Why do I have to do all of the photo analysis?

[Cliff Varnell]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

As others pointed out, your argument runs in circles.

And what about the mote in your eye, Tink?

You have speculated for decades that the throat wound was caused

by a skull fragment exiting from the head shot.

Such an off-base assertion might lead one to conclude that there are

parts of the Zapruder film Josiah Thompson hasn't watched.

[Pat Speer]

Robin...I do believe that all images are "suspect". That does not mean that all

are complete fiction. Most started as a genuine image of some sort which was

then altered in KEY WAYS to remove or add certain things. Sometimes mistakes

were made, and finding the mistakes is a key to understanding the fakery.

I am attaching an example. You probably consider the Nix film "genuine" I assume.

Here is but a single example of a SINGLE FRAME where the retouching was

very bizarre and sloppy. I have no idea what the odd frame represents, but it

purports to be (as I recall) where Nix's camera catches the top of a gray hat

of a man in the foreground. The badly retouched area represents the crown of

the hat. But in ONE FRAME ONLY, a bizarre image was not painted out. Judge

the image for yourself, but do not tell me that it is actually a product of a single

frame Nix camera original. And it is not something that I have added, as some

have accused me of doing.

What would you (and others) have me do...IGNORE findings like this? To me,

it is clear that something that Nix photographed needed to be obscured.

I am sure with your vast collection that you can locate this frame for yourself.

Find it and THEN tell me that the Nix film is genuine.

Thanks for your opinion.

Best regards.

Jack

Just a thought... Could this be the top of the windshield on Martin's bike?

Nah, probably not. I forgot that this is Nix. Nix filmed from the south side of Main. What would be between Nix and the limo, but closer to Nix? The hat on the officer in the intersection?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Jonathan Cohen]

>You end up claiming that whoever altered the Zapruder film made sure that all other films "conformed" to this alteration. This is the last stop on the choo-choo >train to the looney bin. Now the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza is simply up to you. It is what you say it is unbothered by any confirmation or >disconfirmation by any film or photo evidence. If any film or photo clashes with what you say, you say it has been altered and should be ignored. This is just plain >nuts!!

I couldn't not agree more with this assessment. Well said. I have yet to see a shred of evidence how all these films could have possibly been made to "conform" with one another.

[Jack White]

>You end up claiming that whoever altered the Zapruder film made sure that all other films "conformed" to this alteration. This is the last stop on the choo-choo >train to the looney bin. Now the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza is simply up to you. It is what you say it is unbothered by any confirmation or >disconfirmation by any film or photo evidence. If any film or photo clashes with what you say, you say it has been altered and should be ignored. This is just plain >nuts!!

I couldn't not agree more with this assessment. Well said. I have yet to see a shred of evidence how all these films could have possibly been made to "conform" with one another.

Calling me nuts does nothing to advance research. You have not researched the photos for years.

Keep trying and you may make the Players list.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

I think you need to read what I wrote again, Jack.

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any still object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

Hello John,

How do you feel about a simple defect in the film emulsion or something physically on the film caught in the reproduction process? The blob seems most likely to be someone's hat/head so it's hard to see how a real object would pop up and disappear in three frames.

The serious error in Jack's analysis is his assertion that this is exactly where Altgens would be standing when Altgens 5 is taken. That's plainly wrong and of course, its the supposed association with Altgens that makes this interesting. Otherwise it's just another defect in a film of the President passing before they get to Elm street.

Best to you,

Jerry

[Robin Unger]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

Jack.

This is the problem as i see it.

Since you have recently stated that you beleive that ALL of the photo's and films have been tampered with, then what is the point of posting images.

at any time during the discussion, you can simply stop the thread dead in it's track's by asserting that the images posted are bogus and have been altered.

This becomes tedious and very frustrating at times.

Sorry Jack

That's just the way i see it.

Robin...I do believe that all images are "suspect". That does not mean that all

are complete fiction. Most started as a genuine image of some sort which was

then altered in KEY WAYS to remove or add certain things. Sometimes mistakes

were made, and finding the mistakes is a key to understanding the fakery.

I am attaching an example. You probably consider the Nix film "genuine" I assume.

Here is but a single example of a SINGLE FRAME where the retouching was

very bizarre and sloppy. I have no idea what the odd frame represents, but it

purports to be (as I recall) where Nix's camera catches the top of a gray hat

of a man in the foreground. The badly retouched area represents the crown of

the hat. But in ONE FRAME ONLY, a bizarre image was not painted out. Judge

the image for yourself, but do not tell me that it is actually a product of a single

frame Nix camera original. And it is not something that I have added, as some

have accused me of doing.

What would you (and others) have me do...IGNORE findings like this? To me,

it is clear that something that Nix photographed needed to be obscured.

I am sure with your vast collection that you can locate this frame for yourself.

Find it and THEN tell me that the Nix film is genuine.

Thanks for your opinion.

Best regards.

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I will go through my Nix Frames when i come home from work.

Robin.

