photo alteration by the media

[Ed O'Hagan]

The image is that of a lady's powder compact, which Jackie is holding out in front of her so that she can see JFK in the mirror. JFK is between her and Hill. All l three are on the floor of the limousine, and facing the camera.

All such pictures showing Hill standing upright in the limousine are fraudulent. A 70 m.p.h. wind speed generated in a wind tunnel quite simply blows a person off their feet and sends them spinning away.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

What exactly are you trying to say here? And to what point?

[Pat Speer]

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.

Bill, I agree with John. If you can show how merely shifting values will change one photo into another, I'd be truly surprised and impressed. Look at the area between Hill and the person in the back ground in the two photos. The photo with the clearly defined foot has been tremendously lightened in this area compared to the area behind the person. I think if someone enlarges the "feet" one will see that not only has the area been lightened, but that there have been lines added into the photo with the clearly defined "foot.' I don't see how this would happen merely by someone's highlighting that part of the photo. As for your assertion that Gary has the original, etc. do you know if this was the photo used in Trask? The photo in Trask appears to be identical to the one I found on the internet with the clearly defined foot, the one not published until weeks after the assassination, the one with the "enhanced" area between Hill and the pedestrian.

As far as the copyright issue, that's a smoke screen. The photo was printed in the Warren Report.

Edited July 2, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

Craig, it's a brief dealing with a few issues from previous posts, so could you please be more specific?

The first part refers to the distortion in the photo that has the funny shoe. I'm suggesting a reason for the distortion and the curved but parallel horizontal lines on the full photo linked to in post one.

The second is a look at the attachment and how the chrome, paint and seat covering (polished leather?) all have luminance very much dependent on angle of reflected light and shadow, so chrome can be 'black'. Not only contrast (see Ed's attachment as example) but also spread of spectrum and gamma all contribute to whether or not an area looks black. That's the keyword:: 'looks'. I think a closer look shows different.

3 and 4 are self explanatory?

_______

EDIT:: (the attachment referred to above is the on in the post quoted by Craig and Pat)

(See attacment below for this bit)

split contrast, selective enhancing of dark and light to emphasise four fingers and thumb.

Vertical stripes of luminance difference on 'sole' matching limo contours. This should not happen with a sole, should it?

Shape of seat and shadow mirror each other.

Knee and lower leg of Hill, and the contours of thigh, indicated by shading. This lower leg pointing down hides part of Jackies pillbox hat.*

_________

(* is this the last photo known showing Jackies pillbox hat? It, like the limo, is part of the crime scene, what happeneed to it? If anyone has it could they carefully scrutinise the rim? If one considers it looking from above with Jackies nose at 12 oclock, is there any fraying at 2 oclock? ANY signs, reports of cleaning and/or of repair?)

Edited July 2, 2006 by John Dolva

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I agree with John. If you can show how merely shifting values will change one photo into another, I'd be truly surprised and impressed. Look at the area between Hill and the person in the back ground in the two photos. The photo with the clearly defined foot has been tremendously lightened in this area compared to the area behind the person.

I believe Gary Mack called this the 'dodging' of an image. Do any of you know the history of the print you are using?

I think if someone enlarges the "feet" one will see that not only has the area been lightened, but that there have been lines added into the photo with the clearly defined "foot.' I don't see how this would happen merely by someone's highlighting that part of the photo.

If the original photo clearly shows a foot, then what you stated is ass-backwards. In other words, the photo was manipulated which removed the appearance of a foot and gave a false impression of seeing a hand ... not the other way around. To further illustrate your error ... are you prepared to tell me how with Jackie holding her husband's head in her lap, how long would JFK's arm need to be to reach the top of the seat and what evidence do you have to suggest that Kennedy had the ability to move his limbs after having 1/3 of his brain blown out of his head?

As for your assertion that Gary has the original, etc. do you know if this was the photo used in Trask? The photo in Trask appears to be identical to the one I found on the internet with the clearly defined foot, the one not published until weeks after the assassination, the one with the "enhanced" area between Hill and the pedestrian.

Pat, what I said was that Mack usually has the original photos at the Museum or good quality scans made from them. It could be that Miller or his family still has the original photograph.

As far as the copyright issue, that's a smoke screen. The photo was printed in the Warren Report.

The Museum has assassination original photos in their possession that are on loan to them for historical reasons, but the original photographer still has the copyrights.

