John Dolva Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Pat:: "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." A fair request surely . Those who say it's definitely a foot should really do something to show it's possible? (Or post the portion of the photo claimed to show it definitely.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Pat:: "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."A fair request surely . Those who say it's definitely a foot should really do something to show it's possible? (Or post the portion of the photo claimed to show it definitely.) What? you guys too old or too out of shape to try and hang your foot over the arm of a chair. Just did it here and its really no problem, actually its about the only way your foot would be placed when you are in a similar position. So how about either of you giving us any explanation for what IS hanging over the side of the Limo...we know its not a shadow or a dark reflection of anything...I would say that also a fair request.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 A fair request surely . Those who say it's definitely a foot should really do something to show it's possible?(Or post the portion of the photo claimed to show it definitely.) I don't get it ... we give sources for the best prints and we even post the name(s) of people who have seen the best prints, yet somehow we are to seek the prints out ourselves and post them? What? you guys too old or too out of shape to try and hang your foot over the arm of a chair. Just did it here and its really no problem, actually its about the only way your foot would be placed when you are in a similar position.So how about either of you giving us any explanation for what IS hanging over the side of the Limo...we know its not a shadow or a dark reflection of anything...I would say that also a fair request.... Yes, someone lay on their left side with their head just under where we see Jackie's and just see how close your arm is long enough to reach the location in question from the photo. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 "we know." Wow, a consensus. Borg style. It always gets hard at some point to discuss with the 'we who know for sure'. Those who have doubts and alternatives are nicely done away with(in the minds of the 'we'. Though perhaps it's a royal "we"? How a real reason to join the collective . One day we, when some of the they's join the we's, we could look back on the 'foot wars' and muse on where they, if any are left, went wrong? __________________________________________ IF it IS the seat then it is where it would be if it was. I suppose otherwise it's behind the 'foot'. 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 For the record, Craig, are you saying it's a foot by default or because it actually looks like a foot? Do you share the majority opinion that the Yarborough exhibit was the original photo and that the latter photos with the clearly defined foot have been altered, beyond merely being dodged in the area of the foot ? To me it doesn't really matter that much if it's a hand or a foot (although I'd still like to see someone re-create the photo). What is important, history-wise, is that there was an object in the photo incorrectly identified by a high-school kid as Kennedy's foot, and that the AP ran this photo worldwide with a caption telling everyone it was Kennedy's foot, and then changed the photo to look more like a foot come time to publish the photo in a book. They changed this photo BEFORE Hill ever testified. There is NO WAY by looking at the object in the original photo you could say "Oh yes, that's Kennedy's foot, or Clint Hill's foot." The AP had NO IDEA if there had been towels in the back seat, or a blanket ot whatever. They simply DECIDED that it was a foot and then made the picture look more like a foot. IMO, they are guilty of extremely shoddy journalism, at the very least. To me, the AP's treatment of this photo is symbolic of the media's overall treatment of the assassination: dishonest and deceptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 For the record, Craig, are you saying it's a foot by default or because it actually looks like a foot? Do you share the majority opinion that the Yarborough exhibit was the original photo and that the latter photos with the clearly defined foot have been altered, beyond merely being dodged in the area of the foot ? To me it doesn't really matter that much if it's a hand or a foot (although I'd still like to see someone re-create the photo). What is important, history-wise, is that there was an object in the photo incorrectly identified by a high-school kid as Kennedy's foot, and that the AP ran this photo worldwide with a caption telling everyone it was Kennedy's foot, and then changed the photo to look more like a foot come time to publish the photo in a book. They changed this photo BEFORE Hill ever testified. There is NO WAY by looking at the object in the original photo you could say "Oh yes, that's Kennedy's foot, or Clint Hill's foot." The AP had NO IDEA if there had been towels in the back seat, or a blanket ot whatever. They simply DECIDED that it was a foot and then made the picture look more like a foot. IMO, they are guilty of extremely shoddy journalism, at the very least. To me, the AP's treatment of this photo is symbolic of the media's overall treatment of the assassination: dishonest and deceptive. My stand on this was made pretty clear in an post up thread...based on the images and now the Hills statments its appears to me the most likely "thing" for the blob to be is Hillls foot. Its also totally clear to me that the blob IS NOT a SHADOW, which in reading this very entertaining thread became the lynch pin piece of "evidence" for it to JFK's hand. Its also been entertaining to watch you shuck and jive once you threw your hat into the 'its a hand" ring. I was very amused as you decided to questions Hills statement because it contradicted your position that it was a hand...very funny stuff. As to the press changing the photo..sure they did...it appears they retouched the image beyond simple dodging. Not unusual at the time for a publication to retouch images so they would reproduce on crappy paper and on web printing presses. Many times from even worse quality wire photo originals. You don't like the fact that they modifed the original? Its a fact of life. A publication is not a historical document, and as long as the original image is un touched so what? Just wondering, did you get this bent out of shape when whatever publication it was (newsweek maybe) retouched that picture it ran on the cover of Condi Rice and made her look dark and evil? Or the X over the vice president on CNN and on and on and on...? The media dishonest and deceptive? Welcome to the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 "we know." Wow, a consensus. Borg style. It always gets hard at some point to discuss with the 'we who know for sure'. Those who have doubts and alternatives are nicely done away with(in the minds of the 'we'. Though perhaps it's a royal "we"? How a real reason to join the collective . One day we, when some of the they's join the we's, we could look back on the 'foot wars' and muse on where they, if any are left, went wrong? __________________________________________ IF it IS the seat then it is where it would be if it was. I suppose otherwise it's behind the 'foot'. 