Jonathan Cohen Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 You'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers. Paul, I am no expert on shadows, but I am wondering if you are able to posit a way this photo could POSSIBLY have been altered in the way you suggest and STILL be transmitted to newspapers around the world hours after the assassination? How could any forger or forgers possibly have gathered enough information to know which fake films and photos needed to "agree" with one another at this early stage of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 ...a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 You'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers. Paul, I am no expert on shadows, but I am wondering if you are able to posit a way this photo could POSSIBLY have been altered in the way you suggest and STILL be transmitted to newspapers around the world hours after the assassination? How could any forger or forgers possibly have gathered enough information to know which fake films and photos needed to "agree" with one another at this early stage of the game? You don't have to be, Jonathan, that's the beauty of it. The basic narrative, and at least some of the elements of the original Z fake, were prepared - at minimum story-boarded, and almost certainly accompanied by some form of image bank from which to work - just like the patsy. Nor is there any great mystery about the processes involved in creating a fake visual record of the assassination. The conspirators observed the assassination scene intently, and reacted accordingly, if not always well: The Altgens photo in question clearly betrays the haste of its compositing. The question that's long intrigued me is the location of the HQ for overseeing this work. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 You'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers. Paul, I am no expert on shadows, but I am wondering if you are able to posit a way this photo could POSSIBLY have been altered in the way you suggest and STILL be transmitted to newspapers around the world hours after the assassination? How could any forger or forgers possibly have gathered enough information to know which fake films and photos needed to "agree" with one another at this early stage of the game? You don't have to be, Jonathan, that's the beauty of it. The basic narrative, and at least some of the elements of the original Z fake, were prepared - at minimum story-boarded, and almost certainly accompanied by some form of image bank from which to work - just like the patsy. Nor is there any great mystery about the processes involved in creating a fake visual record of the assassination. The conspirators observed the assassination scene intently, and reacted accordingly, if not always well: The Altgens photo in question clearly betrays the haste of its compositing. The question that's long intrigued me is the location of the HQ for overseeing this work. Any ideas? The Dallas Morning News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 (edited) ...a question. Jack, I'm singularly pleased that you and Paul have engaged directly in offering what you believe to be the problems with Altgens 7. Please continue. So far we're on a good track! I'm stepping out for a while but I hope to see more on my return. Best to you, Jerry Edited February 4, 2010 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 ...a question. Jack, I'm singularly pleased that you and Paul have engaged directly in offering what you believe to be the problems with Altgens 7. Please continue. So far we're on a good track! I'm stepping out for a while but I hope to see more on my return. Best to you, Jerry Paul is more perceptive than many here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) imo this does not look good it gives me the impression this thread was planned and started deliberately by the two?? three ?? or more sitting back watching...???waiting...with heads together who now are sitting and waiting to pounce of course no matter what he replies it will be thoroughly pounced on and distorted let alone dennounced ...imo this type of thing does not give any credit to any forum let alone an educational..one....but it will proceed i am sure..but imo it does look bad..that the get at jack has gotten to this stage by some..it makes them to me appear very small....give them a break IMO Jack and do not reply it would serve them right. .and look very good on them... ..b..imo Bernice, you are correct. It has been going on for many years, with just some new bashers added occassionally. The games they play are woefully obvious! Thanks. Jack hi jack i have seen it many times down through the years this time i decided to call it as i sees it and will again..rotten ....imo it gives any young person the wrong impression from so called adults doing what they call research..i hope they would know still that there still is a right and a wrong though it seems apparent some adults have lost that sense of decorum.. and as you mention the players come and go. and the reply being so droll and nonsensical...someone described them to me in an email as reminding them of like black spiders sitting waiting to pounce i thought that about covered them, funny though so many have come and gone through the years but your still going...on and on..too bad for them...but good for you it will continue as it always has..you must do something and have very right or they would have ignored you for years which never happens on any board i have seen..in the past nor this one...it must get tiring, though so do take heart my friend...and carry on..as you do and will...cheers. .best b... Edited February 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) No, Jerry, it can't be reconciled. I am looking forward to Jack posting a full res unretouched photo that he states shows it along with his interpretation. its going to be his usual garb. Everything is faked, everything is altered. But he wants other people in the forum to do research on photos. Pure lunacy. This picture (which is great btw) is perfect photographic evidence that refutes the Chaney riding forward theory. Well, let the denial start flowing. john dugan you are entitled to you own opinion that is a given but in your next post