Paul Rigby

Basic comprehension, like elementary logic, really isn't your strong point, is it? You dismissed Betzner's claims about a handgun being visible on the ground that he also referred to a rifle. I adduced Holland's testimony from 1966 to show that Betzner's claim about the former had corroboration. There are others. I like both, but I'll settle for the former.

I'm unsure of your point, Paul. Is the sarcasm aimed at the idea of the existence of "nameless, faceless, assassins without nationality" whose families are already secured away at our "resorts" and will remain safe as long as the assassin plays the game? Or does your sarcasm have more to do with Greer? If you are so naive as to believe that "mechanics" exist only in movies--and that their cooperation is not GUARANTEED by coercion and severe manipulation...you haven't done your homework. My point was perfectly clear, Greg. Precisely the same basic objection can be raised against one set of non-Oswaldian assassins as any other. As for "coercion and manipulation," why are their deployment unthinkable in the case of Greer (and other elements of the SS detail in Dallas), but viewed by you as givens in the case of your preferred alternatives?

Agreed. It makes nonsense of the claim all shots were fired from distance. Problem here, Jack, is that I am merely reading what eyewitnesses said about the smell, the sounds, and the events on Elm Street. I'm not inventing anything. Now, if one believes what they reported about the stench of gun powder, on what rational ground(s) do we discount what they said about shots from within the presidential limo? Why is one observation to be believed and the other discounted? Their actions could scarcely be more indicative of participation. As championed by, among others, Garrison in late 1967, a fact often airbrushed from history. But how does a shot (or shots) from the storm drain a) account for the fact the smell of gunpowder clung to the presidential limo and JFK's clothing all the way to Parkland; and b)match the wound patterns observed at Parkland? Left, surely? More visible than a shot from within the limo, when you think about it. The problem here is the old one. The question is not whether we like a given scenario or not, but what did the eyewitnesses say. Austin Miller, George Davis and Royce Skelton had elevated and unimpeded views of what transpired. They had no discernible motive to lie; and have been assiduously neglected or flat misrepresented by a succession of writers, from Josiah Thompson to Mark Lane. Miller answered straight before the WC ("from inside the car"); Davis described weapons in the hands of the Secret Service; and Skelton expressed the view that the shots came from "around" the presidential limo. The problem lies not with them, but with those among us who don't like what they reported.

Charity - or was it sloth? I really can't remember. Anyway, the fact is that while Milicent's story is interesting, it is, in the absence of any chain of possession, documented provenance etc. of little or no consequence; and tells us nothing more, I suspect, than that the CIA produced more than one version of the Z-fake. The action contained within the film described by her is corroborated by few if any eyewitnesses; or the Parkland doctors. By the way, that giant head flap business really is terribly far-out nonsense. I would drop it, personally. Yesterday Robespierre, today a jihadist? This gets weirder. And even more self-dramatising: are you really in imminent danger of being burnt at a stake? Strange place, California. Hate to break it to you, Jim, but Franzen stood on the south curb of Elm and was one of the closest eyewitnesses to the shooting. Sneaky of me to quote people who were there, I realise, but then that's the Brits all over for you: Devious to the last. And to prove it, here's one of the knollers' favourite witnesses, S.M.Holland, "imagining" Kellerman holding a weapon on Elm. Crazy guy, that Betzner cove, not to mention his even crazier timeline: PS That's Lima, USA, not South America.

Ah, but there is Jim: “Paul, you were right. I did seriously posit the existence of a liberal wing of the CIA”– I almost blush to repeat such an absurdity – “who supported RFK.” Shall we look at the key sentence again? I think we should. Which element(s) of the DiEugenio sentence to follow are interrogative? A clue: Not the bit comprising “the liberal wing of the CIA who supported RFK.” Your question manifestly assumes the existence of the absurdity. It questions merely whether Rabern belonged to the fictional faction you advanced as a given. Alas, no. I merely identified a rank piece of disinformation. I thank you for confirming, albeit in somewhat laborious detail, the veracity of my point. I accurately noted that on the two key issues - film alteration and Greer-as-assassin - your positions are, all surface froth aside, identical. And they are. Thompson has worked assiduously over the past decade or so to sustain the Zapruder deception. You are now engaged in exactly the same activity, almost certainly in response to the appearance of Doug Horne's pentalogy. I have, at some length. If you're too lazy to search this site, ask a friend. Can't think why: Jean Hill: “I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur...,” Sheriff Department’s statement, 22 November 1963. Don Schulman: “Just then the guard…took out his gun. And he fired also…The guard definitely pulled out his gun and fired,” KNXT-TV reporter, minutes after the assassination of RFK, within Ted Charach’s landmark documentary, The Second Gun. The problem is quite the reverse: You appear entirely unfamiliar with testimony from some of the eyewitnesses closest to the Elm Street action. No distraction operation here, Jim? You don't even have to trust these inconvenient eyewitnesses. The SS itself briefed reporters in the hours after the assassination about this run up the knoll. In order to avoid any suggestion that this was a rehearsed drill, the spin was that the SS men in question where merely following the motorcycle cops lead: I do love a little hyperbole in the evening - this wouldn't even be true had Greer driven with the assistance of stilts - but pity your Z-fake discloses no such thing!

