Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 Here is how to locate the Altgens line of sight/location.Jack http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm For any who may be so lacking in factual knowledge that they were of the impression that James Altgens was positioned at "3", I would hope that they would at least have sufficient sense to recognize that in order to achieve the photographic alignment that they would have had to be standing some 12 to 13 feet out in the street almost directly in front of the approaching Presidential Limo. However! If, and when, one gains sufficient knowledge to follow that "alignment" backwards, back down Elm St., Then they will find that said alignment intersects the street curb exactly where James Altgens is seen standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg So Jack! It is not a matter of whether or not I have to stand in the street or not to get that alignment. It is a matter of whether or not I have had the wool pulled over my eyes so sufficiently that I operate under the impression that James Altgens was way up the street towards the TSDB, past the Moorman/Hill location (in which he most assuredly would have had to be out in the street to achieve the photographic alignment), or whether James Altgens was actually standing where he is shown in the Zapruder film, which also gives him the exact same alignment. Don't suppose the Z-film is so altered that they actually moved Altgens in it, do you????? When one takes into consideration your apparant lack of knowledge regarding the third/last/final shot impact point and James Altgens position in relationship to that shot, methinks that you actually believe that Altgens was up there past the Moorman/Hill location. Which would of course require him to be way out into the street. Lastly, due to the extremely small parallax shift in photographic images at these distances, as well as not knowing whether or not Altgen's camera had a built in parallax correction within it's lenses, James Altgens may have actually stepped off the street curb and out onto the "gutter" portion of the curb & gutter when the Z255 photo was made. But he most assuredly was not "out in the street". Hint! Mary Moorman & Jean Hill's shadow should have told you something there! P.P.S. Could that be an "asphalt crack" which one sees in the foreground of the Altgens photo? If so, then it most likely runs directly into that first yellow curb marking. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z292.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 9, 2009 Author Share Posted January 9, 2009 For Tom.Bond " Composite " with the street light and pedestal in alighnment. Thanks Robin; Might want to look closely at that third one down where the lamp post/Zapruder Pedestal is to the far right of the photo, yet remains in the virtually same alignment as do all of the other photo's. Then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax Hopefully, we may find time to get around to "Parallax v. Position" (101) in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Here is how to locate the Altgens line of sight/location.Jack http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm For any who may be so lacking in factual knowledge that they were of the impression that James Altgens was positioned at "3", I would hope that they would at least have sufficient sense to recognize that in order to achieve the photographic alignment that they would have had to be standing some 12 to 13 feet out in the street almost directly in front of the approaching Presidential Limo. However! If, and when, one gains sufficient knowledge to follow that "alignment" backwards, back down Elm St., Then they will find that said alignment intersects the street curb exactly where James Altgens is seen standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg So Jack! It is not a matter of whether or not I have to stand in the street or not to get that alignment. It is a matter of whether or not I have had the wool pulled over my eyes so sufficiently that I operate under the impression that James Altgens was way up the street towards the TSDB, past the Moorman/Hill location (in which he most assuredly would have had to be out in the street to achieve the photographic alignment), or whether James Altgens was actually standing where he is shown in the Zapruder film, which also gives him the exact same alignment. Don't suppose the Z-film is so altered that they actually moved Altgens in it, do you????? When one takes into consideration your apparant lack of knowledge regarding the third/last/final shot impact point and James Altgens position in relationship to that shot, methinks that you actually believe that Altgens was up there past the Moorman/Hill location. Which would of course require him to be way out into the street. Lastly, due to the extremely small parallax shift in photographic images at these distances, as well as not knowing whether or not Altgen's camera had a built in parallax correction within it's lenses, James Altgens may have actually stepped off the street curb and out onto the "gutter" portion of the curb & gutter when the Z255 photo was made. But he most assuredly was not "out in the street". Hint! Mary Moorman & Jean Hill's shadow should have told you something there! P.P.S. Could that be an "asphalt crack" which one sees in the foreground of the Altgens photo? If so, then it most likely runs directly into that first yellow curb marking. