John Butler

Good point Ron.

Come on guys.  Pay attention.  Altgens 5 was a topic for the Marie Muchmore post.  We are now on Altgens 6 which has some interesting things In it.  How about those painted shadows?

I'll have to apologize here.  My rather bleak and dreary thoughts on the assassination in Marie Muchmore turned people off.  And, they skipped over the brief presentation on Altgens 5.

One of the points I tried to make in the Marie Muchmore post is something may have happened at the intersection of Main and Houston.  It is an area that bears more scrutiny.  I'm almost tempted to believe Bonnie Ray Williams when he said that her heard two shots when the president's vehicle turned onto Houston from Main Street.

The Warren Commission thought Bonnie Ray Williams was a great witness.  They believed him.  Why can't I?

It is suspicious at the least.

 

 

The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Free Way sign at about Z frame 210.  The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255.  Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299.  Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317.  Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338.

The argument about the 3 shadows in Altgens 6 is also old.  I first ran across this on Greg Burnham’s website in August, 2015.  I didn’t stick around to see how they resolved it.  I was turned off by the shadows and noted those folks weren’t seeing what I was seeing.  It was not important at the time.

Here’s the shadows:

Here’s another discussion of the shadows that will present the matter more fully:

I didn’t know this picture existed at the time but this is what came to my mind about the shadows in August, 2015.

In Elsie Dorman we see human shadows or better representations of human shadows.  In Altgens 6 we see painted objects sloppily done.  The sloppiness of the painted shadows indicates hurriedness.  The shadows are not at the same angle in the photos even though they can’t be more than seconds apart.

The candle flame heads of the shadows can only be painted by a rigger brush or one similar.  A rigger brush is a type of paint brush that has a lot of bristles to hold a lot of paint and it tapers to a fine point.  If you have a steady hand you can paint very fine lines with it or with a little pressure wider lines.  The pointed heads come from lifting the brush slowly as you stop painting or applying the brush gently as you start painting and add more pressure as you progress.

The shadow of Charles Brehm is particularly bad.  I’ve painted thousands of shadows in paintings.  Most were ok, some not.  You can get away with almost anything as long as you point the shadow away from the light source in the right direction.  It’s a cheat in your artwork but, one you usually use to save time.  Besides, people don’t like too much detail in objects.  I have found over the years that you need to leave something for the viewer’s mind to fill in.

The shadows are painted objects.

 

Brad Milch,

Thanks for all that info.  I didn't know any of that stuff.  It's not in the things I am going to post.  I don't feel confident enough to make a reply to you.  Thanks for the info.

David Andrews,

The front tire is a composite image.  The last thing I put up on the Marie Muchmore post has information on what I see in Altgens 5.

Rather than go over that again please go to that post and read it and tell me what you think.

The Door Way Man and the bullet hole in the windshield will not be discussed.

If Altgens 5 is a fraud then can we expect Altgens 6 to be authentic?  Check out the front tire in this Altgens 5 crop.

This is one of the internet higher resolution images of Altgens 6.

All of this has been argued before in many places by many people.  The subject of Altgens 6 being a cropped photo is old.  I’m just mentioning it here to get to my point on the shadows.

I believe that Algens 6 is a cropped image.  From where Altgens was standing on Elm Street his camera should have shown to the right (photo left) the R L Thornton Freeway sign and the Stemmons Freeway signs.  If this photo is in agreement with Z frame 255  as everyone says then the signs should be behind the presidential limousine.

And, to the left (photo right) should be shown the SW corner of Elm and Houston Street and the various alleged people in the fields also.  I believe this photo was cropped to make the presidential limousine hard to place on Elm Street.  Long ago, I learned in Learning Theory that people learn a route by signs along the way.  There are no signs here.

The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Free Way sign at about Z frame 210.  The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255.  Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299.  Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317.  Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338.

If one frame equals a foot or there abouts (just guessing here, things can be corrected easily), then Ike Altgens is close to 130 Z frames or feet below the Stemmons Free Way sign.  The things mentioned should be visible in this photo.  Another point to make here is if the presidential limousine has not reached the free way signs on Elm Street then the size of the Secret Service Agents is too large and the people in front of the TSBD to small.