That's genuinely funny, and almost - almost - as preposterous as your claim that Cranor was not describing a variant of the Z-fake. Curious, then, to find Cranor herself writing: "I recently realized that an early description of the film...fits my own impression of this version." David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and so on and so forth. Another DiEugenio porkie. In SSID, Thompson systematically expunged references to an in-car shooting, mislocated witnesses who so stated and concealed inconvenient testimony to that effect from his readers. You're engaged in exactly the same game. What was that quote from a recent Black Op radio appearance of yours? Care to remind us? Thompson insisted on the veracity of the Z-fake - still does - and so do you. On the two key issues under discussion, then, you are exactly as characterised: The continuation of Josiah Thompson by other means. Don't recall ever saying any such thing. But, unlike you, I remember the inconvenient stuff: Lane wrote in November/December 1963 that the Zapruder film had been shown on US TV; Weisberg was pleased that Life, not the USG, had possession of the Z-film; and Thompson, well here I would pull the plug. Meagher, the best of them, is not germane in this context. Given that you're familiar with the thread, you know that I did. They're still there. I particularly enjoyed CD's question: "Again I ask you, how would proof of a left-temple wound of entry support ANY conclusions whatsoever regarding the firing position?" Now if that's what you call being "blown out of the water by Charles Drago" then we have very different conceptions of victory and defeat. Not to mention front and back. You don't know any of this and yet you insist the Z-fake is genuine? Incredible. Er, your point is? In fact, the number of researchers doing original, detailed research on the SS is shockingly small. You obviously know your Irish history. As to Greer's attitude to Irish Catholics, ask his son. I have the topography spot-on. You have offered waffle. Thane Eugene Cesar murdered Robert Kennedy in a pantry full of people. Same MO as Dallas - a direct and positive "hit," obscured behind a complex array of red herrings, distractions etc. But the same MO.

Frankly, Jim, and it grieves me to write it, slack-jawed disbelief at the quality of your arguments. You really should. Landmark, if flawed, tome: body- and Z-film alteration in…1974? The contemporary JFK debate began here. An interesting spin as we’ve crossed swords before, albeit by proxy (your choice), not least when I drew attention (on the DPF) to that hoary-old nonsense you were peddling about RFK enjoying the support of that most mythical of entities, the “liberal” wing of the CIA, in 1968. Weirdly, I can’t help observing, we find i) that said parapolitical unicorn was running Eugene McCarthy’s campaign; and ii) killed RFK. A novel definition of support, by any standards, save, of course, the CIA’s own. But I digress. My own perspicacity never ceases to amaze me. Quite right. You are – together with the rest of the PNAC (Project for the New Assassination Consensus) – merely the flip side of the same coin, in a classic, if somewhat transparent, pseudo-war of the pseudo-oppositions. You are, when all is said and done, nothing more than the continuation of Josiah Thompson by other means. Not more, surely, than what you did when you neglected to mention earlier in the thread that Mary Muchmore denied taking any footage of the presidential limo on Elm; that Nix thought his film altered; and Zapruder initially insisted he had filmed the limo turn from Houston onto Elm? Now that’s intellectual integrity of a high order. I do so like you on the subject of witnesses. You’re just so, well, tackily dishonest. For example, was Betzner, Jr., really the only one to see a handgun in or around the presidential limo, as you maintain? Oh dear, not true. Forget George Davis, did you? I don’t know Greer’s complete history – but then neither do you, as your work on the SS is thin to non-existent. But what we can say with confidence is i) it was his job to be ready to shoot targets at close range upon the instant; ii) he controlled the speed of his target; and iii) he was no lover of Irish Catholics. Means, opportunity, and motive. You offer unnamed people in vague locations, with even less eye-, ear-, and nose-witnesses testimony, and call that a superior argument. Bizarre. An entirely unexpected event at the sparsely populated fag-end of the motorcade’s journey, on dipping and slopping terrain, with the target (and assassin) shielded for many by the other occupants of the car, accompanying motorcylists etc.? And no one saw it? I suppose Austin Miller was referring to a knife when he replied to Specter’s question “Where do you think the shots came from?” and replied: “From right there in the car.” Oh no, we’re off into the land of the parapolitical pixies – “sniper teams,” “spotters,” “triangulated crossfire,” fill in the hackneyed alternative of your choice – when real-life special forces teach their goons simple, uncomplicated, common-sense, with appropriately easy-to-remember concepts and terminology. The most effective way to assassinate was, and remains, both “direct” and “positive.” You get up close to the target and shoot him (or her) from close-range, most likely with a handgun. Crude, perhaps, but unquestionably lethal, as LHO and RFK, among others, were to discover. And not without its evidentiary perils, as Doug Horne, an honest soul, notes: “But for Mrs Lozano to smell gunpowder as her patients were wheeled by her desk, meant that it had to be embedded in their clothing – and this could only have happened if a handgun had been discharged in the Presidential limousine.” Murder from within? You bet.

