Craig Lamson 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. No the lower strip of molding is a triangle...none of it faces UP...all of the molding side that we see in the image faces towards the photographer. For ANYTHING to be reflected in that strip it MUST be actually hanging over the top of that piece of molding...putting it well outside of the limo..kind of like Hills foot. Its impossible for ANYTHING inside the limo..hand, seat whatever to be reflecting in the second strip of molding. Period. Full stop. End of story. 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) I have nothing further to add until the photo claimed to show the area clearly is produced. Period. EDIT:: in response to below. I should obviously qualify what should be a clear statement. I've seen no reason to change my opinions. Whether that's because I'm dense or not, time will tell. I do know I'm capable of being stupid, so I wouldn't rule that out. I do however try not to be dishonest. As far as what it is? A poor quality image is alternatively seen as a shoe or a hand/seat combo. The same image is used by those who see a foot to argue it is, while saying it is not good enough to say such things. Surfaces definitely don't reflect, surfaces can reflect if they are bright, but not if they are chrome,if the image reflecting is black, but only if bla bla bla. Jackie is sitting in Nellies lap with Jack needing six foot arms to complete the picture...etc etc etc. Borg droppings. This is the level of the 'debate'. A waste of time really.. hence:: I have nothing further to add > to the debate about what the area in question shows< until the photo claimed to show the area clearly is produced. Period. 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 I have nothing further to add until the photo claimed to show the area clearly is produced. Period. LOL! Just say you don't understand and at least be honest about it.. sheesh! BTW, the WC photo shows you EVERYTHING you need to know when dealing with a claim that the dark spot in the lower chrome strip is a shadow or a reflection of the seat, hand or what ever. This is a slam dunk. You have been dunked. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 If that's not Clint Hill's foot/shoe, then where do you suppose it was? Look at that photo again. There wasn't enough space for his leg between the Kennedys and the Connallys, nor was his leg positioned in an angle to reach that space. So that's either his foot or he's crushing Jack and Jackie with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 If that's not Clint Hill's foot/shoe, then where do you suppose it was? Look at that photo again. There wasn't enough space for his leg between the Kennedys and the Connallys, nor was his leg positioned in an angle to reach that space. So that's either his foot or he's crushing Jack and Jackie with it. How can you say that? Were you there? The seat has room to comfortably seat three persons. Surely there was room for a foot. And who is to say his foot was not on top of JFK? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 (edited) How can you say that? Were you there? The seat has room to comfortablyseat three persons. Surely there was room for a foot. And who is to say his foot was not on top of JFK? Jack One doesn't have to of been there, Jack. All one needs is an ounce of common sense to know that Hill's legs were not limited to two feet in length. For Hill to have his foot on the seat, then he would have to be in a squating position and I don't see his knees protruding forward as if this was the case. Instead, his femur/upper thigh is pointed striaght downward, thus he had no choice but to bend his leg and place it somewhere. Hill did what he was trained to do and that is to stabilize himself for the speedy race to Parkland. And for those that believe Hill lied about his foot being over the car - plkease explain to me why he would do that when on other more important points he said things that didn't support the official findings. Below Hill mentions the rear portion of the President's head being blown off and part of the brain missing. The official version said the back of the head was in tact and the President's brain was of normal weight. Next Hill said he heard only two shots when the official version said there were three shots fired. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me to think that Hill would not budge on these other points, but would lie about hooking his foot over the car. The photos of Hill from both sides of the limo support his statements. Bill Miller Mr. HILL. As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots? Mr. HILL. No, sir. 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. Edited July 5, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Move on folks. The show's over. How about this one. Or are we limited to the Miller photo here? - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 This is right up there with Bill Lovelady in the doorway and "Lamb Chop" in the back seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 Slattery, recreate the photo. Prove us wrong. Saying but it's GOTTA be blank because it couldn't be blank is what created the single-bullet theory. Let's not make that mistake again. Do you dispute that the photo was changed, or just that the object in the photo could be anything but a foot? Because if it was a foot all along, you should ask yourself why it was necessary to change the object to look like a foot. Move on folks. The show's over. How about this one. Or are we limited to the Miller photo here? - lee Lee, feel free to post any photos used by the media that you suspect have been altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Slattery, recreate the photo. Prove us wrong. Saying but it's GOTTA be blank because it couldn't be blank is what created the single-bullet theory. Let's not make that mistake again. Do you dispute that the photo was changed, or just that the object in the photo could be anything but a foot? Because if it was a foot all along, you should ask yourself why it was necessary to change the object to look like a foot. Move on folks. The show's over. How about this one. Or are we limited to the Miller photo here? - lee Lee, feel free to post any photos used by the media that you suspect have been altered. You HAVE been proven wrong Pat...that you wont admit it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. You were the perfect dupe in all of this...you thought you, along with White and Dolva had made this startling discovery based totally on ignorance...and you are plying this ignornace for all its worth. And looking more and more like a nutjob with each passing post. So please...PROVE you are right..come up with ANYTHING that you can claim is hanging over the side of the limo, and more importantly over the second chrome strip on the body, becusse if you want to continue to beat this dead horse thats what you will need. Physics DEMAND that an object be OUTSIDE the limo and OVER the lower chrome strip for it to be dark.... Balls in YOUR court... