in the extreme. That much of the top of the head wasn't blown off, which is is a known fact. Not even the doctors, whom you conspiracy buffs constantly use as proof of a frontal shot, saw what Wilson claims he sees in the Moorman photograph.
The wound in the photos at the back of the head. JFK is leaning forward. And none of the doctors at Parkland saw any wound at the top of the head. Strange that.
-
Agree. The More people play around with legit JFK assassination images, (Mytton included), the more these Images get Distorted. You add the Conjecture which is Always attached to them = JFK Urban Legend seedlings.
I simply cannot see any damage to JFK's head in the Moorman photo.....And I don't believe the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315, because Patrolman Billy Martin's left hand is seen in the Moorman photo ...And he's not even visible in Z 315.
-
I believe the thumb print on the Moorman photo was put there deliberately to hide what is on the trunk of the limo.
-
I believe the thumb print on the Moorman photo was put there deliberately to hide what is on the trunk of the limo.
I think you're right, Ray.... Someone has probably researched the Moorman photo and found the identity of the person who put the thumb print on the photo..... Do you know who?
-
I believe the thumb print on the Moorman photo was put there deliberately to hide what is on the trunk of the limo.
Absolutely ludicrous statement. There are prints of the photo that are available WITHOUT the thumb print! Look it up!
-
Absolutely ludicrous statement. There are prints of the photo that are available WITHOUT the thumb print! Look it up!
Once that Photo was tainted by U.S. Law Enforcement, Nobody knows with confidence what they are looking at. "Is It Real Or Is It Memorex?". The Moorman Photo Well has been poisoned.
-
The wound in the photos at the back of the head. JFK is leaning forward. And none of the doctors at Parkland saw any wound at the top of the head. Strange that.
The top of his head is shown flying through the air in three films, Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, which all show the same thing. Mrs. Kennedy told Theodore White that she was trying to hold the top of his head down to keep the brain inside the head. The autopsy photos also show the top of the head blasted off. Chuck Brehm also said that he saw the top of his head fly off. "Strange that"!
-
Once that Photo was tainted by U.S. Law Enforcement, Nobody knows with confidence what they are looking at. "Is It Real Or Is It Memorex?". The Moorman Photo Well has been poisoned.
Storing, do the research! MARY MOORMAN SAW THE PICTURE AFTER SHE PULLED THE THING OUT OF HER CAMERA! NOTHING and I mean NOTHING was altered according to her! Get off that damn soapbox and stop spreading manure!
-
I simply cannot see any damage to JFK's head in the Moorman photo.....And I don't believe the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315, because Patrolman Billy Martin's left hand is seen in the Moorman photo ...And he's not even visible in Z 315.
Ome frame after Moorman and we see Martin in Z-316
he is in the same position as he was one frame earlier. at Z-315
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Cold%20Case%20JFK%20frames/316.jpg)
-
I don't believe the Moorman photo was taken at Z 315 ................
I don't either. This is Z-311......
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg)
-
I don't either. This is Z-311......
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg)
He was not face down. All you have to do is use common sense, and read what Clint Hill said during his testimony. He said when he got on top of the car, the president was "face up" in her lap. Mrs. Kennedy cradled his head and talked about his face from the forehead down being "so beautiful" during that interview, and how there was nothing missing from his forehead or his face. The only portion of the head she described as being gone was the top. Nothing else. And if you think she would have allowed her husband to lie face down--which would inhibit his breathing--you have another thing coming. This is typical, though. You completely ignore the things the person who is holding his shattered head in her hands, yet totally rely on the man "hovering over him" and Mrs. Kennedy, both. I also find it difficult to believe that Hill saw as much as what he said he saw, due to the fact that Mrs. Kennedy covered his head during the ride to the hospital , and with his head "face-up in her lap".
Z 311 is very close to the same time as Altgens #6..... The occupants of the Lincoln are very similar to the positions they were in when Altgens snapped #6.
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg)
-
Z 311 is very close to the same time as Altgens #6..... The occupants of the Lincoln are very similar to the positions they were in when Altgens snapped #6.
Not Connally.
-
Not Connally.
Connally's head is turned slightly to the right in Z 311 when compared to Altgen's #6 .... Do you see something different?
-
Yes, I see Connally starting to lean back onto his wife.
-
I don't either. This is Z-311......
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXPWW9yd/z311-z315-moorman.jpg)
JohnM
-
Yes, I see Connally starting to lean back onto his wife.
:-X
Is this going to be another one of those "here's what I think I see in the Zapruder film" arguments?
JohnM
-
Unlike Mr. Pickering, I'm not claiming that what I see is The Truth.
Go crawl back into your hole, "Mytton".
-
Z 311 is very close to the same time as Altgens #6..... The occupants of the Lincoln are very similar to the positions they were in when Altgens snapped #6.
(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z311.jpg)
???
Robin What part of---" I believe the Z film is a fake"-- are you having trouble understanding?
Why do you continue to cite fake evidence?
JohnM
-
Yes, I see Connally starting to lean back onto his wife.
Do you believe that it took Connally several seconds to react to being hit? If JFK was shot in the head at Z 312..... What frame shows JFK reacting to the throat shot...Z 242?? That would mean that Connally didn't react for about 4 or five seconds.....
-
Do you believe that it took Connally several seconds to react to being hit?
I don't know when Connally was hit.
-
I don't know when Connally was hit.
Connally's jacket reacts.
(http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/223-224%20Full.gif)
A frame later.
(https://i.gifer.com/GRP9.gif)
The next frames now demonstrate both men simultaneously showing very violent reactions.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)
JohnM
-
Connally's jacket reacts.
A frame later.
The next frames now demonstrate both men simultaneously showing very violent reactions.
Like what I suspect we're going to get from Mr. Pickering, you see what you expect to see.
-
Unlike Mr. Pickering, I'm not claiming that what I see is The Truth.
Go crawl back into your hole, "Mytton".
He can't ....Even the other skunks in the den, can't tolerate the stench......
-
Which makes absolutely no sense, when he was face up in the car the whole ride there. And Clint Hill's hand is all over his now. He says it one way during this interview, then changes it and moves it to another location in another and so on. Totally unreliable. There was no hole on the back of the head. I don't care where Parkland doctors drew the wound. They also said they didn't examine the wound on the head, years ago. The hole was on op of the head and extended into the top rear--somewhat--. The missing skull in the top of the head autopsy photos and one of the uncropped back wound photos show the top of the head missing. You choose to completely ignore what Mrs. Kennedy said. You completely ignore it!
There was no hole on the back of the head.
Thumb1:
(525) The photographic materials and X-rays were examined visually
by the panel.' This review included both microscopic examination
and viewing relevant photographs in a stereoscope, a special
device that allows pairs of photographs to be viewed in three dimensions.
Because stereoscopy provides an excellent means by which altered
or doctored photographs can be detected, primary reliance was
placed upon this analytical technique.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B2_Autopsy.pdf
(https://i.postimg.cc/TP8fZBqw/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)
JohnM
-
Boswell ARRB Medical Testimony
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0076b.htm (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0076b.htm)
Boswell states it is his hand seen in the autopsy photo's "pulling the scalp forward"
(https://i.imgur.com/keEctaq.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TP8fZBqw/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/FG2.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/FG1.jpg)
-
Boswell ARRB Medical Testimony
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0076b.htm (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Boswell_2-26-96/html/Boswell_0076b.htm)
Boswell states it is his hand seen in the autopsy photo's "pulling the scalp forward"
(https://i.imgur.com/keEctaq.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TP8fZBqw/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/FG2.jpg)
The above describes what Jackie had "hold" of inside the Limo. It was JFK SCALP Not Skull Bone. Humes admitted to using a scalpel to further extend this scalp wound during the autopsy.
-
Warren Commission Suppressed Jackie's
Testimony On JFK's Head Wound
Court Reporter's Tape Shows
Additional Description Withheld
http://jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html (http://jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html)
Dallas, TX -- August 5, 2001 -- JFK Lancer, an historical research firm reports that the Court Reporter's tape shows Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony before the Warren Commission had additional descriptions which were withheld.
Mrs. Kennedy testified in a short private session held at her home in Washington, D.C., with Chief Justice Earl Warren, Commission General Council J. Lee Rankin, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and a court reporter in attendance. Testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission was made public in the fall of 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony was also released containing her description of her husbands wounds which read :
"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything."
But a second section in which she described the wounds she saw carried only the notation: (Reference to Wounds Deleted).
Although very few Americans actually read those transcripts, historians and researchers who did read them were outraged, and waged a legal battle to have the omitted testimony released. In the early 1970s, a court decision required the United States Government to disclose to the public the contents of the still classified section of Mrs. Kennedy's 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Her previously withheld statement read:
" I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
Releasing this previously withheld section gave researchers what was assumed to be Mrs. Kennedy's complete description of the President's head wounds. Researchers took for granted that the hand-typed transcript page released by the National Archives from the official records of the Warren Commission ended the matter.
However, new analysis reveals that the original court tape actually reads:
"... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Jackie.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Jackie.jpg)
Hmmm...I wonder if Jackie was remembering accurately when she said....
"There was this noise like that; I thought was a backfire. Then I next saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying no no no with his fist beating -- then Jack turned and I turned ---- then Jack turned and I turned -- all I remember was a gray blue up ahead ; then Jack turned back so neatly ; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out , I could see a piece of his skull coming off it was flesh colored not white---he was holding out his hand ---and I can see this perfectly clean piece piece detaching itself from his head. Then he slumped in my lap."
What she describes had to have happened in a fraction of a second.... and yet she remembers it as though it took much longer....
-
What Jackie is Specifically describing with regard to the Physical/Verbal Actions of JFK & Gov Connally, (JFK = "arm out", Connally = " grabbing his arms, fist beating saying No No No", appears No Where at Any Time on the CURRENT Zapruder Film. These physical actions being absent from the Z Film is right in line with there also being no JFK Limo Stop on the CURRENT Z Film which many eyewitnesses claim to have seen.
-
What Jackie is Specifically describing with regard to the Physical/Verbal Actions of JFK & Gov Connally, (JFK = "arm out", Connally = " grabbing his arms, fist beating saying No No No", appears No Where at Any Time on the CURRENT Zapruder Film. These physical actions being absent from the Z Film is right in line with there also being no JFK Limo Stop on the CURRENT Z Film which many eyewitnesses claim to have seen.
Not one other person who witnessed the assassination said anything about Connally beating his fist or grabbing his arm. Why? Because it didn't happen, and Mrs. Kennedy's view of the front of Connally's body was not possible. He was facing away from her, and to his right with his back completely blocking her view, and therefore, she couldn't possibly have seen what his arms or hands were doing, Storing. This is why law enforcement do not rely on eyewitnesses. Mrs. Newman said Connally grabbed his stomach. Bill Newman said the president "stood up in his seat". None of that happened, either. You are so hell bent on trying(and you fail largely at) to prove that the Zapruder film isn't authentic. You rely on the flimsiest of the flimsy!
As for Mrs. Kennedy's having said her husband's hand was out...do you honestly believe that she could possibly get every detail correct after what she witnessed within 8 seconds? Get real! You've never been traumatized, have you?
-
Not one other person who witnessed the assassination said anything about Connally beating his fist or grabbing his arm. Why? Because it didn't happen, and Mrs. Kennedy's view of the front of Connally's body was not possible. He was facing away from her, and to his right with his back completely blocking her view, and therefore, she couldn't possibly have seen what his arms or hands were doing, Storing. This is why law enforcement do not rely on eyewitnesses. Mrs. Newman said Connally grabbed his stomach. Bill Newman said the president "stood up in his seat". None of that happened, either. You are so hell bent on trying(and you fail largely at) to prove that the Zapruder film isn't authentic. You rely on the flimsiest of the flimsy!
