Mass Hysteria in Dealey Plaza

[Chris Bristow]

I believe it was me that said it was a trick of shadows and angles and I still think it is the case.  The closest comp  I could find is a slightly wider angle but is still a very close match. The high contrast helps to see the difference between the darker shadow and the tire. There is shadow on the ground and a bit at the bottom of the tire due to its natural bulging. The other image is from a YouTube ad for a 63 Lincoln so we can assume it is not faked. It gives a good view of the bottom of the tire because the Sun is not casting the same shadows.  The Muchmore image does look very weird but it does not stand up to scutiny. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[John Butler]

I don't see how you can make comparisons here.  But, that doesn't matter to the folk who post these lame rebuttals just as long as they have some sort of thing, rational or not, they can claim is different and therefore that fellow doesn't know what he is talking about through incompetency, paranoid delusion, or some such thing.  Often their intent is simply to move the focus off the topic.   

As far as shadows go, the shadow of the tire is under the vehicle along with the shadow of the vehicle. This is because the sun is positioned in a westerly direction as the vehicle travels north on Houston Street.  There is no shadow on the west (left) side of the tire or on the pavement on the left side.  Any shadow would be on the right side of the tire under the vehicle.

The real problem of this photo is why alter it?   Everything else shows that there is no problems in this section of the intersection of Houston and Main.  I have no evidence other than this alteration to suggest something happened here.  No one believes the Muchmore or Williams statement of shooting there.  The crowds along Houston and Main are about as heavy as anywhere else shown in photos.  To have just two people of those groups of people reporting shooting there is suspect.     

Edited April 2, 2019 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

When I see my front tire next to your image from Altgen's 5  it does make me do a double take. The back of the tire in the Hughes image looks strange because it shoots straight down till it obscures the lower part of the white wall. My image shows some of that but the camera angle is shallow. The strangeness is magnified because a shadow extends out from the bottom of the tire at a place that makes it look like part of the tire shooting downward. It makes it look like the tire extends way below where it actually does. The red lines in my example above trace out the actual line of the tire. The rest is shadow.

THE BEST CASE FOR THE SHADOW:
Ok here's the thing with the shadow. The azimuth was only 8 degrees West of North/South at that time.( It can often seem like more in the Z film but Elm isn't running East West in the plaza and that gives a false impression.) The front tire was finishing its turn but you can still see that the front wheel had not straightened out yet.(Watch the Hughes film to verify the angle of the front wheel). It looks to me to be around  10 or 12 degrees. After 8 degrees the back of the tire itself will start casting a shadow in front of it. A point 6 inches high on the back outer edge of the tire would place a shadow about 7 inches away on the ground right beside the tire(Elevation of the Sun was 36 degrees).  It could also start a few inches either side of the 7 inch mark.
 We know for sure what the azimuth and elevation was and that Huston St runs N/S. So we can say for sure that if the tire was angled more than 8 degrees we would have to start seeing shadow next to the tire. Looks to me like 10 to 12 degrees.
It is also possible that the shadow is caused by the bulge of the sidewall at the bottom of the tire. In that case the wheel could be turned less than 8 degrees. Because the bulge would only be a couple inches off the ground the shadow would land almost directly below it as a shadow cast by an object only two inches off the ground can't travel  more than an inch or two before it meets the ground.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Tony Krome]

Edited April 2, 2019 by Tony Krome

[Ray Mitcham]

16 hours ago, John Butler said:

There are certain categories of people who will believe what is seen here is a shadow effect and not an image overlay.  These are Lone Nuts, secret Lone Nuts, fools, the pent-x( can't use this word for a creature living under a bridge and later comes out to harass) and the quad-x (Can't use that word either.  This is a person who distorts reality with their false statements.)

This is a clear case of image alteration and anyone who says differently has an agenda to distort the truth.

There are certain people in this world who seem to exist totally out of it. They see things that don't exist and invent "facts" that are totally wrong. 

"This is a clear case of image alteration" Only in your mind, soft lad. Perhaps you could try to explain why anybody would alter the shadows of a car tire and of spectators..

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

42 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Thanks Tony. Won't make any difference to Mr Magoo, though. 

[Tony Krome]

1 minute ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Thanks Tony. Won't make any difference to Mr Magoo, though. 

I had to research it, as it did look a little strange at first. I found quite a few tyres like it with the sun in that certain position, and it showed the same characteristics, so what I did was place my thumb over the "bulge" at the the bottom of the tyre, and then i could see the tyre as it should be. It was an optical illusion, so I simply removed the shadow to illustrate it

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

Why would this photo be altered?

The real problem of this photo is why alter it?

I've no idea. All of the apparent anomalies can be easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of photography and a bit of common sense, so there's no reason to suppose that the photo has been altered.

Quote

Lone Nuts, secret Lone Nuts, fools, the pent-x( can't use this word for a creature living under a bridge and later comes out to harass) and the quad-x (Can't use that word either.  This is a person who distorts reality with their false statements.)

Now, now! There's no need for that. Just accept that you don't know the first thing about photography, and that because of your ignorance you keep pointing out anomalies that aren't really anomalies. If you took the time to learn a little about photography, you wouldn't keep making such blatantly stupid statements. At least, I hope you wouldn't. Nellie Connally's window is the wrong shade of grey! The court house sort of looks a bit wrong! Dear me.

Alternatively, you could find a new outlet for your paranoid delusions. For example, if you don't know the first thing about nuclear physics you could join a nuclear physics forum and tell people that all the electrons in the universe have been seized and faked and are actually made of peanut butter. If you don't know anything about gardening you could join a gardening forum and tell people that every lawn mower in the world has been seized and faked and is actually a living creature sent from the Planet Tharg to spy on us.