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 5, 2006 Author Share Posted July 5, 2006 You HAVE been proven wrong Pat...that you wont admit it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. You were the perfect dupe in all of this...you thought you, along with White and Dolva had made this startling discovery based totally on ignorance...and you are plying this ignornace for all its worth. And looking more and more like a nutjob with each passing post. So please...PROVE you are right..come up with ANYTHING that you can claim is hanging over the side of the limo, and more importantly over the second chrome strip on the body, becusse if you want to continue to beat this dead horse thats what you will need. Physics DEMAND that an object be OUTSIDE the limo and OVER the lower chrome strip for it to be dark.... Balls in YOUR court... I really don't understand this post at all, Craig. Because I noticed that two versions of the same photo fail to match, my intellectual honesty is in question? Did you look at King's comparison of the two versions of the photo? Does the "foot" in the Yarborough exhibit photo REALLY look like a foot to you? If so, please re-post the photo with an explanation as to why we should think it is a foot, similar to Jack's posting showing why he suspects it's a hand. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hand. Maybe you can convince me it's a foot. Or are you disputing that the photo was even changed? I think you're so used to shooting down everything Jack says that you're failing to see that we're onto something here. Whether or not, it REALLY was a foot, the object in the photo was changed to look more like a foot, before the AP could possibly have ascertained it really was a foot. Can we at least agree on that? Or is it impossible for you to agree with Jack on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 You HAVE been proven wrong Pat...that you wont admit it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. You were the perfect dupe in all of this...you thought you, along with White and Dolva had made this startling discovery based totally on ignorance...and you are plying this ignornace for all its worth. And looking more and more like a nutjob with each passing post. So please...PROVE you are right..come up with ANYTHING that you can claim is hanging over the side of the limo, and more importantly over the second chrome strip on the body, becusse if you want to continue to beat this dead horse thats what you will need. Physics DEMAND that an object be OUTSIDE the limo and OVER the lower chrome strip for it to be dark.... Balls in YOUR court... I really don't understand this post at all, Craig. Because I noticed that two versions of the same photo fail to match, my intellectual honesty is in question? Did you look at King's comparison of the two versions of the photo? Does the "foot" in the Yarborough exhibit photo REALLY look like a foot to you? If so, please re-post the photo with an explanation as to why we should think it is a foot, similar to Jack's posting showing why he suspects it's a hand. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hand. Maybe you can convince me it's a foot. Or are you disputing that the photo was even changed? I think you're so used to shooting down everything Jack says that you're failing to see that we're onto something here. Whether or not, it REALLY was a foot, the object in the photo was changed to look more like a foot, before the AP could possibly have ascertained it really was a foot. Can we at least agree on that? Or is it impossible for you to agree with Jack on anything? Sigh...can you read Pat? Go back a few posts..I've explained my position very clearly...do I NEED to do it again? No Pat your intellectual honest is in question because of the way you have handled with this entire "hand" issue. You jumped on the 'its a hand" bandwagon and you vested yourself into that train of thought...so much so that you were willing to decide on a whim that Hill's statement might have been less than truthful because its about the only way for your "discovery" of the hand could be valid. All of the evidence points to it being Hills foot. and more importantly there IS something hanging over the edge of the car covering the lower chorme strip. Of that there is NO DOUBT. Can you consider anything OTHER than Hills foot that COULD be hanging over the lower chrome strip? I've seen NO ONE who considers this a hand to deal with this issue... And then there is the "I don't think a foot could be in that position argument..and the repeated calls for anyone to prove you wrong. What poppycock. You make a wild statement based on NOTHING and you expect people to prove you wrong! That's what nutjobs do. Perhaps since it's YOUR claim you might consider offering something other than BS to back it up. Finally I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Finally you are not "on to something here". Publications have altered images for decades. So what? If the original is altered thats a different matter but the best I can see that not the issue here...unless you subscribe the Jacks every photo is altered foolishness. This is much ado about nothing...well except for the starting discovery of the "hand". Sheesh. You HAVE been proven wrong Pat...that you wont admit it speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. You were the perfect dupe in all of this...you thought you, along with White and Dolva had made this startling discovery based totally on ignorance...and you are plying this ignornace for all its worth. And looking more and more like a nutjob with each passing post. So please...PROVE you are right..come up with ANYTHING that you can claim is hanging over the side of the limo, and more importantly over the second chrome strip on the body, becusse if you want to continue to beat this dead horse thats what you will need. Physics DEMAND that an object be OUTSIDE the limo