Anybody Have This Tom Wilson Image?

[Rob Clark]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Marina has admitted to taking the backyard photos. Even after she changed her opinion about Oswald's guilt, to thinking he might be innocent, she never changed that admission.

Sure she did, under duress...which doesn't count. She took one photo with this camera...no it was 2 with this other camera...another pose pops up, that makes three...🤥

Great post DJ!!

[Andrej Stancak]

Not really, I just had to respond to John's post in response to my post in which John wrote that Altgens6 was manipulated the same way as backyard photographs. I had to resist and this is how Altgens6 got into this thread. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

15 minutes ago, Rob Clark said:

Actually my original question was about the BYP...the Tom Wilson image that showed what he found under the "mask".  Andrej hijacked the thread with his Altgens crap...

My reposte is above...

[Matt Allison]

On 4/27/2020 at 11:14 AM, David Josephs said:

The only time she takes a photo and they are PERFECT...  Virtually identical despite having moved and given the camera back to Ozzie... her words.

The point about how she held the camera is made even more important when you consider HOW this first time photographer would have taken the images

How can the woman for get THIS:?   The camera is a POS, held at one's chest, viewing an inverted image... and yet 3 for 3 she was perfect?

???

These are not perfect or identical. That 3rd one isn't even level with the ground.

But different strokes, I guess.

Btw, I've never found these pictures any more incriminating than any of the other things Oswald did, so I've never been prone to looking for fakery. I know people say that putting one of these pics on the cover of LIFE magazine made him guilty in America's eyes, but polls quickly showed that really wasn't the case at all...

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Matt Allison
space

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Rob Clark writes:

Quote

I think if anything stands up to these scrutinizing questions, it's the backyard photos. You have the photographic capabilities of the DPD lab, as evidenced with the cut out BYP. Multiple poses, camera questions, photographer questions, subject denial, etc... 

Yes, the backyard photos are a self-contained set, and altering them wouldn't generate inconsistencies with other images.

Accusations that the Altgens 6 photo was faked, however, are not worth taking seriously. Anyone arguing that Altgens 6 was faked needs to explain how this could have been done in the time available, given that the finished image was distributed no more than half an hour after James Altgens arrived at the photo lab. As anyone who has done any black-and-white photographic printing knows, it was quite an achievement just to process the film and make a good-quality print in the time available, never mind doing any fakery.

The conspirators would have had to make a test print, examine that print in detail to decide exactly which elements of the image needed to be altered, and then actually carry out the alterations. Oh, and they would have to hope that no other photos turned up which exposed their image as a fake.

There were dozens of people with cameras in Dealey Plaza, many of them unknown to the authorities until years later. By the time the Altgens 6 photo was sent to newspaper offices all over the world, no-one had the faintest idea how many people had been snapping away, or how many photos or home movies might have been taken of the faked elements of Altgens 6.

Until anyone comes up with a plausible account of how it might have been done, the notion that the Altgens 6 photo was faked is ludicrous.
 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There were dozens of people with cameras in Dealey Plaza, many of them unknown to the authorities until years later.

Can you name those?  It is something I have been studying.  The available films and photos show a dozen or more people filming that are unknown. 

It would be nice to know who these people were.

Once the motorcade approaches Dealey Plaza on Main Street we only have 3 photographers filming the passenger side of the p. limo.  Since you have some knowledge of this perhaps you can explain this.

And, name those dozens, please.

I might add here most of these unknown photographers were on the passenger side of the vehicle filming that side.  This is observed from people who took photos or films from the driver's side.

Edited April 28, 2020 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The inside cover of Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy contains a plan of Dealey Plaza with the locations of the following 18 people who were taking still photographs and home movies:

- James Altgens
- 'Babushka Lady'
- Mark Bell
- Hugh Betzner
- Wilma Bond
- Richard Oscar Bothun
- Charles Bronson
- Robert Croft
- Elsie Dorman
- Robert Hughes
- John Martin
- Mary Moorman
- Marie Muchmore
- Orville Nix
- James Towner
- Tina Towner
- Phillip Willis
- Abraham Zapruder

We can add to this list the following 17 people, most of whom were press photographers and cameramen in the motorcade (Trask names them on p.306):

- Tom Atkins
- Henry Burroughs
- Harry Cabluck
- Frank Cancellare
- Malcolm Couch
- Tom Craven
- James Darnell
- Tom Dillard
- Johnny Flynn
- Clint Grant
- Robert Jackson
- Jim Murray
- Art Rickerby
- Cecil Stoughton
- James Underwood
- Jack Weaver
- David Wiegman

That's 35 names I found with just a five-minute search of Trask's book. There may well have been other photographers in Dealey Plaza whose names are on record, as well as others whose names we don't know and whose photographs have not yet come to light.

Mr Butler, and indeed anyone else who is interested in the photographic aspect of the assassination, should try to get hold of a copy of Trask's book. It isn't cheap (currently $40 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Pictures-Pain-Photography-Assassination-President/dp/0963859501), but it's comprehensive and very informative.

