A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[Jack White]

To aid those who want to look for the spiral nebula pattern on the lady's skirt.

[Craig Lamson]

To aid those who want to look for the spiral nebula pattern on the lady's skirt.

It's not a pattern on anything at all, it the entire purse or wantever it is viewed from an sideways angle. You can see the top edge sticking out above the ear of JFK and the shadow created by her arm (see croft for the shadow). JKF's ear creates the top part of the "spiral". The bottom edge of the "spiral" is JFK's shoulder blocking out the purse-whatever.

No "spiral nebula" at all just a purse-whatever....

[Jack White]

Analysis of Croft woman 8.

[Josiah Thompson]

Josiah:

Thanks for clarifying your position and I understand it. To me, the spiral nebula is very clear in your print. The one impartial photographic expert on this forum , Martin, has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgen's 6 and Altgen's 7.

Fine. So let's take up this single point and run it to ground.

First off, I have no idea whether Martin is a bonafide "photographic expert" and even less idea whether he is "impartial." The person you slight, Craig Lamson, has said several times he couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or not. That surely constitutes some degree of impartiality. However, there is a simple way to discern whether someone is a genuine "photographic expert" or not. Let's ask him for his argument. You and Fetzer both have said that that "Martin has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens #6 and Altgens #7." Somehow this one got by me. I noted that Martin had connected the Couch photo with Altgens #6 and by doing so had shown that the socalled "spiral nebula" was likely part of the dress or apron or purse of Lady #8. I thought that was a nifty piece of research. So why don't you tell me where I can learn not just Martin's "conclusion" about the "same damage" in Altgens #6 and #7 but how he got to this conclusion? Or Martin... why don't you appear and help us out with your argument here?

Josiah Thompson

[Doug Weldon]

Josiah:

Thanks for clarifying your position and I understand it. To me, the spiral nebula is very clear in your print. The one impartial photographic expert on this forum , Martin, has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgen's 6 and Altgen's 7.

Fine. So let's take up this single point and run it to ground.

First off, I have no idea whether Martin is a bonafide "photographic expert" and even less idea whether he is "impartial." The person you slight, Craig Lamson, has said several times he couldn't care less whether Oswald did it alone or not. That surely constitutes some degree of impartiality. However, there is a simple way to discern whether someone is a genuine "photographic expert" or not. Let's ask him for his argument. You and Fetzer both have said that that "Martin has concluded that there was the same damage in Altgens #6 and Altgens #7." Somehow this one got by me. I noted that Martin had connected the Couch photo with Altgens #6 and by doing so had shown that the socalled "spiral nebula" was likely part of the dress or apron or purse of Lady #8. I thought that was a nifty piece of research. So why don't you tell me where I can learn not just Martin's "conclusion" about the "same damage" in Altgens #6 and #7 but how he got to this conclusion? Or Martin... why don't you appear and help us out with your argument here?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

As a start see post #98 and #150. Please remember I am new to this forum and I have no idea who Craig Lamson is. I became aware of Martin because Jerry requested that he analyze the two windshields in your article. He concluded that the two windshields were NOT the same. I do see Lamson has posted that he believes the artifact is part of a purse. It appears that there are no easy answers here. I do not wish to divert or complicate the discussion but I was given this information:

"In talking to Burl Osborne, President of the Dallas Morning News He told me that the Altgens photos were taken from him by someone not employed at the newspaper to be developed and then given to the AP. Osborne tried to get to the bottom of this but was unable. A honest man."

Doug Weldon

[Josiah Thompson]

Josiah:

As a start see post #98 and #150. Please remember I am new to this forum and I have no idea who Craig Lamson is. I became aware of Martin because Jerry requested that he analyze the two windshields in your article. He concluded that the two windshields were NOT the same. I do see Lamson has posted that he believes the artifact is part of a purse. It appears that there are no easy answers here. I do not wish to divert or complicate the discussion but I was given this information:

"In talking to Burl Osborne, President of the Dallas Morning News He told me that the Altgens photos were taken from him by someone not employed at the newspaper to be developed and then given to the AP. Osborne tried to get to the bottom of this but was unable. A honest man."

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

[Doug Weldon]

Analysis of Croft woman 8.

Jack:

Could you post the entire Croft color slide?

Thank you,

Doug

[Bernice Moore]

[

Jack:

Could you post the entire Croft color slide?

Thank you,

Doug

Doug i think jack may be gone for now..hopefully this is what you need..one of robin's he lightened it some....best b..

[Doug Weldon]

Josiah:

As a start see post #98 and #150. Please remember I am new to this forum and I have no idea who Craig Lamson is. I became aware of Martin because Jerry requested that he analyze the two windshields in your article. He concluded that the two windshields were NOT the same. I do see Lamson has posted that he believes the artifact is part of a purse. It appears that there are no easy answers here. I do not wish to divert or complicate the discussion but I was given this information:

"In talking to Burl Osborne, President of the Dallas Morning News He told me that the Altgens photos were taken from him by someone not employed at the newspaper to be developed and then given to the AP. Osborne tried to get to the bottom of this but was unable. A honest man."