and OVER the lower chrome strip for it to be dark.... Balls in YOUR court... I really don't understand this post at all, Craig. Because I noticed that two versions of the same photo fail to match, my intellectual honesty is in question? Did you look at King's comparison of the two versions of the photo? Does the "foot" in the Yarborough exhibit photo REALLY look like a foot to you? If so, please re-post the photo with an explanation as to why we should think it is a foot, similar to Jack's posting showing why he suspects it's a hand. I'm not 100% convinced it's a hand. Maybe you can convince me it's a foot. Or are you disputing that the photo was even changed? I think you're so used to shooting down everything Jack says that you're failing to see that we're onto something here. Whether or not, it REALLY was a foot, the object in the photo was changed to look more like a foot, before the AP could possibly have ascertained it really was a foot. Can we at least agree on that? Or is it impossible for you to agree with Jack on anything? Sigh...can you read Pat? Go back a few posts..I've explained my position very clearly...do I NEED to do it again? No Pat your intellectual honest is in question because of the way you have handled with this entire "hand" issue. You jumped on the 'its a hand" bandwagon and you vested yourself into that train of thought...so much so that you were willing to decide on a whim that Hill's statement might have been less than truthful because its about the only way for your "discovery" of the hand could be valid. All of the evidence points to it being Hills foot. and more importantly there IS something hanging over the edge of the car covering the lower chorme strip. Of that there is NO DOUBT. Can you consider anything OTHER than Hills foot that COULD be hanging over the lower chrome strip? I've seen NO ONE who considers this a hand to deal with this issue... And then there is the "I don't think a foot could be in that position argument..and the repeated calls for anyone to prove you wrong. What poppycock. You make a wild statement based on NOTHING and you expect people to prove you wrong! That's what nutjobs do. Perhaps since it's YOUR claim you might consider offering something other than BS to back it up. I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Finally you are not "on to something here". Publications have altered images for decades. So what? If the original is altered thats a different matter but the best I can see that not the issue here...unless you subscribe the Jacks every photo is altered foolishness. This is much ado about nothing...well except for the starting discovery of the "hand". Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) CLamson strikes AGAIN [...] I don't care if its Jack White or anyone...either the claims follow the rules of photography, light and shaodw or they don't. Its called the TRUTH. I thouhg that was everyones stated goal here. Probem is when the TRUTH gets in the way of a good yarn...my oh my. This claim simply does not follow the rules...its as simple as that. Rules? When one understands the fine art of professional photo/film compositing, even those long, tried and true techniques, those used by newspapers and magazines, ONE doesn't have to follow *stink'in* rules. Where in the hell have you been...? <snip the none-sense> Edited July 6, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 (edited) Craig, to explain myself a bit more clearly, I didn't just jump on some bandwagon about the hand. I first saw this photo years ago, probably in Groden's The Killing of a President, and it never occurred to me it was a hand. But I could not then, and still can not, understand how it can be a foot, Kennedy's or Hill's. My asking someone to re-create the photo is entirely sincere. I just can not fathom how someone faced forward in a car can have his foot upside down hanging over the side from within the passenger's compartment, without his contorting himself to a ridiculous degree. I first mentioned this on the Lancer Forum, and expressed that I'd always suspected this photo had been faked. I thought maybe the photographer or the Dallas Morning News had faked the photo in order to sell it worldwide. This brought down the wrath of Mack who assured me that all the early versions of the photo were the same. I then stumbled across the Yarborough exhibit and compared that to the version of the photo in the 11-24 NY Times, and compared both of these to the photo in AP photo book The Torch is Passed. This confirmed in part what Mack had said--that the early photos were the same. But what he left out is that these early photos, and one assumes the original, show a shape that may not even be a foot, and that the AP shortly thereafter changed the photo to make it look more like a foot. The photo in Pictures of the Pain, in fact, is not an original but one of these altered prints. Ditto for the photo in Robert McNeil's book 1963, which identifies the foot as Kennedy's years after the AP started saying it was Hill's. In short, it appears the "official" version of the photo now licensed by the AP is an altered version of the photo, with the foot drawn in over a shape that quite possibly isn't even a foot. As far as Hill's testimony, people are prone to suggestion. Sam Holland, after seeing the photo in the paper, started telling researchers that he'd seen Kennedy's leg fly up and his foot land on the edge of the car. If Hill saw the photo, and believed the papers when they said the object in the photo was a foot, it would not be at all strange for him to assume it was his foot, as he knew he'd had his foot over the side and knew the foot wasn't Kennedy's foot. I see nothing "intellectually dishonest" with accepting that such mistakes occur. To me what is intellectually dishonest is to say the object must be a foot because it could not be anything else. Excuse me? Could it be a towel? A blanket? Does anyone have a full listing of every object in the back seat? I don't think so. As stated, the one thing that's clear is that the AP changed the photo before they could ever have known how Hill was gonna testify. When they re-drew the foot, they re-drew it thinking it was Kennedy's foot. It took them twenty years to change their mind and say it was Hill's foot. They are guilty of shoddy journalism at best. Edited July 6, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Here is an example of Connally's facial area being dodged. 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