photo alteration by the media

[Pat Speer]

People are continuing to take computer images of B&W photos that have been lightened and put into books and magazines and acting as if they can give a reliable interpretation of some of these less noticeable details. This investigative process is so misleading that it has caused otherwise intelligent people to not even be able to follow the simple process of Hill going from his posture seen in the Newman photo and getting into the posture seen in the Miller photo. Instead they have introduced the impossible and that is that JFK had the ability after leaving Dealey Plaza that he somehow lifted his leg so to hang his foot over the side of the limo. this has been offered and accepted by some without medical testimony saying that it was even possible or without any witnesses claiming to have observed this action. Furthermore, the Newman photo hasn't been said to be altered and JFK's leg isn't seen lifted in the air with his foot over the side of the car in that photo. In fact, the same can be said about the Daniels film. Yet somehow on the way to Parkland as Clint Hill was almost in position to get his overturned foot up to the antenna - someone has goten the idea that an already dead President had out of the blue just lifted his right leg and hooked his foot over the side of the car ... and people wonder why guys like Von Pein and Slattery have such a good time laughing at CT's. They are able to do this because we are opening the door for them by not thinking these images through and not learning more about photography and the processes that take place in the devolpment of the film.

Bill Miller[/b]

Bill, you've done a great job making your point. I agree that the photos being used are not optimal. I agree that there is nothing to indicate Kennedy's foot or hand could be in such a position. I would LIKE to believe it really is Hill's foot, but it just makes no visual sense to me. I tried to simulate the position, but was unable. Now Stephen has joined the Forum and has argued this same point. He went out into his garage for 15 minutes and tried to re-create Hill's alleged position and was incapable of doing so. At one point, I believe, you said you would recreate Hill's position in the photo for us when you got home. Please do so. I would sincerely appreciate it. I am more than willing to be convinced.

It just appears to me that the lower leg/arm attached to the foot/hand is to the right of Hill in the car and not angled back towards his torso. It also appears to me that Hill is crouched or kneeling on the back seat...So where is Kennedy? It seems possible he fell to the floor of the car and that in re-arranging him or pulling him back onto the seat, Hill caught one of Kennedy's legs on the side of the car. Obviously, this is speculation. Neither Jackie nor Hill ever talked about what was said or done in that back seat.

[Guest John Gillespie]

Show us a photo of the limo with an antenna in that location. Please.

Jack, he can't because it doesn't exist and never did. You are right. The antenna in view is behind the hand, and the angle of the shot merely happens to create a tangent of the antenna with the shadow on the thumb (exactly where a shadow on the thumb would be expected). Bill's alleged "continuation" through the sleeve cuff is no "continuation" at all: it jogs down to the right, exactly where one would expect to see the line where one side of a man's shirt cuff overlaps the other, and in exact parallel with the arm—which confirms it to be the separation at the sleeve cuff overlap.

This shoe nonsense has gone beyond beating a dead horse to inflicting post-mortem torture.

Ashton

_________________________

Ash, Jack et al,

Hi guys. Good to address brethren (if I may be presumptuous). If anything so sadly manifests the downside of this place it is the instantly infamous Clint Hill shoe photo debate. Truth to tell, I've been trying to recruit some new members for The Forum but much to my credit I have withheld contact until we're no longer downwind of this crap. Let me give Thom McAn a call and hear what he thinks.

What nonsense indeed! I was not and am not a photo-tech guy but I quickly slapped on a post amidst the early flurries here and stated simply that the mere enlarging of the "shoe" pic will show that, whatever that thing was, (like who gives a flying _ _ _ _) it extends almost completely across Mr. Hill's posterior, perhaps beyond. If that thing's a shoe, my name is Francesca Akhtar.

But we've seen the same thing in other threads ad nauseam in terms of weaponry, degrees of angles and other stuff that makes Global Warming easier to prove. To put it in perspective (as I know Jack has - in conference presentations right there in Dallas), we are reading about interpretations regarding photos taken at a time and in a place (are you ready?) WHERE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN DOCTORED!!! ARGGHHH!

Shoo, shoe thread. Requiescat in pace. Non compos mentos. Those boots are made for walkin'.

Regards,

JohnG

People are continuing to take computer images of B&W photos that have been lightened and put into books and magazines and acting as if they can give a reliable interpretation of some of these less noticeable details. This investigative process is so misleading that it has caused otherwise intelligent people to not even be able to follow the simple process of Hill going from his posture seen in the Newman photo and getting into the posture seen in the Miller photo. Instead they have introduced the impossible and that is that JFK had the ability after leaving Dealey Plaza that he somehow lifted his leg so to hang his foot over the side of the limo. this has been offered and accepted by some without medical testimony saying that it was even possible or without any witnesses claiming to have observed this action. Furthermore, the Newman photo hasn't been said to be altered and JFK's leg isn't seen lifted in the air with his foot over the side of the car in that photo. In fact, the same can be said about the Daniels film. Yet somehow on the way to Parkland as Clint Hill was almost in position to get his overturned foot up to the antenna - someone has goten the idea that an already dead President had out of the blue just lifted his right leg and hooked his foot over the side of the car ... and people wonder why guys like Von Pein and Slattery have such a good time laughing at CT's. They are able to do this because we are opening the door for them by not thinking these images through and not learning more about photography and the processes that take place in the devolpment of the film.