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

See also post #11. I hope we can continue a parallel track and have one of the authors from your article go through the questions I raised. Did you note that Jerry is questioning whether a proper comparison can be made between the two windshields in your article.

Doug

[Martin Hinrichs]

He claims that the spiral thing-a-ma-jig in Altgens #6 (if part of the windshield) would be at the exact same point where damage is shown in Altgens #7 (and, by implication, in Frazier's photo). I don't think this is true. He also claims that the "damage" apparent in the spiral-thing-a-ma-jig is the same damage apparent in Altgens #7. Here he gives no reasons at all for his opinion but simply states the opinion which, by inspection, is clearly wrong. But this will be a lot of fun getting to the bottom of. We'll have some fun discussing it.

Josiah Thompson

It appears to me someone are/is not really paying attention.

All the answers are there.

Josiah, just in case you've missed posting #98 here again for you:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Josiah

I was the one who made earlier in this thread the claim Altgens7 damage fits Altgens6.

I had a while ago a little discussion with Jerry on Duncan's forum about this issue and we both disagreed.

Let me try to explain why i come to my conclusion from the beginning.

I started month's ago a new Thread on Duncan's forum with the intention to colorize Altgens6 for a better

understanding of this unaltered great photograph. At this time many parts of this image left it's secrets to me.

It was a work in progress and every member was invited to join.

The progress lasted a couple of month examining all the details with little unkown parts left in the end.

Jerry, in the beginning of this work stated that the so called spiral nebula close to the mirror is just a pocket of a woman in the background.

Jerry, i hope you don't mind i mentioned it here.

As far as i know Anthony Marsh was the first who mentioned this.

Well after a very nitpicking progress examining Altgens6 i'am not so sure we see just a pocket.

But at first here my cross reference. Croft-Altgens6.

Lady 8 is the one under inspection.

I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6.

Please test it by your own if possible with photographs.

It's just a question of perspective and can easely misunderstood.

We have to keep in mind that Altgens7 is hiding parts of the evidence with the antenna.

Another problem is the significant shape of the spiral nebula in Altgens6.

We see the outer bright parts and the inner dark star shape which shows lines leading just in one direction: The center.

How strange must a pocket look like to be appear that way?

A star symbol pocket? I don't see it in Croft.

Apart from that...the shape of JFK's head have to be further examined to make sure what it hides.

Thats the next part on my tasklist.

You see, there are many reasons to doubt the theory of the pocket in Altgens6 and the critique is well deserved.

And the discussion of it has not ended.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.

Ok, Josiah show you study. Enlight us. I'll be willing to judge it with an open mind whatever it is.

But please not just claims.

By the way, i'am 3D expert since 1992 and experienced in the photographic field. And yes, i'am impartial.

The only rule i follow is the truth.

Martin

[Jerry Logan]

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Martin,

It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you.

Jerry

[Bernice Moore]

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Martin,

It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you.Jerry

now jerry... josiah has stated his conclusions without showing his study has he not..''.quote...Thanks, Doug, for steering me to those two posts. I read them without any idea how Martin reached the conclusion he did. I just read them again and I'll bet you that, when this claim is run to ground, it will turn out to be wrong on both points made by Martin.''b

[John Dolva]

I'll bet they'll turn out wrong too, but that's not a conclusion.

[Martin Hinrichs]

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Martin,

It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you.

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

Ah, i see. Thanks for your confidence in me.

Once i show a wire, doubts would be raised whether the perfect Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X is.

I build just a 3D dummy of the windshield and the mirror. And i can rotate it in my application.

I made that statement not of a sudden. Jerry, i'am 3D expert. OK?

And i come to the conclusion it's in the same place.

To make it bullet proof, a 3D photomatch have to be done. Which means we need the lens configuration, Topography of DP

Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X in both Altgens6 +7. This shall include the entire presidential limousine in 3D, many parts of Dealey Plaza in 3D and also JFK and Lady 8 in 3D.

That need hundred of hours as you may can imagine. But thats on my tasklist as many many other Tasks too.

To remember i said i come to the conclusion and the discussion has not ended.

I did never say it's a certainty because this work have to be done at first. But i can ensure you it will turn that way i predicted it,

because i'am a 3D expert. Til then i would be more than happy if can disuss this Topic in a good controversial and productive and hopefully respectful manner.

What about your study?

Let me put one posting from Duncan's forum over here please.

Martin,

I can see how you might think that - however, today I went out with white tape, large automobile and 105mm Nikon lens. Replicating Altgens 6 puts the "nebula" very close to the edge of the mirror. There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart. Moving to the rear of the vehicle I tried to create the separation between the defect and mirror shown in Altgens 7. My result was that there's no reasonable way to get the "nebula" in 6 to the same position as Altgens 7. (Note: I wasn't concerned with up/down, just left/right.)

