Jack White Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Thanks to Pat Speer, I took a fresh look. He may be right. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 a kennedy composite scaled to limo rear seat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Hi Pat.I seem to be missing your point. What's the difference here? I tried figuring out that whole 'foot' thing also. There are more than one witness who describe the 'grotesque' position of Kennedy in the Lincoln. Further, Frank Camper has it that the foot was indeed thrown over the side in the death throes of Kennedy - why would he even bother saying that? I have the Dec 14, 1963 version of the Saturday Evening Post and I don't see what you are talking about? At least in that edition you can see that the foot appears to be hooked behind the antennae somehow. It is interesting that I was under the impression that the foot did not belong to Hill, based upon the angle - however, there isn't much to support that - McIntyre, Volkland, etc. I once was trying to determine if the foot hanging over the edge of the Lincoln was visible in a 1963 Polaroid - previously unpublished - made available on eBay. It was a shot taken of the motorcade enroute to Parkland. The seller wanted to start the bidding at some ludicrous amount. I asked if the foot could be seen or not, and suggested that I would bid if I could get the answer - no reply. No one bid on it. It was blurry to begin with, since it was a polaroid shot taken of the Lincoln when it was moving at a high rate of speed. FYI - the best evidence of alteration is the Boston Traveller, 11/23/63, Moorman Polaroid. It can be seen in Trask's POTP. One of the Motorcops was turned into a nurse for some bizarre reason. Why would the Boston Traveller magazine take it upon themselves to screw with the image so severely? Didn't they realize that they wouldn't be in synch with any other publication? NOTE THE FOOT. Now why would they have done that? Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else. - lee Other clear examples of 'alteration' I have been told are not really alteration - they are 'enhancing techniques,' which were quite a normal practice in 1963 by the newspapers. I have no idea - however it's amazing how many of them focus on the rifle being held by Day - as in, it almost would appear that they matted in the Mannlicher Carcano over something else. example. That "carcano" seems to be missing the wood piece, which should be in place with straps helping to hold down the barrel, as is seen on the carcano in photos of the archived weapon. This rifle has the barrel showing the entire length of the stock. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 a kennedy composite scaled to limo rear seat David Miller took the photo in question. In Trask book, POTP, Richard tells about this photo. Justin Newman also took a photo from the other side of the street as the limo raced past him and in that photo we can see Hill's outstretched leg getting into the posture seen in Miller's photo. By hooking the leg over the door panel and his hand on the other door panel ... it offers Hill some stability in the event the limo makes any sudden sharp turns. 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. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 There's that eBay photo I referred to earlier! Best I could do with it, since it was only a sample picture for the auction. I lean towards it being Clint Hill's foot here also. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 29, 2006 Author Share Posted June 29, 2006 a kennedy composite scaled to limo rear seat David Miller took the photo in question. In Trask book, POTP, Richard tells about this photo. Justin Newman also took a photo from the other side of the street as the limo raced past him and in that photo we can see Hill's outstretched leg getting into the posture seen in Miller's photo. By hooking the leg over the door panel and his hand on the other door panel ... it offers Hill some stability in the event the limo makes any sudden sharp turns. 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. Bill Miller Bill, it's doubtful it's Hill's foot in the Miller photo. Hill's right leg is angled down into the car. The other photos show Hill's leg draped across the back of the car, with his foot behind the tire. The "foot" in the Miller photo, on the other hand, is coming out of the passenger compartment. If you or someone can re-create this photo, with your foot upside down directly to your right while you're faced forward in a car, I'll say "fine, that's his foot." Meanwhile, I'm with Jack and suspect it's Kennedy's hand. By the way, I looked at an 11-24 New York Times. The photo was pretty blurry but I believe it was the original photo as seen in the Yarborough exhibit. They clearly thought it was a foot. They had an arrow pointing at it and everything. In The Torch is Passed, an AP rush release book detailing the assassination, the funeral and LBJ's taking over, which came out a few weeks later, however, the altered