CE900

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

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

That you, as well as many others have not "caught on" to the rationale behind the attempt to not even question Mr. Altgens, as well as the phony re-enactment photo which the WC made of the Altgens photo (Z255), aka CE900 along with the fact that the WC never bothered to publish any of those frames past Z334, which is prior to Mr. Altgens coming into view of the Z-film, is hardly my problem.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

I long ago explained how the WC "changed" the position of Mr. Altgens in their re-enactment photo.

Just did not bother to explain at the time what it was all in relationship to.

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

It truly does not require experience in aerial imagry interpretation in order that one can see the "fallacies" of the WC Altgens re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look between the forks in the tree as to what letter and/or what portions of the letters of the TSDB one sees.

All that one has to do is look at the position of JFK in relationship to the exterior edge of the concrete column in the background, and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look at the alignment of the rear of the Presidential Limo, in relationship to the vertical columns at the entrance to the TSDB and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

And on, and on, and on!

It does however require some effort to determine the exact WHY? the WC deemed it necessary to "move" the photographic position of Mr. Altgens farther up Elm St. and closer to the position of the Z313 impact point to the head of JFK.

Especially since the WC re-enactment was done during May 1964, and the WC did not even bother to question Mr. Altgens until after the June 1964 FBI report which investigated the "odd" nature of the WC in not even having called Mr. Altgens to testify before the WC.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0410b.htm

I do like that portion of Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI which describes the location of his photo position for the Z255 photo: "across the street from the stairs which lead to the colonnade"

Especially since the WC questioning of Mr. Hudson not only brought out the position of Mr. Altgens, but was also avoided by the WC.

And of course, for those who do not know the "history".

A frame of the Zfilm with Mr. Altgens clearly standing in it with his camera up to his face, was published in Dallas papers as well as all over the US, within a couple of days after the assassination.

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera.

Finding the problems is quite easy.

As is making up an answer which requires little or no thought.

However, correct answers are worth their weight in gold. At least to someone who is flunking in class.

Now! If we could only determine the rationale behind the "trimming" of CE900.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

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

That you, as well as many others have not "caught on" to the rationale behind the attempt to not even question Mr. Altgens, as well as the phony re-enactment photo which the WC made of the Altgens photo (Z255), aka CE900 along with the fact that the WC never bothered to publish any of those frames past Z334, which is prior to Mr. Altgens coming into view of the Z-film, is hardly my problem.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

I long ago explained how the WC "changed" the position of Mr. Altgens in their re-enactment photo.

Just did not bother to explain at the time what it was all in relationship to.

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

It truly does not require experience in aerial imagry interpretation in order that one can see the "fallacies" of the WC Altgens re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look between the forks in the tree as to what letter and/or what portions of the letters of the TSDB one sees.

All that one has to do is look at the position of JFK in relationship to the exterior edge of the concrete column in the background, and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look at the alignment of the rear of the Presidential Limo, in relationship to the vertical columns at the entrance to the TSDB and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

And on, and on, and on!

It does however require some effort to determine the exact WHY? the WC deemed it necessary to "move" the photographic position of Mr. Altgens farther up Elm St. and closer to the position of the Z313 impact point to the head of JFK.

Especially since the WC re-enactment was done during May 1964, and the WC did not even bother to question Mr. Altgens until after the June 1964 FBI report which investigated the "odd" nature of the WC in not even having called Mr. Altgens to testify before the WC.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0410b.htm

I do like that portion of Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI which describes the location of his photo position for the Z255 photo: "across the street from the stairs which lead to the colonnade"

Especially since the WC questioning of Mr. Hudson not only brought out the position of Mr. Altgens, but was also avoided by the WC.

And of course, for those who do not know the "history".

A frame of the Zfilm with Mr. Altgens clearly standing in it with his camera up to his face, was published in Dallas papers as well as all over the US, within a couple of days after the assassination.

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera.

Finding the problems is quite easy.

As is making up an answer which requires little or no thought.

However, correct answers are worth their weight in gold. At least to someone who is flunking in class.

Now! If we could only determine the rationale behind the "trimming" of CE900.

The right side trimming removed from view that portion of the street curb of Elm St, as well as persons standing alongside that curb, as well as objects in the far background which aid in determination of the exact position of Mr. Altgens.