you did mention something to the effect there was no attack meant, my words, yet in your first you made the accusation of lunacy... tell you what fellas i called it as it appeared to me and there have been so many denials so quickly all claiming to be innocent ..me thinks though doest protest too much...it appears to me and obviously that i hit a nail on the head somewhere or would not have received those denials so quickly...as they put it the game is afoot so imo do not try to deny it to me,i have watched it for many years and it is very apparant in many threads so go have a search and a good long read..and keeping mind this type of behaviour is far from new...you can fool some of the people some of the time but..and that is my opinion so, go try and convince others you are not making any headway here.but do..take care all...b Edited February 7, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Bernice, I think we can all agree that piling on Jack gets us nowhere, and isn't even very interesting. Now, to the issue at hand. 1. Do you think, as Jack, that the ENTIRE photographic record is suspect, and that every time a photo is shown to support the Zapruder film it should immediately be classified as a fake? 2. Even photos sent out on the wires within hours of the shooting? 3. Do you really think dozens if not hundreds of photos would be faked to support the Zapruder film, when the Zapruder film was not even supposed to be released to the public? I mean, does that make sense to YOU? 4. Do you think, as Jack, that self-serving statements made by the Dallas Police should be taken at face value, and that eyewitness statements made hours or even years after an event are infinitely more reliable than photographs taken of that event? 5. If so, do you think the "entire photographic record is fake, or at least suspect" argument will ever be accepted by the mainstream media, academia, and even the public at large? 6. If not, would you agree that pushing this argument on people just gaining an interest in the assassination might very well do more harm than good? While these questions have been addressed to Bernice, anyone wishing to respond should do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) Bernice, I think we can all agree that piling on Jack gets us nowhere, and isn't even very interesting. Now, to the issue at hand. 1. Do you think, as Jack, that the ENTIRE photographic record is suspect, and that every time a photo is shown to support the Zapruder film it should immediately be classified as a fake? i will answer your questions but what i think or do not in no way affects any studies of yours or jack's nor do jack and i always agree...though i admire his work and his stamina shown of his many years spent within..his assassination studies of over 40 yeasrs...done for all of us i might add..to help find the truth.......nor does it affect any studies period as i am just one of very many.. it would seem that.some must learn that and keep it in mind we all are all a one of the many...no i do not believe that every photo is a fake..though within many there are some really screwy things...found...do i believe the crappy zappy film is altered yes..there's one you forgot to ask... 2. Even photos sent out on the wires within hours of the shooting?well now that would depend on if the handling of such is verified and could be traced... 3. Do you really think dozens if not hundreds of photos would be faked to support the Zapruder film, when the Zapruder film was not even supposed to be released to the public? I mean, does that make sense to YOU? i think eventually they thought they would show and earn much moolah from the film possibly..that is what a big part of life was into making money.. is there verification that it was never to be shown...or did some crumb from life mention such..if so i certainly would not buy into it...if they had to alter dozens of whatever they could have done it and would if necessary the gov could and still can do anything surprise... 4. Do you think, as Jack, that self-serving statements made by the Dallas Police should be taken at face value, and that eyewitness statements made hours or even years after an event are infinitely more reliable than photographs taken of that event?I think that some within the dpd were involved..period...many birchers within their ranks who would be pleased to see that liberal so and so bite the dust...the eyewitness testimony i believe them not to say that some 30 years later memory may not have slipped yours will also you will find and all others at times, but with most they stuck to their stories and i believe the insanity of what they saw would impress forever a sense of horrid recall so awful that other than tiny details the overwhelming memory would not be forgotten...too horrible to.. 5. If so, do you think the "entire photographic record is fake, or at least suspect" SUSPECT YES...until proven otherwise..argument will ever be accepted by the mainstream media, academia, and even the public at large? if you could pay or hand out the perks to the media, and academia that the gov has for these many years then you would be able to control it the other way any way you may want to...and all would believe anything you wanted them to about the photos assassination etc..the control of such is well documented... 6. If not, would you agree that pushing this argument on people just gaining an interest in the assassination might very well do more harm than good? the truth is never harmful the citizens are not babies that need to be coddled..they have their own minds and should have always had all the truth and therefore to have been able to have decided and ultimately have told their government what they wanted done about it..and to hell with allowing any of those involved to hide behind such excuses..that's imo an excuse... While these questions have been addressed to Bernice, anyone wishing to respond should do so. now i would like to read your answers ...up next pat speer...your turn... take call all b..and keep in mind none of this changes a thing... Edited February 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 ...a question. No, because Altgens is not viewing the tunnel directly as your illustration suggests. Altgens is looking through the tunnel