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

[Jack White]

You people astound me. You assume all photos and films are genuine.

You assume that all photos were taken by PEOPLE. It is entirely likely

that the CIA, assuming they were in charge of the operation, had the

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS. Other photos

attributed to ordinary people were actually taken by agents.

I remember reading where Marie Muchmore said she only filmed on

Houston Street and DID NOT SHOOT THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE

ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

Ike Altgens denied taking frames 4, 5, and 8 attributed to him.

I strongly believe that some photos were taken by automated devices.

I place Altgens 5 in that category.

Why would anyone who believes in a SOPHISTICATED plot involving

the CIA that the agency would NOT have many cameras in the plaza?

Makes no sense to me.

Jack

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[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

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

Jack,

I appreciate your input on this, and I'm willing to consider the impact of lens focal length. However, the diagram you've posted also shows Altgens and Nix on a different line of sight. So if you're attached to that diagram fine, it proves you wrong.

Let's suppose you are correct. What, in your view, is the point of having a tripod in that location? Since Altgens is in Dealey Plaza, why can't he take this photograph? And what, in your view, is so important about this photograph? What, in the entire assassination debate, has Altgens 5 been used to prove that couldn't have just as easily been proved by having Altgens himself take the same photo at the same time.

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

You people astound me. You assume all photos and films are genuine.

You assume that all photos were taken by PEOPLE. It is entirely likely

that the CIA, assuming they were in charge of the operation, had the

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS. Other photos

attributed to ordinary people were actually taken by agents.

I remember reading where Marie Muchmore said she only filmed on

Houston Street and DID NOT SHOOT THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE

ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

Ike Altgens denied taking frames 4, 5, and 8 attributed to him.

I strongly believe that some photos were taken by automated devices.

I place Altgens 5 in that category.

Why would anyone who believes in a SOPHISTICATED plot involving

the CIA that the agency would NOT have many cameras in the plaza?

Makes no sense to me.

Jack

I'm assuming there's no citation for the Muchmore recollection.

Please post the exact words Altgens uses to deny that he took frames

4, 5 and 8.

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.

Jack,

I appreciate your input on this, and I'm willing to consider the impact of lens focal length. However, the diagram you've posted also shows Altgens and Nix on a different line of sight. So if you're attached to that diagram fine, it proves you wrong.

Let's suppose you are correct. What, in your view, is the point of having a tripod in that location? Since Altgens is in Dealey Plaza, why can't he take this photograph? And what, in your view, is so important about this photograph? What, in the entire assassination debate, has Altgens 5 been used to prove that couldn't have just as easily been proved by having Altgens himself take the same photo at the same time.

Jerry

It is interesting that you decide to ask pertinent questions instead of spewing false claims and personal invective.

In the early years, researcher Dick Sprague collected all the known photos and in May of 1970 he published

Robert Cutler's well known plat of Dealey Plaza. The plat shows Altgens' location for exposures 2, 3, 6 and 7.

Sprague obtained ALL the Altgens photos the AP admitted to having. The portion of the plat I posted shows

Altgens location for only 2 and 3. It shows NO Altgens locations for 4 and 5, and in fact Altgens denied taking

the number 5 exposure attributed to him. So the plat does NOT show his location for "Altgens 5". It is certain,

however that Nix was on the curb, and Altgens was in the street in front of him.

A tripod in that location could have had an automatic camera which took negatives 4 and 5 attributed to

Altgens. That is just speculation, of course...but automated cameras have been available for many years...

especially to the CIA.

Jack

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Jonathan Cohen]

I can find no mention of Altgens disputing any of his photos in his Warren Commission testimony. But here's one interesting thing he DID say:

"The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid."

[Jack White]

You people astound me. You assume all photos and films are genuine.

You assume that all photos were taken by PEOPLE. It is entirely likely

that the CIA, assuming they were in charge of the operation, had the

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS. Other photos

attributed to ordinary people were actually taken by agents.

I remember reading where Marie Muchmore said she only filmed on

Houston Street and DID NOT SHOOT THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE

ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

Ike Altgens denied taking frames 4, 5, and 8 attributed to him.

I strongly believe that some photos were taken by automated devices.

I place Altgens 5 in that category.

Why would anyone who believes in a SOPHISTICATED plot involving

the CIA that the agency would NOT have many cameras in the plaza?

Makes no sense to me.

Jack

I'm assuming there's no citation for the Muchmore recollection.

Please post the exact words Altgens uses to deny that he took frames

4, 5 and 8.

Jerry

I do not have the quote. As I recall, he said something like (NOT A QUOTE)...

AT MAIN AND HOUSTON I TOOK PHOTOS OF THE PRESIDENT APPROACHING. I DON'T

REMEMBER TAKING ANY OTHERS AT THAT LOCATION, BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET

SOME SHOTS ON ELM STREET, SO I GRABBED MY CAMERA BAG AND STARTED TO

RUN DOWN THE HILL. WHEN I GOT DOWN THERE I SET MY FOCUS AND SHOT A PHOTO

OF THE PRESIDENT APPROACHING, AND THEN WHEN THE LIMO WAS GOING AWAY,

I STEPPED INTO THE STREET AND GOT A SHOT OF IT SPEEDING AWAY. I DON'T

KNOW WHY I DIDN'T GET ANY DURING THE FATAL SHOTS; I GUESS I JUST FROZE

FOR AN INSTANT. A PIECE OF HIS HEAD LANDED NEAR ME.

