What was Winston Lawson really doing?

I came across this little gem today:

SS agent Winston Lawson, riding in the motorcade’s lead car, tries to wave onlookers off the triple underpass. The Dallas police officer, standing with the railroad employees on the overpass, does not notice the signaling. Lawson will later say: “From Love Field to Dealey Plaza, there were 20,000 windows. How could we possibly check them all?”

Does this quote leap out at anyone?

Winston Lawson was in the lead car - sitting the right front seat, next to the driver.

The car he was riding in, the Lead Car, is an unmarked white Ford police sedan. Not a convertible. You can see it very clearly in this picture here:



The white car up front, that's it.

Now, imagine this action of Winston Lawson "waving the onlookers off the Triple Overpass". This action allegedly occurred before the shots were fired - which means, the lead car was somewhere near the old Stemmons sign or something, and the presidential limo was a little ways behind.

How exactly do you think Lawson performed this action? What did he do, lean out the window and frantically wave his arms back and forth? To the extent that the DPD guy standing on the overpass was somehow "expected" to see him frantically waving?

I don't understand this event.

Does anyone have an explanation for this?

A picture, maybe? (Of Winston Lawson trying to wave the onlookers off the overpass?)

And... y'know.... as long as we're on the subject, I have to ask.... WTF is this?

That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Good eyes!

I mean, I really didn't think it was a small person jumping off the hood waving his arms for help.

I never thought it was  Hervé Villechaize, doing a bit of plane spotting, either.

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Yes! I mean, the thing behind it - the person.

I'm looking at the right shoulder of the person, it looks like there is a strap on it. Camera strap, perhaps? This is some kind of reporter or news person, racing BETWEEN the moving cars towards the grassy knoll?

Or, let me rephrase - is there any kind of identification for who (or "what") that person is?

nonsqtr wrote:

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Yes! I mean, the thing behind it - the person.

I'm looking at the right shoulder of the person, it looks like there is a strap on it. Camera strap, perhaps? This is some kind of reporter or news person, racing BETWEEN the moving cars towards the grassy knoll?

Or, let me rephrase - is there any kind of identification for who (or "what") that person is?

It's a flag i believe although there does appear to be a person in the rear of the lead car looking back at the limo.

Alan Dixon wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Yes! I mean, the thing behind it - the person.

I'm looking at the right shoulder of the person, it looks like there is a strap on it. Camera strap, perhaps? This is some kind of reporter or news person, racing BETWEEN the moving cars towards the grassy knoll?

Or, let me rephrase - is there any kind of identification for who (or "what") that person is?

It's a flag i believe although there does appear to be a person in the rear of the lead car looking back at the limo.

Who bears a remarkable resemblance to The Chameleon in the Spider-Man series, and also a Grey space alien. I think it's just the weirdness of the flag's flapping configuration -- the effect of the wind resulting from the car's speed -- freeze-framed in the pic that's throwing you off, nonsqtr. Look below it and see if there are legs there. (also, tassels on the edges of the flag adds to the strange look of it)

btw, you got something against vowels?

Alan Dixon wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Yes! I mean, the thing behind it - the person.

I'm looking at the right shoulder of the person, it looks like there is a strap on it. Camera strap, perhaps? This is some kind of reporter or news person, racing BETWEEN the moving cars towards the grassy knoll?

Or, let me rephrase - is there any kind of identification for who (or "what") that person is?

It's a flag i believe although there does appear to be a person in the rear of the lead car looking back at the limo.

You don't see the person? Am I imagining things?

I can see that the "head" of the person might actually be a reflection of the light, out of the front of the lead car.

BUT, there's a foot there, isn't there?

You don't see that?

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

Alan Dixon wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

Colonel Von Hello wrote:That is the flag on the front of the Presidential limousine.

Yes! I mean, the thing behind it - the person.

I'm looking at the right shoulder of the person, it looks like there is a strap on it. Camera strap, perhaps? This is some kind of reporter or news person, racing BETWEEN the moving cars towards the grassy knoll?

Or, let me rephrase - is there any kind of identification for who (or "what") that person is?

It's a flag i believe although there does appear to be a person in the rear of the lead car looking back at the limo.

Who bears a remarkable resemblance to The Chameleon in the Spider-Man series, and also a Grey space alien. I think it's just the weirdness of the flag's flapping configuration -- the effect of the wind resulting from the car's speed -- freeze-framed in the pic that's throwing you off, nonsqtr. Look below it and see if there are legs there. (also, tassels on the edges of the flag adds to the strange look of it)

btw, you got something against vowels?

I like vowels - in fact I find the vowel-less languages somewhat harsh and difficult to pronounce. But that's just me, YMMV and all that.