photo appears. I believe the AP, after getting a good look at the photo on the large pages of the Torch is Passed, realized the object they'd been touting as a foot, really didn't look that much like a foot, and "enhanced" the image to make it look like a foot. So you can tell Gary that his friends Miller (any relation?) and Dillard are in the clear. The record indicates that the AP changed the photo AFTER its initial release and syndication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 Bill, it's doubtful it's Hill's foot in the Miller photo. Hill's right leg is angled down into the car. The other photos show Hill's leg draped across the back of the car, with his foot behind the tire. The "foot" in the Miller photo, on the other hand, is coming out of the passenger compartment. If you or someone can re-create this photo, with your foot upside down directly to your right while you're faced forward in a car, I'll say "fine, that's his foot." Meanwhile, I'm with Jack and suspect it's Kennedy's hand. It has become a practice of Jack's to use inferior images to make ridiculous claims, but there is no law that says that he cannot do it. If you want to join his practice, then it is your business. However, all I am saying is that in the original Miller photo - it is without a doubt a foot being seen. To suggest that it is JFK's foot is plain foolishness IMO. The large B&W image Lee posted in response #20 shows Hill getting into that posture you find so hard to achieve. Hill merely needs to slide his foot forward along the door panels edge and turn his knee inward and he is in position. His posture is almost like the one we use to create in school when we'd be standing beside a buddy and try and kick him in the seat of the pants as if we were minding our own business. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Although I'm a bit amazed that I agree with Bill - I think this is simply a case of Hill having gotten his foot hooked somehow behind the antennae. His left hand it on the opposite side of the Lincoln. His other leg is still stretched out. The photo makes it appear as if his leg would be bent at some kind of impossible angle - I don't think that is the case - he still has 2 bodies beneath him. Why don't we move on to another photo? There's plenty more to debate beyond this one? Like the Willis5 - what happened to the Texas 77 sign attached to the Stemmons sign? - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 Like the Willis5 - what happened to the Texas 77 sign attached to the Stemmons sign? - lee Six that idea. I think I figured it out myself. It's behind Mr. Chism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 It is absurd to say the "thing" is Hill's shoe...which would make it smaller than his hand, though closer to camera. I doubt that anyone can show how his leg could be severely contorted to connect with his body in this photo. Draw me a picture, please. The "sole of the shoe" is severely bent, with the toe pointed upward. The "heel" is a dark color, while the "upper of the shoe" is a light color. Get realistic, folks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 the shadow would blue : stitch of seat back, and its shadow. see gradations luminance on shadow matching profile of limo red : leg held up by hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 I agree with Jack on this issue. (Which only makes sense since Im the one who brought it up.) There is no way the thing is Hill's foot. The dark shadow along the heal, which I suspect is the palm of Kennedy's hand, is far too wide to be the shadow of the heel of Hill's shoe. He wasn't wearing high heels. P.S. If it was his foot, why was it necessary to change it to look like a foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 bloodied fingers, not palm. Bloodied fingers indicates a throat wound, though Jackie, in the part of her testrimony available, states Kennedy raised hand to head after head shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 bloodied fingers, not palm. Bloodied fingers indicates a throat wound, though Jackie, in the part of her testrimony available, states Kennedy raised hand to head after head shot. Good clarification, John. Yes, what Jack and I have called a palm is not actually the palm but the underside of Kennedy's curled fingers, possibly bloodied but most certainly in shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 30, 2006 Share Posted June 30, 2006 bloodied fingers, not palm. Bloodied fingers indicates a throat wound, though Jackie, in the part of her testrimony available, states Kennedy raised hand to head after head shot. Good clarification, John. Yes, what Jack and I have called a palm is not actually the palm but the underside of Kennedy's curled fingers, possibly bloodied but most certainly in shadow. Great work John...I think you are correct. I will redo my study AGAIN, incorporating your observations. It is JFK's hand, but not his elbow...and NOBODY'S shoe. Your color coding helped a lot. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now