The conversation with the "mechanics"/"sniper teams"/"spotters" etc - choose the fantasy term of one's choice - was so very much different. "Trust us," said the CIA, we'll ship you out of Dallas at a rate of knots, and promise to let you live unmolested for ever and a day." And they sacrificed their lives, their names, their families etc with nary a second thought, secure in the promise Langley had made them. How incredibly different such conversations must have been to those conducted with Greer. Or perhaps not. According to my Google instant translation facility – which, to my grateful surprise, renders Californian, no less than the slightly less challenging Chinese, into English - the above may be rendered as follows: Euclid, move over. But there is a useful lesson here: It turns out that extraordinary projects demand extraordinary nonsense. And the nature of that extraordinary project? Team DiEugenio is out to place film alteration and in-car shooting beyond the pale of civilised assassination discourse. By any means necessary.

Never neglect the sordid, Nat. Encounter paid well, certainly in its early years, a not insignificant consideration in post-war Britain. Academics, like spies and spuds, have always been available by the pound. To enter the CIA-Encounter world was also to gain admission to conferences in pleasant places, the US academic circuit, and publishing (Secker and Warburg published Encounter and lots of books, at least one on the Kennedy assassination). Put the lot together and it's a wonder any of the miserable old brutes resisted the bait. Paul

"Spooks tell lies to journalists, then pretend to believe what they read." With apologies to Karl Kraus.

Specter: "Did you observe any wound on the left side of the president's head?" Perry: "No, sir." 3WH382 “When asked to specify the nature of the wound, Dr. Perry said that the entrance wound was in the front of the head,” Post-Dispatch News Services, “Priest Who Gave Last Rites ‘Didn’t See Any Sign of Life,’” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 24 November 1963, p.23A 1) Elm St eyewitness: Norman Similas: “I could see a hole in the President's left temple...” [Jack Bell, “10 Feet from the President,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5, citing Toronto Star.] 2) Parkland medical staff: Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.] Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.] Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head" [Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4] Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. [Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.] Stewart’s comments on the Joe Dolan show are also referenced by Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden in High Treason: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and The New Evidence of Conspiracy (New York: Berkley Books, November 1990), pp.51-52: p.51: Dr. David Steward wrote Livingstone on December 11, 1981: "I enjoyed our phone conversation and I appreciate your sending the material. I'll try to answer your questions as well as I can. p.52: On the Joe Dolan radio show, I meant to indicate that there was no controversy concerning the wounds between the doctors in attendance. I was with them either separately or in groups on many occasions over a long period of time. Concerning exhibit F-48, there is no way the wound described to me by Dr. Perry and others could be the wound shown in this picture. The massive destructive wound could not remotely be pulled together well enough to give a normal contour to the head that is present in this picture." We would have to say that if Dr. Stewart did not actually see the wound then this hearsay evidence insofar as what he saw or did not see. What is admissible in evidence here is what he was told by Dr. Perry, the wound described to him. 3. Non-medical staff at Parkland: Father Oscar Huber: “terrible wound” over Kennedy's left eye [AP despatch, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, 24 November 1963]* 4) Bethesda: i) Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities and the Report (NY: Random House, 1992 reprint), p.161: “The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate ‘diagram error’ consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm.), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation ‘0.8 cm.,’ apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm. and 3 by 1 mm. respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at the site, labelled ‘0.4 cm.’ (CE397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage to the left eye. Small dot, labelled "0.4cm," above left eye on autopsy face-sheet, Dr. Hume: Hume’s diagram, CE397, Vol. XVII, p.45. “Although he said nothing about damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at that site, labeled ‘0.4 cm.’ [sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities & the Report (NY: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 161] ii) Dr. Boswell: Best Evidence, unpaginated photographic section at book's centre, photo 27, “Boswell diagram of skull. The sketch, made at autopsy, is a top view of Kennedy's skull...The record contains no amplification of the area on the forward left side of the skull marked '3 cm.'” The authors of High Treason, p.232, observe: Boswell’s drawing shows a “3 cm wound in the left temple area.”

