CE900

[Duke Lane]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Since LBJ was ultimately the "client" who established the Commission, then one must assume that they were well paid for their obfuscation.

Especially considering the "career promotions" of those who were primarily responsible for creation of the confusion which has lasted for this many years.

I do belive that:

1. JEH got a "Lifetime Appointment" as head of the FBI, when he was about to be retired by JFK.

2. Arlen Specter, after changing parties, succeeded in becoming a DA, and thereafter a US Senator.

3. Gerald Ford got himself the distinction of being the first absolutely "non-elected" President of the US.

Lastly, despite what John McAdams & Ken Rahn may think, there are no "unintentional" errors of the WC.

And as regards the position ever changing position of Mr. Altgens, one merely has to look at CE354 to know and recognize how this ever changing position has progressively moved him farther and farther up Elm St. and closer to Z313.

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

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up.

In defense of the WC,--------there is no defense!

When they had the Z-film, as well as all other films and could accurately survey in the position of Emmett Hudson, then rest assured that the position of James Altgens, some 3 to 5 feet from the second yellow stripe on the curb of Elm Street required absolutely ZERO effort to locate and film from, had they wanted too.

And since they had the survey data in their possession which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the third shot, which was directly in front of James Altgens, the likelihood that this is just one of those "unfortunate" mishaps of the WC's lies regarding the assassination re-enactment is about as likely as the "slight" sleight-of-hand means and methods which Arlen Specter utilized to admit the WC Survey plat & altered survey data into evidence. Along with the "adjusted position" and a host of other "coincidental" errors on their part.

Not unlike most inexperienced liars, the WC went way out of their way to buttress their lies and misrepresentations of the factual evidence.

A human trait which is frequently a "give-a-way" to how to search for their lies and misrepresentations.

And by the way, creates a simple way to look for what IS NOT the facts and true evidence within the WC documents.

As members of the "human species" they made many, many mistakes.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Since LBJ was ultimately the "client" who established the Commission, then one must assume that they were well paid for their obfuscation.

Especially considering the "career promotions" of those who were primarily responsible for creation of the confusion which has lasted for this many years.

I do belive that:

1. JEH got a "Lifetime Appointment" as head of the FBI, when he was about to be retired by JFK.

2. Arlen Specter, after changing parties, succeeded in becoming a DA, and thereafter a US Senator.

3. Gerald Ford got himself the distinction of being the first absolutely "non-elected" President of the US.

Lastly, despite what John McAdams & Ken Rahn may think, there are no "unintentional" errors of the WC.

And as regards the position ever changing position of Mr. Altgens, one merely has to look at CE354 to know and recognize how this ever changing position has progressively moved him farther and farther up Elm St. and closer to Z313.

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

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up.

In defense of the WC,--------there is no defense!

When they had the Z-film, as well as all other films and could accurately survey in the position of Emmett Hudson, then rest assured that the position of James Altgens, some 3 to 5 feet from the second yellow stripe on the curb of Elm Street required absolutely ZERO effort to locate and film from, had they wanted too.

And since they had the survey data in their possession which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the third shot, which was directly in front of James Altgens, the likelihood that this is just one of those "unfortunate" mishaps of the WC's lies regarding the assassination re-enactment is about as likely as the "slight" sleight-of-hand means and methods which Arlen Specter utilized to admit the WC Survey plat & altered survey data into evidence. Along with the "adjusted position" and a host of other "coincidental" errors on their part.

Not unlike most inexperienced liars, the WC went way out of their way to buttress their lies and misrepresentations of the factual evidence.

A human trait which is frequently a "give-a-way" to how to search for their lies and misrepresentations.

And by the way, creates a simple way to look for what IS NOT the facts and true evidence within the WC documents.

As members of the "human species" they made many, many mistakes.

