Altgens 6, a different view

[John Butler]

Chris,

None of your shots stretch and distort the background and buildings on east Elm St. as Zapruder's camera supposedly did in Z frame 1.

[Ray Mitcham]

28 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

None of your shots stretch and distort the background and buildings on east Elm St. as Zapruder's camera supposedly did in Z frame 1.

That's because none on the shots of Chris show the East Elm Street buildings at full zoom as Zapruder did.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Bill Miller]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Chris, thanks for the correction.  Yes, it looks like Zapruder had the lens setting on zoom that day and not wide angle. I changed the original post.

Makes sense seeing how he wanted to film the President

[Bill Miller]

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Once again,

Here's an easier choice for you.

All shot from a B/H 414

 

MPI changed the aspect ratio of the frame - I bet if you changed yours, then they would match up really well.

[Chris Davidson]

Or, someone could take the original I posted, and align the sprocket holes and frame and find it's been done.

 

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

That's because none on the shots of Chris show the East Elm Street buildings at full zoom as Zapruder did.

Full zoom.

[David Andrews]

In Altgens 6, is the view of the TSBD and the shadow placing for Jean Hill and Mary Moorman (i.e., the grassplot length on the median between Elm St. and Main) substantially different from the area captured in the Jackie Tindel film, starting at about 1:22 in the clip linked to below?

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/8/title-asc?t:state:flow=90ccb3fb-b485-4fd3-ac8f-95dbf04e2a32

[Brad Milch]

@David:

While you're waiting on a response from photo analysts to your question, may I slip this link to one of the Jim Walker JFK motorcade photos into the topic? I'll explain after the photo link. It ties into your question.

Notice how similar the people in the SS followup car, the back of JFK's head & the motorcycle officer on JFK's side of his parade car look to the Hugh Betzner photo #3 (JFK car & SS followup car just beginning to head down the slope of Elm Street). The subjects almost look identical in both photos, do they not?

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/search@/8/title-asc?t:state:flow=d9f79375-0b7c-4bf6-ae6b-72e4b0c8b319

From my memory, as a frequent lurker to the old JFK Lancer Forum (I could read the posts, but could not comment), the topic of Altgens photo 6 alteration was being discussed about the same time the Lancer Forum was hacked online & destroyed. In that discussion, someone was asking where else other than Dealey Plaza could a photo editor have obtained images to incorporate into Altgens 6?

From memory, the responses varied from 'anywhere in the Dallas motorcade, to images from the Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio motorcades the day prior to the ambush of JFK as well as past motorcades (Tampa, etc.)'. The consensus appeared to be that the images of the key players (JFK, John Connally, Jackie, Clint Hill & his fellow agents, etc. present in Altgens 6 could have been lifted from other images taken at different locations & incorporated into what is known as Altgens photo 6.

As I recall, the discussions were veering into the questions of:

1. Could the Altgens 6 photo have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (assuming a conspiracy to take JFK's life knew in advance where the hit would take place)?

2. Could the Zapruder film have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (as opposed to suspicion of being a tampering victim afterwards)?

3. Was Jack White correct in his belief that ALL JFK attack visuals are fakes or alteration victims? Could those also have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK?

Shortly afterwards, the website was attacked & destroyed (if my memory is correct).

FWIW for the interest of EF readers & visuals analysts actively working on the cold case. If there is a future unexplored area of the JFK assassination, some feel it will be new & different studies of the visual record of the case.

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

Edited February 6, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

In Altgens 6, is the view of the TSBD and the shadow placing for Jean Hill and Mary Moorman (i.e., the grassplot length on the median between Elm St. and Main) substantially different from the area captured in the Jackie Tindel film, starting at about 1:22 in the clip linked to below?

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/8/title-asc?t:state:flow=90ccb3fb-b485-4fd3-ac8f-95dbf04e2a32

David,

Maybe I misunderstand your question.

The clip you link to, at 1:22, was filmed on a different day. Perhaps the day after JFK was shot.

[David Andrews]

Sandy, I know it's a different day, but the perspective is close to Altgens 6, allowing for different focal settings on the still and movie cameras.  I was wondering if Tindel was a useful comparison tool for people who cry foul about the appearance of the front of the TSBD and the shadows on the median strip as seen in Altgens, cited in posts above in this thread.

Brad, let me take some time to consider your points.

