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

[Jack White]

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.

Robin...Bernice's remark was NOT directed at you!

[Bernice Moore]

i have found this to a link here on the sf to altgens there may be further information within such.....Robin..i do not find you a whiner nor a quiter i do think you are very sincere in your studies...or you certainly would never have put the time ,effort and money into your grand photo site with the assistance of duncan many thanks to you both..b

The matter of Altgens photos is very suspicious.

The foremost early researchers of photos were Robert Cutler and Richard Sprague.

On their 1970 map of Dealey Plaza in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION they show

only FOUR Altgens photos:

2. subject not shown, Main and Houston

3. subject not shown, Main and Houston

6. limo on Elm, front view, shot to throat

7. limo on Elm, back view, Hill on trunk

Note that these two foremost experts did not tell about Altgens exposures

1, 4, 5 and 8.

Altgens himself disavowed taking exposures 5 and 8.

In Trask we learn that negative numbers did not correspond to the photo

numbers.

First exposure...negative 2 (vertical shot motorcade on Main)

Second exposure...negative 3 (horizontal shot motorcade on Main)

Third exposure...negative 4 (limo turning from Main to Houston)

Fourth exposure...negative 5 (limo half way down Houston, from rear)

Fifth exposure...negative 6 (limo coming down Elm, JFK hit)

Sixth exposure...negative 7 (limo heading to underpass, Hill on trunk)

Seventh final exposure...negative 8 (pedestal, man in hat, Hesters)

(the above led to some researchers confusing the Altgen numbers)

Altgens, an experienced newsman, lingered in the plaza for several

minutes. WHY did he not take a few more exposures? He is seen in

about half a dozen other photos, but is not taking any exposures.

Altgens 8 is provably taken from the middle of Elm, farther west than

6 and 7. He took NO additional photos after he crossed to the knoll

though he was there several minutes, and his camera was loaded.

Jack

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=126&t=5708

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

here is another that was posted on here re Altgens by John Woods one of our foremost assassination photograph collectors b--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that is all i have come across for now John if i find anything further as well as in wiesberg i shall post the info for you...b

QUOTE

There are at least two images attributed to Altgens which he disavowed.

Most notably the one showing Zapruder and Sitzman leaving the pedestal

I'd like to see a citation for this claim. Even if true it was probably a case of mistaken atribution. If the conspirators wanted to fake a photo why atribute it to a known photographer who wasn't in on the plot. There was another photo of 'Mr. Z' and Stizman near the pedestal. Any evidence that eithe rof those were faked?

Len,

I work on this alleged film since the 1970's and have concluded that two out-focus slides were

exposed, developed by the Kodak Company and than disappeared. I have made several efforts

to obtain the original slides via the inidivual who may have these slides.

john

The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:

Shortcut to: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=126&t=5708

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[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.

Robin...Bernice's remark was NOT directed at you!

Thanks Jack and Bernice.

Cheers.

Robin.

[Jack White]

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"?

Look it up. The fastest a man can run is about 11 miles per hour; walk is about 3 mph.

Jack

[Jack White]

Without my having to search hundreds of photos...WAS KELLERMAN'S WINDOW GLASS RAISED?

Thanks.

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 finally had some time to review Nix. Two thoughts.

First, to continue with the defect idea. A second, very similar defect occurs a few frames later in exactly the same place on the frame.

Second, with respect to the large gray surface. I think it's the top of a motorcycle windshield. Later in Nix we can see what looks to be a police officer standing directly beside the object.

I've done a gif with selected frames, but if that doesn't work try running the movie yourself - the officer figure is very apparent in later frames.

Best to you,

Jerry

[John Dolva]

Jerry, yes, I can see it and I can't at the moment see any reason to dispute what you say except possibly that the object could be expected to be more translucent if a screen.

However, it's an object, and the defect repeats so the defect and object can obviously not be ''married''. I wonder if Paschals' or Dormans' shows what was there.

imo, if nothing else this whole study shows how flawed an analysis can be when out of context, ie one frame out of many.

Thank you, all the best to you too, Jerry.

[Jerry Logan]

Jerry, yes, I can see it and I can't at the moment see any reason to dispute what you say except possibly that the object could be expected to be more translucent if a screen.

However, it's an object, and the defect repeats so the defect and object can obviously not be ''married''. I wonder if Paschals' or Dormans' shows what was there.

imo, if nothing else this whole study shows how flawed an analysis can be when out of context, ie one frame out of many.

Thank you, all the best to you too, Jerry.

I checked other films and we're just missing it by a hair. The best I can do is a motorcycle in Hughes but the officer seems to be wearing the wrong type hat.

OTH, maybe he's not the officer that goes with the cycle?

[Paul Baker]

It is entirely likely

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

plaza area LITERALLY LOADED with AUTOMATED CAMERAS.

Another lump of smelly BS is added to the steaming mountain.

[Robin Unger]

Jack i beleive this corresponds with your Nix frame.

[Bernice Moore]

Without my having to search hundreds of photos...WAS KELLERMAN'S WINDOW GLASS RAISED?

Thanks.

Jack

it would appear so Jack in some but in others...??? as far as i have seen...b

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Robin Unger]

Two more clearer frames.

[Bernice Moore]

deleted

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

do you see it up or down robin mainly ?? b

in these it is down... b sheesh..

Edited February 4, 2010 by Bernice Moore