Stephen K. Doyle

To all: I note that the members of the forum typically refer to each other by their given names, rather than by their full names, with titles, such as I did in my first post when I referred to “Mr. Jack White.” I was not attempting to be unduly formal, and do not wish to be so now, so henceforth I will try to remember to use first names, when appropriate, when referring to other members of the forum. I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it inappropriate for me to refer to him or her in this way before we have had a chance to become acquainted.

To Floyd: “Thank You” for the words of welcome.

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it. Your reply indicated to me that your have great passion for this subject and that you are frustrated that the thread keeps getting sidetracked by posts, such as my own, that seem to retread ground apparently well covered. I feel that this is due in no small part to the woefully inadequate way I expressed my point-of-view, so I will attempt to clarify this presently.

I admire your passion but I don’t share your apparent frustration. This thread has gotten quite long, and yes, it does seem to move at a snail's pace sometimes, but it has proved sufficiently interesting – “compelling” might be a more apt description – to prompt a response such as yours, to cause me to finally post something on this forum, to attract the interest of photo experts, engineers (that’d be me, for one), at least one lawyer, an expert in video techniques, authors, researchers, and numerous others I won’t even attempt to identify here. The thread now runs to 29 pages, and 400 or so posts, and is as active now as it was when Pat started it rolling. I think that this subject is WORTHY of our attention, and is WORTHY of US.

Now, back to my clarification.

I SEE the “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

I also SEE the “HAND” in the photo. I know you must find this hard to believe, so I’ll try to explain.

Pat started this thread about “Photo Alteration in the Media” with the photo we’re now discussing as the BENCHMARK against which other, later photos might be judged. A consensus quickly was reached that some later photos had obviously been altered from what is seen in the “original,” which, I believe, was published in the Warren Volumes as the “Yarborough Exhibit.” It was quickly noted, however, that the BENCHMARK photo had features in it that seem a little “screwy.”

Pat also mentioned some of the proffered explanations of what we see in the photo, noting that it had, at various times, been described as Kennedy’s foot and later, as Clint Hill’s foot. It was this suggestion that I was attempting to debunk in my post.

When I got to that point in my thinking, I was perplexed. I think, based on some of the questions raised by other forum members in their posts, others may be as perplexed as I am. We’ve got this “foot” hanging over the side of the car. It has “SOUP” hanging from it and is strangely indistinct in the toe area, even as it is receiving so much light from above and behind as to obscure all of the detail of its side in “glare,” and with the reflective surface of the limo close at hand. The glare then came into question.

It was pointed out – correctly, I think – that we should EXPECT glare on the polished surface of the shoe somewhere, to which Jack countered that there is entirely TOO MUCH glare. I think Jack is right. The shoe possesses compound curvature in the area in question, which should evidence glare that is clearly defined in extent. Only those areas of the shoe that present a reflective surface that lies at the half-angle between the sun and the camera should reflect light in this way. To borrow a phrase, “Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.” The photo posted by Lee (post #20, I believe. More on this photo later.) of the limo taken from the other side shows, on the heel of Hill’s shoe, a good example of what I mean. I also noted that all of the other areas of “glare” in the photo appear on the upper, left surfaces of the objects on which they appear. This is decidedly NOT the case for the glare off the shoe. I’ve tried to replicate the glare seen in the photo by viewing one of my own shoes in the room where I’m sitting with a single, bare light bulb for illumination. I can’t do it. I get this area or that area, sometimes a couple at a time, to exhibit the reflections, but I can’t come anywhere close to replicating what I see in the photo. This and the “Soup” lead me to conclude that the BENCHMARK photo we’re studying has been subject to some form of alteration, PRIOR TO any subsequent alteration by members of the media.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

If we assume that what we see here is a hand, we immediately solve one of the other problems associated with the “foot” interpretation; was the President wearing a WHITE sock, or is it just white because of the ubiquitous “glare” that seems, at times, to be everywhere present? In this interpretation this becomes a shirt cuff, which coincidentally is appropriately positioned relative to the “hand.”

But… the hand has a problem. It’s got a shoe, complete with an apparently correct outline of a LEFT SHOE SOLE, growing out of it! We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND. Where the palm would be, we can see a shadow that is correct for a hand held aloft in this position, but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it. I can’t reconcile the image of the shoe sole with the shadow cast by any of the other things in the photo, so I conclude that what I see is, in fact, the sole of a shoe projecting out from what would be the wrist area of the arm. So… if this IS an image of an arm and hand, we’ve got a photograph that, necessarily, has been doctored, or which, at least, contains some rather peculiar artifacts added during its processing.