And, since the WC was not gracious enough to provide us with that portion of the Z-film which demonstrated his position down by the second yellow stripe on the curb, most would have never know his position and thus continued to accept that his testimony was in regards to the head shot at Z313.

Also, I do hope that Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI has resolved the issue as regards the bone fragment which apparantly blew out in his direction as a result of the third shot impact directly in front of his position.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

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

That you, as well as many others have not "caught on" to the rationale behind the attempt to not even question Mr. Altgens, as well as the phony re-enactment photo which the WC made of the Altgens photo (Z255), aka CE900 along with the fact that the WC never bothered to publish any of those frames past Z334, which is prior to Mr. Altgens coming into view of the Z-film, is hardly my problem.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

I long ago explained how the WC "changed" the position of Mr. Altgens in their re-enactment photo.

Just did not bother to explain at the time what it was all in relationship to.

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

It truly does not require experience in aerial imagry interpretation in order that one can see the "fallacies" of the WC Altgens re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look between the forks in the tree as to what letter and/or what portions of the letters of the TSDB one sees.

All that one has to do is look at the position of JFK in relationship to the exterior edge of the concrete column in the background, and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look at the alignment of the rear of the Presidential Limo, in relationship to the vertical columns at the entrance to the TSDB and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

And on, and on, and on!

It does however require some effort to determine the exact WHY? the WC deemed it necessary to "move" the photographic position of Mr. Altgens farther up Elm St. and closer to the position of the Z313 impact point to the head of JFK.

Especially since the WC re-enactment was done during May 1964, and the WC did not even bother to question Mr. Altgens until after the June 1964 FBI report which investigated the "odd" nature of the WC in not even having called Mr. Altgens to testify before the WC.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0410b.htm

I do like that portion of Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI which describes the location of his photo position for the Z255 photo: "across the street from the stairs which lead to the colonnade"

Especially since the WC questioning of Mr. Hudson not only brought out the position of Mr. Altgens, but was also avoided by the WC.

And of course, for those who do not know the "history".

A frame of the Zfilm with Mr. Altgens clearly standing in it with his camera up to his face, was published in Dallas papers as well as all over the US, within a couple of days after the assassination.

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera.

Finding the problems is quite easy.

As is making up an answer which requires little or no thought.

However, correct answers are worth their weight in gold. At least to someone who is flunking in class.

Now! If we could only determine the rationale behind the "trimming" of CE900.

The right side trimming removed from view that portion of the street curb of Elm St, as well as persons standing alongside that curb, as well as objects in the far background which aid in determination of the exact position of Mr. Altgens.

And, since the WC was not gracious enough to provide us with that portion of the Z-film which demonstrated his position down by the second yellow stripe on the curb, most would have never know his position and thus continued to accept that his testimony was in regards to the head shot at Z313.

Also, I do hope that Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI has resolved the issue as regards the bone fragment which apparantly blew out in his direction as a result of the third shot impact directly in front of his position.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC14.htm

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

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

That you, as well as many others have not "caught on" to the rationale behind the attempt to not even question Mr. Altgens, as well as the phony re-enactment photo which the WC made of the Altgens photo (Z255), aka CE900 along with the fact that the WC never bothered to publish any of those frames past Z334, which is prior to Mr. Altgens coming into view of the Z-film, is hardly my problem.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

I long ago explained how the WC "changed" the position of Mr. Altgens in their re-enactment photo.

Just did not bother to explain at the time what it was all in relationship to.

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

It truly does not require experience in aerial imagry interpretation in order that one can see the "fallacies" of the WC Altgens re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look between the forks in the tree as to what letter and/or what portions of the letters of the TSDB one sees.

All that one has to do is look at the position of JFK in relationship to the exterior edge of the concrete column in the background, and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

All that one has to do is look at the alignment of the rear of the Presidential Limo, in relationship to the vertical columns at the entrance to the TSDB and thereafter compare this with the re-enactment photo.

And on, and on, and on!

It does however require some effort to determine the exact WHY? the WC deemed it necessary to "move" the photographic position of Mr. Altgens farther up Elm St. and closer to the position of the Z313 impact point to the head of JFK.

Especially since the WC re-enactment was done during May 1964, and the WC did not even bother to question Mr. Altgens until after the June 1964 FBI report which investigated the "odd" nature of the WC in not even having called Mr. Altgens to testify before the WC.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol22_0410b.htm

I do like that portion of Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI which describes the location of his photo position for the Z255 photo: "across the street from the stairs which lead to the colonnade"

Especially since the WC questioning of Mr. Hudson not only brought out the position of Mr. Altgens, but was also avoided by the WC.

