John Butler

16 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

John. when it comes to shadows and alteration in these films we can all have differing opinions. But some of the things you disagree with are not opinions but hard science.  You said you do not accept vertical changes could change the shadow of the Sun and that is true, they do not. But they DO change your perceived angle of the shadow. perspective will change shadow angles. That is NOT an opinion it is very hard science. It is observable, measurable  and there is non theoretical scientific explanation for all of it. A few minutes on google maps street view and over head view will prove this.
I posted a link to a video of a tourist duplicating Z's film. There are many of these on Youtube so I hope we can agree they are not all fake. Look at the 8 second mark. you will see the tree on the left and lamppost on the right have different shadow angle. At the 10 second mark you will see the flagpole and lamppost in the foreground have mismatched shadows. At the 13 second mark you will see every lamppost has a different shadow angle.
you can tell from the glare that the Sun is over the East side of the Annex building, The shadow to the left of the Sun angle left. The shadows to the right of the Sun angle right. The shadow of the 2nd flagpole Between Main and Commerce point almost straight to Z because it is almost lined up with the Sun. This is all perfectly consistent with the science of optics.
 If you switched to a view from above the plaza in google maps you will see all lamppost shadows actually point to the same direction. But as you lower the angle of view the shadows will start to diverge outward. If you simply drop the elevation you you will start to see a similar effect. This is because as you drop you are still directly above the objects directly below you. But you are at an angle to the objects off the the side of the image. So from above all shadow angles match. As the angle becomes more shallow they start to diverge and do not match. As you go from high above to lets say Dormans shallow angle from the 4th floor the shadows diverge more and more. They gradually go from matching to diverging the lower the angle is. Again this is not opinion or theory it is hard science. We know exactly why that occurs and if it did not, that would be the mystery.
If you want to know if something is fake you must also understand all the ways it can look fake but be actual perspective changes. you need to fully grok the perspective issue so you can eliminate those and see if anything is left.
 consider this thought experiment. If I look at a pole and the Sun is directly behind it the shadow will point straight to me. but if I walk 20 feet to the left the Sun will no longer line up right behind that pole. Where does the shadow point now? Obviously it can no longer point to me because the pole, Sun and me are not on a straight line after walking 20 feet to the left. At that point the shadow will not point to me. If it points to me in one position but not the next position it is the very definition of different angles. That is due too perspective.
 Regarding Mitch's statement about all shadows converging is correct, they do. From high above all shadows in the plaza look to be parallel but they are not.They actually converge 93 million miles away at the Sun. That is too far for us to measure any convergence. it is just too small an angle.
The angle you view a shadow from will change the perceived angle and the distance to the shadows is a factor too because the farther away it is the shallower the angle to it.

 

Chris,

I'll have to think about some of the things you said.  You know how hard headed I am.  As far as Ray goes, we are arguing a fine point.  Parallel shadows are just that.  There is no real convergence as far back as the sun.  Convergence is an illusion of perspective and distance.  The farther the distance the greater the convergence.  Consider a railroad tracking moving to the horizon, the tracks seem to converge and mover closer together, not further apart. 

Shadows can also diverge as an illusion of perspective and distance.  This also requires some distance. 

I'm not sure I agree with distances as close as 20 feet distorting and creating illusions regardless of perspective.

9 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Why was the same frame from two publications of Life Magazine printed at 2 different angles?

In this case, a 1.3° difference.

So, a small change in angle is significant in a photo?  Thanks Chris.

I think many of the graphic errors seen in the Zapruder film is due to the graphic artists being hurried in their preparations of the various films.  Particularly, in the early film frames shown from LIfe.

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Aside from the details of the hit, the assassination was, obviously, a complex psy op, orchestrated on a very high level by people involved with the mainstream media.

From what I understand these folks at the CIA had prior experience in Latin or Central America and the Philippines in arranging assassinations of political leaders.  Johnson said they had a Murder, Inc. group in the Caribbean.  The Zapruder film is the best example of their pys op programs at the time.  For how many decades did the Zapruder film with the help of the media control and direct the narrative?  It would be brought out in the 70's when folks begin to doubt the JFKA in a serious way.  People are less willing to believe what they see in the film than in prior times mainly due to technology available to anyone.