As for Mrs. Kennedy's having said her husband's hand was out...do you honestly believe that she could possibly get every detail correct after what she witnessed within 8 seconds? Get real! You've never been traumatized, have you?
The above would mean You also do Not believe Jackie's claim of holding the Top of JFK's Head On/in place = the Top of JFK's head being blown off. So when are you going to inform Mytton of your refuting his position on that issue?
-
The above would mean You also do Not believe Jackie's claim of holding the Top of JFK's Head On/in place = the Top of JFK's head being blown off. So when are you going to inform Mytton of your refuting his position on that issue?
You open your mouth and out comes stupid, Storing. Absolutely no parallel, but you aren't intelligent enough to figure out why there is no parallel.
-
Which makes absolutely no sense, when he was face up in the car the whole ride there. And Clint Hill's hand is all over his now. He says it one way during this interview, then changes it and moves it to another location in another and so on. Totally unreliable. There was no hole on the back of the head. I don't care where Parkland doctors drew the wound. They also said they didn't examine the wound on the head, years ago. The hole was on op of the head and extended into the top rear--somewhat--. The missing skull in the top of the head autopsy photos and one of the uncropped back wound photos show the top of the head missing. You choose to completely ignore what Mrs. Kennedy said. You completely ignore it!
"They also said they didn't examine the wound on the head, years ago"". No, No No, read the actual statements the doctors made. Posner tires to pass that bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns off in his books. They said after dealing with the airways several of them had a chance too closely inspect the head wound in the back of the head. One of them said he sat there and stared right into it for several minutes while holding the trach equipment for Dr Perry. Two of the doctors closely inspected the wound and informed Dr Perry that they thought it was mortal.
Dr Carrico claimed in an 80's interview for the TSBD museum that he knew the wound was in the top of the head but didn't not take the report he was writing seriously enough and lazily put the wound in the back of the head. He said he didn't consider that these reports were used for things like medical billing and Police investigations. Seriously? It was the PRESIDENT and he just didn't take the report seriously, wow. But what discounts his testimony completely is that famous poster that shows 14 of the parkland staff pointing to the back of their heads when describing the wound and Carrico is one of them!!! He acted like he knew the wound was on top the whole time and just got lazy with the report, But there he is in that poster holding his hand in the occipital region.
The Dr's all put the wound in the same place and same size. They noted the Cerebellum was protruding and one saw a piece of it fall out revealing part of the Cerbrum. The actual interviews you can see and statements they gave at the time are consistent and completely contradicts Posner's bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns line that they never inspected the wound. Clint hills statements right after the shooting are consistent too. Over time he changed it.
I have heard his testimony discounted because he said something like 'the whole back of the head was blown off' then changed it to the 4 inch hole in the right occipital area. Well it is completely plausible that he saw blood and matter all over the back of his head and with the horror of it all he exaggerated a bit and was simply more specific later. It is not a reason to discount his testimony. Also I have to wonder if JFK was facing up all the way to Parkland how does Hill describe both the entrance and exit wound? He may be mixing actual memory with the official story after so many years.
Every attempt to discount the Parlkand Dr's testimony that I have see uses mis information to make the case. The actual fact is there is a huge problem between what they saw at Parkland and the official story. even FBI agent Sibert who was present at the autopsy said there was a big hole in the back of his head. He tried to talk to the Warren Commission but they would not listen and they also lost his notes from the autopsy.
-
I consider Jackies testimony to be some of the least qualified. Yes she was very close but she just saw her husband heads blown off and just had gunshots land within inches of her. Her behavior on AirForce One shows that she was traumatized or in shock.
-
You open your mouth and out comes stupid, Storing. Absolutely no parallel, but you aren't intelligent enough to figure out why there is no parallel.
And here I was beginning to believe that your were becoming an Objective Researcher in search of the Truth. Instead, you are satisfied with being a nondescript member of The Flock mandating that you protect one of Your Own. So much for your dismissal of eyewitness testimony/accounts.
-
I consider Jackies testimony to be some of the least qualified. Yes she was very close but she just saw her husband heads blown off and just had gunshots land within inches of her. Her behavior on AirForce One shows that she was traumatized or in shock.
All the more reason that LBJ should Not have put her on display during his swearing in ceremony before leaving Love Field. I am still mystified how we see JFK's head literally Explode vs Jackie's face showing nary a trace of blood/matter. She was within mere inches of his head. Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
-
All the more reason that LBJ should Not have put her on display during his swearing in ceremony before leaving Love Field. I am still mystified how we see JFK's head literally Explode vs Jackie's face showing nary a trace of blood/matter. She was within mere inches of his head. Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
"Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
Because the shot came from the front and the matter went backwards.
-
All the more reason that LBJ should Not have put her on display during his swearing in ceremony before leaving Love Field. I am still mystified how we see JFK's head literally Explode vs Jackie's face showing nary a trace of blood/matter. She was within mere inches of his head. Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
I am still mystified how we see JFK's head literally Explode vs Jackie's face showing nary a trace of blood/matter. She was within mere inches of his head. Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
I assume you're being factious ... because obviously Jackie's head was to the left front and lower than JFK's head at the time the RIGHT REAR of JFK's head erupted and the debris was carried along the path of the exiting bullet.....
It's entirely possible that Hargis's helmet was struck by the spent bullet .......
-
All the more reason that LBJ should Not have put her on display during his swearing in ceremony before leaving Love Field. I am still mystified how we see JFK's head literally Explode vs Jackie's face showing nary a trace of blood/matter. She was within mere inches of his head. Yet, Officer Hargis riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo was splattered so violently he initially thought he had been shot.
That is a lie, Storing. Hargis never, ever said anything about being struck with "force" by the "blood, brain and kind of bloody water". Tink Thompson is responsible for that nonsense. According to Hargis himself, when testifying at the Garrison trial, and during his testimony, he said he rode into the matter and again, never said anything about being struck with "force"! You people rely on the stuff created out of thin air by fellow conspiracists!
-
That is a lie, Storing. Hargis never, ever said anything about being struck with "force" by the "blood, brain and kind of bloody water". Tink Thompson is responsible for that nonsense. According to Hargis himself, when testifying at the Garrison trial, and during his testimony, he said he rode into the matter and again, never said anything about being struck with "force"! You people rely on the stuff created out of thin air by fellow conspiracists!
Steve, If you don't have the guts to face the bitter truth it's understandable.... Some folks survive by denying the obvious.
-
That is a lie, Storing. Hargis never, ever said anything about being struck with "force" by the "blood, brain and kind of bloody water". Tink Thompson is responsible for that nonsense. According to Hargis himself, when testifying at the Garrison trial, and during his testimony, he said he rode into the matter and again, never said anything about being struck with "force"! You people rely on the stuff created out of thin air by fellow conspiracists!
So Now you slander Thompson even though his book Preceded Clay-Shaw? Trash Jackie, Trash Thompson, Trash the Parkland Professionals, it never stops. This is the level to which you have stooped in order to defend the LN/SBT Lunacy.
-
So Now you slander Thompson even though his book Preceded Clay-Shaw? Trash Jackie, Trash Thompson, Trash the Parkland Professionals, it never stops. This is the level to which you have stooped in order to defend the LN/SBT Lunacy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BbrT9LDL/alotofevidence2a.jpg)
JohnM
-
According to Hargis himself...
For the benefit of the newbies...
Josiah Thompson had dug some article out of the NY Sunday news [which NY news ?] anyway, Steve Barber located that article and here it is... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
One thing seems evident...the splatter went to the left of the car and into the policeman.
-
For the benefit of the newbies...
Josiah Thompson had dug some article out of the NY Sunday news [which NY news ?] anyway, Steve Barber located that article and here it is... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
One thing seems evident...the splatter went to the left of the car and into the policeman.
Yeah. Jackie was Also to the Left of JFK. Thanks for proffering even further corroboration supporting that her Face and Upper Torso should have been absolutely splattered .
-
So Now you slander Thompson even though his book Preceded Clay-Shaw? Trash Jackie, Trash Thompson, Trash the Parkland Professionals, it never stops. This is the level to which you have stooped in order to defend the LN/SBT Lunacy.
"Slander"? Get real, Storing. Thompson is a public figure. People are allowed to say "That was Thompson's nonsense". That isn't slander, it is stating a fact! He is the one who said that the matter struck Hargis with "such force". It wasn't Hargis who said it! Get over it!
Secondly, you are the ones trashing Mrs. Kennedy, not I! You refuse to accept the fact that she was holding her husbands shattered head in her hands all the way to the hospital, and saw the head wound closer than ANYONE before it reached Parkland hospital. But, you won't have it that way. You want everyone to think that because she was in shock, she couldn't positively be accurate when describing where the hole in the head was, even though she was trying to keep his brain inside his head by hold the "top of his head down". That is nothing but a slap in Mrs. Kennedy's face by you clowns.
-
Steve, If you don't have the guts to face the bitter truth it's understandable.... Some folks survive by denying the obvious.
Don't talk to me about "guts"! Your version of what is the truth and what the truth is are two different things! Everything I stated re: Thompson and Hargis is a fact! Thompson is responsible for misleading people when he said that Hargis was "struck with such force". It wasn't Hargis who said that at any time. Live with it!
-
For the benefit of the newbies...
Josiah Thompson had dug some article out of the NY Sunday news [which NY news ?] anyway, Steve Barber located that article and here it is... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
One thing seems evident...the splatter went to the left of the car and into the policeman.
The majority of the head matter flew forward and all over the car, the Connally's, Kellerman, Greer. According to Robert Frazier, there was blood, bits of bone, and brain tissue scattered all over the interior, the seats, the windshield, (both sides) sun visors (both sides) both side rails, the hood of the car and trunk lid. All of that matter had more volume to it than the minute particles( mist) that landed on Hargis and Martin, and neither Hargis or Martin said anything about being struck with "force" by the stuff that landed on them. Martin didn't witness the fatal shot and didn't even know he had matter on his person.
----------
Mr. BALL. You had a white helmet on?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you notice any stains on your helmet?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield on my motor and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet.
Mr. BALL. To give a more accurate description of the left side, could you tell us about where it started with reference to the forehead?
Mr. MARTIN. It was just to the left - of what would be the center of my forehead - approximately halfway, about a quarter of the helmet had spots of blood on it.
Mr. BALL. And were there any other spots of any other material on the helmet there besides blood?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; there was other matter that looked like pieces of flesh.
Mr. BALL. What about your uniform?
Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and matter on my left shoulder of my uniform.
Mr. BALL. You pointed to a place in front of your shoulder, about the clavicle region?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Is that about where it was?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. BALL. On the front of your uniform and not on the side?
Mr. MARTIN. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. That would be left, was it?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes; on the left side.
Mr. BALL. And just below the level of the shoulder?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what spots were there?
Mr. MARTIN. They were blood spots and other matter.
Mr. BALL. And what did you notice on your windshield?
Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and other matter on my windshield and also on the motor.
Mr. BALL. Was the blood noticeable - were there large splotches?
Mr. MARTIN. No; they weren't large splotches, they were small - It was not very noticeable unless you looked at it.
Mr. BALL. Was the discoloration on your helmet noticeable?
Mr. MARTIN. Not too much - no -as a matter of fact, there were other people around there and two more officers there and they never noticed it. (emphasis mine).