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

[Duke Lane]

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

Report, page 112:

Other eyewitness testimony, however, supports the conclusion that the first of the shots fired hit the President. As discussed in chapter II, Special Agent Hill's testimony indicates that the President was hit by the first shot and that the head injury was caused by a second shot which followed about 5 seconds later. James W. Altgens, a photographer in Dallas for the Associated Press, had stationed himself on Elm Street opposite the Depository to take pictures of the passing motorcade. Altgens took a widely circulated photograph which showed President Kennedy reacting to the first of the two shots which hit him. (See

Commission Exhibit No. 900, p. 113

.) According to Altgens, he snapped the picture "almost simultaneously" with a shot which he is confident was the first one fired. Comparison of his photograph with the Zapruder film, however, revealed that Altgens took his picture at approximately the same moment as frame 255 of the movie, 30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds) later than the point at which the President was shot in the neck. (See

Commission Exhibit No. 901, p. 114

.) Another photographer, Phillip L. Willis, snapped a picture at a time which he also asserts was simultaneous with the first shot. Analysis of his photograph revealed that it was taken at approximately frame 210 of the Zapruder film, which was the approximate time of the shot that probably hit the President and the Governor. If Willis accurately recalled that there were no previous shots, this would be strong evidence that the first shot did not miss.

The Report should have referenced Willis Exhibit 1, slide 5 in this same batch of evidentiary photos, but did not, nor was Willis 5 published in the Report at all. According to the quoted analysis, Altgen's photo was taken "30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds)" after the President was first shot, which by the same analysis happened when Phil Willis shot his Slide 5, supposedly at Z210. Yet W5 is not published, so there's basically no way to compare one photo with the other to compare or contrast them.

(Even what was published in the Hearings & Exhibits (21H770) hardly compares in quality with even a copy of (a copy of?) the original.)

I don't disagree with your basic thesis, which is that the WC showed the "jury" what they wanted it to see; that is, the basic evidence that supported their view, presented and interpreted in such a way as to bolster their position. That is no different than any prosecutor or defense attorney will want to do (avoid presenting evidence - however obvious - that paints the perp as possibly innocent, or the client as possibly guilty).

As noted, the WC were able to do so because there was no adversary to counter their argument or present another. Those who've done so since then, of course, are all amateurs and "kooks," again no different than the view of any prosecutor or defense attorney ("how dumb can the jury be? It's unbelievable that they reached the verdict that they did, given the evidence we presented" ... which was apparently countered more effectively by the opposition!).

I have never said that the WC was fair and unbiased, or even honest: I've read and evaluated 'way too much to ever reach that conclusion! My mere point is that the finer points of the photos were probably not examined - nor used in setting up the photos in the first place - as closely as has been done since then in selecting what they would present as their "evidence."

At first glance, the photos appear to be nearly identical - and in fact they are "nearly" identical - so if they could choose where they thought Altgens was standing, shoot a photo that looked "about right," then that was all the "homework" they had to do to "prove" their point. I find it difficult to fathom that they would take a series of photos from various places - from where Altgens was to where they wanted him to be - then compared and contrasted with his photo until they found one that put him where they wanted him to be that hadn't gone too far astray from what was shown in his actual photo.

The only reasons I have difficult with that are because /a/ if you succeed reasonably enough doing it the easy way, why complicate matters; and /b/ there are none of the "other" photos still in existence. Is it not still possible that someone took the shots, chose the one they liked and destroyed the rest? Sure. But if they were so good at "creating" evidence and getting rid of what "didn't fit," they certainly would have done a better job of it, like burning the Executive Session transcripts and such: the whole thing would have been "lily white and pure," not even vaguely open to opposing interpretation ... but clearly that's not the case.

I guess my dilemma is choosing when to consider then clumsy and when to consider them crafty, which they alternately seem to be portrayed. Were they both, and if so, did they deliberately choose when to be one or the other, or was it simply fate? The long and short is that the Report is, as Mark Lane characterized it, a "prosecutor's brief," and all the evidence should be viewed in that light.

[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.

A "rehash" for those who have asked and could not find it.

[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.

A "rehash" for those who have asked and could not find it.

[Jack White]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Since LBJ was ultimately the "client" who established the Commission, then one must assume that they were well paid for their obfuscation.

Especially considering the "career promotions" of those who were primarily responsible for creation of the confusion which has lasted for this many years.

