Jump to content
The Education Forum

“The lights all went out,” and the elevators stopped while JFK was murdered. Shelley and Lovelady were near the bottom of the back staircase, by the electrical panel... and Vickie Adams saw them ... until everyone's story changed...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

John, I hate to come in again to show where you are wrong, but you don't seem to learn.

The reason the Stemmons sign isn't in Altgens 6 is because the field of view of his camera wasn't large enough to include it. If the Stemmons sign had been in the shot you would have seen the Western end of the TSBD in view. As it is you can only see the middle of the South side of the TSBD, where the third dividing buttress (between the windows in the centre of the South face of the building) can only be seen. Even the Thornton Sign isn't in the photo, the field of view is so narrow.

Ray,

This is the same dumb argument I have heard for nearly 4 years, from you and others.  Since, I first brought this up.  Your field of view is too narrow.  There is no way you can compare Altgens 6 with Zapruder 255.  Look and study what I presented.  It hasn't changed.  I you can't find a sign that is clearly somewhere around 25 to 40 feet behind the presidential limousine that what can you find?   What can you find when Altgens is in the middle of the road filming toward the TSBD! 

In your case nothing.  Your field of view is too narrow!  If Robin Unger couldn't convince me of that you surely can't.  What I showed indicates neither Altgens 6 or Zapruder are reliable.

This will be the only time I respond to you.  Your trolling efforts will go unnoticed.  I really should look up how to keep from seeing your posts.

This is really off Jim Hargroves topic and I suggest going back to that rather than debate something I've discussed many times before..   

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 729
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

53 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Ray,

This is the same dumb argument I have heard for nearly 4 years, from you and others.  Since, I first brought this up.  Your field of view is too narrow.  There is no way you can compare Altgens 6 with Zapruder 255.  Look and study what I presented.  It hasn't changed.  I you can't find a sign that is clearly somewhere around 25 to 40 feet behind the presidential limousine that what can you find?   What can you find when Altgens is in the middle of the road filming toward the TSBD! 

In your case nothing.  Your field of view is too narrow!  If Robin Unger couldn't convince me of that you surely can't.  What I showed indicates neither Altgens 6 or Zapruder are reliable.

This will be the only time I respond to you.  Your trolling efforts will go unnoticed.  I really should look up how to keep from seeing your posts.

This is really off Jim Hargroves topic and I suggest going back to that rather than debate something I've discussed many times before..   

This is a photo showing the differences in field of view from a wide angle to a telephoto lens. Note how in the telephoto lens photo the little boy has disappeared NOT because of any alteration to the photo but due to the narrowness of the field of view of the lens. the same thing happened in Z6. The field of view was too narrow to show either of the street signs. but you are too dumb to realise it. image.png.92d7e85dce12e778af12cd8fb06173f0.png

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Mitcham idiocy,

Can you see the trees in the photos behind the little girl?  Even in the blowup, supposedly a telephoto shot, the tree is still there.  Why?  Because it is behind the little girl. 

The Stemmons sign should be in view behind the presidential limousine and is not.  It is not in front of the vehicle or off to the side.  There is no camera angle or trick that can account for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Another Mitcham idiocy,

Can you see the trees in the photos behind the little girl?  Even in the blowup, supposedly a telephoto shot, the tree is still there.  Why?  Because it is behind the little girl.

Yes because they are within the field of view of the telephoto lens.

Quote

The Stemmons sign should be in view behind the presidential limousine and is not.  It is not in front of the vehicle or off to the side.  There is no camera angle or trick that can account for that.

Totally and completely wrong.

This Roberdeaus' Dealey Plaza sketch showing the field of view of Altgens 6. (from the objects shown in the photo)Note that neither the Stemmons Street sign or the Thornton Sign are within the field of view shown. (The Stemmons Street sign has an arrow pointing to it.) Just click on to enlarge to see in more detail.

