Martin Hinrichs

Chris, fantastic stable section of the Towner film. What is your source of the best Towner frames? Thanks Martin

Agree Robin, in Towner, this is the first street stripe on Elm. You can see that in Zapruder 1-132. The Towner film ended well before Willis4 and Zapruder. best to you Martin

Robin, the photowizard. I neglected this photo completely and hadn't it even on my disk. Great Robin, thats it. As i saw the big concrete Colum in the background i knew we are getting into the Zapruder timespan. You know, i have my own plat in CAD from the Rosemary/Dorman Topic on Duncan's forum and i've checked the Line of sights from Willis POV and Bingo. After crosschecking the Towner film i come to the conclusion that Willis4 is equivalent to Zapruder 133-134. At 135 Connally began to turm his head too much to the right and Kennedy too much to the left. The position of Kennedy's right arm in Willis4 and Zapruder is a kind of fingerprint when you know the position of Phil Willis. I'am very confident. best to you Martin

Robert, i believe we agree on many aspects surrounding the Assassination but not here. Martin

Thanks Duncan Yes John, that seems to be the case here. By the way, wonderful panorama! Thx Martin

Thanks Robin. Here the same frames, except 134 but stable. best to you Martin

Chris & Robin, yes, thats it. Good eye.

Hi Pat, you see Youngblood on his feet turn to his right? Can you please indicate via postwork what you believe to see? Youngblood is not completely obscuring Johnson. Parts of him are visible. I also can't see his left arm in profile. Can you help me to see what you believe? I've spend maybe more time with this photo than any other photograph. Lil self promotion: I've colored this Altgens 6 crop some time ago and almost everything is clear to me. Thank you forward. Martin

Thanks David As the motorcade entered DP, Johnson had off his glasses as you can see in Willis 02. Most parts of Johnson's head is not visible in Altgens6. Just the left forehead among a part of his left ear. The most parts are hidden by Rufus Youngblood (by the shoulder and his head) who was sitting left of Johnson (from Altgens POV) and not between Lady Bird and LBJ. My very best to you Martin

With all respect, but LBJ should be in broad sunlight and not in shadows. Apart from that, that shadowshape is too close to LadyBird. best Martin

Thanks for your response Bill. I will not come into a quarrell with you and respect your point of view as i hope you respect mine as well. I also do not know your relationship to famous researcher and what you can tell in public and what not. I still think you are too good researcher for that, anyway, i don't bother you further regarding this image. best to you Martin

Hi David, i'am not sure to understand everything correct. The man in Darnell at the inner edge is simply tinier it looks to me but in general it's true for sure that objects more away from the camera are smaller. The point is that BM, GA are general way too tiny apart from the light and shadow play , you've mentioned earlier here correctly. As i said before to Ken, the grass surface at the inner edge of the RT Wall has the same height level as the sidewalk adjoining the stairs. best to you Martin

I agree with Len. I think this questions should be answered. Martin

Talking about the famous Moorman photo and Badgeman and Gordon Arnold. It's certainly not my intention to offend anybody here. Please excuse me. All i want to do, is to expose the 3 figures behind the retaining wall in their proper scale. We all know this neat crop image which is published many times in books and i believed in the authenticity once upon a time. Everything in me cries NO. Every 3D gene in me says that this is impossible. And i'am 3D Freelancer since many years. It does hurt my understanding of proper scale. Gary Mack and Jack White are responsible for it. Why do they not reject their theory? I don't understand it. Both are adult and well experienced. It's so plain clear that they made a mistake. Is it all about money any copyrights? Bill, i know you have faith in Gordon Arnold. I have very much respect for you. I have an idea where Arnold can be in Moorman but not in that place. Again, it's not my intention to raise offense. I just want to know the truth. I started once a Poll on Duncan's forum and 33% believed in the authenticity of Badgeman. Thats a serious number. Thank you Martin

I don't know if the Patsy Paschall film on Youtube covers all frames?! At least in this Youtube version, this particular area (Badgman/Arnold) at the retaining wall on the grassy knoll is not captured immediately before or after the headshot. But it's the only film which captured Sitzman/Zapruder went of the concrete block. Barely visible in this poor quality. It's really a pity that this film was not enhanced from the first generation negatives. Or lets say, not made public. I have seen many many documentations....but no one covered a good copy of the Paschall film. The proof that the original Paschall film is of pretty neat quality in comparison the available footages is visible in Time Life magazine in 1967. This is a scan of one frame i've made. I did the best to enhance it via postwork in PS. Even the SS-100-X is visible in deep shadow underneath the triple underpath. Yes, even the presidential flag on the left side. best Martin