The planners of the JFKA had a plan and a notion they might have to change the elements of the plan according to what happened during he assassination.  This we can see in about an hour or perhaps a hour and a half after the assassination.  I have surveyed all of the witness statements in Dealey Plaza and believe I can detect a difference in the way they were being written shortly after the assassination that afternoon.     

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Once again shadows seem to confuse you.  The three people on the left and top are all vertical. Therefore their shadows will converge in the direction of the sun. (already proven several years ago) So the shadow of the guy at the top is shallower in angle than the two guys lower down on the right.

The angle of the shadow of the lower man on the left is greater than the shadow of the man just above him whose shadow angle is again  greater than that of the guy who's legs we can just see at the top of the photo, proving my point.

Ignore the shadow of Jackie and the guy falling over on the right. They are not necessarily vertical.

p.s. it is impossible to compare photo shadows of different scenes, You would need an overall composition showing all three scenes for comparison.

I omitted comments inside the quote as they do not concern the shadows.

 

Ray,

I do find shadows in Dealey Plaza confusing.  But, not for the reasons you mention.  I rejected your notion of converging shadows back then and still do now.  I can't see any converging shadows in any of the frames I used.  I don't think being vertical or non-vertical has anything to do with how the sun casts shadows.  We can't dismiss Jackie's arm shadow when it should be a body shadow with the greatest angle difference.  And, we can't reject different angles in different films simply because they are not a panoramic.  The 3 frames/films were all taken within a minute of the JFKA.  The angle of the sun changed minutely in that time period.  Different places, different perspectives didn't change the shadows being parallel and at the same angle in each frame except Z 347.  It is not impossible to measure that.     

I'm still trying to figure out shadows in Dealey Plaza.  As nearest one can get to instantaneous is the speed of light.  Sunlight strikes an object on earth and casts a shadow at the speed of light.  If similar or other objects are in the same area they too should cast a shadow the same as the first object.  The degree of the shadows off the object or objects from the sun should be the same.

Perspective in a film or photo could change that angle, but in a group of objects the shadows should be consistent with each other.  A short distance shouldn't have that much to due with changing the angles of the objects.  So, consider the shadows in 3 different film frames:

Consider the shadow in Z 347.  The shadows have differing angles cast from the sun.  In the Weigman or Couch frame from Unger the shadows of he two people walking forward are the same.  In the Dorman frame below the shadows are consistent at 47°. 

Ignore my artwork on changing the colors of the black coats of the two ladies.  Jean Hill, in WC Exhibit Hill No. 5,  the one Arlen Specter classified as Top Secret, said she was across from the SW corner of the TSBD.  Which would put her in this position.  So, I repainted the coats of the two ladies to see what that looked like.

Let's go back to the shadows. In Z frame 347 the shadows are at different degrees of angle.  The people are also highlighted differently in the same landscape.

You need a bright highlight in this rather dull film.  You need a stronger light to reveal the President's head wound, flapping scalp fragment and all.  This means you have to darken the left hand side of the figures and brighten the right hand side of the figures to make that work.  That's what's evident in Chris D's example.  And, that's why non-essential characters like Bothun are not lit up brightly.  If you observe the Couch? and Dorman frames the shadows and highlights are consistent.  

The editor or software is playing with me again.  It or someone erased the post I was working on and replaced it with a duplicate post.  I'll start again and hopefully without interference.

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

LIFE vs LIFE

Kudos on that.  How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail?

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

LIFE vs LIFE

Kudos on that.  How in the world were you able to spot that tiny detail?

7 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

How about.. simply because they needed more space?

Very possible.  But, you know us conspiracists we are suspicious of just about everything.  It's the difference between a cynic and a believer.  The JFKA has made me a hard core cynic.

On 9/15/2021 at 9:44 PM, Denis Morissette said:

The building reading TSBD with the arrow above is the old TSBD on Houston Street. In November 1963, they were moving from that building to the TSBD on 411 Elm Street. Some employees like Ed Shields were working in that old building. That’s at this old TSBD where Shields saw Frazier and asked him, “Where is your ride?” meaning Oswald. Knowing that it was very rare that Frazier gave a ride to Oswald on a Friday, it’s strange that Shields asked the question.

