JL Allen

This sounds as though it could be worse than "yellow" journalism.

Hey, Arlen! Well, you've had a long and somewhat distiguished career. Was it all worth it? You know - in the "grand scheme of things"?

You have no insight - but you make up for it in volume. (Pun realized after the fact...)

Welcome, Chris! I'm looking forward to your ingenuity, proficiency, and attention to detail - displayed in your first posting.

With that said, how the rest of a body connected to that right hand is oriented within the limo, is not clear to me.

You said a "mouthful"...

"I cannot forget the moment when the reporter tells him on camera he has been charged with the murder of JFK. He is genuinely shocked. This is not acting. For some reason he was convinced that he was not going to be charged with this crime. Why?"

That moment is indelibly printed into my memory. He is taken aback. He has to pause. It was a genuine and honest human reaction to being completely "startled"- even to the point of it being a somewhat physical reaction to the sudden shock and surprise.

He might have meant, "When I first seen you attempt..." ...

Ha, ha. Funny.

Regarding pictures - (Could they coincidentally all be holding large "satchels" - bags?)

I wish the old boys from the official investigating committees were still around - I'd like to run a test on them. I'd like to shoot each one of them - and see if their initial reaction is to reach for the spot where the bullet ENTERS their body - or, if they reach for the spot where the bullet EXITS their body. I'd like to know the percentages. JFK, of course, was reaching for the front of his throat.

Nice work, Chris. Gee... something that actually looks like something...

I found that original bullet diagram a bit confusing - so I took the liberty of separating the three different heads and trajectories.

(See posting below.)

I don't think many were prepared to comprehend what kind of cold, calculated, brutality and ruthlessness between men which lay behind the plot. It was an incomprehensible new "low" for morality in modern times. It was like a graduate course in such things played out on the international stage. People weren't ready to digest what had occurred. They were inherently trusting - naive, and hardly capable of imagining such human behaviors. Many were still thinking about operating by the "Golden Rules". Rather than face the monstrous consequences of what the murders truly looked and smelled like - and the collossal headaches of being required to sift and sort through the multitudinous layers of murk and muddle which had been put in place to prevent detection - people found it much quicker, easier, and less painful and taxing to accept the officially sanctioned, sanitized and sanctified "gift-wrapped" version which had none of the hard work, responsibility or devastating, world-altering implications attached to it. They could get back to the real business at hand - medicating themselves with a few martinis or manhattans and drifting off to Numbsville with Frank Sinatra on the stereo.

Some time ago, there was reference made to the fact that Tippit may have had a part-time job at the Texas Theater in the evenings. Does anyone know if this suggestion had any validity? Thanks.

Thanks, Jack. That looks like a useful thing. It could save a person a lot of needless hard work and exasperation. I think I may even have something like that somewhere.

I wanted to overlay certain aspects of the David Miller and Yarborough versions so I cut away most of the pictures and made the Miller 60% less opaque. When I matched-up Clint Hill's body and other elements - the Miller shoe is further from the body and at a completely different angle. Conversely, when the soles of the shoes are overlaid - the entire picture becomes skewed.

Many of the window frames in the background are skewed at different angles - independent of one another - when one contrasts the David Miller photo with the Yarborough. It is not a photographic anomaly - it is manipulation to cause an alteration of one's perception. (photo removed to recapture space.)

"They also reported that the impact of the FIRST shot on Kennedy's head made his leg fly up in the air and his foot land on the edge of the car."

That's very strange. They wouldn't make something up or wildly misreport without checking in such a monumental news event - yet, nothing like that ever happens in the Zapruder film.

Pat,

You could be right. The official story was always that JFK had only received small "bullet-hole" wounds - and that he "slumped" forwards. There is plenty of visual evidence to indicate that he was absolutely slaughtered - his head blown apart - driven sideways by the force of a high-powered rifle from close range. They certainly wouldn't have wanted any pictures in existence which portrayed that kind of devastation and reminded people of those possibilities. The Miller and Yarborough pictures are very much skewed from one another. Although the top edge of the window frames remain the same - and, the limousine remains the same - all of the side edges of the window frames in between them in the center of the picture go off in different directions - independently of one another. What sorts of "darkroom gremblins" can innocently cause this kind of manipulation and distortion? There must have been some subtle adjustments necessary to make it look like the foot belonged to Hill. They couldn't just alter Hill (although they sure did mess with that boot!) so, they altered what was behind him - imperceptably. I think this was "reworked" to keep the lid on the official ruse.

I think there has been reference to how short Hill's pants were that day. We've all had on a pair of pants a bit too short for us. When we stand up straight - that's as long as they get. Each and every more extreme bending of the knee brings the cuff higher and higher up our calf. The more the knee bends - the shorter the pants get. In the Yarborough picture in the center - the knee is bent at it's most extreme angle of all of these pictures of short pants - yet, the cuff falls down closest to the shoe of any of these pictures. I don't think it could be possible considering the shortness of the pants in the other photos after much less strenuous and severe leg contortions. I don't know what that triangular shape is - but, using "real world" measurements - it's unlikely that it could be the bottom of his trousers - after a knee-bend like that.