Dean, this crop of the Moorman5 photo seems to be added with Gaussian motion blur. Thats a really good technique to recognize shapes within degenerated old photos. Many people in the research community do the mistake to sharpen these kind of photos. It doesn't help at all. To be honest, at first i thought it is a picture i've once posted. This picture was for me 2 years ago the reason to join the JFK research community. I stumbled over Robin Unger's great Photo Gallery on Duncan's forum at that time and found a copy of this Moorman photo. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/index.php?cat=3&page=4 There a many different copies of the photo. No one with the quality like this. I mean the light balance. I was stunned to find a shape behind the wall. I looked again over and over. I searched than through the current JFK Forums (Lancer, Ed& Duncan's Forum) and found no entry regarding this shape. I said OK, post it and see what the others say. The response was small, whether pro or contra. The photographic evidence is since 2 years my hobby horse and i've spend a lot of time analyzing the photographs and thank Robin and others i learned a lot. Some of my views, i've rejected. But not this. It's still my believe that this person behind the wall in Willis and Betzner has not left his position in Moorman. The size of this shape is exactly the same as in Willis and Betzner. It fits. In particular in Betzner it appears to me clear that this person is wearing a hat. I know the majority of the JFK Research community will disagree with me about it. Most have their own theories about what have happend behind the wall during the shooting. I respect it. And i cannot say for certainty i'am right but i would bet a lot of money that BDM in Moorman is BDM in Willis and Betzner. I hope future generation technology can support or reject my thought. I hope for open minds. Thanks for posting it, Dean. best to you Martin

Sigh, you don't seem to understand. Your BDM couple (one is always hidden and didn't watch the motorcade) is 4´7" if they were standing on the sidewalk. Thats ridiculous. No, actually, I do understand. You're right. Your conclusion that BDM was 4'7" is absolutely ridiculous. So either rework your math, come up with some alternatives, or drop it altogether if you can't take it seriously. Ok, i see. Rigid biasedness. No problem. Have fun with your hobbits on the sidewalk. lol Martin

Sigh, you don't seem to understand. Your BDM couple (one is always hidden and didn't watch the motorcade) is 4´7" if they were standing on the sidewalk. Thats ridiculous. Thanks Bill. Yes, the ground level would be on the wall west side. Thats the reason why i used a dotted line. best to you Martin

I did that for height comparison purposes. I thought everybody get it. I doesn't change anything for you. You forget to add words like : i think, i believe, in my opinion...etc cause what you said again is nothing but your own believe. Thats you good right but i certainly disagree. Martin

Bill, i took care of the scale of course. She is scaled properly proportional to the different distances. I'am 3D Designer. You are maybe not aware of it. So, the illustration is correct. Thanks Martin

You have a lot of fantasy Ken. lol Nice story but nothing of the photographic evidence support it. best Martin

Let me add this measurements. It can help to understand the geometry of this part. Martin

Thanks a lot Bill. Now, thats interesting. I've been through. How could the Dispatcher know that it was number 78 (Tippit) before Bowley mentioned car number 10??? Bill, can you maybe describe from your memory what Myers criticized about Thomas? I'am not asking for a transcript. Just a rough description. Since you are not a part of this private group, i see no violation at all and it's a pretty fair question. Thank you forward. Martin

Well, i appreciate your and Gary's opinion of course but it's not a correction at all, Ken. It's just an independent thought. Look Ken, both Hugh Betzner and Phil Willis were both photographing from approx. the same height level as the area behind the retaining wall and the sidewalk. Hugh Betzner some 80cm higher than Willis. These are not upwards shots like Moorman5 for instance. They are straight level. Even slightely from above. The sidewalk behind the retaining wall was on the same height level as the grass area at the inner edge of the wall. I can't see a person standing on the sidewalk in Willis & Betzner and i doubt Hudson, Arnold or anybody else made a duck walk as the presidential limousine approached on Elm. I'am not just guessing. Geometry is the key to understand this pictures. best Martin

While we have the opportunity with Bill Miller (doubtless a good researcher with a keen eye) here i like to throw a question in. I hope you don't mind David for my little derail here. It's anyway somehow on Topic cause it has to do with the retaining wall. I've seen once a documentary where this issue was raised. I believe it was from Robert Groden. This docu showed for the first time clearly motion behind the wall after the headshot. So, i created once a stable GIF of the Nix frames 50-60 with the focus on the retaining wall corner to cross check it. Well, i can confirm it. It's for real and was even capable to work it out with degenerated poor Nix frames. Here the stable GIF. It shows a white dot moving down behind the wall. Nix frame 24 is equivalent to Zapruder 313. So, this motion happend some 1.5 seconds after the headshot. Bill, can you make and educated guess what this might be? I like to ask this question to you all Gentlemen, of course. Thank you forward. David, as you too i don't believe BDM is a shooter nor do i believe this shape is a couple. I believe it's a person who disappeared suddenly and that makes him suspicious. Apart from that, he was not standing behind the wall but crouching. all the best Martin