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z292.jpg Purvis is a purveyor of nonsense and venom. I do not know why anyone pays attention to him. He apparently does not even know what the focal length of Altgens' lens was. He attribute to me statements and opinions that are clearly untrue. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 10, 2009 Author Share Posted January 10, 2009 Here is how to locate the Altgens line of sight/location.Jack http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm For any who may be so lacking in factual knowledge that they were of the impression that James Altgens was positioned at "3", I would hope that they would at least have sufficient sense to recognize that in order to achieve the photographic alignment that they would have had to be standing some 12 to 13 feet out in the street almost directly in front of the approaching Presidential Limo. However! If, and when, one gains sufficient knowledge to follow that "alignment" backwards, back down Elm St., Then they will find that said alignment intersects the street curb exactly where James Altgens is seen standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg So Jack! It is not a matter of whether or not I have to stand in the street or not to get that alignment. It is a matter of whether or not I have had the wool pulled over my eyes so sufficiently that I operate under the impression that James Altgens was way up the street towards the TSDB, past the Moorman/Hill location (in which he most assuredly would have had to be out in the street to achieve the photographic alignment), or whether James Altgens was actually standing where he is shown in the Zapruder film, which also gives him the exact same alignment. Don't suppose the Z-film is so altered that they actually moved Altgens in it, do you????? When one takes into consideration your apparant lack of knowledge regarding the third/last/final shot impact point and James Altgens position in relationship to that shot, methinks that you actually believe that Altgens was up there past the Moorman/Hill location. Which would of course require him to be way out into the street. Lastly, due to the extremely small parallax shift in photographic images at these distances, as well as not knowing whether or not Altgen's camera had a built in parallax correction within it's lenses, James Altgens may have actually stepped off the street curb and out onto the "gutter" portion of the curb & gutter when the Z255 photo was made. But he most assuredly was not "out in the street". Hint! Mary Moorman & Jean Hill's shadow should have told you something there! P.P.S. Could that be an "asphalt crack" which one sees in the foreground of the Altgens photo? If so, then it most likely runs directly into that first yellow curb marking. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z292.jpg Purvis is a purveyor of nonsense and venom. I do not know why anyone pays attention to him. He apparently does not even know what the focal length of Altgens' lens was. He attribute to me statements and opinions that are clearly untrue. Jack Purvis is a purveyor of nonsense and venom. Factual knowledge has, throughout history, been referenced as "nonsense" and "venom". Be it the Roman Catholic Church; Communisim; Socialism; or even our on Government's often misguiding and mis-directing efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of the general populace and keep them ignorant of certain facts. Might I also state that the same goes for those who have been "hocking their wares" of the BS multiple assassin; etc; scenarios's of Dealey Plaza. Hate to be the one to inform you Jack, but the "cat is out of the bag", and a new generation of researchers who actually have the abilities (which you quite obviously never possessed, I might add), are now fully on the correct trail; pathway; road; etc;, and will also soon demonstrate the quite simple facts of the assassination of JFK. Being: Three shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB, all shots emanated from the Model 91/38 Carcano rifle found in this location, and each of the three shots fired struck JFK. In fact, many now are beginning to question themselves in regards to exactly why they even believed the Warren Commission and it's fairytale in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". "Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence." (Tom Purvis) Note: In some cases, it also demonstrates exactly how stupid a person can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Here is how to locate the Altgens line of sight/location.Jack http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm For any who may be so lacking in factual knowledge that they were of the impression that James Altgens was positioned at "3", I would hope that they would at least have sufficient sense to recognize that in order to achieve the photographic alignment that they would have had to be standing some 12 to 13 feet out in the street almost directly in front of the approaching