I do belive that:

1. JEH got a "Lifetime Appointment" as head of the FBI, when he was about to be retired by JFK.

2. Arlen Specter, after changing parties, succeeded in becoming a DA, and thereafter a US Senator.

3. Gerald Ford got himself the distinction of being the first absolutely "non-elected" President of the US.

Lastly, despite what John McAdams & Ken Rahn may think, there are no "unintentional" errors of the WC.

And as regards the position ever changing position of Mr. Altgens, one merely has to look at CE354 to know and recognize how this ever changing position has progressively moved him farther and farther up Elm St. and closer to Z313.

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

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up.

In defense of the WC,--------there is no defense!

When they had the Z-film, as well as all other films and could accurately survey in the position of Emmett Hudson, then rest assured that the position of James Altgens, some 3 to 5 feet from the second yellow stripe on the curb of Elm Street required absolutely ZERO effort to locate and film from, had they wanted too.

And since they had the survey data in their possession which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the third shot, which was directly in front of James Altgens, the likelihood that this is just one of those "unfortunate" mishaps of the WC's lies regarding the assassination re-enactment is about as likely as the "slight" sleight-of-hand means and methods which Arlen Specter utilized to admit the WC Survey plat & altered survey data into evidence. Along with the "adjusted position" and a host of other "coincidental" errors on their part.

Not unlike most inexperienced liars, the WC went way out of their way to buttress their lies and misrepresentations of the factual evidence.

A human trait which is frequently a "give-a-way" to how to search for their lies and misrepresentations.

And by the way, creates a simple way to look for what IS NOT the facts and true evidence within the WC documents.

As members of the "human species" they made many, many mistakes.

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

Altgens location can be accurately determined by things in the photo which remain

unchanged: the tall concrete pillar; the TSBD doorway, and the corners and windows

of buildings...enough points for a triangulation. For instance, the tall concrete pillar

lines up with a certain pair of windows of the TSBD and the corner of the TSBD

lines up with a certain window in DalTex. Where this triangulation intersects is where

Altgens stood.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Since LBJ was ultimately the "client" who established the Commission, then one must assume that they were well paid for their obfuscation.

Especially considering the "career promotions" of those who were primarily responsible for creation of the confusion which has lasted for this many years.

I do belive that:

1. JEH got a "Lifetime Appointment" as head of the FBI, when he was about to be retired by JFK.

2. Arlen Specter, after changing parties, succeeded in becoming a DA, and thereafter a US Senator.

3. Gerald Ford got himself the distinction of being the first absolutely "non-elected" President of the US.

Lastly, despite what John McAdams & Ken Rahn may think, there are no "unintentional" errors of the WC.

And as regards the position ever changing position of Mr. Altgens, one merely has to look at CE354 to know and recognize how this ever changing position has progressively moved him farther and farther up Elm St. and closer to Z313.

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

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up.

In defense of the WC,--------there is no defense!

When they had the Z-film, as well as all other films and could accurately survey in the position of Emmett Hudson, then rest assured that the position of James Altgens, some 3 to 5 feet from the second yellow stripe on the curb of Elm Street required absolutely ZERO effort to locate and film from, had they wanted too.

And since they had the survey data in their possession which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the third shot, which was directly in front of James Altgens, the likelihood that this is just one of those "unfortunate" mishaps of the WC's lies regarding the assassination re-enactment is about as likely as the "slight" sleight-of-hand means and methods which Arlen Specter utilized to admit the WC Survey plat & altered survey data into evidence. Along with the "adjusted position" and a host of other "coincidental" errors on their part.

Not unlike most inexperienced liars, the WC went way out of their way to buttress their lies and misrepresentations of the factual evidence.

A human trait which is frequently a "give-a-way" to how to search for their lies and misrepresentations.

And by the way, creates a simple way to look for what IS NOT the facts and true evidence within the WC documents.

As members of the "human species" they made many, many mistakes.

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

Altgens location can be accurately determined by things in the photo which remain

unchanged: the tall concrete pillar; the TSBD doorway, and the corners and windows

of buildings...enough points for a triangulation. For instance, the tall concrete pillar

lines up with a certain pair of windows of the TSBD and the corner of the TSBD

lines up with a certain window in DalTex. Where this triangulation intersects is where

Altgens stood.