Edited February 6, 2017 by David Andrews

[John Butler]

Brad,

From my memory, as a frequent lurker to the old JFK Lancer Forum (I could read the posts, but could not comment), the topic of Altgens photo 6 alteration was being discussed about the same time the Lancer Forum was hacked online & destroyed. In that discussion, someone was asking where else other than Dealey Plaza could a photo editor have obtained images to incorporate into Altgens 6?

From memory, the responses varied from 'anywhere in the Dallas motorcade, to images from the Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio motorcades the day prior to the ambush of JFK as well as past motorcades (Tampa, etc.)'. The consensus appeared to be that the images of the key players (JFK, John Connally, Jackie, Clint Hill & his fellow agents, etc. present in Altgens 6 could have been lifted from other images taken at different locations & incorporated into what is known as Altgens photo 6.

I don't know if this will help with what you are saying but, look at this photo:

I could swear that the reflection in the side of this vehicle is from Love Field.  That looks like an airplane wing.  There is open field in the distance.  This is a photo that is supposedly downtown Dallas.  I think the color version of this is on the Jim Marr's Crossfire book. 

The second point to make with this photo is this is the last time one gets to see the passenger side of the presidential limo until the Zapruder film.  No where on North Main St., nowhere on East Houston St., nowhere at the Elm St. crosswalk, nowhere on the Houston Crosswalk, nowhere in front of the TSBD, nowhere in Mannequin Row, or down towards the Stemmons Freeway sign to we get to see any films or photos from those areas.

Isn't that strange!!  I did a survey of those areas and I think I found about 25 or 30 people with cameras.  I'll have to check my notes for the number. 

Here's my notion.  This is so you will not see any images you might recognize from elsewhere in the Zapruder film.

1. Could the Altgens 6 photo have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (assuming a conspiracy to take JFK's life knew in advance where the hit would take place)?

2. Could the Zapruder film have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK (as opposed to suspicion of being a tampering victim afterwards)?

3. Was Jack White correct in his belief that ALL JFK attack visuals are fakes or alteration victims? Could those also have been created in advance of the actual ambush of JFK?

I think Jack White was correct based on my own experiences looking at things.

This is what I think happened to Hill and Moorman.  They were in Dealey Plaza long enough to be filmed and photographed hundreds of times before the assassination.  The on site assassin planners (hidden as Secret Service agents in the Sheriff's Office ,from Jean Hill testimony about Secret Service agents, chose those two to be markers for location in various films because of their distinct appearance and this was also done for many other things.

I don't really have any real proof but this is logical to me since I don't believe Hill and Moorman were in front of the Grassy Knoll but, at the SW on the SW corner of Elm St. across from the TSBD. 

I also believe that much of the imagery in the presidential limousine post Z frame 133 comes from the Gap prior to Z frame 133.

Edited February 6, 2017 by John Butler

[David Andrews]

John, I see some of the "open field" view you describe.  However, there is film of the limo driving out of Love Field, including the infamous "Why me?" footage or the SS agent ordered off the limo.  If I recall right, the limo was kept in an area secluded from the tarmac crowds.  Do images exist of Jack, Jackie and Connally looking to the left and right, as if acknowledging waving crowds at Love Field?  Or are they excised from Dallas street scenes and added to the limo in the photo above, which shows these behaviors?

I myself have said in past threads that the grass on the Elm/Main median strip seems to go on unfathomably long and without interruption in Zapruder once the camera is focused tight on Kennedy.  I've referred to this as the "sea of green" effect (after the "Yellow Submarine" lyric), and think it is one of the biggest indications of alteration in Zapruder.  And the climactic tight focus on Kennedy - accompanied by a black bar below the limo cockpit - also cuts off the reflection of the north side of Elm Street in the side of the limo, and any possible aberrations such as a motorcycle cop riding past the limo on that side, which has been discussed in past threads.  That is, if, indeed, Elm Street reflections are what is cut off there.

 

[John Butler]

David,

It is certainly not a city scene reflected on the side of the limo.  There is a line of hills in the background. 

It's what photo editors do.  They match the foreground of a picture to the background of another.  Generally, there is no sinister intent.  The idea is to produce a better picture that tells the story (generally innocent) that you want to tell.  In this case the photo says President Kennedy drives through Dallas Streets.  I believe this is a Dallas Morning News photo. 

However, since this involves the day of the assassination it is suspect. 

Most of what we see of the presidential limousine is from the drivers side of the vehicle.  There are photos at Love Field showing the passenger side of the vehicle.