 

Altgens-field-of-view.gif

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

This Roberdeaus' Dealey Plaza sketch showing the field of view of Altgens 6. (from the objects shown in the photo)Note that neither the Stemmons Street sign or the Thornton Sign are within the field of view shown. (The Stemmons Street sign has an arrow pointing to it.) Just click on to enlarge to see in more detail.

 

Altgens-field-of-view.gif

Hi Ray,

This might help

file.php?id=299271&mode=view

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Hi Ray,

This might help

file.php?id=299271&mode=view

A picture(s) worth a thousand words. I admire your ability to use visual facts Tony.

BTW, as a trivia aside, the live oaks here in Texas are shedding last years tiny leaves though the new ones for this year are already in place here at the end of March.  There is No time of year one can see through them clearly for a clear shot from the sixth floor "snipers nest" to where JFK was last hit.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tony. Must have taken some time to prepare the montage. It certainly shows the line of sight if you line up the landmarks. I don't think I have to add anything to your composite which shows the limited field of view of Altgens camera. It certainly shows where the Stemmons sign was in relation to the photo.

Still don't think that it will make any difference to Mr Butler as he is wedded to his belief that the photograph was faked.

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Are you suggesting that no one was shooting from the TSBD?  Do you think Brennan, Euins, Jackson, Couch and undoubtedly others were lying about seeing a rifle in the window?  Do you think those witnesses riding in the same car who heard Dallas Times photographer Robert Jackson contemporaneously say to them that he saw a rifle in the sixth floor window were also lying?  And those guys on the fifth floor who heard the shots and the shells hitting the floor immediately above them were making it all up?

See those agents on the right side running board of the Queen Mary. How many feet were their ears away from any super sonic bullets?

BikeWithTheMike_Fig3.jpg?zoom=2

The very first sound those ears would have heard, would have been the crack or whip of a bullet, a split second before the sound of the rifle itself. Below is that sound from downrange;

Doesn't sound like a cherry bomb or fireworks

In previous topics, I've suggested the shooter seen by witnesses on the 6th floor was there to be seen. I also believe he let off at least one round, but no where near the Limo

A professional sniper, in my opinion, would not have been witnessed by so many

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony wrote "In previous topics, I've suggested the shooter seen by witnesses on the 6th floor was there to be seen. I also believe he let off at least one round . . ."

Tony, I agree. A professional sniper relies on being practically invisible to passers - by. No, the 6th floor man with the rifle, witnessed by many, was deliberately making himself visible in the minutes before the shooting. (Now, his partner/spotter/radioman was far less visible, and was not meant to be seen by casual observers, although Arnold Rowland saw him.)

The 6th floor man with the rifle was even projecting the rifle out of the window, so that just about anyone from any angle could see the rifle! He wanted to be noticed!

George Michael Evica noted long ago the sound distinction between the first "explosion" and the subsequent shots. Many, many witnesses described hearing something that did not immediately register in their minds as the shot from a high-powered rifle. Evica guessed that there was something different about the nature of that first noise, and he guessed that it was intended to disorient, distract and confuse the Secret Service to prevent an effective response to the real rifle shots moments later. He even used the word "cannon", although he was writing metaphorically. (Nobody actually fired a cannon at the president. It just sounded that way, maybe.)

Maybe Evica was right.

Other writers posed that the first shot perhaps was under-powered, thus explaining the shot that apparently only penetrated the president's back by an inch or two before disappearing (supposedly.) I don't know enough about the sound a defective bullet might make, but that theory sounds vaguely possible to me.

Is there anyone here who can reliably inform us as to the sound a defective bullet might make? Could that explain the difference in sound so many witnesses noted?

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is real doubt that anyone fired a round from the 6th loor Sniper’s Nest.  People saw what they were supposed to see.  A play or show of an assassin or assassins in the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest.  I can't say there was not a shot from above the 5th floor on the 6th.  But, I can say that 9 out of 11 witnesses closest to the shooting of the president said that shots came from some place other than the TSBD.  All of these people were located within about 40 feet (this is about the width of the average American home) from the alleged shooting coming from the 6th floor.  They would not be able to not hear rifle fire from directly above them, particularly a high powered rifle.