at an angle, like looking into a pipe from an angle. You don't see all the way through the pipe, you see the wall of the pipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 No, Jerry, it can't be reconciled. I am looking forward to Jack posting a full res unretouched photo that he states shows it along with his interpretation. its going to be his usual garb. Everything is faked, everything is altered. But he wants other people in the forum to do research on photos. Pure lunacy. This picture (which is great btw) is perfect photographic evidence that refutes the Chaney riding forward theory. Well, let the denial start flowing. Delighted to oblige. In the full version of the Altgens photo at issue - you'll find a very good version in Trash's That Day In Dallas: Three Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, New & enlarged edition, 2000), p.67 - you'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers. Contemplate the shadow cast on the south curb of Elm by the street light directly behind JBK - it's entirely incompatible with shadow cast by the car. Conclusion? The Altgens photo at issue is a composite, utilising photos taken some time apart. Oh, if you really want to see how bad a gaff it was/is, compare with the shadows cast by street lights in the following Bothuns: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=0 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=2 Paul, The image selection was not inadvertent. I posted the highest resolution version available online (thanks to Robin) because I thought we were going to be searching for motorcycle antennas and such. Your shadow analysis is new to me and completely unexpected. Although, I have to confess, I'm baffled because I've had a chance to look at That Day in Dallas and I don't see a single problem with the shadows. You wrote the shadow on the south curb of Elm and of course we can't see the south curb much less a shadow there. So I'm guessing you mean the north curb. Does Jack's post illustrate what you see? Perhaps you can explain it with reference to this or another photo of your choice so everyone can follow along and I can understand why you see a problem. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Logan Posted February 5, 2010 Author Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) Dont write off the history, or Jack, just yet. There is enough evidence that Altgens photos were altered - crowds looking at the photographer but not the limo; the appearance of Billy Lovelady wearing an Oswald-style shirt, standing next to a figure whose head is blacked out.If the framing of the limo in the Z-film head shot frames is skewed in a way that prevents seeing what happens on the limo's right, then there is no full-frame reference from which to judge what happened, and the other films are insufficient, in innocent ways or other. We're discussing a different Altgens photo that Jack has acknowledged was taken by Altgens. The photo we are discussing ran in papers on the evening of the assassination and Altgens identified this photo as his own. Even by Doug Horne's account this picture appeared in it's present form well before anyone had decided what needed to be altered in the Zapruder film, much less what needed to be altered in other films to support the altered Zapruder film. That's why this photo is such a problem for the Chaney theory. As actually witnessed recently in yellowed November 1963 newspapers? David, I can't speak for others but I've only seen microfilm versions. However, there's an excellent school of journalism at Indiana University (Jim Fetzer's graduate career was at IU). They have a huge archive of many different newspapers from around the country so it would be easy to check the microfilms against the actual paper versions at IU. Of course it can't end there because the forgers would have realized the original version had appeared in papers and that archives at major universities and newspapers themselves would eventually be checked. So early early on they substituted revised versions of the papers which contained the retouched photo and by now those doctored papers are yellowed and crumbly just like the real papers would have been. It's true that some individual might come forward with something from an attic that confirms authenticity. But in a world where the government is willing to pay $25 million for terrorist heads who can you trust? David, we may be living in the Matrix. It's a logical possibility. Someone may have swapped out all the microfilms and all the papers we can find. In fact I recently read a very good argument for the proposition that we're all characters in someone's cyber world. But until Morpheus offers me the red pill (and Jack ain't no Morpheus) I'm stuck here. Best to you, Jerry Edited February 5, 2010 by Jerry Logan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Paul, how is it incompatible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Even with the risk to get blamed but i don't know what the problem is. Officer Chaney was riding the right flank of the presidential limousine. He was the one next to Kennedy during the motorcade until Dealey Plaza, always slightely behind him. On his right side was Officer Douglas Jackson riding. Chaney had one thing in common with Officer Hargis...both wearing dark sunglasses. Police Officer Martin riding on the left to Hargis did one thing that every Officer flanking the presidential limousine did....he slowed down after the headshot.. But instead of stopping, he accelerated to follow the SS-100-X. Not so Officer Hargis. As we all know Hargis stopped his motorcycle to get onto the grassy knoll, examine this area briefly and went off. Officer Martin pursuing the SS-100-X is obviously seen here in Bell: In this McIntire photo he is again visible riding on the south side of Elm. He is also recognizable in the Daniel film. Whether it is Chaney or Jackson in this McIntire photo on the left is unknown to me. The aftermath film and photos wont give an answer as far as i know. All what i can say is that Chaney braked down a bit more after the fatal headshot than Jackson. Who accelerated first to follow the president is speculative. I would say Chaney because of his testimony. Martin 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