photo alteration by the media

[Bill Miller]

"They also reported that the impact of the FIRST shot on Kennedy's head made his leg fly up in the air and his foot land on the edge of the car."

That's very strange. They wouldn't make something up or wildly misreport without checking in such a monumental news event - yet, nothing like that ever happens in the Zapruder film.

It was also said that a SS Agent was killed, yet that never happened either. Below is a good scan from the Post Magazine. If you look at this scan you can even make out the little girls face in profile ... I believe that is the face Jack said was a camera.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

Facsinating how the images of the foot are morphing with the various versions posted. New highlights and textures. No longer smooth. Now the fore part of the sole starts to get out of scale with the heel. Shouldn't it be a bit bigger to suit the heel size? It does look a bit more like the WC exhibit though. The knee and thigh are back again.

The negative will be interesting to see.

Edited July 22, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

Facsinating how the images of the foot are morphing with the various versions posted. New highlights and textures. No longer smooth. Now the fore part of the sole starts to get out of scale with the heel. Shouldn't it be a bit bigger to suit the heel size? It does look a bit more like the WC exhibit though. The knee and thigh are back again.

The negative will be interesting to see.

I do not follow a word you said. If one photo is stretched vertically, then everything within the image stretched the same way, thus the entire photo remains in scale. The quality of the scan does make what is seen in the image more reliable, but that is something that has been repeated time and time again already.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

Well, there is the reason it looks more like the WC exhibit. Thank's for posting more of it. Full size wopuld be helpful. Could you email a copy please?

With the increased detail, that which could be shoe fore part of sole is more clearly defined and it is out of scale with the heel. There are other things to note, the unresized scan copy could help.

[Bill Miller]

Well, there is the reason it looks more like the WC exhibit. Thank's for posting more of it. Full size wopuld be helpful. Could you email a copy please?

With the increased detail, that which could be shoe fore part of sole is more clearly defined and it is out of scale with the heel. There are other things to note, the unresized scan copy could help.

John, I didn't alter the size of the image. And if one scans a photo and lowers its size from 10 x 12 to 7 x 9 or even 4 x 7 ... the width and height of the image remains scaled evenly. However, email me a request for the scan and I will email it to you.

Bill

[JL Allen]

I wanted to overlay certain aspects of the David Miller and Yarborough versions so I cut away most of the pictures and made the Miller 60% less opaque. When I matched-up Clint Hill's body and other elements - the Miller shoe is further from the body and at a completely different angle. Conversely, when the soles of the shoes are overlaid - the entire picture becomes skewed.

Many of the window frames in the background are skewed at different angles - independent of one another - when one contrasts the David Miller photo with the Yarborough. It is not a photographic anomaly - it is manipulation to cause an alteration of one's perception. (photo removed to recapture space.)

Edited August 14, 2006 by JL Allen

[Brendan Slattery]

27 pages and counting .. over a shoe.

<insert primal Howard Dean-like scream here>

[John Dolva]

Interesting JL, . I'll have a go at what you've done with those two.

I find strange diiferences between the WC and the scan Bill posted when matching up some things others are in the wrong place. Partly it may have something to do with the scanning process? Other things look like alteration of some kind. It may be innocent fiddling with values or some compression artefacts.

______

mmmm it's remarkable Brendan. It does have interest though for a number of reasons, not least in (slowly) learning about images in general and developing skills techniques etc that probably will be useful elsewhere whatever the outcome may be here.

Edited July 22, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

I wanted to overlay certain aspects of the David Miller and Yarborough versions so I cut away most of the pictures and made the Miller 60% less opaque. When I matched-up Clint Hill's body and other elements - the Miller shoe is further from the body and at a completely different angle. Conversely, when the soles of the shoes are overlaid - the entire picture becomes skewed.

The difference you see between the two photo prints is that one was scanned differently than the other before being published and its also important that the photos be flat against the scanner or one image will appear to be bent differently. This is quite common when scanning from a book or magazine. A good example of this is when we have scanned text from a book and the nearer to the fold - the text will appear to be bent, thus a flat scan of the same will not allow a perfect overlay to be accomplished.

Below is an example. Look at the text in the red box compared to alike letters and spacing in the blue box. The size and spacing should appear different under close scrutiny.

Below I moved the word "which" over to the same word on the other side of the page. The image was not flat when scanned which caused such descrepencies in letter size and spacing within the same scan.

Bill Miller

Edited July 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

I think Bill is correct. The difference is both skewing and overall distortion. I've suggested it's an oblique photograph of a non-flat screen. A nonflat scan could very well do as well.