We know that there were plenty of people in Dealey Plaza snapping photographs and shooting home movies. We also know that the authorities paid little attention to the photographic record. There was only a token appeal to the public to make their images available. There was no attempt to round up all the spectators who carried cameras, some of whom only surfaced years afterwards.

All of this would cause a serious problem for any conspirators wishing to alter a photograph or a home movie, quite apart from the technical problem of making a convincing fabrication. You have no way of knowing how many other images exist which depict the scene you're trying to fake. How can you ensure that the alterations you make won't stick out like a sore cliché when compared to non-faked images of the same scene?

Perhaps Mr Butler will now answer a question of mine. He seems to think the Altgens 6 photograph was altered in some way. Unfortunately, that particular photograph was one of the least likely candidates for forgery, because as well as the risk of alterations being exposed, we know that there was next to no time to actually make any alterations (for details, see Trask, pp.307-325).

Could Mr Butler give us a plausible account of how the Altgens 6 photograph could have been altered, given the very limited time available and the risk of exposure?

[Andrej Stancak]

While I would also like to voice my recommendation for being cautious in claiming manipulations with JFKA photos and films, there is also a scope for revealing details in old  photographic documents using novel image analysis tools. Returning the thread to its origin, this is what Tom Wilson had in mind when he had applied his methods for non-destructive testing of materials to JFKA photographs. In fact, I believe that if there is any smoking gun out there, it would be in films and pictures because people back then in 1960' could not even figure out what information could be retrieved from visual data. 

 

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The inside cover of Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy contains a plan of Dealey Plaza with the locations of the following 18 people who were taking still photographs and home movies:

- James Altgens
- 'Babushka Lady'
- Mark Bell
- Hugh Betzner
- Wilma Bond
- Richard Oscar Bothun
- Charles Bronson
- Robert Croft
- Elsie Dorman
- Robert Hughes
- John Martin
- Mary Moorman
- Marie Muchmore
- Orville Nix
- James Towner
- Tina Towner
- Phillip Willis
- Abraham Zapruder

We can add to this list the following 17 people, most of whom were press photographers and cameramen in the motorcade (Trask names them on p.306):

- Tom Atkins
- Henry Burroughs
- Harry Cabluck
- Frank Cancellare
- Malcolm Couch
- Tom Craven
- James Darnell
- Tom Dillard
- Johnny Flynn
- Clint Grant
- Robert Jackson
- Jim Murray
- Art Rickerby
- Cecil Stoughton
- James Underwood
- Jack Weaver
- David Wiegman

That's 35 names I found with just a five-minute search of Trask's book. There may well have been other photographers in Dealey Plaza whose names are on record, as well as others whose names we don't know and whose photographs have not yet come to light.

Mr Butler, and indeed anyone else who is interested in the photographic aspect of the assassination, should try to get hold of a copy of Trask's book. It isn't cheap (currently $40 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Pictures-Pain-Photography-Assassination-President/dp/0963859501), but it's comprehensive and very informative.

Jeremy Bojczuk,

Thanks for that list of names.  I might add to your list Bob Yeargan who made the AMIPA film.  This is a film on the motorcade traveling down Main Street. 

I have a copy of the Trask book, and have looked at the information available and have a few reservations here and there.    

These are KNOWN people.  Who are the unknowns?  How many were there?  This was the question I was asking.  I have forgotten the exact number of unknowns I counted, it is about a dozen or more.  These folks would be making film on the passenger side of the vehicle. 

[John Butler]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Perhaps Mr Butler will now answer a question of mine. He seems to think the Altgens 6 photograph was altered in some way. Unfortunately, that particular photograph was one of the least likely candidates for forgery, because as well as the risk of alterations being exposed, we know that there was next to no time to actually make any alterations (for details, see Trask, pp.307-325).

Could Mr Butler give us a plausible account of how the Altgens 6 photograph could have been altered, given the very limited time available and the risk of exposure?

I also think that Altgens 5, 6, and 7 have been altered.  I'm not going to rehash what I have said earlier.  Do some research and you will see what I have said and the responses of others to that.

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Returning the thread to its origin, this is what Tom Wilson had in mind when he had applied his methods for non-destructive testing of materials to JFKA photographs. In fact, I believe that if there is any smoking gun out there, it would be in films and pictures because people back then in 1960' could not even figure out what information could be retrieved from visual data. 

I agree Andrej,

I will not say anything else about Altgens 6.  Except to explain why I thought your film imagery was bizarre:

The image of the Doorway Man looks like a female.  The Oswald figure with the Lovelady face mask is definitely male.  What I found was bizarre is the female figure looks like Thug Rose, a female MMA fighter.  Sorry.

 

[Matt Allison]

55 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I also think that Altgens 5, 6, and 7 have been altered.  I'm not going to rehash what I have said earlier.  Do some research and you will see what I have said and the responses of others to that.