So here's the deal - based on my tests it's not possible to place the "nebula" in Altgens 6 at either the Altgens 7 position or the CE350 position. However, it is possible to place the Altgens 7 defect at the CE350 location. (Left/right of mirror.)

Best to you,

Jerry

Would you mind to share your work with us?

It's up to you.

You may can convince the doubters here. Me included.

I'am going to predict another thing:

Let's say my upcoming work will convince everybody that the Location of the POI is in both Altgens6+7 in the same place.....

you and other will say thats no proof...just a coincidence. Thats just a pocket in the background. Isn't it?

Welcome in the mad world of the JFK assassiantion forums.

best

Martin

Edited February 26, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Jerry Logan]

"I suddenly realized that the Point of interest we see in Altgens7 is actually in the same place as in Altgens6 cause i found no

solution for this crucial part.

What i did then was to build a 3D dummy of the windshield incl. the mirror.

Important is:

a.) the correct angle of the windshield

b.) the correct size and shape of the mirror

c.) the correct distance of the mirror in relationship to the windshield.

Once this crucial parts are fitting, we will realize that the damage in Altgens7 is in the same location as in Altgens6."

Martin,

It would be very helpful for you to show the model - and tell us what numbers you actually used for a,b, and c.

Right now you're just stating conclusions, you're not demonstrating why we should come to the conclusions along with you.

Jerry

Hi Jerry.

Ah, i see. Thanks for your confidence in me.

Once i show a wire, doubts would be raised whether the perfect Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X is.

I build just a 3D dummy of the windshield and the mirror. And i can rotate it in my application.

I made that statement not of a sudden. Jerry, i'am 3D expert. OK?

And i come to the conclusion it's in the same place.

To make it bullet proof, a 3D photomatch have to be done. Which means we need the lens configuration, Topography of DP

Altgens position in relation to the SS-100-X in both Altgens6 +7. This shall include the entire presidential limousine in 3D, many parts of Dealey Plaza in 3D and also JFK and Lady 8 in 3D.

That need hundred of hours as you may can imagine. But thats on my tasklist as many many other Tasks too.

To remember i said i come to the conclusion and the discussion has not ended.

I did never say it's a certainty because this work have to be done at first. But i can ensure you it will turn that way i predicted it,

because i'am a 3D expert. Til then i would be more than happy if can disuss this Topic in a good controversial and productive and hopefully respectful manner.

What about your study?

Let me put one posting from Duncan's forum over here please.

Martin,

I can see how you might think that - however, today I went out with white tape, large automobile and 105mm Nikon lens. Replicating Altgens 6 puts the "nebula" very close to the edge of the mirror. There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart. Moving to the rear of the vehicle I tried to create the separation between the defect and mirror shown in Altgens 7. My result was that there's no reasonable way to get the "nebula" in 6 to the same position as Altgens 7. (Note: I wasn't concerned with up/down, just left/right.)

So here's the deal - based on my tests it's not possible to place the "nebula" in Altgens 6 at either the Altgens 7 position or the CE350 position. However, it is possible to place the Altgens 7 defect at the CE350 location. (Left/right of mirror.)

Best to you,

Jerry

Would you mind to share your work with us?

It's up to you.

You may can convince the doubters here. Me included.

I'am going to predict another thing:

Let's say my upcoming work will convince everybody that the Location of the POI is in both Altgens6+7 in the same place.....

you and other will say thats no proof...just a coincidence. Thats just a pocket in the background. Isn't it?

Welcome in the mad world of the JFK assassiantion forums.

best

Martin

Martin,

You seem a little defensive here. I think you've mistaken me for Len Colby.

All I did was ask for your numbers and maybe a little demo, not a 3D replica of of the entire assassination.

I asked, in part, because of exactly what you quoted from me "There's very little parallax because, I think, the windshield and mirror housing aren't very far apart."

So I'd like to know what numbers you used because - maybe I made a mistake!

I appreciate that you are highly experienced and qualified in 3D work.

Dale Myers has also had lots of experience and is highly qualified in 3D work.

I don't think many people on this Forum are willing to accept his conclusions just because he offers them.

I've spent 30 years trying cases where highly experienced and qualified experts appear for both sides and state completely different findings.

The only way to sort things out is for the experts to explain and show their work.

I'm just a lawyer playing with cameras - I'd never be admitted as an expert photo witness in any court in America.

So it would be cool if you were willing to help us out with a real, professional demonstration - but it's OK if you don't.

As always, with my best regards,

Jerry

PS FWIW, I think a conclusive demonstration that Altgens 6 & 7 show damage to the windshield in exactly the same location would be a major step forward and well worth the time and expense.

There are some people that will never change their minds but I think you underestimate a lot of the folks here.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Jerry Logan