Richard,

Thanks.  Denis' post is very interesting.  A good question is when did the 6th floor flooring crew get assigned to the TSBD at Elm and Houston.  I have forgotten which direction the old TSBD is from the new across from the Dal-Tex.  If south or North of the new TSBD then that should disrupt a lot of conspiracy thinking.  If Oswald took the job and was at the old TSBD how could one blame him for setting up an ambush on the presidential motorcade on Elm Street ahead of time.  One could say those in the know, Ruth Paine, CIA, etc., would perhaps know about the Dallas Motorcade passing the new TSBD and plans were made to shift Oswald from the old to the new in time for that event.

As far as I know witness testimony reads as if Oswald was always at the new TSBD.

Denis is indicating that Shields, Frazier, and Oswald were at the old TSBD long enough to learn each others habits and behavior.  From the photo the old TSBD looks like an adequate building to store and transmit books to schools.  And, that raises questions of why make a new TSBD and spend a lot of money renovating an old building?  

I really don't understand the McIntire photo at all.  First off there is a railroad track there.  The TSBD is east of the railroad tracks/Triple Underpass.  the small roofed building appears to be Bower's tower which is west of the TSBD.  So, that probably isn't Bowers tower.  And, the building labelled TSBD doesn't appear to be the building at all.

Here are other McIntire photos taken from a different perspective.

This photo clearly shows what the TSBD looks like from the west side.

And, further down the road:

McIntire is on the approach to the Stemmons.  This is west of the TSBD.  It shows the west side and the north side of the TSBD.  

The question is if McIntire is over here approaching the Stemmons how did he take the photo in question?  If that TSBD is the old building that might explain things.  But, how did McIntire take that photo?

What's always bothered me is if McIntire took the second photo of the SS car and then took the next, third photo of the p. limo further down the street. The question that always bothered me is how did he get down the street so quickly in order to beat the p. limo there.  I don't have an explanation, but Richard Trask in Pictures of The Pain does.  IMO, some people just write anything and expect one to believe it.  I don't buy Trask's explanation for this photo.

He said "Later still McIntire, returning to his car up on the Stemmons Freeway near the Continental Avenue exit ramp snapped off his third shot".  What bothers me is how he got to Continental Avenue before the p. limo?  Supposedly, he is up on the Stemmons Freeway in an elevated position.  The photo appears to be taken on the ground and level with the p. limo.  

Looking at Google Earth one sees this.  Continental Avenue is a long way off and the p. limo would be on the Stemmons long before McIntire would have been capable of taking the picture.  So, who took it?

Strange.  I have problems with Trask's work.  

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The top image from Life Mag is frame 347 and the bottom image is frame 346. Maybe Life put the wrong frame number?  You listed the bottom image as an MPI version but I have never seen any MPI versions that include the sprocket holes. I did notice that the register of the Life image is narrower that the bottom image. Maybe Life shrunk the width a bit to fit multiple images on the page.

 

Back to magic shadows. 

In Z345 Bothun's shadow is 10 degrees.  The man behind is 8 degrees.  The people at the tops shadow is 8 degrees.  And, the person diving for the ground to the left of Altgens is 12 degrees.  I used a simple method to arrive at the varying numbers of degrees.  Not very scientific, but I'm sure there is not that much of an error in computing the various shadow degrees.  This with the Dorman/Zapruder comparison on the SW corner raises a number of questions.

I am going to assume whoever put this film together would have done it at a place similar to Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.

I'm not saying this was done at Jaggers, etc.  But, it may have been done at a superior photo lab such as the Hawkeye Works.  We see in Jaggers, etc many machines with different operators.  Different operators may have done their bit to a frame, lets say insert Bothun (the Altgens copy) that was passed on to them from a different work station and once they had done their work passed it on.  Errors could creep in when different folks inserted their character and then painted in the shadow. 

David Healey is the master here and he can straighten out my speculative thinking in no time. 

Anyway, back to the flash attachment.  It really looks like there is a flash attachment there.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"

I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.