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the case, a sizable conspiracy, instigated, directed, and sustained by senior officers within the South Yorkshire constabulary, to suppress and fabricate evidence surrounding the deaths of Liverpool football fans at the 1989 FA Cup Semi-Final. And I write that as a life-long fan of the team who lost to the b*stards in the subsequent final.

Andy Walker’s compelling meditation on David Aaronovich’s Times column on the MI5 conspiracy to suppress details of the organisation’s complicity in torture will be appearing shortly. In the meantime, we must make do with this paranoid educated middle-class expose: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/1...med-torture-mi5 Top judge: Binyam Mohamed case shows MI5 to be devious, dishonest and complicit in torture Is this ruling, one wonders, all part of a great anti-semitic plot to shake the faith reposed in the Anglo-American securicrats by such as Walker and Aaronovich? Only the Times will tell.

Interesting to note that both of the NPIC teams which, according to Doug Horne, handled the Z film over the weekend after the assassination, were drawn from the ranks of the CIA. Their DIA counterparts at NPIC, men such as John T. Hughes and Tom Farrell, seem to have been entirely out of the picture. Farrell's website contains an interesting reference to what appear to have been regular CIA flights to Eastman Kodak at Rochester, albeit some years post-1963:

You mean I could possibly offer a greater piece of nonsense than the above? Well, it's certainly a challenge. What you've done is childish - you've sought to transform the sun into a lightbulb hanging directly over Dealey Plaza. By this infantile expedient, a figure or object on the southern edge of the light from the bulb would cast a shadow, yes, due south. Oh dear. Back in the real world... Go on, have another go. Only this time, start with the sun at an angle to the horizon. Let's see if we can make progress from there.

Given their contempt for human life - particularly, though not exclusively, Muslim and African - and their blithe indifference to the ecological consequences of the many wars they have initiated, I find it impossible to disagree with Jack's assessment. A very good case could be made, though, for regarding them and their preferred cover of the moment - "liberal interventionism" - as simply old-fashioned imperialists/imperialism, of the kind who/which conjured Hitler and Stalin from the ruins of WWI. Paul

A brief word of praise for a moderator who has consistently stood up for the rights of a section of the contributors to this forum who espouse pro-CT and pro-alterationist arguments. Much appreciated, keep up the good work. Paul

The Cancellare photo above is a blatant composite, as the shadow thrown by the figure at (viewer's) left on the south curb of Elm does not align with the direction of the shadows thrown by the various figures on the north curb (foreground). The shadow cast by the former is from a later portion of the day, or some other day. Unless, of course, we are to believe that there were two suns at work above Dealey Plaza that day!

1) The mainstream media haven't accepted the arguments for conspiracy advanced on the basis of a lot of fake photography after, what, forty-odd years? So your argument is, presumably, we keep doing the same thing? Very convincing. 2) And we should keep doing this thing that has so singularly failed, even though we don't believe it, and it isn't true? We present arguments based on likelihood of acceptance (see above) regardless of their veracity? What a weird & cynical approach.