Mr. BALL. At that time were you with Mr. Hargis?
Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; I don't believe that he went to the hospital with us. I believe he stopped there at the scene of the shooting.
Mr. BALL. And did you ever see his helmet or his uniform or the windshield of his motorcycle?
Mr. MARTIN. No, sir - I never recall seeing him again until the next day.
Mr. BALL. Now, was this blood on the outside or the inside of your windshield?
Mr. MARTIN. It was on the outside of my windshield.
Mr. BALL. Was it on the right or left side?
Mr. MARTIN. It was on the outside of my windshield.
Mr. BALL. And what about the fender of the motorcycle?
Mr. MARTIN. It was just in the front - right on the front just above the cowling on the motorcycle.
-
Yeah. Jackie was Also to the Left of JFK. Thanks for proffering even further corroboration supporting that her Face and Upper Torso should have been absolutely splattered .
Mrs Kennedy was saturated with blood of course.
-
Not one other person who witnessed the assassination said anything about Connally beating his fist or grabbing his arm. Why? Because it didn't happen, and Mrs. Kennedy's view of the front of Connally's body was not possible. He was facing away from her, and to his right with his back completely blocking her view, and therefore, she couldn't possibly have seen what his arms or hands were doing, Storing. This is why law enforcement do not rely on eyewitnesses. Mrs. Newman said Connally grabbed his stomach. Bill Newman said the president "stood up in his seat". None of that happened, either. You are so hell bent on trying(and you fail largely at) to prove that the Zapruder film isn't authentic. You rely on the flimsiest of the flimsy!
As for Mrs. Kennedy's having said her husband's hand was out...do you honestly believe that she could possibly get every detail correct after what she witnessed within 8 seconds? Get real! You've never been traumatized, have you?
The above shows that YOU are the one claiming Jackie was in a some degree of Shock/Trauma. I have Not made that claim. Get a grip on yourself.
-
"Slander"? Get real, Storing. Thompson is a public figure. People are allowed to say "That was Thompson's nonsense". That isn't slander, it is stating a fact! He is the one who said that the matter struck Hargis with "such force". It wasn't Hargis who said it! Get over it!
Secondly, you are the ones trashing Mrs. Kennedy, not I! You refuse to accept the fact that she was holding her husbands shattered head in her hands all the way to the hospital, and saw the head wound closer than ANYONE before it reached Parkland hospital. But, you won't have it that way. You want everyone to think that because she was in shock, she couldn't positively be accurate when describing where the hole in the head was, even though she was trying to keep his brain inside his head by hold the "top of his head down". That is nothing but a slap in Mrs. Kennedy's face by you clowns.
Bump as to erroneous claims.
-
The SCALP on the Top of JKF's head was disrupted upon the Impact of the Exploding bullet. We clearly see autopsy Dr's tugging on this same loose SCALP in alleged JFK autopsy photo(s). Dr Humes has testified as to his Extending these same lacerations during the autopsy procedure.
I don't believe an "exploding" bullet was used.... I doubt that the conspirators were so stupid as to employ something that would have been an obvious piece of equipment of an intelligence agency. ( unless they thought they could securely tie the patsy to Castro )
I suspect the bullet that shattered against the inside read of JFK's skull was a small caliber mercury filled projectile... ( something hat could be made in any home shop. )
-
I watched the Newman's interview that the photos in John Mytons post we're taken from and Newman is pointing to the ENTRANCE wound according to Newman.
I just watched an interview with Dr McClelland and he also pointed to the front area of the head as the ENTRANCE wound then said it travelled to the rear and exited throughout the BACK.
I just watched Paul O'connors interview and he points to the top of the head when describing the cut they make to remove a brain, not where the exit wound was. He has stated before that there was as large wound in the back of the head.
Dr Carrico placed the wound in the back in other photos contradicting the interview you took his image from.
Many people point to the front of the head as where they saw blood pouring out which could be an entrance wound or a second round that hit JFK almost simultaneously.
I think the person in the upper right corner is Gerald Custer who also says there was a massive hole in the back of the head.
-
That is a lie, Storing. Hargis never, ever said anything about being struck with "force" by the "blood, brain and kind of bloody water". Tink Thompson is responsible for that nonsense. According to Hargis himself, when testifying at the Garrison trial, and during his testimony, he said he rode into the matter and again, never said anything about being struck with "force"! You people rely on the stuff created out of thin air by fellow conspiracists!
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.? [Daily News report].
Hargis never used the phrase "Hit with force" but he did say it felt like concrete and considered that he may have been "hit". Obviously he was hit with enough force to consider the possibility that he had been shot.
-
I watched the Newman's interview that the photos in John Mytons post we're taken from and Newman is pointing to the ENTRANCE wound according to Newman.
I just watched an interview with Dr McClelland and he also pointed to the front area of the head as the ENTRANCE wound then said it travelled to the rear and exited throughout the BACK.
I just watched Paul O'connors interview and he points to the top of the head when describing the cut they make to remove a brain, not where the exit wound was. He has stated before that there was as large wound in the back of the head.
Dr Carrico placed the wound in the back in other photos contradicting the interview you took his image from.
Many people point to the front of the head as where they saw blood pouring out which could be an entrance wound or a second round that hit JFK almost simultaneously.
I think the person in the upper right corner is Gerald Custer who also says there was a massive hole in the back of the head.
The following high contrast image at Z313 shows a substantial amount of matter going forwards, if Kennedy was hit again to create a rear hole how much of his head would be left, and besides the bullet entrance wound did anybody say that Kennedy had two largish holes in his head.
(http://i.imgur.com/MPK17hA.jpg)
JohnM
-
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.? [Daily News report].
Hargis never used the phrase "Hit with force" but he did say it felt like concrete and considered that he may have been "hit". Obviously he was hit with enough force to consider the possibility that he had been shot.
Thanks for taking the time to find that, Chris...... I knew that Hargis had said that he was stuck on his helmet by "something" solid....
-
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.? [Daily News report].
Hargis never used the phrase "Hit with force" but he did say it felt like concrete and considered that he may have been "hit". Obviously he was hit with enough force to consider the possibility that he had been shot.
The Old Guard Researchers Know what Hargis said. They consistently throw BS out there to confuse people regarding whatever the issue of discussion might be. They are scared to death the truth will come out and they will be revealed as being nothing more than rubber stamps/echo chambers for 54+ years. It's a 24/7 job setting the record straight.
-
The Old Guard Researchers Know what Hargis said.
Hargis says he parks his motorcycle and simply runs across the road, but if he was forcefully struck wouldn't you at least take a minute to establish if anything was broken or if he had internal damage, or check for bleeding and then later have any injuries photographed but Hargis doesn't seem to be so bothered about testifying about being struck by bullet fragments or skull or whatever?
Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----
Mr. STERN - Where?
Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.
Mr. STERN - And then what did you---
Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.
The headshot was captured by 3 amateur filmmakers, in the following capture from Muchmore we can see where Hargis is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pPGjcS6/muchmore-headshot.jpg)
JohnM
-
I watched the Newman's interview that the photos in John Mytons post we're taken from and Newman is pointing to the ENTRANCE wound according to Newman.
I just watched an interview with Dr McClelland and he also pointed to the front area of the head as the ENTRANCE wound then said it travelled to the rear and exited throughout the BACK.
I just watched Paul O'connors interview and he points to the top of the head when describing the cut they make to remove a brain, not where the exit wound was. He has stated before that there was as large wound in the back of the head.
Dr Carrico placed the wound in the back in other photos contradicting the interview you took his image from.
Many people point to the front of the head as where they saw blood pouring out which could be an entrance wound or a second round that hit JFK almost simultaneously.
I think the person in the upper right corner is Gerald Custer who also says there was a massive hole in the back of the head.
Dr Carrico placed the wound in the back in other photos contradicting the interview you took his image from.
This is typical .... I was present in the audience when Clint Hill was a guest speaker...He described the wounds he saw when he jumped aboard the Lincoln. I saw him point to his right temple and state that he saw a bullet hole in JFK's temple just for of his ear right at the hair line ....... And a large hole at the right rear of his head. Which he used his right hand with the fingers splayed to demonstrated what he saw. I've seen LNer's post that same image and claim that Hill is describing the entrance wound. LIARS!
-
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit.? [Daily News report].
Hargis never used the phrase "Hit with force" but he did say it felt like concrete and considered that he may have been "hit". Obviously he was hit with enough force to consider the possibility that he had been shot.
Did Hargis say anything--ever at any time--about seeing the back of the president's head being blown off. No. He described in one interview that he saw a spray come out of the right side of his head when the fatal bullet was fired. He was in the perfect position to have seen the back of the head blown off if that would have been what happened, but he never said anything even hinting that that was where the matter came from. Same thing with Jim Chaney. When he saw the explosion on Kennedy's head, he thought the president had been hit in the face. Did he say anything about the back of the head being shot off? No. Chaney was also in the perfect position to have seen the back of the head blown off if it had been blown off, but he never even so much as hinted that he saw such a thing.
On top of all this, you guys completely ignore the fact that the largest amount of head matter went forward as far as several yards AHEAD of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
David Burris and Billy Harper found skull fragments in the grass AHEAD of where the limousine was located. It is part of these fragments seen flying through the air in the Zapruder and Nix film. The matter from the head landed "all over the interior of the car", the Connally's, Greer, Kellerman, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy. It was on the windshield, the sun visors(both sides), the side rails of the car(both), etc. The clearest prints of the FBI black and white photos showing the interior of the back seat compartment inside panel of the car that JFK was seated next to, shows splatter all over it. You can read the graphic detail of where the majority of the matter landed by reading Robert Frazier's testimony to the Warren Commission. The head matter that landed on Hargis and Martin can clearly be seen in the Zapruder film is a fine mist that blows rearward. Why do you ignore that? Face it and accept it. Hargis never, ever said anything hit him with "force". Period. Also, Hargis said that fellow Dallas police officer "Buddy" Brewer flicked a piece of skull off Hargis' upper lip. He still didn't say that it struck him with any force, nor has he eversaid any such thing in all of the many interviews over, or during his Warren commission testimony, said anything about being struck with "force" by the head matter. You people love to exaggerate and twist things people said.
-
Hargis says he parks his motorcycle and simply runs across the road, but if he was forcefully struck wouldn't you at least take a minute to establish if anything was broken or if he had internal damage, or check for bleeding and then later have any injuries photographed but Hargis doesn't seem to be so bothered about testifying about being struck by bullet fragments or skull or whatever?
Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----
Mr. STERN - Where?
Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.
Mr. STERN - And then what did you---
Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.
The headshot was captured by 3 amateur filmmakers, in the following capture from Muchmore we can see where Hargis is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pPGjcS6/muchmore-headshot.jpg)
JohnM
So are You NOW claiming that we are Not seeing Hargis alongside his motorcycle on the South side of Elm St on the Wiegman Film? Maybe Hargis was checking himself out during THIS time period which YOU have neglected to mention/consider. YOU, along with the Old Guard continue to have Serious Issues with the Bogus Timelines that they have assigned & YOU have echoed regarding Assassination Eyewitnesses/Films. Setting the record Straight/True continues to be a 24/7 task.
-
The Old Guard Researchers Know what Hargis said. They consistently throw BS out there to confuse people regarding whatever the issue of discussion might be. They are scared to death the truth will come out and they will be revealed as being nothing more than rubber stamps/echo chambers for 54+ years. It's a 24/7 job setting the record straight.