I read this statement years ago and do not remember where. I will see if I can find it.

What I have reconstructed above may be an amalgam of several statements he made

at different times. He acknowledged taking ONLY 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. He did not remember

taking 4, 5 and 8. I am a photographer, and years later I can tell you whether I took

a certain photo or not. Photographers don't forget.

Of course Altgens is now dead; he and his wife perished together in a home CARBON

MONOXIDE POISONING, as I recall. Suspicious? I don't know, do you?

Jack

Edited February 3, 2010 by Jack White

[David G. Healy]

I can find no mention of Altgens disputing any of his photos in his Warren Commission testimony. But here's one interesting thing he DID say:

"The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy's aid."

how praytell does one "stepped upon" (onto) a vehicle traveling at 8-10MPH? Jump onto, dive onto, leap onto... yeah, but "STEP"?

Edited February 3, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Jack White]

You people astound me. You assume all photos and films are genuine.

You assume that all photos were taken by PEOPLE. It is entirely likely

that the CIA, assuming they were in charge of the operation, had the

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS. Other photos

attributed to ordinary people were actually taken by agents.

I remember reading where Marie Muchmore said she only filmed on

Houston Street and DID NOT SHOOT THE ASSASSINATION SEQUENCE

ATTRIBUTED TO HER.

Ike Altgens denied taking frames 4, 5, and 8 attributed to him.

I strongly believe that some photos were taken by automated devices.

I place Altgens 5 in that category.

Why would anyone who believes in a SOPHISTICATED plot involving

the CIA that the agency would NOT have many cameras in the plaza?

Makes no sense to me.

Jack

Here is a good example of some Altgens tampering. Two different contact

prints are shown of "Altgens 5". Can any one explain why the marking

on the edge is different?

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

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.

Jack,

I appreciate your input on this, and I'm willing to consider the impact of lens focal length. However, the diagram you've posted also shows Altgens and Nix on a different line of sight. So if you're attached to that diagram fine, it proves you wrong.

Let's suppose you are correct. What, in your view, is the point of having a tripod in that location? Since Altgens is in Dealey Plaza, why can't he take this photograph? And what, in your view, is so important about this photograph? What, in the entire assassination debate, has Altgens 5 been used to prove that couldn't have just as easily been proved by having Altgens himself take the same photo at the same time.

Jerry

It is interesting that you decide to ask pertinent questions instead of spewing false claims and personal invective.

In the early years, researcher Dick Sprague collected all the known photos and in May of 1970 he published

Robert Cutler's well known plat of Dealey Plaza. The plat shows Altgens' location for exposures 2, 3, 6 and 7.

Sprague obtained ALL the Altgens photos the AP admitted to having. The portion of the plat I posted shows

Altgens location for only 2 and 3. It shows NO Altgens locations for 4 and 5, and in fact Altgens denied taking

the number 5 exposure attributed to him. So the plat does NOT show his location for "Altgens 5". It is certain,

however that Nix was on the curb, and Altgens was in the street in front of him.

A tripod in that location could have had an automatic camera which took negatives 4 and 5 attributed to

Altgens. That is just speculation, of course...but automated cameras have been available for many years...

especially to the CIA.

Jack

So by your account the CIA or whoever has many, many photos which were collected by remote cameras located on tripods instead of operated by agents.

Then the photo record is scoured to eliminate the visual record of the tripods.

However, when it's necessary to make one of these photos public they have to attach the photo to someone's name because they can't say photo by Tripod C2.

So Altgen's 5 is made public and they just say Altgen's took it.

One of many questions that come to mind is why did they release Altgen's 5? What purpose did that serve? How, in what way whatsoever, did that advance the the case that LHO was a lone gunman?

Keeping in mind that they have access to the entire photo and film record, what did this photo show that no other Houston photo showed to prove LHO the single assassin?

Jerry

[Robin Unger]

Large Altgens 5

I purchased from Corbis.

Edited February 4, 2010 by Robin Unger

[Bernice Moore]

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.

I agree 1000%.

fellas imo if you are really interested then you will continue with your studies if not you will fall out, to me it is that simple...i have read jack and others make similar statements down through the years but many who have carry on...continuously .......i think it depends on how strong ones interest is in the first place and the reason why they are here ...if for such as any personal gRATITUDE IN ANY WAY THEN IMO FORGET IT..IF TO try to HElP OR stay up on the latest research WHATEVER ..sorry caps..and the truth then the great interest never ebbs..it is in the end your personal choice the research never stops when anyone leaves no one is ever ireplaceable though at times there is a large hole left imo..now researchers...such as jack imo should be thanked and not continuously criticized , but imo he is...he has given more and taken more than any here and for over 40 years in this work...what i think is that should warrant some gratitude instead of continuously being taken for granted and free to aim many pot shots at.. but.that's m/o thanks much b...take care all...fwiw..

great altgens robin...

