JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I can never find anything on the trunk. There is something at the end of her hand that extends just past the right hand hold but I think it is just her fingers. It seem to appear as she moves her hand forward but not before. some company did an analysis and claimed they found a chunk moving back along the trunk. I am convinced what they pointed out was just a reflection. I am going to do a post on it.

 

Chris,

Maybe this mag of Z342 can help.  There appear to be objects on the trunk that are not reflections.  They cast shadows.  

The left hand one is the one Jackie was after.  That occurs between frames 340 to about 349 or so.  I did a gif showing that section of the film only slowed down so one could see Jackie did get something off the trunk she kept clutched in her hand until she got to the emergency room.

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the Sun is in the correct position to cause a reflection off the left side of Altgens camera and send that light towards Z's camera. It should hit the camera at about 25 degrees from behind and bounce forward at 25 degrees and that would send the reflection towards Z. The light did not have to be in front to cause the highlights we see.
I would guess that a flash would not last a half second but that is just a guess. I think the bigger issue is flash attachments are not used in bright daylight. They are useless in bright daylight and it looks like he has no flash attachment in one of the Bothun photos.
The shadow angle difference in Z 342 and the Dorman image may have a logical explanation. First in the Dorman image below there is something interesting. The people on the left, closer to Huston, have a very different shadow angle than the people on the right side of the composite image. The  shadow of the people on the left match Altgens shadow in 342 very closely(red lines). But on the right they are way off. It is natural for people at different position to appear to have different shadow angles as viewed from the camera. Check out Z frame 406 and look at the shadows of the light posts. They point  slightly to the right because Z has now panned past the Sun's position. In 342 they point far to the left. So where the camera is pointing relative to the Sun greatly effects the angle of shadow we see. Dorman's camera was pointed about 10 degrees farther East than Z and it should  cause about a 5 degree difference in the shadows.
The next factor is Dorman was looking down on the street at a steeper angle than Z was looking towards Altgens. Z was about 10 degrees above and Dorman 21 degrees above the street. This makes a 10 degree difference in the perceived angle of the shadows. The lower you go the more the shadow will level out towards the 180 line(horizontal). The top part of the graphic below shows the difference Dorman's higher position on the 4th floor would change the shadow angle, about 10 degrees.
I get a 20 degree difference in the shadows using the image you provided of Dorman and fr 342. But the fact that there is such a variance between the people on the right side of the Dorman image and the people on the left throws a monkey wrench in to the equation.
The elevation difference and slight difference in the camera direction relative to the Sun would account for at least 15 degrees of the difference we see in fr 342 and the Dorman images.

Bothun's shadow is about 13 degrees as are the other shadows in the frame.  In the Dorman frame shadows vary from about 40 some degrees to about 15 degrees.  The lesser degree shadows you have lined in red.  The Blue line shadows are closer to 40 some degrees.  This doesn't match your example for Bothun.  The lesser degree shadows are due to curving around the street which puts people at a different angle then Bothun.  

Visually and by measuring the angles they are not the same.

[John Butler]

1 minute ago, John Butler said:

I think the Sun is in the correct position to cause a reflection off the left side of Altgens camera and send that light towards Z's camera. It should hit the camera at about 25 degrees from behind and bounce forward at 25 degrees and that would send the reflection towards Z. The light did not have to be in front to cause the highlights we see.
I would guess that a flash would not last a half second but that is just a guess. I think the bigger issue is flash attachments are not used in bright daylight. They are useless in bright daylight and it looks like he has no flash attachment in one of the Bothun photos.

The angle of the shadows are an indication of where the sun is at.  The shadows are about 13 degrees.  We have already seen there is some doubt whether this angle is correct by comparing to Dorman.  The highlights on the figures are based on the angle of the shadows which according to Dorman are incorrect.

The brightness of the highlights on the camera and possible camera flash are to high for this angle of the sun.  I believe they would not cause such a bright highlight.  On the other hand a camera flash would create such highlights and particularly the highlight on the watch on Altgens arm.

The highlights on Jackie are over done and do not carry through out the scene to the opposite side of the vehicle.  It is quite dark and dull with very little highlights there and highlights should be there as bright as Jackie.

[John Butler]

This is what I think.  Altgens had his camera bag with him.  He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film.  He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him.  Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

This is what I think.  Altgens had his camera bag with him.  He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film.  He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him.  Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.

So now you've decided Altgens is real? Does that mean you still think Bothun is not real and is actually just a duplicate version of Altgens pasted into films and photos?