It is illogical to reason that all along the motorcade route people on one side of the vehicle took pictures and people on the other side didn't.

I don't trust anything about the Zapruder film.  I mentioned to some one I thought the film is an "utter fantasy" and I could add "horrid fantasy" to that.  That someone told me well the President did travel through Dealey Plaza and was shot.  He is correct.  But, I question how that happened.  The Zapruder film is not the answer.

This is 2017, roughly 53 years after the assassination, and no one has come up with an answer for the "big event" that satisfies everyone to the point they can agree that so and so is correct.  If people are truly interested in solving the assassination then old thoughts, old concepts, and old tools of analysis should be dropped. Why?  Because they are not working.  Something new should be thought of and tried.  Here's an example.  The LGT theory was torpedoed long ago by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry when he said I never could place Oswald on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand.  If everyone agreed on that then Lee Harvey Oswald walks at a trial and is innocent. 

I added to this with the notion that you can't prove anyone fired a rifle from the 6th floor sniper's nest beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is based on the 7 closest witnesses to the sniper's nest.  5 out of 7 said they heard shots from some location other than the sniper's nest.  So, can you use any theory or data derived from measuring angles of fire from the sniper's nest?  And, so on with other information sets involving the sniper's nest. 

If one frame from the Zapruder film is a fake then can you use other parts without questioning their validity?

If Jack White is correct that all of the visual record of Dealey Plaza was seized and altered then there is no way to prove anything. 

If I am correct then a good deal of the visual record has been seized and suppressed.  This part of the record will never be seen.  It was probably destroyed.

 

[Chris Bristow]

In Altgens 6 you can see a lamppost above/behind the limo's right headlight. If you look on the survey map(below) of Dealey that lamppost is about 8 feet East of the Thornton sign and so the sign is out of frame. That is why both signs are not in the photo.
A clean way to verify if it matches frame 255 is to draw 2 lines of sight using the white lane marker near the limos right front tire. First note the background directly above the two ends of the lane marker(Which are the right edge of the white pillar and the entrance to the TSBD.) then use the overhead survey map to draw a line from the markers to the background objects, then extend those lines down and they will meet at Altgens position(in the street) on the map. That will allow you to determine which lane marker is in the photo and therefore the location of the limo . If you want to double check it do a line of sight for the limo's right headlight and the lamppost above it. Both methods will verify the limo at the 255 position.
One thing about Altgens LOS is plotting it puts him several feet closer to the curb than the map shows. I was very careful in the plotting and wonder if anyone else would like to plot it and test my results. If you use the maps location for Altgens the LOS swings more than 8 feet across the TBSD from what I plotted. So it is not a matter of a slight error.
 

[John Butler]

If Mr. Bristow is correct and the freeway signs are just off to the right then we have a cropped photo.  From Altgens position in the Elm St. roadway then both the freeway signs and the SW corner of Elm St. should be shown.  8 feet stretches to 20 feet because we see the light pole and the limousine but not the signs?  If one looks at the photo the light pole aligns more with the rear of the Secret Service vehicle rather than the presidential limousine then 8 feet stretches to 40?

The problem is that Ike Altgens was using a magic camera lens that day.  So was Abe Zapruder.

In Altgens 6 the security vehicle for the Vice-President is grossly distorted.  The Dal-Tex Building is grossly distorted.  But, the people in the Elm St. crosswalk have a normal appearance.

Zapruder, at Z frame 255, shows the same scene as Altgens 6.  Everyone says this.  In the Zapruder film the presidential vehicle comes out from behind the Stemmons Freeway Sign at roughly Z frame 215.  Actually, it does that a little earlier but, Z frame 215 works well with Z frame 255 to calculate 40 frames difference easily.  If each frame is a foot traveled then the presidential limousine is 40 frames or feet in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

We last see the Stemmons Freeway Sign at Z frame 241.  So, the presidential limousine is definitely in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign.   A goodly portion of the Secret Service vehicle is past the Stemmons sign.  By Z frame 255 both vehicles are past the Stemmons sign.

So, should Altgens 6 show the Stemmons sign 40 feet behind the presidential limousine because Altgens is almost directly in front of the vehicle.  That would be about at the rear of the Secret Service vehicle. 

If you look at the light pole in Altgens 6 it lines up with the rear of the Secret Service vehicle.  That’s about where the Stemmons sign should be.

The more you compare Altgens 6 and Z frame 255 the more they depart from reality. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by John Butler