And of course, for those who do not know the "history".

A frame of the Zfilm with Mr. Altgens clearly standing in it with his camera up to his face, was published in Dallas papers as well as all over the US, within a couple of days after the assassination.

Mr. HUDSON - Not in particular, I didn't. It was such an exciting time - now - I did notice a man back over here on this triangle.

Mr. LIEBELER - Standing across Elm Street?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - With a motion picture camera?

Mr. HUDSON - Well he had a camera - I don't know whether it was a motion picture camera or not, but he had a camera.

Finding the problems is quite easy.

As is making up an answer which requires little or no thought.

However, correct answers are worth their weight in gold. At least to someone who is flunking in class.

Now! If we could only determine the rationale behind the "trimming" of CE900.

The right side trimming removed from view that portion of the street curb of Elm St, as well as persons standing alongside that curb, as well as objects in the far background which aid in determination of the exact position of Mr. Altgens.

And, since the WC was not gracious enough to provide us with that portion of the Z-film which demonstrated his position down by the second yellow stripe on the curb, most would have never know his position and thus continued to accept that his testimony was in regards to the head shot at Z313.

Also, I do hope that Mr. Altgens statement to the FBI has resolved the issue as regards the bone fragment which apparantly blew out in his direction as a result of the third shot impact directly in front of his position.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC14.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0054a.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC14.htm

Anyone care to evaluate the "left side" and determine what if anything the WC would want to delete from the Altgens photo?

[Frank Agbat]

...

Anyone care to evaluate the "left side" and determine what if anything the WC would want to delete from the Altgens photo?

The light post strikes me as the most notable landmark that could be used to determine positioning. The crop also limits one's ability to use the TSBD windows as a possible landmark, but the entryway softens the impact of this omission.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

...

Anyone care to evaluate the "left side" and determine what if anything the WC would want to delete from the Altgens photo?

The light post strikes me as the most notable landmark that could be used to determine positioning. The crop also limits one's ability to use the TSBD windows as a possible landmark, but the entryway softens the impact of this omission.

Even "partially correct" answers demonstrate an effort to understand the manipulations of evidence by the WC.

And yes, the light post is a portion of it, as well as other items.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC15.htm

And although I am personally against the method of the WC, (as stated by Frazier) of comparing bullet fragments during the NAA by comparing "A" to "B", and thereafter comparing "B" to "C", such means & methods, when dealing with the photographic evidence, can often result in answers to several questions.

[John Dolva]

Tom, I've been looking and looking, but can't come to any answer. I can see that your'e right that they while superficially it looks like it, they haven't lined the two up properly. As you say the letters through the tree branch etc. I can't conceptualise where the two cameras would have been in relation to each other except that one was to the left of the other. So I don't have an answer. What is it? More hints please.

EDIT:: I think I see that the reenactment is taken from a closer position than Altgens and correspondingly higher up?

Edited October 30, 2006 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, I've been looking and looking, but can't come to any answer. I can see that your'e right that they while superficially it looks like it, they haven't lined the two up properly. As you say the letters through the tree branch etc. I can't conceptualise where the two cameras would have been in relation to each other except that one was to the left of the other. So I don't have an answer. What is it? More hints please.

The re-enactment photo was taken from a position along Elm St. which was farther up the street and closer to the position of the Z313 impact, in an attempt to "move" on paper the true position of Mr. Altgens.

By moving up the street twoards the TSDB and staying along the curb, it progressively places one/the camera farther to the right/East.

Thus now exposing the full "S" between the tree limbs and changing the position of the JFK stand-in in relationship to the column edge in the background.

All another of those "slight" sleight-of-hand activities of Specter & Company.

All done in hope of avoiding anyone detecting and determining the true position of James Altgens.

Now, as regards the "trimming", that is another horse of a different color.

One might want to look for persons who appear to be "reacting", as well as "the shadow knows" aka tree shadows if they wish to determine other things.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC15.htm

[John Dolva]

???

[Thomas H. Purvis]

???

Try 3 persons to the right! The "working man" who is not working, yet is still wearing his hard hat.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MC15.htm

And, in addition to other items, one may want to take a look at the shadows cast by the tree on the two motorcycle cops to the left rear of the Presidential Limo.