There are many examples of Clint Hill's short trousers. (Photo removed to recover posting space.)

These three versions of this picture show about the same photographic field and are vertically about the same - but the D. Miller on the left and the Yarborough (WC Exhibit A) on the right - are different from one another (not to mention the skewed window panes pointed out earlier) - but not nearly so different as the B. Miller posted recently and much earlier in the thread (#43). They are all different - which one is right?

Nobody has commented that Hill's left hand is on the left door.

Jack

Jack, this is what I thought about. I found this photo of Clint Hill at the back bumper of the Presidential limousine. He seemed to be in a similar position as in the D. Miller or Yarborough photos if viewed from behind. I cut out his relevant form and and reduced it to 97% of it's original size to account for the fact that he is slightly further from the camera. I placed that cut-out in a spot above the backseat which seemed to approximate his distance from the side and roughly replicated the foot hanging over the edge. Could he really have his left hand on the far side of the car - and, have his foot and leg so tight to the other side - and remain so erect - not leaning severely to the left because of his actual arm-length? If we could get the actual dimensions of the backseat and other limousine specs, I'm sure that would be helpful.

What an absolute nightmare. So glad you survived or I would never have made your acquaintance - "cyber-net"ically speaking. You're a tough old bird... tougher than the slings and arrows of outrageous nonsense... that's for sure! Good job getting to the neighbor's house... and... keep on - "keeping on". Happy Birthday... and many, many more...

Craig Lamson from #208:

"The fingers don't appear to be even close to the second chrome strip but rather just resting on the down slope from the bubble top ledge. You dont see the fingertips because they are hidden by the top edge of the lower chome strip. Too long, I dont think so. More like a silly CT's run amuck."

"Shadow? What shadow? None there. A reflection from Hill knuckles...yes. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection and all that rot ya know. And yes the angles do work."

So... reduced to black and white - these dark areas on the chrome strip have nothing to do with the fingertips - but have everything to do with the knuckles, up above. I'll have to consider that. Thanks for your input.

(Photo removed to recover posting space.)

What's your point? You think Hill's fingers are too SHORT? (page 12, post #170) Believe me, they are not. Even if they descend straight down from the bubbletop shelf, which is what you seem to be implying - they are still freakishly long. Even to span the shelf and bend straight down the fingers would need to be at least 5 or 6 inches long because the length of the middle fingers bending down is about the same as as the part of the fingers traversing the shelf. To reach out to the chrome strip - we must add in the width of the rearview mirror. And, what is your explanation for the small, soup-bowl shaped shadows beneath each finger on the triangular chrome strip which is at least several inches from edge of the shelf's base and has no other shaded areas appearing on it in that vicinity? I think it is bad artwork - done by someone who didn't realize the great distance between the chrome strip and the bubbletop base. Can you post something that illustrates your position with regard to what you think we are looking at? The depiction of this hand and it's fingers definitely arouses questioning - but, hardly that the fingers are too short and missing their "tips".

Getting back to the D. Miller vs. Yarborough pictures - it seems that a great deal more was done than just repainting the boot. There was some major manipulation going on. These pictures are completely skewed from one another. Apparently, much needed to be done in order to make it appear - realistically and anatomically - that this was a foot that could indeed belong to Clint Hill.

Also, if the contrast was so bright in Miller's photo that the black socks turned white - why does the white rear end of the car disappear into darkness?

(Photo removed to recover posting space.)

The hand of outstretched Clint Hill in the speeding limo photo angles back into the car at the top knuckle. The upper joints of the fingers traverse the elevated base for the optional "bubbletop" and then descend almost perpendicularly where they leave shadows on the triangular chrome strip. The base for the bubbletop is 2 or three inches wide - and the space between the bubbletop base and the triangular chrome strip is almost the width of the rearview mirror. The distance vertically from the flat surface of the bubbletop base down to the tip of the triangular chrome strip is another couple of inches. The length of the joint between the top two knuckles of a man's hand is approximately equal to the combined length of the lower two segments. The entire length of the fingers is approximately equal to the distance from the top knuckles to the wrist. This hand is way out of proportion - recalling to mind Oswald's "13-inch head".

(Photo removed to recover posting space.)

This other picture has a leg which seems fishy, also. A knee-joint is not like a shoulder's ball-joint. The leg can't go through the seat - and can't go into the trunk. It seems it could only bend along the length and angle of the backseat - but the angle is too extreme. Contorting both legs at the same time into the positions displayed seems impossible.

I can only post two or three photos before my "global space" is used up. Needed to reclaim this space to post another picture.