So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.

The frame numbers are just a diversion. 

There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.

But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.

 

 

 

 

Are you talking about a single flower or the bouquet of flowers?  If a single flower then the wind could be blowing it around in different frames.  The bumpiness of the ride could perhaps shift a flower around.  It was windy that day.  But, since the time is very short for a flower to appear and disappear in 18th of a second I have no answer.  Particularly with different versions of the film.

I'm struggling with trying to understand what you are saying?  Whether or not I understand it is not important.  I mentioned to another recently that the Z film is full of errors.  The technical ones I avoid not being a techie.  I simply work with content errors such as Phil Willis' extra long leg in Z 157.  

A bouquet of yellow roses was given to Nellie Conway.  They are visible from Z307 to about Z383.  More interesting to me is how Nellie and John got so low in the vehicle.  It's as if the floorboard was lowered.

I once tried to list all of the content errors I saw in the Z film, but I don't thing folks were interested.  

2 hours ago, Richard Price said:

I would not support that notion.  I think it obvious that tampering has been done to the Zapruder film and the frame posted by John B. is one of the more blatant.  I am not a doctor, surgeon or medically trained person, but if this "flap" were real, you couldn't hide it from me no matter what else I was concentrating on.  This wound would have been quite gory and IMPOSSIBLE to not be noticed no matter how much you "pressed" it down.  The actual wound IMO is by her right hand and is what is eliciting the anguished look on her face.  As far as the large wound by the ear goes, Jackie also made the statement (paraphrased here) "from the front, there was nothing" when describing the wounds.  I think almost anyone would admit if you were looking head on at someone, you see around their heads to the ear area, therefore negating what she said.  Being as close a witness as anyone could be, I don't think she would have said "from the front, there was nothing".

PS:  I think she also made another statement about holding the BACK of his head on, not the side.

Richard,

That was an excellent comment.  I couldn't agree more.  As far as the comment "from the front, there was nothing", I have always taken that as in the front there was no wound.  Jackie said some peculiar things in her testimony some of which was hidden for some time.  I believe she was still under considerable stress when she made that statement.  I take it as there was no wound in the front and that's what we see in the autopsy photos except for the triangular cut area hiding a forehead wound in the hairline in the frontal bone not temple.

From Z 335 until the end of the film the only area I see Jackie holding is the back of the head.

9 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

you can see something slithering across the trunk of the car. moreover, look closely at her left hand (white glove). it is pressing on JFK's head where the explosive wound was observed as if she is trying to keep his head together. 

This might help in viewing what you are talking about.

This is a bit gruesome.  Jackie is holding the back of his head not the side or front.  The large gaping wound with a significant portion of the skull flapping and hanging by the skin attaching to it is not being held.  It is if she doesn't see it or consider pushing that flapping skull piece back in place.

As I said earlier she is holding the back of the head where the occipital head wound seen by the Parkland Doctors is located and not the alleged wound to the side that is so visibly noticeable.  It appears she is holding that area to keep any more brain or matter from coming out.  People do crazy things under stress.  This is where she probably got the notion she could retrieve some of the skull or brain matter on the trunk for the Doctors to replace.

I visited Dealey Plaza in 2015 and Robert Groden and crew were working on the Grassy Knoll.  We had a nice discussion and I bought his DVDs and material.  However, the conversation ended abruptly with Groden and his crew when I mentioned I could probably paint the skull wound better.  They were highly insulted.

I have never believed that a quarter or half of Kennedy's head is missing and hanging off to the side as shown in this z frame 335.  That kind of wound comes after the assassination as described by others.  

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And so the photo of Bothun's grave that you posted earlier in this thread is ... also fake? Or are you claiming Bothun was a real person but never was actually in Dealey Plaza? And just so I'm clear, what possible purpose could there have been on the part of the conspirators and film alterationists to insert this specific fake human presence a la Bothun in the Zapruder film?

I haven't got a clue.  And, that goes for many more mysterious things one sees in these films.  At one time I thought it was the editors getting away with foolish things just because they could.  In other words pulling pranks.  If you were a lab guy in the CIA or FBI photo labs (or at Chiles, Jaggers, Stovall) with very little to enlighten your day, well that might be a way to do it.  

