Chaney's motorcycle in Zapruder frame Z-242

[Royell Storing]

Only a moron like you would need a disclaimer to tell them that the Zapruder crop had been reversed.
you need to get out more, and do some actual photographic research.

Study the assassination photos and films, maybe then you would recognize a reversed frame when you see it
instead of me having to explain it to you like you were a 10-year old.

And STOP "Bumping the post, just to send it to the top of the forum page"

     Stop being crabby. What I Know has nothing to do with the Altering of JFK Assassination Images. Attaching a *Disclaimer* to a Photo YOU have altered takes care of a possible current problem as well as one that may arise down the road.

[Steve Barber]

   Thank you for Confirming that there is No Hat atop the man's head in the Croft photo. There is Something in his (R) hand which is Round/Circular in shape. This shape would be akin to a Drinking Glass, Tall Can, or Stein. I do Not see any trace of anything resembling the Contrasting Wide/DARK Band we see in the Altgens Photo. This consistently Uniform circular shape from its' top all the way down to its' bottom = this being a Solid Object. This is Not the Hat we see in the Altgens Photo.

Give it up, Storing.  It is the same man in all three images. Croft, then Towner film, the Altgens all three show the same man in the light colored jacket with glasses/sunglasses. Two of them show him with the hat on, Towner and Altgens, Croft shows him with the hat in his hand.  You can call it whatever you want, but it's his hat. A man across the street from him tipped his black hat as the president passed by. He is standing on the south side of Elm Street across from the TSBD, so apparently, men did this in honor of the president and first lady in Dallas.  The proof that it is the same man is the fact the the two women standing at the curb are in line with the hat man and his partner in dark clothing seated to his right in all three images.  What in the world would anyone want to mess with the people in the Altgens picture, Storing?  They have absolutely no bearing on anything regarding the shooting.  And their is no controversy over Lovelady being in Altgens' photograph.  Only a fool believes that isn't Lovelady on the steps of the TSBD.  There is solid proof that the man in the Towner fame and the man in the Croft photo and the man in Altgens 6 all are the same.  Any photographic expert will tell you this.  You have done so much damage to this tragic event by making up silly, outrageous theories about people in the photos and films, and the photos and films themselves, it's sickening.  You are going to have to do a lot better than this to convince people that hat man isn't the same man in all three photos. You are basing your conclusion on his hat, alone. The white jacket, the glasses, the man dressed in dark clothing seated to his right in the same position in all three images, his arm extended in a wave are just three things that prove its the same man.  There is no reason under the sun why anyone would have any reason to "alter" his position in the Altgens photo because he isn't pertinent to the photograph. 

 You are a total waste of time.

[Chris Bristow]

Thanks for taking the time to find that, Chris......  I knew that Hargis had said that he was stuck on his helmet by "something"  solid....

The fact that he was hit hard enough to consider that he might have been 'hit' is interesting because he rode into the plume of blood about 12 frames after the head shot. Nothing in that plume could be moving fast enough for him to think he was shot because any fragment traveling fast enough to do that would have travelled onto the grass area before Hargis arrived there 12 frames later. Anything in that plume that took 12 frames to travel about 8 feet would have to be going under 10 miles an hour. At 10 mph he would not think he was 'Hit'.
 To strike him hard enough it would have to be going much faster and would have hit him by frame 316 which would puts the fragments speed at 30 to 40 mph. But the interesting take away is Hargis was way back by the rear bumper around 317. So the fragment would have travelled back to the rear moving almost directly East. Oswald's position was only about 45 degrees away from the direction of the fragment that hit Hargis.
  The fragments we see shooting up from JFK in 313 and 314 are moving at about 5 feet per frame. If whatever hit Hargis was moving at the same speed it would have hit him at frame 316.
 So whatever hit Hargis must have struck him when he was back by the rear bumper and it shows that debris flew to the rear at a very steep angle when compared to Oswald's location. I wonder if the debris that Brehm  saw land by the curb "Near me" may have been whatever bounced of Hargis's helmet.
  I would like to point out a few things to the skeptics before they weigh in. Brem DID say something from JFK's head did fly off and land near him. That is his actual statements. He was not sure if it was bone or what it was but he was sure it flew off JFK and landed near him. Second the plume did not move backwards at all when you compare it to the grass in the background So Hargis took 12 frames to reach the plume.
 I wanted to add those facts because when it comes to the hole in the back of his head there are more blatant lies told than any other issue I know of.
 As an example the poster John Myton posted showing all those witness' who supposedly said they saw a holes on top of his head is so wrong it is actually propaganda. They point out that some of those witness later deferred to the WC. That does not mean they had a 'come to god' moment and realized that they actually saw a hole on top not behind. They simply trusted our government that the autopsy photos were real and so they must be wrong. They deferred but it was based on the blind trust that we had for our government back then.
Some of the witness like John Newman said they saw blood on the side of JFK's head but they did NOT say they saw a hole on top of his head. john Newman actually pointed to the forehead and said the president was shot in the head. That explains the blood on the side of his head. The blatant misrepresentations made in that poster should be noted by anyone trying to decide if there was a cover up. They should also google "Posner liar" because some researchers have compared his statements regarding the hole the Parkland Dr's saw against their actual statements and taped interviews. when you make that comparison you will have some major question about integrity and which side is telling the lies. There are so many provable lies regarding the Parkland Dr's that it is pretty convincing evidence that there is still a cover up going on today.
 Changing the subject a bit, here is a 30 second video of Hargis telling some folks that the limo came almost to a complete stop. It is interesting to note that he prefaced his comment by saying "This is not to be shown publicly". 

