JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

According to the Warren Commission's star witness, Helen Markham, the man leaned on the open near window of Tippit's car and he and Tippit seemed to have a friendly conversation.

She said Tippit did not seem angry but seemed calm.

Does that seem like the behaviour of two people who did not know each other?

I see you selectively quote Markham.

Mr. BALL. Then what happened?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know, the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--

So Markham thought that "the police are nice and friendly", not that Tippit was friends with the man who shot him.

Would Tippit have looked calm if he thought that the assassin of President Kennedy had just rested his arms on the open window of his police car?

Benavides disagreed with Markham. Markham said "The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry or nothing." Benavides said that Tippet "had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like."

Would the assassin of President Kennedy have deliberately got that close to a policeman if he sensed that he suspected him of having committed the assassination?

I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't think he could outrun a police car.

And by the way, immediately after giving that evidence, Markham stated that Oswald did not resemble Tippit's killer, and that she had never seen him before he appeared in the line-up.

Everything you say there is wrong - this is obvious to anyone who reads Markham's testimony. She mentions Tippit appearing calm on page 307.

Then, on page 310, Markham discusses the lineup.

Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a showup you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.
Mr. BALL. Were they of anywhere near similar build or size or coloring?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, they were all about the same height.

Page 311.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just--

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

While the timing is tight, Oswald could have gotten to the location and shoot Tippet.

But why?

Why would Oswald have made a superhuman effort to get to the scene of the Tippit shooting except to satisfy his accusers?

What would have been the point of the alleged assassin's rushing to the spot where Tippit was shot, unless he had a rendezvous with him?

[Fiver]

I don't know what you mean by hitching a ride in a police box.

How about a silver DeLorean traveling 88mph?

The Wayback Machine?

The Guardian of Forever?

You appear to be unable to explain how Oswald could have arrived at the scene of Tippit's shooting in time to shoot him.

You ignoring what I said does not change the fact that I said it.

While the timing is tight, Oswald could have gotten to the location and shoot Tippet.

As opposed to the supposed alibi which Burroughs gave a couple decades later - that Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater before he left his rooming house.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies, if the times given are accurate, make it unlikely, but not impossible, for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder scene in time.

Roberts' and Burroughs' testimonies contradict each other, with Burroughs claiming Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater several minutes before Roberts said that Oswald left the rooming house.

I take your point about Burroughs, but I didn't mention him - and what he said was not said in testimony.

I was referring to Benavides, not Burroughs!

Markham gives Oswald even less time than does Benavides.

Even if it was humanly possible for Oswald to have got there in time to shoot Tippit, why would he have done so, unless to keep an appointment with him?

[Fiver]

I refer you to my # 2495, # 2506, and # 2511.

Taken together, Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies leave Oswald insufficient time to get to the scene of Tippit's shooting .

The same goes for Markham's.

Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies, if the times given are accurate, make it unlikely, but not impossible, for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder scene in time.

Roberts' and Burroughs' testimonies contradict each other, with Burroughs claiming Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater several minutes before Roberts said that Oswald left the rooming house.

[GBinOz]

What are the secret sevice men looking back at ? Tha man in the background could be LHO ?

Hi Fishy,

There's a lot of controversy about that "Doorman" figure, but it's generally considered to be Billy Lovelady. But check out this article on the "Prayerman" figure in a frame of the Wiegman film:

http://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/2016/06/

My opinion is that the Secret Service men, and many of the crowd of onlookers on both the left and right side of the photo, are looking for the source of a gunshot. It is interesting that none are looking up, but more towards the Dal-Tex second floor level where it is conjectured was placed a gunman.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

It appears in the Altgens#6 that some of the agents in the follow-up car are looking at Kennedy, and my question would be, if Chaney wasn't looking at Kennedy, what was he looking at that was more important than the President being shot. My guess would be that he was mistaken about his position at the time.

My friend, Glen, was born 10 years after the assassination and is completely disinterested in the subject. But he is always interested in discussing matters photographic. Unfortunately my attention is diverted at present, as it appears that the two operations I recently had for cancer have evidently not provided closure. I'll address some of your issues after I get a chance to talk to Glen.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Don't worry about addressing my issues, just focus on getting better! That's much more important!

So, I wish you all the best for now!!

Cheers,
Frank

[FISHY1118]

Hi Frank,

While not disputing what you have presented about Chaney, it appears to me that he is looking BACK at Kennedy. He did state that when he saw the President was shot he rode forward to the lead car to report it. Perhaps that is an explanation?