These shadows as well as other items can provide information relative to what frame of the Zfilm this is in relatinship to.

And, frames of the film prior to the limo even coming into view are certainly worth looking at.

[Frank Agbat]

Try 3 persons to the right! The "working man" who is not working, yet is still wearing his hard hat.

And, in addition to other items, one may want to take a look at the shadows cast by the tree on the two motorcycle cops to the left rear of the Presidential Limo.

These shadows as well as other items can provide information relative to what frame of the Zfilm this is in relatinship to.

And, frames of the film prior to the limo even coming into view are certainly worth looking at.

Thomas,

I've heard various people theorize about the presence of several folks wearing hardhats; specifically, that there was construction in the general area of DP, and people wearing hardhats were not to be unexpected.

However, it does seem that the overall effect of what you're telling us here is that it leads to the impression that Altgens was closer to the Limo than he really was... Thus his position can be made to look like he was describing Z313 rather than a later frame. Thus when Altgens describes a shot that occurred "near his position" it looks like he is describing Z313 and not Z348, some 30 feet of so down the road...

Now -- to eliminate some other problems, all you need to do is remove the near-stop condition of the limo and any specific shot evidence around Z348 or so... This could *easily* be done with 1963 technology by simple frame decimation...

FYI -- I proved this to my own satisfaction by removing Z313 and viewing the altered z-film. The removal of a single frame here or there is virtually undetectable. Now, that said, I'm not an expert on the provenance of the z-film, et al, and I'm NOT going to get into a discussion about alteration. Additionally, this experiment also showed me that Z's camera could have *easily* missed rear ejecta if the 313 shot were actually from the front...

However... back to the topic at hand... WHY is it necessary to perform these various slights of hand, especially if it strengthens the single rifle/single-assassin theory?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Try 3 persons to the right! The "working man" who is not working, yet is still wearing his hard hat.

And, in addition to other items, one may want to take a look at the shadows cast by the tree on the two motorcycle cops to the left rear of the Presidential Limo.

These shadows as well as other items can provide information relative to what frame of the Zfilm this is in relatinship to.

And, frames of the film prior to the limo even coming into view are certainly worth looking at.

Thomas,

I've heard various people theorize about the presence of several folks wearing hardhats; specifically, that there was construction in the general area of DP, and people wearing hardhats were not to be unexpected.

However, it does seem that the overall effect of what you're telling us here is that it leads to the impression that Altgens was closer to the Limo than he really was... Thus his position can be made to look like he was describing Z313 rather than a later frame. Thus when Altgens describes a shot that occurred "near his position" it looks like he is describing Z313 and not Z348, some 30 feet of so down the road...

Now -- to eliminate some other problems, all you need to do is remove the near-stop condition of the limo and any specific shot evidence around Z348 or so... This could *easily* be done with 1963 technology by simple frame decimation...

FYI -- I proved this to my own satisfaction by removing Z313 and viewing the altered z-film. The removal of a single frame here or there is virtually undetectable. Now, that said, I'm not an expert on the provenance of the z-film, et al, and I'm NOT going to get into a discussion about alteration. Additionally, this experiment also showed me that Z's camera could have *easily* missed rear ejecta if the 313 shot were actually from the front...

However... back to the topic at hand... WHY is it necessary to perform these various slights of hand, especially if it strengthens the single rifle/single-assassin theory?

Yes, there were several persons who took off from their construction work.

However, there was only one standing beside the lamp post at the left edge of the uncropped Altgens photo.

Altgens testified to seeing a bullet strike the head of JFK virtually directly in front of his position, which if everyone has followed along, was about 3 or so feet from the second yellow stripe on the Elm St. Curb.

However, due to the separation between this position and the impact point of the Z313 shot, as well as the position of JFK at Z313, Altgens not only could not have seen the impact to JFK's head, (the Altgens Z255 photo shows this) but blood, cerebral tissue, and pieces of skull would not have blown out directly at Altgens.

Therefore, the WC, in their re-enactment photo, took this photo from a position farther up/closer to the Z313 position in order to make it appear that what Altgens witnessed was the Z313 head shot.

Thereafter, an attempt to not call Altgens as a witness was made, and failed, due to newspaper reporting.

And even when Altgens was finally questioned, the draft of the WC had already been completed and turned in for review.