If you unskew the image, much of the misplacemewnt is dealt with and the distorions stand out more like the differesnces in the other series.

Overall I think that particular version with the funny shoe is an amateurish illustration attempt.

Similar distortions have crept in to the other series as well.

It'll probably be an issue that will be finalised with the production of the negative.

It would have to be with a tread as suggested, and with no signs of alteration.

______________

I wonder if someone could take a photo of anything from the web, print it out and scan that photo (flat and otherwise) and post? It would be interesting to see if any distortions appear and what alterations to expect from a very flat scan. Perhaps one with an exactly same orientation as the print and one with the print placed flat but on angle?

I think it should be without any interpolation, at 150dpi perhaps. It's not the quality or resolution of the image but rather the placement of the pixel grid by the process (a linear scan by optical sensors with a finite spacing traversing an image, (with the image flat to remove that as a factor)) that would be of interest.

Edited July 23, 2006 by John Dolva

[Jack White]

Some may find this computer filter of interest.

Jack

[JL Allen]

Thanks, Jack. That looks like a useful thing. It could save a person a lot of needless hard work and exasperation. I think I may even have something like that somewhere.

Edited July 23, 2006 by JL Allen

[Stephen K. Doyle]

This is my first post, so to all on the forum I say "Hello!"

I apologize for the lack of a photo. I'll get one posted soon.

I've been following this thread since about when it started because the topic is interesting to me. Judging by the number of posts so far, I'd say there are many others who find it equally as interesting. Judging by the content of the posts, I believe I can safely say that this issue is as contentious as it is interesting!

Seems like a good place to jump in with both feet. Or a foot and a hand... Or a hand and a hand...

Looking at the Miller photo while following along with the foot/hand discussion, I became convinced that we really ARE looking at Kennedy's LEFT FOOT in the photo. I believe this for two reasons.

Firstly, looking at the sole of the shoe, particularly as it is shown in the WC Exhibit photo (I believe I've got this right), the curves on the opposite sides of the sole look exactly like those on a pair of my own dress shoes I dug out of the back of the closet for examination. I've taken the liberty of drawing in these two curves on the photo below. For comparison, I'd suggest you look at versions of the "unaltered" photo to confirm that my drawn-in curves match the actual outline of the sole, as the curves mask the underlying details in the photo.

I perceive the right curve as beginning at the heel, continuing forward for some distance before flaring out sharply near the toe-box of the shoe. The left curve appears to be much longer, beginning much closer to the heel the the beginning of the curve on the right. This is exactly what I see when I turn over my LEFT shoe and view it in the same orientation as the shoe in the photo.

The second reason I believe this must be Kennedy's left foot, as opposed to Clint Hill's right, is the impossible orientation of the foot and lower leg (PARTICULARLY the lower leg), in relation to Hill's backside. I've added my interpretation of two possible leg orientations for Agent Hill to the photo below as well. One is the leg orientation suggested by Mr. White. This is correct, in my opinion.

The leg orientation I've drawn in that would support the conclusion that the "foot" seen in the photo is Agent Hill's won't work. Notice that I've assumed a location for Hill's right buttock. This assumption is founded on the curvature of his "back" at this point (see photo). I can think of no circumstance that would explain this curvature in the lower back, so I conclude that this is the profile of his buttock. If this is his buttock, and as we can see the direction of his lower leg, projecting forward from the "foot" in the photo, it's a simple matter to connect these two with an upper leg and the remainder of the lower leg, as I've done on the photo. Notice that the knee MUST be forwrd for this to work. This presents a problem.

I couldn't see how Hill could have his right knee out in front of him (at an angle, to his right), and still face forward as he is facing in the picture. Worse, I can't see how he can have his right knee in this position, plus his left leg folded back under him towards the RIGHT SIDE of the limo (the ONLY possible location for it, if we're to believe the photo of him taken from the other side of the car, with his right foot extended - sorry, I don't know who to credit for this photo), and face the RIGHT FRONT CORNER of the limousine.

You might ask, "How can we know this?"