There is no doubt that the Altgens #6 is a major piece of evidence, there just appears to me to be some anomalies. I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he is going to go through my concerns to see if they can be explained by telephoto compression, as what I am seeing in the Altgens #6 is contrary to my experience using a 105mm short telephoto. Alternatively, perhaps Altgens was mistaken or misquoted on the focal length of the telephoto that he used?

Cheers, George

What are the secret sevice men looking back at ? Tha man in the background could be LHO ?

[GBinOz]

In a television interview he stated that he was riding at the right rear fender when he was looking back to his left, so he couldn't have been looking back at the president, although, again, it might seem so at first glance.

It would be interesting to know what your friend (who's, hopefully, as unbiased as can be ) has to say.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

It appears in the Altgens#6 that some of the agents in the follow-up car are looking at Kennedy, and my question would be, if Chaney wasn't looking at Kennedy, what was he looking at that was more important than the President being shot. My guess would be that he was mistaken about his position at the time.

My friend, Glen, was born 10 years after the assassination and is completely disinterested in the subject. But he is always interested in discussing matters photographic. Unfortunately my attention is diverted at present, as it appears that the two operations I recently had for cancer have evidently not provided closure. I'll address some of your issues after I get a chance to talk to Glen.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

JFK.DC.1991.BluRay.1080p.DUAL.DCRG

[FrankO]

While not disputing what you have presented about Chaney, it appears to me that he is looking BACK at Kennedy.

In a television interview he stated that he was riding at the right rear fender when he was looking back to his left, so he couldn't have been looking back at the president, although, again, it might seem so at first glance.

There is no doubt that the Altgens #6 is a major piece of evidence, there just appears to me to be some anomalies. I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he is going to go through my concerns to see if they can be explained by telephoto compression, as what I am seeing in the Altgens #6 is contrary to my experience using a 105mm short telephoto. Alternatively, perhaps Altgens was mistaken or misquoted on the focal length of the telephoto that he used?

It would be interesting to know what your friend (who's, hopefully, as unbiased as can be ) has to say.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

According to Altgens, and the Roberdeau map (https://imgur.com/8vSS1dp), he was on the road near the white line, and that would make the perspective of the above photo more consistent with Altgens #6. The photo above shows a kerb curve that is more pronounced that the Roberdeau map, but not as pronounced as the Altgens #6.

Hi George,

I think that’s just an optical illusion caused by the fact that the part of the curve we see in the Altgens photo is maybe 40 yards long, crammed into little more than Clint Hill’s height. I don’t think there’s anything off in that regard.

Also, I wonder what focal length lens was used as the photo above takes in the 6th floor of the TSBD. I can see why it is claimed that Altgens #6 is heavily cropped.

Although I do agree that Altgens #6 is cropped, I don’t know if its original would have included the 6^th floor. Altgens was closer to what he focussed on - the presidential limousine – than the photographer who snapped the shot during the re-enactment. And I can imagine this photographer stepping back some distance from Altgens’ position for the very reason of getting the whole TSBD into his picture. Who knows? It remains speculation either way.

While I don't disagree with what you have written above, particularly regarding the position of Jackie (and Connally) being around Z255, my concern is with the right side of the photo, the shadows and particularly the apparent relationship between the Limo and the small radius kerb on the right of the photo.

Looking at the Roberdeau map it is seen that the shadow direction is a little off a right angle with respect to Main St and, looking at Willis 1, the shadows are quite long. If the Limo and the motorcycles were near Z255 in the A#6 the shadows should be pointed markedly backwards, but they're not.

They did not point markedly backwards in Willis 5 either. They point somewhat backwards, yes, but not markedly. Neither were they quite long, as can be seen in Willis 7. The shadows are about as long as the people making them were tall.

Also, there is a substantial difference in shadow length between the motorcycles and crowd on the right compared with the Limo and Chaney on the left.

That’s only logical, George. The further to the left, the shorter the shadows would seem in the photo.

Picture a person casting a shadow. Now draw a straight line at 0 degrees through that shadow and call that line A. Then draw another line at straight angles with line A that cuts it where the person is and call this line B.


The photographer of the photo above is quite close to line B and, therefore, the shadow of Altgens appears quite long.


The photographer of the photo above is clearly less close to line B than in the first photo (he’s actually about halfway between lines A and B) and, therefore, the shadow of Altgens appears about half as long as in the first photo.


The photographer of the photo above is (almost) on line A and, therefore, the shadow of Altgens appears very short in this photo.
The pictures above show how the shadow changes when the position of the one taking the photos changes with regard to the one who’s being photographed. And the closer to line B the photographer is, the longer the shadow appears in the photo, or the closer to line A he or she is, the shorter the shadow appears.