Quote

This is a clear case of image alteration

Very amusing! I mean, this is a joke, isn't it? Please tell me that you're joking! As Chris Bristow and Tony Krome have shown, this is in fact a clear case of nothing-to-see-here.

Quote

Often their intent is simply to move the focus off the topic.

OK, if that's what you want, let's return to the first post you made in this thread. You claimed that "almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized." I challenged you to provide evidence to support that claim. Since then, you have written five posts, but you have still not provided the evidence that caused you to make that claim. Do you have any evidence, or did you just make it up?

Since you brought up the subject of James Altgens, you could start by explaining what you know about the seizure of Altgens' photographs and film. When, where and by whom were they seized? Given that one of his images was broadcast all over the world only half an hour after the assassination, when were the alterations made?

It would have been next to impossible for "almost all of the visual record" to have been seized and altered, because we know that plenty of people who had taken photographs and home movies weren't prevented from leaving Dealey Plaza with their cameras and films, and we know that some of these people weren't contacted by the authorities until months or even years after the event. Perhaps you could explain exactly how, despite all of this, "almost all of the visual record" was seized.

When you claimed that "almost all of the visual record in Dealey Plaza was seized", you were just making it up, weren't you? Come on, admit it!

[John Butler]

My, My, My.  You boys should have been on the original photo editing team.  Then we wouldn't have this problem.

Chris,

Your argument is irrational.  This is the photo Altgens 5.  The Muchmore and Hughes film has nothing to do with Altgens 5.  The vehicle was on Houston Street not Elm Street.

Tony,

Your artwork is simply artwork and no more.  There is no shadow at the bottom of the tire.  Look at the following crop where the brightness is increased.  You can see the actual shape of the tire.  No shadows!  You can see where the tire treads go down to and meet the pavement.

Jeremy,

I think you live in a world of your own imagination.  Try the truth sometimes.  It is refreshing.  As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by John Butler

[David Andrews]

If this is an alteration, one question might be: how exactly would a gaffe like this be produced, where a tire cut with the limo out of a particular image would appear in another image with extra tread hanging down?  If they cut the tire too closely at first, wouldn't this be repaired with opaque black paint, and not a second paste-in of extra tread?

Unfortunately, Tony's model looks worse for the case, as too much of the leading edge of the tire is removed, right up to the sidewall (sorry).

Edited April 2, 2019 by David Andrews

[John Butler]

The Altgens 7 crop (excluding shadows since this is on Elm Street) tire is what the Altgens 5 tire should look like.

The image overlay is larger than the original image contained in Altgens 5.  The mismatch in tire size is what accounts for this strange appearance in Altgens 5.

Altgens 5, 6, and 7 were hastily done on the afternoon of the assassination.  That is why there are editing mistakes in all 3 photos.  These photos were needed to tell the overall story of the assassination.  Altgens 5 shows nothing happened on Houston Street and the intersection of Houston and Main.  Altgens 6 tells you where the first shot occurred.  Altgens 7 gives you the horror and the tragedy of the assassination as the brave Jackie recovers a piece of her husband on the trunk of the vehicle.

Combine these 3 with the Zapruder Film (for the last shot) and Mary Moorman's Polaroid (for the moment before the last shot) and you have a visual account of the assassination that the public can understand and accept, which they initially did.

[Tony Krome]

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

The real problem of this photo is why alter it?   Everything else shows that there is no problems in this section of the intersection of Houston and Main.  I have no evidence other than this alteration to suggest something happened here.  No one believes the Muchmore or Williams statement of shooting there.  The crowds along Houston and Main are about as heavy as anywhere else shown in photos.  To have just two people of those groups of people reporting shooting there is suspect.     

Wasn't there a bunch of cops outside the Sheriff's office on Main/Houston including Roger Craig? 

Craig wasn't shy in stating what actually happened, so what do you make of that?

[John Butler]

15 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Wasn't there a bunch of cops outside the Sheriff's office on Main/Houston including Roger Craig? 

Craig wasn't shy in stating what actually happened, so what do you make of that?

That's part of the reasoning that suggests there is little evidence to support something happening on Houston Street.  If you go back and read what I have said about this during, I believe, 4 years, is essentially the same as what I am saying now.  Outside of Marie Muchmore, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Alan Smith there is no one saying anything about shooting on Main or Houston Street.  If there are any others I don't know of them.  The AMIPA film shows the motorcade on Main St.  No who looks at that other than me sees anything wrong there. 

So, what's your point? 

[Ray Mitcham]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

My, My, My.  You boys should have been on the original photo editing team.  Then we wouldn't have this problem.

Chris,

Your argument is irrational.  This is the photo Altgens 5.  The Muchmore and Hughes film has nothing to do with Altgens 5.  The vehicle was on Houston Street not Elm Street.

Tony,

Your artwork is simply artwork and no more.  There is no shadow at the bottom of the tire.  Look at the following crop where the brightness is increased.  You can see the actual shape of the tire.  No shadows!  You can see where the tire treads go down to and meet the pavement.

Jeremy,

I think you live in a world of your own imagination.  Try the truth sometimes.  It is refreshing.  As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to.

 

 

Quote by Butler

"As far as the trool Ray Meacham, he is not worth talking to."

What is a "trool" and who is "Ray Meacham"?You can't even get the spellings correct  let alone any of your make believe evidence of photo alteration.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ray Mitcham

[Chris Bristow]

At first I did think the photo was from Muchmore and then Hughes. They all show the same moment as Altgens 5 from different angles when they filmed on Huston before Elm. That mistake in no way nullifies my point. 

An interesting point about Tony's removal of the Shadow. Is that you can accuse him of making his own shape out of it. But what it does show is that there's enough image within the original dark area to fully show the tire as it should be from that angle.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Chris Bristow