Vice-President Johnson’s security details vehicle is very distorted.  However, the people in the crosswalk are not.  They appear normal.  What gives there?

Whew?  Doggies!  That brought 'em out of the woodwork.  I must have hit a network of nerves.  Thanks for your comments.  I will assign your comments to their due worth and place. 

Dealey Plaza has always been a wild and weird fantasy land.  I particularly liked the shadow explanation.  You guys have added to the legend.

Why pay any attention to the Bull Goose Looney?  Why not let the laughable fool go on his merry way.  He will soon stop posting. 

This will be my last post here.  There are other things that can be said but I think I made my point.

Let's continue this argument in a new post on Altgens 6.

Are there any photos or film frames that help with the issue of the different appearances show in the triptych?  Yes, there are two.  The first is a crop from a Cancellare photo.

As we can see here Mary has things on and carrying something that we do not see in Zapruder frames 287 to 317.  These are high heels and a purse.

A good question at this point is have you ever seen a full length photo of Mary or Jean at the Sheriff’s Office?  All I have seen are photos that show the two women from the waist up.  It’s a minor point but one my sense of peculiar things keeps bringing this up.

The next photo (I don’t know whose this is) has parts of Jean Hill available to view.  Particularly, her leg is visible.  We can see her black shoes with white soles and her bare leg.  Her bare leg?

In this photo we see the Babushka Lady blocking our view of Jean with her coat flared open in the wind.  Meanwhile, Mary Moorman’s coat is not flaring in the wind.  What gives there?  By the way, does Mary Moorman have some sort of shoulder affliction that causes her to hunch her shoulders which always lifts her lower coat edge above the level shown in her Polaroid?

The whole photo is a hoot.  The shadows in the bottom part are at a different angle than the shadows in the upper part.  This indicates two photos taken at different times.  The boy in the front is a black cutout.  In the street is a man just to the left (photo right) of the motor bike who is buried in the asphalt up to his knees. Or, it could be he simply has really, really short legs.

Sigh, another piece of photo evidence flushed down the drain.

It's obvious you fellows don't have a sense of humor even though you claim you do.  Can you spell ad hominem?  Do you need me to provide you with a definition?  If you can stomach it stayed tuned for more "silliness".  Or, you can simply ignore this post.  Or, is what I am saying somehow threatening to you?  Here's one to ponder.

The Elsie Dorman film and the Zapruder film show different things.  It is as if some kind of Man In The High Castle has sent two different versions of reality for us to look at.

 

There is a problem with this analysis.  Things do not really match well between the ladies on the SW corner and Jean Hill and Mary Moorman as far as clothes go.

Jean Hill and Mary Moorman can be seen from Zapruder frames 287 to 317.  That’s about 30 frames and less than 2 seconds. At no time does either one have a purse or a pair of high heel shoes.  The ladies on the SW corner do.  Jean and Mary have white slacks, white socks, and flat shoes. 

The ladies on the SW corner can be seen from about Z frame 58 to Z frame 208 or so.  They have bare legs with nylons, presumably.  One has high heels, the shorter lady, the other flat shoes.  They have purses.  There are differences that need to be reconciled.

Hi Michael.  I'm worried about you.  You seem to be losing control. Brace yourself, more outrageous things are to come. 

You Lone Gunners should praise me.  You should carry me on your shoulders with accolades.  After all, I am doing your work for you freely.  Believe me, it is not intentional.  It is just working out that way.  After I get through walking down Elm Street there will be little evidence left to prove anything on either side of the Lone Gun Theory or Conspiracy Theory side of the argument. 

You need to go back and re-read the post X marks the spot.  Then again, maybe not sense you seem to be having problems. 

Thanks, Robin.  I don't see your point.    Not all of the Dorman frames are there.  These are good shots of the SW corner of Elm and Houston Street.

