Altgens 6, a different view

[Michael Walton]

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

No magic cameras, people, nor gizmos were used that day, John. It all depends on the cameras, aperture, lenses, and so on.

Don't get impatient with the video below - watch it and listen.  I mean really, really listen and if you open your mind up a little (or a lot) you'll learn the difference between magic and why things happen the way they do in photography. It's really not that hard to figure out, but you have to really want to learn something in order to get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUYuUs1aaCU

[John Butler]

Thanks Michael,

I watched the youtube video twice.  And, I started to look at episode 7 about distortions but it was about portraits so I skipped it.  All I saw in the first video was in all examples the background becoming blurred and went out of focus.  The Altgens 6 background is sharp and clear.  Distorted but, sharp and clear.  Particularly, the people in the East Elm St. crosswalk.

The point I was making (probably not clear enough) to Chris Barstow is that you can not take real measurements and apply them to a composite photo. 

The difference in locations and time of the presidential vehicle in both Altgens 6 and Z frame 255 point to human tampering.  The bit about "magic cameras" doesn't refer to magic but human tampering with the photo and film.  Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film are the art of photo editors.

PS

I must be losing it today.  I've had to re-edit this on names several times.  My apologies to those who I didn't get their name right the first time.  I hope things are ok now.

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by John Butler

[Bill Miller]

On 2/5/2017 at 10:19 PM, John Butler said:

 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.
 

Lifted from other locations and incorporated into Altgens 6?  Why??  Those agents are seen in several movie films and in at least three still photos taken inside of Dealey Plaza.

[John Butler]

Hi Bill,

I've read what you sent several times and I don't recall saying it or at least I am unsure as to saying that.  However, if I did mea culpa.  Please send a clearer reference so I can look that up.

The reason I don't recall writing that is it does not sound like something I would write.

I have no problem saying images from one source are placed in other sources.  I simply don't remember talking about Clint Hill and other agents.  I guess I need to see the complete reference.  Maybe, this is taken out of context in a larger discussion. 

Whatever, I need to look at the reference.

[John Butler]

Hi Bill,

I went back and found the relevant post.  Brad Milch actually said that and I was quoting him.  And, trying to help with his post by adding to it.  Here's what he said:

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 never did anything with the old JFK Lancer Forum.  That's before my foray into JFK issues.  Brad was making in my opinion an excellent post.  My help is the photo and the writing that is not italicized.

I hope I cleared that up for you.

[Brad Milch]

@John Butler

John, I can help fill Bill Miller a bit more in on those old Lancer discussions on Altgens 6 alterations in regards to the to the train of thought of the posters at the birth of the thread(s) and how the topic expanded as the thread(s) progressed. I trust this won't distract your thread, John. This may take me a while to get it all typed, so please bear with me & check back for updates. I should be done with it when I sign off at the bottom of the post.

First of all, some of the discussions may have originated at alt.jfk as well as Lancer. The two websites often featured similar discussions & I bounced back & forth between the two. I never miss an opportunity to refer back to the old Lancer because I feel what was done to the website was horribly wrong for the staff & contributors, their global readers and American free speech. Bringing back some of those topics, while not as good as having the original posters re-post them here at EF, helps fight back against the perpetrators a little bit (in my mind). I also communicated privately with several researchers in email. Parts of discussions may have originated there as well.

Wherever Jack White was posting (it may have been here at EF), I followed his posts as well as a lurker. Jack believed ALL the JFK ambush visuals (photos & films) had been tampered with in some way, shape or form.

Between those websites, the discussions on Altgens 6 originated from the apparent discrepancies between what witnesses observed during the attack on JFK & John Connally & what was reported as SS agent responses in the press, TV & the WC. It started there. Names & observations that come to mind are Bob Clark, Ralph Yarborough, Walter Cronkite, Hugh Betzner & Bill Newman (possibly Gayle Newman as well).

Bob Clark broadcast a radio report in which he stated he saw SS men with weapons surround JFK's limo during or after the ambush. I'm not sure what TV network broadcast it (this is from memory). Hugh Betzner claimed in a Dallas report that he saw a chrome pistol displayed near JFK during the attack. Bill Newman commented in interviews that SS men with automatic rifles ran past him & his family during (or after) the ambush that Bill believed had come from the SS 'Queen Mary'. I believe Senator Yarborough made press statements along those same lines. There may have been other examples; those stick in my memory.

