Anybody Have This Tom Wilson Image?

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

At the AP or back in Dallas and re-transmitted.  However it was done, Altgens 6 is a fraud with way to many noticeable alterations that have been argued about for years.

John:

I analysed Altgens6, at least the critical section of the doorway, for a long period of time. Initially, I was also tempted to interpret any intriguing aspect of Lovelady's figure as an alteration. However, when you think there was tampering with a photograph, you need to employ more questioning and testing: could a particular feature which looks so strange be actually explained naturally? I hope I was able to explain every single aspect of Altgens6 doorway in my 3D reconstruction of Algens6 as being natural and unaltered.

If you have any doubts about Altgens6, please describe them step by step using a high-quality version of Altgens6 and please test alternative explanations before jumping to the simple conclusion of Altgens6 being altered. 

Here is a link to my Atgens6 video once again in case you have missed it.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Andrej Stancak

[Rob Clark]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Please find here Tom Wilson's analysis of the 133-B backyard photograph from the book A Deeper, Darker Truth by Don Phillips. 

Thank you Andrej, that's what I was looking for, although the face under the mask was revealed at one of these early 90's conferences....

[Rob Clark]

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Not sure if this is what you mean Rob...   found the image on the left just rummaging thru the internet...

I know a STEVE WILSON who was supposedly with Hemming at Interpen...  looked a lot like Ozzie...

 

 

The only other one I have with his face changed:

I'm not sure either D.J., Lol....but thank you for posting these images as well!

[John Butler]

19 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I analysed Altgens6, at least the critical section of the doorway, for a long period of time. Initially, I was also tempted to interpret any intriguing aspect of Lovelady's figure as an alteration. However, when you think there was tampering with a photograph, you need to employ more questioning and testing: could a particular feature which looks so strange be actually explained naturally? I hope I was able to explain every single aspect of Altgens6 doorway in my 3D reconstruction of Algens6 as being natural and unaltered.

I am not going to argue about this.  I have already stated what I believe.  For those who don't know what I have said go back and research it. 

I based what I saw in Altgens 6 on the material in the photo and not some derived model interpreting what I believe to be there or want to be there.  This image is to bizarre to comment on and in no way depicts what is shown in Altgens 6..

Here's one for you.  Can you come up with a model for this minor problem in Altgens 6 that explains these shadows?  This is another inexplicable thing found in Altgens 6.

Jean Hill's shadow is smaller than Mary Moorman's.  Jean is a taller person and is standing beside Mary.  Many people have tried to account for this difference with various notions.  However, none stand up.

I just say these are not real shadows.  They are painted shadows made with a paint brush by a poor artist.  Good enough to satisfy the moment and who cares about years later. 

Can you make a model demonstrating why Jean's shadow is smaller than Mary's.  Mary was quite a bit smaller than Jean.  In the Zapruder film, everybody's exemplar, they are standing side by side or relatively so.

Maybe this model I propose that you make can account for the differences in the angles of the shadows in Zapruder F 298 vs. Altgens 6?

Real shadows look like this that afternoon.

IMO, alterations do occur in the films and photos that make up the Dealey Plaza record of the assassination.  Take the doorway of the TSBD.  Which is real in the following:

Since I am an old school teacher, let's have a multiple choice question.

A.  The Altgens 6 photo and the Tina Towner film are true representatives of reality in Dealey Plaza

B.  The Altgens 6 photo is real and the Towner film false.

C.  The Altgens 6 film is false and the Towner film is real.

D.  Both the photo and film are false.

Sorry, no "None of the Above" response here.  You have to make a decision.

Edited April 22, 2020 by John Butler

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I based what I saw in Altgens 6 on the material in the photo and not some derived model interpreting what I believe to be there or want to be there.  This image is to bizarre to comment on and in no way depicts what is shown in Altgens 6..

This image is a 3D reconstruction of the doorway scene. Why would it be so bizarre? How else if not through the presence of a person standing behind Lovelady can you explain the bright oval object next to Lovelady face? And if you agree that the object was a partial face, there are only two candidate persons: Sarah Stanton and Pauline Sanders. The image you find bizarre refers to the preferred solution having Sarah Stanton as the person standing in the space between Shelley and Lovelady. Not sure why do you find it bizarre.

[Jonathan Cohen]

>> IMO, alterations do occur in the films and photos that make up the Dealey Plaza record of the assassination. 

John, if you alter one film or photo taken during the assassination, don't you necessarily have to alter them all, so that they match? How on earth could this gargantuan feat ever have been accomplished? Some of the photographic record wasn't even known to the world until YEARS after the assassination. Were those images then retroactively altered to align with all the previous alterations?

 

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Some of the photographic record wasn't even known to the world until YEARS after the assassination.

That wasn't enough time?

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 4/22/2020 at 2:15 PM, John Butler said:

That wasn't enough time?

What I meant was, how would the "forgers" have been able to ensure their forgeries and alterations would not one day be contradicted and exposed by films/photos unknown to them at the time? The fact of the matter is that the assassination photo record is self-authenticating, as demonstrated repeatedly by folks such as Josiah Thompson.