And then lastly, the next best thing was to inform us that there was nothing of interest down past Z334, which was prior to Altgens coming into view of the Z-film, and thereafter only initially provide us with portions of the film up to this point.

However, those of us with some memories, will recall that a couple of days after the assassination, a frame of the Z-film with Altgens standing with his camera in hand was published in newspapers all over the country.

Not only that, it helps to understand the mentality of Specter & Company and their attempt at "sneaky", when in reality, they have no conception as to what it really is.

At least not if I can figure them out.

There is a rational and logical reason for all of the obfuscations. Resolving the reasons is frequently quite difficult, and sometimes there is an obfuscation within the obfuscation.

Excellent mind games for those who like to play them.

As regards the "missing frames", you are quite correct, and I am allowing others to follow up on this.

And although I have provided some limited insight as to where to look, I will await their answers and then we can compare.

Many have long recognized some of the problems of the Z-film. That the rationale for it did not make sense has led to the many speculations as well as a lot of "WAG'S" (Wild Ass Guesses).

Which of course have detracted from the simplicity of what was actually done.

Lastly, the principal reason for the obfuscation/lies is one that the WC as well as all of the participants recognized that no one would be likely to derive.

And it is strictly a "politically" oriented coverup.

Despite their best attempts at otherwise, Specter & Company, not unlike the great majority of us, are creatures of habit.

When one follows their habits, then the mistakes which they made are not that difficult to identify.

Sometimes difficult to understand exactly what the mistakes meant, but if one is dumb enough to stick with it, they just may answer the $64.00 question.

P.S. I did neglect to mention in the introduction to the third/last/final shot that this also correlates exactly with the preponderence of witness testimony which indicated a considerably longer delay between the first and second shot, then occurred between the second and final shot.

So, now that those who have been yelling the sky is falling, know exactly where to look to find the evidence, we may have an interesting November 22, 2006.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Perhaps in closing of this subject, it is worthwhile to again review the WC Testimony of James Altgens after he was finally called.

In reviewing this, one should keep in mind that:

1. Mr. Altgens was most certainly a "trained observer" and he took an extremely clear and critical photograph of the assassination, yet he was never called by the WC until such time as a newspaper article questioned this.

2. A frame from the Zapruder film which clearly showed Mr. Altgens in the background, with the Presidential Limousine directly in front of him had been published in Dallas newspapers as well as newspapers all over the country, only a few days after the assassination.

3. The US Secret Service, utilizing their first generation copy of the Z-film had placed the impact point of the third shot fired directly in front of Mr. Altgens. Therefore, Mr. Altgens position had to be well known and well established.

4. The FBI re-enactment of 2/7/64 continued with this impact point of the third shot fired being directly in front of Mr. Altgens, and since the FBI had access to the Z-film, it must be assumed that they too knew the exact position of Mr. Altgens.

5. Mr. Altgens position on Elm St. is clearly defined by the second yellow stripe on the Elm St. curb, which he was standing less than 5 feet from.

6. All three of the yellow street curb marks were clearly defined and drawn in for the original SS Survey Plat, the FBI Survey Plat, and the WC Survey Plat.

With this in mind, if would have been virtually impossible for those who had access to this information, to have not known the exact position at which Mr. Altgens was standing when he took the Z255 photo, as well as when he observed the impact of the LAST shot fired, to the head of JFK.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

Mr. LIEBELER - You have indicated a spot along the side of Elm Street which I have marked with a No. 3; is that correct?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Is that approximately where you were standing?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, when you took the picture of the caravan turning from Main Street to the right on Houston Street, you then ran across this Dealey Plaza?

Mr. ALTGENS - Down this way; yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - Along the lawn part.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - To the point marked No. 3 on Commission Exhibit No. 354?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0487a.htm

Perhaps many are dumb enough to believe that the #3 on this aerial view represents not only where Mr. Altgens claimed he was, but what he was also shown.

I for one however doubt that Mr. Altgens marked his position way up Elm St. close to the Moorman position when he was in fact way down Elm St. and almost directly across from where the sidewalk and steps come down to the street.

Mr. Altgens true position was approximately where the "St" of Street are located on the aerial photo.

If one knows exactly what to look for, there is little difficulty in finding the great majority of the "tricks" of the WC.

Of course, understanding of the reasoning behind these tricks is another issue.

P.S. I did forget to add that the WC determined that there was nothing worthwhile past Z334 for us to look at, and thereafter published frames of the film only to this point.