Angle of shadow; and the comparative lengths of shadow and the street light casting it. The shadow cast by the light, measured from tip to base of light, is almost as long the light itself. Given the elevation of the sun in Dallas at 1230hrs on November 22, 1963 - 37 degrees - the ratio of shadow to light is impossible: It would require a sun elevation of circa 46/7 degrees to furnish a 1:1 ratio. If that section of Altgens whatever had been taken on November 22, at approx 1230hrs, the street lamp length should be in the ratio of roughly 7:10 to its shadow. Ergo, given the history of this photo (composite) and its dissemination, that portion of the photo manifestly predates the assassination. How CIA collected photint in 1950s and 60s BIBLIOGRAPHY The Guide for Graphics Coordinators. INR/State, October 1960. An excellent new handbook. A Manual for the Collection of Ground Photography and Related Data. Bureau of Aeronautics, NAVAER 10-35-650, March 1953. This is the best previous guide, illustrating many techniques and giving many examples. Techniques for Producing Good Ground Photography for Intelligence Purposes. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I-198, 18 July 1956. Volume 4-Political Affairs, of Foreign Service Manual. TL:PA-28, 7-25-60. A Guide to the Collection of Ground Intelligence Photography on Ports and Harbors. Confidential. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, PIM-2, September 1957. Amateur Photography from Commercial Aircraft. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I--205, 14 August 1956. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Intelligence Photography. Confidential. Air Force Manual 200-9, 1 February 1955. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Industrial Recognition. Air Force Manual 200-7, 15 December 1955. Intelligence Collection Guide-Telecommunications. Confidential. Army Pamphlet 30-100, July 1955.

Angle of shadow; and the comparative lengths of shadow and the street light casting it. The shadow cast by the light, measured from tip to base of light, is almost as long the light itself. Given the elevation of the sun in Dallas at 1230hrs on November 22, 1963 - 37 degrees - the ratio of shadow to light is impossible: It would require a sun elevation of circa 46/7 degrees to furnish a 1:1 ratio. If that section of Altgens whatever had been taken on November 22, at approx 1230hrs, the street lamp length should be in the ratio of roughly 7:10 to its shadow. Ergo, given the history of this photo (composite) and its dissemination, that portion of the photo manifestly predates the assassination. How CIA collected photint in 1950s and 60s BIBLIOGRAPHY The Guide for Graphics Coordinators. INR/State, October 1960. An excellent new handbook. A Manual for the Collection of Ground Photography and Related Data. Bureau of Aeronautics, NAVAER 10-35-650, March 1953. This is the best previous guide, illustrating many techniques and giving many examples. Techniques for Producing Good Ground Photography for Intelligence Purposes. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I-198, 18 July 1956. Volume 4-Political Affairs, of Foreign Service Manual. TL:PA-28, 7-25-60. A Guide to the Collection of Ground Intelligence Photography on Ports and Harbors. Confidential. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, PIM-2, September 1957. Amateur Photography from Commercial Aircraft. Secret. Photographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/ORR, GP/I--205, 14 August 1956. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Intelligence Photography. Confidential. Air Force Manual 200-9, 1 February 1955. Intelligence Collection Guidance Manual-Industrial Recognition. Air Force Manual 200-7, 15 December 1955. Intelligence Collection Guide-Telecommunications. Confidential. Army Pamphlet 30-100, July 1955.

Paul, I am no expert on shadows, but I am wondering if you are able to posit a way this photo could POSSIBLY have been altered in the way you suggest and STILL be transmitted to newspapers around the world hours after the assassination? How could any forger or forgers possibly have gathered enough information to know which fake films and photos needed to "agree" with one another at this early stage of the game? You don't have to be, Jonathan, that's the beauty of it. The basic narrative, and at least some of the elements of the original Z fake, were prepared - at minimum story-boarded, and almost certainly accompanied by some form of image bank from which to work - just like the patsy. Nor is there any great mystery about the processes involved in creating a fake visual record of the assassination. The conspirators observed the assassination scene intently, and reacted accordingly, if not always well: The Altgens photo in question clearly betrays the haste of its compositing. The question that's long intrigued me is the location of the HQ for overseeing this work. Any ideas?

To the contrary, once you know where to look - and have access to the full photo, something I note you denied readers of this thread, doubtless for entirely innocent reasons - one sees immediately that Jack is entirely right to be sceptical in the extreme.

Or, then again, the shadow cast by Toni Foster in the Z-fake (version 2, naturally).

its going to be his usual garb. Everything is faked, everything is altered. But he wants other people in the forum to do research on photos. Pure lunacy. This picture (which is great btw) is perfect photographic evidence that refutes the Chaney riding forward theory. Well, let the denial start flowing. Delighted to oblige. In the full version of the Altgens photo at issue - you'll find a very good version in Trash's That Day In Dallas: Three Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, New & enlarged edition, 2000), p.67 - you'll find a rare, spectacular gaff by the forgers. Contemplate the shadow cast on the south curb of Elm by the street light directly behind JBK - it's entirely incompatible with shadow cast by the car. Conclusion? The Altgens photo at issue is a composite, utilising photos taken some time apart. Oh, if you really want to see how bad a gaff it was/is, compare with the shadows cast by street lights in the following Bothuns: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=0 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=4&pos=2