photo alteration by the media

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, James. This is the photo as seen in the Dallas Morning News on 11-24-63. The foot had already been drawn in. As stated, I'm just trying to clear up the record. It seemed apparent to me that the Sat. Evening Post photo is the original photo and that the drawn-in foot photos came later. Now I'm thinking that the Sat. Post/Yarborough Exhibit was a mistake, and that someone at the AP innocently gave them access to the original negative, not realizing it exposed the many AP versions of the photo as fakes.

P.S. Love that caption. Not only does it say Kennedy's left foot, but that the car was on Stemmons BEFORE the offramp where Hill testified he lost his balance and hooked his foot over the door. Maybe this is him climbing into this position. But it seems clear he's not in this position yet, as his hands aren't holding onto anything.

[Craig Lamson]

Uh..the leg also rotates at the hip and the foot rotates at the ankle. I've no problem getting into this position...but hey lets forget all of that and why don't you or ANYONE tell us just what might be hanging over the lower chrome strip....because it has to be something and its no shadow or reflection. You guys are trying to skip thisd vital piece of information.

Dolva failed...how about you? Or White? Maybe Healy will offer an opinion! LOL!

I ask again. Quit theorizing about it. Post a picture simulating Hill's position. I can't do it. When I turn my leg far enough to the left to get my foot over the side of the couch, my trunk turns to my left as well.

As stated, it doesn't really matter to me if it was a foot or a hand or a towel, for that matter. The point is that the object in the photo was clearly re-drawn to look like Kennedy's foot BEFORE the AP could possibly have known or suspected it was ANYONE'S foot. They were wrong. It was not Kennedy's foot. If, by chance, it turned out to be Hill's foot then that's just their dumb luck.

P.S. Craig, do you believe, as Bill, that Hill's black socks appear white in the picture? Does that make sense to you? I'm not arguing either way, but that just seems strange.

I'm not theorizing about anything..I've put my foot in a similar position. Why go to the trouble of trying to recreate the photo? I've been down that road before and its always the same thing...you retouched the photo, the angle is not quite right, you are in a different position...and on and on and on. And of course I've got no Lincoln and I'm not Hill dealing with being pumped up over the situation. So no. Either you believe me or not, I don't really care.

How about you? Physics DEMANDS that for the lower chrome strip to be dark SOMETHING has to be over it..no shadow, no reflection. Thats a FACT Pat, no way around it. So what is it?

I have to laugh at you going all nutjob on the papers claiming its JFK's foot, and here you are breaking the laws of physics trying to claim its JFK's hand! Intellectual honesty...anyone have any? LOL!

Finally why not Hills black sock being rendered as white? Take a look at the motorcycle cops shoulder...a dark uniform rendered white...imagine that!

[Bill Miller]

I ask again. Quit theorizing about it. Post a picture simulating Hill's position. I can't do it. When I turn my leg far enough to the left to get my foot over the side of the couch, my trunk turns to my left as well.

I am currently in the mountains of British Columbia, but if I can get someone to take my photo - I'll be happy to show you how even an out of shape 48 year old male riddled with arthritis can do it quite easily. And by the way, Hill's hips are not turned to the right, but rather the camera in the Miller photo is ahead of the limo and that is why we see so much of his right front. Look at the photo of Hill taken just prior to his getting his leg into place ... his hips and shoulders are already past being squared up with the back seat.

As stated, it doesn't really matter to me if it was a foot or a hand or a towel, for that matter. The point is that the object in the photo was clearly re-drawn to look like Kennedy's foot BEFORE the AP could possibly have known or suspected it was ANYONE'S foot. They were wrong. It was not Kennedy's foot. If, by chance, it turned out to be Hill's foot then that's just their dumb luck.

The object in the photo may have been processed in a way that makes it appear to be retouched and it was Miller who put the word out that it was probably JFK's foot ... and as far as I know, Miller had never suggested it was JFK's hand when looking at his original photo.

P.S. Craig, do you believe, as Bill, that Hill's black socks appear white in the picture? Does that make sense to you? I'm not arguing either way, but that just seems strange.

I thouht that I posted the same photo and pointed out all the other white areas on Hill's clothing that reflected sunlight. Hill's suit was made of cloth just as his socks and neither had white spots on them in reality, but they had the sun shining on those particular areas and on film it makes the clothing look white in appearence.

Adjust the exposure of the negative when making a print and Hill can look like he had bleach spilled all over his clothing and shoes.

Bill Miller

Edited July 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

I have to laugh at you going all nutjob on the papers claiming its JFK's foot, and here you are breaking the laws of physics trying to claim its JFK's hand! Intellectual honesty...anyone have any? LOL!

Finally why not Hills black sock being rendered as white? Take a look at the motorcycle cops shoulder...a dark uniform rendered white...imagine that!