The Old Guard CT Researchers Know what Hargis said. The LNers consistently throw BS out there to confuse people regarding whatever the issue of discussion might be. They are scared to death the truth will come out and they will be revealed as being nothing more than rubber stamps/echo chambers for 54+ years. It's a 24/7 job setting the record straight.
It's a 24/7 job setting the record straight. and I'm beginning to think it's a hopeless endeavor. The CT contingent is united only in their conviction that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy, Just as the HSCA discovered. Many of the CT's realize that Lee Oswald was nothing more than a Patsy who was framed by the very powerful men who wanted John Kennedy out of the way, so that they could pursue their greedy, insane ambitions. I personally believe Lee Oswald was totally innocent of having any cognizant and aware role in the plot. He was playing the same stupid game he played when he fired a bullet through General Walker's window.... A game that was intended to make him appear to have shot at JFK and missed.
-
It's no coincidence that the loudest critics questioning the authenticity of the Zapruder film, lack even the most basic technical knowledge to indicate their ideas visually heck most of them can't even post an image? What a joke!
JohnM
-
Hargis says he parks his motorcycle and simply runs across the road, but if he was forcefully struck wouldn't you at least take a minute to establish if anything was broken or if he had internal damage, or check for bleeding and then later have any injuries photographed but Hargis doesn't seem to be so bothered about testifying about being struck by bullet fragments or skull or whatever?
Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle?
Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh----
Mr. STERN - Where?
Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street.
Mr. STERN - And then what did you---
Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.
The headshot was captured by 3 amateur filmmakers, in the following capture from Muchmore we can see where Hargis is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6pPGjcS6/muchmore-headshot.jpg)
JohnM
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me.
Mr. STERN - And then what did you---
Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.
Does anybody doubt that Hargis was reacting to what he had just experienced? His instincts told him the shot had came from the vicinity of the railroad overpass..... and that's where he was looking.
-
Bobby Hargis (motorcycle policeman on the left rear fender of the Presiden- tial limousine), November 23, 1963: ?As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me.
Mr. STERN - And then what did you---
Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked.
Does anybody doubt that Hargis was reacting to what he had just experienced? His instincts told him the shot had came from the vicinity of the railroad overpass..... and that's where he was looking.
I was splattered with blood.................. Then I felt something hit me.
2 separate actions. First a spatter then something hit him. Sounds like he drove into something that was falling from above him.
-
I was splattered with blood.................. Then I felt something hit me.
2 separate actions. First a spatter then something hit him. Sounds like he drove into something that was falling from above him.
2 separate actions
Thumb1:
Excellent observation, let's watch Royell and Walt attempt to slime their way out of this one.
JohnM
-
I do not care what Walt said he witnessed Clint Hill say, it doesn't change the fact that the back of the head was not blown off. I have seen recent clips of him describing the hole
Take a look at Hargis in the sprocket hole are of the Z film. He is looking right at the back of Kennedy's head when Kennedy is killed by the fatal bullet. The one time Hargis ever said anything describing the head wound is when he saw "A spray come off the side of the presidents head". By the time Hill reached the car and got over the back seat, Mrs. Kennedy had her husbands head in her lap, face up. Hill couldn't have possibly seen a hole in the back of the head. Period. Hill is the person who said the president was lying "face up in her lap". In every picture taken along Stemmons Freeway that shows the limousine, Mrs.Kennedy is bent over her husband whose head is in her lap.
I have seen recent clips of him describing the hole
I believe those clips may be from the very presentation that Clint Hill gave at Concordia College in Moorehead, Mn. The gesture was NOT indicating an entrance wound.... He was describing the area where he saw the large hole in the back of JFK's head.... and prior to that Mr Hill said that he'd seen a bullet hole in the hairline forward of JFK's right ear.....and he pointed to that with his right index finger just like Malcolm Killduff indicated at the public death announcement at Parkland. (see page 408 Pics of the Paine) .....And although I believe the extant Z film is a fraud ...I believe some of the frames were published for the public before it was heavily edited. There is a frame from the original Z film that shows a bit of blood on JFK's right temple and the temple seems to be a bit concave ( dished ) just as would be expected if a bullet stuck that area.
This frame would have to be a split second before the back of the head erupted.....
-
I do not care what Walt said he witnessed Clint Hill say, it doesn't change the fact that the back of the head was not blown off. I have seen recent clips of him describing the hole
Take a look at Hargis in the sprocket hole are of the Z film. He is looking right at the back of Kennedy's head when Kennedy is killed by the fatal bullet. The one time Hargis ever said anything describing the head wound is when he saw "A spray come off the side of the presidents head". By the time Hill reached the car and got over the back seat, Mrs. Kennedy had her husbands head in her lap, face up. Hill couldn't have possibly seen a hole in the back of the head. Period. Hill is the person who said the president was lying "face up in her lap". In every picture taken along Stemmons Freeway that shows the limousine, Mrs.Kennedy is bent over her husband whose head is in her lap.
I do not care what Walt said he witnessed Clint Hill say, it doesn't change the fact that the back of the head was not blown off. I have seen recent clips of him describing the hole ......
No, Mr Hill was NOT describing an entrance wound..... He was describing an exit wound because just moments before he placed his hand at the rear of his head he used that right hand and index finger to point to his right temple while saying that he had seen a bullet hole in the hairline forward of JFK's right ear.....
-
Thumb1:
Excellent observation, let's watch Royell and Walt attempt to slime their way out of this one.
JohnM
It is a good observation...I agree... But we certainly don't know the interval of time between the two events.....Nor do we know for sure that Hargis didn't experience the strike of an object before the blood splattered him. I'm sure that even you can understand that it was most unexpected and it happened in the blink of an eye. An event in which it could easily be confused about which happened first....
-
I was splattered with blood.................. Then I felt something hit me.
2 separate actions. First a spatter then something hit him. Sounds like he drove into something that was falling from above him.
Hargis is riding on the Left Rear of the Limo. JFK's head explodes and he is thrown Back & to his Left, (toward the general direction of Hargis). JFK suffers a large Blow-OUT wound in the Back of his head. Hargis is hit with the Blood, Matter, and a skull fragment(s) from the Blow-OUT wound. The motorcycle officer riding alongside Hargis also was splattered with blood and brain matter. There obviously was a Lot of Blood, Matter, and general debris flying to the left rear of the Limo. ASAIC Kellerman riding in the front seat labeled what he endured as "saw dust". This mass amount of Blood, Matter, & "Sawdust" yet somehow it completely disappears within Only 2-3 frames of the CURRENT Z Film. Just another example of what we are seeing on the Current Z Film defying logic, hard evidence, & eyewitness testimony.
-
It's no coincidence that the loudest critics questioning the authenticity of the Zapruder film, lack even the most basic technical knowledge to indicate their ideas visually heck most of them can't even post an image? What a joke!
JohnM
:D ;D ;) :)
-
Hargis is riding on the Left Rear of the Limo. JFK's head explodes and he is thrown Back & to his Left, (toward the general direction of Hargis). JFK suffers a large Blow-OUT wound in the Back of his head. Hargis is hit with the Blood, Matter, and a skull fragment(s) from the Blow-OUT wound. The motorcycle officer riding alongside Hargis also was splattered with blood and brain matter. There obviously was a Lot of Blood, Matter, and general debris flying to the left rear of the Limo. ASAIC Kellerman riding in the front seat labeled what he endured as "saw dust". This mass amount of Blood, Matter, & "Sawdust" yet somehow it completely disappears within Only 2-3 frames of the CURRENT Z Film. Just another example of what we are seeing on the Current Z Film defying logic, hard evidence, & eyewitness testimony.
There is no way in hell that YOU can determine how many frames contain within it the aftermath of blood/water/brain/skull from the head shot. Surely not using your own eyesight. What generation copy are you using? What photo analysis equipment are you using? How can you claim that the blood etcetera is only contained in 2 to 3 frames?
-
Hargis is riding on the Left Rear of the Limo. JFK's head explodes and he is thrown Back & to his Left, (toward the general direction of Hargis). JFK suffers a large Blow-OUT wound in the Back of his head. Hargis is hit with the Blood, Matter, and a skull fragment(s) from the Blow-OUT wound. The motorcycle officer riding alongside Hargis also was splattered with blood and brain matter. There obviously was a Lot of Blood, Matter, and general debris flying to the left rear of the Limo. ASAIC Kellerman riding in the front seat labeled what he endured as "saw dust". This mass amount of Blood, Matter, & "Sawdust" yet somehow it completely disappears within Only 2-3 frames of the CURRENT Z Film. Just another example of what we are seeing on the Current Z Film defying logic, hard evidence, & eyewitness testimony.
This mass amount of Blood, Matter, & "Sawdust" yet somehow it completely disappears within Only 2-3 frames of the CURRENT Z Film.
Since no CTs are willing to volunteer, here we see poor Bambi being struck in the head and we see the same pattern of disappearing mist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fR7fQmTp/stoopidroyell-zpshwxaqi1w.gif)
Just another example of what we are seeing on the Current Z Film defying logic, hard evidence, & eyewitness testimony.
Well what do you expect when you apply unsupportable Kook logic, no science and misinterpret eyewitness testimony?
JohnM
-
There is no way in hell that YOU can determine how many frames contain within it the aftermath of blood/water/brain/skull from the head shot. Surely not using your own eyesight. What generation copy are you using? What photo analysis equipment are you using? How can you claim that the blood etcetera is only contained in 2 to 3 frames?
So how many frames do YOU see matter in the air? Man Up. Your Failure to do so DQ's you from meriting a further response from me. I simply do Not have the time to mess around with those that are Afraid to state their opinion/observation.
-
Since no CTs are willing to volunteer, here we see poor Bambi being struck in the head and we see the same pattern of disappearing mist.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fR7fQmTp/stoopidroyell-zpshwxaqi1w.gif)
Well what do you expect when you apply unsupportable Kook logic, no science and misinterpret eyewitness testimony?
JohnM
More worthless visual aids. What New?
-
More worthless visual aids. What New?
Sorry, I based my image evidence on physics seen in the real world whereas you lack the technical expertise to even post the most basic of photos, no wonder you are the biggest laughing stock on this Forum.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fR7fQmTp/stoopidroyell-zpshwxaqi1w.gif)
JohnM
-
So how many frames do YOU see matter in the air? Man Up.
How many frames should we expect to see matter and then supply evidence to support your ideas.
JohnM
-
So how many frames do YOU see matter in the air? Man Up. Your Failure to do so DQ's you from meriting a further response from me. I simply do Not have the time to mess around with those that are Afraid to state their opinion/observation.
Man up? Get bent. You're the one making the claims. My only claim is you are talking nonsense again. How's that for manning up.
-
Sorry, I based my image evidence on physics seen in the real world whereas you lack the technical expertise to even post the most basic of photos, no wonder you are the biggest laughing stock on this Forum.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fR7fQmTp/stoopidroyell-zpshwxaqi1w.gif)
JohnM
Stop with the "Wild Kingdom" out takes. They are irrelevant.
-
Man up? Get bent. You're the one making the claims. My only claim is you are talking nonsense again. How's that for manning up.
Your debase "response" Proves my point.
-
There is no way in hell that YOU can determine how many frames contain within it the aftermath of blood/water/brain/skull from the head shot. Surely not using your own eyesight. What generation copy are you using? What photo analysis equipment are you using? How can you claim that the blood etcetera is only contained in 2 to 3 frames?
You haven't even made an attempt to answer these . Typical M.O. from you.
-
Are you saying that Chaney was faster than the trained agents who were alert to the possibility of an attempt...