Below are some examples of how manipulating a photo by contrast or lighting changes can alter an image. This effect seems to occur much more with B&W images due to the limited color tones to work with. I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo.

Bill Miller

The image is that of a lady's powder compact, which Jackie is holding out in front of her so that she can see JFK in the mirror. JFK is between her and Hill. All l three are on the floor of the limousine, and facing the camera.

All such pictures showing Hill standing upright in the limousine are fraudulent. A 70 m.p.h. wind speed generated in a wind tunnel quite simply blows a person off their feet and sends them spinning away.

Nice post, Ed.

Bill Miller

Edited July 2, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Craig, it's a brief dealing with a few issues from previous posts, so could you please be more specific?

The first part refers to the distortion in the photo that has the funny shoe. I'm suggesting a reason for the distortion and the curved but parallel horizontal lines on the full photo linked to in post one.

The second is a look at the attachment and how the chrome, paint and seat covering (polished leather?) all have luminance very much dependent on angle of reflected light and shadow, so chrome can be 'black'. Not only contrast (see Ed's attachment as example) but also spread of spectrum and gamma all contribute to whether or not an area looks black. That's the keyword:: 'looks'. I think a closer look shows different.

3 and 4 are self explanatory?

_______

EDIT:: (the attachment referred to above is the on in the post quoted by Craig and Pat)

(See attacment below for this bit)

split contrast, selective enhancing of dark and light to emphasise four fingers and thumb.

Vertical stripes of luminance difference on 'sole' matching limo contours. This should not happen with a sole, should it?

Shape of seat and shadow mirror each other.

Knee and lower leg of Hill, and the contours of thigh, indicated by shading. This lower leg pointing down hides part of Jackies pillbox hat.*

_________

(* is this the last photo known showing Jackies pillbox hat? It, like the limo, is part of the crime scene, what happeneed to it? If anyone has it could they carefully scrutinise the rim? If one considers it looking from above with Jackies nose at 12 oclock, is there any fraying at 2 oclock? ANY signs, reports of cleaning and/or of repair?)

Lets just deal with the main trust of my original post...the "black" chrome. Your example image does indeed show black chrome but it is not because of a lack of direct light ( in fact its just the opposite it is well illuminated) It is black because what it "sees" (what is shown as the reflection in the chrome) is not a bright and broad light source. You have simply made my original point for me. In Miller photo, the chrome is white or light not because it has is illuminated by the bright sun but rather its is reflecting the wide open sky. If this image was in color the chrome would in fact be blue tones to match the sky.

Now here is the deal breaker the dark object over the chrome being the seat shadow. If the object WAS a shadow from the seat being cast over the chrome strip it cannot be rendered as black. Why? Because even thought the direct sunlight that would be blocked by the seat might darken the chrome, NOTHING is blocking the main source of the lighting on the chrome which is the wide ope sky which is is also behine and above the photographer. The entire point is that unless you were to totally block the view of the chrome with an object ( like a foot) from the camera it will appear as a light strip, shadow from the seat or not. Forget it being a shadow making the chrome black because that just not possible. This is product photography lighting 101 stuff. Just like playing pool..angle of incidence equals angle of reflectance.

[John Dolva]

Various chrome parts in this photo are dark where they are facing straight uo (hand cross bar). Things in the limo like the guys face, seat, are reflected and makes the chrome look dark. On the WC photo the chrome strip is actually facing up on an angle. The lower edge is in shadow.

There is also the matter I've mentioned a couple of times of blood spatter being involved in parts. I've also been suggesting that the leading edge and the bits below the 'sole', and below the chrome, are fluids that have run down the moulding in that corner. This is important to resolve, IMO, as it may indicate a shot from the front. Similarly, if there is indeed a hand and the fingers are bloody, then that is important in considering a 'through body' first shot.

The library has a 'mint' (some pages are not even cut open) 1964 WC report, I'll go check on it. Unfortunately I can't digitise it so if something worth mentioning I'll just describe it.

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

Meanwhile, a post of the copyrighted 'foot/shoe/seat/hand' area sounds like the thing to clear this up.

[Craig Lamson]

Various chrome parts in this photo are dark where they are facing straight uo (hand cross bar). Things in the limo like the guys face, seat, are reflected and makes the chrome look dark. On the WC photo the chrome strip is actually facing up on an angle. The lower edge is in shadow.