Is everyone following me so far?

Here’s my dilemma: If this is a foot (shoe, actually), why does it have a nearly perfect image of a hand in the background, and why does it contain some obvious anomalies, which lead me to suspect that the photo has been altered? If it’s really a hand that I see, then the photo has, necessarily, been altered, because no hand I’ve ever seen had a forefoot growing out of it. The situations are analogous. Foot with hand, hand with foot, photo altered.

Now, if the photo HAS been altered in this region, I’m debating what I see in an ALTERED PORTION of the photo! This drives me to distraction. How can I know that ANYTHING here bears ANY relation to any object that was captured in the image by the camera?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

The reason I think what must have BEEN visible in the photo was Kennedy’s foot has nothing to do with what I see in the photo. I think basing my decision on a suspect image would be foolhardy. I base my decision on WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED for a foot or a hand to be visible here. I have to make some assumptions, and frankly, neither explanation is easy to swallow. After grappling with this question, I understand why some have questioned what might happen during the “Death Throes” of a man.

Let’s assume we see a foot - or WOULD HAVE SEEN a foot, anyway. To get that foot up there on the back, top corner of the seat, the President, who most believe had been slumped to his left into the First Lady’s lap, is going to have to move his feet off the floor, must move his hips towards the left side of the limousine, allowing room for his legs to pivot around behind him, must then pivot his legs UP onto the seat ending up with his left foot resting over the side of the car, as we see it, all without leaving any other part of his body, save the foot in question, visible. I wrote, “the President… is going to have to,” but Jackie, or Agent Hill could have moved him thusly, I suppose. This is not easy to accept.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand. To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat, leaving his head located somewhere near the junction of the seatback and the side of the car. After, or while, falling backwards he’s got to move his right arm (remember, it’s a RIGHT hand) up to a position above his head so his hand can reach the top corner of the seat, and must then ROTATE his hand outward as far as he can, exposing his palm to the camera. I tried this in my car, and can’t get any other orientation to work. It also required me to use essentially ALL of the muscles in my arm to rotate my hand outwards so it would appear as it does in the photo. So, I conclude that this, too, is POSSIBLE, but is even more improbable than the gyrations described in the preceding paragraph. As above, this could have been done TO HIM, and this must be accomplished without leaving any other part of his body exposed to the view of the camera.

The clincher for me is this: When the motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital, and after Governor and Mrs. Connally had been removed from the car, the attendants were delayed somewhat because Mrs. Kennedy WOULD NOT LET GO OF her nearly-dead husband, or so I have read. Do you think that this woman let the President out of her grasp even ONCE on the way to the hospital? I don’t.

Sincerely,

Steve

P.S. I’m sorry, but with all that’s going on in my life, I seem sometimes to be living in some kind of weird time warp. I wrote most this yesterday night, but didn’t get it finished. I finished it a moment ago and want to get it posted. I signed on and read enough of what has been added to the thread since last night to include the following quote, which I think is a fitting ending to this post:

To put it in perspective (as I know Jack has - in conference presentations right there in Dallas), we are reading about interpretations regarding photos taken at a time and in a place (are you ready?) WHERE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN DOCTORED!!! ARGGHHH!

Shoo, shoe thread. Requiescat in pace. Non compos mentos. Those boots are made for walkin'.

Regards,

JohnG

Amen.

This is my first post, so to all on the forum I say "Hello!"

I apologize for the lack of a photo. I'll get one posted soon.

I've been following this thread since about when it started because the topic is interesting to me. Judging by the number of posts so far, I'd say there are many others who find it equally as interesting. Judging by the content of the posts, I believe I can safely say that this issue is as contentious as it is interesting!

Seems like a good place to jump in with both feet. Or a foot and a hand... Or a hand and a hand...

Looking at the Miller photo while following along with the foot/hand discussion, I became convinced that we really ARE looking at Kennedy's LEFT FOOT in the photo. I believe this for two reasons.

