David Josephs

Getting you to spin your wheels and get all worked up is a pleasure CL... NEARLY means 30-40 feet to you... nice. and Let's try to remember where Altgens RAN FROM after his 5th photo Mr. ALTGENS - Turning right--headed toward the Book Depository Building. Mr. LIEBELER - All right. Mr. ALTGENS - I thereupon grabbed my gadget bag that I carry my extra lenses in and ran fast down across the Dealey Plaza to get down in front of the caravan for some additional pictures and I took this one picture---- Mr. LIEBELER - Wait just a minute now--at this point, as you ran across, you were along Elm Street; is that correct? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I ran across and reached up into--well, the curb area on the west side of Elm Street. DJ: He of course means SOUTH, but WEST of the TSBD Mr. LIEBELER - Across Elm Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you. Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing. Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes. (The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.) Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. So see if you can follow CL... Altgens runs PAST MOORMAN'S POSITION to the curb to take his famous photo... we can see the shadows of Mary and Jean in his photo and he claims this position is approx 15 feet from JFK at the time of his head exploding... We KNOW Moorman was than close yet it's 30 more frames before we see Altgens Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. Losing ground here CL... I could post a whole bunch more corroborating evidence for this short movement... 313 - 255 = 58 frames @ 18.3 = 3.17 seconds and according to the WCR survey data the distance from 313 back to 255 is 4+65.3 minus 4+16.4 = 49.9 feet. Except elsewhere in the WCR we KNOW that z313 was at 4+95 or 30 feet farther down the street.... (plus if you read any of Chris or Tim's work you know that already) So the WCR contradicts itself as to the location of z313 by 30 feet... and lo and behold, Chris finds a 30 foot error... the film... and the data accompanying the film DO NOT WORK TOGETHER... So it is really no surprise the recreation is designed to minimize this distance... by moving the camera and not taking a full frame image designed to match Altgens... the entire process was designed to cover up the 30 feet and the real location of Altgens. but then again - you aint never gonna learn what you dont wanna know... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm CE354 Now - Altgens 6 was taken at z255... except: Mr. LIEBELER - You testified previously, I believe, that the first shot that was fired had just been fired momentarily before you took the picture, is that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; it was so close you could almost say it was simultaneous because it was coincidental but nevertheless that's just the way it happened. That sure blows the z220 shot to hell... must be that z242 shot the NPIC found... So, bottom line, regardless of all your photo mumbo jumbo, the data contradicts the physical evidence, as does the testimony... The WCR was trying to hide as much REAL EVIDENCE as possible since they new it would disprove their conclusions.

The cheering I am getting is wonderful... The longer you stay here, arguing your worthless points, the less likely you are to interrupt on other threads... I'm being nominated for the Education Forum's "How to keep a xxxxx busy" award.... and all one need do is disagree with you Your image's lines are all wrong CL... bad measurements on a map that is not correct to begin with... FAIL again CL.... You think cause you draw a few lines on a map that you're believeable? Your LOS and FOV is determined by the focal length... if the receration camera was 50mm and taken closer to the limo location than the 105mm Altgens... it too can be cropped to be ALMOST the same LOS and FOV as the Altgens photo... Then do it CL... put up your work for all to see... determine the EXACT location of the cameras in the recreation AND Altgens photos and plot them onto a map of DP using multiple LOS, your lever math and anything else you want. Just SHOW YOUR WORK for once. First off the polaroid lenses were originally 114mm Secondly... Both from nearly the same position? REALLY? You are now telling us that the Moorman image below was taken from the same position as Altgens' image (and the recreation)? But they were nearly 40 feet apart CL... The FOV is different cause the cameras are pointed in different directions - yet when sized for comparisons the FOV are virtually the same The FACT that Altgens and Moorman can be overlaid and do fit suggests that the images were indeed taken much closer together than the physical evidence shows the distance between them to be... So which is it... was Moorman further down the street for her photo or Altgens further up the street?

