Altgens 6, a different view

[John Butler]

The Door Way Man and the bullet hole in the windshield will not be discussed.

If Altgens 5 is a fraud then can we expect Altgens 6 to be authentic?  Check out the front tire in this Altgens 5 crop.

This is one of the internet higher resolution images of Altgens 6.

All of this has been argued before in many places by many people.  The subject of Altgens 6 being a cropped photo is old.  I’m just mentioning it here to get to my point on the shadows.

I believe that Algens 6 is a cropped image.  From where Altgens was standing on Elm Street his camera should have shown to the right (photo left) the R L Thornton Freeway sign and the Stemmons Freeway signs.  If this photo is in agreement with Z frame 255  as everyone says then the signs should be behind the presidential limousine.

And, to the left (photo right) should be shown the SW corner of Elm and Houston Street and the various alleged people in the fields also.  I believe this photo was cropped to make the presidential limousine hard to place on Elm Street.  Long ago, I learned in Learning Theory that people learn a route by signs along the way.  There are no signs here.

The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Free Way sign at about Z frame 210.  The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255.  Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299.  Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317.  Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338.

If one frame equals a foot or there abouts (just guessing here, things can be corrected easily), then Ike Altgens is close to 130 Z frames or feet below the Stemmons Free Way sign.  The things mentioned should be visible in this photo.  Another point to make here is if the presidential limousine has not reached the free way signs on Elm Street then the size of the Secret Service Agents is too large and the people in front of the TSBD to small.

Vice-President Johnson’s security details vehicle is very distorted.  However, the people in the crosswalk are not.  They appear normal.  What gives there?

[David Andrews]

What are we meant to be seeing in Altgens 5 above?  (Re: the front tire)

[Brad Milch]

Hi John:

Your topic triggered a flood of memories concerning discussions about Altgens 6 on the original Lancer Forum that I remember following with interest several years ago:

1.  An attempt to disguise Emory Roberts talking on the radio in the Queen Mary by simple black 'smudge' blocking part of his face was detected by some Lancer visuals analysts. The cord of the radio can still be seen in the photo that was released globally the day of the assassination.

2. An attempt to disguise SS Agent Ready holding a pistol was detected by some Lancer readers. They believed his wedding band can still be seen on his finger in the released Altgens 6 photo.

3. Some believe Agent Ready's head is a composite: The upper half is the frontal forehead & hair of someone joined to the bottom half of Ready's head. The tip-off is the hair at the top is brushed back as if in is growing towards the front of Ready's head in the suspected composite Altgens 6. When compared to other photos of Ready, his hair did not grow from the  back of his head towards the front of his head (it was just the opposite). Lancer analysts concluded the photo originally was Ready facing JFK with his pistol drawn. This was changed to make it look like Ready was facing towards his back, Lancer responders believed.

4. Some Lancer analysts interpreted Altgens 6 depicting JFK as bent over, head towards the limo windshield (or Greer) with his left hand bent back as if pointing towards the center of his back. This interpretation agrees with Kellerman's WC testimony. Others interpreted JFK as sprawled across the back seat, head in Jackie's lap with Jacking holding up his limp right arm. Some believed they saw a portion of JFK's shoe in the area generally interpreted to be JFK's face.

5. Some believe the splices in the Z-film were intended to knock out what appeared to some as something visible in Ready's hand just before the splice(s).

It may take those interested to actually visit Dealey Plaza, stand where Altgens was when he took Altgens 6 & take a multitude of photos at different zoom lens settings to fully understand what you are saying about the left side of the photo appearing cropped. In all the photos & film I took when I visited Dealey Plaza (several times over the years), regardless of the highest zoom setting, I always got most of the retaining wall all the way to the east shelter enclosure (Cupola) in the photos. Usually, I also captured most, if not all of the upper floors of the Dal-Tex building.

IIRC from the Lancer discussions, one of Altgens' series of photos Altgens took pre-during-post ambush is missing from the complete set.

