photo alteration by the media

[Jack White]

This is my FINAL ANSWER. Thanks Pat and John.

Jack:)

[Brendan Slattery]

I'm sorry, but that's Hill's foot. Look where he's standing. If that's not his right foot, then where is it? He's not in a position to put it in the small space between the Kennedys and the Connallys. So that's either his foot in an awkward angle or he's crushing Jack and Jackie with it. Most likely the former.

BTW, Jackie cradled her husband in her arms from the Triple Underpass to Parkland. How in the world did she (or Hill) let his arm gruesomely dangle like that? It makes no sense, common or otherwise.

[Bill Miller]

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?

You guys are a hoot, Pat! It must be very reassuring to have Jack agree with you when he couldn't understand how a foot tilted at an angle could look smaller than a hand being seen head on. Furthermore, you guys are assessing a copy print rather than dealing with what is on the actual photograqph. Who cares why a newpaper retouched a copied photograph? Below is a crop of Altgens 6 out of "4 Dark Days" and the area around JFK and Connally's head has been obviously retouched, while the original photograph shows no retouching. (note JFK in the back seat has the corner of the sunvisor passing behind his head)

Bill Miller

Edited July 1, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

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?

You guys are a hoot, Pat! It must be very reassuring to have Jack agree with you when he couldn't understand how a foot tilted at an angle could look smaller than a hand being see head on. Furthermore, you guys are assessing a copy print rather than dealing with what is on the actual photograqph. Who cares why a newpaper retouched a copied photograph? Below is a crop of Altgens 6 out of "4 Dark Days" and the area around JFK and Connally's head has been obviously retouched, while the original photograph shows no retouching. (note JFK in the back seat has the corner of the sunvisor passing behind his head)

Bill Miller

Interesting, Bill, about the Altgens. The point of this thread isn't to expose some vast conspiracy, but to clear up part of the photographic record. I find it interesting that the Associated Press misrepresented Kennedy's hand as, first his foot, and then Clint Hill's foot. This has confused and/or deceived millions of people over the years. If you find this uninteresting, I apologize. But trying to pass it off as the work of one over-zealous newspaper misses the point. When I first decided to confront this issue, I wrongly accused David Miller and/or Tom Dillard of drawing-in the foot for the original release of the photo. After looking at the Yarborough exhibit, and the 11-24 NY Times, however, I realized that the earliest versions of the photo showed something where the foot was drawn-in, and claimed this shape was a foot. By the publication of the Torch is Passed, an AP rush release book that came out weeks later, however, this shape had been deliberately drawn-over to look like a foot. Whether or not the AP really thought it was a foot is immaterial. They "enhanced" a photo and changed history. Sam Holland would later tell Mark Lane he saw Kennedy's foot stick out of the side of the car, but it never happened. The AP had created an urban legend.

For some reason this obvious fact is threatening to some people. I've received two or three e-mails from Gary telling me I'm wrong wrong wrong and that every published version of the photo is identical and the same as the original. The version of the Miller photo most widely used these days, and as shown in Pictures of the Pain, is NOT the same as the photo in the Yarborough Exhibit or the early papers. Why is this so hard to grasp?

As far as Jack's observations about the size of Clint Hill's foot versus the size of his hand...I initially made this observation about the doctored photo. In the doctored photo, the supposed shoe is also smaller than the back of Roy Kellerman's head. This seems highly unlikely. Clint Hill's shoes in other photos appear to be normal-sized. A normal-sized man's shoe would have to be turned at roughly a forty five degree angle before it would be as small as the back of his head, and the shoe in that photo does not appear to be angled to such a degree.