Elsie Dorman does not show the two women in black seen in the Zapruder film.  The two women in black are there from when the first 3 motorcycles come around the corner in the Zapruder film about Z frame 58, the gap occurs, the president appears at Z frame 133.  What's missed are the pilot car, the advance car, 5 motorcycle policemen that come just before presidential limousine.  The two women are there through this for many frames to about Z frame 208.

They are nowhere in Elsie Dorman.

 

I posted about 5 hours ago an Elsie Dorman frame.  It shows two women in the spot claimed by Jean Hill.  If you take the tan and white coat of the woman there and paint in black or dark blue she becomes the spitting image of Mary Moorman.

Robin,

This is a sketch not an accurate map showing the length of Elm Street.  The sketch shows position A, Jean Hill, directly across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD.  If you make something different of that that is your problem.  I ain't going to learn what I don't want to learn!

Can you or David answer why Arlen Specter marked this document Top Secret and hid it away for years?

Hi David,

Your absolutely right.  you ain't going to learn what you don't want to.  Take for instance your latest post.  It is a house of cards built on a basic assumption you can't prove.  It is built on the assumption that someone fired a rifle from the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD.  Go back and read my post on X marks the spot.  You can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone fired a shot from there.  5 out 7 witnesses the closet to the sniper's nest stated they did not hear shots from there.  They heard shots from elsewhere. 

Thanks, Robin.  It is time to go back to some serious research.  Or, you can always chalk it up to the "worst photo analysis ever".  I really don't see how you move from directly across the street from the SW corner of the TSBD to half way down to the overpass.  Maybe, that's the serious research you speak of.  It was as serious as the Oswald photo post in which you digitally smoothed the photo and cropped the photo to hide the weird, amputated shoulder. Yep, go back to serious research.

 

Hi Ray, it's easy to get confused here. 

Your right about the first day.  The second day is when the problem begins.  Jean Hill changed her story.  Go back and re-read the beginning of this post.  You have a concise summary of the documentary evidence noting that change.

This post started with Z frame 153.  It shows two women in black where Jean Hill claimed she was standing.  As an experiment, what would it take to turn these two women into Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.  Or, conversely to change Jean Hill and Mary Moorman into the two women in black.

First, Jean Hill would be the taller one.  You would need to remove her flat black hat (pillbox hat).  Second, you would need to change her hair color from grey to brown.  And, third paint her coat red.

These changes are not beyond the skills of artist/photo editors of that day.

Mary Moorman is easier.  Change her coat from black to dark blue.  Change the reddish hair to darker hair.  What would that look like?

My eyes and hands won't allow me to do detailed work.  This is my first time painting with a mouse.  More than likely it is the last.  It is good enough when you compare this to some of the artwork on Phillip Willis and Robert Croft in Z frame 157.

Robin, thanks for replying.  You’ve got it.  That’s exactly where most people see Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.  That’s where they are shown in photos and films.

The problem is, in the documentary evidence, Jean Hill claims she is across the street from the TSBD.   Arlen Specter’s sketch, Hill (Jean) Exhibit No. 5 places her across the street from the TSBD.   On the sketch Jean Hill’s location is A.  The presidential limousine’s location is X.  And, across the street in front of the TSBD is E, a row of people sometimes referred to as the mannequin people by Jack White.

Z frames 95 and 138 give a good look at what the sketch is about.  First, Z frame 95 shows clearly the two women in black that are in the area Jean Hill claimed she was in.  Z frame 138 shows A= Jean Hill,  X= President Kennedy, and E= the row of people on north Elm Street.

The problem is further complicated by Elsie Dorman showing a different set of women in the area that Jean Hill claimed to be in.

The two sets of women are occupying the same space at the same time.  That is physically impossible.  This is complicated by not showing Phillip Willis and Robert Croft.  Elsie Dorman shows 8 other people that are not in Zapruder.  

Where did Jean Hill say she was when the assassination occurred?

