photo alteration by the media

[Pat Speer]

While the alteration of photos by the government is still open to debate, I have recently become aware of the alteration of one famous photo by the media. Maybe this has been discussed before, I don't know. I've been running this around on the Lancer site and thought some of you might have an interest. Here is the photo of the limousine and Clint Hill taken by David Miller as bandied around on the internet. I believe this is how it was initially shown in the papers, only with an arrow pointing to Kennedy's foot.

Over the years this photo was reprinted repeatedly with the public being told it was Kennedy's foot. Sam Holland ended up telling Mark Lane he saw Kennedy's foot stick out of the car as the car approached the underpass. Only it never happened. Eventually, the AP, who bought the photo from the 17 year old student Miller, admitted it was Clint Hill's foot, and not Kennedy's. Only this made no sense to me, as Hill's leg is headed straight down in the car in the picture, and as Hill's foot appears smaller than Kellerman's head, which seems unlikely. Then earlier today I stumbled on the Yarborough Exhibit of the Warren Report, which includes a few photos from the December 14, 1963 issue of the Saturday Evening Post. Guess what, the "foot" in this version of the Miller photo is radically different in appearance, and is probably not a foot at all!

To get a better look.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0403a.htm

We know the backyard photos were doctored by the magazines and newspapers. There were evidently some versions of the Moorman photo which were tampered with as well. Are there any other examples of this kind of mischief by the media we should know about?

Maybe we can use this thread to show photos that have been printed in more than one version...Photos that we KNOW have been altered as opposed to photos which we simply believe were altered..

Edited June 27, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Bill Miller]

Over the years this photo was reprinted repeatedly with the public being told it was Kennedy's foot. Sam Holland ended up telling Mark Lane he saw Kennedy's foot stick out of the car as the car approached the underpass. Only it never happened. Eventually, the AP, who bought the photo from the 17 year old student Miller, admitted it was Clint Hill's foot, and not Kennedy's. Only this made no sense to me, as Hill's leg is headed straight down in the car in the picture, and as Hill's foot appears smaller than Kellerman's head, which seems unlikely. Then earlier today I stumbled on the Yarborough Exhibit of the Warren Report, which includes a few photos from the December 14, 1963 issue of the Saturday Evening Post. Guess what, the "foot" in this version of the Miller photo is radically different in appearance, and is probably not a foot at all!

It is truly Clint Hill's foot. Thre is another photo taken from the other side of the car which shows Hill's outsretched leg getting into that position. Why Holland said it was JFK's foot as the limo passed below him is a mystery to me. I can only assume Sam saw the foot over the door panel as the car raced down the highway and got the timing of his observation incorrect.

Bill

[Lee Forman]

Hi Pat.

I seem to be missing your point. What's the difference here?

I tried figuring out that whole 'foot' thing also. There are more than one witness who describe the 'grotesque' position of Kennedy in the Lincoln. Further, Frank Camper has it that the foot was indeed thrown over the side in the death throes of Kennedy - why would he even bother saying that? I have the Dec 14, 1963 version of the Saturday Evening Post and I don't see what you are talking about? At least in that edition you can see that the foot appears to be hooked behind the antennae somehow. It is interesting that I was under the impression that the foot did not belong to Hill, based upon the angle - however, there isn't much to support that - McIntyre, Volkland, etc.

I once was trying to determine if the foot hanging over the edge of the Lincoln was visible in a 1963 Polaroid - previously unpublished - made available on eBay. It was a shot taken of the motorcade enroute to Parkland. The seller wanted to start the bidding at some ludicrous amount. I asked if the foot could be seen or not, and suggested that I would bid if I could get the answer - no reply. No one bid on it. It was blurry to begin with, since it was a polaroid shot taken of the Lincoln when it was moving at a high rate of speed.

FYI - the best evidence of alteration is the Boston Traveller, 11/23/63, Moorman Polaroid. It can be seen in Trask's POTP. One of the Motorcops was turned into a nurse for some bizarre reason. Why would the Boston Traveller magazine take it upon themselves to screw with the image so severely? Didn't they realize that they wouldn't be in synch with any other publication?

NOTE THE FOOT. Now why would they have done that?

Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else.

- lee

Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else.

example.

[J. William King]

The foot has indeed been enhanced. The importance of this is questionable, but it does point out that photos that we've seen over the years may or may not be authentic.

JW

Edited June 27, 2006 by J. William King

[Lee Forman]

The foot has indeed been enhanced. The importance of this is questionable, but it does point out that photos that we've seen over the years may or may not be authentic.

JW

Thanks JW - that clarifies what Pat was getting at.

I agree with your take.