Hope this helps the discussion!

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

PS: In the 2016 Lancer Conference interview video of Bill & Gayle Newman posted at 'the Tube', Bill Newman is now saying he thought he saw someone talking on the radio (Roberts) during the shooting. He still believes he saw SS men in the Queen Mary dismount the car & rush up the grassy knoll with rifles in hand (something witnessed by others, one being a news reporter). As usual, neither Newmans were asked if what they witnessed agrees with the Zapruder film, but Bill did mention that he saw the limo briefly stop & rock before speeding off. Neither Newmans smelled gunsmoke anywhere around them.

In the years that have transpired since Lancer was attacked, hacked & destroyed, it has been suggested that the laundry van visible in Altgens 5 & a couple amateur home movies was actually a mobile photo lab that took Altgens film from him & began alteration work before Altgens made it back to his office & supposedly placed the photo on the news wires around 1.PM CST Dallas time Nov 22, 1963. CBS TV did not air the Altgens 6 photo until later the assassination weekend I've been told.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Brad Milch

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Brad Milch said:

CBS TV did not air the Altgens 6 photo until later the assassination weekend I've been told.

FYI....

CBS aired Altgens 6 at 5:31 PM CST on Nov. 22....

http://jfk-archives/2015/12/Altgens-Photo-Shown-On-CBS-TV-11-22-63

Edited January 16, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Brad Milch]

You are correct, David. Sincere thanks for the clarification.

Some might find it odd that CBS TV sat on Altgens 6 for over 4 hours, being as exclusive a photo of the actual ambush that it was.

I remember 1st seeing Altgens 6 in the weekend newspapers in South Carolina; probably Saturday, Nov 23, 1963. When I returned to school (5th grade) on Tuesday, following JFK's funeral, I remember my teacher (Mrs. Rodgers) had several newspapers with prints of Altgens 6. I remember one newspaper identified JFK as slumped across the back seat with Jackie holding up his arm while the others had arrows pointing to JFK's head (supposedly). Little did I suspect at the time that Altgens 6 would be controversial over 53 years later & many, many moons were to pass. Later that week, Mrs. Rodgers would study the Zapruder frames in Life Magazine & ask her students (myself included) if any of us could see JFK's head turned back to look at the TSBD's 'sniper's nest' that the magazine reported was seen in the film. None of us could.

From what I have read on this cold case, Altgens is supposed to have lingered in Dealey Plaza for a short period & then walked, run or obtained a ride back to his office & developed his own photos of the ambush. Supposedly Altgens got Altgens 6 out on the newswires at 1:00 PM CST as per timestamps.

A lot of people believe the timestamps were back dated. Your thoughts, David?

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Brad Milch

[David Von Pein]

Brad,

My thoughts are....

The whole notion that Altgens 6 was faked with lightning speed via a mobile lab disguised as a laundry truck is just one more fantasy theory dreamed up by desperate conspiracists. Nothing more than that. It's ridiculous.

Four years ago, I was arguing about this same topic with a super-kook named Ralph Cinque (who now thinks Oswald was shot by FBI agent James Bookhout instead of by Jack Ruby; that's how far off the deep end that guy has become). Here's part of that 2013 discussion....

 

RALPH CINQUE SAID:

And look at the copy [of the Altgens 6 picture] that they showed [on the
CBS Television Network at 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time]. It was horrible;
about the worst I have ever seen. .... I think they deliberately used a

low resolution image. They wanted you to see what they wanted you to see,
and they certainly didn't want the doorway area standing out.
 

 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More snake oil being peddled by Dr. Cinque. Ralph thinks that a copy of a
picture that was retrieved off of an Associated Press wireservice machine
is going to look as clear and sharp as the original picture. Hilarious.