So, here are the two pieces of the photo I'm focusing on. I see what "could" be a right foot, and what "could" be a left foot. The right foot is almost directly coincident with the flagpole (the stem of the flag) - but the left foot shouldn't be there. IOW, there's nothing obvious that I can see, that would be causing a "left foot" to appear there if there isn't one.

The second part is the strap, it looks very much like there's a strap on the right "shoulder" of the "person".

If it's a bunch of shadows, it sure is very "person-like", isn't it?

Yeah, it would help if I remember to upload the pic. Here ya go -

'Kay, a different way -



Let's see if you see this the same way I do.

The blue is the maximum extent of the flag. It's fluttering off to the left, and the "flagpole" (car antenna or whatever it is) is sticking straight up.

The purple are the people, you can see the guy on the left there looks like he's completely turned around, 'cause you can see the "V" where his shirt/tie is - and the guy on the right is in the shadows, he's dark - whereas the reflection looks like it's coming from somewhere in the middle, yes?

So then, the yellow parts are the strap on top, and the left foot on the bottom.

That laaves the red outline to the right, and... um... let me ask this question delicately: is there are possibility we could be looking at a mangled image here? An imperfect attempt to erase something?

This is a pretty famous photo, yes? Has Jack White or anyone done any analysis on this part of it?

All right, we can ask the question even a different way - IF that thing is entirely a reflection, then the person doing the reflecting has to be the driver, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Would that be your take too?

'Cause the guy on the left there, he's way off to the left, he has to be in the back seat. The car is at a bit of an angle, and you can see the blob on the right where the back right seat person is (that would be Forrest Sorrels, yes?), and what you really can't see too well is the guy in front of him in the right front seat (which would be Win Lawson). So the three purples parts I've indicated would be Bill Decker, Jesse Curry, and Forrest Sorrels, in that order from left to right. Do you concur?

Let's just get that far, and then I'll show you the problem with this theory.

nonsqtr wrote:'Kay, a different way -



Let's see if you see this the same way I do.

The blue is the maximum extent of the flag. It's fluttering off to the left, and the "flagpole" (car antenna or whatever it is) is sticking straight up.

The purple are the people, you can see the guy on the left there looks like he's completely turned around, 'cause you can see the "V" where his shirt/tie is - and the guy on the right is in the shadows, he's dark - whereas the reflection looks like it's coming from somewhere in the middle, yes?

So then, the yellow parts are the strap on top, and the left foot on the bottom.

That laaves the red outline to the right, and... um... let me ask this question delicately: is there are possibility we could be looking at a mangled image here? An imperfect attempt to erase something?

This is a pretty famous photo, yes? Has Jack White or anyone done any analysis on this part of it?

Brian, first my apologies to you (and to Alan) for the joking -- about vowels, the Chameleon & Grays (although the 1st thing I thought when looking at the person Alan was mentioning was his face looked exactly the way the Chameleon was depicted, like a crash test dummy head).

Secondly, I still think it's an odd-looking result of a freeze-frame on the flag flapping from the car's speeding. "Tassels" may not have been the right word, but I'm talking about border-fringe all around the flag; almost certainly gold in color & flag itself dark blue. The freeze-framed image looks even stranger when blown up, which also lends itself to seeing different things out of perspective. Like light reflections appearing to be something else and so on. For instance, my best guess would be that what you've outlined in purple in the middle is the very tip of the "flagpole" itself, not a reflection on the window. But who knows? This is probably why photo interpretation is avoided by some of us, because so many people see different things different ways.

Third I guess is the unlikelihood of anyone running between obviously speeding vehicles in the immediate aftermath of a dramatic shooting event, unless they wanted to be run over.

I thought your original post was very damned interesting, as it sounded like someone had given Lawson an opportunity to spread a bit of ass-covering -- as you mention, he'd have to have been hanging out the damned window shouting and waving for the idea to be credible.

SS agent Winston Lawson, riding in the motorcade’s lead car, tries to wave onlookers off the triple underpass. The Dallas police officer, standing with the railroad employees on the overpass, does not notice the signaling. Lawson will later say: “From Love Field to Dealey Plaza, there were 20,000 windows. How could we possibly check them all?”

Take care of yourself,
Dan

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:'Kay, a different way -



Let's see if you see this the same way I do.

The blue is the maximum extent of the flag. It's fluttering off to the left, and the "flagpole" (car antenna or whatever it is) is sticking straight up.

The purple are the people, you can see the guy on the left there looks like he's completely turned around, 'cause you can see the "V" where his shirt/tie is - and the guy on the right is in the shadows, he's dark - whereas the reflection looks like it's coming from somewhere in the middle, yes?