Bill Miller[/b]

Bill, you've done a great job making your point. I agree that the photos being used are not optimal. I agree that there is nothing to indicate Kennedy's foot or hand could be in such a position. I would LIKE to believe it really is Hill's foot, but it just makes no visual sense to me. I tried to simulate the position, but was unable. Now Stephen has joined the Forum and has argued this same point. He went out into his garage for 15 minutes and tried to re-create Hill's alleged position and was incapable of doing so. At one point, I believe, you said you would recreate Hill's position in the photo for us when you got home. Please do so. I would sincerely appreciate it. I am more than willing to be convinced.

It just appears to me that the lower leg/arm attached to the foot/hand is to the right of Hill in the car and not angled back towards his torso. It also appears to me that Hill is crouched or kneeling on the back seat...So where is Kennedy? It seems possible he fell to the floor of the car and that in re-arranging him or pulling him back onto the seat, Hill caught one of Kennedy's legs on the side of the car. Obviously, this is speculation. Neither Jackie nor Hill ever talked about what was said or done in that back seat.

__________________________

From Pat:

"I would LIKE (emphasis in the original) to believe it really is Hill's foot..."

________________

Pat,

I would like to fly, to talk to the animals and maybe figure out Pythagoras but I suspect my nearest and dearest would move to have me committed if I offered how I actually would LIKE to believe something about...Clint Hill's foot!

Can we change the subject to, say, a part of the young Julie Newmar's anatomy? Ok. How about Bette Davis' hat? Charlie Chaplain's cane? Let's dish on Jackie's pink dress...anything... please.

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

"Flectere si nequero superos, acherona movebo." (If I cannot bend the higher powers, I shall stir up Hell) "The Aenid" - Virgil

Edited July 25, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Pat Speer]

Gilliespie, precisely because it is something as meaningless as a foot, and no one here has attached much meaning to its alteration or non-alteration, the real issue here is human cognition. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING? The answer, so far, seems to be "no." Although we are close to a consensus that the Yarborough Exhibit is an unaltered version of the photo with the drawn-in foot, we can't come to any agreement what the original shape represents.

Consider this a Rorschach test party if you like... without a keg.

[John Dolva]

Gilliespie, precisely because it is something as meaningless as a foot, and no one here has attached much meaning to its alteration or non-alteration, the real issue here is human cognition. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING? The answer, so far, seems to be "no." Although we are close to a consensus that the Yarborough Exhibit is an unaltered version of the photo with the drawn-in foot, we can't come to any agreement what the original shape represents.

Consider this a Rorschach test party if you like... without a keg.

Jack, in trying to enhnace Clints sock and shoe heel I may have found his glasses. Please look closely and tell me what you think?

[Jack White]

Gilliespie, precisely because it is something as meaningless as a foot, and no one here has attached much meaning to its alteration or non-alteration, the real issue here is human cognition. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING? The answer, so far, seems to be "no." Although we are close to a consensus that the Yarborough Exhibit is an unaltered version of the photo with the drawn-in foot, we can't come to any agreement what the original shape represents.

Consider this a Rorschach test party if you like... without a keg.

Jack, in trying to enhnace Clints sock and shoe heel I may have found his glasses. Please look closely and tell me what you think?

Looks like his sunglasses to me. However, I still wonder about the ID tag he

had in his breast pocket.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Show us a photo of the limo with an antenna in that location. Please.

Jack

Mr. HILL. From the time I got on the back of the Presidential limousine, I didn't really pay any attention to what was going on outside the automobile.

Mr. 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.

Mr. HILL. I saw him lying there in the back of the car, when I was immediately above him.

Nellie Connally told of Jackie saying that they had killed her husband ... hardly something one would be thinking if their spouse was able to lift his leg and hook a foot over the side of the limo, but why pay any attention to the witnesses when so much drama can be created from a poor B&W photograph out of a magazine. In fact, I don't know of any witness who believed JFK was still alive while the limo raced to Parkland.

As far as the antenna goes ... I debated its location with Gary Mack a week or so ago and I yielded to his better images than I had with me at the time. After speaking with Groden and looking at the post photo - the antenna visible in the Miller photo is the antenna that was on Jackie's side of the car. Robert tells me the limo had 4 antennas, but only one was the taller of the bunch and it was the one just behind Jackie on the drivers side of the car. That antenna is visible in the Croft photo. In fact, the Post Magazine that I do have with me right now shows the Altgens 6 photo just above it. Jackie's antenna can be seen raised in that photo as well. The very top of the same antenna can be seen rising into the windshield area of the SS follow-up car.

Bill Miller

Edited July 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Stephen K. Doyle]

To all: I note that the members of the forum typically refer to each other by their given names, rather than by their full names, with titles, such as I did in my first post when I referred to “Mr. Jack White.” I was not attempting to be unduly formal, and do not wish to be so now, so henceforth I will try to remember to use first names, when appropriate, when referring to other members of the forum. I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it inappropriate for me to refer to him or her in this way before we have had a chance to become acquainted.

To Floyd: “Thank You” for the words of welcome.