Let's play with CL a bit - shall we... Not real good with that focusing are you - Mr. Professional The 24mm photo is out of focus... or is not focused on the van but on some item closer to the camera... as can be seen in the enlargement... You suppose they took a recreation photo SPECIFICALLY to crop to size and enlarge cause they couldn't simply put a 105mm lens at the spot Altgens took his photo? There a reason this 105mm recreation image HAD to be cropped - it was not taken at the spot Altgens was standing, not even close So once again CL... with which lens did they shoot the recreation photo so that many of the same components in the Altgens photo cannot be seen in the recreation photo... and from what distance... I agree with you that SAME DISTANCE DIFF LENS can be sized to match, never said it couldn't... Problem is these two photos cannot be sized to match since they were taken from different positions - nothing lines up with anything else - you can only line up individual elements within the photos... and since you don't know whether they moved 20 feet closer and used a 50mm lens then cropped... or moved 15 feet closer and a few steps over and used a 105mm lens as is... You can come to no conclusion related to the position of the camera in the recreation... for once again... the lever only allows movement in a small arc perpendicular to that which you are using as the fulcrum...That movement off LOS axis can be represented by a line extending from this arc ot the TSBD... this line can be used as LOS anywhere along it's length... If I were to move 20 feet closer to the TSBD on a line thru the limo and 1/2 foot to the right... I'd be pretty close to being on that LOS you claim can only be in a 10" arc connected to your lever. Since the photos cannot be matched we KNOW they were not taken at the same location - you claim a 10" movement (in which direction CL?) on an arc based on lever math - and that this accounts for all the displacement of objects in the image... I am saying, based on the following illustration... that any movement in the original position (blue line) creates a LOS that can be duplicated either closer or father away from the original location (red arrows pointing to locations along the LOS where a camera COULD have taken the recreation photo) and that the inability to line up the two images would be the same - can't be done. Bottom line is you have no idea were the recreation image was taken from cause your lever math does not disinguish between movements along the new LOS closer and farther from the subject... it can only discuss HORIZONTAL movement along an arc... So as you keep saying... you cannot measure between two images with different perspective... these two images have different perspective... by definition there is nothing you can offer to determine the distance of the camera in the recreation photo other than the angle of change in the LOS. Distances and focal lengths can be played with until the "cropped" recreation matches a piece of the Altgens photo...

Hi there Glenn... I've gotten past the point where a discussion about whether there was a conspiracy or not is warranted... there was. The most simple and direct proof of such a conspiracy is the SBT and the evidence related to it... Every bit of physical evidence points to a hole 5 3/8 - 5 3/4 inches down from the collar... the jacket AND shirt have holes in these locations the hole in the back - while described poorly in the autopsy - is in the same location.... Add this to Rankin's statement in the 1/27/64 Exec Session about a fragment leaving the throat "as described in the autopsy" - when it is not... and I believe you begin to see how the medical evidence - THE record of the assassination - was altered to fit a BETTER shooting scenario that included only Oswald. Add now add to this the Dallas homocide department, after catching their man so effectively and quickly and KNOWING he was the murdered of both men, decide NOT to record a single word of 12 hours of interrogation... NOTHING that would be admissible in court... how can a major metropolitan city's Homicide Division be so inept with something so important? From False Mystery Strange Inferences ·; At the time the first bullet impacted upon the President, Governor Connally, according to the Commission, was seated in a position which placed him in front of the President (W-106). The first shot to hit the President was designated by the Commission as having hit the Governor at any place between Z frames 207 through 225 (W-106). During 1 these frames the angle from a rifle in the sixth floor window of the Depository Building was roughly from 21° to 20° (W-102, 103). One would expect such a shot with a downward trajectory from the sixth floor, hitting the President 5 3/4 inches below the coat collar and not hitting any bone, (W-88) (the autopsy report describes the bullet entering "the upper right posterior thorax" [W-541]) would continue its path downward at a roughly 20° angle and emerge from the abdominal area. Instead, this remarkable bullet turned upward. It then exited from the President, who was sitting perfectly erect (W-102, 103), and tore through the left portion of his tie knot (W-91). One would certainly, once accepting this unusual and highly improbable course of the bullet, have to concede that it would fly harmlessly over the Governor's head heading for the sky. But the Commission asks us to believe that this strange bullet changed direction in mid-air. No bullet ever has, unless spent. But this bullet was far from spent, for it had an entrance velocity after passing through the President of 1,858 feet per second (W-95). Or how about the wholesale change to witness testimony AFTER THE FACT...? still not convinced?

