Bill Miller Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) I see it as a photographer with four cameras; shootinga pistol-grip movie camera, with a 35mm camera with telephoto lens dangling on a strap, a wide angle camera with auxilliary viewfinder used to make the extant photo; and a fourth black camera; I have been there many times, before zoom lenses, WITH 3 CAMERAS AROUND MY NECK. You can see 4 cameras and even know what type they are? Now that is amazing! Who was holdingthe baby while he drove? Jack Maybe the child drove! I'm thinking the kid was CIA. Edited July 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&...ALat=32.7897677Let's try to pin point it? In 1986 aerial, zoomable to the degree indicated in image. If you indicate where to pan to, zoom in on etc? EDIT:: could you post/email the whole of Jackie, please? (I wish to study the blood on her) Where's her hat? John...I am not sure I saved the whole scan. I will look. The aerial is too tiny to identify landmarks. Can you zoom in and enlarge? jack POST DELETED AFTER SHARP OBSERVATION BY JOHN!Will be reposted after cutline alteration. Jack Post reinstated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) The man has his hand just under the child's chin ... almost as if preventing her from seeing the gruesome sight as it passes by them. The child's head is in profile. Edited July 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) it could be a wide hipped shortish man, it could be a woman maybe with small breasts. The criss crossing lighter lines could be a papoose of sorts. It looks to me also like a little girl, looking down with her hands in front of herself. Her right foot can also be seen. Everything where it should be for a child snuggling comfortably onto hip. Maybe a camera, maybe not, the face area is a bit funny. It seems unlikely either way that it is Hankins. The location of the Hankins limo is almost certainly as on image. (So the exact distance to the Plaza from here is known. If Corham is as indicated then the distance on to there is determinable, and at a suggested speed the time between the photos determinable.) this is direct link to there. Image is slightly enlarged from their max size zoom. The red dot is 1645 Stemmons. http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&...ALat=32.7974540 Edited July 16, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) These three versions of this picture show about the same photographic field and are vertically about the same - but the D. Miller on the left and the Yarborough (WC Exhibit A) on the right - are different from one another (not to mention the skewed window panes pointed out earlier) - but not nearly so different as the B. Miller posted recently and much earlier in the thread (#43). They are all different - which one is right? Edited July 18, 2006 by JL Allen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 These three versions of this picture show about the same photographic field and are vertically about the same - but the D. Miller on the left and the Yarborough (WC Exhibit A) on the right - are different from one another (not to mention the skewed window panes pointed out earlier) - but not nearly so different as the B. Miller posted recently and much earlier in the thread (#43). They are all different - which one is right? JL, the differences in width is just because someone sized the photo differently before posting it. My image is from the Yarborough photo, except with a bit more clarity. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) IMO the two non B.Millers are correctly proportioned, the Yarbrough is unskewed and normally lens distorted.. (the skewed one is also distorted, I suspect it's a photo (obliquely) off a screen, not a scan of a print) 250 yards :: 0.14 miles in x seconds 65 miles in 3600 seconds estimate about 7 to 8 seconds between photos? Edited July 16, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 If it's a leg...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 If it's a leg...? Looks perfect to me...whats to question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Wnat do you think? Maybe he had a prosthetic lower leg and it slipped off and was left hanging there? Did anyone ever ask him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) Wnat do you think? Maybe he had a prosthetic lower leg and it slipped off and was left hanging there? Did anyone ever ask him? John, you are too intelligent to playing Jack White's "What's wong with this picture" routine. At one point, Hill had his leg positioned as its seen in the Newman photo ... much like the way he is in the photo in question. In the Miller photo, Hill has merely turned his knee inward, which forced the shoe to go upside down and slid his foot down to the antenna where he hooked it over the side of the car. Bill Miller Edited July 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Wnat do you think? Maybe he had a prosthetic lower leg and it slipped off and was left hanging there? Did anyone ever ask him? What do I think? I think you need to deal with what is hanging over the lower chrome strip. You do still remember that don't you? As to Hill, guess what he's a human and humans have the ability to MOVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Stephens Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Wnat do you think? Maybe he had a prosthetic lower leg and it slipped off and was left hanging there? Did anyone ever ask him? John, you are too intelligent to playing Jack White's "What's wong with this picture" routine. At one point, Hill had his leg positioned as its seen in the Newman photo ... much like the way he is in the photo in question. In the Miller photo, Hill has merely turned his knee inward, which forced the shoe to go upside down and slid his foot down to the antenna where he hooked it over the side of the car. Bill Miller Bill There is no antenna on Kennedy's side of the car. The foot in the photo is Kennedy's left foot. To be Hill's foot it would need to be a right foot. Unless, Hill had his shoephones on the wrong feet. Look at the foot it's a left,not a right. Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 IMO the two non B.Millers are correctly proportioned, the Yarbrough is unskewed and normally lens distorted.. (the skewed one is also distorted, I suspect it's a photo (obliquely) off a screen, not a scan of a print)250 yards :: 0.14 miles in x seconds 65 miles in 3600 seconds estimate about 7 to 8 seconds between photos? Good work, John. Do I understand correctly that the photographer in the CORHAM photo is NOT "Hankins" because they are too far apart? John...I have been studying your aerial studies and find them fascinating, but am baffled by this image in one of them. I cannot tell what it is. Pleas clarify and post a better image. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 (edited) BillThere is no antenna on Kennedy's side of the car. The foot in the photo is Kennedy's left foot. To be Hill's foot it would need to be a right foot. Unless, Hill had his shoephones on the wrong feet. Look at the foot it's a left,not a right. Floyd I completely disagree. It is the same foot seen outstretched in the Newman photo. I have said several times that the sunlight reflecting off the well polished shoe has given a false impression as to the shape of the foot. The suns glare onto the sole area is an illusion because of the way the foot is rotated. Never have I seen so much debate go into something so easy to determine. Note below how light Clint Hill's dark suit looks ... the white haze causes me to believe that this photo had previously been lightened from its original exposure before being published, thus the expansion of the sunlit areas have expanded slightly. Now watch below as I turn up the light slightly and you will see the bottom of the shoe change shape even more. Bill Miller Edited July 17, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now