So then, the yellow parts are the strap on top, and the left foot on the bottom.

That laaves the red outline to the right, and... um... let me ask this question delicately: is there are possibility we could be looking at a mangled image here? An imperfect attempt to erase something?

This is a pretty famous photo, yes? Has Jack White or anyone done any analysis on this part of it?

Brian, first my apologies to you (and to Alan) for the joking -- about vowels, the Chameleon & Grays (although the 1st thing I thought when looking at the person Alan was mentioning was his face looked exactly the way the Chameleon was depicted, like a crash test dummy head).

Secondly, I still think it's an odd-looking result of a freeze-frame on the flag flapping from the car's speeding. "Tassels" may not have been the right word, but I'm talking about border-fringe all around the flag; almost certainly gold in color & flag itself dark blue. The freeze-framed image looks even stranger when blown up, which also lends itself to seeing different things out of perspective. Like light reflections appearing to be something else and so on. For instance, my best guess would be that what you've outlined in purple in the middle is the very tip of the "flagpole" itself, not a reflection on the window. But who knows? This is probably why photo interpretation is avoided by some of us, because so many people see different things different ways.

Third I guess is the unlikelihood of anyone running between obviously speeding vehicles in the immediate aftermath of a dramatic shooting event, unless they wanted to be run over.

I thought your original post was very damned interesting, as it sounded like someone had given Lawson an opportunity to spread a bit of ass-covering -- as you mention, he'd have to have been hanging out the damned window shouting and waving for the idea to be credible.

SS agent Winston Lawson, riding in the motorcade’s lead car, tries to wave onlookers off the triple underpass. The Dallas police officer, standing with the railroad employees on the overpass, does not notice the signaling. Lawson will later say: “From Love Field to Dealey Plaza, there were 20,000 windows. How could we possibly check them all?”

Take care of yourself,
Dan

If everyone agrees, lets pass this photo on to the OIC. They are the leading experts when it comes to coloured highlights and arrows.

Alan Dixon wrote:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:'Kay, a different way -



Let's see if you see this the same way I do.

The blue is the maximum extent of the flag. It's fluttering off to the left, and the "flagpole" (car antenna or whatever it is) is sticking straight up.

The purple are the people, you can see the guy on the left there looks like he's completely turned around, 'cause you can see the "V" where his shirt/tie is - and the guy on the right is in the shadows, he's dark - whereas the reflection looks like it's coming from somewhere in the middle, yes?

So then, the yellow parts are the strap on top, and the left foot on the bottom.

That laaves the red outline to the right, and... um... let me ask this question delicately: is there are possibility we could be looking at a mangled image here? An imperfect attempt to erase something?

This is a pretty famous photo, yes? Has Jack White or anyone done any analysis on this part of it?

Brian, first my apologies to you (and to Alan) for the joking -- about vowels, the Chameleon & Grays (although the 1st thing I thought when looking at the person Alan was mentioning was his face looked exactly the way the Chameleon was depicted, like a crash test dummy head).

Secondly, I still think it's an odd-looking result of a freeze-frame on the flag flapping from the car's speeding. "Tassels" may not have been the right word, but I'm talking about border-fringe all around the flag; almost certainly gold in color & flag itself dark blue. The freeze-framed image looks even stranger when blown up, which also lends itself to seeing different things out of perspective. Like light reflections appearing to be something else and so on. For instance, my best guess would be that what you've outlined in purple in the middle is the very tip of the "flagpole" itself, not a reflection on the window. But who knows? This is probably why photo interpretation is avoided by some of us, because so many people see different things different ways.

Third I guess is the unlikelihood of anyone running between obviously speeding vehicles in the immediate aftermath of a dramatic shooting event, unless they wanted to be run over.

I thought your original post was very damned interesting, as it sounded like someone had given Lawson an opportunity to spread a bit of ass-covering -- as you mention, he'd have to have been hanging out the damned window shouting and waving for the idea to be credible.

SS agent Winston Lawson, riding in the motorcade’s lead car, tries to wave onlookers off the triple underpass. The Dallas police officer, standing with the railroad employees on the overpass, does not notice the signaling. Lawson will later say: “From Love Field to Dealey Plaza, there were 20,000 windows. How could we possibly check them all?”

Take care of yourself,
Dan

If everyone agrees, lets pass this photo on to the OIC. They are the leading experts when it comes to coloured highlights and arrows.

I'll show you specifically the part that keeps bothering me. Look here:



 Whatever that white thing is I've circled, you can clearly see it interrupting the window line, where the window joins the car body. Right? It's "in front of" the window, from our perspective as viewers.