[John Dolva]

Sure. I looked at some police hat photos and in many of them were reflection streaks as on a glossy curved surface. The Bell indicates it doesn't take much to pass close to the photographer, At the same time, it may be the non reflective top of a hat, and a defect. Either way that it is an object is supported by the left hand arc of blur through which the limo is visible and the denser similar sized arc on the right, Other film frames show similar things. Was Nix on a raised platform near to what's his name who shot a sequence further down main? Or was that later?

Anyway, yes, it will be interesting to see Jack prove that is the exact location Altgens stood.

[Kathleen Collins]

Very few researchers seem interested in doing photoanalysis.

I have just been considering comparing Z 204 and Willis 5 (same moment).

There are some interesting observations to be made.

But I am about to go to bed and will be gone much of tomorrow. Someone

may want to see whether they have any observations.

Jack

Jack.

This is the problem as i see it.

Since you have recently stated that you beleive that ALL of the photo's and films have been tampered with, then what is the point of posting images.

at any time during the discussion, you can simply stop the thread dead in it's track's by asserting that the images posted are bogus and have been altered.

This becomes tedious and very frustrating at times.

Sorry Jack

That's just the way i see it.

Robin...I do believe that all images are "suspect". That does not mean that all

are complete fiction. Most started as a genuine image of some sort which was

then altered in KEY WAYS to remove or add certain things. Sometimes mistakes

were made, and finding the mistakes is a key to understanding the fakery.

I am attaching an example. You probably consider the Nix film "genuine" I assume.

Here is but a single example of a SINGLE FRAME where the retouching was

very bizarre and sloppy. I have no idea what the odd frame represents, but it

purports to be (as I recall) where Nix's camera catches the top of a gray hat

of a man in the foreground. The badly retouched area represents the crown of

the hat. But in ONE FRAME ONLY, a bizarre image was not painted out. Judge

the image for yourself, but do not tell me that it is actually a product of a single

frame Nix camera original. And it is not something that I have added, as some

have accused me of doing.

What would you (and others) have me do...IGNORE findings like this? To me,

it is clear that something that Nix photographed needed to be obscured.

I am sure with your vast collection that you can locate this frame for yourself.

Find it and THEN tell me that the Nix film is genuine.

Thanks for your opinion.

Best regards.

Jack

Nobody is right all of the time. FWIW, I spend a lot of time looking at these photos with much suspicion because of the faked, contrived Zapruder film. And I think others here do too. All of your comments are so derogatory and show a lack of respect. Jack's got his opinion; you have yours. Did you ever see his analysis of the thing that went into the Pentagon? No way was that a plane. And Jack was one of the first to analyze it and say it wasn't. And even Rumsfeld, seen on youtube, said it was a missile. And I believe the Moon Walk Hoax too. I understand yesterday someone high up at NASA was reprimanded by some entity because he isn't shooting for the moon. How could he? We can't get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts!

The part of the Nix picture that caught my eye was that there were whole places on Houston St where no one was standing. I'm sure the bulging crowd on Main and Houston would have grabbed those open spots to see the President better. I am going to check the Hughes film to see if it correlates.

Kathy C

[Jack White]

I think you need to read what I wrote again, Jack.

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any still object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

Hello John,

How do you feel about a simple defect in the film emulsion or something physically on the film caught in the reproduction process? The blob seems most likely to be someone's hat/head so it's hard to see how a real object would pop up and disappear in three frames.

The serious error in Jack's analysis is his assertion that this is exactly where Altgens would be standing when Altgens 5 is taken. That's plainly wrong and of course, its the supposed association with Altgens that makes this interesting. Otherwise it's just another defect in a film of the President passing before they get to Elm street.

Best to you,

Jerry

Logan is PLAINLY WRONG of course, except my use of the word EXACT was not precise...but I am glad to demonstrate.

It is clear that the "Altgens 5" line of sight and the Bell line of sight were ALMOST identical, as I show below:

[Jerry Logan]

Sure. I looked at some police hat photos and in many of them were reflection streaks as on a glossy curved surface. The Bell indicates it doesn't take much to pass close to the photographer, At the same time, it may be the non reflective top of a hat, and a defect. Either way that it is an object is supported by the left hand arc of blur through which the limo is visible and the denser similar sized arc on the right, Other film frames show similar things. Was Nix on a raised platform near to what's his name who shot a sequence further down main? Or was that later?

Anyway, yes, it will be interesting to see Jack prove that is the exact location Altgens stood.

John,

I appreciate your measured approach to the evidence.

Can you see anyway in which this photo was taken from a location immediately in front of Nix?

Best to you,

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

I think you need to read what I wrote again, Jack.

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any still object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

Hello John,

How do you feel about a simple defect in the film emulsion or something physically on the film caught in the reproduction process? The blob seems most likely to be someone's hat/head so it's hard to see how a real object would pop up and disappear in three frames.

The serious error in Jack's analysis is his assertion that this is exactly where Altgens would be standing when Altgens 5 is taken. That's plainly wrong and of course, its the supposed association with Altgens that makes this interesting. Otherwise it's just another defect in a film of the President passing before they get to Elm street.

Best to you,

Jerry

Logan is PLAINLY WRONG of course, except my use of the word EXACT was not precise...but I am glad to demonstrate.

