Altgens 6, a different view

[Ray Mitcham]

John, you are assuming that the black blob you can see in the Cancellare photo is a shoe with a high heel. Maybe you are seeing what you want to see.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

26 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Anyone care to comment on Z frame 170 looking like Altgens 6?

Don't think they are taken at the same time. Altgens 6 is later than 170, as JFK's hands are not up to his throat in 170, and Connolly has not yet turned his head.  I think a closer frame would be about   252.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[John Butler]

Hi Ray,

Your comment is appreciated. 

Z frame 170 is shot from the opposite direction as Altgens 6.  I wasn't particularly concerned with anyone specific detail.  What is noticeable is that the motorcade is almost in the same position on Elm St. as seen in Altgens 6.  There is roughly 5 seconds difference between Z frame 170 and 255.  The motorcade looks like it will be in the Altgen 6 positions in about 1 or 2 seconds.  Just a rough guess.

This is another way to highlight the differences between Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  I don't believe either visual record portrays the assassination correctly.

Can anyone agree on when the president was shot?  Which Z frame?  I've read arguments for this frame or that for this shot or that angle.  Although, a few agree the majority doen't in my opinion.  It's been 53 years since the assassination.  Neither side, LGT's or CT's have a convincing argument in total on how he assassination occurred.  From what I have seen and read the CT's are closer to the truth but not all the way there.  And, they never will be as long as they rely on the Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and Mary Moorman's Polaroid.   

We need something new.     

 

[Chris Bristow]

If you want to know the actual position of the limo in Altgens 6 you can plot the line of sight from the two ends of the lane marker with the background. Every plot point lines up with Z255. No other lane marker will line up! Once you have determined which lane marker it matches on the WC survey map you can place the limo there and line up plot point behind it.
If anyone considers the photos doctored then all bets are off and there is no reason to try and find its location. But as it stands Altgens 6 is a perfect match for Z 255.
 There are certain theories that fall apart when you confirm Z255 for A. 6. For instance the Willis girls arms reflected in the front right 1/4 panel are out to her side but in Z222 (approx.) they are not. But once you know the Z image of her comes some 33+ frames before the reflection in the limo, the issue is moot.
I posted a map on page 13 that should prove A. 6 = z255. Depth of field, aperture and focus will not change the plot points. If there is a mistake in my map please point it out, but if there is no mistake then the map should resolve the question of which Z frame matches A. 6. 

Note: I tried to match the survey map lane marker with old photos and it seems to match well. But plotting Altgens position with the lane marker moves him about 3 feet south, closer to the curb. I wonder if anyone knows how the survey determined how far into the street Altgens stepped for A. 6.?

[John Butler]

Chris,

Lane Markers?  White strips in the center of the street?  Interesting notion.

But, you still have to deal with the freeway signs.  The presidential limousine in Z frame 255 is about 40-45 frames / 40-45 feet in front of the Stemmons Freeway Sign.  That should make the signs 40-45 feet behind the presidential vehicle.  The signs should be visible in Altgens 6 behind the presidential limousine since Altgens was in the street in front of the vehicle taking his photo.

Edited February 24, 2017 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Lane Markers?  White strips in the center of the street?  Interesting notion.

But, you still have to deal with the freeway signs.  The presidential limousine in Z frame 255 is about 40-45 frames / 40-45 feet in front of the Stemmons Freeway Sign.  That should make the signs 40-45 feet behind the presidential vehicle.  The signs should be visible in Altgens 6 behind the presidential limousine since Altgens was in the street in front of the vehicle taking his photo.

John, you don't seem to understand the way a telephoto lens works. It gives narrow field of view, so the Freeway sign is outside  of the field of viewing Altgens6. Have a look at the Roberdeau chart and you will see where the sign is situated in regards to Altgens position. 

[John Butler]

Ray, 

Redardless of lens the sign is still to the front in Altgens 6.  You can't take what's in front of the vehicle or off to the front side and place it in the rear.  

Regardless of lens in Z frame 255 the Stemmons sign is 40 frames / 40 feet to the rear of the limo.  In Altgens 6 the sign should be 40 ft behind the limo.  After all Altgens was almost directly in front of the vehicle.  This doesn't match up.

