Chaney's motorcycle in Zapruder frame Z-242

[Chris Bristow]

Walt, as Chris Davidson says it does not matter which Z frame it really matches cause maybe they faked something. But my point is using Z film frames allows me to state a very specify position for the limo as it relates to the Z film. In other words I think in Altgens 6 the limo lines up with it's position in Z 255. Some say it was earlier and that would change the angles at bit when trying to place Chaney relative to the limo.
  I am trying to figure out why people place Chaney next to JFK using Altgens 6. What is the basis for that?

[Walt Cakebread]

Walt, as Chris Davidson says it does not matter which Z frame it really matches cause maybe they faked something. But my point is using Z film frames allows me to state a very specify position for the limo as it relates to the Z film. In other words I think in Altgens 6 the limo lines up with it's position in Z 255. Some say it was earlier and that would change the angles at bit when trying to place Chaney relative to the limo.
  I am trying to figure out why people place Chaney next to JFK using Altgens 6. What is the basis for that?

Are you kidding?   The extant Z film shows that there was no motorcycle officer alongside the Lincoln at Z frame 255.....But I don't understand how anybody cannot see that Chaney was right there alongside the Lincoln in Altgen's #6  And since that is true, the Z film is a fake..... 

The shadows of Hargis and Martin show that their shadows fell slightly to the rear of 90 degrees of them...The same holds true for Chaney....And we can see the shadow of his windshield on the surface of Elm street just beyond the front bumper.

This isn't rocket science.....

[Chris Bristow]

I used the Plat map to do an los for Chaney. Altgens is at the curb in this map and I am not sure about that. But placing him at the curb allows for a greater distance between the red line and the limo. But even at the curb the line is too close to the limo. An Electraglide is 35 to 38 inches wide, about 1/2 as wide as the limo. If the bike was half way in between JFK and the rear bumper it would still be touching the limo. To allow for one foot clearance it has to be by the rear bumper.

[Chris Bristow]

Walt, are you saying the shadows are just slightly off a 90 degree angle compared to the direction the bikes are pointed? Because if you look at a map and compare the azimuth to Elm at around z255 it is 68 degrees away from the direction the bikes are traveling. If it is before 255 the angle increases!
 I posted a bit about angles and perspective warping apparent angles in a photo. I sent you a photo comparison but I don't think it worked.
 Here is an experiment anyone can do in one minute. You don't need a camera because this perspective problem is not about camera distortion. You need a protractor or even just a paper and pen to draw the angle seen.
Simply put two objects on a table to simulate the limo and the bike. Stand straight over it and record the angle from the front bumper to the bike. Not step back about 10 feet and record the angle you see. Just hold the protractor up in front of you. Now step one foot to the right to simulate Altgens angle off the limo. You will find the actual angle seen from above has radically changed in each of the other two positions. This means without compensating for perspective you will never have an accurate measurement of any angle.

[Walt Cakebread]

I used the Plat map to do an los for Chaney. Altgens is at the curb in this map and I am not sure about that. But placing him at the curb allows for a greater distance between the red line and the limo. But even at the curb the line is too close to the limo. An Electraglide is 35 to 38 inches wide, about 1/2 as wide as the limo. If the bike was half way in between JFK and the rear bumper it would still be touching the limo. To allow for one foot clearance it has to be by the rear bumper.

Chris I believe you're approaching the problem backwards......  There are TWO solid immovable structures seen in the Altgens photo that can be used as points of reference ..... The concrete plyon behind Chaney... and the center of the third window from the SE corner on the second floor of the TSBD.   Using Robert West's plat you can scribe a straight line from the center of the window through the concrete pylon and on to the south side of Elm street.    Since the hood ornament of the Lincoln falls on that line you can know exactly where the hood ornament was relative to the surface of Elm street .....And then you can place the entire car on the street at the moment Chaney took the picture.   Since the figure of Chaney falls on the left side of that line  and the shadow of his motorcycle is visible on the surface of Elm street .....You can place him right alongside the Lincoln....   

[Chris Bristow]

I believe the shadow analysis is flawed as I explained which leaves the line of sight. The question is where along that line is Chaney sitting. Paul's two images illustrate an opinion but do not provide any measurements to show that the first image matches the second. Where Chaney is, is  not determined by his position behind the headlamp or hood ornament or in between. That only shows the los he is on not where he sits along that line of sight. it only verifies one coordinate. If you could reproduce Pauls images with and overhead view it would prove your case.
 I am open to considering peoples claims and will give it a fair chance. I would like to ask for you and any other folks interested to take me up on testing the shadow perspective issue for yourselves. It will only take one to two minutes to test it. As I said in that post you only need a protractor or papa and pen. I am confident that we will be on the same page regarding the distortion of perspective after you test it.
 When we look at a picture an assume that something is obvious just because it intuitively looks right it is not scientific. It is not rocket science, that is true, but it is not regular science either. We really suck at trying to evaluate a 2 dimensional image of a 3d world. I never would have guessed that shadow angles can change by over 30 degrees by just stepping back a few feet.
 I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.

[Chris Bristow]

Paul, this image denotes a line of sight through the limo to Chaney , that is fine. But it only verifies one coordinate. This image does not tell you where he is along that line of sight. Maybe he is next to JFK but he could also be farther back along that line which puts him behind JFK. The single coordinate shown here does not give the info needed to place Chaney where you have him in your second image. If you plot the Altgens line of sight from overhead I think you will find the 35 to 38 inch wide bike does not fit next to JFK cause it would overlap with the limo. Even halfway back to the rear bumper it would still touch the limo. Unless someone can prove that the line of sight shown in A.6 allows the bike to fit next to the limo I think we have to accept the imperial evidence dawn from the Altgens line of sight.

[Walt Cakebread]

I believe the shadow analysis is flawed as I explained which leaves the line of sight. The question is where along that line is Chaney sitting. Paul's two images illustrate an opinion but do not provide any measurements to show that the first image matches the second. Where Chaney is, is  not determined by his position behind the headlamp or hood ornament or in between. That only shows the los he is on not where he sits along that line of sight. it only verifies one coordinate. If you could reproduce Pauls images with and overhead view it would prove your case.
 I am open to considering peoples claims and will give it a fair chance. I would like to ask for you and any other folks interested to take me up on testing the shadow perspective issue for yourselves. It will only take one to two minutes to test it. As I said in that post you only need a protractor or papa and pen. I am confident that we will be on the same page regarding the distortion of perspective after you test it.
 When we look at a picture an assume that something is obvious just because it intuitively looks right it is not scientific. It is not rocket science, that is true, but it is not regular science either. We really suck at trying to evaluate a 2 dimensional image of a 3d world. I never would have guessed that shadow angles can change by over 30 degrees by just stepping back a few feet.
 I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.

I think the best argument against Chaney being next to JFK is the bike will not fit there. even if we put Altgens on the curb and not 6 feet into the street the bike just does not fit.

Why do you think the motorcycle wouldn't fit?   There is about 16 feet between the right side of the Lincoln and the north curb of Elm street....

Regarding the shadows of the motorcycle officers .....Their shadows fall just a few degrees from perpendicular or 90 degrees from their bodies which are casting the shadows.   

The point is:....the shadow of Chaney's windshield is seen on the surface of ELM street just beyond the car's bumper.....and that means the cycle had to be alongside the car.