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
How do you explain the fact that all of the spectators who are looking at the President don't have their heads turned as they would if the car was further down Elm street near the steps to the North pergola. Some of the spectators are facing nearly perpendicular to the street . They are standing on the sidewalk east of the Stemmons freeway sign ...and it seems to me that their heads should be rotated around to their right.
Notice the posture of the woman who is wearing a coat and a head scarf at the extreme left of the photo.... the car is nearly in front of her.....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
-
How do you explain the fact that all of the spectators who are looking at the President don't have their heads turned as they would if the car was further down Elm street near the steps to the North pergola. Some of the spectators are facing nearly perpendicular to the street . They are standing on the sidewalk east of the Stemmons freeway sign ...and it seems to me that their heads should be rotated around to their right.
Notice the posture of the woman who is wearing a coat and a head scarf at the extreme left of the photo.... the car is nearly in front of her.....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/AP6311220989Crop1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtRzs7Sb/zap255-altgens6.jpg)
JohnM
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
Does anyone know WHERE the Man in the HIGH Upper Left Hand Corner of the above photo is physically positioned inside Dealey Plaza? This guy is wearing a Hat with a wide black band around it. The gentleman appears to be standing much Higher than the people on the sidewalk beneath him. If you draw a line from the top of his Hat to the right, he appears to be at roughly the same level/height as the alleged Billy Lovelady who is standing at the TOP of the steps leading into the TSBD. Is this guy possible standing atop something? I know to the Rear of the light pole/hard hat man, there is the Thornton Sign & a Tree. I am Not aware of a man wearing a hat standing in this general area as the JFK Limo passed by. He appears to be standing at too High a level to be on the sidewalk which runs from the shelter to Elm St, or standing somewhere along the Elm St Annex. It is also Strange that he is Completely Alone at this Height in whatever the area of Dealey Plaza he is supposed to be positioned in. His inclusion in this Photo does Not appear to be Natural in MANY respects. This Altgens photo is one of the multitude of JFK Assassination images which are routinely Cropped.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
Robin, could this be the guy in the helmet?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NyN69q70/Altgenscrop.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/NyN69q70)
if so it would make your female character wrong.
-
Does anyone know WHERE the Man in the HIGH Upper Left Hand Corner of the above photo is physically positioned inside Dealey Plaza? This guy is wearing a Hat with a wide black band around it. The gentleman appears to be standing much Higher than the people on the sidewalk beneath him. If you draw a line from the top of his Hat to the right, he appears to be at roughly the same level/height as the alleged Billy Lovelady who is standing at the TOP of the steps leading into the TSBD. Is this guy possible standing atop something? I know to the Rear of the light pole/hard hat man, there is the Thornton Sign & a Tree. I am Not aware of a man wearing a hat standing in this general area as the JFK Limo passed by. He appears to be standing at too High a level to be on the sidewalk which runs from the shelter to Elm St, or standing somewhere along the Elm St Annex. It is also Strange that he is Completely Alone at this Height in whatever the area of Dealey Plaza he is supposed to be positioned in. His inclusion in this Photo does Not appear to be Natural in MANY respects. This Altgens photo is one of the multitude of JFK Assassination images which are routinely Cropped.
Where are all the non committal neutral critics when loony claims like this are posted? He's levitating obviously.
-
Where are all the non committal neutral critics when loony claims like this are posted? He's levitating obviously.
To save you some time, He can Not be seen on the Croft Photo or the Towner Film.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
Where is this guy in the Upper Left Hand Corner of the Altgens Pic, (wearing a Hat with a wide black band), situated inside Dealey Plaza? His appearing in this Elevated position on a photo that is frequently Cropped is puzzling.
-
Does anyone know WHERE the Man in the HIGH Upper Left Hand Corner of the above photo is physically positioned inside Dealey Plaza? This guy is wearing a Hat with a wide black band around it. The gentleman appears to be standing much Higher than the people on the sidewalk beneath him. If you draw a line from the top of his Hat to the right, he appears to be at roughly the same level/height as the alleged Billy Lovelady who is standing at the TOP of the steps leading into the TSBD. Is this guy possible standing atop something? I know to the Rear of the light pole/hard hat man, there is the Thornton Sign & a Tree. I am Not aware of a man wearing a hat standing in this general area as the JFK Limo passed by. He appears to be standing at too High a level to be on the sidewalk which runs from the shelter to Elm St, or standing somewhere along the Elm St Annex. It is also Strange that he is Completely Alone at this Height in whatever the area of Dealey Plaza he is supposed to be positioned in. His inclusion in this Photo does Not appear to be Natural in MANY respects. This Altgens photo is one of the multitude of JFK Assassination images which are routinely Cropped.
Royell, he could be standing on the slope at the very end of the Grassy Knoll. The foreshortening is caused by the zoom lens Ike Altgens used.
-
Royell, he could be standing on the slope at the very end of the Grassy Knoll. The foreshortening is caused by the zoom lens Ike Altgens used.
I have Not found him on Any other assassination photos/films. The Light colored hat vs the Wide Dark Band should stand out. The further toward the end/bottom of the Knoll you place him the closer to street level his position becomes. Bronson captures a very lengthy portion of the wall from the Shelter toward Elm, (high ground), including the area behind that section of the wall = No Hat Man. The Croft photo shows the very end of the wall/Elm St and a few people sitting atop that wall where the Knoll grass ends. The Hat Man is Not visible in this general area either. There are Many questions surrounding this frequently Cropped photo including Altgens challenging the WC regarding his physical position inside Dealey Plaza when he took the photo.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
Is this image printed in reverse ?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
This is the image you would see looking from west to east ( from the GK toward Houston street.) Who took this photo?
-
Your reponse does not address the point of my post. My point is the image you posted showing all those people pointing to the back of the head was phony crap. I think you did not address my critic because you cannot.
-
Where is this guy in the Upper Left Hand Corner of the Altgens Pic, (wearing a Hat with a wide black band), situated inside Dealey Plaza? His appearing in this Elevated position on a photo that is frequently Cropped is puzzling.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nLFyJzcF/texas-depository.jpg)
JohnM
-
Robin, could this be the guy in the helmet?
(https://i.postimg.cc/NyN69q70/Altgenscrop.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/NyN69q70)
if so it would make your female character wrong.
Yes, that is the same man A.J.Millican.
and my positioning of the woman in the blue dress is correct.
I reversed the Zapruder crop so as to match the same order in which we see the bystanders ( starting from right to left )
Lady in blue on the other side of the light pole first, then Millican, etc:
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/nLFyJzcF/texas-depository.jpg)
JohnM
Correct John.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/47678261-2a04-4ba1-bb09-833c875beaa1.jpg)
-
Willis 5
(Right to left) lady in the blue dress, then Millican etc:
(https://i.imgur.com/yd7tMgN.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
Still waiting for someone to ID the gent in the Upper Left Hand Corner of the Altgens Photo above and reveal where his physical position is on the Knoll. He is wearing a Light colored hat, (Not a hard hat), with a contrasting Wide/DARK band around it. He appears on No other JFK Assassination Images that I am aware of. Is this guy Another Unknown JFK assassination eyewitness or is he only present on the often Cropped & Controversial Altgens Photo?
-
Spectators lined up on the sidewalk.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/1121jfk02.jpg)
-
Still waiting for someone to ID the gent in the Upper Left Hand Corner of the Altgens Photo above and reveal where his physical position is on the Knoll. He is wearing a Light colored hat, (Not a hard hat), with a contrasting Wide/DARK band around it. He appears on No other JFK Assassination Images that I am aware of. Is this guy Another Unknown JFK assassination eyewitness or is he only present on the often Cropped & Controversial Altgens Photo?
Stop relying on the old guard to do all your research for you.
work it out for yourself, show us your photographic skills.
show us how good your LOS and perspective skills are.
You are one of the most lazy posters on this forum Storing, you want everything handed to you on a plate.
-
Stop relying on the old guard to do all your research for you.
work it out for yourself, show us your photographic skills.
show us how good your LOS and perspective skills are.
You are one of the most lazy posters on this forum Storing, you want everything handed to you on a plate.
Now that Unger has given up, Anybody else? The man is wearing a Light colored Hat with a Contrasting WIDE/BLACK Band around it. This man is Not on the Croft Photo which shows the end of the wall running down to Elm St. The controversies surrounding the frequently Cropped Altgens Photo continue to multiply.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgenscrop_.jpg)
BUMP
-
Now that Unger has given up, Anybody else? The man is wearing a Light colored Hat with a Contrasting WIDE/BLACK Band around it. This man is Not on the Croft Photo which shows the end of the wall running down to Elm St. The controversies surrounding the frequently Cropped Altgens Photo continue to multiply.
Stop begging for handouts storing.
Just admit that you are a photographic newbie, who has no clue when it comes to LOS and perspective.
for starters, learn how to post photo's on this forum, you have avoided doing so for years.
like i said just lazy.
-
Willis 5
(Right to left) lady in the blue dress, then Millican etc:
(https://i.imgur.com/yd7tMgN.jpg)
But that lady in the blue DRESS is NOT the lady who was wearing a blue COAT and a light colored head scarf. The blue COAT lady was further west on the north curb of Elm by the Stemmons freeway sign.
-
But that lady in the blue DRESS is NOT the lady who was wearing a blue COAT and a light colored head scarf. The blue COAT lady was further west on the north curb of Elm by the Stemmons freeway sign.
That's where Robin has her, West of Millican, Walt.
(You must forgotten that Robin reversed the Zap frame in the composite.)
-
Now that Unger has given up, Anybody else? The man is wearing a Light colored Hat with a Contrasting WIDE/BLACK Band around it. This man is Not on the Croft Photo which shows the end of the wall running down to Elm St. The controversies surrounding the frequently Cropped Altgens Photo continue to multiply.
The "hat" man is seated on the wall next to a man dressed in dark clothing, whose hand and arm can clearly be seen in Altgens to hat man's right, and there is a woman seated next to the man in dark clothing. All three are in the same position in Croft and the Towner and the woman is of course not in the Altgens photo because she is out of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
-
That's where Robin has her, West of Millican, Walt.
(You must forgotten that Robin reversed the Zap frame in the composite.)
Thanks Ray
I can see i will have to dumb this down for the slow ones who can't keep up.
(https://i.imgur.com/KrOv6kw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Xbdhnvf.jpg)
-
The "hat" man is seated on the wall next to a man dressed in dark clothing, whose hand and arm can clearly be seen in Altgens to hat man's right, and there is a woman seated next to the man in dark clothing. All three are in the same position in Croft and the Towner and the woman is of course not in the Altgens photo because she is out of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
As I stated previously, the man in the Altgens Photo is Not the man in the Croft photo. The man in the Altgens Photo has a Contrasting DARK/WIDE band around his LIGHT colored hat.The gentleman you are referring to in the Croft Photo does Not display a Contrasting DARK/WIDE band in the upper head area. For comparative reference, this same man in the Croft Photo DOES display an easily identifiable/ Contrasting DARK BELT vs his LIGHT Colored Slacks.
-
As I stated previously, the man in the Altgens Photo is Not the man in the Croft photo. The man in the Altgens Photo has a Contrasting DARK/WIDE band around his LIGHT colored hat.The gentleman you are referring to in the Croft Photo does Not display a Contrasting DARK/WIDE band in the upper head area. For comparative reference, this same man in the Croft Photo DOES display an easily identifiable/ Contrasting DARK BELT vs his LIGHT Colored Slacks.