There is also the matter I've mentioned a couple of times of blood spatter being involved in parts. I've also been suggesting that the leading edge and the bits below the 'sole', and below the chrome, are fluids that have run down the moulding in that corner. This is important to resolve, IMO, as it may indicate a shot from the front. Similarly, if there is indeed a hand and the fingers are bloody, then that is important in considering a 'through body' first shot.

The library has a 'mint' (some pages are not even cut open) 1964 WC report, I'll go check on it. Unfortunately I can't digitise it so if something worth mentioning I'll just describe it.

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

Meanwhile, a post of the copyrighted 'foot/shoe/seat/hand' area sounds like the thing to clear this up.

Again John, thank you for making my point,,,again...the chrome is not being made dark by a shadow. Period. There is noting in the Miller image to reflect dark in the chrome strip on the side of the body...nothing. In any instance a shadow from the seat WILL NOT MAKE THE CHROME DARK! Believe what you want, I know better. Anyone with any experience lighting chrome for photography knows better. You want to make it dark you either have to relfect bard into the chrome or place an object between the chrome and the camera.

Blood...there is no evidence that I am aware that a large stain of blood was running down the side of the4 limo in this location. Show me some evidence ... until then we are left with it being a foot and we can throw this silly hand business in the dustbin.

You are grasping at straws...

[John Dolva]

You're most welcome Craig. Any assistance in understanding why you see a foot and why it cannot be a hand is welcome too. I have nothing invested in it being a hand, nor in it being a foot. I am very curious about what it is though. Bill appears to regard it as a kind of benchmark of which quality of photo one can reasonably use to see things at this degree. This would be important IMO when it comes to consider other photos frequently discussed (such as Moorman).

So, what is it that is making the chrome dark in the attachment then? At the seat, at the bend of the crossbar? Reflection? Remember here the sun is somewhere above the photographers right, so it couldn't be shadow?

here's a couple of the areas in grayscale (compare to colored one above). The right one has the far pillar in shadow, so one may here compare chrome darkness of shadow and reflection. (One could also treat the bit of the seat visible as an area where the same material in full sun goes from being very light to being very dark.)

Edited July 3, 2006 by John Dolva

[Craig Lamson]

You're most welcome Craig. Any assistance in understanding why you see a foot and why it cannot be a hand is welcome too. I have nothing invested in it being a hand, nor in it being a foot. I am very curious about what it is though. Bill appears to regard it as a kind of benchmark of which quality of photo one can reasonably use to see things at this degree. This would be important IMO when it comes to consider other photos frequently discussed (such as Moorman).

So, what is it that is making the chrome dark in the attachment then? At the seat, at the bend of the crossbar? Reflection? Remember here the sun is somewhere above the photographers right, so it couldn't be shadow?

here's a couple of the areas in grayscale (compare to colored one above). The right one has the far pillar in shadow, so one may here compare chrome darkness of shadow and reflection. (One could also treat the bit of the seat visible as an area where the same material in full sun goes from being very light to being very dark.)

Lets start with the right side image of the pillar. The rounded corner at the top goes dark ...because dark is being reflected in the chrome. In this case the dark is the darker blue of the sky at the zenith. This is not uncommon to see the sky gradate from lighter at the horizon ( due to seeing through more of the atmosphere and pollutants) and darker at the zenith. This is simply REFLECTED in the chrome. Now for the small chrome strip beside the window on the far side of the car...it is not dark because it is in shadow, but rather that it is angled in such a manner that what is reflected in it is the dark interior of the car.

Lets move the the left hand image. Nothing that darkens the chrome is a shadow but rather SOMETHING DARK, like the seat or the coat sleeve that is being REFLECTED in the chrome. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Of course that has been my point all along, that a shadow from the seat CANNOT cause the chrome to be dark...it HAS to be a reflection or an object blocking the chrome from the camera.

As to the foot/ hand I'm not 100% certain its a foot but based on other images its appears to be the most likely option. One thing is for certain...the dark area is NOT a shadow. Some object HAS to be in place over the chrome or something DARK has to be reflected into the chrome. Since there is nothing dark to reflect into the chrome it has to be an object OVER the chrome. If this is JFK's hand then what is HANGING OVER THE SIDE OF THE CAR? His Elbow? That would be a neat trick.

Bill has a very valid point...you need good images to study or you are just spinning your wheels. And You also need to understand the light and how photography works if you want to make any meaningful studies. At least you seem willing to learn. Jack on the other hand.....

