Jump to content
The Education Forum

JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

I had not seen the joint schematic/side view of the limo together.  The schematic and side depiction are completely different.  Is the side depiction supposed to be SS 300x?  It has no rear step on bumper.  The front door edges (side depiction) are a good 4" to 6" forward of the schematic, the center brace section rear edge is actually at what is shown to be the front edge on the schematic.  Whether on purpose or accidental, I think the schematic may represent the POST assassination rebuilt vehicle that Johnson used.  I had encountered that thought when I first pulled the schematic up and now I am pretty sure that is the case.  However, this is the only schematic I could find and it is labeled as the assassination vehicle.  I think that we may need to find the configuration and measurements from another document (IF one exists).  This vehicle shows NO handholds on the rear either.

Here is a comparison of the limo I used and some images of the limo from that day. Top one is fr 312, below is the comp I used before, below that Is from the Towner film and at the bottom I didn't get a location. They all match pretty well except Towner because she was a little too close and it caused some magnification of the center part of he limo like Nellie's window. The center bar is movable so I didn't count it.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zClI2_7xM-UMlfWNMW8jL6BJeU6bOLN7/view?usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do I see a "chunk" of something on the trunk in the still photos?

And it looks as if Jackie is staring right at it.

I think this chunk of something is what Jackie raised up and out of her seat to retrieve.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris and Chris, both excellent fellows in this kind of work, have brought to light more Zapruder nonsense.  Contrary to folks who think the Zapruder and other films are self-authenticating, the Zapruder film is full of technical and content errors.  This reminded me of work I had done earlier on Z frame 342.  Here is the frame:

z-342-two-altgens.jpg

Do you notice anything peculiar about the content of this frame?  I have just noticed something I hadn't see, rather recognized, in this frame.  This frame shows Ike Altgens and Dick Bothun taking photos of the p. limo.  Altgens claimed he didn't take any photos of the president being shot.  This in a way can be verified by this frame since his camera is not flashing.  Maybe the camera doesn't flash when photos are taken.  I don't know.  But, Dick Bothun's camera is flashing.  He took a photo of this scene.  Where is it?  I say, Where Is It?

Altgens is the figure standing back from Bothun in this frame.  Notice their ties.  Bothun has a shorter tie than Altgens.  Altgens tie which is longer transforms into Bothun's tie which is shorter in the next photo.  This is said to be Altgens, not Bothun.

bothun-altgens.jpg

Going back to Z 342, I think Bothun and Altgens as portrayed in Z 342 are one and the same.  There are several people who do excellent work on measuring and comparing things.  I offer a challenge to take measurements of the two figures and decide if they are the same or different people.  I did this sometime back with a rather simple method and concluded they were the same.  To me this is another example of poor quality content editing found throughout the Zapruder film.

If Bothun and Altgens are one and the same where is Altgens photo that was taken in Z frame 342? 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Do I see a "chunk" of something on the trunk in the still photos?

And it looks as if Jackie is staring right at it.

I think this chunk of something is what Jackie raised up and out of her seat to retrieve.

I agree.  This object or objects on the trunk can be seen better in other frames such as frames earlier than Z 345 and 346.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris and Chris, both excellent fellows in this kind of work, have brought to light more Zapruder nonsense.  Contrary to folks who think the Zapruder and other films are self-authenticating, the Zapruder film is full of technical and content errors.  This reminded me of work I had done earlier on Z frame 342.  Here is the frame:

z-342-two-altgens.jpg

Do you notice anything peculiar about the content of this frame?  I have just noticed something I hadn't see, rather recognized, in this frame.  This frame shows Ike Altgens and Dick Bothun taking photos of the p. limo.  Altgens claimed he didn't take any photos of the president being shot.  This in a way can be verified by this frame since his camera is not flashing.  Maybe the camera doesn't flash when photos are taken.  I don't know.  But, Dick Bothun's camera is flashing.  He took a photo of this scene.  Where is it?  I say, Where Is It?

Altgens is the figure standing back from Bothun in this frame.  Notice their ties.  Bothun has a shorter tie than Altgens.  Altgens tie which is longer transforms into Bothun's tie which is shorter in the next photo.  This is said to be Altgens, not Bothun.

bothun-altgens.jpg

Going back to Z 342, I think Bothun and Altgens as portrayed in Z 342 are one and the same.  There are several people who do excellent work on measuring and comparing things.  I offer a challenge to take measurements of the two figures and decide if they are the same or different people.  I did this sometime back with a rather simple method and concluded they were the same.  To me this is another example of poor quality content editing found throughout the Zapruder film.