Storing whether you like it or not, rather you accept it or not--whichyou do not accept it--the man in all three images is the same man. Are you going to claim that the man to hat man's right, whose raised (waving) arm can clearly be seen in Altgens, and Croft isn't the same man in Croft, too, while you are at it? In Croft, hat man is holding his hat in his right hand, waving at the president. So you are just wrong.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/PDVD_139.jpg)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Croft_ladies.jpg)
-
Storing whether you like it or not, rather you accept it or not--whichyou do not accept it--the man in all three images is the same man. Are you going to claim that the man to hat man's right, whose raised (waving) arm can clearly be seen in Altgens, and Croft isn't the same man in Croft, too, while you are at it? In Croft, hat man is holding his hat in his right hand, waving at the president. So you are just wrong.
If this is the same man explain why the Croft Photo did Not capture Any of the Dark/Wide Hat Band we easily see on the Altgens Photo? The Fact the Croft photo DID capture that same man wearing a Contrasting Dark Belt vs his Lightly Colored pants makes it Obvious that the photo should also then display a Contrasting Dark/Wide Band wrapped around a Lightly colored hat. The Croft Photo does Not display an iota of a Dark/Wide hat band. It is clear the Croft Photo is Not showing the same man we see in the Altgens Photo. The Fact there are multiple controversies already surrounding this same Altgens Photo in addition to this man being frequently Cropped Out of the Photo is no coincidence.
-
The "hat" man is seated on the wall next to a man dressed in dark clothing, whose hand and arm can clearly be seen in Altgens to hat man's right, and there is a woman seated next to the man in dark clothing. All three are in the same position in Croft and the Towner and the woman is of course not in the Altgens photo because she is out of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
bump
-
If this is the same man explain why the Croft Photo did Not capture Any of the Dark/Wide Hat Band we easily see on the Altgens Photo? The Fact the Croft photo DID capture that same man wearing a Contrasting Dark Belt vs his Lightly Colored pants makes it Obvious that the photo should also then display a Contrasting Dark/Wide Band wrapped around a Lightly colored hat. The Croft Photo does Not display an iota of a Dark/Wide hat band. It is clear the Croft Photo is Not showing the same man we see in the Altgens Photo. The Fact there are multiple controversies already surrounding this same Altgens Photo in addition to this man being frequently Cropped Out of the Photo is no coincidence.
You didn't read carefully what I said. In Croft, hat man has hit hat in his right hand, saluting the president. Can't you see that light colored object in his raised hand above him that is between Croft and the tree? His hat is not on his head, Storing. I pointed that out in my last comment.
-
That's where Robin has her, West of Millican, Walt.
(You must forgotten that Robin reversed the Zap frame in the composite.)
I didn't forget...I never knew that Robin had reversed the Zap frame.... WHY?? Did he reverse the image?
Nobody has shown anything to refute Altgens photo which shows Chaney on his motorcycle ALONGSIDE the Lincoln......
-
You didn't read carefully what I said. In Croft, hat man has hit hat in his right hand, saluting the president. Can't you see that light colored object in his raised hand above him that is between Croft and the tree? His hat is not on his head, Storing. I pointed that out in my last comment.
Thank you for Confirming that there is No Hat atop the man's head in the Croft photo. There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein. I do Not see any trace of anything resembling the Contrasting Wide/DARK Band we see in the Altgens Photo. This consistently Uniform circular shape from its' top all the way down to its' bottom = this being a Solid Object. This is Not the Hat we see in the Altgens Photo.
-
I didn't forget...I never knew that Robin had reversed the Zap frame.... WHY?? Did he reverse the image?
This is Exactly why I continue to urge those that ALTER JFK Assassination Images to place a notation on the Image that they have done so. Whether intentional or accidental, the ALTERING of JFK Assassination Images continues to hinder the solving of this case.
-
The "hat" man is seated on the wall next to a man dressed in dark clothing, whose hand and arm can clearly be seen in Altgens to hat man's right, and there is a woman seated next to the man in dark clothing. All three are in the same position in Croft and the Towner and the woman is of course not in the Altgens photo because she is out of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
BUMP
-
Thank you for Confirming that there is No Hat atop the man's head in the Croft photo. There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein. I do Not see any trace of anything resembling the Contrasting Wide/DARK Band we see in the Altgens Photo. This consistently Uniform circular shape from its' top all the way down to its' bottom = this being a Solid Object. This is Not the Hat we see in the Altgens Photo.
There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein.
A large stein ...... made to resemble the hub of a wooden wagon wheel....That's what it looks like to me. But it's hard to believe he would be holding up a beer stein.....
On further review....I'm not sure that is the man wearing the hat in Altgens.....He appears to be wearing sun glasses as he holds up the tankard.
-
Yes, that is the same man A.J.Millican.
and my positioning of the woman in the blue dress is correct.
I reversed the Zapruder crop so as to match the same order in which we see the bystanders ( starting from right to left )
Lady in blue on the other side of the light pole first, then Millican, etc:
Try to keep up with the thread Cakebread and Storing.
I posted this comment on page (48)
-
The "hat" man is seated on the wall next to a man dressed in dark clothing, whose hand and arm can clearly be seen in Altgens to hat man's right, and there is a woman seated next to the man in dark clothing. All three are in the same position in Croft and the Towner and the woman is of course not in the Altgens photo because she is out of frame.
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
I believe that's Jackies pink pill box hat in the bottom forground of the photo on the right and the back of JFK's head... But they are reversed....
(https://i.imgur.com/19BD8Ux.png)
-
I did the same thing here.
I reversed the Zapruder crop so as to match the same order in which we see the bystanders ( starting from left to right )
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Croft_ladies.jpg)
-
There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein.
A large stein ...... made to resemble the hub of a wooden wagon wheel....That's what it looks like to me. But it's hard to believe he would be holding up a beer stein.....
On further review....I'm not sure that is the man wearing the hat in Altgens.....He appears to be wearing sun glasses as he holds up the tankard.
No way that is the same man in Altgens and Croft. There is so much controversy with the Altgens photo: (1) Lovelady ID ? (2) Officer Chaney Position? (3) Hat Man ID? (4) Altgens himself challenging the WC position assigned to him on Elm St, = Another JFK Assassination Image that smells like 3 day old Fish.
-
Try to keep up with the thread Cakebread and Storing.
I posted this comment on page (48)
Attach your *dislcaimer* to the Altered Photo itself. This way if anyone globs onto that photo the disclaimer tags along. Yelling at people to "keep up" might salve your conscience, but it absolves you of Nothing.
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/altgens6_cropped.jpg)
-
Attach your *dislcaimer* to the Altered Photo itself. This way if anyone globs onto that photo the disclaimer tags along. Yelling at people to "keep up" might salve your conscience, but it absolves you of Nothing.
Only a moron like you would need a disclaimer to tell them that the Zapruder crop had been reversed.
you need to get out more, and do some actual photographic research.
Study the assassination photos and films, maybe then you would recognize a reversed frame when you see it
instead of me having to explain it to you like you were a 10-year old.
And STOP "Bumping the post, just to send it to the top of the forum page"
-
Only a moron like you would need a disclaimer to tell them that the Zapruder crop had been reversed.
you need to get out more, and do some actual photographic research.
Study the assassination photos and films, maybe then you would recognize a reversed frame when you see it
instead of me having to explain it to you like you were a 10-year old.
And STOP "Bumping the post, just to send it to the top of the forum page"
Stop being crabby. What I Know has nothing to do with the Altering of JFK Assassination Images. Attaching a *Disclaimer* to a Photo YOU have altered takes care of a possible current problem as well as one that may arise down the road.
-
Thank you for Confirming that there is No Hat atop the man's head in the Croft photo. There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein. I do Not see any trace of anything resembling the Contrasting Wide/DARK Band we see in the Altgens Photo. This consistently Uniform circular shape from its' top all the way down to its' bottom = this being a Solid Object. This is Not the Hat we see in the Altgens Photo.
Give it up, Storing. It is the same man in all three images. Croft, then Towner film, the Altgens all three show the same man in the light colored jacket with glasses/sunglasses. Two of them show him with the hat on, Towner and Altgens, Croft shows him with the hat in his hand. You can call it whatever you want, but it's his hat. A man across the street from him tipped his black hat as the president passed by. He is standing on the south side of Elm Street across from the TSBD, so apparently, men did this in honor of the president and first lady in Dallas. The proof that it is the same man is the fact the the two women standing at the curb are in line with the hat man and his partner in dark clothing seated to his right in all three images. What in the world would anyone want to mess with the people in the Altgens picture, Storing? They have absolutely no bearing on anything regarding the shooting. And their is no controversy over Lovelady being in Altgens' photograph. Only a fool believes that isn't Lovelady on the steps of the TSBD. There is solid proof that the man in the Towner fame and the man in the Croft photo and the man in Altgens 6 all are the same. Any photographic expert will tell you this. You have done so much damage to this tragic event by making up silly, outrageous theories about people in the photos and films, and the photos and films themselves, it's sickening. You are going to have to do a lot better than this to convince people that hat man isn't the same man in all three photos. You are basing your conclusion on his hat, alone. The white jacket, the glasses, the man dressed in dark clothing seated to his right in the same position in all three images, his arm extended in a wave are just three things that prove its the same man. There is no reason under the sun why anyone would have any reason to "alter" his position in the Altgens photo because he isn't pertinent to the photograph.
You are a total waste of time.
-
Thanks for taking the time to find that, Chris...... I knew that Hargis had said that he was stuck on his helmet by "something" solid....
The fact that he was hit hard enough to consider that he might have been 'hit' is interesting because he rode into the plume of blood about 12 frames after the head shot. Nothing in that plume could be moving fast enough for him to think he was shot because any fragment traveling fast enough to do that would have travelled onto the grass area before Hargis arrived there 12 frames later. Anything in that plume that took 12 frames to travel about 8 feet would have to be going under 10 miles an hour. At 10 mph he would not think he was 'Hit'.
To strike him hard enough it would have to be going much faster and would have hit him by frame 316 which would puts the fragments speed at 30 to 40 mph. But the interesting take away is Hargis was way back by the rear bumper around 317. So the fragment would have travelled back to the rear moving almost directly East. Oswald's position was only about 45 degrees away from the direction of the fragment that hit Hargis.
The fragments we see shooting up from JFK in 313 and 314 are moving at about 5 feet per frame. If whatever hit Hargis was moving at the same speed it would have hit him at frame 316.
So whatever hit Hargis must have struck him when he was back by the rear bumper and it shows that debris flew to the rear at a very steep angle when compared to Oswald's location. I wonder if the debris that Brehm saw land by the curb "Near me" may have been whatever bounced of Hargis's helmet.
I would like to point out a few things to the skeptics before they weigh in. Brem DID say something from JFK's head did fly off and land near him. That is his actual statements. He was not sure if it was bone or what it was but he was sure it flew off JFK and landed near him. Second the plume did not move backwards at all when you compare it to the grass in the background So Hargis took 12 frames to reach the plume.
I wanted to add those facts because when it comes to the hole in the back of his head there are more blatant lies told than any other issue I know of.
As an example the poster John Myton posted showing all those witness' who supposedly said they saw a holes on top of his head is so wrong it is actually propaganda. They point out that some of those witness later deferred to the WC. That does not mean they had a 'come to god' moment and realized that they actually saw a hole on top not behind. They simply trusted our government that the autopsy photos were real and so they must be wrong. They deferred but it was based on the blind trust that we had for our government back then.
