A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[Robin Unger]

That Day In Dallas Scan Cropped

[Martin Hinrichs]

Uh Martin,

You seem a little defensive here. All I did was ask for your numbers and maybe a little demo, not a 3D replica of of the entire assassination.

I asked, in part, because of exactly what you quoted from me "There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart."

So I'd like to know what numbers you used because - maybe I made a mistake!

Jerry, i don't know what makes you feel that i'am defensive here.

All along this thread i stated every time the same.

I come to the conclusion.........nothing more nothing less. Please go to the thread again.

I have the impression i've been used as a pinball-ball here.

I appreciate that you are highly experienced and qualified in 3D work.

Dale Myers has also had lots of experience and is highly qualified in 3D work.

I don't think many people on this Forum are willing to accept his conclusions just because he offers them.

Thank you Jerry.

About Dale, well it's been proven he was dishonest with his work on the SBT.

I've spent 30 years trying cases where highly experienced and qualified experts appear for both sides and state completely different findings.

The only way to sort things out is for the experts to explain and show their work.

I agree, and thats the reason why i will accomplish this work.

To present work in Beta status can be of such great help too, but unfortunately here are people with a stalker behaviour to

attacking work even with less knowledge but a big mouth.

Thats why i don't post work in beta Status anymore even if it would be helpful.

I'm just a lawyer playing with cameras - I'd never be admitted as an expert photo witness in any court in America.

So it would be cool if you were willing to help us out with a real, professional demonstration - but it's OK if you don't.

As i said, i will do Jerry. I'am not retired and have to take care of my company and my time is limited.

Some people see it otherwise.

They think i should work just for them. (Sometimes i felt like i'am back in the army) and ordering special work from me in a pestering manner to follow their request and timelines. (not you)

best to you

Martin

[Robin Unger]

Alt 7 reversed.

[Robin Unger]

QUOTE:

I have the impression i've been used as a pinball-ball here.

I seem to get the same impression Martin.

It seems all sides wan't you to work for them.

Your business must come first, that's what pays the bills.

Robin.

[Bernice Moore]

QUOTE:

I have the impression i've been used as a pinball-ball here.

I seem to get the same impression Martin.

It seems all sides wan't you to work for them.

Your business must come first, that's what pays the bills.

Robin.

Right on Robin....Martin you do what and when you feel like doing for whomever, or do nothing... you should not be made to feel any pressure of any kind..if so then you alone know how to take care of it and however your decide....there are some no matter what you do or find for them and present them with it is never enough...ever they seem to think you and others are at their disposal...why i have no idea because if they knew as much as they think they know in the first place they would have no need to ask ever....but there are times when i think perhaps this is done to tire others out to the point they back off and pack it up...if that ever happens that is the individuals choice only,,,,,,.You have been so generous so careful with your time and work and so very open and honest that this should never have been implied in anyway and never have happened...imo...as robin suggests look after your own business and backyard first do not feel like a ping pong..ball for any or anything...it's not worth it..the stress .and neither are they ..whomever.... take care b

Edited February 26, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Analysis of Croft woman 8.

More absurdities from Jack White.

What's your seeming fascination with witnesses in blurry, pixilated enlargments holding babies in their arms?

[William Plumlee]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design.

[Jack White]

Martin has demonstrated that he is a 3D COMPUTER EXPERT. He confirms what most eyes can see.

The spiral nebula in Altgens is on the windshield, not something way in the background. And no part

of it is JFK's ear.

Many arrogantly ask experts for proof without realizing the hours of work involved in making a

graphics presentation. Instead, they ought to provide their OWN research.

Jack

[Jack White]

Uh Martin,

You seem a little defensive here. All I did was ask for your numbers and maybe a little demo, not a 3D replica of of the entire assassination.

I asked, in part, because of exactly what you quoted from me "There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart."

So I'd like to know what numbers you used because - maybe I made a mistake!

Jerry, i don't know what makes you feel that i'am defensive here.

All along this thread i stated every time the same.

I come to the conclusion.........nothing more nothing less. Please go to the thread again.

I have the impression i've been used as a pinball-ball here.

I appreciate that you are highly experienced and qualified in 3D work.

Dale Myers has also had lots of experience and is highly qualified in 3D work.

I don't think many people on this Forum are willing to accept his conclusions just because he offers them.

Thank you Jerry.

About Dale, well it's been proven he was dishonest with his work on the SBT.

I've spent 30 years trying cases where highly experienced and qualified experts appear for both sides and state completely different findings.

The only way to sort things out is for the experts to explain and show their work.

I agree, and thats the reason why i will accomplish this work.

To present work in Beta status can be of such great help too, but unfortunately here are people with a stalker behaviour to

attacking work even with less knowledge but a big mouth.

Thats why i don't post work in beta Status anymore even if it would be helpful.

I'm just a lawyer playing with cameras - I'd never be admitted as an expert photo witness in any court in America.

So it would be cool if you were willing to help us out with a real, professional demonstration - but it's OK if you don't.

As i said, i will do Jerry. I'am not retired and have to take care of my company and my time is limited.

Some people see it otherwise.