So now you're probably going to say, "oh well, that's just a fringe on the flag, flapping around in the breeze". But no, it's not really. You can see the rest of the fringe, there is nothing that big anywhere else on the flag.  If the white thing is a "flap" on the flag, or a piece of the "fringe" of the flag, .... um.... I"ve drawn the blue circle pretty carefully. If you look on the right side of it, you'll see a dark spot. Look at and around that dark spot for a minute, and then tell me it's still a piece of the fringe.

I dunno... I might be completely off base. It just looks awful odd to me. I'm not a photographic expert, but I've done a lot of video editing on Avid systems and stuff like that. There's definitely something weird about that pic, to my eyes. There's something.... um.... "contrived" about the area I've circled, my eyes keep getting drawn to it, it sticks out.

Anyway, I'm not trying to "float a theory" or anything like that (being a n00b, I don't have that level of clout or understanding yet), I'm just kind of saying "gee, ain't it odd".  Then again, there's a lot of odd stuff in this Kennedy mess. I keep asking myself, "self, if you were doing this, how would you do it?" Somewhere in the back of my mind, the answer to that question always seems to be the old Sun Tzu parable: "the best place to hide something is right out in the open".

Here a picture of the limo with the flag on it.



You can see that flag, you can see the fringe - you tell me.... is there anything as big as that
white thing I circled?

The only thing I see that could even come close is that kinda "tassel" right where the top of the
whip (antenna, flagpole) meets the top inside corner of the flag.

But that, to my eyes, would not be large enough to produce the effect we're seeing in the Altgens
shot. Whatever that white thing is, it's big, it's not just a tiny little fringe like we're seeing
on the limo here.

Anyway, 'nuff of this, I have to get back to data entry. There's all kindsa stuff like this, and none
of it's worth arguing about. You just kinda notice it, let it sit there for a while, percolate.... and see
if anything pops out.

Tell ya what though, if that turns out to be a doctored pic I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Maybe I should drag it into S and analyze that area. Y'know... if you get 800 square pixels that
are all 0xCFCFCF you can be pretty sure the geniuses at Kodak had their hands on it at one point
or another. Just sayin'...

Perhaps asking Pamela Brown nicely about these matters might bring things into focus.  Lord, I'd hate to see Cinque getting a hold of this and writing forty posts about it.  This can get out of hand, like peeling an onion, make you cry sometimes.

This is what I see, but then my eye's aren't worth a damn anymore either.

Looks like "Roadkill Stew" fo' dinner tonite, granny.  Jethro, hope you're hungry, boy.

Stan Dane wrote:This is what I see, but then my eye's aren't worth a damn anymore either.

How could i doubt you Stan. A few arrows perhaps?

Stan, you still on those meds for your hand?

It may not be your eyes... knowwhatimean?

Jus' sayin'.

Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Perhaps asking Pamela Brown nicely about these matters might bring things into focus.  Lord, I'd hate to see Cinque getting a hold of this and writing forty posts about it.  This can get out of hand, like peeling an onion, make you cry sometimes.

I hear ya.

Okay, I'll shut up.

Wasn't my intention to go down that path anyway.

(Sheesh, gotta be careful around here)...  

nonsqtr wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Perhaps asking Pamela Brown nicely about these matters might bring things into focus.  Lord, I'd hate to see Cinque getting a hold of this and writing forty posts about it.  This can get out of hand, like peeling an onion, make you cry sometimes.

I hear ya.

Okay, I'll shut up.

Wasn't my intention to go down that path anyway.

(Sheesh, gotta be careful around here)...  

Good call. FWIW, what i think appears to be a person could be a nodding dog on the parcel shelf.

nonsqtr wrote:

Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Perhaps asking Pamela Brown nicely about these matters might bring things into focus.  Lord, I'd hate to see Cinque getting a hold of this and writing forty posts about it.  This can get out of hand, like peeling an onion, make you cry sometimes.

I hear ya.

Okay, I'll shut up.

Wasn't my intention to go down that path anyway. :)

(Sheesh, gotta be careful around here)...  :P

Brian,

I think some members here are battle fatigued from photography analysis.  Especially those of us who were around for for the weird and wonderful wackjobs known as Ralph Cinque and Mike Rago.

Now, I know you mean well and you are an honest guy but I cannot agree with you that there  is anything contained in that James Altgens photograph that is untoward. You are seeing things that I simply do not see.  This type of stuff happens when we begin to stare at these photos for too long.  We begin to see shapes and our brains try to make sense out of them by turning strange shapes into things that it understands and knows -- rather than blobs and patterns.

Gary Mack and Jack White's bullshit badgeman set this community back years by colorising blobs.

Analysis of blobs hasn't once progressed this case.  Timelines have.