ike altgens photo
tom
upper portion of the most-often viewed Ike Altgens photograph has his
face scratched-out or inked-out? He certainly has the appearance of
an "official" of some sort. All versions of this photo, on the web,
appear to be copies of the damaged original. My email address is
agto...@netzero.com. thanks
Robert Harris
Tom, look at this very his res version of the photo at my website:
http://jfkhistory.com/pix/altgensBIG.jpg
The man I think you are talking about, is holding a child with a
pointed hat, which is in front of the man's face.
Robert Harris
ShutterBun
It's not inked out. There is a woman holding a baby in front of him.
The baby is wearing a knit snow-cap, which is blocking the man's face.
Anthony Marsh
It would help if you'd attach the photo you are talking about and mark
what you see. I don't see anyone's face scratched out and I have a copy of
the original negative. Here is a blow-up of that area. Where you do see
this man?
What you may be seeing is the top of a man's head disappear into the
shadow.
The Dutchman
yeuhd
photo is how unalarmed the spectators look, even smiling and happy.
Yet one and in all likelihood two shots have already been fired,
including one that struck JFK (Z-233) more than a second prior to this
photo being taken (Z-255). With the exception of Rosemary Willis, none
of the spectators on either side of Elm Street in films and still
photographs show any visible reaction to gunfire until the head shot.
As the limousine glides by Jean Hill in the Zapruder film, after two
shots have been fired, President Kennedy is clutching his fists before
his throat, and Governor Connally is falling into his wife's lap. But
Hill is already looking at the next cars in the motorcade.
Peter Fokes
Maybe their expressions have been altered!
LOL!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
I thought he might mean the man behind Lovelady, in the shadows.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
claviger
> On 16 Dec 2009 09:41:24 -0500, tom <agtoro...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >can anyone tell me why the man in the dark suit, on the steps, in the
> >upper portion of the most-often viewed Ike Altgens photograph has his
> >face scratched-out or inked-out? He certainly has the appearance of
> >an "official" of some sort. All versions of this photo, on the web,
> >appear to be copies of the damaged original. My email address is
>
> Tom, look at this very his res version of the photo at my website:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/altgensBIG.jpg
>
> The man I think you are talking about, is holding a child with a
> pointed hat, which is in front of the man's face.
>
> Robert Harris
Robert,
This photo was taken after the second shot. We can see Gov. Connally
reacting and Jackie has her hand on the President's arm. If we back up
the Limousine for the first shot it would be about where the VP
convertible is.
Squinty Magoo
>
> >can anyone tell me why the man in the dark suit, on the steps, in the
> >upper portion of the most-often viewed Ike Altgens photograph has his
> >face scratched-out or inked-out? He certainly has the appearance of
> >an "official" of some sort. All versions of this photo, on the web,
> >appear to be copies of the damaged original. My email address is
>
> Tom, look at this very his res version of the photo at my website:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/pix/altgensBIG.jpg
>
> The man I think you are talking about, is holding a child with a
> pointed hat, which is in front of the man's face.
>
> Robert Harris
When I asked this same question on Sept 14, Marsh rudely replied, "I
have no idea what you are talking about and why you would bring this
up. Can you explain how someone would use a marker on the original
negative? Have you examined the original negative?"
The Dutchman
Bob Harris' description is probably more correct. It looks like a
little child with a big wool cap. Ever'thang's bigger in Texas, ain't
it?!
Robert Harris
<01dce9ca-ac9b-416f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think the first shot was much earlier than that. I explain that in
detail in my new video:
http://www.jfkhistory.com/ALL/ALL.mov
I also have it posted at youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc76n8q44
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<0030f4d3-7e2f-43ee...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
yeuhd <needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow! You learn something new every day!
Robert Harris
claviger
It looks to me like the man is holding a child with a sweater cap.
Anthony Marsh
That guy behind the little boy is not on the steps as the OP said.
Anthony Marsh
I can't be sure that you asked exactly the same question since you are
always so vague and don't want to be pinned down. But my answer remains
the same.
Newspaper editors did indeed alter COPIES of wire photos. Kinda fun.
Robert Harris
<0d50896a-3058-475e...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Squinty Magoo <magoos...@msn.com> wrote:
Sadly, there are people in the JFK newsgroups who contribute nothing
except insults and personal attacks.
It's pretty easy to see who most of them are.
Robert Harris
The Dutchman
Then is it the figure behind Lovelady?
jas
If Altgens only had panned up somewhat, or used the sideways angle,
we'd have a pic of the 6th floor SN window.
Sandy McCroskey
That's a very funny remark, Peter, from my point of view, but I find it
strange that someone who is now on record saying that he believes the
Zapruder film was altered would find such a proposition laughable at all.
After all, if that were true, They would have have to alter all the other
film evidence as well. LOL indeed!
/Sandy
Anthony Marsh
That's what I think he means, but he is vague. He is handicapped by
using WebTV so he can't see or upload graphics.
ShutterBun
I really had no idea what he meant, but upon looking at that area on a
"normal sized" version of the Altgens photo, the "man's face covered by
baby's hat" was the salient (hehe*) detail. At first glance, it does look
like it might be a man's face being blotted out somehow, but upon closer
examination, it's perfectly innocent.
*inside joke to anyone who's followed a recent discussion I was involved
in on a.c.jfk