Look at the full, uncropped version of the photo, not the version I used, which crops out the motorcycle policeman at the left rear of the limo (I think you'll find a good copy in Mr. White's post #361 on page 25 of this thread). Notice the front of the cop's uniform. Now look at the front of Clint Hill's suit. The cop has both hands on the handlebars of his motorcycle, thus we KNOW that he is facing directly forwards. Try this on a motorcycle or bicycle if you don't believe me. Clint hill is to the cop's right in the photo, and closer to both the camera and the center of the image. Because of perspective effects, we expect the amount of Hill's suit front exposed to the camera to be LESS THAN the amount of uniform front visible on the policeman, if both were oriented straight ahead. We don't. We see MUCH MORE of the front of Hill's suit. Thus, he MUST be facing towards the right, exposing more of his suit front to the camera. My assumption that he is facing the right, front corner of the limo is just an approximation of this fact.

Now, I'm going to ask you to do an experiment. I did this yesterday in my wife's car.

Climb in the back seat of your car with your knees on the seat. Face the left side of the car, with your left knee against the seatback and your left lower leg running along the base of the seatback towards the right side of the car. Now put your right toe up on the right window ledge, which right now is behind you. Move your right foot back to the rearwardmost part of the window ledge. This should all be pretty easy. Now reach out with your left hand and grab the laft side window ledge. Should still be easy. Here's where it gets a bit dodgy.

Now, rotate your torso around so that you face the right front of the car. Or, just rotate until your body is facing straight ahead. It won't matter. If you are pretty limber you may just be able to do this, although you'll be pulling REALLY HARD on some muscles that usually don't get pulled on, as I did. Now, one last thing; with your left leg back there behind you, your right toe up on the right window ledge, your left hand on the left window ledge pushing your torso around clockwise for all you're worth, trying to get you facing straight ahead, rotate your right knee up in front of you, so that an onlooker outside the right side of the car can see about half your lower leg. If you've not dislocated anything, and perhaps after you return from your chiropractor's, let me know how you did. You have to try this on your own volition, as I don't want to be the cause of multiple broken bones and/or dislocations.

If you, like me, cannot acheive this position, you should conclude that Hill couldn't either. I'm 43, very athletic, and very flexible, and I couldn't have my torso rotated to the front while my right knee was raised. I tried for 15 minutes. Probably looked pretty funny to anyone in position to see what I was doing. My right hip and my right knee just don't hinge in a way that makes this orientation possible.

Let me know how you do.

Steve

[Ashton Gray]

Okay. That's it. I've had all I can take. I tried not to do this, but after 27 pages of this nonsense, I've had it.

(First, to Stephen K. Doyle: this is not in response to you, directly, but to the rest of the 27 pages, and nice to see you here. It's simply an unfortunate circumstance that your entry into the fray happened just as my top blew.)

A-hem.

Ladies (who might want to leave the room), gentlemen, and any other life forms attending: the appendage protruding from the carriage of the vehicle in the "Corham" photo is a H A N D! Fer the love of Aunt Gertie's girdle, how can you let the ham-handed latter-day retouching of some milquetoast, underpaid layout artist with a high-tension editor or art director breathing down his/her neck lead you down such a dead end (and ultimately meaningless) path to waste this much time on?

The goddamned "sole" is SOMEBODY'S S O U P! Actually it's most likely some splashed photo chemistry, whether from original negative developing, or rushed print making, or during the making of a third or fourth generation reproduction at the stat house (photostats for publication position), or it could be some opaquing fluid dripped by some other underpaid drudge being rushed stripping flats for the platemaker, or GAWD KNOWS.

But LOOK at what's THERE in the non-retouched image:

Maybe it's Marley's goddamned ghost, but it is not—repeat, N O T—the sole of any shoe!

All I did was outline "the blob" and colorize it, and it's OBVIOUS what it is. And what's sticking out of the car behind it cannot possibly be any other thing than a hand. Just as it always has been. And the only thing I've done to it is add a slight amount of increased contrast to bring out the lights/darks that are there.

The idea that it was Clint's shoe is just too boneheaded to countenance. The information for the definition of Clint's right leg is also in the image, so I've done about a 4% dodge of highlights on the trailing edge, which is flapping in the wind, just as expected. It wasn't necessary to add any information: the leg definition is in the image.

Okay, now let the next 27 pages begin on the burning question of whether it's:

1. Kilroy's hand

2. Forrest Gump's hand

3. John F. Kennedy's hand

For others here, though, who are absolutely baptized into the Itsafoot religion, and who might have any inclination to proselytize in this direction, I got four words for you:

Talk to the hand.

Ashton Gray

Edited July 25, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Brendan Slattery]

Ladies (who might want to leave the room), gentlemen, and any other life forms attending: the appendage protruding from the carriage of the vehicle in the "Corham" photo is a H A N D!

seriously