[John Dolva]

IF it is the seat then it is where it would be if it was.

The photo seems to illustrate what you are saying about reflectivity and angles of incidence. ( I haven't quite got that one but as I understand at this point, it makes sense to me)

Three presumably equal height rocks at different distances from the camera. The sun/moon as light source is off to the side showing that the dark areas on the water are reflections that vary in intensity depending on angles and reflectivity of the water (see closer to the rocks where the water is ruffled.

Very similar elements as in the photo in question. For example the 'seat' being close to the reflective surface would be a darker reflection than the objects like Hill which is more separated from the reflective surfaces, hence less dark.

So, depending on the contours of the limousine at that point, the angles of light hitting the various objects, and the angel from which the photo was taken, it is POSSIBLE that the 'sole' is a combination of shadow and reflection of the seat?

I can't help returning to an appeal for the good photo that someone has, at least the small portion in question. If it exists then it may be the final word.

In the meantime, irrespective of any conclusions, I'm learning a lot. I'm not a pro in anything, more like one of those annoying amateurs who has gaps in knowldege. Thank's for taking time to fill in some of them. It will be useful in other similar matters.

_______________

(I try not to get involved with disputes between others, so endorsing your opinions, endorsing Bill's, Jack's or anyone else are separate events for me. That's clear, I hope.)

Edited July 4, 2006 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller wrote:

[...]

Pat, what I said was that Mack usually has the original photos at the Museum or good quality scans made from them. It could be that Miller or his family still has the original photograph. [/b]

As far as the copyright issue, that's a smoke screen. The photo was printed in the Warren Report.

The Museum has assassination original photos in their possession that are on loan to them for historical reasons, but the original photographer still has the copyrights.

dgh: perhaps the museum will provide a list of original photos (and what film/photo GENERATION) it has on "loan" for "historical purposes"? Better yet, seeing you're the ad hoc spokeperson for Gary Mack, maybe you can provide that list for this forum...?

Below are some examples of how manipulating a photo by contrast or lighting changes can alter an image. This effect seems to occur much more with B&W images due to the limited color tones to work with. I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo.

dgh: we know all about *dodging and burning*, quite familar with *bleach bypass* also, that craze has made a recent comeback -- AND contrast manipiulation of Dealey plaza film/photo's the best example of that is the Zapruder frames in the WCR and attendent volumes --

btw, what does: "I also think that I saw the lines you guys spoke of and if we are talking about the same thing, then I think my initial impression was that they were the result of the scanning of the photo." mean?

Who scanned what photo?

Bill Miller

[...]

[John Dolva]

David, the image that Pat linked to which has the funny shoe on it, has on the right side some lines that to me look like interlace lines curved like as if it is a scan of a photo someone took off a tv screen. It would also perhaps explain the slant the image has compared to the WC published one.

[Dave Curbow]

You're most welcome Craig. Any assistance in understanding why you see a foot and why it cannot be a hand is welcome too. I have nothing invested in it being a hand, nor in it being a foot. I am very curious about what it is though. Bill appears to regard it as a kind of benchmark of which quality of photo one can reasonably use to see things at this degree. This would be important IMO when it comes to consider other photos frequently discussed (such as Moorman).

So, what is it that is making the chrome dark in the attachment then? At the seat, at the bend of the crossbar? Reflection? Remember here the sun is somewhere above the photographers right, so it couldn't be shadow?

here's a couple of the areas in grayscale (compare to colored one above). The right one has the far pillar in shadow, so one may here compare chrome darkness of shadow and reflection. (One could also treat the bit of the seat visible as an area where the same material in full sun goes from being very light to being very dark.)

Lets start with the right side image of the pillar. The rounded corner at the top goes dark ...because dark is being reflected in the chrome. In this case the dark is the darker blue of the sky at the zenith. This is not uncommon to see the sky gradate from lighter at the horizon ( due to seeing through more of the atmosphere and pollutants) and darker at the zenith. This is simply REFLECTED in the chrome. Now for the small chrome strip beside the window on the far side of the car...it is not dark because it is in shadow, but rather that it is angled in such a manner that what is reflected in it is the dark interior of the car.

Lets move the the left hand image. Nothing that darkens the chrome is a shadow but rather SOMETHING DARK, like the seat or the coat sleeve that is being REFLECTED in the chrome. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Of course that has been my point all along, that a shadow from the seat CANNOT cause the chrome to be dark...it HAS to be a reflection or an object blocking the chrome from the camera.