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it. Your reply indicated to me that your have great passion for this subject and that you are frustrated that the thread keeps getting sidetracked by posts, such as my own, that seem to retread ground apparently well covered. I feel that this is due in no small part to the woefully inadequate way I expressed my point-of-view, so I will attempt to clarify this presently.

I admire your passion but I don’t share your apparent frustration. This thread has gotten quite long, and yes, it does seem to move at a snail's pace sometimes, but it has proved sufficiently interesting – “compelling” might be a more apt description – to prompt a response such as yours, to cause me to finally post something on this forum, to attract the interest of photo experts, engineers (that’d be me, for one), at least one lawyer, an expert in video techniques, authors, researchers, and numerous others I won’t even attempt to identify here. The thread now runs to 29 pages, and 400 or so posts, and is as active now as it was when Pat started it rolling. I think that this subject is WORTHY of our attention, and is WORTHY of US.

Now, back to my clarification.

I SEE the “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

I also SEE the “HAND” in the photo. I know you must find this hard to believe, so I’ll try to explain.

Pat started this thread about “Photo Alteration in the Media” with the photo we’re now discussing as the BENCHMARK against which other, later photos might be judged. A consensus quickly was reached that some later photos had obviously been altered from what is seen in the “original,” which, I believe, was published in the Warren Volumes as the “Yarborough Exhibit.” It was quickly noted, however, that the BENCHMARK photo had features in it that seem a little “screwy.”

Pat also mentioned some of the proffered explanations of what we see in the photo, noting that it had, at various times, been described as Kennedy’s foot and later, as Clint Hill’s foot. It was this suggestion that I was attempting to debunk in my post.

When I got to that point in my thinking, I was perplexed. I think, based on some of the questions raised by other forum members in their posts, others may be as perplexed as I am. We’ve got this “foot” hanging over the side of the car. It has “SOUP” hanging from it and is strangely indistinct in the toe area, even as it is receiving so much light from above and behind as to obscure all of the detail of its side in “glare,” and with the reflective surface of the limo close at hand. The glare then came into question.

It was pointed out – correctly, I think – that we should EXPECT glare on the polished surface of the shoe somewhere, to which Jack countered that there is entirely TOO MUCH glare. I think Jack is right. The shoe possesses compound curvature in the area in question, which should evidence glare that is clearly defined in extent. Only those areas of the shoe that present a reflective surface that lies at the half-angle between the sun and the camera should reflect light in this way. To borrow a phrase, “Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.” The photo posted by Lee (post #20, I believe. More on this photo later.) of the limo taken from the other side shows, on the heel of Hill’s shoe, a good example of what I mean. I also noted that all of the other areas of “glare” in the photo appear on the upper, left surfaces of the objects on which they appear. This is decidedly NOT the case for the glare off the shoe. I’ve tried to replicate the glare seen in the photo by viewing one of my own shoes in the room where I’m sitting with a single, bare light bulb for illumination. I can’t do it. I get this area or that area, sometimes a couple at a time, to exhibit the reflections, but I can’t come anywhere close to replicating what I see in the photo. This and the “Soup” lead me to conclude that the BENCHMARK photo we’re studying has been subject to some form of alteration, PRIOR TO any subsequent alteration by members of the media.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

If we assume that what we see here is a hand, we immediately solve one of the other problems associated with the “foot” interpretation; was the President wearing a WHITE sock, or is it just white because of the ubiquitous “glare” that seems, at times, to be everywhere present? In this interpretation this becomes a shirt cuff, which coincidentally is appropriately positioned relative to the “hand.”

But… the hand has a problem. It’s got a shoe, complete with an apparently correct outline of a LEFT SHOE SOLE, growing out of it! We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND. Where the palm would be, we can see a shadow that is correct for a hand held aloft in this position, but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it. I can’t reconcile the image of the shoe sole with the shadow cast by any of the other things in the photo, so I conclude that what I see is, in fact, the sole of a shoe projecting out from what would be the wrist area of the arm. So… if this IS an image of an arm and hand, we’ve got a photograph that, necessarily, has been doctored, or which, at least, contains some rather peculiar artifacts added during its processing.

Is everyone following me so far?

Here’s my dilemma: If this is a foot (shoe, actually), why does it have a nearly perfect image of a hand in the background, and why does it contain some obvious anomalies, which lead me to suspect that the photo has been altered? If it’s really a hand that I see, then the photo has, necessarily, been altered, because no hand I’ve ever seen had a forefoot growing out of it. The situations are analogous. Foot with hand, hand with foot, photo altered.

Now, if the photo HAS been altered in this region, I’m debating what I see in an ALTERED PORTION of the photo! This drives me to distraction. How can I know that ANYTHING here bears ANY relation to any object that was captured in the image by the camera?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

The reason I think what must have BEEN visible in the photo was Kennedy’s foot has nothing to do with what I see in the photo. I think basing my decision on a suspect image would be foolhardy. I base my decision on WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED for a foot or a hand to be visible here. I have to make some assumptions, and frankly, neither explanation is easy to swallow. After grappling with this question, I understand why some have questioned what might happen during the “Death Throes” of a man.