[Matt Allison]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What I meant was, how would the "forgers" have been able to ensure their forgeries and alterations would not one day be contradicted and exposed by films/photos unknown to them at the time? The fact of the matter is that the assassination photo record is self-authenticating, as demonstrated repeatedly by folks such as Josiah Thompson.

I wish this forum had a "like" button. Thumbs up here.

Back when the plotters were still alive, they loved the crazy theories for a reason. Outlandish ideas draw outlandish personalities. Thus leading the public further away from the truth.

I implore everyone to always apply Occam's Razor if your intention is to truly get at the truth.

No one can escape the basic requirements of a black op:

1. Need to know basis, as few people involved as possible.

2. Accomplish the intended mission.

3. No one gets caught.

 

That's it. If you can't apply these principles to your conspiracy theory, then you're not in the ballpark of what happened.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jonathan and Matt are correct.

When you have many photographs and films of the same event, an alteration to one image is likely to produce an obvious contradiction with some of the other images. If you're going to alter one photograph or film, you will almost certainly need to alter several others too.

Those alterations, in turn, will require that alterations are made to yet more images. To eliminate all the contradictions you've created, you'll end up having to alter pretty much all of the hundreds of photographs and films taken in Dealey Plaza.

Some people don't seem to have worked this out, so keen are they to see a conspiracy in every aspect of the assassination story. They should read this illustrated article by Josiah Thompson:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html 

If anyone is going to claim that this or that image has been materially altered, they need to account for the practical consequences, and answer a few questions. When was the alteration done? How was the alteration done? How long did it take? Which other images needed to be altered in order to eliminate the contradictions you've just created? When and how were those other images altered?

Alteration enthusiasts need to ask themselves a couple of other obvious questions before launching into accusations of fakery. Does the supposed fakery have an everyday, non-conspiratorial explanation, such as a common or garden artefact of the photographic process? If so, why invent a conspiracy to explain it? If a photograph or film already contradicts the lone-nut theory, why do you feel the urge to think that it is a fake?

The paranoid may get a nice tingly feeling by proposing the most elaborate conspiracy they can think of, but the real world doesn't work like that. The more elaborate the proposed conspiracy, the less credible it is.
 

[Rob Clark]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

If anyone is going to claim that this or that image has been materially altered, they need to account for the practical consequences, and answer a few questions. When was the alteration done? How was the alteration done? How long did it take? Which other images needed to be altered in order to eliminate the contradictions you've just created? When and how were those other images altered?
 

 

I think if anything stands up to these scrutinizing questions, it's the backyard photos. You have the photographic capabilities of the DPD lab, as evidenced with the cut out BYP. Multiple poses, camera questions, photographer questions, subject denial, etc...

[Matt Allison]

Marina has admitted to taking the backyard photos. Even after she changed her opinion about Oswald's guilt, to thinking he might be innocent, she never changed that admission.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Rob Clark said:

I think if anything stands up to these scrutinizing questions, it's the backyard photos. You have the photographic capabilities of the DPD lab, as evidenced with the cut out BYP. Multiple poses, camera questions, photographer questions, subject denial, etc...

Rob, I'm as suspicious of the backyard photos as anyone. But we are talking here about the Dealey Plaza photo record, which began when you proposed that Altgens 6 was altered before it went out over the AP wire within a few minutes of the assassination.

[David Josephs]

50 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Marina has admitted to taking the backyard photos. Even after she changed her opinion about Oswald's guilt, to thinking he might be innocent, she never changed that admission.

Not so much Matt....  she was cornered into saying she took 1....  then it became 2...  then 3....

Marina admits this was the first time working a camera... and later tells us she held the camera up to her face to take photos...

Q. This camera, do you recall whether to take pictures with this camera, you would look down into the viewfinder or whether you would hold the camera up to your eye and look straight ahead?
A. I just recall I think it is straight.
Q. You would put the camera up by your eye?f
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what color the camera was?
A. I think it was black.  (oops)

 

The only time she takes a photo and they are PERFECT...  Virtually identical despite having moved and given the camera back to Ozzie... her words.

The point about how she held the camera is made even more important when you consider HOW this first time photographer would have taken the images

How can the woman for get THIS:?   The camera is a POS, held at one's chest, viewing an inverted image... and yet 3 for 3 she was perfect?

If you are gong to use Marina to defend an argument... I'd suggest being very careful as she is not the most reliable apple in the barrel...

(She lied about Mexico city a number of times as well... just sayin)

 

 

 

rs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know

Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

... and proceeds to take some of the sharpest photos we've seen...  

Q: Did you ever see Lee with a pistol?
A: I don't remember now, sir.
Q: You don't remember seeing him with a pistol?
A: No.
Q: Is it a fact you took a picture of him with a pistol and a rifle?
A: Yes, sir, I recall right now.

At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you taken any pictures since then?
A. I try at home, to photograph the kids at home with a Poloroid camera. They didn't come out right.
Q. When you took the picture did he tell you to hold your hands steady?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you try to do that?
A. Yes.

 

[Rob Clark]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Rob, I'm as suspicious of the backyard photos as anyone. But we are talking here about the Dealey Plaza photo record, which began when you proposed that Altgens 6 was altered before it went out over the AP wire within a few minutes of the assassination.

Actually my original question was about the BYP...the Tom Wilson image that showed what he found under the "mask".  Andrej hijacked the thread with his Altgens crap...