Which happens to be before Mr. Altgens comes into view in the film.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Duke Lane]

Tom, I've been looking and looking, but can't come to any answer. I can see that your'e right that they while superficially it looks like it, they haven't lined the two up properly. As you say the letters through the tree branch etc. I can't conceptualise where the two cameras would have been in relation to each other except that one was to the left of the other. So I don't have an answer. What is it? More hints please.

EDIT:: I think I see that the reenactment is taken from a closer position than Altgens and correspondingly higher up?

The inset photo at the bottom right was taken a short distance to the right of where the corresponding original photo was taken. The distance does not appear to be that great, although I couldn't calculate exactly how far without knowing things like the size of the letters, etc., and even still, I'm not sure I've got the math skills for it.

Ditto all of the above for determining whether or not it was taken closer to the building than the original.

In any case, it appears to me that the re-enactment was valid attempt at recreating where Altgens stood. Could it have been more exact? Probably, if they'd taken the time to trace exactly how the letters (for example) appeared in the re-enactment photo, but frankly, I think they're probably "close enough for government work" (could it have been the inspiration for the phrase? ).

For it to have been a purposeful misplacement, the supposed perps would have had to go through as exacting a process to ensure that the photo was taken in the wrong place as they would have to ensure it was in the exact right place, so for that reason alone, I have little faith that there was a nefarious purpose - at least not the nefarious purpose of mis-placing Altgens on purpose! - in taking the photo from where it was taken.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, I've been looking and looking, but can't come to any answer. I can see that your'e right that they while superficially it looks like it, they haven't lined the two up properly. As you say the letters through the tree branch etc. I can't conceptualise where the two cameras would have been in relation to each other except that one was to the left of the other. So I don't have an answer. What is it? More hints please.

EDIT:: I think I see that the reenactment is taken from a closer position than Altgens and correspondingly higher up?

The inset photo at the bottom right was taken a short distance to the right of where the corresponding original photo was taken. The distance does not appear to be that great, although I couldn't calculate exactly how far without knowing things like the size of the letters, etc., and even still, I'm not sure I've got the math skills for it.

Ditto all of the above for determining whether or not it was taken closer to the building than the original.

In any case, it appears to me that the re-enactment was valid attempt at recreating where Altgens stood. Could it have been more exact? Probably, if they'd taken the time to trace exactly how the letters (for example) appeared in the re-enactment photo, but frankly, I think they're probably "close enough for government work" (could it have been the inspiration for the phrase? ).

For it to have been a purposeful misplacement, the supposed perps would have had to go through as exacting a process to ensure that the photo was taken in the wrong place as they would have to ensure it was in the exact right place, so for that reason alone, I have little faith that there was a nefarious purpose - at least not the nefarious purpose of mis-placing Altgens on purpose! - in taking the photo from where it was taken.

Duke;

When all aspects of the Altgens position are taken into consideration, that the "re-enactment" photo was as deliberate an act as was the attempt to not even call Mr. Altgens to testify, becomes quite obvious within the "circumstantial chain" of evidence.

Somewhere, long ago, I "backdrew" the position from which the re-enactment photo was actually taken, which is of course irrelevant as the WC went out of it's way to attempt to "move" Altgens way up the street closer to the Z313 headshot.

Simply stated, the exact position of James Altgens could be determined to within a matter of a few inches since he and the second stripe on Elm St. are clearly defined in the film.

Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for having some "acidentally" mislocated photo location.

And, when one takes a look at the letters on the TSDB which show between the fork in the tree, this is fully representative of what the extent which the WC went to, as well as their mistakes.

The "Altgens re-enactment photo" happens to be a blind within a blind, which was utillized multiple times by the WC.

And lastly, most third graders could have done a better job of photo alignment, based on the letters on the front of the TSDB as well as the edge of the column in the background behind JFK.

The WC was neither stupid nor were they this incompetent, and just as no one had figured out the charades of the "Adjusted Position" utilized during their survey re-enactment and what it represented, even those who caught the obvious discrepancy in the CE900 photo's, were at a complete loss to explain exactly what the hell it had to do with anything.

That to date, (mid-1990's anyway) no one had managed to figure out the game which the WC was playing with the evidence, as well as what these games were about, attest fully to the competence of Specter & Company in obfuscation of the simple facts of three shots fired------three impacts.