Jump to content
The Education Forum

Altgens 6, a different view


John Butler

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can see no one wants to talk about painted shadows.  So, let's move on.

The R L Thornton Freeway sign comes before the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If we use the Zapruder film as a yardstick of sorts, we have the Stemmons Freeway sign at about Z frame 210.  The black men are at Z frames 217 to 255.  Charles Brehm and the Lady in Blue are at Z frames 275 to 299.  Mary Moorman and Jean Hill show up at Z frames 287 to 317.  Ike Altgens first appears in Zapruder starting at about Z frame 338.

The last two shadows in Altgens 6 ( down in the corner) are said to be Mary Moorman and Jean Hill’s shadows.  The problem comes from Jean Hill being taller than Mary Moorman and in the Zapruder film she comes first in the duo and her shadow is shorter than Mary Moormans in this photo.

mmshadow_zpspulm9e5m.jpg

There are plenty of plausible answers to explain this.

I contend that you cannot prove these are the shadows of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill.  Even if these shadows are real (which I think is false) I don’t know whose they would be.

I put up Altgens 6 again just to show the wider picture for discussion purposes.

altgens-6-ue-large-best-proc_zpszhouyfun

I do not see the R L Thornton Freeway sign or the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If these were the shadows of Moorman and Hill they should be 77 frames past the signs.  I would think that is about 75 feet.  Ike Altgens is in the street 128 frames or feet pass the Stemmons Free Way sign.  The signs are in front of the presidential vehicle not behind it.  The TSBD is 100 feet long.  We only see a portion of it.  I would think less than one third.

If the R L Thornton Freeway sign and the Stemmons Freeway sign are just to the right in this photo out of the picture then the shadows of the alleged Hill and Moorman would appear to be across from the signs.  Charles Brehm’s shadow is there and you might say his boy’s is there but, I see little evidence to prove it.  What I see is just shadow marks.  And, where is the shadow of the Woman in Blue standing directly behind him?  Their shadows also appear to be at or before the free way signs. 

The Zapruder yardstick on the left is different from the Zapruder yardstick on the right.  They are mismatched by almost a 100 frames.

Before I get jumped on with an explanation about camera lens and distortions, I simply do not believe it.  If Altgens is in the middle of the road (not shown in Zapruder) about 130 feet away then there shouldn’t be that much distortion.  The people down at the Elm Street crosswalk are not blurred or distorted such as the Vice-President’s security details car is.

altgens-6%20auto%20strange%20perspective 

Whoever composed Altgens 6 seriously screwed up the perspective in their composition.  Altgens did not have a magic camera lens.

Where is the correct position of the presidential limousine?  This Betzner photo might help.  You will need to back up the motorcade until the presidential limousine is before the R L Thornton Freeway sign.  This will just about put the vehicle off the SW corner of the TSBD.  That might be across Elm St. from you know who.

Betzner_Large_zpsk7c6jwry.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I think I kind of see what point you are trying to make about Bonnie Ray Williams - reading parts of his testimony seems a bit 'jumpy' in terms of what streets the limo was on at what time... however, from reading it through, it should be quite clear as to where Bonnie Ray Williams is placing the limo when he heard the first shot...

Mr. BALL. Now, what do you remember happened when the President's parade went by?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, to the best of my ability, what I remember was first coming off of--I believe it was Main Street--well, two motorcycle policemen came around. I think it was two or maybe three. They came around first. And then I think the President's car followed. And I believe a car was behind it carrying the Vice President, as I remember. I am not sure about it. President Kennedy was sitting in the back seat. I believe his wife was in the back seat. I believe Governor Connally was sitting in the front seat of the car as it was going down the street--I believe
Mr. McCLOY. What street are you talking about there? Are you talking about Main Street, Houston Street, or Elm Street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, as I say, they was coming off of Main Street. Then as it turned the corner, the corner which I am speaking of, most people refer to it as Elm Street. But it is not really Elm Street. I believe it is the start of the turnpike, because Elm Street runs parallel with the building, but comes to a dead end.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the parade come up Houston, north on Houston?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. And then you saw it turn to the left in front of your building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now tell us what happened after the President's car had passed your window.
Mr. WILLIAMS. After the Presidents car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know--it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot--first I thought they were saluting the President, somebody even maybe a motorcycle backfire. The first shot--there was two shots rather close together. The second and the third shot was closer together than the first shot and the second shot, as I remember.