Somewhere, in the conversations, it was postulated that the 'kill organizers' may have made photographs & films prior to the ambush to sell a false image of what had happened. This is where Altgens 6 & the Z-film entered the discussions. At the time, Altgens 6 & the Z-film were used as examples to support each other in authenticity discussions. One researcher I recall doing such was Josiah Thompson.

Someone claimed they interpreted JFK's image in Altgens 6 as laying across the backseat, his head out of sight on Jackie's lap, with Jackie holding up one of his arms. Another claimed they interpreted Altgens 6 as JFK bent forward in his seat & reaching back behind him with one of his hands, as if reaching for the middle of his back. This interpretation supported the WC testimony of Roy Kellerman (it was noted).

It was discussed that the motorcycle image of DPD officer Chaney as he appears in Altgens 6 should be closer to the JFK limo & visible in the car's shiny reflection off JFK's side of the car in the Z-film (Larry Rivera is performing research in this area using computer graphics animation in 'The New JFK Show #132 that is viewable/downloadable from YouTube Larry believes Chaney was close enough to JFK to reach over from his motorcycle & touch JFK on the arm. Larry also believes what we see in the reflections on JFK's side of his parade car is a 'paint job'). Chaney became a hot topic, as it was postulated than he should be seen in the Z-film at Z-255 & beyond & he's not. That, plus Chaney is said to have ridden past the JFK limo to inform Jesse Curry JFK had been shot in the head. That's missing from the Z-film, along with other reported activity made by on site witnesses over the years. 

I can recall discussions alleging that the image of SS agent John Ready in Altgens 6 has been altered: the contributors believed agent Ready held a pistol in his right hand that had been darkened out as well as his point of view changed from looking at the back of JFK's head changed to looking somewhat rearward. According to the contributors, Ready can be seen holding something in his right hand briefly before the z_film is cut & spliced early in the film (before the JFK car disappears behind the Stemmons sign).

That's all I can remember at the moment. I hope this helps John in his thread.

I remember Bill Miller & his animated gif's posted at Lancer. IIRC, Bill & Jack White used to lock horns here at EF. Jack called him 'visually impaired' (lol). I don't remember how Bill Miller responded. Bill's animated gifs of the Z-film were really good, but Internet speed & bandwidth wasn't quite what it's developed into back then. Too many animated gifs running at the same time on the same webpage caused my browser to either take forever to load or simply crash.

Respectfully & sincerely,

Brad Milch

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Bill Miller]

6 minutes ago, Brad Milch said:

@John Butler

John, I can help fill Bill Miller a bit more in on those old Lancer discussions on Altgens 6 alterations in regards to the to the train of thought of the posters at the birth of the thread(s) and how the topic expanded as the thread(s) progressed. I trust this won't distract your thread, John. This make take me a while to get it all typed, so please bear with me & check back for updates. I should be done with it when I sign off at the bottom of the post.

First of all, some of the discussions may have originated at alt.jfk as well as Lancer. The two websites often featured similar discussions. I never miss an opportunity to refer back to the old Lancer because I feel what was done to the website was horribly wrong for the staff, their global readers and American free speech. Bringing back some of those topics, while not as good as having the original posters re-post them here at EF, helps fight back against the perpetrators a little bit (in my mind).

 

Any Lancer threads I was most likely posting in that involved the films and photos.

[John Butler]

Thanks Brad,

That was a very interesting and fascinating post.  I am going to reread it.  If people go back and look at what I have been posting they will see a very challenging and different outlook on the assassination.  I hope I am introducing new material for thought.  But, the more I look at it people have went over this same ground in the past.  With the posts I have made I hope I have introduced something new.

My purpose is to challenge and debunk the first visual things that were put out to the American Public that in part convinced them and me at the time, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut killer of President Kennedy. 

These are in order of appearance to the public:

Altgens 6

Mary Moorman's Polaroid

Zapruder Film

and, the Backyard Photos

These are the "kill organizers" main storyline.

