Martin Hinrichs

Can you see it too Josiah? Todd, thank you for your sharp eye and your compliment. Thank god there are people out there whom realize it. Martin

David, Lady 8 is under inspection because she is the one directly behind JFK's head. Lady 8 is wearing something unusual. A pocket below here dress. This is the shape according to Jerry what we see in Altgens. The shape of this bright part is almost square we have to keep in mind. I'am sure to read it also from Anthony Marsh but can't it find here now just in hurry. I will update my post as long as i find it. Can you see it now? Martin

You know so little about it and have such a big mouth Len. Your thoughts are up to you but i can ensure you....you are wrong. I have meanwhile evidence at hand that it would can fill a book. I consider to do something like that. Time will tell. The problem that you don't understand sun angles is not mine. My goal is to show my research to the public. Not just to you. Live with it. Why should i waste again time with you to show something you don't understand? Len, be sure i publish my results in any form at any time. It will make you look like a fool. And i don't know yet how often you will be mentioned in my work. It's up to you and what you will tell in the future. Martin

Just a little sidenote here. Kathy Becket convinced me to contact Hany Farid instead of just accusing him to do fakes. So i did. Our email conversation began almost 3 months ago. Hany answered pretty quick in the beginning and i was always utmost respectful. Never harsh. As time goes by and my questions become more detailed, the more glutinous and slow it turned out from his side. I often repeatet my questions til i got an answer. I was patient and did not repeat the questions too rapid. I gave him often 2 weeks to answer til i repeated again. The last question (it was an image request) he denied. He says it takes too much time. I know as a 3D expert it would take not more than 5 minutes. So i thanked him for our conversation and asked for permission to make this conversation public. He did not respond. So i repeated again after 3 weeks...kindly. I received a simple and dry "NO". Our conversation has ended at January 20, 2010. I would love to share our conversation, but i'am not allowed. Just in case you doubt it, ask Hany Farid by himself. farid@cs.darmouth.edu

Pat, none of the images you've linked appeared. Is this just my connection? But i agree with you. The longer i think about it, the more i'am convinced. In particular his statement to be 50 feet away from the motorcade. All the bystander on the sidewalk are just 20-25 feet away from Kennedy. The only person whom more than 20-25 feet away and west of the TSBD are the Hesters, Sitzman and Zapruder (all far more away than 50 feet) and the persons on the steps. The fashion of the red man shirt are another convincing argument to me. Martin

Great work Duncan!

Hi Jack. You did so many good research and discoveries in the past. I'am grateful of your work. Don't get me wrong. We are standing at the same side of the fence. The assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy with a following Coverup within the highest instances of the US government. In particular your work on the backyard photos are to me a highlight. But unfortunately lately you are going to interpret too much in fuzzy and bad quality frames/images. The only reason i can imagine is, you was critized here too much over and over and blamed even with shameful sarcasm which nobody like to read. And your new discoveries are just a counter reaction of it. I don't know. It's just a guess. Jack, there is no bowling ball or a too long arm. Why in the world should anybody alter this frames and the person in question at this time of the motorcade? Nothing unusual happend when the presidential limo moved down Houston street. What should be the reason to alter the shape of this fellow? It is just a low hanging jacket sleeve as Duncan stated correctly. Go to ask yourself please why there is no support from any of your Alteration friends regarding many of your latest discoveries. Can you consider that you are wrong? Possibly? I would love to see the good old Jack back again. The Jack who inspired so many young people in the past. Me included. Respectful Martin

Hi David. Thanks for your response. To be honest, one of the hardest part to uncover in Altgens was this odd shape above the steering wheel and Jackies right hand. Croft was such a huge help to find the solution. It was actually a bag, Lady 9 is carrying in the crook of her arm. Lady 9 is dressed in white and many parts of her a visible in Altgens. Even her elbows which i tinted in pink. But the crucial POI (point of interest) belongs to Lady 8. Anthony Marsh says it is her pocket we see in Altgens. That claim doesn't convince me. Can you see it? best to you Martin

as is evidenced by what I wrote here: (Peter used the 5% and 10 times 5%in his post #61) Thank you Kathy. But nevertheless it was something i let you and others to know. It was time to say it. best to you Martin