- lee

[Christopher T. George]

Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else.

example.

Hi Lee, Pat, et al.

It's true that newspapers in through the first sixty or so years of the twentieth century at least through the 1960's enhanced photographs to get better contrast once the photograph was reduced to the dot screen with which we are familiar. I went through the photographs archive of the Baltimore News American at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, searching for possible photographs to use in a picture book of Baltimore, and in the end decided not to use any of the newspaper photos because they had been so heavily touched up.

So in other words while it is possible there was government alteration of photographs from the Kennedy assassination, we do also have to take account of the fact that it was the normal practice of newspapers of the day to touch up photographs for publication. Moreover, I should think it is probable that the people in the art department of the newspapers in November 1963 did not think too much about it in regard to the assassination, especially since it seemed at the time to be a done deal that Oswald was the culprit.

Best regards

Chris George

Edited June 27, 2006 by Christopher T. George

[John Dolva]

?? just a suggestion, with the altered one an attempt by someone to explain what they see, nothing 'sinister'.?? bloody fingers from hand at throat after 1st shot?

[Guest John Gillespie]

The foot has indeed been enhanced. The importance of this is questionable, but it does point out that photos that we've seen over the years may or may not be authentic.

JW

__________________________

Yeah, it morphed into a foot and to a differently angled piece of...what? But if one enlarges the "Yarborough Exhibit A", as submitted by Pat, to 150 - 200% the faux shoe seems to be an elongated piece of material the length of which is at least up to if not behind Hill's posterior. Please feel free.

JG

Edited June 27, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Pat Speer]

Intriguingly, the Saturday Evening Post article refers to it as Kennedy's foot. Evidently, someone at the AP decided to "improve" or "enhance" this foot for future publications. I'll be home later today and will check with Trask's book about the history of the photo. I think it was published originally in a paper with the supposed foot, then shortly thereafter by the Saturday Evening Post, who used the "unenhanced" photo but still decided to call it a foot. It could be a towel or something. Hill's leg is angled into the back seat. His leg would have to be awfully contorted to have his foot in that position. As far as his foot being over the side in other photos...the photos showing Hill's foot over the right side show his right leg draped across the trunk of the limo and his right foot back by the rear tire, not his right leg disappearing into the back seat and his right foot poking out of the passenger's compartment. I think his slacks were a little too tight to pull off such a contortion.

As far as Holland and others saying they saw the foot...they saw the photo...and it sunk into their memories. There is not one piece of credible eyewitness evidence describing any contortions by Kennedy in the car. He said nothing. He fell to his left...pretty much dead. By the time the limo reached Parkland, his legs had slipped under the jump seat.

Who knows how many magazines and papers were sold because people just had to have the photo of Kennedy's foot sticking out of the car? Who knows how many people bought the JFK: Beyond Conspiracy DVD because they just had to have that animation PROVING the shots came from the sniper's nest? Same bullcrap, different decade.

[Jack White]

Scoff if you will, but I think it is an arm, not a leg.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Scoff if you will, but I think it is an arm, not a leg.

Jack

Jack, I think you might be onto something. I think 3 could be the seat itself which photos reveal rose over the level of the side of the car. I think 2 is not the back of his hand, but the palm of his hand, with his fingers cupped above, creating a shadow. On your blow-up I think I see the ridges of his fingers. If you look just below the wrist you'll see a thin white line which I think is the cuff of Kennedy's shirt almost covered by his jacket. In sum, it looks like his right arm was stretched out to his right, while he lay on his back. Perhaps Jackie was re-postioning JFK in the car or perhaps Kennedy did have some convulsions, after all.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Gary Mack has sent me an email insisting the photo was not altered. He's basing this upon his inspection of the early versions of the photo, which match the Saturday Evening Post version. I found this online. This also has the original version of the photo.

My quest for the day then is to determine where the other photo, the one with the clearly-drawn-in foot, came from.

Edited June 27, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

Scoff if you will, but I think it is an arm, not a leg.

Jack

Jack, I think you might be onto something. I think 3 could be the seat itself which photos reveal rose over the level of the side of the car. I think 2 is not the back of his hand, but the palm of his hand, with his fingers cupped above, creating a shadow. On your blow-up I think I see the ridges of his fingers. If you look just below the wrist you'll see a thin white line which I think is the cuff of Kennedy's shirt almost covered by his jacket. In sum, it looks like his right arm was stretched out to his right, while he lay on his back. Perhaps Jackie was re-postioning JFK in the car or perhaps Kennedy did have some convulsions, after all.

The seat of the car would not OVERHANG THE EDGE of the car.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Good point, Jack. That's not the seat.

[John Dolva]

the shadow would