Presidential Limo. However! If, and when, one gains sufficient knowledge to follow that "alignment" backwards, back down Elm St., Then they will find that said alignment intersects the street curb exactly where James Altgens is seen standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg So Jack! It is not a matter of whether or not I have to stand in the street or not to get that alignment. It is a matter of whether or not I have had the wool pulled over my eyes so sufficiently that I operate under the impression that James Altgens was way up the street towards the TSDB, past the Moorman/Hill location (in which he most assuredly would have had to be out in the street to achieve the photographic alignment), or whether James Altgens was actually standing where he is shown in the Zapruder film, which also gives him the exact same alignment. Don't suppose the Z-film is so altered that they actually moved Altgens in it, do you????? When one takes into consideration your apparant lack of knowledge regarding the third/last/final shot impact point and James Altgens position in relationship to that shot, methinks that you actually believe that Altgens was up there past the Moorman/Hill location. Which would of course require him to be way out into the street. Lastly, due to the extremely small parallax shift in photographic images at these distances, as well as not knowing whether or not Altgen's camera had a built in parallax correction within it's lenses, James Altgens may have actually stepped off the street curb and out onto the "gutter" portion of the curb & gutter when the Z255 photo was made. But he most assuredly was not "out in the street". Hint! Mary Moorman & Jean Hill's shadow should have told you something there! P.P.S. Could that be an "asphalt crack" which one sees in the foreground of the Altgens photo? If so, then it most likely runs directly into that first yellow curb marking. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z292.jpg Purvis is a purveyor of nonsense and venom. I do not know why anyone pays attention to him. He apparently does not even know what the focal length of Altgens' lens was. He attribute to me statements and opinions that are clearly untrue. Jack Purvis is a purveyor of nonsense and venom. Factual knowledge has, throughout history, been referenced as "nonsense" and "venom". Be it the Roman Catholic Church; Communisim; Socialism; or even our on Government's often misguiding and mis-directing efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of the general populace and keep them ignorant of certain facts. Might I also state that the same goes for those who have been "hocking their wares" of the BS multiple assassin; etc; scenarios's of Dealey Plaza. Hate to be the one to inform you Jack, but the "cat is out of the bag", and a new generation of researchers who actually have the abilities (which you quite obviously never possessed, I might add), are now fully on the correct trail; pathway; road; etc;, and will also soon demonstrate the quite simple facts of the assassination of JFK. Being: Three shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB, all shots emanated from the Model 91/38 Carcano rifle found in this location, and each of the three shots fired struck JFK. In fact, many now are beginning to question themselves in regards to exactly why they even believed the Warren Commission and it's fairytale in regards to "THE SHOT THAT MISSED". "Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence." (Tom Purvis) Note: In some cases, it also demonstrates exactly how stupid a person can be. As I said...NONSENSE. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Robin, In case you had forgotten the aerial you introduced some time ago. For tentative plotting of course. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am constantly amazed that anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously. Really, folks, you have to stop encouraging him. Look at him now- having the gall to lecture and belittle Jack White, who's forgotten more about the assassination than this guy will ever know. Once more, for those of you who continue to play along with him; Purvis believes Oswald fired all the shots. He thinks they all came from the "sniper's nest" in the sixth floor TSBD window. He thinks the Carcano was a good choice as weapon. He thinks Oswald was a crack shot. Yet, despite all this, he claims the Warren Report was a giant lie. He also, I thought, somehow believed in film alteration at the same time, almost a kind of Orwellian doublethink, but after reading some of his posts in this thread, perhaps now he doesn't. Regardless, I'm sure he'll explain himself clearly and concisely. Why am I apparently the only here who thinks his posts are ridiculous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thanks for your perceptive analysis, Don. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 I am constantly amazed that anyone on this forum takes Tom Purvis seriously. Really, folks, you have to stop encouraging him. Look at him now- having the gall to lecture and belittle Jack White, who's forgotten more about the assassination than this guy will ever know. Once more, for those of you who continue to play along with him; Purvis believes Oswald fired all the shots. He thinks they all came from the "sniper's nest" in the sixth floor TSBD window. He thinks the Carcano was a good choice as weapon. He thinks Oswald was a crack shot. Yet, despite all this, he claims the Warren Report was a giant lie. He also, I thought, somehow believed in film alteration at the same time, almost a kind of Orwellian doublethink, but after reading some of his posts in this thread, perhaps now he doesn't. Regardless, I'm sure he'll explain himself clearly and concisely. Why am I apparently the only here who thinks his posts are ridiculous? Why am I apparently the only here who thinks his posts are ridiculous?[/b] First off, rest assured that you are not the only one here who knows so little about the facts of the assassination that you are of the misguided belief that Jack White knows something about the facts. And, if you wish to follow the likes of Jack White, who after all of these years, apparantly was unaware as to the physical location of James Altgen; the physical location of Wilma Bond; and one who runs around expousing "six-groove" bullets and bullet impact marks all over the Curbs of Elm St. without a single iota of factual evidence, along with "bottom mount" sling swivels which do not exist. Then might I ask exactly who it is that would appear to be the most ridiculous. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jwhite.txt Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. "Old Habits" are most certainly hard to break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 Here is how to locate the Altgens line of sight/location.Jack http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm For any who may be so lacking in factual knowledge that they were of the impression that James Altgens was positioned at "3", I would hope that they would at least have sufficient sense to recognize that in order to achieve the photographic alignment that they would have had to be standing some 12 to 13 feet out in the street almost directly in front of the approaching Presidential Limo. However! If, and when, one gains sufficient knowledge to follow that "alignment" backwards, back down Elm St., Then they will find that said alignment intersects the street curb exactly where James Altgens is seen standing. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z348.jpg So Jack! It is not a matter of whether or not I have to stand in the street or not to get that alignment. It is a matter of whether or not I have had the wool pulled over my eyes so sufficiently that I operate under the impression that James Altgens was way up the street towards the TSDB, past the Moorman/Hill location (in which he most assuredly would have had to be out in the street to achieve the photographic alignment), or whether James Altgens was actually standing where he is shown in the Zapruder film, which also gives him the exact same alignment. Don't suppose the Z-film is so altered that they actually moved Altgens in it, do you????? When one takes into consideration your apparant lack of knowledge regarding the third/last/final shot impact point and James Altgens position in relationship to that shot, methinks that you actually believe that Altgens was up there past the Moorman/Hill location. Which would of course require him to be way out into the street. Lastly, due to the extremely small parallax shift in photographic images at these distances, as well as not knowing whether or not Altgen's camera had a built in parallax correction within it's lenses, James Altgens may have actually stepped off the street curb and out onto the "gutter" portion of the curb & gutter when the Z255 photo was made. But he most assuredly was not "out in the street". Hint! Mary Moorman & Jean Hill's shadow should have told you something there! P.P.S. Could that be an "asphalt crack" which one sees in the foreground of the Altgens photo? If so, then it most likely runs directly into that first yellow curb marking. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z292.jpg Hey Jack! Even though yourself as well as a few others apparantly have no true concept as to exactly where James Altgens was standing, and the critical importance of this information, rest assured that Lyndal Shaneyfelt as well as the US Secret Service, knew exactly where Altgens was located when he took the "Altgens 255"/aka Altgens6 photo. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...&fullsize=1 P.S. For Robin This is from the SS assassination re-enactment which ran December 2, 3, and 4th, with the Survey Plat of this work being dated 12/5/63. Tom As well as the importance of this information relative to the third/last/final shot impact point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 What about the concrete patchwork showing that the lamppost was moved eastward? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Here is the precise way to locate Bond. Using Zapruder and the lamppost is inexact for many reasons. I once replicated the Bond location, but do not remember where the slides are. She was not where I thought she was. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Jack, The best I could do with what I shot from the pedestal. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now