Tampering with the limo in the JFK Altgens6

[Robin Unger]

Altgens 6 equates to approx z-255

Edited March 22, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is typical Robin Unger rubbish to distract from the findings. The size of these images was set by the process

of posting them. They can all be expanded or not. Richard Hooke did not do his analysis on "thumbnail sized"

images--as Robin Unger has to know. This is about a stupid as criticism can get--and Monk is right there with him!

I am doing my best to stay away, but a group that cannot even acknowledge the bullet hole--when we have many

photographs and six witnesses--does not deserve to be taken seriously. The only remarks of value are from David

Andrews. The best version of the film, of course, is on http://assassinationscience.com, which is the Costella Cut.

I will ask John for his best guess, but remember that the film has been massively edited and revised. I'll get back.

Once again, you have made various claims using thumbnail size images.

I conclude that this is done intentionally, so that the images avoid in depth scrutiny by the members of this forum..

Here are the LARGER VERSIONS of Fetzer's poor resolution tiny thumbnail images.

Click image to view FULL SIZE

Edited March 22, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

It looks like Frame 253 or 254. For the complete Costella Combined Cut, go to assassinationscience.com.

Dennis and Jim: I agree that Kellerman is looking at the bullet hole in the large, unobscured Altgens 6 reproductions I have seen.

Can you peg Altgens 6 to a particular Zapruder frame? I believe you have in other writings.

I ask because I want to look at Kellerman and Greer in Zapruder. Kellerman seems to be looking at the crowd on the north side during the time Connally swats with his hat at a passing bullet, then turns right to check JFK. I want to see how long Kellerman was able to look at the windshield in Zapruder before Kellerman turns left to see Kennedy.

Do you have any comments on alteration of Kellerman's and Greer's movements in Zapruder, other than the swiftness of Greer's turn.

Sorry to depart from Altgens here, but maybe you can comment briefly.

Edited March 22, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Robin Unger]

quote:

Richard Hooke did not do his analysis on "thumbnail sized"

images--as Robin Unger has to know.

That's your problem right there, "Richard Hooke analysis"

[Don Jeffries]

My hope is that arguments over film ateration do not cause researchers to ignore the real questions that remain about issues like the hole in the windshield or the identity of the figure in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo.

There are reputable witnesses, like reporter Richard Dudman, who described a bullet hole in the windshield in detail. We know the limo was washed, and as the limo was the crime scene, the crime scene was tampered with and ruined evidentiary wise. The windshield was replaced. There is no reason to just cavalierly declare that there wasn't a hole in the windshield.

[Robin Unger]

Quote:

My hope is that arguments over film ateration do not cause researchers to ignore the real questions that remain about issues like the hole in the windshield or the identity of the figure in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photo.

There are reputable witnesses, like reporter Richard Dudman, who described a bullet hole in the windshield in detail. We know the limo was washed, and as the limo was the crime scene, the crime scene was tampered with and ruined evidentiary wise. The windshield was replaced. There is no reason to just cavalierly declare that there wasn't a hole in the windshield.

What are you talking about Don ?

The man in the Doorway has been done to death

As for the crack in the windshield.

I don't believe the windscreen damage occurred until after the throat shot. ( well after after Z-255 ) Altgen's 6

i believe the crack in the windshield happened during the head shot, and the denting of the chrome trim.

and is first visible in Altgen's 7

Click on the image to view full size.

.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Robin Unger

[Don Jeffries]

Robin,

I don't pretend to be able to decipher definitive things in these photos. I'm no photo expert. My point was that reputable witnesses most definitely described a bullet hole (even noting one could put a pencil through it). Also, we know that the windsheild was replaced and the crime scene corrupted. Just as the figure in the doorway doesn't have to be Oswald for there to be a conspiracy, there doesn't have to be hole in the windshield for there to be a conspiracy.

But I feel strongly that neither issue has been resolved.

[Pat Speer]

Robin,

I don't pretend to be able to decipher definitive things in these photos. I'm no photo expert. My point was that reputable witnesses most definitely described a bullet hole (even noting one could put a pencil through it). Also, we know that the windsheild was replaced and the crime scene corrupted. Just as the figure in the doorway doesn't have to be Oswald for there to be a conspiracy, there doesn't have to be hole in the windshield for there to be a conspiracy.

But I feel strongly that neither issue has been resolved.

Only if one makes the conscious decision to never let anything be resolved... Dudman wrote an article in the 80's in which he claimed he never got a good look at the windshield and was mistaken when he said he saw a hole in it.

It's kinda like the Parkland witnesses... Someone says they saw something but then realizes that what they said they saw fails to fit the official story, or at least what others have claimed. They then change their story, or back away from the certainty in which they previously expressed themselves.

It's only human nature. While researchers might wish to ignore the latter-day stories of witnesses, and prop up their earliest recollections as the most reliable, that's a double-edged sword. I mean, can you imagine presenting a case to a jury in which half or more of the witnesses have backed down and said they probably were mistaken?

Not only will your case look weak, but YOU will look weak and unreliable if you fail to tell the jurors that, oh yeah, the guy who said that later said he was probably mistaken, but we don't want to listen to him now, do we?

So why present such a case to the court of public opinion?

[Michael Hogan]

Robin,

I don't pretend to be able to decipher definitive things in these photos. I'm no photo expert. My point was that reputable witnesses most definitely described a bullet hole (even noting one could put a pencil through it). Also, we know that the windsheild was replaced and the crime scene corrupted. Just as the figure in the doorway doesn't have to be Oswald for there to be a conspiracy, there doesn't have to be hole in the windshield for there to be a conspiracy.

But I feel strongly that neither issue has been resolved.

Only if one makes the conscious decision to never let anything be resolved... Dudman wrote an article in the 80's in which he claimed he never got a good look at the windshield and was mistaken when he said he saw a hole in it.

It's kinda like the Parkland witnesses... Someone says they saw something but then realizes that what they said they saw fails to fit the official story, or at least what others have claimed. They then change their story, or back away from the certainty in which they previously expressed themselves.....

http://news.google.c...udman jfk&hl=en