Take for instance Phil Willis' extra long leg in Z 157, if my memory is ok on that number, that could be one of those editor artists way of saying we are pulling your leg like Phil Willis' leg.

You can't say Phil's extra long leg is a shadow extension due to a shadow going in the direction of other shadows at the bottom of his foot.  There are lots of strange things in Z 157.  

29 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

John, we will have to disagree on the use of a flash by Altgens.  He would have had additional lenses, filters, rolls of film, etc., but probably no flash.  He was a professional photographer so he would have known there would be absolutely no need for a flash attachment.  Flash attachments of that era were quite large and unhandy.  Flash photography was mainly used on medium format cameras for up close/indoor photos by the press.  Below is an example of a flash available for 35mm cameras.  I think you can see that is not what is shown in the Dealey Plaza pictures.

Thanks Richard,

Oswald/Prayerman uses a flash on Elm St. in the Martin film and again on the steps of the TSBD in the Weigman film.  

There were lots of cameras in those days that had flash capability without such a bulky attachment.  If you have ever watched movies, or shots of models being filmed they have lots of light fixtures working even on the sunniest of days.

I just did a search for cameras with flash attachments in 1963 and many different cameras came up using flash attachments other then what is shown.  

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So now you've decided Altgens is real? Does that mean you still think Bothun is not real and is actually just a duplicate version of Altgens pasted into films and photos?

Altgens is real.  The imaginary and pasted guy is Bothun (actually Altgens).  I don't see the need, but is probably just another Zapruder film mistake.  I call him Altgens shadow.  In the Dealey Plaza photos taken after the assassination you can not find a picture of Bothun.  Only Altgens.  I have searched all the photos and films and I can not find a single one of Bothun other then the Z film.  He should be in other photos such as Bond, but not.

Another example is the Lady in Blue.  Actually, in some films she is the Babuska Woman.  But, only in Zapruder she is the Lady in Blue.  You can find her in other films.  Willis and Bond.

I can't find the Bothun portrayed in Zapruder in any other film or photo.  Altgens you can see in others.  Even one claimed to be Bothun.  But, if you search other photos taken at the same time of the south of Elm in the grass there is no Bothun there.  I can't find anyone to take Bothun 4 from the other side of the street.

This is what I think.  Altgens had his camera bag with him.  He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film.  He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him.  Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

I think the Sun is in the correct position to cause a reflection off the left side of Altgens camera and send that light towards Z's camera. It should hit the camera at about 25 degrees from behind and bounce forward at 25 degrees and that would send the reflection towards Z. The light did not have to be in front to cause the highlights we see.
I would guess that a flash would not last a half second but that is just a guess. I think the bigger issue is flash attachments are not used in bright daylight. They are useless in bright daylight and it looks like he has no flash attachment in one of the Bothun photos.

The angle of the shadows are an indication of where the sun is at.  The shadows are about 13 degrees.  We have already seen there is some doubt whether this angle is correct by comparing to Dorman.  The highlights on the figures are based on the angle of the shadows which according to Dorman are incorrect.

The brightness of the highlights on the camera and possible camera flash are to high for this angle of the sun.  I believe they would not cause such a bright highlight.  On the other hand a camera flash would create such highlights and particularly the highlight on the watch on Altgens arm.

The highlights on Jackie are over done and do not carry through out the scene to the opposite side of the vehicle.  It is quite dark and dull with very little highlights there and highlights should be there as bright as Jackie.