If Bothun and Altgens are one and the same where is Altgens photo that was taken in Z frame 342? 

I was a little mixed up by your description of 342. Altgens is the guy closer to the curb, he is on the right. Bothun is standing behind him and has the long tie, Altgens has the short tie. Altgens took his famous photo (Alt6) while standing  3 to 6 feet into the street right next to where we see him in 342. Altgens had 4.75 seconds to return to the curb and  point his camera as we see it in 342. That timing is easily possible for Altgens if he is the guy on the right. but I don't think it would have been possible to get to Bothun's position in 342 in that 4.75 second window. I believe Altgens has verified himself in the Z film.
To me it looks like Bothun never raises his hand and camera to his face in the Z film. but Altgens has his camera up and he is pivoting to keep the limo in frame, so ya I wonder if he took a photo around 342. The bright light we see on Altgens camera is visible for the 1st 9 frames. That would eliminate the possibility that it is a flash mechanism. I think it is likely a reflection and disappears as he pivots. A flash is not used in bright daylight. It's effect is zero unless maybe the subject is inches from the camera. most flash attachments were bigger than the camera and sat several inches above or to the side of the camera which I think prevented red eye and bright reflection in a subjects eye who was looking at the camera. There does not seem to be a flash attachment on his camera in the second photo you posted which I think is one of two that Bothun took. Here is another of Altgens that is credited to Bothun

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzwgjDKb2nEyGXxq9clixmplj67HKq1o/view?usp=sharing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

I was a little mixed up by your description of 342. Altgens is the guy closer to the curb, he is on the right. Bothun is standing behind him and has the long tie, Altgens has the short tie. Altgens took his famous photo (Alt6) while standing  3 to 6 feet into the street right next to where we see him in 342. Altgens had 4.75 seconds to return to the curb and  point his camera as we see it in 342. That timing is easily possible for Altgens if he is the guy on the right. but I don't think it would have been possible to get to Bothun's position in 342 in that 4.75 second window. I believe Altgens has verified himself in the Z film.
To me it looks like Bothun never raises his hand and camera to his face in the Z film. but Altgens has his camera up and he is pivoting to keep the limo in frame, so ya I wonder if he took a photo around 342. The bright light we see on Altgens camera is visible for the 1st 9 frames. That would eliminate the possibility that it is a flash mechanism. I think it is likely a reflection and disappears as he pivots. A flash is not used in bright daylight. It's effect is zero unless maybe the subject is inches from the camera. most flash attachments were bigger than the camera and sat several inches above or to the side of the camera which I think prevented red eye and bright reflection in a subjects eye who was looking at the camera. There does not seem to be a flash attachment on his camera in the second photo you posted which I think is one of two that Bothun took. Here is another of Altgens that is credited to Bothun

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 


 

Chris,

That is unless Altgens has one of those fast cameras that sound like a machine gun and take film rapidly.  I think their is a flash attachment there.  If not then the sunlight is responsible for the bright highlights.  But, that would put the sun in the wrong position of being in the northwest rather than southwest.  And, Bothun should be highlighted by the the light the same as Altgens.

You are absolutely right on the position of Altgens.  I relied on someone's identification of Bothun and Altgens in a Z frame photo.  And, frankly I got them backwards.  I even checked before I wrote the post.  So much for that check.

Altgens-Altgens-aka-Bothun.jpg

So, that invalidates much of what I said in that post.  But, the main point is still the same.  The two, Altgens and Bothun, look to much alike.  My conclusion is they are the same.  This is based on:

Bothun / Altgens measurements from Zapruder film Z frame 342.  Based on Bothun magnified on screen to 10 cm and compared to Altgens:

 

                              Height          Width-waist          Width-shoulders        Width-head                Width-trousers

Bothun             10 cm               3 cm                        3 cm                          1.2 cm                        1 cm

Altgens            10.5 cm             3 cm                       3 cm                           1.2 cm                         1 cm

                 Length- head   Length-forearm           Length- trousers belt to shoe

Bothun             1.8 cm              2.3 cm                          5.4 cm 

Altgens          1.9 cm              2.3 cm                          5.5 cm

Are Bothun and Altgens one and the same?  My conclusion was that they were they same.  The slight differences are due to Altgens being closer to Zapruder and at a slight angle to Zapruder.

