Martin Hinrichs

Martin

As a side issue, while looking at the Towner frames i also noted that the limo tire seems to be well inside the white line.

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

Willis 4

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

As I stated at the top of the thread, he was absolutely, positively not waving to the crowd then as has been believed practically since the day of the assassination.

As to whether he was pushing his hair back or checking that part of his head for damage, I don't think we have nearly enough detail to confirm that one way or the other. If he was checking for damage, I suspect that he would have gone out of his way to stay cool and appear normal.

JFK heard no shot then and it appears that he was not directly wounded. So, there was no reason for him to believe at that point, that anyone was shooting at him. And in fact, up until a few days ago I was under the same illusion that everyone else was, that he was waving to the crowd then.

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

Martin

Thanks Duncan

He's just sweeping his hair back but beacause his elbow is on the limo, to complete the sweep, he turns his head the way he does.

Yes John, that seems to be the case here.

By the way, wonderful panorama! Thx

Martin

7-Frame Gif ( Z-133 Z-140 )

The few early frames z133-z137 appear to be quite blury, and the camera shake in frame Z-134 doesn't help

Click on the thumbnail

Thanks Robin.

Here the same frames, except 134 but stable.

best to you

Martin

Looks like LBJ to me as well hard up against the door.

The yellow line indicates the alighnment of the sides of the car body. ( leading back to LBJ'S door )

Chris & Robin,

yes, thats it. Good eye.

FWIW, I was never able to figure out what was going on next to Lady Bird in this photo, but thanks to this thread, I now suspect we can see Youngblood on his feet with his body turned to his right, completely obscuring LBJ.

I'd previously assumed he'd turned to his left, which is why I couldn't make much sense of it. But it now seems to me that his left arm can be seen in profile, and his head is turned to the right and partially obscured by the windshield frame.

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

I like Martin's take on where LBJ is yet I have a concern with it... In Bernice's image LBJ is wearing sunglasses... he may have taken them off yet we do not see the glasses' arms in Altgens6. It SEEMS that is the right place for him as he is indeed hugging the side of the car. Yet he seems awfully small given how close he should have been in the back of that car and how much larger than Lady B he was.... as well as being so far over to the right...

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

Martin,

I have not a clue as to what in the hell you are talking about. Yes, people have placed colorization crops in the Moorman photo - a poor print choice at that. However, Mack and White used the best actual UPI scan of the Moorman photo, thus everything is to scale. Jack and Gary did measurements and checked their work. I forget the man's name, but Jack's work was recreated for this individual who found nothing wrong with it.

I used stand-ins at the locations we are discussing. I placed Mike Brown at a point where the LOS intersected in the Betzner,Willis, and Moorman photos combined. I put Tony Cummings at the fence on the RR yard side of it and I took a recreation photo. These men's images matched what was seen in the UPI print. What made them look vertically longer than Mary's images of them was that I matched up the two retaining walls from top to bottom while not knowing that the ground base on the east side of the wall was at a different elevation than it was at the time of the assassination. Once I found out that I made the wall too tall and corrected it, then I found that Brown and Cummings were within the realm of the size of the individuals seen in Mary's photo.

All this information was posted in detail and should be in the archives for those who will take the time to read through it all. Even if the images may or may not still be available - the text should still be there. As long as people keep using the poor fuzzy prints, then their conclusions cannot be any better than their source material.

Bill

PS: In speaking with Mark Oakes today, Mark could not remember all we talked about concerning the Pascall film. It is true that Pascall didn't film the head shot, but her film did show the walkway area within about 13 seconds or so after the limo sped off and while Zapruder was getting down from the pedestal. Mark wanted someone to lighten that area to better see who, if anyone, was there.

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

Some images that show how much higher the ground behind the wall is compared to the front corner of the wall.

Initially I did an image much like Duncan's in which the size looks as if it doesn't make sense.

But the problem was, up till now, that we never seemed to show a photo of the elevation back there.

How the ground dips near the front inside of the wall and the front outside, what moorman sees, extends well below the level of the walkway.