Let’s assume we see a foot - or WOULD HAVE SEEN a foot, anyway. To get that foot up there on the back, top corner of the seat, the President, who most believe had been slumped to his left into the First Lady’s lap, is going to have to move his feet off the floor, must move his hips towards the left side of the limousine, allowing room for his legs to pivot around behind him, must then pivot his legs UP onto the seat ending up with his left foot resting over the side of the car, as we see it, all without leaving any other part of his body, save the foot in question, visible. I wrote, “the President… is going to have to,” but Jackie, or Agent Hill could have moved him thusly, I suppose. This is not easy to accept.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand. To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat, leaving his head located somewhere near the junction of the seatback and the side of the car. After, or while, falling backwards he’s got to move his right arm (remember, it’s a RIGHT hand) up to a position above his head so his hand can reach the top corner of the seat, and must then ROTATE his hand outward as far as he can, exposing his palm to the camera. I tried this in my car, and can’t get any other orientation to work. It also required me to use essentially ALL of the muscles in my arm to rotate my hand outwards so it would appear as it does in the photo. So, I conclude that this, too, is POSSIBLE, but is even more improbable than the gyrations described in the preceding paragraph. As above, this could have been done TO HIM, and this must be accomplished without leaving any other part of his body exposed to the view of the camera.

The clincher for me is this: When the motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital, and after Governor and Mrs. Connally had been removed from the car, the attendants were delayed somewhat because Mrs. Kennedy WOULD NOT LET GO OF her nearly-dead husband, or so I have read. Do you think that this woman let the President out of her grasp even ONCE on the way to the hospital? I don’t.

Sincerely,

Steve

P.S. I’m sorry, but with all that’s going on in my life, I seem sometimes to be living in some kind of weird time warp. I wrote most this yesterday night, but didn’t get it finished. I finished it a moment ago and want to get it posted. I signed on and read enough of what has been added to the thread since last night to include the following quote, which I think is a fitting ending to this post:

To put it in perspective (as I know Jack has - in conference presentations right there in Dallas), we are reading about interpretations regarding photos taken at a time and in a place (are you ready?) WHERE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN DOCTORED!!! ARGGHHH!

Shoo, shoe thread. Requiescat in pace. Non compos mentos. Those boots are made for walkin'.

Regards,

JohnG

Amen.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Stephen K. Doyle

[Bill Miller]

At one point, I believe, you said you would recreate Hill's position in the photo for us when you got home. Please do so. I would sincerely appreciate it. I am more than willing to be convinced.

It just appears to me that the lower leg/arm attached to the foot/hand is to the right of Hill in the car and not angled back towards his torso. It also appears to me that Hill is crouched or kneeling on the back seat...So where is Kennedy?

I am in the mountains of British Columbia at this time using a wireless signal to see the forum, but when the chance arises - I will try and show how the position was obtained.

What are the options? I believe it may have been Clint Hill who first corrected people over it being his foot over the side of the car instead of JFK's. Someone can check with Gary Mack to see if Hill has ever given an oral history that may have addressed this matter. Clint Hill did say in his testimony that he had his foot hooked over the side of the car. In my previous post I mentioned how a dead man could not have lifted his leg up and hooked his foot over the door panel. The same can be said about his arm. When JFK's head exploded and his brain was shedded to pieces - his arms fell immediately and there is not a hint of evidence that someone who has had 1/3 of their brain blasted out will still have motor function. And if that was JFK's hand, then someone needs to explain how nearly half of it got burried into a tight fitting leather seat. In the Newman photo - Hill already has his foot overturned like we see it in the Miller photo ... all he needs to do is turn his knee inward in a knock knee'd position and he has achieved the Miller photo. If this is impossible, then one has to account what happened to Hill's foot and when did a dead man manage to all of a sudden lift his arm and sling it back onto the back seat. The whole things gets rather silly IMO. If you guys are wanting to get into Hill's posture - try doing it while looking at yourself in a mirror located to your right front so to see yourself at the same angle the Miller camera saw Hill.

Bill Miller

Edited July 26, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it.

Not a chance. I had my message and image ready to post, and when I came to post it saw yours.

I SEE then “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

Okay, but apparently, from your continued tortured waffling, you didn't get it.

I've seen this kind of thing on photos more times than I can count. All it takes is a sloppy squeegee job on negatives that get hung up to dry, or any of the other possible places where something can get on a negative or print. You can go out and see the face of God or Dolly Parton in a cloud, too, if you want, but it won't convert a drip into the sole of a shoe. You might make a drip think he's seen one, though.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

Here we go...

[Yadda yadda yadda, and....]We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND.

Horsepuckey. The hand is naturally cupped and you're looking at the INSIDE of the fingers, and the thumb ain't "tight" anywhere. It's just lying alongside the forefinger. <Yawn.> Excuse me.

but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it.

You aren't trying to figure this out at all, or help anybody else get it, are you?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

It's Dolly Parton.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand.

I'll try to keep it in mind. I'm wrinkling my forehead and everything. I got my face all scrunched up in concentration, and I'm trying to hold my mouth just right.

To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat—

Oh, codswollop! He doesn't have to do a goddamn thing but lie there with half of his head gone while his wife is attempting to do anything she can while in a state of shock, including allow Clint to get into the car so he isn't thrown off and also killed. The most natural thing in the world anybody would do is attempt to lie JFK on his back, and the very act of her trying to turn him from his left side to his back, would very likely cause his right arm to flop against the seat in the exact position it's in, very likely with Clint's right shoe under the arm trying to find a purchase without doing further harm to Kennedy.