[Bill Miller]

Interesting, Bill, about the Altgens. The point of this thread isn't to expose some vast conspiracy, but to clear up part of the photographic record. I find it interesting that the Associated Press misrepresented Kennedy's hand as, first his foot, and then Clint Hill's foot. This has confused and/or deceived millions of people over the years. If you find this uninteresting, I apologize. But trying to pass it off as the work of one over-zealous newspaper misses the point. When I first decided to confront this issue, I wrongly accused David Miller and/or Tom Dillard of drawing-in the foot for the original release of the photo. After looking at the Yarborough exhibit, and the 11-24 NY Times, however, I realized that the earliest versions of the photo showed something where the foot was drawn-in, and claimed this shape was a foot. By the publication of the Torch is Passed, an AP rush release book that came out weeks later, however, this shape had been deliberately drawn-over to look like a foot. Whether or not the AP really thought it was a foot is immaterial. They "enhanced" a photo and changed history. Sam Holland would later tell Mark Lane he saw Kennedy's foot stick out of the side of the car, but it never happened. The AP had created an urban legend.

And people wonder why we are called "buffs". The AP didn't misrepresent anything ... they very well may have believed it to be Kennedy's foot sticking over the side of the limo. It's only when one reads Clint Hill's statements and see's the other photo showing Hill getting his leg and foot into position does one get a better picture of who's foot is seen hooked over the door panel.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_...during+printing

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. In this thread there is a Moorman photo showing a manipulated image of the President without Jackie being in the car and what looks like a woman wearing a white hat.

Now would I be accurate to suggest that someone tried to hide the fact that Jackie rode next to the President or suggest that the original photo must not show Jackie in the car? The fact is that the original photograph and good quality prints made thereof clearly shows a foot over the side of the limo. It is only when a poor quality print is offered into the mix that someone like Jack can use it to make something out of nothing from it. The sunlight shining off of Hill's shoes leather all of a sudden becomes a palm ... just as I supposed I can say the man standing on the other side of the limo is holding a dog up for the dying President to see.

The point being is that there has been an attempt to use poor quality images to make assertions pertaining to the evidence of the case and I find this very troubling. 'Troubling' because once the downside of this behavior practice has been exposed as faulty and misleading ... one has to wonder why the same people continue to promote it.

For some reason this obvious fact is threatening to some people. I've received two or three e-mails from Gary telling me I'm wrong wrong wrong and that every published version of the photo is identical and the same as the original. The version of the Miller photo most widely used these days, and as shown in Pictures of the Pain, is NOT the same as the photo in the Yarborough Exhibit or the early papers. Why is this so hard to grasp?

What Gary has been trying to tell you is that the photos are the same, but how they were manipulated can make things appear differently. For instance, what is being called JFK's hand only looks that way because of the contrasting of the sunlight shining off of Hill's shoes. In a more balanced print the illusion of a hand isn't seen at all.

As far as Jack's observations about the size of Clint Hill's foot versus the size of his hand...I initially made this observation about the doctored photo. In the doctored photo, the supposed shoe is also smaller than the back of Roy Kellerman's head. This seems highly unlikely. Clint Hill's shoes in other photos appear to be normal-sized. A normal-sized man's shoe would have to be turned at roughly a forty five degree angle before it would be as small as the back of his head, and the shoe in that photo does not appear to be angled to such a degree.

Try to keep in mind that the shoe is closer to the camera, thus the scaling between it and the actual size of Hill's head will need to be adjusted. Combine that with the shoe being tilted away from the camera and maybe things will make much more sense to you.

Bill Miller

Edited July 1, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

Miller's deliberate non sequiturs do not address the

FINAL ANSWER of Speer-Dolva-White (see earlier

post).

Hill's hand is on his knee, with his foot on the seat.

What looks like a shoe sole is the back seat cushion.

What looks like a shoe heel is JFK's fingers, palm and

thumb, connected to his cuff and his sleeve.

Case closed. Miller and Mack are bad history.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Miller's deliberate non sequiturs do not address the

FINAL ANSWER of Speer-Dolva-White (see earlier

post).

Hill's hand is on his knee, with his foot on the seat.

What looks like a shoe sole is the back seat cushion.