Jack White was my hero.  That is until certain things came up.  I wish he was still alive so I could ask him about those issues.  However, in anything I have looked at that Jack said about the visual record I have not found anything I would disagree with.  It is mostly what he didn't say.  I think Jack knew more than what he was telling and towards the end let a few things slip.  I agree with Jack White the whole visual record of Dealey Plaza is tainted.  There is a large number of films and photos that have been seized and suppressed.  They were probably destroyed. 

Has anyone ever wondered why there are no films or photos showing the passenger side of the presidential limousine cruising down Main, Houston, and Elm St. other than Zapruder.

I surveyed the available visual records showing Elm St., Houston St., the intersection of Main and Houston.  I think I have found about 25 or so (I will have to look at my notes for how many) people with cameras not covered in the visual record. 

There maybe roughly 13 people filming on the SW corner of Elm and Houston rather than the reported five. 

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by John Butler

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Thanks Brad,

That was a very interesting and fascinating post.  I am going to reread it.  If people go back and look at what I have been posting they will see a very challenging and different outlook on the assassination.  I hope I am introducing new material for thought.  But, the more I look at it people have went over this same ground in the past.  With the posts I have made I hope I have introduced something new.

My purpose is to challenge and debunk the first visual things that were put out to the American Public that in part convinced them and me at the time, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut killer of President Kennedy. 

These are in order of appearance to the public:

Altgens 6

Mary Moorman's Polaroid

Zapruder Film

and, the Backyard Photos

These are the "kill organizers" main storyline.

Jack White was my hero.  That is until certain things came up.  I wish he was still alive so I could ask him about those issues.  However, in anything I have looked at that Jack said about the visual record I have not found anything I would disagree with.  It is mostly what he didn't say.  I think Jack knew more than what he was telling and towards the end let a few things slip.  I agree with Jack White the whole visual record of Dealey Plaza is tainted.  There is a large number of films and photos that have been seized and suppressed.  They were probably destroyed. 

Has anyone ever wondered why there are no films or photos showing the passenger side of the presidential limousine cruising down Main, Houston, and Elm St. other than Zapruder.

I surveyed the available visual records showing Elm St., Houston St., the intersection of Main and Houston.  I think I have found about 25 or so (I will have to look at my notes for how many) people with cameras not covered in the visual record. 

There maybe roughly 13 people filming on the SW corner of Elm and Houston rather than the reported five. 

 

I liked Jack, but at the time of his 'everything must be altered' thinking - he could not conduct a single spacing test correctly. After someone attacked him at his place  years before - his thinking was never the same.

Jack said the gap between the pedestal and the windows were perfectly aligned between these two images. You tell me if he was correct or not?

 

Jack said the Zapruder film was altered to show Moorman was wearing white shoes ... you tell me if he was correct or was he just unable to see the black shoes beneath Mary's white socks?

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by Bill Miller

[Chris Bristow]

John you said "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?"
 You are talking about what is next to the lightpost? I am talking about the Altgens  LOS. Yes the lamppost is closer to the SS car but that is not the LOS we are using to plot positions.

"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? "
 
The sign is not visible simply because it is out the frame of the camera. Maybe that is a crop but I am just saying the signs are not there because they are beyond the lamppost. Do you use the overhead map when plotting?   Here is a map showing Altgens and Zapruders view in 255 and Zapruders view at 225. The green lines represent Zapruder at 225 and the two sets of red lines represent Z and A at 255. The Stemmons and Thornton signs are in the red boxes. This map should make it clear that Altgens should not see either sign. So maybe the photos have been changed but the missing signs are normal, we should not see them from Altgens LOS. The lamppost is the green dot just below the red arrow
 

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

Thanks Bill,

For straightening me out.  I think I got carried away there.  I'm going to have to eat crow on that statement about agreeing with everything Jack White did.  That's the "certain things" or "issues" I was talking about.  And, some of those issues deal with the Altgens photos and the Moorman Polaroid.

If you go back to my post on Mary Moorman you will see I am worse than Jack White.  I don't think she was wearing black flat shoes or white shoes.  I think she was wearing high heels.  Go back and look at my posts on Mary Moorman. 