You know, this entire discussion about what Jackie and Clint were or were not doing with/on/around JFK at this point is just ghoulish insanity by a bunch of people who've never been in the backseat with somebody whose head had been blown off, or have tried to get into a backseat with same and the spouse of same. And it's especially pathetic since it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with who killed Kennedy and why. So whether it's a hand, foot, or the Holy Grail, I hope anybody else posting another 6,000 words about it knows just where they can stick it.

Ashton Gray

[Craig Lamson]

.

I've seen this kind of thing on photos more times than I can count. All it takes is a sloppy squeegee job on negatives that get hung up to dry, or any of the other possible places where something can get on a negative or print. You can go out and see the face of God or Dolly Parton in a cloud, too, if you want, but it won't convert a drip into the sole of a shoe. You might make a drip think he's seen one, though.

Ah..another clown joins circus.

What a crock of crap Aston. Just a litttle primer for you. For your BLOB to be the shoe we see in the Miller photo it would have to be a HOLE IN THE EMULSION OF THE NEGATIVE for the resulting print to show it as black. And not just any old hole, it has to show gradations of tone, not just pure black.

So please tell us exactly WHAT could have caused the defect on the Miller negative that COULD have created the BLOB.

Flesh it out completely, give us all the possibilities. This is a simple process, only only four chemicals required...plus water.

So put on your clown suit and try stupid theory work.

This should be very entertaining.

Oh and while you sre at it please tell us how this BLOB created a perfect reflection of a shoe in the lower triangle chrome strip.....

Edited July 26, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

To all: I note that the members of the forum typically refer to each other by their given names, rather than by their full names, with titles, such as I did in my first post when I referred to “Mr. Jack White.” I was not attempting to be unduly formal, and do not wish to be so now, so henceforth I will try to remember to use first names, when appropriate, when referring to other members of the forum. I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it inappropriate for me to refer to him or her in this way before we have had a chance to become acquainted.

To Floyd: “Thank You” for the words of welcome.

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it. Your reply indicated to me that your have great passion for this subject and that you are frustrated that the thread keeps getting sidetracked by posts, such as my own, that seem to retread ground apparently well covered. I feel that this is due in no small part to the woefully inadequate way I expressed my point-of-view, so I will attempt to clarify this presently.

I admire your passion but I don’t share your apparent frustration. This thread has gotten quite long, and yes, it does seem to move at a snail's pace sometimes, but it has proved sufficiently interesting – “compelling” might be a more apt description – to prompt a response such as yours, to cause me to finally post something on this forum, to attract the interest of photo experts, engineers (that’d be me, for one), at least one lawyer, an expert in video techniques, authors, researchers, and numerous others I won’t even attempt to identify here. The thread now runs to what 29 pages, and 400 or so posts, and is as active now as it was when Pat started it rolling. I think that this subject is WORTHY of our attention, and is WORTHY of US.

Now, back to my clarification.

I SEE then “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

I also SEE the “HAND” in the photo. I know you must find this hard to believe, so I’ll try to explain.

Pat started this thread about “Photo Alteration in the Media” with the photo we’re now discussing as the BENCHMARK against which other, later photos might be judged. A consensus quickly was reached that some later photos had obviously been altered from what is seen in the “original,” which, I believe, was published in the Warren Volumes as the “Yarborough Exhibit.” It was quickly noted, however, that the BENCHMARK photo had features in it that seem a little “screwy.”

Pat also mentioned some of the proffered explanations of what we see in the photo, noting that it had, at various times, been described as Kennedy’s foot and later, as Clint Hill’s foot. It was this suggestion that I was attempting to debunk in my post.

When I got to that point in my thinking, I was perplexed. I think, based on some of the questions raised by other forum members in their posts, others may be as perplexed as I am. We’ve got this “foot” hanging over the side of the car. It has “SOUP” hanging from it and is strangely indistinct in the toe area, even as it is receiving so much light from above and behind as to obscure all of the detail of its side in “glare,” and with the reflective surface of the limo close at hand. The glare then came into question.

It was pointed out – correctly, I think – that we should EXPECT glare on the polished surface of the shoe somewhere, to which Jack countered that there is entirely TOO MUCH glare. I think Jack is right. The shoe possesses compound curvature in the area in question, which should evidence glare that is clearly defined in extent. Only those areas of the shoe that present a reflective surface that lies at the half-angle between the sun and the camera should reflect light in this way. To borrow a phrase, “Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.” The photo posted by Lee (post #20, I believe. More on this photo later.) of the limo taken from the other side shows, on the heel of Hill’s shoe, a good example of what I mean. I also noted that all of the other areas of “glare” in the photo appear on the upper, left surfaces of the objects on which they appear. This is decidedly NOT the case for the glare off the shoe. I’ve tried to replicate the glare seen in the photo by viewing one of my own shoes in the room where I’m sitting with a single, bare light bulb for illumination. I can’t do it. I get this area or that area, sometimes a couple at a time, to exhibit the reflections, but I can’t come anywhere close to replicating what I see in the photo. This and the “Soup” lead me to conclude that the BENCHMARK photo we’re studying has been subject to some form of alteration, PRIOR TO any subsequent alteration by members of the media.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

If we assume that what we see here is a hand, we immediately solve one of the other problems associated with the “foot” interpretation; was the President wearing a WHITE sock, or is it just white because of the ubiquitous “glare” that seems, at times, to be everywhere present? In this interpretation this becomes a shirt cuff, which coincidentally is appropriately positioned relative to the “hand.”