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

john...marie muchmore stating she did not take film of the assassination...b..i'M HAVING A LOOK BUT IF MEMORY SERVES GROAN I THINK THE ALTGENS INFO MAY BE IN harold WEISBERG's book...SORRY CAPS AGAIN... b

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Jack White]

Cliff sed:

"Not to nit-pick, but it has been long generally agreed that Willis 5 matches Z202."

OK, Cliff, I will grant you one-ninth of a second, which gets me to the first of several points.

In neither 202 nor 204 does it look like to me Willis has his camera to his eye.

1. In Z202 Clint Hill (if he has white hair) appears to be wearing a gray suit and looking

forward; in z204 (a ninth second later) he now has black hair facing Willis and waving his

right arm. Between Hill and Willis seems to be the head of a man with white hair; however,

no such person appears in the Willis slide. These figures are very small, so let me know if

I am mistaken.

2. In both frames, Officer Chaney seems to have pulled forward and has overtaken the

rear fender of the JFK car by a good bit, not seen in Willis. If I am wrong, show me how.

3. In the background (Records Bldg) a magical zoom seems to have occurred. Check it out

and show me where I am wrong.

These are just a few little details. Please show me why my observations are wrong. Perhaps

all of these things can be explained. Am I wrong?

The devil is in the details.

Jack

[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.

I agree 1000%.

fellas imo if you are really interested then you will continue with your studies if not you will fall out, to me it is that simple...i have read jack and others make similar statements down through the years but many who have carry on...continuously .......i think it depends on how strong ones interest is in the first place and the reason why they are here ...if for such as any personal gRATITUDE IN ANY WAY THEN IMO FORGET IT..IF TO try to HElP OR stay up on the latest research WHATEVER ..sorry caps..and the truth then the great interest never ebbs..it is in the end your personal choice the research never stops when anyone leaves no one is ever ireplaceable though at times there is a large hole left imo..now researchers...such as jack imo should be thanked and not continuously criticized , but imo he is...he has given more and taken more than any here and for over 40 years in this work...what i think is that should warrant some gratitude instead of continuously being taken for granted and free to aim many pot shots at.. but.that's m/o thanks much b...take care all...fwiw..

great altgens robin...

Thanks Bernice.

I am sure Jack knows that i bear no ill feelings towards him.

Compared to Jack's 40 - years of Research, i am only a newcomer.

Cheers.

Robin.

[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.

Jack,

I appreciate your input on this, and I'm willing to consider the impact of lens focal length. However, the diagram you've posted also shows Altgens and Nix on a different line of sight. So if you're attached to that diagram fine, it proves you wrong.

Let's suppose you are correct. What, in your view, is the point of having a tripod in that location? Since Altgens is in Dealey Plaza, why can't he take this photograph? And what, in your view, is so important about this photograph? What, in the entire assassination debate, has Altgens 5 been used to prove that couldn't have just as easily been proved by having Altgens himself take the same photo at the same time.

Jerry

It is interesting that you decide to ask pertinent questions instead of spewing false claims and personal invective.

In the early years, researcher Dick Sprague collected all the known photos and in May of 1970 he published

Robert Cutler's well known plat of Dealey Plaza. The plat shows Altgens' location for exposures 2, 3, 6 and 7.

Sprague obtained ALL the Altgens photos the AP admitted to having. The portion of the plat I posted shows

Altgens location for only 2 and 3. It shows NO Altgens locations for 4 and 5, and in fact Altgens denied taking

the number 5 exposure attributed to him. So the plat does NOT show his location for "Altgens 5". It is certain,

however that Nix was on the curb, and Altgens was in the street in front of him.

A tripod in that location could have had an automatic camera which took negatives 4 and 5 attributed to

Altgens. That is just speculation, of course...but automated cameras have been available for many years...

especially to the CIA.

Jack

So by your account the CIA or whoever has many, many photos which were collected by remote cameras located on tripods instead of operated by agents.

Then the photo record is scoured to eliminate the visual record of the tripods.

However, when it's necessary to make one of these photos public they have to attach the photo to someone's name because they can't say photo by Tripod C2.

So Altgen's 5 is made public and they just say Altgen's took it.

One of many questions that come to mind is why did they release Altgen's 5? What purpose did that serve? How, in what way whatsoever, did that advance the the case that LHO was a lone gunman?

Keeping in mind that they have access to the entire photo and film record, what did this photo show that no other Houston photo showed to prove LHO the single assassin?

Jerry

There of course is no proof in a secret operation, but I have little doubt that MANY photos were taken

which few have ever seen. I believe many were taken by covert operatives like James Powell. Others

I believe were taken by remote cameras. The only reason the Powell PHOTOS were known is that he

got himself trapped inside the TSBD. Even then ONLY ONE of his exposures was released.

Some photos were "released" which seemed to support the official version without giving away any

secrets. Among these were Altgens 6 which seemed to show JFK being hit in the back. It seemed

harmless enough to the plotters till THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY focused attention on it, and later

it seemed to show a hole in the windshield.

Jack