Firstly, looking at the sole of the shoe, particularly as it is shown in the WC Exhibit photo (I believe I've got this right), the curves on the opposite sides of the sole look exactly like those on a pair of my own dress shoes I dug out of the back of the closet for examination. I've taken the liberty of drawing in these two curves on the photo below. For comparison, I'd suggest you look at versions of the "unaltered" photo to confirm that my drawn-in curves match the actual outline of the sole, as the curves mask the underlying details in the photo.

I perceive the right curve as beginning at the heel, continuing forward for some distance before flaring out sharply near the toe-box of the shoe. The left curve appears to be much longer, beginning much closer to the heel the the beginning of the curve on the right. This is exactly what I see when I turn over my LEFT shoe and view it in the same orientation as the shoe in the photo.

The second reason I believe this must be Kennedy's left foot, as opposed to Clint Hill's right, is the impossible orientation of the foot and lower leg (PARTICULARLY the lower leg), in relation to Hill's backside. I've added my interpretation of two possible leg orientations for Agent Hill to the photo below as well. One is the leg orientation suggested by Mr. White. This is correct, in my opinion.

The leg orientation I've drawn in that would support the conclusion that the "foot" seen in the photo is Agent Hill's won't work. Notice that I've assumed a location for Hill's right buttock. This assumption is founded on the curvature of his "back" at this point (see photo). I can think of no circumstance that would explain this curvature in the lower back, so I conclude that this is the profile of his buttock. If this is his buttock, and as we can see the direction of his lower leg, projecting forward from the "foot" in the photo, it's a simple matter to connect these two with an upper leg and the remainder of the lower leg, as I've done on the photo. Notice that the knee MUST be forwrd for this to work. This presents a problem.

I couldn't see how Hill could have his right knee out in front of him (at an angle, to his right), and still face forward as he is facing in the picture. Worse, I can't see how he can have his right knee in this position, plus his left leg folded back under him towards the RIGHT SIDE of the limo (the ONLY possible location for it, if we're to believe the photo of him taken from the other side of the car, with his right foot extended - sorry, I don't know who to credit for this photo), and face the RIGHT FRONT CORNER of the limousine.

You might ask, "How can we know this?"

Look at the full, uncropped version of the photo, not the version I used, which crops out the motorcycle policeman at the left rear of the limo (I think you'll find a good copy in Mr. White's post #361 on page 25 of this thread). Notice the front of the cop's uniform. Now look at the front of Clint Hill's suit. The cop has both hands on the handlebars of his motorcycle, thus we KNOW that he is facing directly forwards. Try this on a motorcycle or bicycle if you don't believe me. Clint hill is to the cop's right in the photo, and closer to both the camera and the center of the image. Because of perspective effects, we expect the amount of Hill's suit front exposed to the camera to be LESS THAN the amount of uniform front visible on the policeman, if both were oriented straight ahead. We don't. We see MUCH MORE of the front of Hill's suit. Thus, he MUST be facing towards the right, exposing more of his suit front to the camera. My assumption that he is facing the right, front corner of the limo is just an approximation of this fact.

Now, I'm going to ask you to do an experiment. I did this yesterday in my wife's car.

Climb in the back seat of your car with your knees on the seat. Face the left side of the car, with your left knee against the seatback and your left lower leg running along the base of the seatback towards the right side of the car. Now put your right toe up on the right window ledge, which right now is behind you. Move your right foot back to the rearwardmost part of the window ledge. This should all be pretty easy. Now reach out with your left hand and grab the laft side window ledge. Should still be easy. Here's where it gets a bit dodgy.

Now, rotate your torso around so that you face the right front of the car. Or, just rotate until your body is facing straight ahead. It won't matter. If you are pretty limber you may just be able to do this, although you'll be pulling REALLY HARD on some muscles that usually don't get pulled on, as I did. Now, one last thing; with your left leg back there behind you, your right toe up on the right window ledge, your left hand on the left window ledge pushing your torso around clockwise for all you're worth, trying to get you facing straight ahead, rotate your right knee up in front of you, so that an onlooker outside the right side of the car can see about half your lower leg. If you've not dislocated anything, and perhaps after you return from your chiropractor's, let me know how you did. You have to try this on your own volition, as I don't want to be the cause of multiple broken bones and/or dislocations.

If you, like me, cannot acheive this position, you should conclude that Hill couldn't either. I'm 43, very athletic, and very flexible, and I couldn't have my torso rotated to the front while my right knee was raised. I tried for 15 minutes. Probably looked pretty funny to anyone in position to see what I was doing. My right hip and my right knee just don't hinge in a way that makes this orientation possible.