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the Sun is in the correct position to cause a reflection off the left side of Altgens camera and send that light towards Z's camera. It should hit the camera at about 25 degrees from behind and bounce forward at 25 degrees and that would send the reflection towards Z. The light did not have to be in front to cause the highlights we see.
I would guess that a flash would not last a half second but that is just a guess. I think the bigger issue is flash attachments are not used in bright daylight. They are useless in bright daylight and it looks like he has no flash attachment in one of the Bothun photos.
The shadow angle difference in Z 342 and the Dorman image may have a logical explanation. First in the Dorman image below there is something interesting. The people on the left, closer to Huston, have a very different shadow angle than the people on the right side of the composite image. The  shadow of the people on the left match Altgens shadow in 342 very closely(red lines). But on the right they are way off. It is natural for people at different position to appear to have different shadow angles as viewed from the camera. Check out Z frame 406 and look at the shadows of the light posts. They point  slightly to the right because Z has now panned past the Sun's position. In 342 they point far to the left. So where the camera is pointing relative to the Sun greatly effects the angle of shadow we see. Dorman's camera was pointed about 10 degrees farther East than Z and it should  cause about a 5 degree difference in the shadows.
The next factor is Dorman was looking down on the street at a steeper angle than Z was looking towards Altgens. Z was about 10 degrees above and Dorman 21 degrees above the street. This makes a 10 degree difference in the perceived angle of the shadows. The lower you go the more the shadow will level out towards the 180 line(horizontal). The top part of the graphic below shows the difference Dorman's higher position on the 4th floor would change the shadow angle, about 10 degrees.
I get a 20 degree difference in the shadows using the image you provided of Dorman and fr 342. But the fact that there is such a variance between the people on the right side of the Dorman image and the people on the left throws a monkey wrench in to the equation.
The elevation difference and slight difference in the camera direction relative to the Sun would account for at least 15 degrees of the difference we see in fr 342 and the Dorman images.

Bothun's shadow is about 13 degrees as are the other shadows in the frame.  In the Dorman frame shadows vary from about 40 some degrees to about 15 degrees.  The lesser degree shadows you have lined in red.  The Blue line shadows are closer to 40 some degrees.  This doesn't match your example for Bothun.  The lesser degree shadows are due to curving around the street which puts people at a different angle then Bothun.  

Visually and by measuring the angles they are not the same.

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I can never find anything on the trunk. There is something at the end of her hand that extends just past the right hand hold but I think it is just her fingers. It seem to appear as she moves her hand forward but not before. some company did an analysis and claimed they found a chunk moving back along the trunk. I am convinced what they pointed out was just a reflection. I am going to do a post on it.

 

Chris,

Maybe this mag of Z342 can help.  There appear to be objects on the trunk that are not reflections.  They cast shadows.  

The left hand one is the one Jackie was after.  That occurs between frames 340 to about 349 or so.  I did a gif showing that section of the film only slowed down so one could see Jackie did get something off the trunk she kept clutched in her hand until she got to the emergency room.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Congratulations to John Butler for coming up with yet another "conclusion" that not even the zestiest of JFK conspiracy theorists had previously brought forth: that Dealey Plaza photographers James Altgens and Dick Bothun are actually the same person, who have been magically pasted into various Dealey Plaza films and photos, including the Zapruder film. Major points for imagination!

Thanks JC,

"imagination" and "magically" are two great words for Dealey Plaza activities.  Imagination sent men to the moon.  Magic is a good way to describe some of the alternate reality aspects in Dealey Plaza, magic cameras, magic shadows, magic people such as Phil Willis, magic groups of people who are in one area, but viewed by a different person at the same time are gone and replaced by another group of people, film of the president with half of his shot off and hanging, but not seen by about 40 doctors at Parkland Hospital.  Now that is high magic worthy of a Merlin.

Well to answer my question:

This would put Bothun at 42 years old in 1963.  1963 - 1921= 42.

Altgens was roughly the same age.  April 28, 1919 – December 12, 1995.  Altgens would be something like 44 in 1963.  The real test on this is photos of Dick Bothun which I think none are available.  If someone has one please post it.

Richard Trask in Pictures of Pain gives the best account of Richard Bothun.  Trask justs recounts what is know of Bothun without asking questions such as why just 4 photos?  He is an amateur photographer and would he have taken more just to get it right?  He enjoyed printing and developing his photos.  Question:  How much pleasure did he derive developing 4 photos as versus a roll of film.  3 of those photos were taken at Main and Houston and only one after the assassination on Elm Street.

Then there is the issue of Bothun and Altgens being dressed in the same attire.  Would railroad workers normally wear suit and tie to take photos and then go directly back to work at the railroad yards.  

The Bothun story is hard to believe.