But… the hand has a problem. It’s got a shoe, complete with an apparently correct outline of a LEFT SHOE SOLE, growing out of it! We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND. Where the palm would be, we can see a shadow that is correct for a hand held aloft in this position, but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it. I can’t reconcile the image of the shoe sole with the shadow cast by any of the other things in the photo, so I conclude that what I see is, in fact, the sole of a shoe projecting out from what would be the wrist area of the arm. So… if this IS a image of an arm and hand, we’ve got a photograph that, necessarily, has been doctored, or which, at least, contains some rather peculiar artifacts added during its processing.

Is everyone following me so far?

Here’s my dilemma: If this is a foot (shoe, actually), why does it have a nearly perfect image of a hand in the background, and why does it contain some obvious anomalies, which lead me to suspect that the photo has been altered? If it’s really a hand that I see, then the photo has, necessarily, been altered, because none of the hands I’ve ever seen had a forefoot growing out of them. The situations are analogous. Foot with hand, hand with foot, photo altered.

Now, if the photo HAS been altered in this region, I’m debating what I see in an ALTERED PORTION of the photo! This drives me to distraction. How can I know that ANYTHING here bears ANY relation to any object that was captured in the image by the camera?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

The reason I think what must have BEEN visible in the photo was Kennedy’s foot has nothing to do with what I see in the photo. I think basing my decision on a suspect image would be foolhardy. I base my decision on WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED for a foot or a hand to be visible here. I have to make some assumptions, and frankly, neither explanation is easy to swallow. I understand why some have questioned what might happen during the “Death Throes” of a man after grappling with this question.

Let’s assume we see a foot - or WOULD HAVE SEEN a foot, anyway. To get that foot up there on the back, top corner of the seat, the President, who most believe had been slumped to his left into the First Lady’s lap, is going to have to move his feet off the floor, must move his hips towards the left side of the limousine, allowing room for his legs to pivot around behind him, must then pivot his legs UP onto the seat ending up with his left foot resting over the side of the car, as we see it, all without leaving any other part of his body, save the foot in question, visible. I wrote, “the President… is going to have to,” but Jackie, or Agent Hill could have moved him thusly, I suppose. This is not easy to accept.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand. To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat, leaving his head located somewhere near the junction of the seatback and the side of the car. After, or while, falling backwards he’s got to move his right arm (remember, it’s a RIGHT hand) up to a position above his head so his hand can reach the top corner of the seat, and must then ROTATE his hand outward as far as he can, exposing his palm to the camera. I tried this in my car, and can’t get any other orientation to work. It also required me to use essentially ALL of the muscles in my arm to rotate my hand outwards so it would appear in the photo. So, I conclude that this, too, is POSSIBLE, but is even more improbable than the gyrations described in the preceding paragraph. As above, this could have been done TO HIM, and this must be accomplished without leaving any other part of his body exposed to the view of the camera.

The clincher for me is this: When the motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital, and after Governor and Mrs. Connally had been removed from the car, the attendants were delayed somewhat because Mrs. Kennedy WOULD NOT LET GO OF her nearly-dead husband, or so I have read. Do you think that this woman let the President out of her grasp even ONCE on the way to the hospital? I don’t.

Sincerely,

Steve

P.S. I’m sorry, but with all that’s going on in my life, I seem sometimes to be living in some kind of weird time warp. I wrote most this yesterday night, but didn’t get it finished. I finished it a moment ago and want to get it posted. I signed on and read enough of what has been added to the thread since last night to include the following quote, which I think is a fitting ending to this post:

To put it in perspective (as I know Jack has - in conference presentations right there in Dallas), we are reading about interpretations regarding photos taken at a time and in a place (are you ready?) WHERE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN DOCTORED!!! ARGGHHH!

Shoo, shoe thread. Requiescat in pace. Non compos mentos. Those boots are made for walkin'.

Regards,

JohnG

Amen.

John...excellent analysis!

My capsule opinion:

1. Photos showing "shoe" are obviously retouched

2. Yarborough exhibit does not clearly show shoe but more likely a hand

3. A foot in this position (JFK or Hill) is almost impossible

4. A hand in this position IS possible

5. A hand in this position is likely if JFK slid down in seat with arm upright

Thanks for your perceptive thinking!

Jack

[Jack White]

To all: I note that the members of the forum typically refer to each other by their given names, rather than by their full names, with titles, such as I did in my first post when I referred to “Mr. Jack White.” I was not attempting to be unduly formal, and do not wish to be so now, so henceforth I will try to remember to use first names, when appropriate, when referring to other members of the forum. I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it inappropriate for me to refer to him or her in this way before we have had a chance to become acquainted.

To Floyd: “Thank You” for the words of welcome.

