Altgens 6- Revisited Part IV

Altgens 6- Revisited Part IV

Altgens 6- Revisited Part IV, the position of the presidential limousine proves Altgens 6 is a fake

Just to refresh your memory, here is Altgens 6 again.

 

 

Where is the presidential limousine located in Altgens 6? Is it located where Z frame 255 has it which is about 40 frames or 40 feet past the Stemmons Freeway sign? Does Altgens 6 really match Zapruder frame 255? Altgens said he was standing in the street not at some weird angle or place. Standing in the street puts him almost exactly in front of the presidential motorcade. Even if he was standing on the grass where he is seen in Z frames 330 to 359 it would still not be at a weird angle of view.

If that is so then why can’t we see the highway signs behind the vehicle? The R L Thornton sign should be at least 60 to 70 feet behind the vehicle. The Stemmons sign at least 40 or more. Why can’t we see those signs?

 

 

There are reasons. The first reason is that Altgens 6 is an enlarged and cropped photo. And, the R L Thornton freeway sign is cropped from the photo. The presidential vehicle has come even with or just passed it and the Secret Service vehicle is about to pass it. This is a photo taken the day after the assassination and clearly shows these signs. Photos taken after the assassination don’t seem to have the same problems as photos and films taken on the day of the assassination. How about that?

The second reason is the presidential limousine has not yet passed the Stemmons freeway sign which makes Z frame 255 what? A fake! Or, is it Altgens 6 the fake?

Here is Z frame 255 which is everyone agrees is the equivalent to Altgens 6. This is mainly based on Jackie Kennedy clutching President Kennedy’s left arm.

 

 

This is Z frame 167 showing that the presidential limousine is just at or passing the R L Thornton freeway sign. Which fits the Altgens 6 photo better for location? Notice that Kennedy is not shot.

 

 

Are there any other photos that might help here? Yes, look at this photo which is almost identical to Altgens 6. Altgens may have been located a little further south and west of where this photo was shot.

Here we can see two vehicles. Both are past the two highway signs. If you use the first station wagon as the presidential limousine you would have both signs visible in the picture behind the vehicle. If you use the second station wagon as the presidential limousine at least one sign should be visible behind the limousine. In Altgens 6 there are none. This is what should be shown in Altgens 6 if the presidential limousine really was at Z frame 255.

 

 

This is a Betzner Photo and the Altgens 6 photo in a montage.

 

 

Betzner’s photo gives you the reverse of Altgens 6 by viewing the motorcade from the rear. Where the freeway signs are located on Elm Street are all important in understanding where the presidential limousine is in Altgens 6. The red lines from the lamppost equate the two photos.

In one photo the president is shot and the other, Betzner, not. They are really at the same location on Elm. In Altgens 6 the presidential limousine is supposed to, according to Z frame 255, be past the Stemmons freeway sign by 40 frames. In Betzner the limousine has not yet passed the sign. The red lines indicate they are in a similar position and it is not a camera angle distortion which matches the two vehicle positions.

They are in the same position. Zapruder frame 167 is a good match for these two. But, it is still not reality.

If Z frame 255 is true then there is no amount of cropping, camera distortion, or lens angle focus from Altgens position that will account for the R L Thornton sign not being seen 70 or so feet behind the vehicle. The same can be applied to the Stemmons sign which is supposed to be 40 feet behind the vehicle.

This photo was from Part I and worth repeating. This is the original, allegedly.

 

 

The next photo shows a smaller, red rectangular area that is the actual area of Altgens 6. This so-called original is a cropped section taken from a larger photo. The angle of view is off here slightly due to Altgens taking his photo standing in the street.

 

 

In truth, we cannot see these signs because they are cropped from the left side of the picture. If they were seen you would see that the presidential vehicle was at the SW corner of the TSBD as shown in Z frame 167 and the Betzner photo. President Kennedy was shot in the intersection as raised arms indicate in Altgens 6.

This is where Jean Hill located the president when shooting began. Arlen Specter was kind enough to draw a map of this location according to Hill’s s testimony at a Warren Commission hearing. He called this map Warren Commission Hill Exhibit No. 5. Realizing what he had done, he classified the exhibit as Top Secret and sent it to the archives and it wasn’t seen for years.

In this belief system of the WC the testimony of Jean Hill is less important than the Zapruder film frame 255 because it can be related to Altgens 6. After all, what kind of woman was Jean Hill.

 

 

To help understand this map “A” is where Jean Hill said they, Mary and Jean, were at. “X” is the mark that locates where the President was at when Mary took her picture. “E” is where a group of people standing to the west and east of a light pole can be seen in other photos. This is the group Jean in her testimony said she was competing with in attracting the President’s attention.