Thanks CL For once again proving what a complete waste of breathe you remain..... Ignorant people such as yourself insult those they cannot understand... lash out at Chris and Tom for showing what a complete you are and always will remain... Now you proclaim that the recreation photo could be taken with any lens, from any distance cause all that matters is perspective.... So show us the full recreation photo CL... if it was taken with a 105mm lens like Altgens... it would look the same as Altgens (as it should)... it does not... it is either cropped or was taken with a longer focal length and there was no cropping or was taken with a shorter focal length and was severely cropped OR - it was taken from a different location.... further up Elm and off the LOS as to make it impossible to tell exactly where.... By your own admission CL, if the camera was moved 20 feet closer and 1 foot to the right and taken with a 50mm lens the recreation photo can STILL be made to look as if the camera was in the original Altgens location due to the similiar perspective and cropping/enlarging... when in reality the camera was not where the recreation camera was positioned and the recreation is a lie to hide where Altgens really was.. Yet another MISTAKEN WITNESS CL?? So many of them for you to try and refute... and you fail each and every time... BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

Whatever helps you sleep thru the night CL.... regardless - you're still seen as an inconvenient interruption and an intellectual midget when it comes to understanding the mechanics of the conspiracy or the realities of evidence and authentication... You STILL dont understand the math of either Chris/Tom or your pathetic lever attempt... or why it is so apparent the recreation did what it did... Where's the rest of the recreation photo CL... if they only moved 10 inches... why the cropping that removes any reference to the actual location of the camera? Unless you have the FULL recreation photo somewhere... if not... you have no idea where the camera was, or why they would recreate it in such a way as to hide the actual location of Altgens... Maybe the attitude of the WC could shed some light... did THEY care where Altgens was?? Not so much... Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired DJ: which would be about z250-z255Except LIFE puts the shot at z264 while NPIC puts it at z242 - both AFTER JFK and JC are hit and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases. Y'know CL... instead of living in a vacuum, maybe you'd be better served to read a little background first... know WHY the location of Altgens is so important... but I forget that you dont really care about this... only interruption, trolling and insulting... hey, at least you found your calling... Still trying to peddle those 3 inches of yours ?

Lamson... you are simply not worth the time or effort When and if you ever - stop trolling the forums, - disrupting every thread, - proclaiming yourself God/Emperor of the photo - and learn something about math maybe others will be interested in playing in the sandbox with you... as for me... you're just another annoying gnat on a bull's A$$ wishing someone would give you the credibility and respect you so crave on the threads you continually interrupt. and from the emails I get... I'm no where near the only person here who knows this.. So you keep on getting your jollies anyway you know how.... I'm sure at your age ANYTHING will do.... and continue posting - so we see how little you know or understand about the assasination btw - please, please don't forget the cute little insults you've become known for... they've become the only reason to read your posts anymore...

While making points regarding the practice of businesses in the early 60's NOT following any of the Standard Operational Procedural rules of their business that Drittal, or some other form accomplishes the CERT requirements for mailing a pistol.... why do we forget all the other aspects of the purchase process for whcih there is not record, no proof, and no authentication? as outlined below.... Each of the monetary transactions that created and accomplished the pistol order are not available for review... The SOP for Seaport who rec'd an order in January, without an envelope yet with a $10 bill attached The SOP for Railway to send Seaport their money The SOP for Railway to collect and deposit THIER share of the fees ($1.27) The SOP for anyone picking up a package ar Railway The SOP for payment to railway of the $21.22 ($19.95 + $1.27) and the SOP for recording all these transactions for the IRS, FTB, or any other taxing entitity. Someone placed the pistol order... or it was created after the fact... to connect Hidell to Oswald isn't the idea of an alias to remain UNidentified by using the alias... Braden comes to mind. So DVP... we have the coupon and SOME of the paperwork... why not ALL the paperwork if it leads back to Oswald/Hidell the purchaser of THAT pistol? DJ

This is it... the sum total of ALL the evidence related to the purchase of the supposed murder weapon of JD Tippit. Serial # hadwritten on the order... sounds familiar No records related to the $10 cash deposit or the envelope that and the coupon arrive in No records of the $1.27 Railway collects No record of the $19.95 forwarded from Railway No record of anyone at Railway picking up the carton No record of another Money Order or cash rec'd to pay the COD balance for the pistol No record of when Seaport recieves the coupon although it is at least 6 weeks before they process it (if 1/2 or 1/27 is the date on the coupon) and yet both weapons are shipped to the PO Box on the same day...) but other than that... a perfectly legit transaction... Thanks Gil... DJ

All for your pleasure there CL... Maybe you'll laugh yourself to Since all this is so amusing to you.... and so far beyond your comprehension that all you HAVE are these cute little comments.... when you figure out how the lane strip moves in your 10" off Altgens position recreation photo... of how nothing else lines up when using the obelisk as the anchor Same distance, same focal length, virtually the same location (according to you)... yet two completely different results... Pull out that lever math of yours and use it on your lane marker... a whole lot of movement for being so close to the camera and then tell us whether the recreation photo was cropped or not... if they took it from the same location with the same lens, where's the rest of the image? this should be entertaining...