Re: the fakery that Cinque thinks was done to the Altgens "Doorway Man"
picture:

I'm sure this has been asked before by several people who have made the
futile attempt to engage Ralph Cinque in intelligent conversation, but
I'll ask it again anyway:

Why didn't the photo fakers simply REMOVE Oswald from Jim Altgens'
photograph entirely (versus performing all of this incredibly complicated
copy-and-paste type of fakery that you say they did perform)?

And even WITH the fakery Ralph claims was done, we're still left with a
man in the doorway who looks somewhat like the person the plotters are
trying to frame for President Kennedy's murder--Lee Harvey Oswald. How
dumb is that?

It stands to reason that since Billy Lovelady did resemble Oswald, then
Lovelady would have been one of the LAST individuals on the planet the
photo fakers would have wanted to falsely insert into the Altgens picture.

Why not just leave a blank space where Doorway Man is really standing?
After all, the area behind Doorway Man is very dark in the first place, so
removing the Oswald/Lovelady person entirely would probably have been
quite easy to do (even in 1963). The fake blank/black space would have
merely blended in with the blackness behind Doorway Man in the TSBD's
entranceway.

Or, alternatively, why not insert the fake picture of a black woman? Or
someone who at least didn't look like the person you're trying to convince
people WASN'T in the doorway?

IOW -- Do you have any idea, Ralph, why your plotters and photo
manipulators were so incredibly stupid?

Full discussion:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/R2Wwcn1M3Ds/SprHkZYn3AcJ

Edited January 16, 2017 by David Von Pein

[John Butler]

David Andrews,

The front tire is a composite image.  The last thing I put up on the Marie Muchmore post has information on what I see in Altgens 5.

Rather than go over that again please go to that post and read it and tell me what you think.

[John Butler]

Brad Milch,

Thanks for all that info.  I didn't know any of that stuff.  It's not in the things I am going to post.  I don't feel confident enough to make a reply to you.  Thanks for the info.

[Brad Milch]

Not a problem, John. I put my comments in your thread more or less as an invite to those persons that contributed those original Lancer Forum discussions about Altgens 6 to continue here at EF that which was thwarted by the destruction of the online Lancer Forum by sinister hackers. I found the Lancer discussions interesting enough to follow them for quite a while. I have no doubts EF readers will follow any research concerning Altgens 6 because it was 1st day evidence. The implications that the MSM fed the global public tainted 1st day evidence the day of the assassination gets some people hot under the collar quick, as I recall from the many, varied discussions about that particular photo that I vividly recall reading at Lancer with interest.

For those who feel the necessity to lock horns with David Von Pein, keep in mind that he may be right in what he feels strongly to post about.

I look forward to what direction you take your subject matter in your thread, John. It never hurts to know what others have discussed in the past on any subject within the quagmire known as the JFK assassination (in my humble opinion). I believe the more one discusses this subject, the more one learns (even if they can't always remember where they learned it lol).

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

Edited January 17, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Bill Miller]

I was part of those Lancer discussions and as David Von Pein mentions - there was no time to alter Altgens photographs as they were being developed with an hour of the assassination. That is not to say that Newspapers didn't retouch photos because they did, which has nothing to do with the original film image. Those like Jack White who were always claiming altered images like with the Zapruder film seemed to overlook the processes for how that would have needed to be done. As was demonstrated on the old Lancer forum at the time - film stock has grains that can be seen in the image under high magnification. Those grains are sharp around their edges. To alter a Zapruder frame for instance - an enlargement of the frame would need to be created because an actual 8MM film frame would be so small that it would take a microscope just to see the small area one would want to alter. So a 35MM enlargement would then be made and printed out. 35MM film stock as a different film grain appearance than that of 8MM. Once an image is enlarged ... the film grains would also become slightly out of focus along their edges. Someone would then need to hand paint over the image so to manipulate whatever appearance they were wanting to give to the original image. Once completed - the 35MM image would have to be reduced back to an 8MM size and inserted into the film in place of the original image. Enlarging image lessens clarity - reducing the image back to the smaller size again brings the lack of clarity with it. And expert would easily be able to spot the film grain pattern and clarity difference in that one altered frame compared to the frames both before and after the manipulation. The film grains in the altered image would be fuzzy around their edges with the grains in the prior frames and post frames would be clear and sharp around their edges, And the manipulated alteration itself would have been applied/painted over the original film grains, which also would be detectable under high magnification. So while it is easy to just say an original image must have been altered - the process in attempting it will  show tell-tale signs that the deed has been done.