What looks like a shoe heel is JFK's fingers, palm and

thumb, connected to his cuff and his sleeve.

Case closed. Miller and Mack are bad history.

Jack

Jack, I expect such idiocy from you because you cannot seem to rationalize why one should trust an actual clear sharp original photo over a poorer quailty print, but to think that John and Pat would follow suit is somewhat puzzling. However, a tree is still a tree and a rock is still a rock no matter how much one plays with the image to make it appear to be something else. Each researcher has to set the bar to the level of research they wish to be known for. Right now your bar is laying on the ground IMO. If you guys think that you have made some great discovery by way of a dodged photograph, then by all means tell the world and let the chips fall where they may.

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

Bill, I'm being forced to comment where I really don't want to. For those who are interested, my posts, from #7 till now, in this topic are very brief and easy to read. In them all, I refer to the WC published photo. If there is a better one available, I certainly would like to see it, and of course base findings on that.

Firstly: I saw the hand, then attempted to make sense of the rest and did so by noting angles and gradations of shadow, and finally noting the shape of Hill's knee. (I don't think his foot is on the seat, I think he's looking to position it whiile kind of shaping a blanket of his body parts over the Kennedy's) That's my part in the matter.

I welcome Jack highlighting that on the whole some consensus was arrived at by people who might otherwise disagree. This is a good thing. On the other hand this doesn't put people such as yourself on the outer, I find myself often agreeing with your analysis on other things.

What we basically have here is a problem. On the one hand I see no reason to change my conclusions. On the other hand I am being told that there exists a photo that clearly shows I'm wrong. I want to see this photo.

[John Dolva]

Bill, I'm being forced to comment where I really don't want to. For those who are interested, my posts, from #7 till now, in this topic are very brief and easy to read. In them all, I refer to the WC published photo. If there is a better one available, I certainly would like to see it, and of course base findings on that.

Firstly: I saw the hand, then attempted to make sense of the rest and did so by noting angles and gradations of shadow, and finally noting the shape of Hill's knee. (I don't think his foot is on the seat, I think he's looking to position it whiile kind of shaping a blanket of his body parts over the Kennedy's) That's my part in the matter.

I welcome Jack highlighting that on the whole some consensus was arrived at by people who might otherwise disagree. This is a good thing. On the other hand this doesn't put people such as yourself on the outer, I find myself often agreeing with your analysis on other things.

What we basically have here is a problem. On the one hand I see no reason to change my conclusions. On the other hand I am being told that there exists a photo that clearly shows I'm wrong. I want to see this photo.

Now that I've started babbling on this I might as well keep on for a bit.

The heel shadow has changes in luminance, like stripes, on the heel. These continue on the heel at a right diagonal. The number and shape and scale. This is very much like what one has when one views (obliquely) a hand that has the fingers curled and the back of the hand tilted towards the wrist.

The dark area of the underside of the sole has stripes of luminance running along the contours of the limousine at that location, not the pattern one would expect from a shoe.

The shape of this dark area is mirrored in the shape of the seat, see where the sun is by looking at the road and say it's impossible. Also the location of where the seat SHOULD be is determinable.

Then on to Hill. Irrespective of the quality of the photo, the overall luminance map remains to be considered. In the area that is Hills trunk, outlines that very nicely describe a leg as suggested is discernable. In this position the shape in doubt could not be a foot/shoe. It CAN be a hand and so on.

SO:: absent evidence to the contrary, conclusion stands. with evidence and reason to the contrary, conclusion changes.

_____

If it is correct,... so what?? Possible blood on fingers indicating strong blood flow at throat?

There is another matter which needs mentioning. If one looks at this area on the limousine a few frames after the headshot on sees quite a lot of blood spatter in this area. This COULD explain the somewhat blotched front edge of the shadow on the area in question, and the absense otf the second chrome spot on the top edge of the rail. This could be the reason for wanting it to be a foot. What to do with heavy blood blotches on the right hand rear? Makes one want to hear what the MC's on that side had to say.