It is clear that the "Altgens 5" line of sight and the Bell line of sight were ALMOST identical, as I show below:

Jack,

I think your major problem is that Altgens is behind Nix, not in front.

Therefore, even if they were lined up exactly, (which they aren't) Nix couldn't show Altgens location because Altgens is behind Nix.

Jerry

[Jack White]

Sure. I looked at some police hat photos and in many of them were reflection streaks as on a glossy curved surface. The Bell indicates it doesn't take much to pass close to the photographer, At the same time, it may be the non reflective top of a hat, and a defect. Either way that it is an object is supported by the left hand arc of blur through which the limo is visible and the denser similar sized arc on the right, Other film frames show similar things. Was Nix on a raised platform near to what's his name who shot a sequence further down main? Or was that later?

Anyway, yes, it will be interesting to see Jack prove that is the exact location Altgens stood.

John,

I appreciate your measured approach to the evidence.

Can you see anyway in which this photo was taken from a location immediately in front of Nix?

Best to you,

Jerry

Mr. Logan obviously ignored the proof I posted directly above his post.

Since Nix was farther away, and "Altgens" was closer to the limo,

and BOTH NIX AND "ALTGENS" ARE ON THE SAME LINE OF SIGHT,

then "Altgens" should appear in Nix. Simple. But the Altgens was not

there, and the camera device which shot "Altgens 5" was painted out

by substituting a "hat". But they made a mistake, and left the device

in place on top of the "hat" for one frame.

Jack

[Jerry Logan]

Sure. I looked at some police hat photos and in many of them were reflection streaks as on a glossy curved surface. The Bell indicates it doesn't take much to pass close to the photographer, At the same time, it may be the non reflective top of a hat, and a defect. Either way that it is an object is supported by the left hand arc of blur through which the limo is visible and the denser similar sized arc on the right, Other film frames show similar things. Was Nix on a raised platform near to what's his name who shot a sequence further down main? Or was that later?

Anyway, yes, it will be interesting to see Jack prove that is the exact location Altgens stood.

John,

I appreciate your measured approach to the evidence.

Can you see anyway in which this photo was taken from a location immediately in front of Nix?

Best to you,

Jerry

Mr. Logan obviously ignored the proof I posted directly above his post.

Since Nix was farther away, and "Altgens" was closer to the limo,

and BOTH NIX AND "ALTGENS" ARE ON THE SAME LINE OF SIGHT,

then "Altgens" should appear in Nix. Simple. But the Altgens was not

there, and the camera device which shot "Altgens 5" was painted out

by substituting a "hat". But they made a mistake, and left the device

in place on top of the "hat" for one frame.

Jack

So, leaving aside the issue of behind and in front, because the focal length of the cameras are not the same, you think that the hat/silver mark are on a direct line of sight with Altgens location?

Jerry

[Jack White]

I think you need to read what I wrote again, Jack.

Forget the edge detection, it's just to get an idea of the pixelation. Because Jackie is in such relatively sharp focus Nix is panning. People are also moving. So there is a combination of camera blur and motion blur. Any still object close to the film necessarily would have the camera blur impact more. Therefore it is possible that the foreground object is in reality narrower, and if it had been in focus and not panned across, who can say what it may have looked like.

Hello John,

How do you feel about a simple defect in the film emulsion or something physically on the film caught in the reproduction process? The blob seems most likely to be someone's hat/head so it's hard to see how a real object would pop up and disappear in three frames.

The serious error in Jack's analysis is his assertion that this is exactly where Altgens would be standing when Altgens 5 is taken. That's plainly wrong and of course, its the supposed association with Altgens that makes this interesting. Otherwise it's just another defect in a film of the President passing before they get to Elm street.

Best to you,

Jerry

Logan is PLAINLY WRONG of course, except my use of the word EXACT was not precise...but I am glad to demonstrate.

It is clear that the "Altgens 5" line of sight and the Bell line of sight were ALMOST identical, as I show below:

Jack,

I think your major problem is that Altgens is behind Nix, not in front.

Therefore, even if they were lined up exactly, (which they aren't) Nix couldn't show Altgens location because Altgens is behind Nix.

Jerry

Nix was behind "Altgens". Logan's "major problem" is he does not know what he talking about.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[John Bevilaqua]

Jack, I think that Evan Burton has done some excellent work in the area of photo analysis on the issue of the alleged Lunar Landing Hoax.

And he has convinced me, not that I needed convincing, that indeed there was no Lunar Landing Hoax but rather a deliberately contrived and fabricated Hoax about the alleged Lunar Landing Hoax. To what end do you think his Hoax was contrived and who were the originators and first publishers of this abomination? The Liberty Lobby in the Spotlight?

Why do you feel compelled to continue to perpetuate this blatantly obvious Hoax and others like it: The 9/11 Hoax, the OK Bombing Hoax, the Waco Hoax, etc.?

What do you feel you are accomplishing here? Just curious.

If you are so wrong about these 4 Hoaxes and the other Hoaxes don't you think your credibility in other areas, like your JFK views and opinions, will be affected negatively and decisively? You make it very difficult for other serious researchers to be heard above the din, the babble and the disinformation you are spreading here.