Mary Moorman has always been consistent in her testimony on where she was at in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.  Jean Hill and Mary Moorman’s statements began to diverge after the first day.  Initially their statements at the Sheriff’s Office gave roughly the same location, down Elm Street in front of the Grassy Knoll / Monument area.

• Jean Hill said in her Voluntary Statement at the Sheriff’s Office on November 22, 1963 “Mary and I were wanting to take some pictures of the President so we purposely tried to find a place that was open where no people was around and we had been standing half way down toward the underpass on Elm Street on the south side. We were the only people in that area and we were standing right at the curb.”

• It was important from the very first, within minutes of the assassination that she and Mary be in that location at the curb. 

• Jean Hill repudiated this statement later.  In her book The Last Dissenting Witness on page 32 gives an account of this statement.  She said that she was given a blank form to sign which she did.  This statement turned out later to be pretty much a copy of Mary Moorman’s statement. 

• Jean Hill says her statement is not her statement, but something prepared by the Dallas Sheriff’s Office.   This statement of hers makes it clear why her later statements diverge from her Voluntary Statement at the Sheriff’s office.

• On the day after the assassination, November 23, 1963, Jean Hill was interviewed by FBI agent Robert Lish.  She told Lish that “she was standing in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository observing the Presidential Party”.

• On March 13, 1964 which is 11 days before her WC testimony she was again interviewed by FBI agents E. J. Robertson and Thomas T. Trettis, Jr.  In their report they indicate the two women were opposite the TSBD main entrance.

• Harold Weisberg in Whitewash III saw this as the FBI agents editing her statement and spreading disinformation.  After all, the Zapruder film has them further down the road on the grassy area across from the pergola.  Both the Zapruder film and  Elsie Dorman film shows two women in this location claimed by Hill that do not appear to be Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.

   

  

   

• Isn’t it strange we have only two views of the SW corner of Elm and Houston, Zapruder and Dorman?

• Jean Hill’s Warren Commission testimony is important.  Because, months later after the assassination she is still saying she was across Elm St. from the TSBD.

• On March 24, 1964 Jean Hill was interrogated by Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter at Parkland Memorial Hospital.  SAIC Gordon Shanklin said she would be escorted there so she would be sure to be there.  This interview was recorded in 19 pages and eventually was placed in WC Volume VI, pages 205-223.  According to The Last Dissenting Witness, none of the verbal abuse, scorn, and ridicule directed at her Arlen Specter was recorded.

• The most important thing that came out of that interrogation was her true location in Dealey Plaza.  The FBI, the CIA agent, and later at the hearing Arlen Specter were trying to get her to agree that her location was down Elm Street in front of the Grassy Knoll.

• Instead Arlen Specter ended up with Hill, (Jean) Exhibit No. 5.  This places her across the street from the TSBD.  This sketch was classified Top Secret and was hid from the public.  This document was eventually stored in WC Volume XX, page 158.

 

 

• In her book she says she spent 15 months under surveillance and interrogation by Dallas FBI SAIC Gordon Shanklin during which he tried to get her to change her testimony.  

Is this enough evidence to say that there might be something wrong with what is shown in the Zapruder film about the SW corner of Elm and Houston?  I just discovered the You Tube video Magic Mary Moorman.  It’s been out there for years.  I no longer feel lonely with my suspicions of what is going on the Zapruder film.

I'm just saying YouTube is a hoot.  I've learned more about strange things like snake eyed reptilian aliens than I ever want to know.  Supposedly, 82 alien races are infesting the earth.  I'm just saying these things are fantastical.

Trump assassination thing is all over youtube.

I have been reading through what you guys are saying and it would sound like looney tunes except it is real.  The stuff on YouTube is mind blowing.  I idea that Obama is a homosexual and his wife Michelle is a transgender is something I didn't know.  Is it real?  Why am I hearing about something like that on YouTube 8 years after Obama became president.  Really strange stuff.

The question I want to ask is If Trump follows through with what he says he is going to do then what is the chance he will he be assassinated by the same elite forces that got Kennedy.