Speaking of Jean Hill, the next part of this discussion is the alleged shadows of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman that can be seen on the Elm Street pavement. I say alleged shadows because I believe they are painted artifacts. Whoever placed these shadows in Altgens 6 didn’t get the exact script on who was located where. But, they got it early enough to paint these shadows. Altgens 6 was prepared hurriedly in a matter of hours. It was good enough to go out on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite at about 6:35 PM EST. by doing so that indicates there was already a prepared script or map of people’s locations which the photo editors used to place people in the various films and photographs. This was probably very helpful, along with autopsy information, in preparing the alterations to the Zapruder film.

The Bronson film and others shows the location of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill as in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign, slightly west of the sign based on the position of the BB Lady and the Brehms. They are not seen here but, they are located just west of Brehm / BB Lady out of the picture. How does that relate to Z frame 255? Too Altgens 6?

 

 

Here are the shadows of the two ladies that are in question:

 

 

This is a crop from Altgens 6 and indicates that Mary Moorman’s shadow, hers is the second shadow because she is always shown west of Jean Hill, is longer than Jean Hill’s shadow.

As we all know Mary Moorman was shorter than Jean Hill. So why is her shadow longer than Jean Hills? The simple answer is she was standing closer to the road. Maybe or maybe not!

 

 

In this montage we see Jean Hill standing slightly in front of or just even with Mary Moorman. In the second frame we see Mary Moorman standing slightly in front of Jean Hill but, not significantly in front. Their shadows don’t match with the Altgens crop on the right.

If you notice Jean and Mary in the first two frames are different distances from the limousine and the road. That doesn’t match their statements to the authorities about being in the road. It doesn’t match the Nix film either. What gives with that? Can you yell fake? Could I make this up? Maybe, they just hopped backwards to get a better view.

Is there enough distance between the two women to account for the difference in shadows? I don’t think so. By the way, the shadows in the first and second frames are at a different angle than that shown in Altgens 6. And, show that the pair are closer to the curb.

And here is Z frame 303 showing Jean and Mary even further away from the presidential vehicle. They are definitely not in the street as Nix shows and their statements indicate. The people in the backgrounds shadow angles do not match the shadow angles in Altgens 6. It is another, what gives with that?

 

 

The last thing to notice is that the shadows of Jean, Mary, and I presume Charles Brehm are painted in a loose irregular, distorted manner with no regularity of form or shape matching a human shadow. Jean and Mary’s shadows end in a candle flame shape that can only be painted with a paint brush.

The things exposed in this four part article should leave you with the notion that Altgens 6 is as fraudulent as Altgens 5 and Altgens 7.

Altgens 6 was a fraudulently designed photo that would show the President being at a location on Elm Street where he could be shot in the back by Oswald, the mad assassin, from the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest. They did a hurried, good enough job to fool the American Public for years. There are still those who defend its authenticity vigorously not with any belief in the truth but from sinister purposes.

It is one of the four main visual records that the American Public first saw that day and in later days that help convince people with a totally erroneous conclusion. That is Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that killed President Kennedy.

In this series of articles I have shown that the Backyard Photo (CE 133A), Mary Moorman’s Polaroids, the Zapruder film, and the Altgens 6 photo are visual records that have been altered to enhance the Lone Gunman or Single Bullet Theories that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy.

By debunking these records, we need to start looking for other evidence to tell us what really happened in Dealey Plaza that day. Other evidence includes witness testimony. Much of which is at variance with the Zapruder film and its ilk. By showing these records are fake and fraudulent, we cannot prove what happened on Elm Street due to the evidence being unreliable. By proving these records false, we have also proved that any other record showing similar things is also false.

Without using these tainted records, we can not prove the assassination occurred on Elm Street in front of the Grassy Knoll. We cannot by any scientific or photogrammetric means prove that the assassination occurred on Elm Street and we cannot prove that any shots were fired from the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest.

I don’t think Oswald could be found guilty anywhere, except in a “mock” trial. All I have seen are fraudulent with a dishonest, manipulative presentation of the evidence.

This is a hell of a place to put the JFK assassination research effort. I would think most people would reject this out of hand because it indicates you cannot solve the Kennedy assassination or prove anyone guilty in a court of law. This violates many theories on both sides of the argument.

Take for instance, as an example of what I am saying, the notion mentioned in Part II that in the blow up of the interior of the presidential limousine you can see President Kennedy has a detached left arm that Jackie is holding up in the air. Most people will reject that out of hand. It is just something people don’t ordinarily pick up. No one has reported on that in 54 years. It has to be nonsense.

Just go back to that interior crop of the limousine in Part II and study what you see there. You will see that the detached arm stops just past the elbow. It is in the same plane as Governor Connally and not in the plane of the President’s right arm. When Kennedy was shot in the throat both arms went up to his throat in the same plane. The apparent foreshortening in Altgens 6 says Kennedy’s left arm is thrust forward and not even with his right arm. His left arm does not project forward in a weird manner that makes it larger than the right arm anywhere in the assassination films.

I haven’t listed all of the things wrong with Altgens 6 in Altgens 6- Revisited Part IV But, this should be sufficient to indicate the fraudulent nature of the photo.