Dr. Costella's smoking gun:

[Frank Agbat]

IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens.

Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is.

[Jack White]

IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens.

Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is.

To be accurate, the 105mm lens likely is NOT a telephoto. A telephoto is on where the actual barrel length

of the lens is as long as or longer than the focal length. It is called a LONG lens if the barrel length is shorter

than the focal length. Most modern lenses achieve MAGNIFICATION through optical design, not length, though

the recorded image may be the same.

105mm is just over 4 inches long. No photos of Altgens with his camera show a 4" lens.

Jack

Edited April 26, 2009 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

IIRC, the Altgens photo was taken with a 105mm lens.

Telephoto lenses produce a compression effect -- making the distance between objects appear less than it actually is.

To be accurate, the 105mm lens likely is NOT a telephoto. A telephoto is on where the actual barrel length

of the lens is as long as or longer than the focal length. It is called a LONG lens if the barrel length is shorter

than the focal length. Most modern lenses achieve MAGNIFICATION through optical design, not length, though

the recorded image may be the same.

105mm is just over 4 inches long. No photos of Altgens with his camera show a 4" lens.

Jack

Where do you come up with this crap? It is downright misinformation.

In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific construction of a long focal length photographic lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

Angle of View (Telephoto & Wideangle Lens)

The area size captured by a photographic lens can be expressed as a diagonal angular field called Angle of View. Generally speaking, a focal length range that provides a similar perspective to the human eye is considered to be somewhere between 40-60mm. With this established as a standard focal length, those with shorter focal lengths are called "wideangle" and those with longer focal lengths are called"telephoto". The shorter the focal length becomes, the wider the angle of view (wideangle), while the longer it becomes, the narrower the angle of view (telephoto).

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/fundamentals.asp

Long Lens

A lens where the focal length is longer than 50mm.

http://www.tribalcog.com/learn/glossary.shtml

Long Lens - A lens with a focal length greater than 25mm in 16mm, or 50mm in 35mm, which, like binoculars, will provide a view that magnifies a small area.

http://www.1comedian.com/Gloosary-of-Cinem...raphy-Terms.htm

JFK assassination

Altgens had been employed by the AP for nearly 26 years when he was assigned on November 22, 1963, to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade MartDallas Market Center, where Kennedy was scheduled to deliver an address. Working that day as the photo editor, Altgens asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing known to locals as the "triple overpass" or "triple underpass" (where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge) to take pictures. Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35 mm Nikkorex-FNikon

, single-lens-reflex camera with a 105 mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events. "This meant that what I took, I had to make sure it was good—I didn't have time for second chances."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ike_Altgens

[Paul Rigby]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

[Paul Rigby]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

For keen students of political photography – a very different beast from the stuff most of us are familiar with – here’s a very useful guide to Zapruder’s position & line of sight on 11/22; and the height of the motorcycle outriders relative to the presidential limousine and the height of its occupants. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the obscure photo in question, it is held by anti-alterationists to correspond to Z315/6:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...um=11&pos=4

In political photography, light bends & omits, and subsequent commentators fail to see, that which is inconvenient. Worth bearing in mind as one compares and contrasts the following beauts:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

[Craig Lamson]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

[David G. Healy]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

[Craig Lamson]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Crawl back into your doghouse, you are no longer relevent.

[David G. Healy]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Crawl back into your doghouse, you are no longer relevent.

yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

[Bill Miller]

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

Rigby is about the only one who missed that option.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Does anyone know what the record is for the most idiotic say-nothing-responses given by 'drunky the clown' in one thread?

[David G. Healy]

yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Does anyone know what the record is for the most idiotic say-nothing-responses given by 'drunky the clown' in one thread?

knew you wouldn't be far behind -- nutter-trolls are so predicable...

[Craig Lamson]

Curious that when people reference photographs or films they seem to do so in an ungrounded way. The axiom seems to be that everything is fixed in time, when there is instead a continuum of time throughout the assassination. How can any claims be made for or against anything without a specifying at least a best estimate what time or frame number is being referenced? Blanket assertions don't have much meaning without it.

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame.

There, baffled?

Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5

Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame?

Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider:

Zapruder was on stilts.

The Altgens photo is a forgery.

The Z film is a forgery.

You missed the most important solution...

Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography.

And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear?

Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography.

Ever thought of running for the Senate?

Why don't we start with ANGLE of VIEW, and since its YOUR crazy claim, why do you show use where Chaney should be visable and why. Inquiring minds want to know. (except me of course I already know the answer.)

Ever thought of running for village idiot?

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Crawl back into your doghouse, you are no longer relevent.

yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

entertainment

[Bill Miller]

knew you wouldn't be far behind -- nutter-trolls are so predicable...

yeah, I've noticed. So why do you respond every time I yank your Lone Nut chain? Professional courtesy, perhaps? LMFAO!

evidently the monthly Lone Nut/SBT theorist stipend checks haven't arrived yet. Things are tough doing trailer photography, but THAT tough? Pass the hat, Craigster.... or perhaps Barb will set you up a loan...

Your last three post, David ... can you point to anything evidence related in that crap???

Now having failed to do so, then how about at least telling us what constitutes in your mind the definition of a 'lone nutter'??? I have to ask because you have claimed to have been saying for years that you have seen no proof of alteration and yet others who hold the same position as you are being called LNrs. So just to make sure this isn't another David Healy instance where you are merely running your mouth without being aware of what it is you are saying ... please let us know what is your definition of a lone nutter?????

Bill Miller

[Don Jeffries]

Bill/Barb/Josiah (if he'd deign to respond),

I really can't wade through all the juvenile, name-calling posts that clutter up every thread about film alteration, in search of your views on this, so please answer a simple question for me.

Do each of you believe there was a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, as described so consistently by all the Dallas medical people? If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine. If you do accept them as genuine, how do you explain so many medical professionals making the exact same error?

Again- this is not about film alteration. I'd just like to know your views on this. Thanks.