To Ashton: I did not feel that your post was in any way a personal attack on me, notwithstanding the fact that my post apparently prompted it. Your reply indicated to me that your have great passion for this subject and that you are frustrated that the thread keeps getting sidetracked by posts, such as my own, that seem to retread ground apparently well covered. I feel that this is due in no small part to the woefully inadequate way I expressed my point-of-view, so I will attempt to clarify this presently.

I admire your passion but I don’t share your apparent frustration. This thread has gotten quite long, and yes, it does seem to move at a snail's pace sometimes, but it has proved sufficiently interesting – “compelling” might be a more apt description – to prompt a response such as yours, to cause me to finally post something on this forum, to attract the interest of photo experts, engineers (that’d be me, for one), at least one lawyer, an expert in video techniques, authors, researchers, and numerous others I won’t even attempt to identify here. The thread now runs to what 29 pages, and 400 or so posts, and is as active now as it was when Pat started it rolling. I think that this subject is WORTHY of our attention, and is WORTHY of US.

Now, back to my clarification.

I SEE then “Soup” you highlighted in your post. I thought of it as the “oddly amorphous” toe section of the shoe before you used the “Soup” appellation. I like your term better than my own.

I also SEE the “HAND” in the photo. I know you must find this hard to believe, so I’ll try to explain.

Pat started this thread about “Photo Alteration in the Media” with the photo we’re now discussing as the BENCHMARK against which other, later photos might be judged. A consensus quickly was reached that some later photos had obviously been altered from what is seen in the “original,” which, I believe, was published in the Warren Volumes as the “Yarborough Exhibit.” It was quickly noted, however, that the BENCHMARK photo had features in it that seem a little “screwy.”

Pat also mentioned some of the proffered explanations of what we see in the photo, noting that it had, at various times, been described as Kennedy’s foot and later, as Clint Hill’s foot. It was this suggestion that I was attempting to debunk in my post.

When I got to that point in my thinking, I was perplexed. I think, based on some of the questions raised by other forum members in their posts, others may be as perplexed as I am. We’ve got this “foot” hanging over the side of the car. It has “SOUP” hanging from it and is strangely indistinct in the toe area, even as it is receiving so much light from above and behind as to obscure all of the detail of its side in “glare,” and with the reflective surface of the limo close at hand. The glare then came into question.

It was pointed out – correctly, I think – that we should EXPECT glare on the polished surface of the shoe somewhere, to which Jack countered that there is entirely TOO MUCH glare. I think Jack is right. The shoe possesses compound curvature in the area in question, which should evidence glare that is clearly defined in extent. Only those areas of the shoe that present a reflective surface that lies at the half-angle between the sun and the camera should reflect light in this way. To borrow a phrase, “Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.” The photo posted by Lee (post #20, I believe. More on this photo later.) of the limo taken from the other side shows, on the heel of Hill’s shoe, a good example of what I mean. I also noted that all of the other areas of “glare” in the photo appear on the upper, left surfaces of the objects on which they appear. This is decidedly NOT the case for the glare off the shoe. I’ve tried to replicate the glare seen in the photo by viewing one of my own shoes in the room where I’m sitting with a single, bare light bulb for illumination. I can’t do it. I get this area or that area, sometimes a couple at a time, to exhibit the reflections, but I can’t come anywhere close to replicating what I see in the photo. This and the “Soup” lead me to conclude that the BENCHMARK photo we’re studying has been subject to some form of alteration, PRIOR TO any subsequent alteration by members of the media.

Now, what about the “HAND.”

If we assume that what we see here is a hand, we immediately solve one of the other problems associated with the “foot” interpretation; was the President wearing a WHITE sock, or is it just white because of the ubiquitous “glare” that seems, at times, to be everywhere present? In this interpretation this becomes a shirt cuff, which coincidentally is appropriately positioned relative to the “hand.”

But… the hand has a problem. It’s got a shoe, complete with an apparently correct outline of a LEFT SHOE SOLE, growing out of it! We can see, in some versions of the photo, four fingers curled down, with a thumb drawn up tight to the right, giving the impression that we are viewing a RIGHT HAND. Where the palm would be, we can see a shadow that is correct for a hand held aloft in this position, but… the hand has a forefoot growing out of it. I can’t reconcile the image of the shoe sole with the shadow cast by any of the other things in the photo, so I conclude that what I see is, in fact, the sole of a shoe projecting out from what would be the wrist area of the arm. So… if this IS a image of an arm and hand, we’ve got a photograph that, necessarily, has been doctored, or which, at least, contains some rather peculiar artifacts added during its processing.

Is everyone following me so far?

Here’s my dilemma: If this is a foot (shoe, actually), why does it have a nearly perfect image of a hand in the background, and why does it contain some obvious anomalies, which lead me to suspect that the photo has been altered? If it’s really a hand that I see, then the photo has, necessarily, been altered, because none of the hands I’ve ever seen had a forefoot growing out of them. The situations are analogous. Foot with hand, hand with foot, photo altered.

Now, if the photo HAS been altered in this region, I’m debating what I see in an ALTERED PORTION of the photo! This drives me to distraction. How can I know that ANYTHING here bears ANY relation to any object that was captured in the image by the camera?

Up to this point, I’m at a loss to decide one way or another.