FWIW... Chris, the notes from NPIC that weekend point to the one scenario they liked... z213 > z242 > z312 as well as on the PANELS page they write 224 > 256 > 312 It's obvious LIFE worked backward from 312... as the question on this page reads: "from the 8 m film how do they know exact frames of 1st and 2nd shot?" They didn't... they worked backward... which is why your work shows so much as the math was ALSO created working BACKWARD from 312/313. LIFE gave us z190 > z264 > z312/3 Here are the 5 frames (other than 313) that shots were ultimately identified on... z242 and z263/4 are repeatedly identified as frames with shots.... Three and ONLY three shots... Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur- rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul- timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

Just a quick Chime in... Gary emails me anytime I post something he feels is not a true representation of historical FACT as presented by the FBI and WCR... He, nor anyone else for that matter, has provided anything close to an answer for these questions: If Kleins shipped Hidell C2766 for his order... 1) show us any other order where THAT type rifle was substituted for THAT order 2) show us any order for any of the other 99 rifles on the C2766 packing slips that were sent in place of C20-T750 3) Show us an order that was actually fulfilled by a M91/38 FC 40" rifle - what was ordered? 4) Show us an order that was for C20-T750 and the rifles Kleins used to fulfill those order starting in June 1962... since in January 1962 they cancelled all their M91TS riles from Crescent that WOULD have been used to fulfill those orders... and this is only one of the many areas in which Gary tows the company line.... Doesn't he suppose that the FBI would have shown us an order for a C20-T750 that WAS shipped a M91/38FC instead... just to show it was being done? as well as to show these other orders to prove their case for Oswald being Hidell who in turn ordered one thing and rec'd another? DJ

Can you continue with that thought Bill? The lead car would not have been at the TSBD until AFTER the men on the 6th floor are seen around 12:15... Would you say 5 minutes ahead of the limo? And even if the lead car tells a cop... how do the men around DP get the message, other than just seeing the lead car? I guess if someone was listening to police band they could relay the message that the limo would be late.... What is strange to me is why these men began looking out the window just about when the limo was SUPPOSED to be in front of the TSBD, if they knew how late it was, or even if they were told exactly where it was... why expose themselves 15 minutes before they needed to, when witnesses could be looking at other things than the motorcade? ... other than to see if the lead car had come by yet??? I am still of the opinion that what Oswald did or didn't know about the timing of the motorcade has HUGE implications related to his actions and guilt. Oswald on the 6th floor at the right time is just not possible given what we know about what he knew.

Nothing but rhetoric in your response yet again CL.... a great big "F" for the photo expert... Same old CL BS... where in my question do I use the word HORIZONTAL? YOU claim that a movement of 10 inches is enough FOR THE HORIOZONTAL movement of the letters - yet that would and could ONLY BE perpendicular to the LOS... Yet placeing the camera 10 inches from the Altgens location PERPENDICULAR TO THE LOS would not create enough of a VERTICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE to account for the change in the recreation's vertical LOS... YOU LOSE as usual... unless you can show how moving 10 inches from Altgen's spot also changes the vertical LOS as we see it... The recreation MUST be further up Elm and very near the same LOS as the Altgens... NOT exactly the same... but close.... to both account for the Horizontal AND vertical changes in the LOS... Now flap your lips and say nothing yet again in your reply... your argument works with only one type of movement - perpendicular... Maybe you will realize that moving the camera 10 inches perpendicular to the LOS does NOTHING to the vertical LOS, AND tilting the camera to a more level LOS at this 10 inch location would result in items within the recreation to be further out of VERTICAL alignment as they are... If the lens was the same and the distance just about the same, the images should match. Altgens' position was moved much more than 10 inches perpendicular to his LOS.... Why not admit that your LEVER math only works with perpendicular motion on a level plane CL? a bit too stubborn for that?