[Bill Miller]

What we basically have here is a problem. On the one hand I see no reason to change my conclusions. On the other hand I am being told that there exists a photo that clearly shows I'm wrong. I want to see this photo.

The next time you are in Dallas, call into the Museum and ask Gary Mack to allow you to come in and see a high resolution scan of it. You will walk away wondering how you could have been so wrong about anything. The lesson you will then learn is that photographs that have been degraded or altered from their opriginal state can cause changes that take place that is sometimes nothing more than an illusion.

In the words of a fellow researcher of the JFK assassination: "I spoke to Richard Trask yesterday and his Miller prints - from a vintage AP negative and from a copy negative loaned to him by the late David Miller - are sharp, clear, and unquestionably show a foot.

I, too, have seen an excellent Miller print and the object is a foot. For people today who look at dramatically degraded images in a book or magazine reproduction and attempt to discern something from them is the epitome of ignorance....and a disservice to researchers everywhere."

SO:: absent evidence to the contrary, conclusion stands. with evidence and reason to the contrary, conclusion changes.

Any idea as to the sun's position when the photo is question was taken?

Bill Miller

[John Dolva]

The limo rear silhouette flipped confirms shadow and line (blue) to sun. Same on area in question. (image resized in this instance by "pixel resize" in order to avoid any software smoothing.)

That's great Bill, could they post a scan copy, please, so this is cleared up?

[Pat Speer]

Bill, I'm afraid you're letting your personal feelings about Jack's work blind you on this issue. Look again. The Yarborough exhibit is clearer than the photo online or as viewed in Pictures of the Pain. It appears the woman in the background has been lightened as part of the process through which the foot was drawn-in. (Perhaps John can compare the shading of the woman versus the shading of other parts in the photo.) Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that it is the fake foot photo that is the inferior print. As far as Gary, you needn't be such a groupie. Gary has a vast amount of knowledge and I respect him a lot but even he should be allowed to be wrong sometimes. He is CLEARLY wrong on this issue, IMO. He said ALL the published versions of the photo were the same. Are you saying that both you and Gary see NO DIFFERENCE in the "shape" as published in the Saturday Evening Post and the supposed foot in The Torch is Passed? (Once again, perhaps Jack or John can do a side by side comparison between the two to show that it wasn't simply a matter of one being clearer than the other, and that the "shoes" in the two versions of the same photo are neither the same size nor the same shape.)

Although I remain convinced the Zapruder film was not altered, I suddenly feel very sympathetic to Jack and other alterationsists. If you and Gary are really willing to throw your credibility behind your contention that the AP did not alter the Miller photo, when it is so obvious the prints used by the AP ever since the first few days after the assassination fail to match the earliest versions of the photo, then you do nothing but weaken your argument that the Zapruder film, and other items actually used as evidence, were unaltered, IMO.

If you really believe it's a foot in the photo, will you please take a picture replicating the contortions necessary for Hill to face forward whilst simultaneously having his foot upside down at his right hanging over the side of a car?

And if there is a clearer print of this photo available, please let it be posted. Saying that Gary's got one and that we should all take his word for it, when he's already demonstrated he has no credibilty in regards to this photo by stating that all the published versions were the same, is just blowing smoke.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I'm afraid you're letting your personal feelings about Jack's work blind you on this issue. Look again. The Yarborough exhibit is clearer than the photo online or as viewed in Pictures of the Pain. It appears the woman in the background has been lightened as part of the process through which the foot was drawn-in. (Perhaps John can compare the shading of the woman versus the shading of other parts in the photo.) Anyhow, it seems obvious to me that it is the fake foot photo that is the inferior print. As far as Gary, you needn't be such a groupie. Gary has a vast amount of knowledge and I respect him a lot but even he should be allowed to be wrong sometimes. He is CLEARLY wrong on this issue, IMO. He said ALL the published versions of the photo were the same. Are you saying that both you and Gary see NO DIFFERENCE in the "shape" as published in the Saturday Evening Post and the supposed foot in The Torch is Passed? (Once again, perhaps Jack or John can do a side by side comparison between the two to show that it wasn't simply a matter of one being clearer than the other, and that the "shoes" in the two versions of the same photo are neither the same size nor the same shape.)