Some of the witness like John Newman said they saw blood on the side of JFK's head but they did NOT say they saw a hole on top of his head. john Newman actually pointed to the forehead and said the president was shot in the head. That explains the blood on the side of his head. The blatant misrepresentations made in that poster should be noted by anyone trying to decide if there was a cover up. They should also google "Posner liar" because some researchers have compared his statements regarding the hole the Parkland Dr's saw against their actual statements and taped interviews. when you make that comparison you will have some major question about integrity and which side is telling the lies. There are so many provable lies regarding the Parkland Dr's that it is pretty convincing evidence that there is still a cover up going on today.
Changing the subject a bit, here is a 30 second video of Hargis telling some folks that the limo came almost to a complete stop. It is interesting to note that he prefaced his comment by saying "This is not to be shown publicly". Lastly I want to mention that when someone makes a good case against the skeptics they often give rebuttals that do not directly address the issue but act as if they are addressing the statements made. That is something that anyone trying to find the truth should watch closely. The skeptics also cherry pick testimony. Many of the witness' gave statements that day and Sunday and months later. The skeptics often claim they never said that and then post one of the statements in which they did not specify all the same observations.
I will not always address these types of rebuttals so I hope anyone trying to determine if I lie or if my information is wrong, that they will take into account what I have explained regarding the lies and misrepresentation made by some skeptics. If anyone is trying to figure out which side is lying you may need to look up the actual witness statements(All of them from each witness) it is best to take an evening or 3 and read what was actually said. Otherwise it is easy to fall victim to misleading statements and full on lies.
-
Give it up, Storing. It is the same man in all three images. Croft, then Towner film, the Altgens all three show the same man in the light colored jacket with glasses/sunglasses. Two of them show him with the hat on, Towner and Altgens, Croft shows him with the hat in his hand. You can call it whatever you want, but it's his hat. A man across the street from him tipped his black hat as the president passed by. He is standing on the south side of Elm Street across from the TSBD, so apparently, men did this in honor of the president and first lady in Dallas. The proof that it is the same man is the fact the the two women standing at the curb are in line with the hat man and his partner in dark clothing seated to his right in all three images. What in the world would anyone want to mess with the people in the Altgens picture, Storing? They have absolutely no bearing on anything regarding the shooting. And their is no controversy over Lovelady being in Altgens' photograph. Only a fool believes that isn't Lovelady on the steps of the TSBD. There is solid proof that the man in the Towner fame and the man in the Croft photo and the man in Altgens 6 all are the same. Any photographic expert will tell you this. You have done so much damage to this tragic event by making up silly, outrageous theories about people in the photos and films, and the photos and films themselves, it's sickening. You are going to have to do a lot better than this to convince people that hat man isn't the same man in all three photos. You are basing your conclusion on his hat, alone. The white jacket, the glasses, the man dressed in dark clothing seated to his right in the same position in all three images, his arm extended in a wave are just three things that prove its the same man. There is no reason under the sun why anyone would have any reason to "alter" his position in the Altgens photo because he isn't pertinent to the photograph.
You are a total waste of time.
Anybody, Repeat Anybody, looking at the Croft Photo KNOWS they are Not looking at a Hat in that guy's (R) hand. That area that the Hat Man is alleged to be positioned in is Important because: (1) It's Only a stones throw from the alleged Lovelady position on the TSBD steps, (2) It's the same general area that is MIA on the CURRENT Z Film = the Limo turning from Houston onto Elm St, and (3) It is the general area of the Triangle/Island/Elm St Annex referenced by Couch in his WC testimony of an 8"-10" Blood Pool. The Hat Man + That Area of Dealey Plaza remain very important. This is why this case remains unsolved after 54+ years. The Attention to DETAIL Was/Is Lacking.
-
Anybody, Repeat Anybody, looking at the Croft Photo KNOWS they are Not looking at a Hat in that guy's (R) hand. That area that the Hat Man is alleged to be positioned in is Important because: (1) It's Only a stones throw from the alleged Lovelady position on the TSBD steps, (2) It's the same general area that is MIA on the CURRENT Z Film = the Limo turning from Houston onto Elm St, and (3) It is the general area of the Triangle/Island/Elm St Annex referenced by Couch in his WC testimony of an 8"-10" Blood Pool. The Hat Man + That Area of Dealey Plaza remain very important. This is why this case remains unsolved after 54+ years. The Attention to DETAIL Was/Is Lacking.
Anybody who lacks common sense. You just go ahead with your fantasy, Roy. Its what keeps you going and it's all you've got to live for.
-
If anyone's suggesting that Altgens 6 has been altered, then has to explain how it was done so quick before it ended up on the front page of Newspapers on the same day?
Lucky the following newspaper was bright enough to edit out Levitating man, or did someone else edit him in later and why, curious minds would like to know!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jtEUVdbziqA/VVM28imcQxI/AAAAAAAAbtQ/TZgz-1RdMns/s1600/Altgens-11-22-63-Birmingham.jpg)
And here's the "Levitating man" in Croft and he appears to be waving something that looks to be about the size of his head, maybe a hat or something?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMhF7DFC/man-on-wall-croft-jfk.jpg)
JohnM
-
If anyone's suggesting that Altgens 6 has been altered, then has to explain how it was done so quick before it ended up on the front page of Newspapers on the same day?
Lucky the following newspaper was bright enough to edit out Levitating man, or did someone else edit him in later and why, curious minds would like to know!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jtEUVdbziqA/VVM28imcQxI/AAAAAAAAbtQ/TZgz-1RdMns/s1600/Altgens-11-22-63-Birmingham.jpg)
And here's the "Levitating man" in Croft and he appears to be waving something that looks to be about the size of his head, maybe a hat or something?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMhF7DFC/man-on-wall-croft-jfk.jpg)
JohnM
Are you referring to the man in the Light Colored Shirt? If so, you are probably getting confused by the shadow.
-
The shape of the Object in the (R) Hand of the man wearing the Light Colored Shirt in No Way resembles any kind of hat imaginable. Whatever he is Holding in his (R) hand is Uniformly Cylindrical from its' Top all the way down to its' Bottom. This is Not the same man we are seeing on the Altgens Photo who is wearing a Light colored hat contrasted by a DARK/WIDE Band.
-
The shape of the Object in the (R) Hand of the man wearing the Light Colored Shirt in No Way resembles any kind of hat imaginable. Whatever he is Holding in his (R) hand is Uniformly Cylindrical from its' Top all the way down to its' Bottom. This is Not the same man we are seeing on the Altgens Photo who is wearing a Light colored hat contrasted by a DARK/WIDE Band.
I agree, Royell..... It does in fact look like a beer stein .....I'm wondering if it's a stein from Ireland that JFK might recognize?.....
-
I agree, Royell..... It does in fact look like a beer stein .....I'm wondering if it's a stein from Ireland that JFK might recognize?.....
What do steins have to do with Ireland Walt?
-
What do steins have to do with Ireland Walt?
Not sure...But I believe some Families had a Family crest ...and some were emblazoned on their tankards....
-
The shape of the Object in the (R) Hand of the man wearing the Light Colored Shirt in No Way resembles any kind of hat imaginable. Whatever he is Holding in his (R) hand is Uniformly Cylindrical from its' Top all the way down to its' Bottom. This is Not the same man we are seeing on the Altgens Photo who is wearing a Light colored hat contrasted by a DARK/WIDE Band.
It's amazing how flexible you are, first of all the man in the white shirt was levitating then when it was pointed out that the man was sitting against a wall above the people lining the street, out comes the next "observation". Rinse wash repeat.
The man in both photos is heavy set, appears old, is wearing a white shirt, is above the people lining the street, is sitting towards the end of the wall and has nobody sitting to his left, which can only lead to the man being the same person and if your best evidence is he ain't wearing a hat then you got nothing.
Even if the object isn't his hat and since you are reduced to speculating, it was lunch time and it could indeed be a stein of beer which he is raising with his right hand and as the President is driving by the older honorable gentleman simply showed respect by removing his hat with his left hand. Now, isn't this scenario more logical than Altgens taking his photo to the alteration lab and having it checked and for some reason they new what to alter, did it real good and did it real quick, then immediately the image was wired across America for Newspapers that very same day, are you sure this is what you think happened? :P
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jtEUVdbziqA/VVM28imcQxI/AAAAAAAAbtQ/TZgz-1RdMns/s1600/Altgens-11-22-63-Birmingham.jpg)
JohnM
-
It's amazing how flexible you are, first of all the man in the white shirt was levitating then when it was pointed out that the man was sitting against a wall above the people lining the street, out comes the next "observation". Rinse wash repeat.
The man in both photos is heavy set, appears old, is wearing a white shirt, is above the people lining the street, is sitting towards the end of the wall and has nobody sitting to his left, which can only lead to the man being the same person and if your best evidence is he ain't wearing a hat then you got nothing.
Even if the object isn't his hat and since you are reduced to speculating, it was lunch time and it could indeed be a stein of beer which he is raising with his right hand and as the President is driving by the older honorable gentleman simply showed respect by removing his hat with his left hand. Now, isn't this scenario more logical than Altgens taking his photo to the alteration lab and having it checked and for some reason they new what to alter, did it real good and did it real quick, then immediately the image was wired across America for Newspapers that very same day, are you sure this is what you think happened? :P
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jtEUVdbziqA/VVM28imcQxI/AAAAAAAAbtQ/TZgz-1RdMns/s1600/Altgens-11-22-63-Birmingham.jpg)
JohnM
Thanks for AGREEING that we are NOT seeing a Hat in the man's (R) hand on the Croft Photo. That claim is ludicrous. I Never said the gent in Altgens was "levitating" or anything like that. Also, the man under discussion in the Croft Photo is NOT wearing a White shirt as YOU are Claiming. The people we see below him ARE wearing White and the contrast between the color of their attire vs his shirt color is Striking. The CONTRASTING Wide/Black hat band we see on the Altgens Photo should be noticeable if the guy on Croft had removed that same hat and was waving it at JFK. A Contrasting Wide/Black Hat Band is Completely MIA on the Croft Photo. My claim was and continues to be that we once again have something hinkey going on in the Altgens Photo. (1) Lovelady ID ? , (2) Officer Chaney Placement, (3) Altgens adamantly disputing with the WC his physical position on Elm St. when he snapped the photo, and (4) Hat Man appearing in the Upper (L) portion of the photo on the Rare Occasion the photo is displayed UNCROPPED. Something is definitely Not Right with the Altgens photo. JFK Assassination Photos & Films which are engulfed by Un-Explainable/Contrasting/or Missing Images are in abundance throughout this case.
-
Thanks for AGREEING that we are NOT seeing a Hat in the man's (R) hand on the Croft Photo. That claim is ludicrous. I Never said the gent in Altgens was "levitating" or anything like that. Also, the man under discussion in the Croft Photo is NOT wearing a White shirt as YOU are Claiming. The people we see below him ARE wearing White and the contrast between the color of their attire vs his shirt color is Striking. The CONTRASTING Wide/Black hat band we see on the Altgens Photo should be noticeable if the guy on Croft had removed that same hat and was waving it at JFK. A Contrasting Wide/Black Hat Band is Completely MIA on the Croft Photo. My claim was and continues to be that we once again have something hinkey going on in the Altgens Photo. (1) Lovelady ID ? , (2) Officer Chaney Placement, (3) Altgens adamantly disputing with the WC his physical position on Elm St. when he snapped the photo, and (4) Hat Man appearing in the Upper (L) portion of the photo on the Rare Occasion the photo is displayed UNCROPPED. Something is definitely Not Right with the Altgens photo. JFK Assassination Photos & Films which are engulfed by Un-Explainable/Contrasting/or Missing Images are in abundance throughout this case.
Wow so many words saying so little and as usual you can't prove your claim.