There were people who stayed inside the TSBD to watch the Motorcade.  This is what some said:

  1. Harold Norman- 11-26-63 FBI statement Norman said he heard a shot as the vehicle turned onto Elm St.  Shots came from above.

  2. Bonnie Ray Williams- Sheriff’s Office on 11-22-63- first said he heard shot when the presidential limo turned onto Houston.  Later, he changed that to a turn onto Elm St. and then later changed that.  Shots came from above.

     

  3. James “Junior” Jarman- Warren Hearing on March 24, 1964- At first, Jarman said much the same as Williams and Norman.  He later changed his testimony at the WC to hearing shots from low and to the left.  That is shooting from Houston Street.

     

  4. Mary Hollies- 2-18-64 statement to Detective Potts said she heard 3 shots as the motorcade turned into the intersection.  She noticed smoke on a little hill over to the west.  Mary Hollies and Alice Foster are placed with 5th floor witnesses due to Mary’s 6th Floor Museum interview in January, 2011.

     

  5. Betty Alice Foster-3-19-64 FBI statement- She heard something like fireworks after the President’s car turned down Elm St.

     

  6.  Elsie Dorman- 11-23-63 FBI report, 3-20-64 FBI report.  She thought shots came from the Court Records Building on Houston St.  She became excited and quit filming at the time the President was on Houston Street.

     

  7. Sandra Styles- In a statement made to the FBI on 3-19-64 she said she heard shots but, did not know where they came from and offered no other relevant information.  However, in a video published in October, 2017 she said as the presidential vehicle turned into the intersection she heard 3 shots.   Reference:  Jobert Jefford Paulson video, Oct. 17, 2017- The Case of the Lady Who Did Not See the Assassin.

     

  8. Vickie Adams- 11-24-63- She said when the president’s vehicle entered the intersection of Elm and Houston she heard 3 shots.  She could not see the shooting since it happened while the presidential limousine was under trees.  And, that would be in front of the TSBD.

     

  9. Dorothy Garner- 3-20-64 FBI report- When the shots occurred the presidential vehicle was out of sight, obscured by trees.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

     

  10. Yola Hopson- 12-1-63- FBI report- She heard two or more sounds / firecrackers when the presidential limousine was obscured by trees.  This would be in front of the TSBD.

     

  11. Steven Wilson- 3-25-64- FBI statement- He said he heard 3 shots while the president was obscured by trees.

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites

file.php?id=299271&mode=view

This is undoubtedly the best display I have seen showing that Altgens 6 is not related to Zapruder frame 256.

Once again the Stemmons sign was about 25 to 40 feet behind the presidential limousine.  At best in the above the display the Stemmons sign is off to the right (picture left) and definitely not behind by 25 feet to 40 feet by as shown in Z frame 255. 

z-238-255-compare.jpg

There is more that one proof that Altgens 6 is a fraud.  I am reminded of this when you see no one casting the shadows of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.  Get any artist to look at the shadows and if honest they will tell you they appear to be painted.

Tony's display also shows that the photo is a fake because it is a crop of a larger photo not a magnified telephoto shot.  If it was a telephoto shot you could not connect the size of the crowd or other images of the background picture (of normal perspective) to the size of the crowd in the alleged telephoto Altgens 6.  And, to a certain extent that is what we see in reverse.  The size of the people in the crowd in the background photo is larger than the people in the Altgens crop photo.  I read a really neat presentation as to why this is a cropped photo.  It has to do with not seeing the upper floors of the TSBD and the Dal-Tex.

Altgens6fullframe.jpg

In other words this is a cropped and reshot as an original film.  You can see the shadows in this photo better.  They are definitely artwork.  Compare them to what others look like in other photos and frames taken that day.  The Elsie Dorman film is a good place to look.