There's more to this then just measurements.  I will fill in the rest tomorrow.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shadows know.  

z-342-dorman-shadows-comparison.jpg

The difference between the Dorman frame at the SW corner of Elm and the Zapruder, Z 342, frame further down Elm is a matter of seconds and not hours.  Perhaps something like 18 or 19 seocnds.  Z frame 342 divided by Zapruder camera speed of 18.3 frames per second =18.7 seconds.  The more I look at things like this the more I agree with John Costella's speculation that the extant Zapruder film may be built from the ground up using images from the original Zapruder film.  Besides, the Zapruder shadows look like painted shadows, poor art work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Bristow is correct in saying the "camera flash" from Altgens lasts through 9 frames.  That is 1/2 second according to Zapruder's camera speed.  Is that reasonable for a camera flash effect to last?

If it is not a camera flash then possibly it could be simply some camera or film error  lasting for 9 frames.  I reject the notion that it is sunlight reflection coloring Altgens with highlights brighter then other figures in the frame.  Altgens and Jackie seem to be highlighted the same with a bright highlight on their right sides.  That puts the sun in the wrong position to the front and right to provide that highlight.  The Dorman frame from earlier shows how figures should be highlighted when the sun is in the rear at an angle.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was something posted by Jack White in 2009:

 

 

0

Should we add Altgens to the mysterious death list?

Started by Jack White, Jan 12 2009 06:09 AM

 

Jack White

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:09 AM

James Altgens and his wife died in their bed of carbon monoxide poisoning
on December 15, 1995.

I am doing a restudy of the alleged Altgens series of photos in Dealey Plaza.

Jack

Jack White

Super Member

  • Members
  • 7,962 posts

Posted 12 January 2009 - 08:00 AM

Peter Lemkin, on Jan 12 2009, 05:31 AM, said:

Jack White, on Jan 12 2009, 06:09 AM, said:

James Altgens and his wife died in their bed of carbon monoxide poisoning
on December 15, 1995.


I am doing a restudy of the alleged Altgens series of photos in Dealey Plaza.

Jack


Jack, any further details on the deaths. I was listening again to M. Brown's interview yesterday and she listed MANY persons who died mysteriously and with sinister timing in the talk!...if you want to add more names, just listen to that again. My own feeling is the 'JFK Assassination' was actually the assassination of several hundreds.



Tonight I found the death date of Richard Bothun, who took photos standing near Altgens. It was 1981.

About two years before he had allowed me to borrow his negatives taken on 11-22 to make prints, which are now widely circulated on the internet.


When I met him about 1979-80, I remember him being in his 40s or early 50s. Based on this I think he died way before his time. He lived in Fort Worth and commuted to Dallas to his job at the M-K-T railroad offices two blocks from the Plaza, on Main. In 1963, he would have been perhaps in his 20s or early 30s. I remember him looking much different than the man seen in Zapruder beside Altgens. I remember him as tall and thin, not stocky.

Another mystery death?

Jack

Edited by Jack White, 12 January 2009 - 08:03 AM.

--------------

Prior to this Jack White had said the Altgens photos were authentic.  They validated some of his notions about the Zapruder film.  Particularly, Altgens 5 which showed that the people in the east crosswalk between Houston and Elm were not the same people one sees in Zapruder at the east crosswalk of Houston and Elm at the opening of the film.

Jack White knew that something was wrong with Bothun and Altgens in the Zapruder film for nearly 30 years and said nothing.  I don't hold him at fault for this.  It was a dangerous business in those days finding fault and proving Warren Commission findings wrong.  This is what he suspected happened to Altgens and wife in the days of the ARRB.

This is the information I was able to find about Dick Bothun:

Who was Richard O. “Dick” Bothun?

There is little information on the internet about Richard Bothun.  He is a mysterious and suspicious person as far as I am concerned.  Here is what I have been able to gather:

·       Richard Bothun was a railroad worker.

·       He was an amateur photographer.

·       Mr. Bothun took pictures in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.

·       Mr. Bothun took pictures before the assassination and after, but not during the shooting.

