Do My Eyes Deceive Me?

[Charles Drago]

From other threads:

Does the image of JFK on the left strike anyone else as odd?

Charles

[Kathleen Collins]

From other threads:

Does the image of JFK on the left strike anyone else as odd?

Charles

Where was this supposedly taken and when? It looks a bit like President Kennedy (actually it looks more like John Jr.)

Kathy

[Charles Drago]

It's the Dallas motorcade.

Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel," and that the original negative is kept at the Sixth Floor facility.

Mack also speculates that the version herein reproduced is darker than other prints he has seen, and that this contrast issue may account for the problem I have identifying the head as that of JFK.

The large crease in the jacket is new to me.

The hairline and part don't seem right.

Nor does the line of the jaw.

But I understand that non-sinister image degradation likely is the culprit here.

Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...

Charles

[Don Bailey]

It's the Dallas motorcade.

Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel," and that the original negative is kept at the Sixth Floor facility.

Mack also speculates that the version herein reproduced is darker than other prints he has seen, and that this contrast issue may account for the problem I have identifying the head as that of JFK.

The large crease in the jacket is new to me.

The hairline and part don't seem right.

Nor does the line of the jaw.

But I understand that non-sinister image degradation likely is the culprit here.

Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...

Charles

Charles,

JFK's head is in front of a window or doorway and you can barely see the outline which makes the top of his head and jaw look square.

A straight black line is noticeable above JFK's head and runs down the back of his head. Another black line is below the large crease in his jacket. White lines appear above JFK's right arm just below the cuff of his jacket… splice lines?

Don

[Bernice Moore]

Main Street......

B..

Edited November 27, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

A straight black line is noticeable above JFK's head and runs down the back of his head. Another black line is below the large crease in his jacket. White lines appear above JFK's right arm just below the cuff of his jacket… splice lines?

Don

Yes, slice lines seems like the most reasonable and certainly the brightest response that anyone could have possibly come up with. Nice job, Don. Next we should see if the original photo is the one that got spliced or was it one of the copy prints???

[Don Bailey]

Thanks Bernice for the full photo... no window or doorway in front of JFK means another alteration to the photo.

[Cliff Varnell]

It's the Dallas motorcade.

Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel,"

Thanks for checking this out, Charles. This photo was taken almost two

blocks up from where George Jefferies took his film. Since the Jefferies

film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting, we can peg the "Adolphus"

photo as taken two minutes before the shooting.

Jefferies:

The large crease in the jacket is new to me.

There are two other photos taken after the "Adolphus" photo which

show a crease.

The Weaver photo, taken on Main & Houston:

And the Betzner photo taken on Elm St at Z186 (the sun shines

on JFK's shirt collar, indicating the jacket fell from its position on

Main St.)

The sun shines on JFK's left shoulder and the shadow suggests a

crease in the jacket. The SBT requires 2" to 3" of JFK's jacket

(and a near equal amount of his shirt!) to have bulged up entirely

above the base of his neck and yet his shirt collar is visible in Betzner

and instead of a "bulge" of fabric we see shadow below the collar.

Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...

Charles

No chance. Why doctor a photo taken two minutes before the shooting

but not doctor a photo taken a split second before the shooting?

The Betzner photo destroys the SBT. But you'd never be hired by the

JFK Mystery Industry if you acknowledged that.

The fact of the T3 back wound is anathema to the JFK Mystery Industry,

which is why it is so rarely cited.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, one and all (especially Bill ... ), for taking my question seriously and for providing data and insight.

If the photo has been altered (and I'm not even close to reaching such a conclusion), my guess is that the work would have been done relatively recently and for two reasons:

1. Add to confusion and argument within our ranks.

2. Support SBT "arguments."

Is the JFK figure to scale?

Do other photos capture (roughly) this moment?

And why on earth do I think this "JFK" more closely resembles John Edwards?????????

Charles

Edited November 27, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Bill Miller]

Personally - it is silly to think the photo was altered for any reason. When I responded to Don ... I was not serious. No one ever thinks about the copy prints being posted on these forums ... they speak of alterations without knowing if what they think they see is on the original photo or not. Scan lines - creases - pixels - are often times thought by some to be signs of image tampering when it wasn't.

[Charles Drago]

Personally - it is silly to think the photo was altered for any reason. When I responded to Don ... I was not serious. No one ever thinks about the copy prints being posted on these forums ... they speak of alterations without knowing if what they think they see is on the original photo or not. Scan lines - creases - pixels - are often times thought by some to be signs of image tampering when it wasn't.

Bill,

I quite agree that the willingness -- no, make that eagerness -- of many posters to speak with an authority that is not theirs to tout is deterimental to our common efforts.

But I strongly disagree with your opening statement. It is neither "silly" nor counterproductive to note what appear to be, albeit to a layman's eye, irregularities in a given image and to seek expert advice in the effort to confirm or deny the observations in question.

Laymen, after all, posed the majority of the first wave of questions challenging the LN conclusion.

My expertise as a photo analyst does not extend beyond a yearning for the good old days of Pixie Prints. But I submit that I'm eminently qualified to observe, say, the photo in question and, based upon a highly developed understanding of why evidence in this case has been tampered with, raise the questions I've raised in the precise manner I've raised them.

Charles

[David G. Healy]

Charles wrote:

If the photo has been altered (and I'm not even close to reaching such a conclusion), my guess is that the work would have been done relatively recently and for two reasons:

1. Add to confusion and argument within our ranks.

[...]

Bingo!

[David G. Healy]

Personally - it is silly to think the photo was altered for any reason. When I responded to Don ... I was not serious. No one ever thinks about the copy prints being posted on these forums ... they speak of alterations without knowing if what they think they see is on the original photo or not. Scan lines - creases - pixels - are often times thought by some to be signs of image tampering when it wasn't.

why of COURSE you think its silly...... we know about film/photo lineage... facts being what they are, I think I educated you on them....eh?

And, I heard ole Bob Groden had a tough Thanksgiving weekend -- rumor has it he sounded atrocious on the web.... fact or fiction? I'm sure you were there, he-he.

Edited November 27, 2007 by David G. Healy