He is saying that he heard the first shot after the Presidents car had passed his window. Put yourself in his position, looking out at everything that is going on, the only time it can be said that the Presidents car had passed his window was after it had turned the corner and had travelled in front of the TSBD and passed the window he was looking from.

Regards

P.S. just about to look at the photos you have just posted. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alastair,

Thanks for the clarification.  I was basing what I said on William's FBI statements and his Warren Commission testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Alastair,

Thanks for the clarification.  I was basing what I said on William's FBI statements and his Warren Commission testimony.

Just to say, the above was quoted directly from his WC testimony...

One thing I have noticed when delving through a lot of the WC testimony is people aren't always that clear with what they are meaning, and indeed some of the questioning doesn't seem to be as good or concise as we would like it to be - a lot of times it can take a bit of deducing on our parts to really get what they are trying to say. lol

Regards.

P.S. I am currently trying to see if I can work out who the shadows on the right hand side (as we look at it) of the Altgens 6 belongs to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I do not see the R L Thornton Freeway sign or the Stemmons Freeway sign.  If these were the shadows of Moorman and Hill they should be 77 frames past the signs.  I would think that is about 75 feet.  Ike Altgens is in the street 128 frames or feet pass the Stemmons Free Way sign.  The signs are in front of the presidential vehicle not behind it.  The TSBD is 100 feet long.  We only see a portion of it.  I would think less than one third.

If the R L Thornton Freeway sign and the Stemmons Freeway sign are just to the right in this photo out of the picture then the shadows of the alleged Hill and Moorman would appear to be across from the signs.  

...Their shadows also appear to be at or before the free way signs. 

...The Zapruder yardstick on the left is different from the Zapruder yardstick on the right.  They are mismatched by almost a 100 frames.

Before I get jumped on with an explanation about camera lens and distortions, I simply do not believe it. 

John, forget no explanation of camera lens and distortions is needed... it's all about perspective.

Here's a simple experiment in perspective...

Hold up one finger of one of your hands and hold up one finger of the other and place them directly in front of your face so they line up... then, without moving either of your fingers, move your head to the left and then the right... what do you see?

;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alastair,

I see the point your making.  Besides other things, I was a Psych student in college.  There are many and varied types of perceptual illusions.  It doesn't explain the warped, distorted security vehicle for Johnson and the perfectly clear and undistorted people standing directly behind it.

As always, thanks for you comment and advise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 There are many and varied types of perceptual illusions.  It doesn't explain the warped, distorted security vehicle for Johnson and the perfectly clear and undistorted people standing directly behind it.

Why do you say the VP's car is warped .... are you looking at the reflection in its paint and attributing that to the car being warped?

Might as well try and help you understand some other things that seem to mystify you while here on this page .....

1 -  The Thorton sign is behind and back towards Zapruder just enough that Altgen's camera did not capture it. Don't forget how close the people looked to each other when photographed from up or down the street at an angle when in reality they were spaced further apart as seen in the Bronson photo posted below.

2 -  There is no mystery concerning Hill and Moorman's shadows. These things were put to rest many years ago when it was shown that Altgen's took his film to the Dallas Morning News and it was processed and out on the news wire with an hour or so.

Jean Hill was standing back from the street while Mary was right next to the curb. Between Jean and the curb is a slope. Go back and look at one of the good Muchmore frames and you will see Jean Hills shoes atop of the ground while Mary's is hidden below the slope. That is precisely why Moorman's shadow extends out into the street further than Jean Hill's. No need to be painting shadows on the street - all one needs is to be aware of where these women stood in relation to the curb.

Bronson photo.jpeg

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill has already answered the 'mystery' of the shadows of Moorman and Hill, so in furtherance to that...

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

 Charles Brehm’s shadow is there and you might say his boy’s is there but, I see little evidence to prove it.  What I see is just shadow marks.  And, where is the shadow of the Woman in Blue standing directly behind him?  Their shadows also appear to be at or before the free way signs. 