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.) It is what it is...and yes WE..that is those you actually UNDERSTAND what is happening in the photo in question KNOW its not possible AT ALL for the black object to be a shadow or a reflection of the seat. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. You and other want to question that, be my guest. However, the rule of angle of incidence equals angle of reflection cannot be broken. 'given you the basis for self discovery on the the issue of lighting reflective surfaces and the rest is up to you. Either you and others can grasp the concept or not. But believe me the rest of us Borgs ( at lleast those who understand the concepts of lighing reflective surfaces for photography) KNOW its not a shaodw or a reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) what's this then? not reflection. period. not shadow. period. Then what? Borg droppings? EDIT:: response to below:: On the attachment are red marks. These red marks are next to dark areas on the limo. (coincidentally these dark areas appear in the same orientation as the 'shoe sole') 'Everyone' knows these are not reflections of the hand grips nor are they reflections of the hand grip. What, then, are these dark areas? Edited July 4, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 what's this then? not reflection. period. not shadow. period. Then what? Borg droppings? What is what John? Your messages seem to be coming from outer space. Can you be a bit more specfic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 what's this then? not reflection. period. not shadow. period. Then what? Borg droppings? EDIT:: response to below:: On the attachment are red marks. These red marks are next to dark areas on the limo. (coincidentally these red marks appear in the same orientation as the 'shoe sole') 'Everyone' knows these are not reflections of the hand grips nor are they reflections of the hand grip. What, then, are these dark areas? Sigh... They ARE the reflections of the handgrips...and yes EVERYONE who has a clue understands such. Lets review and perhaps you too can become an intelligent lighting Borg. From the camera angle in this image the highly reflective surface of the limo trunk "sees' the wide open sky. Its the wide open sky that is giving the black surface of the trunk the near white look. Why? Because the trunk is just like a mirror. It is not rendered near white because it is in full sun ( which it is). It is rendered near white because of what it reflects. (Which would be the sky) Product photography lighting 101. The handrails appear darker than the surrounding white area because they are BLACK and they are reflected in the trunk of the limo. Period. Full stop. End of Story. Pure reflectance...no shadows. I understand this stuff VERY well John, its my stock in trade... http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/37595310 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) For the record, Craig, are you saying it's a foot by default or because it actually looks like a foot? Do you share the majority opinion that the Yarborough exhibit was the original photo and that the latter photos with the clearly defined foot have been altered, beyond merely being dodged in the area of the foot ? To me it doesn't really matter that much if it's a hand or a foot (although I'd still like to see someone re-create the photo). I have asked this question several times without anyone addressing it, but with Jackie craddling her husbands head in her lap - it would take a 6' long arm to have reached the area in question. Does this not tell us something! It was not uncommon for photos to be dodged in places. I offered the Altgens photo as seen in 'Four dark Days" to show this. I have seen another version of Altgens photo where there is no arm holding the rear view mirror because someone erased it. Why? Only the art department of those publications can answer that question IMO. I am however, positive that it wasn't done to mislead anyone because these publications still knew that there was an 'original photo' out there showing the real deal. As far as wanting someone to recreate the photo - any dufus with a couple of kitchen chairs can set them up and bend their legs in such a manner to get a feel for the posture Hill used to control his balance as the limo raced to Parkland. I also find it ludicrous to assert that Hill merely made up a story about hooking his foot over the door panel, especially when there is a second photo showing him just a second or so from reaching that posture. I also shake my head in bewilderment when I hear how the official record uses the Yarborough exhibit as if it must be the best image available. The Commission for example also used the Zapruder film frames, but their quality left something to be desired when compared to the original images. Bill Miller Edited July 4, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 So the hand rails do reflect on the limo, because they are black? The seat doesn't because it is...?? Sizewise it's possible though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) So the hand rails do reflect on the limo, because they are black? The seat doesn't because it is...??Sizewise it's possible though I guess I did not make myself clear enough... No John they do not reflect "because" they are black but rather because of their position relative to the trunk lid, the camera and the sky. They appear black inthe reflection because they are black. So please make me a drawing that shows HOW seat can reflect in a chrome strip that is angled towards the camera and not upwards like the trunk. Edited July 4, 2006 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) this is why I keep mentioning the moulding or profile of the limo in that area. As you can see the chrome moulding is pretty flat, facing up as much as towards the camera. (see the arrows to the left on the attachment where the moulding bends. The body of the limo itself is almost facing upwards at the seat area. So a lot of that whiteness is not chrome. As can be seen the moulding from that angle is narrower than the white strip. The chrome itself is indeed slightly lighter. EDIT:: reply to below..What long forearm? Do you mean to say you just look at my posts and check nothing? My cropping is sometimes a bit uneven. The positioning of the shoulder joint and rotating around that is what you need to check on. If 6 foot arms are more credible as the alternative, then yes, silliness abounds. There are plenty of photos of Kennedy that can be scaled to the area, and then check for youreslf. Edited July 4, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 (edited) Considering that the arm bends at the elbow ... does anyone think that JFK had such a long forearm? The shoe being a hand fails on so many levels that it is silly IMO to even consider it any further. Bill Miller Edited July 4, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now