As to the foot/ hand I'm not 100% certain its a foot but based on other images its appears to be the most likely option. One thing is for certain...the dark area is NOT a shadow. Some object HAS to be in place over the chrome or something DARK has to be reflected into the chrome. Since there is nothing dark to reflect into the chrome it has to be an object OVER the chrome. If this is JFK's hand then what is HANGING OVER THE SIDE OF THE CAR? His Elbow? That would be a neat trick.

Bill has a very valid point...you need good images to study or you are just spinning your wheels. And You also need to understand the light and how photography works if you want to make any meaningful studies. At least you seem willing to learn. Jack on the other hand.....

Mr. SPECTER. And where were the President's legs at that time?

Mr. HILL. Inside the car.

Mr. HILL. It is a little bit hard for me to judge, since I was lying across the rear portion of the automobile. I had no trouble staying in that particular position--until we approached the hospital, I recall, I believe it was a left-hand turn and I started slipping off to the right-hand portion of the car. So I would say that we went 60, maybe 65 at the most.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward?

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.

WCH V. II 140/141

Dave

Edited July 3, 2006 by Dave Curbow

[Pat Speer]

You're most welcome Craig. Any assistance in understanding why you see a foot and why it cannot be a hand is welcome too. I have nothing invested in it being a hand, nor in it being a foot. I am very curious about what it is though. Bill appears to regard it as a kind of benchmark of which quality of photo one can reasonably use to see things at this degree. This would be important IMO when it comes to consider other photos frequently discussed (such as Moorman).

So, what is it that is making the chrome dark in the attachment then? At the seat, at the bend of the crossbar? Reflection? Remember here the sun is somewhere above the photographers right, so it couldn't be shadow?

here's a couple of the areas in grayscale (compare to colored one above). The right one has the far pillar in shadow, so one may here compare chrome darkness of shadow and reflection. (One could also treat the bit of the seat visible as an area where the same material in full sun goes from being very light to being very dark.)

Lets start with the right side image of the pillar. The rounded corner at the top goes dark ...because dark is being reflected in the chrome. In this case the dark is the darker blue of the sky at the zenith. This is not uncommon to see the sky gradate from lighter at the horizon ( due to seeing through more of the atmosphere and pollutants) and darker at the zenith. This is simply REFLECTED in the chrome. Now for the small chrome strip beside the window on the far side of the car...it is not dark because it is in shadow, but rather that it is angled in such a manner that what is reflected in it is the dark interior of the car.

Lets move the the left hand image. Nothing that darkens the chrome is a shadow but rather SOMETHING DARK, like the seat or the coat sleeve that is being REFLECTED in the chrome. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Of course that has been my point all along, that a shadow from the seat CANNOT cause the chrome to be dark...it HAS to be a reflection or an object blocking the chrome from the camera.

As to the foot/ hand I'm not 100% certain its a foot but based on other images its appears to be the most likely option. One thing is for certain...the dark area is NOT a shadow. Some object HAS to be in place over the chrome or something DARK has to be reflected into the chrome. Since there is nothing dark to reflect into the chrome it has to be an object OVER the chrome. If this is JFK's hand then what is HANGING OVER THE SIDE OF THE CAR? His Elbow? That would be a neat trick.

Bill has a very valid point...you need good images to study or you are just spinning your wheels. And You also need to understand the light and how photography works if you want to make any meaningful studies. At least you seem willing to learn. Jack on the other hand.....

Mr. SPECTER. And where were the President's legs at that time?

Mr. HILL. Inside the car.

Mr. HILL. It is a little bit hard for me to judge, since I was lying across the rear portion of the automobile. I had no trouble staying in that particular position--until we approached the hospital, I recall, I believe it was a left-hand turn and I started slipping off to the right-hand portion of the car. So I would say that we went 60, maybe 65 at the most.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward?

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.

WCH V. II 140/141

Dave

By the time Hill testified, the Miller photo had been circulated around the world. Hill KNEW the foot in the photo was not Kennedy's. Recalling that he'd hooked his foot on the side of the car (by the back tire)when he first climbed on, he may have assumed the foot in the photo was his own. On the other hand, despite all appearances, it may be his foot. I await a recreation of this photo showing how a man facing forward could have his right foot upside down at his right.