·       There are at least 4 photos accredited to Mr. Bothun of which number 4 seems to be the most important.

·       He took photos from the same locations as Ike Altgens on the Houston St / Main St. intersection, along Elm St. in the grassy area between Elm St. and Main St.  And, he is with Altgens in the Zapruder film.

·       He gave his photos to the Dallas Morning News, the home of Ike Altgens.

·       Mr. Bothun did not give any interviews to reporters, or make a statement with either the FBI or Secret Service, nor was he interviewed by attorneys for the WC.  As far as I know he didn’t talk to anyone.

·       Most of the major assassination researchers do not mention Richard Bothun.  There is little or no information about Bothun.  If they do mention him it is mostly about Bothun 4.

·       There are curious problems with Jack White and his statements over the years regarding the authenticity of the Altgens photos and Dick Bothun.

·       Richard Bothun, who photographed JFK motorcade and assassination aftermath, dies of heart attack in 1981.

What little is said on the internet about Bothun concerns the photo Bothun 4.

One way to see if Jack White is correct is to find the date of Bothun's birth.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to answer my question:

Richard-Bothun-birth-death.jpg

This would put Bothun at 42 years old in 1963.  1963 - 1921= 42.

Altgens was roughly the same age.  April 28, 1919 – December 12, 1995.  Altgens would be something like 44 in 1963.  The real test on this is photos of Dick Bothun which I think none are available.  If someone has one please post it.

Richard Trask in Pictures of Pain gives the best account of Richard Bothun.  Trask justs recounts what is know of Bothun without asking questions such as why just 4 photos?  He is an amateur photographer and would he have taken more just to get it right?  He enjoyed printing and developing his photos.  Question:  How much pleasure did he derive developing 4 photos as versus a roll of film.  3 of those photos were taken at Main and Houston and only one after the assassination on Elm Street.

Then there is the issue of Bothun and Altgens being dressed in the same attire.  Would railroad workers normally wear suit and tie to take photos and then go directly back to work at the railroad yards.  

The Bothun story is hard to believe.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 7:17 AM, John Butler said:

Chris Bristow is correct in saying the "camera flash" from Altgens lasts through 9 frames.  That is 1/2 second according to Zapruder's camera speed.  Is that reasonable for a camera flash effect to last?

If it is not a camera flash then possibly it could be simply some camera or film error  lasting for 9 frames.  I reject the notion that it is sunlight reflection coloring Altgens with highlights brighter then other figures in the frame.  Altgens and Jackie seem to be highlighted the same with a bright highlight on their right sides.  That puts the sun in the wrong position to the front and right to provide that highlight.  The Dorman frame from earlier shows how figures should be highlighted when the sun is in the rear at an angle.  

 

  NOTE: I deleted the image I posted and have an updated version on the next page.
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.

 

Edited by Chris Bristow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 10:01 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Do I see a "chunk" of something on the trunk in the still photos?

And it looks as if Jackie is staring right at it.

I think this chunk of something is what Jackie raised up and out of her seat to retrieve.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 11:24 PM, John Butler said:

The two, Altgens and Bothun, look to much alike.  My conclusion is they are the same.

Congratulations to John Butler for coming up with yet another "conclusion" that not even the zestiest of JFK conspiracy theorists had previously brought forth: that Dealey Plaza photographers James Altgens and Dick Bothun are actually the same person, who have been magically pasted into various Dealey Plaza films and photos, including the Zapruder film. Major points for imagination!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Congratulations to John Butler for coming up with yet another "conclusion" that not even the zestiest of JFK conspiracy theorists had previously brought forth: that Dealey Plaza photographers James Altgens and Dick Bothun are actually the same person, who have been magically pasted into various Dealey Plaza films and photos, including the Zapruder film. Major points for imagination!

Thanks JC,

"imagination" and "magically" are two great words for Dealey Plaza activities.  Imagination sent men to the moon.  Magic is a good way to describe some of the alternate reality aspects in Dealey Plaza, magic cameras, magic shadows, magic people such as Phil Willis, magic groups of people who are in one area, but viewed by a different person at the same time are gone and replaced by another group of people, film of the president with half of his shot off and hanging, but not seen by about 40 doctors at Parkland Hospital.  Now that is high magic worthy of a Merlin.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...