You are hilarious CL.. Do you not notice that the entire recreation picture is taken from a less extreme low-to-high LOS... as if the camera is pointed more straight on rather than UP at an angle... are you going to now show us those math skills and tell us how 10 inches in any direction changes the LOS VERTICALLY on a 3 degree slope ? Here are the two images in a gif... it is OBVIOUS the walls of the TSBD tilt forward from Altgens to the recreation... IOW the camera is pointing LESS of an angle upward than in Altgens... How much further up Elm can the camera move so that it can be used almost head on and STILL be able to match the tree in front of the TSBD? You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inches to accompish the vertical shift in the image and finally CL... your re-example of the letter movement once again assumes only perpendicular movement.... If we keep all things constant and simply move 20 feet directly closer to the TSBD and up the 3 degree slope, you wanna bet the photos can be made to look the same even though the location has changed dramatically? and since you have no idea from where the recreation photo was taken... you cannot work backwards ASSUMING they were taken from the same place. The ONLY way your LEVER math works is if you can figure out the EXACT perpendicular change AND the exact angular change VERTICALLY as his position is moved UP both Elm and the slope.. Go get 'em CL...

Once again you try to confuse the issue... The 20 foot movement was not AT the TSBD but at an angle... the 5 foot movement was not perpendicular.. but at yet another ANGLE You have NO IDEA how the camera was moved or to where... you make assumptions and ASSUME the LEVER math works since you start your example off with a WRONG ASSUMPTION. and then support you WRONG ASSUMPTION with wrong movements Try again CL... The example you posted (red line movement to blue line) is approx 20 feet on the Don R map. (since Moorman is 40 feet from Altgens) Your own lines show the slight movement in the LOS to the TSBD lettering as you claim. If a 20 foot movement can result in a minor change to the LOS - AS YOU HAVE SHOWN AND PROVEN -... why do you keep claiming only a 10" movement for the recreation camera?

CL - while it is indeed a nice try... you completely forget about LOS in your LEVER math.... The LEVER Math only works with perpendicular movement CL... Do you have a photo of where they put the recreation camera? Do you know the lens used for the recreation? a simple yes or no here CL. If you do not know where the camera is or the lens used you CANNOT use your lever math... You ASSUME that the recreation camera and Altgens' camera are the same distance from the TSBD... You also assume that the recreation image is printed at the correct size, no cropping, just like Altgens again... and you do not know these as facts You can't use the Altgens camera position to determine the potential MOVEMENT of the recreation Camera - unless the movement is exactly perpendicular to the LOS... YOU need to figure out the different LOS possibilities for those two images to look so similiar... cause we KNOW where Altgens was, and we also know the curve of the street and the distances involved... You keep trying to tell us that there are no other locations in DP that the recreation photo could have been taken other than a 10 inch circle around Altgen's original position That's complete BS and you know it CL... Moving UP towards moorman and over is NOT the same as moving perpendicular to the LOS... your LEVER MATH is worthless in this example.... but again, nice try....

Let's get a little better idea of where Altgens was and how that alignes with Moorman Your logic is completely based on EXACT PERPENDICULAR MOVEMENT of the camera in relation to the direction the camera is pointed.... You assume the MAXIMUM change in LOS rather than what is possible based on the reality of the Plaza... Try this CL... if we were TRYING to recreate Altgens AND move him up closer to Moorman AND maintain a "close enough for gov't work" attitidue where would YOU move the camera and what would YOU do with focal length and LOS? If a person was to move closer to the TSBD by 20 feet and then perpendicular for 5 feet... and use a different focal length lens this person would have a view SIMILIAR to Altgens yet he would not be 220 feet from the TSBD any longer As this illustrates...moving perpendicular to the arrow pointing AT the TSBD could create the shift you are referring to in your LEVER math But we are not saying the recreation moved him in that direction... the recreation moved him UP THE STREET, closer to Moorman Based on the curve of the street we can see that movement in that direction would not affect the "letters on the TSBD" as much as your perpendicular movement would. So tell us CL... do we see any photos of where they placed the camera for this recreation, which lens was used to take the photo? And then explain to us your LEVER math as it relates to moving in OTHER directions rather than perpendicular... what are the LOS changes if you are not sure where the recreation camera is?

You first Lamson... You've done nothing to support your claims... SHOW YOUR WORK or move on already.....