One last thing I discovered was that the altered image that was created in a lab with artificial light would not match the lighting of the original image that was exposed in natural sunlight. The long and the short of it is that such fakery would be easily spotted by professionals based on certain give-a-ways previously mentioned. So while copies of a photo can be retouched and used in a newspaper or magazine ... altering the original image in 1963 and it being undetectable was another matter.

Zapruder frame comparison - Original image exposed in sunlight Vs the same exposed in artificial light

Edited January 17, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Ron Ecker]

Can someone explain the front tire in Altgens 5? I've certainly never seen one like it.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Can someone explain the front tire in Altgens 5? I've certainly never seen one like it.

 

 

I don't see any mystery at all.  If you cover up the "notch" that I think people are seeing with a piece of paper, the front tire looks identical to the rear tire.  I'm surprised someone hasn't attempted to analyze the reflection in the side of the Continental - that looks a lot more interesting, and I'll bet LHO or Jack Ruby is in there somewhere.

[John Butler]

The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Free Way sign at about Z frame 210.  The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255.  Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299.  Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317.  Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338.

The argument about the 3 shadows in Altgens 6 is also old.  I first ran across this on Greg Burnham’s website in August, 2015.  I didn’t stick around to see how they resolved it.  I was turned off by the shadows and noted those folks weren’t seeing what I was seeing.  It was not important at the time.

Here’s the shadows:

Here’s another discussion of the shadows that will present the matter more fully:

I didn’t know this picture existed at the time but this is what came to my mind about the shadows in August, 2015.

In Elsie Dorman we see human shadows or better representations of human shadows.  In Altgens 6 we see painted objects sloppily done.  The sloppiness of the painted shadows indicates hurriedness.  The shadows are not at the same angle in the photos even though they can’t be more than seconds apart.

The candle flame heads of the shadows can only be painted by a rigger brush or one similar.  A rigger brush is a type of paint brush that has a lot of bristles to hold a lot of paint and it tapers to a fine point.  If you have a steady hand you can paint very fine lines with it or with a little pressure wider lines.  The pointed heads come from lifting the brush slowly as you stop painting or applying the brush gently as you start painting and add more pressure as you progress.

The shadow of Charles Brehm is particularly bad.  I’ve painted thousands of shadows in paintings.  Most were ok, some not.  You can get away with almost anything as long as you point the shadow away from the light source in the right direction.  It’s a cheat in your artwork but, one you usually use to save time.  Besides, people don’t like too much detail in objects.  I have found over the years that you need to leave something for the viewer’s mind to fill in.

The shadows are painted objects.

 

[Ron Ecker]

52 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I don't see any mystery at all.  If you cover up the "notch" that I think people are seeing with a piece of paper, the front tire looks identical to the rear tire. 

What is a notch?

Is it something that hangs down behind the tire (and in that photo looks like tread) and is not part of the tire itself? If so, in that photo wouldn't the notch be scraping the pavement?

 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

What is a notch?

Is it something that hangs down behind the tire (and in that photo looks like tread) and is not part of the tire itself? If so, in that photo wouldn't the notch be scraping the pavement?

 

 

I am no more than a layman looking at this the same way I'd look at a photo of my grandmother, but it certainly appears to me that what we are seeing is a perfectly normal tire together with a shadow from the front bumper or at least the front part of the Continental.  My point is simply that if you eliminate the distracting shadow, the front tire looks exactly like the rear tire.  I realize this is not as much fun as what John is suggesting - but who am I going to believe, John or my lying eyes?