[Richard Price]

John, we will have to disagree on the use of a flash by Altgens.  He would have had additional lenses, filters, rolls of film, etc., but probably no flash.  He was a professional photographer so he would have known there would be absolutely no need for a flash attachment.  Flash attachments of that era were quite large and unhandy.  Flash photography was mainly used on medium format cameras for up close/indoor photos by the press.  Below is an example of a flash available for 35mm cameras.  I think you can see that is not what is shown in the Dealey Plaza pictures.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So now you've decided Altgens is real? Does that mean you still think Bothun is not real and is actually just a duplicate version of Altgens pasted into films and photos?

Altgens is real.  The imaginary and pasted guy is Bothun (actually Altgens).  I don't see the need, but is probably just another Zapruder film mistake.  I call him Altgens shadow.  In the Dealey Plaza photos taken after the assassination you can not find a picture of Bothun.  Only Altgens.  I have searched all the photos and films and I can not find a single one of Bothun other then the Z film.  He should be in other photos such as Bond, but not.

Another example is the Lady in Blue.  Actually, in some films she is the Babuska Woman.  But, only in Zapruder she is the Lady in Blue.  You can find her in other films.  Willis and Bond.

I can't find the Bothun portrayed in Zapruder in any other film or photo.  Altgens you can see in others.  Even one claimed to be Bothun.  But, if you search other photos taken at the same time of the south of Elm in the grass there is no Bothun there.  I can't find anyone to take Bothun 4 from the other side of the street.

Edited September 13, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

29 minutes ago, Richard Price said:

John, we will have to disagree on the use of a flash by Altgens.  He would have had additional lenses, filters, rolls of film, etc., but probably no flash.  He was a professional photographer so he would have known there would be absolutely no need for a flash attachment.  Flash attachments of that era were quite large and unhandy.  Flash photography was mainly used on medium format cameras for up close/indoor photos by the press.  Below is an example of a flash available for 35mm cameras.  I think you can see that is not what is shown in the Dealey Plaza pictures.

Thanks Richard,

Oswald/Prayerman uses a flash on Elm St. in the Martin film and again on the steps of the TSBD in the Weigman film.  

There were lots of cameras in those days that had flash capability without such a bulky attachment.  If you have ever watched movies, or shots of models being filmed they have lots of light fixtures working even on the sunniest of days.

I just did a search for cameras with flash attachments in 1963 and many different cameras came up using flash attachments other then what is shown.  

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Altgens is real.  The imaginary and pasted guy is Bothun (actually Altgens).  I don't see the need, but is probably just another Zapruder film mistake.  I call him Altgens shadow.  In the Dealey Plaza photos taken after the assassination you can not find a picture of Bothun.  Only Altgens.  I have searched all the photos and films and I can not find a single one of Bothun other then the Z film.  He should be in other photos such as Bond, but not.

And so the photo of Bothun's grave that you posted earlier in this thread is ... also fake? Or are you claiming Bothun was a real person but never was actually in Dealey Plaza? And just so I'm clear, what possible purpose could there have been on the part of the conspirators and film alterationists to insert this specific fake human presence a la Bothun in the Zapruder film?

[John Butler]

15 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And so the photo of Bothun's grave that you posted earlier in this thread is ... also fake? Or are you claiming Bothun was a real person but never was actually in Dealey Plaza? And just so I'm clear, what possible purpose could there have been on the part of the conspirators and film alterationists to insert this specific fake human presence a la Bothun in the Zapruder film?

I haven't got a clue.  And, that goes for many more mysterious things one sees in these films.  At one time I thought it was the editors getting away with foolish things just because they could.  In other words pulling pranks.  If you were a lab guy in the CIA or FBI photo labs (or at Chiles, Jaggers, Stovall) with very little to enlighten your day, well that might be a way to do it.  

Take for instance Phil Willis' extra long leg in Z 157, if my memory is ok on that number, that could be one of those editor artists way of saying we are pulling your leg like Phil Willis' leg.

You can't say Phil's extra long leg is a shadow extension due to a shadow going in the direction of other shadows at the bottom of his foot.  There are lots of strange things in Z 157.  

Edited September 13, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Bothun's shadow is about 13 degrees as are the other shadows in the frame.  In the Dorman frame shadows vary from about 40 some degrees to about 15 degrees.  The lesser degree shadows you have lined in red.  The Blue line shadows are closer to 40 some degrees.  This doesn't match your example for Bothun.  The lesser degree shadows are due to curving around the street which puts people at a different angle then Bothun.  

Visually and by measuring the angles they are not the same.