Actually, it is difficult in some Z frames to see the flat black shoes.  But, if you look at many Z frames they are there.  That still doesn't stop me from believing she wore high heels that day.

To me Jack White wasn't showing fraud in Zapruder by his Moorman Polaroid measurements but the opposite.  He was anchoring Mary Moorman and Jean Hill in front of the Grassy Knoll.  It doesn't matter whether they were in the street or on the grass they were still in front of the Grassy Knoll and this supports the Zapruder film.  I think they were elsewhere as I have outlined in other posts.

I should amend my statement to most of what Jack White did in the visual area of Dealey Plaza.  For instance he said Altgens 5 is an authentic photo as is best used to show fraud in the Zapruder film by looking at the people in the East Elm St. crosswalk.  They are not the same as Zapruder. 

I have shown Altgens 5 to be a fraud.  I don't know why Jack White was saying it was authentic except maybe to point out Zapruder is a fraud.  I really don't know whether what he said is correct about the crosswalk people but based on most of his work I am willing to accept it.  Actually, I'm to lazy to check it out.

My mind just blurs out when it comes to Jack White's work on the Moorman Polaroid.  I am biased because I believe Moorman and Hill were in another location. So, I won't be trying to second guess what he was doing with the pedestal and the windows.  To me most of the people who have taken measurements to support Jack's idea or propose something similar are just wasting their time.  The Moorman Polaroid is not Mary's and is a fraud.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by John Butler

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 Actually, it is difficult in some Z frames to see the flat black shoes.  But, if you look at many Z frames they are there.  That still doesn't stop me from believing she wore high heels that day.

     I agree that some frames are blurry and can be misleading. My beef with Jack was he was willing to always pick the worse frames to make his case with while ignoring the ones that didn't support alteration. Fetzer and that small group couldn't bring themselves to tell the emperor so-to-speak that he had no clothes on. As I have said - I liked Jack, but the only King in this story was assassinated on 11/22/63.   

Edited February 19, 2017 by Bill Miller

[John Butler]

Chris,

Michael Walton said this:

No magic cameras, people, nor gizmos were used that day, John. It all depends on the cameras, aperture, lenses, and so on.

Don't get impatient with the video below - watch it and listen.  I mean really, really listen and if you open your mind up a little (or a lot) you'll learn the difference between magic and why things happen the way they do in photography. It's really not that hard to figure out, but you have to really want to learn something in order to get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUYuUs1aaCU 

I looked at this video on aperture, focal length, and distance from subject.  With such a narrow focus shouldn't the background of Altgens 6 be blurred and out of focus.  The background is distorted for the Dal-Tex and the security vehicle but sharp and clear without distortion for the people in the crosswalk behind the distorted vice-presidential security vehicle.

[Chris Bristow]

8 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I liked Jack, but at the time of his 'everything must be altered' thinking - he could not conduct a single spacing test correctly. After someone attacked him at his place  years before - his thinking was never the same.

Jack said the gap between the pedestal and the windows were perfectly aligned between these two images. You tell me if he was correct or not?

 

Jack said the Zapruder film was altered to show Moorman was wearing white shoes ... you tell me if he was correct or was he just unable to see the black shoes beneath Mary's white socks?

 

Ok I have not looked close at the Moorman shoes issue but the 2 photos of Moorman's shoes, second from the top on the right, doesn't  that right shoe look way way too long? And the tongue is almost down by her toes.

[John Butler]

Chris,

The Zapruder film shows her with flat black shoes as it does in her Polaroid.  Some Z frames they are hard to see and appear white.  In Cancellare she had high heels.  

It had rained in Dallas that morning.  Recall the Tosh Plumlee story of a fellow fell down the slope of the south knoll and became very muddy.

Would Mary walk out onto the grassy area with high heels into the mud?

And, let's not forget her hunched shoulders that explains why her raincoat is generally shorter than her appearance in her Polaroid.  I'm not suggesting some sort of physical condition but one wonders.

The answer to your question on shoes they are not painted in as well as they should be.

Edited February 22, 2017 by John Butler