Jack

Let me, at risk of sounding quite repetitious, again state.

A copy of the Z-film which showed James Altgens with the camera up to his face, just prior to the third/last/final shot which he observed strike JFK and which resulted in bone from the skull of JFK being blown out onto the curb of Elm St. in front of Altgens position, was clearly published within one to two days after the assassination.

I recall having seen this photo in the Mobile Register (Mobile, AL).

And, since James Altgens was standing less than 5-feet from the second yellow curb mark on Elm st., there was, and remains little difficulty in placement of his position.

And of course, the UPI photo which also appeared the next day and showed James Altgens position, also showed Malcom Summers on the ground; clearly shows James Altgens camera bag on the ground, as well as Mr. Hudson and others on the stairway/steps which lead down to Elm St.

Neither of which photographs were provided by the WC.

CE900, as previously indicated, was presented to us in a "cropped" version by the WC.

The right hand side trim accomplished a variety of items, to inclulde the alignment of sign post poles and red light poles in the FAR background which aligned with windows, etc; of the buildings located behind the poles.

Any "old" surveyor knows that "NFL" is a part of the key to accurate survey, and it has nothing to do with football.

Near; Far; Line represents the sight picture which one should attempt to achieve when having difficulty in achieving line of sight.

Now Jack, if you will cease to look for mythological creatures, you just may catch on to the importance of accurate evaluation of the evidence at hand.

If not, here is another "Rabbit Hole".

Witnesses at the scene reportedly observed a large furry creature with long ears jump into the hole and it was carrying a sign which read: "JFK RESEARCHERS FOLLOW ME!"

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

Thomas, by no means do I mean to argue that the WC - or any other investigation of this incident, official or otherwise - did not try to make its "evidence" fit its "solution," which IMHO it clearly did. I am merely addressing the issue of the photo.

As a photographer myself, I have often attempted to duplicate others' photos for various reasons; most are approximations, "close enough for government work." Speaking as one who has looked through many a viewfinder, IMO the lettering between the tree branches was simply too distant to use as a gauge of whether or not you were at the right angle - and therefore in the right position - or not: even IF you could make it out, it looks "close enough" to the original to make one think they were in the right place.

The alternatives are - and can only be - that multiple photos were taken and the one that was WRONG was the one that was chosen as a "re-enactment," and/or Altgen's position was "pre-determined" (incorrectly), the photo taken, examined closely, and determined to be "proof" of the "correctness" of that pre-determination despite its "obvious" error.

Frankly, I don't believe anyone examined it that closely. At best, it was determined to be "close enough," and nobody went back to try to correct it since it "proved" the WC position as to Altgen's location just the way it was.

Unfortunately, the letters no longer exist on the building, so it is impossible to re-create both photos exactly today, at least not using the letters as a gauge. Thus, on that basis only, you can't determine even if the re-enactment photo was taken where the WC placed Altgens or just somewhere nearby. Or at least you can't do it by trying to re-create either photo.

On the other hand, the photo does clearly prove that the WC did not go to great lengths to ensure that what they did re-create was accurate, and that they were happy to allow "close enough" to be passed off as "exact proof."

The question in this thread really comes down to just this: was the WC's "un-evidence" carefully calculated, or was "looks good, sounds good" simply good enough to serve as "proof," ignoring exactitude whenever it didn't support the pre-determined conclusion, and being "exact" only when necessary to support it?

I tend toward the latter: the simple fact is that they would never have gotten any assistance or support in determining the actual truth had they pursueed it, they knew it, and they just did what they had to do to come up with the result that they had no choice in coming up with. Basically, they were doing what all criminal lawyers do: they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

they built the case their client paid for, and they got away with it simply because there was no adversary to contradict or disprove them.

Since LBJ was ultimately the "client" who established the Commission, then one must assume that they were well paid for their obfuscation.

Especially considering the "career promotions" of those who were primarily responsible for creation of the confusion which has lasted for this many years.

I do belive that:

1. JEH got a "Lifetime Appointment" as head of the FBI, when he was about to be retired by JFK.

2. Arlen Specter, after changing parties, succeeded in becoming a DA, and thereafter a US Senator.

3. Gerald Ford got himself the distinction of being the first absolutely "non-elected" President of the US.

Lastly, despite what John McAdams & Ken Rahn may think, there are no "unintentional" errors of the WC.