The two photos are one in the same, thus Gary Mack is correct. However, while there is a slight diference in the sharpness of each print over the other ... neither has anything to do with the original photograph. The resolution of the scan as it shows up in print is another matter altogether. I might also add that Gary Mack sits on a huge collection of JFK assassination materials, many of which are the original photographs or high resolution scans of the same. These images are almost always copyrighted by the owners which prevents them from just being freely distributed over the Internet. However, one can go into the Museum and see these pristine images for themselves and only then will you know why Gary Mack says what he does about them Vs. the poorer quality prints being used for photo interpretation purposes on these forums.

What has happened in part is that the brightness and contrasting has been altered between these copy prints. In the one print the Connally's have been all but wiped out of the photo. In the process the heel of the shoe has changed shape between the light and dark areas. The part of what once was the sole of a shoe has now become darkened towards the ball of the foot. Other things like the rear wheel of the car has changed in appearence and the little kid being held by the man across the street has become hard to see. These are all changes that took place not because of the degree of sharpness of the photograph, but rather how it was processed before being placed into print.

Let me ask this question: With Jackie holding JFK's head in her lap and with the President laying on his left side ... how long would his arm have to be to be seen in place of Clint Hill's foot? I am thinking that if you approach this sensibly from another direction that possibly you will see how ridiculous it is to think you are seeing a hand, instead of a foot.

Bill Miller

Edited July 2, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Bill, I'm being forced to comment where I really don't want to. For those who are interested, my posts, from #7 till now, in this topic are very brief and easy to read. In them all, I refer to the WC published photo. If there is a better one available, I certainly would like to see it, and of course base findings on that.

Firstly: I saw the hand, then attempted to make sense of the rest and did so by noting angles and gradations of shadow, and finally noting the shape of Hill's knee. (I don't think his foot is on the seat, I think he's looking to position it whiile kind of shaping a blanket of his body parts over the Kennedy's) That's my part in the matter.

I welcome Jack highlighting that on the whole some consensus was arrived at by people who might otherwise disagree. This is a good thing. On the other hand this doesn't put people such as yourself on the outer, I find myself often agreeing with your analysis on other things.

What we basically have here is a problem. On the one hand I see no reason to change my conclusions. On the other hand I am being told that there exists a photo that clearly shows I'm wrong. I want to see this photo.

I'm of the opinion its not a hand because if what you and other consider to be the shadow of the seat on the side of the car. If it were a shadow the chrome strips would not be rendered as black. They might appear a bit darker than the rest of the strips in the area of the shadow but stil lnot black. True that if it was a shadow they would be shielded from direct sunlight but not shielded from their main source of light which is the entire sky. In photography you must remember that when photographing shiny objects, you are not photographing the object itself persay but rather what is reflected in the object...in the case of the chrome rail it would be the sky.

No it appears to be something blocking the chrome strips, not something shading them from the sun.

Edited July 2, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[John Dolva]

altered photo:: possibility of interlacing lines indicates photo (and oblique at that, accounting for some distortion) of tv screen. Please reproduce the shoe by just shifting values. I'd be surprised if anyone can without some fudging. I'd like to see it.

light shining from at least 3 directions (see far corner of seat base for two) including flash. see shifts in luminance on all surfaces depending on angle of light and shadows and consider reflectiveness. Contrast is issue.

Flatter area (horizontal) of moulding at shadow accounts for increased luminance of vertical strip on 'sole'.

small portions of copyrighted images should not be copyright for these study purposes.

Edited July 2, 2006 by John Dolva