Jim... I am hoping this is not simply a matter of semantics... The Luncheon was scheduled for 12 noon for VIPs JFK was to arrive at 12:15 (45 mins from arrival at 11:30 at Love to the Trade Mart) Anyone with knowledge of JFK's route and a desire to shot him from a window in the the TSBD SHOULD expect JFK to pass by around 12:10 - IF ON TIME The motorcade left Love at 11:50, 20 mins late... At this point do you believe there were changes in the route to make back that 20 mins or was the rest of the world going to wait until the POTUS got there? I don't think anything was changed Oswald - if the Lone Nut - needs to know when JFK is passing his building to be ready to shoot him... If all he knows is what's been published and announced... JFK would be passing his window at 12:10.... When does the LN need to get his rifle ready to fire in that case? and where is he REALLY at 12:10? On the other hand, witnesses begin seeing men with rifles and men watching the street/overpass between 12:10 and 12:20 ON THE 6th FLOOR and then recede back into the darkness... Men in the SW and SE windows Would they have known he stopped to shake hands and was 20 mins late leaving the airport? but knew they needed to be in position ahead of time? Jim - Even if JFK landed an hour late and he or Jackie had a 45 minute "emergency"... people in DP and the Trade Mart would have still turned out on time to see him. The motorcade would still have left and there still would have been teams in DP ready to fire... IF you are saying that DC could have aborted the assassination due to this TIME ALLOTMENT being used up... THAT I can see and fully understand since people returning to their offices due to their lunch hour being over COULD HAVE interfered with teams in DP.... yet imo, even that had contingency planning... Gut feeling is that there was no way he was going to leave Dallas alive... Dick Russell writes about alternate plans along Stemmons and at the Trade Mart... and my guess would be there were others at the airport to try and kill him... but that's purely speculation. To sum up... I agree that the motorcade timing was crucial to the assassination working.... anytime between 12pm and 1pm though would have been PREFERRED due to the emptying of buildings... Curious... in Chicago and Tampa... what times where the motorcasdes scheduled for? btw - it has gotten to the point where anything and everything is worth looking into and researching... there was a time Jupiter had only a few moons... now, with clarity, we know there are over 60... what is mysterious and incomprehensible NOW will change in time... as illumination is brought to the subject... Keep shining those lights Jim... DJ

Hey there Tom, Chris... If dawned on me that since we are comparing Altgens location in relation to Moorman.... a few things come to mind - according to Don's map, Altgens is 40 feet from Moorman... - if Altgens' recreation was moved up the street as hypothesized, is there any photo that captures Moorman's POV back toward the TSBD? Moorman 3 includes the concrete pillar at the far right of the frame... I took M3 and added Altgens and the recreation photos all centered on the concrete pillar... Since lenses dont matter according to the resident expert... if Moorman 3 was taken with a 105mm lens instead of the wider angle polaroid lens how would that compare to the two other photos? If Altgens moved only 10 inches, the moorman photo should not work at all from her location 40 feet NE of Altgens, when compared to either altgens or the recreation... If distance is the same, or very close, a change in focal length should not matter If moorman and altgens are taken from different distances it should NOT work and the recreation could NOT be sized to Moorman 3 No doubt I'm doing something wrong yet it appears from this overlay that the recreation photo could have EASILY been taken from moorman's location in her #3 image... 40 feet from Altgens. And that there is simply too much rotation within the photo to have the recreation only off by 10 inches.... unless CL can prove it with his math skills (PS - if CL is going to mention math repeatedly - don't you think he should show HIS work instead of just claiming he's right and not offer anything to back himself up?)

Duncan said he was having speed troubles and was migrating to a new site.... I thought I had the new link... but can't seem to find it.... I had already registered there as well... at least I thought I did... DJ I'm guessing Duncan will post links here and there to lead people to the new location...

Thanks Chris... I want to clearly understand this.... 2 seconds at 24fps into the 18.3 version of the Zfilm I assume. Can you state your conclusion related to the T film and Z film without pronouns My understanding is The WCR slowed the limo to 2.25 mph from 161-166 so the movement would only be .97 feet during that time so the different films would sync... specifically Towner The Towner Splice also allows the films to sync? The splice at 156 allows for ?? Where exactly is the 2 seconds of fim at 24fps?

Why again is one of those needed? Isn't THAT POV pretty well defined by now? What are they going to say? Weitzman was "Mistaken"? Truly and Baker, "mistaken"? Hill's declaration - "Mistaken" again? 1:34 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol. Just curious... The evidence was changed, altered, created, lost, fabricated, lied about - not to mention the wholesale removal of all this evidence without record... yet we know Dulles didn't want it out... so he changed the evidence... How can we be sure that any piece of evidence establishing the guilt of Oswald is "AUTHENTIC"?

I'd be interested in your work as well Barry.... I am a reality theorist.... the authentic evidence of this case conclusively shows the conspiracy... and I'm all about authenticating the evidence... PM me for my home email address DJ