Lastly I want to mention that when someone makes a good case against the skeptics they often give rebuttals that do not directly address the issue but act as if they are addressing the statements made. That is something that anyone trying to find the truth should watch closely. The skeptics also cherry pick testimony. Many of the witness' gave statements that day and Sunday and months later. The skeptics often claim they never said that and then post one of the statements in which they did not specify all the same observations.
 I will not always address these types of rebuttals so I hope anyone trying to determine if I lie or if my information is wrong, that they will take into account what I have explained regarding the lies and misrepresentation made by some skeptics. If anyone is trying to figure out which side is lying you may need to look up the actual witness statements(All of them from each witness) it is best to take an evening or 3 and read what was actually said. Otherwise it is easy to fall victim to misleading statements and full on lies.

[Royell Storing]

Give it up, Storing.  It is the same man in all three images. Croft, then Towner film, the Altgens all three show the same man in the light colored jacket with glasses/sunglasses. Two of them show him with the hat on, Towner and Altgens, Croft shows him with the hat in his hand.  You can call it whatever you want, but it's his hat. A man across the street from him tipped his black hat as the president passed by. He is standing on the south side of Elm Street across from the TSBD, so apparently, men did this in honor of the president and first lady in Dallas.  The proof that it is the same man is the fact the the two women standing at the curb are in line with the hat man and his partner in dark clothing seated to his right in all three images.  What in the world would anyone want to mess with the people in the Altgens picture, Storing?  They have absolutely no bearing on anything regarding the shooting.  And their is no controversy over Lovelady being in Altgens' photograph.  Only a fool believes that isn't Lovelady on the steps of the TSBD.  There is solid proof that the man in the Towner fame and the man in the Croft photo and the man in Altgens 6 all are the same.  Any photographic expert will tell you this.  You have done so much damage to this tragic event by making up silly, outrageous theories about people in the photos and films, and the photos and films themselves, it's sickening.  You are going to have to do a lot better than this to convince people that hat man isn't the same man in all three photos. You are basing your conclusion on his hat, alone. The white jacket, the glasses, the man dressed in dark clothing seated to his right in the same position in all three images, his arm extended in a wave are just three things that prove its the same man.  There is no reason under the sun why anyone would have any reason to "alter" his position in the Altgens photo because he isn't pertinent to the photograph. 

 You are a total waste of time.

    Anybody, Repeat Anybody, looking at the Croft Photo KNOWS they are Not looking at a Hat in that guy's (R) hand. That area that the Hat Man is alleged to be positioned in is Important because: (1) It's Only a stones throw from the alleged Lovelady position on the TSBD steps, (2) It's the same general area that is MIA on the CURRENT Z Film = the Limo turning from Houston onto Elm St, and (3) It is the general area of the Triangle/Island/Elm St Annex referenced by Couch in his WC testimony of an 8"-10" Blood Pool.  The Hat Man + That Area of Dealey Plaza remain very important. This is why this case remains unsolved after 54+ years. The Attention to DETAIL Was/Is Lacking. 

[Steve Barber]

    Anybody, Repeat Anybody, looking at the Croft Photo KNOWS they are Not looking at a Hat in that guy's (R) hand. That area that the Hat Man is alleged to be positioned in is Important because: (1) It's Only a stones throw from the alleged Lovelady position on the TSBD steps, (2) It's the same general area that is MIA on the CURRENT Z Film = the Limo turning from Houston onto Elm St, and (3) It is the general area of the Triangle/Island/Elm St Annex referenced by Couch in his WC testimony of an 8"-10" Blood Pool.  The Hat Man + That Area of Dealey Plaza remain very important. This is why this case remains unsolved after 54+ years. The Attention to DETAIL Was/Is Lacking.

 Anybody who lacks common sense.  You just go ahead with your fantasy, Roy.   Its what keeps you going and it's all you've got to live for.

[John Mytton]

If anyone's suggesting that Altgens 6 has been altered, then has to explain how it was done so quick before it ended up on the front page of Newspapers on the same day?
Lucky the following newspaper was bright enough to edit out Levitating man, or did someone else edit him in later and why, curious minds would like to know!



And here's the "Levitating man" in Croft and he appears to be waving something that looks to be about the size of his head, maybe a hat or something?



JohnM

[Royell Storing]

If anyone's suggesting that Altgens 6 has been altered, then has to explain how it was done so quick before it ended up on the front page of Newspapers on the same day?
Lucky the following newspaper was bright enough to edit out Levitating man, or did someone else edit him in later and why, curious minds would like to know!



And here's the "Levitating man" in Croft and he appears to be waving something that looks to be about the size of his head, maybe a hat or something?



JohnM

           Are you referring to the man in the Light Colored Shirt? If so, you are probably getting confused by the shadow.

[Royell Storing]

    The shape of the Object in the (R) Hand of the man wearing the Light Colored Shirt in No Way resembles any kind of hat imaginable. Whatever he is Holding in his (R) hand is Uniformly Cylindrical from its' Top all the way down to its' Bottom. This is Not the same man we are seeing on the Altgens Photo who is wearing a Light colored hat contrasted by a DARK/WIDE Band.