To be clear, Craig, I believe it is Kennedy's hand, but feel no need to argue that it is Kennedy's hand. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The issue, in my opinion is that the AP, and the media in general, have been incredibly irresponsible in regards to the assassination in general and this photo in particular. The Dallas Morning News published this picture telling everyone the white arrow pointed to Kennedy's LEFT foot and the black arrow to Connally. The AP sent out this same photo telling everyone the black arrow pointed to Mrs. Connally. A few weeks later a credible magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, acquired the rights to print the photo from the AP but chooses to do so without the arrows. They ended up printing a photo showing an entirely different shape than the "foot" shape seen in the AP photos. Amazingly, they still claimed it was a foot. Upon close comparison it is clear the Sat. Post version is the superior and possibly original version of the photo. TWENTY years later the AP changed the caption to say the photo was not Kennedy's foot but Hill's foot. As I said, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The point is that the foot, as we know it, and as depictted in the majority of the photos, was DRAWN IN, and drawn in at a time when the AP had no way of knowing if it was in fact Kennedy's foot, or even ANYONE's foot. They altered the photo to sell newspapers. Period. While they were far from the only news agency to engage in this behavior, that this deception lasted for such a long period without detection is undoubtedly disturbing.

[Bill Miller]

To be clear, Craig, I believe it is Kennedy's hand, but feel no need to argue that it is Kennedy's hand.

I recall making a post that pointed out that if that was JFK's hand, then his arm has to be bent at the elbow to get that steep angle. That would make his arm as long, if not longer, than his legs. I never heard you address that point, but if one wishes to believe it is JFK's hand, then I guess an arm can be as long as you wish it to be.

The point is that the foot, as we know it, and as depictted in the majority of the photos, was DRAWN IN, and drawn in at a time when the AP had no way of knowing if it was in fact Kennedy's foot, or even ANYONE's foot. They altered the photo to sell newspapers. Period. While they were far from the only news agency to engage in this behavior, that this deception lasted for such a long period without detection is undoubtedly disturbing.

The same was done to Altgens photo and I had never heard it pointed out until only a couple of years ago. I just assumed that most everyone who has looked into the subject had discovered that it was a common practice by editors of the press, thus it had nothing to do with the original photo. It appears that some folks cannot comprehend the difference.

Bill Miller

Edited July 11, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

To be clear, Craig, I believe it is Kennedy's hand, but feel no need to argue that it is Kennedy's hand.

I recall making a post that pointed out that if that was JFK's hand, then his arm has to be bent at the elbow to get that steep angle. That would make his arm as long, if not longer, than his legs. I never heard you address that point, but if one wishes to believe it is JFK's hand, then I guess an arm can be as long as you wish it to be.

Bill Miller

I would agree that if it's JFK's hand then he was not laying on the seat on his left side as might otherwise be assumed. Perhaps Jackie was moving him around a bit to make room for Hill in the car.

My goal in this thread was to discuss photo alteration in the media. There is no way the Yarborough Exhibit and the 11-24 Dallas Morning News photo depict the same shape or foot and you know it. The photo has undoubtedly been retouched. For some reason, rather than admit this simple fact, you and Lamson have decided to argue whether or not it was Hill's foot. The point, repeated now for the umpteenth time, is that the Dallas Morning News and the AP had NO WAY of knowing if it was Clint Hill's foot or any foot at all, but sold MILLIONS of photos in newspapers and books around the world with the blatantly false claim the photo depicted Kennedy's foot. I feel this is symbolic of the media's overall lack of concern for accuracy.

[Bill Miller]

The photo has undoubtedly been retouched. For some reason, rather than admit this simple fact, you and Lamson have decided to argue whether or not it was Hill's foot.

Your ability to comprehend what is written is lacking. I have said the following several times throughout this thread and I have taken the liberty to copy and paste it here ...

Bill Miller: "The same was done to Altgens photo and I had never heard it pointed out until only a couple of years ago. I just assumed that most everyone who has looked into the subject had discovered that it was a common practice by editors of the press, thus it had nothing to do with the original photo. It appears that some folks cannot comprehend the difference."

"The object in the photo may have been processed in a way that makes it appear to be retouched and it was Miller who put the word out that it was probably JFK's foot"

"It was not uncommon for photos to be dodged in places. I offered the Altgens photo as seen in 'Four dark Days" to show this. I have seen another version of Altgens photo where there is no arm holding the rear view mirror because someone erased it. Why? Only the art department of those publications can answer that question IMO. I am however, positive that it wasn't done to mislead anyone because these publications still knew that there was an 'original photo' out there showing the real deal."

"It was quite common for 'dodging' to be done to photographs and Jack is very aware of this. In some cases it gives off a cartoonish/artistic appearence. I supplied an Altgens 6 example showing this same thing. But these things that were done to copy prints doesn't have anything to do with what is seen on the original photos."

"It was not uncommon for press agencies/newspapers to attempt to better an area on a photograph by 'dodging' the image. I believe that Bob Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald was also dodged in order to make Ruby's gun easier to see."