They think i should work just for them. (Sometimes i felt like i'am back in the army) and ordering special work from me in a pestering manner to follow their request and timelines. (not you)

best to you

Martin

Bravo, Martin!

Jack

[Jack White]

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

It appears to me someone are/is not really paying attention.

All the answers are there.

Josiah, just in case you've missed posting #98 here again for you:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Josiah

I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6.

I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed.

Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning.

I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better

understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me.

It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join.

The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end.

Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background.

Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here.

As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this.

Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket.

But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6.

Lady 8 is the one under inspection.

I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6.

Please test it by your own if possible with photographs.

It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood.

We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna.

Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6.

We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center.

How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way?

A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft.

Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides.

Thats the next part on my tasklist.

You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved.

And the discussion of it has not ended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

Ok, Josiah show you study. Enlight us. I'll be willing to judge it with an open mind whatever it is.

But please not just claims.

By the way, i'am 3D expert since 1992 and experienced in the photographic field. And yes, i'am impartial.

The only rule i follow is the truth.

Martin

I think I have discovered a serious discrepancy between two versions of Altgens being used. It appears to

be retouching in the vicinity of the spiral nebula. If my observation is correct, I will post the two images

side by side for comments.

I appreciate Martin saying the only rule he follows IS THE TRUTH.

Jak

[Jerry Logan]

Martin has demonstrated that he is a 3D COMPUTER EXPERT. He confirms what most eyes can see.

The spiral nebula in Altgens is on the windshield, not something way in the background. And no part

of it is JFK's ear.

Many arrogantly ask experts for proof without realizing the hours of work involved in making a

graphics presentation. Instead, they ought to provide their OWN research.

Jack

Jack,

This is going to be an interesting sociological experiment as well as a test of character.

We're all going to be watching very carefully when Martin, the 3D COMPUTER EXPERT, tells you what he thinks about the Zapruder film.

Jerry

[Jack White]

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

It appears to me someone are/is not really paying attention.

All the answers are there.

Josiah, just in case you've missed posting #98 here again for you:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Josiah

I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6.

I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed.

Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning.

I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better

understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me.

It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join.

The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end.

Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background.

Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here.

As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this.

Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket.

But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6.

Lady 8 is the one under inspection.

I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6.

Please test it by your own if possible with photographs.

It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood.

We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna.

Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6.

We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center.

How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way?

A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft.

Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides.

Thats the next part on my tasklist.

You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved.

And the discussion of it has not ended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

Ok, Josiah show you study. Enlight us. I'll be willing to judge it with an open mind whatever it is.

But please not just claims.

By the way, i'am 3D expert since 1992 and experienced in the photographic field. And yes, i'am impartial.

The only rule i follow is the truth.

Martin

I think I have discovered a serious discrepancy between two versions of Altgens being used. It appears to

be retouching in the vicinity of the spiral nebula. If my observation is correct, I will post the two images

side by side for comments.

I appreciate Martin saying the only rule he follows IS THE TRUTH.

Jak

Note the differences in the red boxes. The retouching may be the result of various editors trying

to show JFK's head more clearly.

[Doug Weldon]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design.

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Thank you Bernice and Robin for your support!

Much appreciated. Words like your says me, it's not just a waste of time (as my wife said to me more than once and to quit) to share the research with others.

best to you

Martin

Martin you and Doug and OTHERS keep on keeping on... I know how one can get pulled of track and forced to loose focus on facts and drift into speculations.... what is this thread really about... pro or con? was there a hole?... did a shot miss? What does it all really mean? Was there two shooters, or more, in the Plaza that day? Was there a conspiracy that day? Did JFK change shorts before he left for the plaza? This is an important thread I believe, but I also believe it -- in time will go into oblivion. And that could be by design.

Tosh:

I am beginning to agree with you. I came on to this forum only to address the evidence, information, and the witnesses I have offered to support that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield from the area of the south knoll and the rationale for my response criticizing the article of Thompson, Barb, and Jerry. I have posted some extremely long posts presenting information and asking questions.. It has been a long time since anyone has addressed or responded to those questions. Martin is an expert and has already presented proofs that the windshields in the article by Thompson, Barb, and Jerry are not the same or at the least, has created serious doubts. I did not know Martin so it is not like I was in a court case presenting my expert witness in opposition to someone else's. Jerry is the one who sought out Martin's opinions. I am afraid that no matter what proofs are presented here by Martin that people are going to say it's a dress, a pocket, a purse, or someone trying to rush Kennedy's drycleaning back to him. My participation in this forum was for a limited purpose. if I cannot even elicit responses I am willing to move on and I am sure I will stir criticsm when I finish my book. I came here to support my criticisms and research. I am not going to do so after my book is finished. I knew there would be smart, critical people here. I guess that I can only interpret silence as acquiesence. I am seeing that the position of some is not to be confused with the facts as their mind is already made up. I do not mind a parallel of dealing with these issues but I am not going to let unanswered questions fade into oblivion. I highly criticized the position that there was no hole in the windshield. Where is the defense to my assertions? Tosh, I believe this, in fact, could be by design.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug...you have my full support.

Jack