And as regards the position ever changing position of Mr. Altgens, one merely has to look at CE354 to know and recognize how this ever changing position has progressively moved him farther and farther up Elm St. and closer to Z313.

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

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up.

In defense of the WC,--------there is no defense!

When they had the Z-film, as well as all other films and could accurately survey in the position of Emmett Hudson, then rest assured that the position of James Altgens, some 3 to 5 feet from the second yellow stripe on the curb of Elm Street required absolutely ZERO effort to locate and film from, had they wanted too.

And since they had the survey data in their possession which clearly demonstrated the impact point of the third shot, which was directly in front of James Altgens, the likelihood that this is just one of those "unfortunate" mishaps of the WC's lies regarding the assassination re-enactment is about as likely as the "slight" sleight-of-hand means and methods which Arlen Specter utilized to admit the WC Survey plat & altered survey data into evidence. Along with the "adjusted position" and a host of other "coincidental" errors on their part.

Not unlike most inexperienced liars, the WC went way out of their way to buttress their lies and misrepresentations of the factual evidence.

A human trait which is frequently a "give-a-way" to how to search for their lies and misrepresentations.

And by the way, creates a simple way to look for what IS NOT the facts and true evidence within the WC documents.

As members of the "human species" they made many, many mistakes.

Had they not been forced into the questioning of Mr. Altgens by the newspaper articles, who knows exactly where Mr. Altgens position may have ended up

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068b.htm

I do believe that the "written word" has now moved Mr. Altgens to a position "opposite" the TSDB.

When he was in fact "opposite" the steps which lead down to Elm St, and "opposite" the position of Emmett Hudson, way down past the position of Mr. Abraham Zapruder, past the first yellow stripe on Elm St, and some 30+ feet farther down the street than the impact point of the second shot to the head of JFK at Z313.

Altgens location can be accurately determined by things in the photo which remain

unchanged: the tall concrete pillar; the TSBD doorway, and the corners and windows

of buildings...enough points for a triangulation. For instance, the tall concrete pillar

lines up with a certain pair of windows of the TSBD and the corner of the TSBD

lines up with a certain window in DalTex. Where this triangulation intersects is where

Altgens stood.

Jack

Let me, at risk of sounding quite repetitious, again state.

A copy of the Z-film which showed James Altgens with the camera up to his face, just prior to the third/last/final shot which he observed strike JFK and which resulted in bone from the skull of JFK being blown out onto the curb of Elm St. in front of Altgens position, was clearly published within one to two days after the assassination.

I recall having seen this photo in the Mobile Register (Mobile, AL).

And, since James Altgens was standing less than 5-feet from the second yellow curb mark on Elm st., there was, and remains little difficulty in placement of his position.

And of course, the UPI photo which also appeared the next day and showed James Altgens position, also showed Malcom Summers on the ground; clearly shows James Altgens camera bag on the ground, as well as Mr. Hudson and others on the stairway/steps which lead down to Elm St.

Neither of which photographs were provided by the WC.

CE900, as previously indicated, was presented to us in a "cropped" version by the WC.

The right hand side trim accomplished a variety of items, to inclulde the alignment of sign post poles and red light poles in the FAR background which aligned with windows, etc; of the buildings located behind the poles.

Any "old" surveyor knows that "NFL" is a part of the key to accurate survey, and it has nothing to do with football.

Near; Far; Line represents the sight picture which one should attempt to achieve when having difficulty in achieving line of sight.

Now Jack, if you will cease to look for mythological creatures, you just may catch on to the importance of accurate evaluation of the evidence at hand.

If not, here is another "Rabbit Hole".

Witnesses at the scene reportedly observed a large furry creature with long ears jump into the hole and it was carrying a sign which read: "JFK RESEARCHERS FOLLOW ME!"

Witnesses at the scene reportedly observed a large furry creature with long ears jump into the hole and it was carrying a sign which read: "JFK RESEARCHERS FOLLOW ME!"

Perhaps this will get things onto the right track!