The different shadow angles in Dorman have nothing to do with the curvature of the street. We are measuring the angles relative to the frame of the picture.  It does not matter at all if the people are standing on a curve or straight road. The shadow is due to the position of the Sun, the camera, and the flat surface of the road.
  You said the people on the left side have a shadow angle of about 15 and Bothun is 13. That is almost a perfect match. So the question is why do the shadows then change to a steeper angle for the people on the right side. I believe it is a matter of perspective. But the bottom line is that some shadows almost match Bothun and some don't. Before we can say the shadows are incompatible we need to explain why some come within 2 degrees of matching and other don't.
The difference between the people on the right and left is more than I expected. I don't understand it yet but assume it is more than one perspective element working together.

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

At one time I thought it was the editors getting away with foolish things just because they could.  In other words pulling pranks.  If you were a lab guy in the CIA or FBI photo labs (or at Chiles, Jaggers, Stovall) with very little to enlighten your day, well that might be a way to do it. 

Well, John, you've managed to utterly astonish me with your theories twice in the same thread. This one really takes the cake: that the evil alterationists had so much time on their hands and their work was so humdrum that they INSERTED FAKE PEOPLE into Dealey Plaza films and photos just for a laugh. It's breathtaking, truly.

[Chris Bristow]

I think I have the Dorman issue sorted out. In the map below the blue lines represent the sun's angle through the plaza. The azimuth was only 8 degrees West of South but the entire plaza and Huston St are not aligned to the compass points. Huston points 15 degrees East of North. The map however does not represent this, it shows Huston as horizontal(North South) on the map. So the Sun's line through the plaza and the shadows sit at about 23 degrees on the map. 
I am going to reference all shadow angles from the perspective of the camera. Bothun's shadow is 60 degrees away from pointing straight to Z's camera. Dormans two lines of sight to the shadows are 28 and 50 degrees off the camera as noted on the map. In a world without distortion we would see the same angles represented in the photos. If the photos were taken from directly above we would see the true shadow angles. But the lower the angle of the camera the more perspective will take all angled lines and bend them towards the 180(Horizontal). Lines above the middle of the image will bend down to the middle and lines below the middle will bend upwards to the middle. This is why Bothun's angle is 60 but measures as about 16 in the Z film. It is bent up towards the middle of the image. The top red line of Dorman's is really 50 degrees  away from Dorman as seen on the map but in the photo it is bent up towards the center to  75 degrees from the bottom. The lower red line for Dorman is 28 degrees from the bottom but it is bent upwards to 40 degrees. The more angle the more distortion you get. A line that points more downward or upward will deviate much more than a line that was close to horizontal to begin with. Lines that are completely vertical to start with do not change at all.
 I think this explains why we see different shadow angles in Dorman. This also demonstrates the amount of distortion from the actual Shadow angle to the Z and Dorman distorted perspectives.
 When Z has his camera pointing to the tree and unknown couple in frame 222 his angle to the shadow angle is 90 degrees. That is why the shadow of the tree and the people both run horizontal across the screen. This is a good example of how the angle of the shadows in any frame are relative to the camera angle to that shadow.
https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipPn4be3w9NHeGERqhRm51fEJS_b3vWmWjWxf2TC

Edited September 14, 2021 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

This is what I think.  Altgens had his camera bag with him.  He had extra cameras, attachments, and different film.  He may have been using a flash since he was not facing the sun, but had the sun behind him.  Regular highlights from the sun are what you see on his coat, trousers, and camera bag.

John to correct for the elevation of the Sun being too high to be reflected to Z consider that all you have to do is tilt the camera down a bit as Altgens would have to do to shoot towards Jackie and JFK. If the Sun is at 36 degrees high and the line from Bothun to Z is 20 degrees, then all you have to do is tilt the camera forward by about 16 degrees. That means the top surface would receive the sunlight at about 20 degrees and bounce off at the same 20 degrees. 20 degrees would take the reflection straight to Z.
 I don't understand why a flash would be the same color as the light below it. I think both are reflections. I think the 'watch' is the cuff of his white shirt. also the camera is not up to his face so he is taking a photo without looking in the viewfinder?
One little factoid that may or may not effect this. He was using his personal camera that day because he was off work.
 Some photo shoots will use a light in the daytime but it is many times larger than a flash attachment. It is used to fill in shadows that occur from the single light source of the Sun. no one uses a flash attachment in the bright sunlight regardless of the direction they face. A photog might have a flash attachment on because the story might take him indoors. But Altgens was there to get outdoor shots of the motorcade. flash equipment was big in those days and it is clear from one of the Bothun photos that Altgens did not have one on his camera.
 

[Chris Bristow]

 I just started posting my images from Google Drive but they appear as links not photos. Anyone have a quick answer for that?