Death of the Lone Gunman Theory and the Zapruder film

I went to Dealey Plaza at about the same time I started thinking about the Kennedy assassination.

Robert Groden and his crew were set up there about July 17, 2015. 

 

 

Somehow, I got the notion he was responsible for X marks the spot.  If not, Robert, I stand corrected and apologize.

They were nice people until I screwed up and said I could paint the head wound in the Zapruder film better.  That ended the conversation dramatically as the fellow turned and walked away.

In recent times, if most people say that the Zapruder film is a hoax then we need to move on to something else.  So, what did the witnesses say happened about X marks the spot?

I surveyed 50 witnesses who were the closest to the alleged sniper’s nest and those that said they saw something happen in the TSBD on various floors.  This is because the Lone Gun Man theorists say that Lee Oswald fired his rifle from the eastern-most window on the 6^th floor of the TSBD.  And, this is the central core of that theory.

A list of these witnesses is at the end of this discussion.

Although I do include information on where the shots came from that is not the focus of this survey.  Other people have done that.  What I was interested in was where the witness was and where the President was when the witness heard shots.

I biased he study.  The bias is to what the witness said in their first testimony to either the FBI, the Dallas authorities, or the Secret Service.  That was preferred over their later testimony.  I thought their memories would be the freshest and they would not be as much influenced by others on what they said.

I noticed in reading these testimonies that they evolved from November, 1963 to March, 1964.  This evolution generally favored the Lone Gun Man theory.

A good example is the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams.  First, he said he heard shots when the presidential limousine turned from Main Street onto Houston Street.  Second, he changed that to when the limousine turned into the intersection of Elm and Houston.  Third, he again changed that to after the limousine passed his position.  This seems to have satisfied the FBI.

If you were a smart lawyer wouldn’t you like to have this kind of testimony to work with?

So, you can redo this survey with later testimony and change the numbers somewhat.

There was not any complex statistical methods applied, there was no test of significance, no correlation ratios, or analysis of variance done.

What was used is just simple addition and percentages.  Here are the results.

Where The President Was When Shots Occurred

• One witness, Bonnie Ray Williams, locates the President at the intersection of Main and Houston Streets turning onto Houston St, when he heard two shots.

• 24 or nearly half of the 50 witnesses, about 48%, who had been surveyed made statements that located the President turning into the intersection of Elm Street and Houston Street, or in front of the TSBD when shots were heard.  In later testimony in their statements some changed their testimony to indicate the President had passed by their location thus indicating he was further down the street towards the Grassy Knoll.

• 8 witnesses, about 16%, located the President at or near the Grassy Knoll.

• 11 witnesses, about 22%, did not give enough information to indicate where the President was located when shots were heard.

•  1 witness located the assassination location as near the Triple Underpass.

• 5 witnesses, about 10%, didn’t know where the president was when they heard shots.

Where The Shots Came From

• 9 witnesses, 18%, said they did not know where the shots came from.

• 12 witnesses, 24%, didn’t say where the shots came from.

• 1 witness, 2%, said they came from up in the air and didn’t know for sure.

• If you combine the first 3 bullet points you come up with 22 witnesses or 44% didn’t know where the shots came from or didn’t say.

• 3 witnesses, 6%, said the shots came from the Triple Underpass.

• 6 witnesses, 12%, said the shots came from the 6^th floor of the TSBD.

• 7 witnesses, 14%, said the shots came from the TSBD.

• If you combine the last two bullet points on the TSBD then you would have 13 witnesses, 26%, who said shots came from the TSBD.

• 1 witness, Junior Jarmen on the 5^th floor, said he heard shots from low and to the left.

• 1 witness, Billy Lovelady, heard shots from across the street.

• 1 witness heard shots from the Court House.

• 1 witness heard shots from the Court Records building.

• When you combine the last 4 bullet points of witnesses hearing shots from near Houston Street you have 8%.

• 1 witness heard shooting in front of the TSBD and thought is was a party celebration.

• 7 witnesses, 14%, said they heard shooting from the Grassy Knoll.