Btw whatever happened to the Zapruder film being altered because it doesn't match Altgens 6?, do you think every image from Dealey Plaza has been altered?
JohnM
-
Wow so many words saying so little and as usual you can't prove your claim.
Btw whatever happened to the Zapruder film being altered because it doesn't match Altgens 6?, do you think every image from Dealey Plaza been altered?
JohnM
JohnM
Once again, You are attributing a claim to me that I Never made. I Never said the Current Z Film was altered because it did not match Altgens 6. And "NO" I do Not believe EVERY Image from Dealey Plaza has been altered, though I doubt you will remember my answering your question. Are You NOW agreeing with Me that the gent under discussion in the Croft Photo is NOT wearing a white shirt as YOU previously claimed?
-
Once again, You are attributing a claim to me that I Never made. I Never said the Current Z Film was altered because it did not match Altgens 6. And "NO" I do Not believe EVERY Image from Dealey Plaza has been altered. Though I doubt you will remember my answering your question. Are You NOW agreeing with Me that the gent under discussion in the Croft Photo is NOT wearing a white shirt as YOU previously claimed?
Why do YOU keep poStiNg WOrDS to PROVE the proBLems YOu see IN the imAges?
JohnM
-
Why do YOU keep poStiNg WOrDS to PROVE the proBLems YOu see IN the imAges?
JohnM
Try familiarizing yourself with Evelyn Wood.
-
Try familiarizing yourself with Evelyn Wood.
What has Evelyn Wood got to do with image analysis?
JohnM
-
What has Evelyn Wood got to do with image analysis?
JohnM
You mention "Image Analysis" while also Running Away from Your previous Erroneous Claim of the gent in the Croft Photo wearing a WHITE Shirt. Both Funny and Sad simultaneously. When do we get another one of your Cartoon Visual Aids to support that "Image Analysis" defying claim?
-
You mention "Image Analysis" while also Running Away from Your previous Erroneous Claim of the gent in the Croft Photo wearing a WHITE Shirt. Both Funny and Sad simultaneously. When do we get another one of your Cartoon Visual Aids to support that "Image Analysis" defying claim?
You mention "Image Analysis" while also Running Away from Your previous Erroneous Claim of the gent in the Croft Photo wearing a WHITE Shirt.
I really don't care what you think you see, the same man is wearing the same shirt. Try again.
Both Funny and Sad simultaneously
No wonder you're so mixed up, you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha!
When do we get another one of your Cartoon Visual Aids to support that "Image Analysis" defying claim?
The whole point is to use images to prove the authenticity of images, that's why you lose.
JohnM
-
I really don't care what you think you see, the same man is wearing the same shirt. Try again.
No wonder you're so mixed up, you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha!
The whole point is to use images to prove the authenticity of images, that's why you lose.
JohnM
I'm not sure the Man in Croft is "Hat Man".....What ever the man is holding up toward JFK it does NOT look like a hat....And the man's posture suggests that he is holding something that is not a hat.... He would probably be waving his hat over his head.....
-
I'm not sure the Man in Croft is "Hat Man".....What ever the man is holding up toward JFK it does NOT look like a hat....And the man's posture suggests that he is holding something that is not a hat.... He would probably be waving his hat over his head.....
The entire alteration argument revolves around the man's hat and if the photos were taken simultaneously then this would indeed be odd but the photos were not taken simultaneously.
JohnM
-
I really don't care what you think you see, the same man is wearing the same shirt. Try again.
No wonder you're so mixed up, you don't know if you're Arthur or Martha!
The whole point is to use images to prove the authenticity of images, that's why you lose.
JohnM
You clearly stated that the Croft Photo displayed the man to be wearing a WHITE Shirt. Just admit Your so called Image Analysis was Wrong. The people situated below this man are wearing White. This guy's shirt in No Way is the same color as their attire. If you suffer from some form of Color Blindness please admit such and this Forum will take this affliction into consideration with any Image Analysis you have previously submitted or might proffer in the future.
-
Willis 5
(Right to left) lady in the blue dress, then Millican etc:
(https://i.imgur.com/yd7tMgN.jpg)
It appears to be the barely visible face of BlueCoatLady Image, next to the taller KarenWestbrook Image's left, in the space between SSSA JackReady Image's right shoulder and SSSA PaulLandis Image's left shoulder, both of whom are on the SS Limo passenger side RunningBoard.
-
Page after page of Storing trying to sell his Altgens 6 was Altered "Urban Myth" Garbage.
Enough already, nobody is buying your latest "man in the hat" Urban Myth.
It's idiots like you that give JFK Researchers a bad name.
-
Page after page of Storing trying to sell his Altgens 6 was Altered "Urban Myth" Garbage.
Enough already, nobody is buying your latest "man in the hat" Urban Myth.
It's idiots like you that give JFK Researchers a bad name.
Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
The Old Guard and Prospective Wannabees circling the wagons = Nothing New. Until someone can display a Hat being attached/connected to the man in the Croft Photo, there is no getting around there being a Problem with the Conflicting Altgens & Croft Photo Images. Simple Denial will Not resolve what Everyone can see on these 2 photo images. A Hat being clearly atop the head of an individual in 1 photo image vs NO Hat Anywhere with respect to the alleged same individual in the other photo image. No Hat what-so-ever = 2 different individuals.
-
The Old Guard and Prospective Wannabees circling the wagons = Nothing New. Until someone can display a Hat being attached/connected to the man in the Croft Photo, there is no getting around there being a Problem with the Conflicting Altgens & Croft Photo Images. Simple Denial will Not resolve what Everyone can see on these 2 photo images. A Hat being clearly atop the head of an individual in 1 photo image vs NO Hat Anywhere with respect to the alleged same individual in the other photo image. No Hat what-so-ever = 2 different individuals.
Save it, Roy. You are a clown. No one except the other clown, Cakebread, is supporting your ridiculous claims. You have been badly beaten up in this thread, so stop blaming it on what you refer to as "the old guard".
Simply put...you will never be taken seriously because you get your pants pulled down and spanked until your cheeks are a bright rosy red.
Like Robin Unger said. "It's idiots like you that give JFK Researchers a bad name".
-
Save it, Roy. You are a clown. No one except the other clown, Cakebread, is supporting your ridiculous claims. You have been badly beaten up in this thread, so stop blaming it on what you refer to as "the old guard".
Simply put...you will never be taken seriously because you get your pants pulled down and spanked until your cheeks are a bright rosy red.
Like Robin Unger said. "It's idiots like you that give JFK Researchers a bad name".
When people are in a frenzy and resort to name calling, the Issue at hand is obviously one they can Not refute. I am Not making any "claim". I am simply saying to Look with your own eyes at the 2 Conflicting JFK Assassination Photo Images = Altgens vs Croft. Some of You want to swear by All the JFK Assassination Images. That is, until you don't. Then the refrain is, "Pay No Attention to the man behind the curtain". Basically, then we are told to Not Believe what we are Seeing on JFK Assassination Images. You Live by the sword, You will die by the sword. This is what has transpired during the discussion of these 2 Conflicting Images.
-
When people are in a frenzy and resort to name calling, the Issue at hand is obviously one they can Not refute. I am Not making any "claim". I am simply saying to Look with your own eyes at the 2 Conflicting JFK Assassination Photo Images = Altgens vs Croft. Some of You want to swear by All the JFK Assassination Images. That is, until you don't. Then the refrain is, "Pay No Attention to the man behind the curtain". Basically, then we are told to Not Believe what we are Seeing on JFK Assassination Images. You Live by the sword, You will die by the sword. This is what has transpired during the discussion of these 2 Conflicting Images.
I'm merely expressing my opinion about what I see.... ( The man doesn't appear to be the same man and I don't believe he's holding a hat in his hand ) I have no theory or clue about the controversy ..... But I guess expressing an opinion makes me a "clown"
-
When people are in a frenzy and resort to name calling, the Issue at hand is obviously one they can Not refute. I am Not making any "claim". I am simply saying to Look with your own eyes at the 2 Conflicting JFK Assassination Photo Images = Altgens vs Croft. Some of You want to swear by All the JFK Assassination Images. That is, until you don't. Then the refrain is, "Pay No Attention to the man behind the curtain". Basically, then we are told to Not Believe what we are Seeing on JFK Assassination Images. You Live by the sword, You will die by the sword. This is what has transpired during the discussion of these 2 Conflicting Images.
Like I said, Roy, you are a clown. It's why no one takes you seriously in this forum, except a few die hard conspiracy buffs. Live in your little fantasy world, spreading your tripe and lies and get your butt spanked rosy red continually. I think you enjoy it.
-
Like I said, Roy, you are a clown. It's why no one takes you seriously in this forum, except a few die hard conspiracy buffs. Live in your little fantasy world, spreading your tripe and lies and get your butt spanked rosy red continually. I think you enjoy it.
This is the type of rebuttal you get when the Old Guard has absolutely no evidence based refutation. Name calling and denigration with the intention of starting a food fight rather than addressing the issue at hand. The Photos are what they are. Proof that we are seeing 2 different individuals.
-
This is the type of rebuttal you get when the Old Guard has absolutely no evidence based refutation. Name calling and denigration with the intention of starting a food fight rather than addressing the issue at hand. The Photos are what they are. Proof that we are seeing 2 different individuals.
Correction. That was the type of response you get when I know that someone is a full fledged clown, trying to palm off little fantasy-land conspiracy theories that make absolutely no sense. You are nothing but a clown, Storing. I'm not trying to "start a fight", I am calling it what it is and you what you are, based upon the things you post in this forum. You can believe what you say is "proof" until the world ends, but at the end of the day, all you are doing is saying it over and over and over, which means nothing and proves nothing but that you are a clown.
-
Correction. That was the type of response you get when I know that someone is a full fledged clown, trying to palm off little fantasy-land conspiracy theories that make absolutely no sense. You are nothing but a clown, Storing. I'm not trying to "start a fight", I am calling it what it is and you what you are, based upon the things you post in this forum. You can believe what you say is "proof" until the world ends, but at the end of the day, all you are doing is saying it over and over and over, which means nothing and proves nothing but that you are a clown.
The Evidence: (1) Croft Photo of a man Not wearing a hat and there being No Hat pictured anywhere within his possession. (2) Altgens Photo of a man wearing a Lightly Colored Hat with a Contrasting Wide/Dark Band. This is Evidence which Proves these are 2 Different Men. Your "evidence" consists of Only conjecture, speculation, and supposition with the usual defamatory rhetoric tossed in to muddle the issue. You're better than this.
-
The Evidence: (1) Croft Photo of a man Not wearing a hat and there being No Hat pictured anywhere within his possession. (2) Altgens Photo of a man wearing a Lightly Colored Hat with a Contrasting Wide/Dark Band. This is Evidence which Proves these are 2 Different Men. Your "evidence" consists of Only conjecture, speculation, and supposition with the usual defamatory rhetoric tossed in to muddle the issue. You're better than this.
You're better than this.
That's my feeling about several of the posters who have responded to this thread....I've always respected Robin as being one of the more open minded members of this forum..... So I'm disappointed to see him wallowing in the gutter...
-
You're better than this.
That's my feeling about several of the posters who have responded to this thread....I've always respected Robin as being one of the more open minded members of this forum..... So I'm disappointed to see him wallowing in the gutter...
He's open minded until the Old Guard leans on him. Then he Immediately does a 180. This has happened several times over on the Film side of the forum. Some people simply do Not have what it takes to stand their ground. This is why Trump irks a lot of people. On a daily basis he displays what they lack but desperately wish they had.