Craig Lamson: "Finally you are not "on to something here". Publications have altered images for decades. So what? If the original is altered thats a different matter but the best I can see that not the issue here...unless you subscribe the Jacks every photo is altered foolishness."

"As to the press changing the photo..sure they did...it appears they retouched the image beyond simple dodging. Not unusual at the time for a publication to retouch images so they would reproduce on crappy paper and on web printing presses. Many times from even worse quality wire photo originals."

Clint Hill: "Yes, sir. I had my legs--I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car." WCH V. II 140/141

[Craig Lamson]

To be clear, Craig, I believe it is Kennedy's hand, but feel no need to argue that it is Kennedy's hand.

I recall making a post that pointed out that if that was JFK's hand, then his arm has to be bent at the elbow to get that steep angle. That would make his arm as long, if not longer, than his legs. I never heard you address that point, but if one wishes to believe it is JFK's hand, then I guess an arm can be as long as you wish it to be.

Bill Miller

I would agree that if it's JFK's hand then he was not laying on the seat on his left side as might otherwise be assumed. Perhaps Jackie was moving him around a bit to make room for Hill in the car.

My goal in this thread was to discuss photo alteration in the media. There is no way the Yarborough Exhibit and the 11-24 Dallas Morning News photo depict the same shape or foot and you know it. The photo has undoubtedly been retouched. For some reason, rather than admit this simple fact, you and Lamson have decided to argue whether or not it was Hill's foot. The point, repeated now for the umpteenth time, is that the Dallas Morning News and the AP had NO WAY of knowing if it was Clint Hill's foot or any foot at all, but sold MILLIONS of photos in newspapers and books around the world with the blatantly false claim the photo depicted Kennedy's foot. I feel this is symbolic of the media's overall lack of concern for accuracy.

Good god Pat, if this is the best you can read and comprehend, you have to be the worst researcher in the history of the world. RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY THREAD, I have admited the AP photo was altered. I also gave my reasons FOR NOT CARING if the AP or any publication altered an image. They still do..so what? Its a simple fact of life and I'm guessing it is going to change in my lifetime.

No I have argued that you, White and Dolva have screwed up in your "quest" to find a hand instead of a foot. I simply pointed out that what you guys considered a shadow could not be a shadow nor a reflection due to some very simple physics. Of course none of you can address this problem, least of all your "photo expert" White. That is almost too funny for words! I have also stated right here on this thread when asked directly by you, that my basis for finding the object to be a foot was the total weight of the evidence. You on the other hand were willing to disregard the evidence to support your nutjob hand theory. Not very intellectually honest of you in my book. And then you are slam the media for doing EXACTLY what you White and Dolva have done...simply amazing!

But I do want to thank you for laying bare the real Pat Speer. Objective you ain't.

[John Dolva]

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

Edited July 11, 2006 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

[David G. Healy]

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO --

But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public.

And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos)

Edited July 11, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Craig Lamson]

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO --

But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public.

And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos)

CLICK!

[David G. Healy]

the chrome strip is narrower then what it looks like on the photo under dispute.

the area of chrome in question has been reduced in reflectiveness by SS hands and subsequent cleaning, ie it is MORE likely to behave as does the non chrome areas with regards to reflectiveness. IOW at this point because of angles of sight, the darker area on the chrome at this point is possibly a reflection of the seat top.

What utter bs.

If you had half a clue you might be dangerous, as it is you have NO clue.

The simple physics is this: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Understand this simple statement and you will understand WHY you don't have a clue.

This is the cold hard fact, regardless of your ignorant ramblings.

The darkness on the lower chrome strip HAS to be caused by an object over the edge of this chrome strip. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to be a reflection of the seat. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

The upper chrome strip near the seat is a straw man...meaningless in this situation.

You can continue to bumble along wallowing in ignorance or you can learn, the choice is yours.

All the tools you need are in this post. Period, end of story. FULL STOP.

Now our good friends overseas may understand WHY some of us in the States that support (or at least have an open mind regarding same) JFK assassination related photo/film alteration, pay little heed to the likes of Lamson and company. He's just to damn polite and courteous, ROFLMAO --

But we understand, Craig's pissed cause Gary Mack suffered a setback on this forum. So don't take it personal, JohnD.... Craig thinks photo reality is what sold the Warren Commission Report to the American Public.

And of course, up to 90% of America agree; a *conspiracy* murdered JFK! (with or withOUT photos)

CLICK!

cheese.... lmfao

[Bill Miller]

Jack,

None of them, NONE of them will touch the quantity nor the quality of your work, they can't, they don't know HOW --

David, this time I agree with you. In fact, most of us pray that we never reach the level of quality Jack has been posting in recent years for that would mean that we are on our way to becoming as laughing stock, as well.

Bill Miller

[Jack White]

More Hill on the trunk...er....er...oops, NOT on the trunk.

Jack