With 48% of the witnesses surveyed saying the shooting began when the President’s limousine turned into the intersection of Elm and Houston or was in front of the TSBD casts reasonable doubt on the Lone Gun Man theory.  And, in court in with a jury, if there is reasonable doubt about an event then that event didn’t happen.  You can’t use it.  So, there goes a good deal of evidence about the Kennedy assassination.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is a killer.

Because of reasonable doubt you cannot prove that Lee Oswald or anyone fired a rifle from the alleged sniper’s nest.  Here’s a brief explanation concerning witnesses closest to the alleged sniper’s nest.

There were 3 men on the 5^th floor of the TBSD when the assassination occurred.  They were just below the sniper’s nest.  They are:

Harold Norman- testified in detail about shooting from the sniper’s nest

Bonnie Ray Williams- said essentially the same as Norman but in less detail

James “Junior” Jarmen- said in his Warren Commission testimony he heard shots from low and to the left.  What’s going on there?  Shots from the Dal-Tex?

There were 4 women two floors below the sniper’s nest and about 40 feet away on the 4^th floor.  Forty feet away is less than the average distance across an American home.  They should have heard what the men heard.

Vickie Adams-  said she was at the third sets of windows from the east side of the building on the fourth floor.  She heard shots in the direction of the Grassy Knoll

Sandra Styles- couldn’t tell where the shots came from

Dorothy Garner- said she heard shooting coming from the west.

Elsie Dorman-  said she heard shooting coming from the Court Records Building.

If you were a smart defense lawyer wouldn’t you love to have this kind of testimony to work with?  A good question is why didn’t the investigators pick up on this?

Five out of seven witnesses closest to the sniper’s nest said they did not hear shots coming from the alleged sniper’s nest.

Read what Barry Krusch has to say about the legal consequences of reasonable doubt in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.  It only takes one incidence of reasonable doubt to cast a whole pile of evidence into disarray.

List of 50 witnesses closest to alleged Sniper’s Nest

6^th Floor

Witnesses

Jack Daugherty- not there at the time of the assassination

Bonnie Ray Williams-  not there at the time of the assassination

Witnesses outside the TSBD who saw something on the 6^th floor or elsewhere

Carolyn Walther

Mrs. Pearl Springer

Arnold Rowland

Garland Slack

James Worrell

Robert Edwards

Ronald Fischer

Amos Euins

Harold Brennan

Mrs. Earle Cabell

Robert Jackson

Malcom Couch

Tom Dillard

James Underwood

5^th Floor

Witnesses

Harold Norman

Bonnie Ray Williams

James “Junior” Jarman

Mary Hollies- the two women are included here due to Mary Hollies 2011 statements.  They will only be counted once

Betty Alice Foster

The Fourth Floor Witnesses:

They Were:

Elsie Dorman

Sandra Styles

Vickie Adams

Dorothy Garner

Mary Hollies- allegedly on the 5^th floor

Betty Alice Foster- allegedly on the 5^th floor

Ruth Nelson

Yola Hopson

3^rd Floor Witnesses:

They were:

Steven Wilson

Doris Fay Burns

Sandra Sue Ellerson

Edna Case

The Second Floor Witnesses

They were:

Carol Hughes

Vida Lee Whatley?

Geneva Hine

Geraldine Reid (aka Jeraldean or Geraldean)

Lee Harvey Oswald

First Floor Witnesses

They were:

Eddie Piper

Troy West

Out Front of the TSBD Witnesses

Betty Jean Thornton

William “Bill” Shelley

Billy Lovelady

Carolyn  Arnold

Danny Arce

Jane Berry

Judith McCully

Ochus Cambell

Otis Neville Williams

Pauline Sanders (Mrs. Robert E. Sanders)

Mrs. R. A. Reid

Virginia Rackley

*Not all of these witnesses provided relevant testimony.  Lee Oswald and Vida Lee Whatley are examples.

This is will be my last post here.  If you have read my rather bleak and pessimistic assessment of the Kennedy assassination then you should understand I really don’t have a dog in this fight.