They haven't been altered. You're wasting your time with this. But you are indeed free to continue doing that if that's what you enjoy doing.

[Andrej Stancak]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

I agree Andrej,

I will not say anything else about Altgens 6.  Except to explain why I thought your film imagery was bizarre:

The image of the Doorway Man looks like a female.  The Oswald figure with the Lovelady face mask is definitely male.  What I found was bizarre is the female figure looks like Thug Rose, a female MMA fighter.  Sorry.

 

 John: 

I only had a front view of Mrs Stanton's face and therefore, I could not sculpt all her facial and body features as you would wish. Mrs. Stanton was a huge lady, indeed, and this is reflected in her figure. You can say that her body looked like a body of a huge female you mentioned. I have contacted a member of Mrs Stanton family with a polite question if they would have some other pictures showing Sarah Stanton in her business clothes and from different angles, and I hope such pictures will be available in due course. This would allow to model Mrs Stanton even better than I managed to do so far. However, the exact facial features of Mrs Stanton are not required to test if a female like herself could stand in the space between Lovelady and Shelley and if there was, actually, any space between the two men. Altgens6 shows only a partial face of that person anyway.

However, I am afraid that you misunderstood my work completely as your sentence "The Oswald figure with the Lovelady face mask is definitely a male" says. My video says that if you model Lovelady's face and his body according to his photographs (and I used the FBI pictures showing him both from profile and front), there will not be any disparity between Altgens6 and my model which validates the presence of Billy Lovelady at that spot (he only erred in saying that he had stood on the top step - he could not stand on the top step as my model shows). The extra patches near his face belong to another person but that person was real - it was not a photographic manipulation.

I presented my video in a different thread and it may be more appropriate to continue the debate on my work there.

 

On a more general note, to the best of my knowledge, there is no other way of learning about the locations and body postures of people in the doorway than the 3D modelling. It is near impossible to re-enact the photograph for many reasons, and just staring on Altgens6 does not give you any more information than you have. That said, I am amazed by the collective blindness of generations of researchers who failed to spot and properly investigate the bright oval object seen next to Billy Lovelady's face. I surely must look like a fool for spotting it and investigating it for five years. The usual reaction of researchers facing this finding is: "It cannot be there because I saw this picture so many times in the past and did not see it, so how can it be there?".  Likewise, I could dismiss this shape by saying: "Thousands of people before me looked at the doorway in Altgens6 and no one said there was a bright object next to Lovelady's face, so I also do not see it, it is not there, it would have been reported long time ago". 

Anyway, this gives me some hope that other pictures may show similarly inconspicuous but clearly visible and maybe important details.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

I also think that Altgens 5, 6, and 7 have been altered.  I'm not going to rehash what I have said earlier.  Do some research and you will see what I have said

I've had a look, and I can't find anything you've written about how the alteration of the Altgens 6 photograph might have been achieved. Perhaps I've missed it. Could you either provide a link or give a quick explanation here?

The problem with Altgens 6 in particular is that there appears to have been no time to perform any alterations. According to the account in Trask, pp.317-318, this is the timeline:

(a) Altgens took the photograph at 12.30.
(b) He took some more photographs in Dealey Plaza.
(c) He gathered his belongings and went on foot to his agency's photo lab inside the Dallas Morning News building, which I believe was at least a couple of blocks from Dealey Plaza.
(d) He told the news desk about the shooting.
(e) He gave his film to a technician, who developed the film and then made a full-size print.
(f) The image was distributed to news organisations all over the world at 1.03pm.

The final print must have been in existence half an hour after the assassination, and very likely less than half an hour after Altgens arrived at the newspaper building. If you've ever done this sort of thing yourself, you will understand that they did well just to process the film and make a good-quality print in the time available. There was no time to do any fakery.

Speculating about faking a photograph is one thing, but if you want such speculation to be taken seriously, you need to show that the speculation is plausible. In the case of Altgens 6, you need to show how the photograph could have been faked in the time available. If you can't do that, your speculation is not worth considering.

How exactly did the conspirators manage to alter the Altgens 6 photograph in the time available?
 

[John Butler]

Altgens photo, Altgens 6, was taken at 12:30 CST.  They first appearance of the photo to the American public is at 5:35 CST on the Walter Cronkite news program.  Is that enough time to rearrange things in Altgens 6 by photo editors who spend there life doing such things?  How long does it take to make a wire photo transmission?  There was plenty of time to notice Doorway Man shouldn't be there.  And, someone else needed to be seen there and not Doorway Man.  I don't think that is Lee Oswald.  I don't know who the face mask of Billy Lovelady is covering.

How were photos changed in those days?  Simple cut and paste operations.  If you want to know more consult the work of David Healey on film editing processes.  Or watch the movie Jason and the Argonauts that came out that same year, 1963.

As you can see film alteration by cut and paste methods were fairly sophisticated in those days.  If you want to know more about the process of film editing in the movie:  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/dec/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

Sorry, I don't have an answer that you can accept.

Edited April 30, 2020 by John Butler