Let me know how you do.

Steve

My hometown is Bethesda, MD, which was, during my childhood, a (not so small) bedroom community immediately adjacent to the Northwest border of Washington, DC. I spent my entire childhood in Bethesda, and except for a couple years living in Auburn, AL while attending Auburn University and a like period living in Hampton, VA while attending Old Dominion University, I have lived within a few miles of my hometown the bulk of my adult life. I currently reside in Wheaton, MD.

I have worked as a laborer, a bricklayer, a courier, and as a forklift operator. I drove a flatbed delivery truck for a lumber supply company. For a small, custom-built furniture maker in the Washington, DC area, I have worked as a salesman and furniture designer, then as the Director of Sales, and currently, as the Database Administrator, which database I designed and created from scratch.

Immediately after my High School graduation, I enrolled in the School of Architecture at Auburn University, from which I moved on to American University, in Washington, DC. Both of these educational experiences ended disastrously, as my actual major at these two universities was “Not Attending Class.” (Yes, I had VERY indulgent parents.)

I began my REAL college education in 1987, attending night school at Montgomery College, in Rockville, MD. After earning my Associates degree in engineering there, I moved on to the University of Maryland at College Park, from which I was graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering. At Maryland, I was a laboratory assistant in the Aerospace Engineering Design Lab. I was a member of the Golden Key National Honor Society, and Sigma Gamma Tau (the National Aerospace Engineering Honor Society in the United States), and was a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Subsequent to my graduation from the University of Maryland, I attended Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, VA, enrolled in the Master of Engineering in Experimental Methods program in the School of Aerospace Engineering. During my time at Old Dominion, I worked for a couple months in the control room at the Langley Full-scale (wind) Tunnel prior to assuming my post as a Graduate Research Assistant in the Model Systems Branch at NASA Langley Research Center, in Hampton, VA. My work at NASA culminated in the publication of what is, at Old Dominion University, the equivalent to my Master’s Thesis: An Optical Technique for Measuring Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads, which was published in the AIAA Journal, and which I presented at the Automation and Instrumentation Society (AIS) annual conference, in May, 2002.

I originally became interested in the assassination of John Kennedy while reading Lifton’s Best Evidence and Livingstone’s and Groden’s High Treason, and Livingstone’s High treason 2. After then “putting down” the assassination for the many years I was in college, my interest was renewed by a repeat reading of High Treason 2 about three years ago. Since then, I think I’ve read about 30 books on various aspects of the assassination, plus more of the articles and essays available online than I could possibly count. I have only recently begun reading the discussions on this forum.

I have never been an educator, and I have never published any research on the assassination. I am, however, currently working on research (that is not ready for publication yet), in which I am applying terrestrial, close-range photogrammetry in a study of the Zapruder film.

I am not likely known to any of the members of this forum, save Dr. James H. Fetzer, with whom I exchanged a couple short e-mail correspondences last year, and who was quite gracious and encouraging to me when I betrayed my near complete ignorance of the Zapruder film at the time, and Don Roberdeau, who was equally as gracious and encouraging, and who spent a great deal of time assisting me during the early stages of my current research, answering all the questions I asked, even though he did not know me until I sent him an unsolicited e-mail earlier this year. Don, if you are reading this, “Hi!”

An Interesting but Worthless Biographical Tidbit:

Growing up in Bethesda, MD, I used to play with a couple friends who lived on the next street in a house I could get to by climbing the fence in the back yard of the house across the street from my own house. I was very young, and cannot remember much about them except their names (which I’ll not mention here, as it is not important to this story), that they lived in a big, white clapboard house, they had a couple Saint Bernard dogs, they used to brag that a “Kennedy” used to visit their house, and that their last name was Sheridan. I have a vague recollection of their parents, and remember that they were very nice.

Reading Joan Mellens’ excellent book, A Farewell to Justice, this past spring, I read with interest her revelations (and speculations, perhaps) about the activities of a Walter Sheridan, confidant of Robert Kennedy, whose name I had not previously encountered in reading about the Kennedy Assassination. Wondering if this Walter Sheridan could possibly be the “Mr. Sheridan” I remember from my youth, I found his obituary on the Internet and was able to confirm that Walter Sheridan and “Mr. Sheridan” were one and the same.