Now, in Altgens #6, Altgens is closest to officer Martin’s line B and closest to officer Chaney’s line A. In other words, the shadows on the right side of the picture appear longer than the ones on the left side.

Just as the photo below shows.


The shadow of “Chaney” is shorter than that of "Hargis" from the photographer’s vantage point. This effect would have been larger in Altgens #6 as Altgens was closer to the scene than the one who made the photo (still from a film) above.

The map shows that LBJ was at Z160 when Z255 was recorded, but in the A#6 his vehicle appears to be still completing the turn from Houston St and opposite the tree, about Z135.

Studying the Zapruder footage and comparing it to Altgens #6, you’d have to conclude that the shadow of the tree on the south side of Elm Street falls between 2 white lines on the road. In Altgens #6 we see a line almost touched by the limousine, then there’s another line under the follow-up car and then the tree shadow falls between the 2 lines following. What we can also see in the Altgens photo is that LBJ’s car is between those 2 lines, seemingly touching the tree’s shadow with its left front wheel. In Z135 we see that the presidential limousine hasn’t reached the tree shadow yet. This only happens around Z150. The last frame that seems to fit a location for LBJ’s car with Altgens #6 is Z156, maby 157, which is close enough to Roberdeau’s map.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

"While I was looking at the signs I noticed a peculiarity with the Altgens Photo #6:

This photo is generally attributed to Z255. Altgens used a 105mm telephoto, so there is a degree of image compression, but the Limo appears to be approximately at the tangent of the tight radius curve between Elm and Houston, which would place it in the vicinity of Z130."

That’s impossible. The white concrete pillar behind the limousine in Altgens’s photo is some yards beyond the oak tree and the limousine is clearly ahead of it. In fact, it’s already clearly ahead of the lamp post, too. If you’d draw a straight line from the left side of the entrance to the TSBD along the right side of this pillar towards the south side of Elm Street, you’d end up where Altgens was standing when he took his photo and the car would be on this line at a point where it almost touched the lane closest to the grassy area on the south side of Elm Street. Furthermore, in the photo Jackie Kennedy has taken hold of her husband’s left arm with both hands and this happened close to Z255.

Here's a photo taken on 27 November 1963 during an early re-enactment, taken from a position very close to where Altgens was when he took his photo (although he was somewhat closer to or maybe even just on the roadway). In Altgens 6 the presidential limousine is closer to the right side of the street/photo, almost touching the white line on the road.

According to Altgens, and the Roberdeau map (https://imgur.com/8vSS1dp), he was on the road near the white line, and that would make the perspective of the above photo more consistent with Altgens #6. The photo above shows a kerb curve that is more pronounced that the Roberdeau map, but not as pronounced as the Altgens #6. Also, I wonder what focal length lens was used as the photo above takes in the 6th floor of the TSBD. I can see why it is claimed that Altgens #6 is heavily cropped. While I don't disagree with what you have written above, particularly regarding the position of Jackie (and Connally) being around Z255, my concern is with the right side of the photo, the shadows and particularly the apparent relationship between the Limo and the small radius kerb on the right of the photo.

Looking at the Roberdeau map it is seen that the shadow direction is a little off a right angle with respect to Main St and, looking at Willis 1, the shadows are quite long. If the Limo and the motorcycles were near Z255 in the A#6 the shadows should be pointed markedly backwards, but they're not. Also, there is a substantial difference in shadow length between the motorcycles and crowd on the right compared with the Limo and Chaney on the left. The map shows that LBJ was at Z160 when Z255 was recorded, but in the A#6 his vehicle appears to be still completing the turn from Houston St and opposite the tree, about Z135.

"Also, the motorcycle cop (Chaney?) is about level with the president rather than with the follow vehicle."
Although, at first glance, this might seem to be so in the photo, I don’t think it was the case in reality.

On Willis 4 we can just see the headlight of Chaney’s motorcycle in the right end of the photo, placing the front tire of the motorcycle a foot or two behind the rear tire of the limousine. We can also see that the headlight is about at level with the height of the back trunk. This can also be seen in Willis 1. In Altgens 6 a large part of the headlight is visible above front trunk.

I think that Willis 4 was taken at or very close to Z138, in which we can see that Chaney is slightly left of the left border of the limousine’s shadow. In fact, he seems to be driving close to the broken lines on the asphalt dividing the middle lane from the northern lane.

In Z180 we can see that he’s still just left of the limousine’s shadow and he seems to be just inside the middle lane and still at around bumper level with his front tire at that point. He stays in this position until he disappears from view.