It is neither stimulating nor interesting to continue arguing with the usual crew.

In the matter of the validity of Altgens 5 I would like to leave you with a few thoughts which you can accept or reject. 

Jack White said the Altgens photos were valid.  He pointed out that the crowd in the crosswalk at the east Elm Street part of the intersection is totally different than the crowd seen there in the Zapruder film.  Not a single person there is the same.  His conclusion was that Zapruder is a fraud and Altgens is OK.

 

What if they are both frauds?

There are 3 things to look at initially.  Blow up Altgens 5 so that things can be seen better.  Crop out everything except the presidential limousine.  Be sure to leave enough pavement to see how the tires meet the road.

First , is the matter of Nellie Connolly’s window in the limo.  There appears to be a shade there.  If it is just Willliam Greer’s suit and the back of the front seat there is still a problem.  If there is no shade there then the shade in Altgens 6 presents a problem.  There is an on and off problem for the shade.  There is no shade in the Weaver photo.  There is one in Altgens 5 (maybe).  There is one in Altgens 6.  There is not one there in Altgens 7.  A frame from the Muchmore film in the same location at the crosswalk does not show a shade.

Secondly, the tires on the presidential limousine are composed of at least two images from different photos.  If the image of the front tire was real then there would be difficulty driving the limo forward, perhaps worse than a flat tire.  The front part of the tire is thin pass the whitewall and does not meet the pavement well.  There is a clear disconnect with the rear part. The rear part of the tire is more normal and meets the pavement fairly well but does not connect well with the front part.

I might be wrong here.  But, I think this composite image was composed to show a tire moving forward rather than a turning tir

The rear tire appears to be a turning tire turned inwards indicating a right turn.  In those days a rear tire didn’t turn.  A part of the vehicle’s wheel well is projecting into the tire.  That’s a bit arguable.

Third and last, the reflections in the side of the limousine are wrong for the location of the limousine. 

The Law of Reflection states that the angle of reflection (the angle pointing to the viewer) is equal to the angle of the incidence (the angle pointing to what is being reflected).

 What should be reflected in the side of the presidential limousine is the crowd on the east side of Houston Street about one half of the way to the TBSD.  Draw a line (representing the angle of reflection) from where Altgens is allegedly standing (The NW corner of Main and Houston) to the center of the presidential limousine.  Then an equally opposite line in the other direction (the angle of incidence) and you will have an idea of the correct reflections that should be there.

A Robert Hughes film frame about midway to the TBSD would be a good example of what should be reflected there.

What is shown there is what I believe is a view down south Houston Street.  And, a view that is in the direction of the Triple Underpass on Main Street.

This is a view that would be seen at the limousine turned from Main Street onto Houston Street.  The viewer or photographer would be at the SE corner of Main and Houston or in the middle of Houston Street at the south part of the intersection.

There are a couple of other things I think are peculiar. They violate my sense of perspective.

First, is the perspective on the Court House.  If you follow the angle of painted lines of the crosswalk, does that leave enough space to put the Court House in before Main Street?  In your imagination extend the photo out to the left (photo right).  Can you fit the Court House in if you use the angle of the crosswalk lines before you get to the Main Street corner.

Second is the issue of Altgens having a magic camera lens.  Note the size of Secret Service agents on the follow up car.  Then look at the size of the people directly across from them on the east side of Houston Street.  They are about one half the size of the Secret Service agents.  What can be seen is a black man (at least his arm) and perhaps a black woman.  These can be seen between the two Secret Service agents.  A third man can be seen just to the left (photo right) of the last Secret Service agent.

This is the same problem as the first perspective issue.  The limousine is at the crosswalk.  The people mentioned are at the north side of the Court House.  That should be about 100 feet and would be correct.

Is that possible?   The angles don’t seem right.  Shouldn’t we see more of the Court House?  Shouldn’t we we see the people in front of the vehicle?

Would camera lens distortions do this?  Images appear undistorted in the photo.