[Patrick C]

Interesting set of posts on selected assassination films and Altgens stills.

Post also about "where is Chaney" which no doubt will be of interest to you pro film alteration supporters.

Quite detailed and some useful images.

http://jfkfilmanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:Interesting set of posts on selected assassination films and Altgens stills.

Post also about "where is Chaney" which no doubt will be of interest to you pro film alteration supporters.

Quite detailed and some useful images.
http://jfkfilmanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/

From the above cite: "Finally, nothing illustrates the Altgens Anomaly more than Officer Chaney’s position right next to Kennedy watching the bullets (all the bullets) slam into Kennedy. Chaney stated that this is exactly where he was, but it is depicted in no film or photograph except Altgens.
...
While there are a lot of things that don’t seem right one thing struck me as especially anomalous - the Altgens’ Photograph. I returned to Dealey Plaza 2 more times to size things up, and I have done extensive reading on the assassination. I have discussed this in previous entries at this site. What I have found is that Altgens has images that are unduplicated in any still or moving picture images. These images are supported by eyewitness testimony in a way that none of the other moving pictures or images are. In short Altgens’ images are consistent with eye witness testimony; the other images are not, in part or in whole."

[Mark Ulrik]

Yeah, that guy is [ad hominem deleted - ad hominem attacks will not be allowed in this forum, please see the forum rules]

[Patrick C]

I would be cautious about making conclusions about where exactly Chaney is based on Altgens 6 - he used a telephoto lens which I think was a 135mm which will squash the images to appear closer together - we all I am sure have used a zoom or telephoto at some point.

Zavada is pretty convincing that the Z film is not altered.....so the question "where is Chaney" is behind the JFK limo and not in the Z film.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I would be cautious about making conclusions about where exactly Chaney is based on Altgens 6 - he used a telephoto lens which I think was a 135mm which will squash the images to appear closer together - we all I am sure have used a zoom or telephoto at some point.

However, as you've already asserted that Chaney is larger than the other two motorcycle cops, this means absolutely nothing.

Unless, of course, you're now trying to backtrack from that assertion...

Patrick C Wrote:Zavada is pretty convincing that the Z film is not altered.....so the question "where is Chaney" is behind the JFK limo and not in the Z film.

Zavada himself stated that he didn't look at the imagery on the film... he's only "convinced" that the film ITSELF is authentic.

And ... as I've stated many times before, you cannot make this circular argument that the extant Z-film is authentic because it's authentic.

You have to deal with the evidence that it's not... AND EXPLAIN IT.

It's interesting to note that you ran from the previous debates on the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:However, as you've already asserted that Chaney is larger than the other two motorcycle cops, this means absolutely nothing.

Yes he is just under 10% larger than Hargis.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Unless, of course, you're now trying to backtrack from that assertion...

NOPE.....it is what it is

But as I stated......if Chaney really was where you think he should be, his image would be even larger. This is the point I made very clearly. I am not sure why you have difficulty in understanding that simple point.....???

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:However, as you've already asserted that Chaney is larger than the other two motorcycle cops, this means absolutely nothing.

Yes he is just under 10% larger than Hargis.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Unless, of course, you're now trying to backtrack from that assertion...

NOPE.....it is what it is

But as I stated......if Chaney really was where you think he should be, his image would be even larger. This is the point I made very clearly. I am not sure why you have difficulty in understanding that simple point.....???

Indeed, I have no problem at all analyzing that "simple point".

It's Mere Speculation.

In other words, it's only based on your opinion.

You've provided ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to base it on.

As the distances involved are forever unknown, the only method left to make a real determination would be to simply take a limo, motorcycle, and a camera... and get busy.

Then you'd have REAL evidence... and not just the random thoughts in your mind to convince people with. But the Warren Commission certainly wasn't interested, nor the HSCA... although both investigations could certainly have easily established this.

But YOU cannot, not with mere assertion.

You'll have to do a lot better than that, Patrick.

You see, the EVIDENCE supports my position. And nothing you assert based on mere opinion is going to change that fact.

[Patrick C]

I think this analysis has been made using the Altgens location on Elm St, the position of the limo and the DPD guys and factoring in the 135mm telephoto ....I cannot recall where however.

Maybe Mike Majerus would know - he seems to know pretty much everything about the case - which could be why he rightly concludes that Oswald acted alone.....

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I think this analysis has been made using the Altgens location on Elm St, the position of the limo and the DPD guys and factoring in the 135mm telephoto ....I cannot recall where however.

Maybe Mike Majerus would know - he seems to know pretty much everything about the case - which could be why he rightly concludes that Oswald acted alone.....

Once again, sheer speculation and un-citable mysterious evidence...

Surely you can do better than this, right Patrick?

[Patrick C]

Not really Ben,

This is not a court of law and I simply don't have the time.

Try the web - you know it's at your fingertips. I found that set of posts from G Fox which I thought was interesting.

You do not need to be so confrontational all the time - you might actually make progress in coming round to accepting Oswald could have killed JFK acting alone whilst favouring a conspiracy. Your blinkered view of this case reflects on your inability to escape your view no doubt from the get go that Kennedy was killed as a result of a plot and that is that....your approach is extremely amateur and lacking in rigour despite your excellent knowledge of the case.