I simply took an image of another person and placed them in these different locations. Granted, this is 2D representation of 3D space yet from this view if seems that a person standing back toward the fence might be represented as we see in moorman and is much taller than his counterpart by the wall.

and from behind we see the man at the wall much shorter than the other people. Given how the Knoll slopes away so fast... does this change your thoughts Martin... Obviously, Bill believed this all along...

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

Do you agree with Pastore that

- the Nazi's discrimination against Jews and invasions of their neighbors were justified?

- Jews were responsible for WWII?

Simple yes's or no's will suffice

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

Bill,

I know you've said that BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid , I just can't believe it, given that no human is visible behind the wall in Mooreman.

Todd

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

Great. Now put your cut and paste figure further back from the wall at the top of the steps in both of the Willis and Betzner photos. Then we might have a more accurate idea of how tall the BDM figure really was in comparison to a 5'9" woman in heels.

Ken

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

Great. Now put your cut and paste figure further back from the wall at the top of the steps in both of the Willis and Betzner photos. Then we might have a more accurate idea of how tall the BDM figure really was in comparison to a 5'9" woman in heels.

Ken

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.

Right on, Martin .. I wish I could do that stuff. Now ... are you able to get the ground level at the wall on its west side?

Bill

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

Your illustration may or may not be correct. But why would you cut and paste Sitzman at the end of the wall? No one is saying that she was there. And she was a tall woman, possibly 5'9" according to a relative of hers whom Jack White spoke to per a post of Jack's on this forum back in 2006. And she was wearing high heels.

I did that for height comparison purposes. I thought everybody get it.

Anyway, it doesn't change anything. The young couple was standing at the top of the stairs in Betzner and Willis. Then they took cover on the ground behind the wall just before Moorman. Ten seconds or so after the last shot they were gone.

Ken

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

Martin,

Sitzman assumed the kids got up and ran away ... she never said she saw them do it. My understanding is that she only saw them last when the parade entered the plaza.

The Sitzman scaling is not accurate for she was closer to the camera than the BDM, which your illustration didn't allow for.

Bill

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

No shooter. No Mom. No baby. And no broom. Just two kids, a boy and a girl between 18 and 21 -- as barely older, 23 year-old Marilyn Sitzman described them -- standing together at the top of the stairway. That's why we don't see them sitting on the bench behind the wall in the Betzner and Willis photos. The girl is blocking a view of most of the boy to her right in much the same way that Running Man blocks a view of most of Emmett Hudson to his right on the steps below. She may have been holding a rolled-up umbrella. After the shots began, but before the last shot, the two kids took cover behind the wall -- which is why we don't see them in the Moorman photo -- and were soon joined there by late twenties, white not black, Running Man who called back, urging 58 year-old Emmett Hudson and 60 year-old Francis Mudd to get down, which they did, Hudson on the steps and Mudd in the grass to his right. Within 10 seconds or so after the last shot, the kids got up and ran to the back, according to Sitzman. However, they weren't getting up from the bench, but rather from the ground behind the wall.

Ken

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

Hear No Evil

Chapter 14 - The Tippit Case

By D. B. Thomas

From Mary Ferrell

http://www.maryferre...sPageId=1538456

No wonder Dale Myers was mad at John Simkin for posting his comments on Thomas' book.

While generally known and well regarded as an expert on the acoustical evidence,

Thomas takes no prisoners here, and it is apparent that he has spread out and is no longer just

a specialist on the acoustics, but has also applied his keen, analytical approach to much of the other evidence.

And guess what he finds?

This chapter completely destroys the credibility of the Tippit evidence, the Dallas police,

the medical doctor who operated on Tippit, the Warren Commission's conclusions,

and Dale Myers and his bogus book With Malice.

http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/the-tippit-murder-case/

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

With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and 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.

Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.

So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."

The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.

Ken

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

Here is the sequence in slowmotion:

I never noticed the lady walking behind Croft. She turned her head to the left in the last frame.

Linda Willis also visible, still standing.

best

Martin