We could say that the limousine’s shadow (where the side meets the rear of the car) more or less points to Chaney’s front tire along the way. From Z238 onwards we can no longer see the edge of the limousine’s shadow. Then, from Z305 onwards, the front of Chaney’s motorcycle reappears - first vaguely, but sharper from Z311 – still at the rear of the limousine and not right next to the president.

It's also interesting to watch the Raw footage #19: The Pieringer-Underwood-Sanderson Film - YouTube. Right at the start we can see a frame or two quite similar to Altgens 6 and it turns out that Chaney is riding at least a foot or two behind Kennedy and not right next to him.

All of this corresponds with his own words that he “was riding on the right rear fender.”

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

While not disputing what you have presented about Chaney, it appears to me that he is looking BACK at Kennedy. He did state that when he saw the President was shot he rode forward to the lead car to report it. Perhaps that is an explanation?


There is no doubt that the Altgens #6 is a major piece of evidence, there just appears to me to be some anomalies. I have a friend who is a professional photographer and he is going to go through my concerns to see if they can be explained by telephoto compression, as what I am seeing in the Altgens #6 is contrary to my experience using a 105mm short telephoto. Alternatively, perhaps Altgens was mistaken or misquoted on the focal length of the telephoto that he used?

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

You got me. I was watching Robert Frazier, at 94 years of age, narrate the happenings on the days after the funeral. I didn't notice the jump at the splice.

No problem, George. Can happen to anyone.

I wonder why, with that view, the 6th floor gunman didn't take the shot at around 130?

That’s a fair question, of course. When I still believed there was more than just one shooter, I wondered about the same thing, as it would support the view I had back then. But one can also argue that Oswald figured that shooting the president from such close range would carry the risk of giving himself away and not being able to get away. So, seeing where Kennedy was seated in the limousine, he may have preferred to wait until the car was somewhat further away from him when he had an unobstructed view of the president’s back. Of course, it's all speculation either way.

While I was looking at the signs I noticed a peculiarity with the Altgens Photo #6:

This photo is generally attributed to Z255. Altgens used a 105mm telephoto, so there is a degree of image compression, but the Limo appears to be approximately at the tangent of the tight radius curve between Elm and Houston, which would place it in the vicinity of Z130.

That’s impossible. The white concrete pillar behind the limousine in Altgens’s photo is some yards beyond the oak tree and the limousine is clearly ahead of it. In fact, it’s already clearly ahead of the lamp post, too. If you’d draw a straight line from the left side of the entrance to the TSBD along the right side of this pillar towards the south side of Elm Street, you’d end up where Altgens was standing when he took his photo and the car would be on this line at a point where it almost touched the lane closest to the grassy area on the south side of Elm Street. Furthermore, in the photo Jackie Kennedy has taken hold of her husband’s left arm with both hands and this happened close to Z255.

Here's a photo taken on 27 November 1963 during an early re-enactment, taken from a position very close to where Altgens was when he took his photo (although he was somewhat closer to or maybe even just on the roadway). In Altgens 6 the presidential limousine is closer to the right side of the street/photo, almost touching the white line on the road.

Also, the motorcycle cop (Chaney?) is about level with the president rather than with the follow vehicle.

Although, at first glance, this might seem to be so in the photo, I don’t think it was the case in reality.

On Willis 4 we can just see the headlight of Chaney’s motorcycle in the right end of the photo, placing the front tire of the motorcycle a foot or two behind the rear tire of the limousine. We can also see that the headlight is about at level with the height of the back trunk. This can also be seen in Willis 1. In Altgens 6 a large part of the headlight is visible above front trunk.

I think that Willis 4 was taken at or very close to Z138, in which we can see that Chaney is slightly left of the left border of the limousine’s shadow. In fact, he seems to be driving close to the broken lines on the asphalt dividing the middle lane from the northern lane.

In Z180 we can see that he’s still just left of the limousine’s shadow and he seems to be just inside the middle lane and still at around bumper level with his front tire at that point. He stays in this position until he disappears from view.

We could say that the limousine’s shadow (where the side meets the rear of the car) more or less points to Chaney’s front tire along the way. From Z238 onwards we can no longer see the edge of the limousine’s shadow. Then, from Z305 onwards, the front of Chaney’s motorcycle reappears - first vaguely, but sharper from Z311 – still at the rear of the limousine and not right next to the president.

It's also interesting to watch the Raw footage #19: The Pieringer-Underwood-Sanderson Film - YouTube. Right at the start we can see a frame or two quite similar to Altgens 6 and it turns out that Chaney is riding at least a foot or two behind Kennedy and not right next to him.

All of this corresponds with his own words that he “was riding on the right rear fender.”

Cheers,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You ignoring my responses doesn't mean they didn't happen.

I don't remember seeing any responses from you.