Altgens had a magic camera with him that day.  Notice that the motorbike cops and the vice presidential vehicle are undistorted by the distant "telephoto lens".  But, the Johnson security vehicle is grossly distorted.  Then directly behind the vehicle we see a young boy and the crowd that are undistorted.  How can that happen without a magic camera or photo editing.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

See those agents on the right side running board of the Queen Mary. How many feet were their ears away from any super sonic bullets?

BikeWithTheMike_Fig3.jpg?zoom=2

The very first sound those ears would have heard, would have been the crack or whip of a bullet, a split second before the sound of the rifle itself. Below is that sound from downrange;

Doesn't sound like a cherry bomb or fireworks

In previous topics, I've suggested the shooter seen by witnesses on the 6th floor was there to be seen. I also believe he let off at least one round, but no where near the Limo

A professional sniper, in my opinion, would not have been witnessed by so many

Tony,

Couldn’t agree more that the 6th floor shooter was there to be seen, and that he took at least one shot.  John A. has been saying this for 20 years. To be effective, this fellow had to look at least similar in appearance to the “Lee Harvey Oswald” who became the patsy, no?  

Who could that man be?

Could it be the same fellow who spent weeks leading up to the assassination creating scenes at the Sports Drome rifle range, the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership, the Southland Hotel, etc?  Could it be the same man who shared his identity for years in a Cold War spy game with a Russian-speaking emigre who traveled to the Soviet Union and eventually became the patsy in the JFK hit?  This is, of course, hard to prove, but….

Below is a closeup capture from Dallas Morning News photographer Tom Dillard’s film taken seconds after the shots rang out.  John A. added dotted lines to the image to show what we believe is the figure’s hairline, chin, and collar.  Note the white shirt under the collar line. 

6th_Floor_Oz.jpg

Below from my website are four images at least alleged at one time or another to be of Lee Harvey Oswald.  The leftmost photo below, the so-called “hunter photo,”  was apparently taken of the man born as Lee Harvey Oswald by his brother Robert in 1958.  Note the similar appearance of the hairline in this photo and the Dillard film.

4oswalds.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Thanks Tony. Must have taken some time to prepare the montage. It certainly shows the line of sight if you line up the landmarks. I don't think I have to add anything to your composite which shows the limited field of view of Altgens camera. It certainly shows where the Stemmons sign was in relation to the photo.

Still don't think that it will make any difference to Mr Butler as he is wedded to his belief that the photograph was faked.

Many thanks to Rick McTague for his re-enactment Altgen's photo.

Altgens_3.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

See those agents on the right side running board of the Queen Mary. How many feet were their ears away from any super sonic bullets?

BikeWithTheMike_Fig3.jpg?zoom=2

The very first sound those ears would have heard, would have been the crack or whip of a bullet, a split second before the sound of the rifle itself. Below is that sound from downrange;

Doesn't sound like a cherry bomb or fireworks

In previous topics, I've suggested the shooter seen by witnesses on the 6th floor was there to be seen. I also believe he let off at least one round, but no where near the Limo

A professional sniper, in my opinion, would not have been witnessed by so many

As a rifle instructor in the military in 1967 I can tell you this is what a high powered rifle sounds like.  Only I believe louder because the sound in the video seems not as loud.  As an assistant instructor (low man on the totem pole) I fired 400 rounds sometimes 800 rounds a day through a M-14 automatic rifle.  Total is about 70 thousand or 80 thousand rounds that year.

If you are within 40 feet of a high powered rifle sound you will not miss it.  You may not know where it came from but, you will know the direction.  9 out of 11 witnesses I listed earlier gave a direction other than above them.  Most indicated the sounds came from the west.

To answer Tony's question is about 200 feet counting the distance upward (about 65 feet) to the 6th floor for the alleged shot.  This is based on 100 foot side for the TSBD and about 40 feet from the lamppost to the Stemmons sign.  It is an angle from the 6th floor to Elm Street and the limo.  So, it is probably less.  Or, that is my best guess.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
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...