The reason I think what must have BEEN visible in the photo was Kennedy’s foot has nothing to do with what I see in the photo. I think basing my decision on a suspect image would be foolhardy. I base my decision on WHAT MUST HAVE HAPPENED for a foot or a hand to be visible here. I have to make some assumptions, and frankly, neither explanation is easy to swallow. I understand why some have questioned what might happen during the “Death Throes” of a man after grappling with this question.

Let’s assume we see a foot - or WOULD HAVE SEEN a foot, anyway. To get that foot up there on the back, top corner of the seat, the President, who most believe had been slumped to his left into the First Lady’s lap, is going to have to move his feet off the floor, must move his hips towards the left side of the limousine, allowing room for his legs to pivot around behind him, must then pivot his legs UP onto the seat ending up with his left foot resting over the side of the car, as we see it, all without leaving any other part of his body, save the foot in question, visible. I wrote, “the President… is going to have to,” but Jackie, or Agent Hill could have moved him thusly, I suppose. This is not easy to accept.

Now, imagine that we see a hand. Remember, it’s a RIGHT hand. To get Kennedy’s right hand into this position he doesn’t have to merely move his hips and rotate his legs, he has to rise up from Jackie’s lap, move his hips towards Jackie far enough to allow room for his torso to fall backwards on the seat, leaving his head located somewhere near the junction of the seatback and the side of the car. After, or while, falling backwards he’s got to move his right arm (remember, it’s a RIGHT hand) up to a position above his head so his hand can reach the top corner of the seat, and must then ROTATE his hand outward as far as he can, exposing his palm to the camera. I tried this in my car, and can’t get any other orientation to work. It also required me to use essentially ALL of the muscles in my arm to rotate my hand outwards so it would appear in the photo. So, I conclude that this, too, is POSSIBLE, but is even more improbable than the gyrations described in the preceding paragraph. As above, this could have been done TO HIM, and this must be accomplished without leaving any other part of his body exposed to the view of the camera.

The clincher for me is this: When the motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital, and after Governor and Mrs. Connally had been removed from the car, the attendants were delayed somewhat because Mrs. Kennedy WOULD NOT LET GO OF her nearly-dead husband, or so I have read. Do you think that this woman let the President out of her grasp even ONCE on the way to the hospital? I don’t.

Sincerely,

Steve

P.S. I’m sorry, but with all that’s going on in my life, I seem sometimes to be living in some kind of weird time warp. I wrote most this yesterday night, but didn’t get it finished. I finished it a moment ago and want to get it posted. I signed on and read enough of what has been added to the thread since last night to include the following quote, which I think is a fitting ending to this post:

To put it in perspective (as I know Jack has - in conference presentations right there in Dallas), we are reading about interpretations regarding photos taken at a time and in a place (are you ready?) WHERE EVERYONE AGREES THAT THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN DOCTORED!!! ARGGHHH!

Shoo, shoe thread. Requiescat in pace. Non compos mentos. Those boots are made for walkin'.

Regards,

JohnG

Amen.

Steve...excellent analysis!

My capsule opinion:

1. Photos showing "shoe" are obviously retouched

2. Yarborough exhibit does not clearly show shoe but more likely a hand

3. A foot in this position (JFK or Hill) is almost impossible

4. A hand in this position IS possible

5. A hand in this position is likely if JFK slid down in seat with arm upright

Thanks for your perceptive thinking!

Jack

Edited July 26, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

Steve...excellent analysis!

My capsule opinion:

1. Photos showing "shoe" are obviously retouched

2. Yarborough exhibit does not clearly show shoe but more likely a hand

3. A foot in this position (JFK or Hill) is almost impossible

4. A hand in this position IS possible

5. A hand in this position is likely if JFK slid down in seat with arm upright

Thanks for your perceptive thinking!

Jack

1) So it seems that any photo or film not showing what you believe should be there must be retouched. Yhis would mean that the photos and films showing women in high heels (such as Sitzman) must also be retouched. This form of thinking is ridiculous IMO.

2) Having you already on record as saying that the man across the street who is holding a child was actually holding 4 cameras demonstrates your interpretation skills.

3) The overturned foot of Clint Hill is already in the same position in the Newman photo. The difference between Newman's photo and Miller's photo is Hill's right leg position.

4) A hand being seen in the Miller photo is possible only if one with poor interpretation skills thinks he can draw accurate observations from an otherwise fuzzy print.

5) There is no evidence that JFK slid down in the seat with his ram in that position. When Jackie got back into her seat - JFK's arms had already fallen limp and the President fell over onto his left side where Jackie cradled his head all the way to Parkland.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

"Steve...excellent analysis!"

....Jack"

Just an offer for consideration::

IA histogram equalisation reveals anomalies that COULD be explained thus.

Whether it fits testimony or possibility is another thing.

Perhaps the recognition of a leftright shoe problem is the key?

While this explains it it is a question of tetimony, viewing the negative and a consideration of possibility.

_______

EDIT:: perhaps everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong?

Bones define pose. They don't bend and they rotate around set points.

EDIT2:: see next page for images

Edited July 30, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

While this explains it it is a question of tetimony, viewing the negative and a consideration of possibility.

Clint Hill is still alive, so has anyone attmpted to find out how to reach him to see if he can tell you how he was positioned in the Newman and Miller photos?

Bill Miller

Edited July 30, 2006 by Bill Miller