How about disagreeing with Jack as an option...about not seeing what he sees? Why do the folks who frequent these threads have to be "sadists, masochists or fearful"? Ok Kathy. What Jack is presenting lately is beyond any judgement. It is false as it can be and a tremendous backstep into the photographic research evidence. I stand in with my word. Martin

Hello Josiah I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6. I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed. Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning. I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me. It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join. The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end. Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background. Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here. As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this. Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket. But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6. Lady 8 is the one under inspection. I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no solution for this crucial part. What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror. Important is: a.) the correct angle of the windshield b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield. Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6. Please test it by your own if possible with photographs. It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood. We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna. Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6. We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center. How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way? A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft. Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides. Thats the next part on my tasklist. You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved. And the discussion of it has not ended. best Martin

Pat, thats an interesting observation. As long as we include the west loading dock (which was a part of the TSBD in 63) in our calculations, then we having a very nice fit. best to you Martin

Thats disturbing and revealing at the same time. /o\

I prefer to look at both sides. In fact 447 shows the whole wall and therefore better to examine. Your claim that there might be a window is plain wrong. You need no sun to see glaring light. The power of light is responsible for that. Don't put words in my mouth. I said it was rising time. You wanna be nitpick? Your time is wrong. Go to calculate here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php 7:06 am What was the weather that day? Ring the bell? Or were she standing on a retaining curb with a torch lighting thru your windows?

There are no windows. There are just wooden slats and between some of theme glare light. Depends on the sun position how much of glare would be visible. On november 22, 1963 at 7:20am was just rising time. Diffuse and dark. She could never have seen what she claimed.

Todd, where are this windows you are talking about?

Hi Doug. Let me add two things. First: The damage to the windshield we see in Altgens6 is in the same place as in Altgens7. The damage to the windshield is in the upper right area close to the mirror (Altgens6) and the claim from certain people doesn't hold water saying this is just a part of a womans pocket in the background. Why did the people who proclaim there is no hole with some macro photographs from the original windshield or even do a simple liquid test with it ? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to silent this issue? Time to wonder.... Thank you for kind words. Martin Edit for number correction. Thank you Jack

Jerry, as it is a certainty that Altgens was left (west/north) of Bothun would mean Bothun would between Hughes and the person below DPD officer W.H. Denham in Bronson. We would see Officer Harkness in his lens but we see only his shadow on the ground which is to me a good indicator that this is actually Bothun and Altgens unfortunately out of sight on the left in this fine Bronson photo. best to you Martin

Yes Todd, i think thats possible. In particular when looking at the first Hughes frame (man with yellow coat) If thats the case, i think we see the back of Bothun (below of yellow coat officer) best Martin

Robin, that Officer D.V. Harkness (thank you Todd) must be the cop in Bronson as well, ergo Hughes must be in the LOS from Bronson's POV. Possibly the man with the black jacked without hat? Martin

Good question Jack. Robin or anybody else....are you know a source (book or internet link) where i can find a highsize version of the uncropped version of Altgens5? Edit, sorry Robin. I got the number wrong. I mean Altgens 4. Thank you Martin

Thank you Jerry. Thats a challenge my friend. Not easy. It is hard to tell exactly where they were standing just based on this photographs (different position [low/high] different cameras and adjustments etc.) An accurate way would be a 3D photomatch/re-enactement. Something what i did with Moorman#3. So this is how i see it. But no guarantee. It's actually possible that Altgens and Bothun were both more a bit south but i would say it's certain that Altgens was north of Bothun. And Bothun north of Hughes. Bronson is clear. Sharp mind Jerry! Another variable is this map. We don't know how accurate it is. I think this is constructive research gentlemen. It trains parts of our brain which is often unused. Not bad at all. In particular for the photograpic research of this tragic event. My best to you Martin

I understand Robin. Thats how i see it: best

Hi mate. Not sure how do you mean that. Sure Robin. Altgens, Hughes and Nix were standing all in front. The arrows are just rough positions. best Martin

Hi Jerry Here is just a quick review. As it looks like in the great Bronson image (thank you Robin) the crowds made a quarter circle shape in this Main-Houston intersection. The photographers should be there i think. I place Nix between Altgens and Hughes in this (my) updated position. What do you think? Martin