What evidence do you seek to prove it is the shadow of Charles Brehm? Looking at the shadow it looks like the shadow of someone with their arms raised and clapping which is exactly what Brehm was doing... when he is first seen in the Zapruder film you can see he is in the process of 'stopping' to clap. Ditto with his son. As for the 'Woman in Blue standing directly behind him... what woman in blue? The woman behind him surely was 'Babushka Lady'. Anyway, where is her shadow? Put it this way, she wasn't standing 'directly' behind Brehm... she was far enough behind him that the shadow wouldn't extend far enough to be seen in Altgens pic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I may have said this before.  It is worth repeating.  You LGTs need to calm down.  I'm actually doing you a favor by pointing out Altgens 6 is fake.  In the future you will not have to come up with these illogical, irrational, and contrived explanations.

Best Wishes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a crop of Altgens 6 concerning the on and off nature of the screen or shade on Nellie Connolly’s window.

altgens%206%20cropped%20shade%20refledti

Altgens 4 does not have a screen, Altgens 5 probably, Altgens 6 has a screen and Altgens 7 does not. 

Nellie has to be screened and not seen.  If she is visible then she screws up the perspective on the interior of the limousine seen through the windshield.  If she is seen then you have to place Jackie Kennedy directly behind her.  And, that makes for one long arm on Jackie Kennedy.

This scene, Altgens 6, everyone says is equivalent to Zapruder frame 255.

z255%20cropped_zpsiwycv8lp.jpg

The first thing to notice is Nellie’s window does not have a screen.  You can see grass through the window.

The second is Jackie Kennedy’s position is behind Nellie Connolly.  She is seated near the rear door, touching it with her side.  If these photos are equivalent then she should be visible in Altgens 6 directly behind the shaded window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I believe I may have said this before.  It is worth repeating.  You LGTs need to calm down.  I'm actually doing you a favor by pointing out Altgens 6 is fake.  In the future you will not have to come up with these illogical, irrational, and contrived explanations.

Best Wishes

Do I understand your response to infer that it is your intention not to be right - but just to claim the photographs and films are fakes regardless of the facts. If that is the case, then you are not doing anyone a favor in my view. 

If you look at the Bronson photo - you will note that Beverly Oliver (BL) has more grass ahead of her feet than Brehm which supports her being further from the street than Charles was. This is also true in the Mucmore film and Zapruder film.

About these peoples shadows - what rational reason could you offer as to why someone would alter their shadows because I can't think of one. The Muchmore film - the Nix film - the Zapruder film - the Altgens 6 photo - and the Bronson photo all match each other concerning these witnesses location. Even the witnesses have no issues as to how their location is shown in any of these films or photos. So could it be that it is you who is not reading them correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I believe I may have said this before. 

Can't say that I have seen you say this before...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

It is worth repeating. 

I've got a feeling that it won't be worth repeating...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

You LGTs need to calm down. 

I don't think anyone is getting 'worked up' to start with! Also, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not everyone who doubts your photo analysing skills is a 'LGT'...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 I'm actually doing you a favor by pointing out Altgens 6 is fake. 

Of course, you saying it is fake, does not fake it make! The only favour you are thus doing is pointing out that you can't show that it is fake...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

 In the future you will not have to come up with these illogical, irrational, and contrived explanations.

Must have entered a topsy-turvy world; all you have been given is logical, rational and realistic explanations on points you have 'raised'. The only thing that seems illogical, irrational and contrived is your ability to see what is going on in a photo...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Best Wishes

Thanks, and Best Wishes to you too...

;)

Seriously though, John, all joking aside, I will repeat something I said to you in another thread - Genuinely, with the absolute upmost of respect to you John, may I suggest a bit more prudence in your thinking; missreading some images in a way that can be demonstrably debunked may lead to a lack of credibility for when (if) you do find something of purpose.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Must have entered a topsy-turvy world; all you have been given is logical, rational and realistic explanations on points you have 'raised'. The only thing that seems illogical, irrational and contrived is your ability to see what is going on in a photo...

That is usually the case when someone like John in this instance cannot address the information they have been given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, there was no "screen" or "shade" on Nellie's window in Altgens 6. The "screen or shade" you think you can see is the reflection of a building on the glass. And you can't see enough of her window in Atlgens 5 to say that there is "probably a screen or shade."

Do you always misread images like this?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...