Study Z frame 170 for the position of motorcade vehicles in relation to Altgens 6.

Thanks,

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

Ray, 

Redardless of lens the sign is still to the front in Altgens 6.  You can't take what's in front of the vehicle or off to the front side and place it in the rear.  

Regardless of lens in Z frame 255 the Stemmons sign is 40 frames / 40 feet to the rear of the limo.  In Altgens 6 the sign should be 40 ft behind the limo.  After all Altgens was almost directly in front of the vehicle.  This doesn't match up.

Study Z frame 170 for the position of motorcade vehicles in relation to Altgens 6.

Thanks,

John you are 100% wrong on this one. The signs should not show up behind the limo. Please just take an unbiased look at the overhead map I provided on page 13. Just look at the red lines representing Zapruders field of view and line of sight vs Altgens. I have laid them both out and you should be able to see very clearly that Zapruder  could see the signs but Altgens was far from Zapruders position . Zapruder was looking from almost behind the sign and Altgens was so far to the right of Zapruder that he did not have the signs in his line of sight.
Lets sort this out. Look at the map and tell me what is incorrect with the LOS laid out for both men. If you cannot find a mistake then you may have to consider the maps as accurate. The maps are proof that the signs should not be visible in A 6. If you can prove otherwise please demonstrate it with a map.

[Robin Unger]

Once again Butler shows us that he is clueless when it comes to understanding perspective and camera LOS

Altgens camera field of view:

Credit: Martin Hinricks

Edited February 25, 2017 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Dillard crop showing the position of the R.L.Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign in relation to the white column and the light pole.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Robin Unger

[John Butler]

Unger,

You need to show on your map what's in the photos.  Where are the signs?  Anyone can draw lines on a map and proclaim whatever they want.

Well, never mind I've seen this before where you doctor things to fit your story.

I refer you to  another time you communicated on the Lee Harvey Oswald passport photo.

That Dillard crop has the weirdest perspective.  Did some kid put that together?

No need to reply.  I will not communicate with you again.

Edited February 25, 2017 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

John, you have shown yourself to be totally incompetent in discussing photographs. What with Mary Moorman wearing high heels,  her raincoat suddenly becoming shorter, her shoes "not being painted in as well as they should be", your ability to discern a high heel  in a black blob, the Vice President's car being "grossly distorted", road signs missing, and your misunderstanding of the field of view of a telephoto lens, I've never seen anybody being so wrong about anything.

You continue to posts stupid comments, very similar  the late non-lamented Ralph Cinque. (Could you be related in any way?)

Despite your statement to Robin that you will not communicate with him again, I should imagine he will continue to point out your simple errors. As will I.

 

[John Butler]

Come on guys.  You need to get new insults.  These are some what old and stale.  Ray, you forgot to suggest some sort of sexual relation as Von Peon did.  Always resort to insults when your arguments are not being accepted? 

I would like to know who believes the nonsense people like yo dish out?

Perhaos it is better to be blind than rely upon false assumptions and pseudo-scientific measurements.  Can you prove Altgens was in the street?  You can only do that by drawing "Unger lines".

Ray, refer yourself to the cutesy statement at the beginning of your post by looking into a mirror daily.  Or, you too can draw "Unger Lines".

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Come on guys.  You need to get new insults.  These are some what old and stale.  Ray, you forgot to suggest some sort of sexual relation as Von Peon did.  

I would like to know who believes the nonsense people like yo dish out?

Perhaos it is better to be blind than rely upon false assumptions and pseudo-scientific measurements.  Can you prove Altgens was in the street?

Ray, refer yourself to the cutesy statement at the beginning of your post by looking into a mirror daily.

 

If you mean can I show that Altgens was in the street rather than on the grass then all I have to do is tell you to look at the curb on the right of the photo. (Unless you think that the curb suddenly shot left in the area below  that which is shown in the photo.)  Where do you think he was standing when the photo was taken?

I look into the mirror everyday when I shave, not to admire myself. Maybe you are different.

[John Butler]

In the grass as shown in Zapruder.  If that's true than any work done that is not in tune with your sacred cow, the Zapruder film is problematic.

It is good that you can still shave, Ray.

lolf