Chris Bristow

. "Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear, on the back of the top of the head (or is it the top of the back of the head?), multiple times. In the video where he points out “the open hole” that led to this whole fiasco, he is pointing entirely to the rear parietal bone. In the 1991 video it’s the same deal - maybe slightly more temporal. Jenkins also made statements indicating the same, that the open wound was above the “occipital area” i.e. above the back of the head. " Can I get a clarification? I can't reconcile these two statements. "Jenkins placed the wound entirely above the right ear," AND "that the open wound was above the “occipital area” The closest the occipital bone itself comes to the ear is about 1 inch posterior to it. "Entirely above the ear" is parietal. Doesn't "entirely" mean directly above or that all of the wound was above the ear? I don't get how that is consistent with the wound being "above the occipital area." The occipital area is a bit vague but it would have to extend forward of the crown of the head to also be above the ear. I'm not sure why the term occipital would be used for an area on top of the head, above the ear, and a couple inches forward of the crown. Does "above the ear" just refer to how high the wound was and "above the occipital area" refer to a position behind the ear in the back of the head?

Craig Lamson's debunking of the Costello Stemmons pole lean was mentioned in this thread but his debunking was completely in error. I explained this on page 15 of this 2012 post by Greg Burnham. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16192-craig-lamsons-stemmons-sign-thread/page/10/ I received a response from Lamson(I believe he has since passed.). It was an email with multiple pages containing 99% vitriol and no real response to my point. Clamson stated in the 2012 thread that he had leaned the Exacto knife he used as the pole, TOWARDS his camera. The Exacto knife he used to simulate the Stemmons pole can be verified as leaning towards the camera in his image at below. He also verified this on his website.(Inserted text below photos.) The problem is that the Stemmons pole was leaning AWAY from Z's camera not towards it. A simple principle of perspective is the when a pole is leaning away from the camera it will swing/lean in the same direction that the camera is panning. Conversely when a pole is leaning towards the camera it will swing/lean in the opposite direction that the camera pans. So a pole leaning AWAY moves with the camera and a pole leaning TOWARDS the camera will move against the camera motion. This is demonstrated in the images of the 3 pens. Below that is the test that Craig Clamson posted 'proving' that Costella's leaning pole was just due to parallax. So the only reason Mr Clamson's test seemed to support his parallax explanation is because he leaned the Exacto knife the wrong way. Had he leaned it away from the camera to match the Stemmons sign the Exacto knife would have moved to the right which the opposite direction it moves in the Z film. The explanation he gave that the shifting pole was due to the parallax of Z's rightward paining was completely backwards.

I have never taken a deep dive into the acoustics because it feels unreliable overall. But I will be open to different interpretations. I assume you have seen the interviews of McClain and the dispatcher regarding who they thought the stuck mic belonged to. They convinced me the data is probably erroneous. Their belief that the stuck mic was from a particular 3 wheeler who was known for whistling is compelling. When you listen to a group of fellow workers on the radio every day you get to know the subtlety of their mannerisms. The dictabelt whistler has a clear and distinct sound and is very easy to identify. I have to give a lot of weight to their belief that the stuck mic belonged to the whistler. But at the same time I still don't know if the tape is unadulterated. Secondly, they heard the bikes engines in the background every day on the radio and it would be very easy to distinguish between the full size 74ci engines Mcclain and Jackson rode, vs a 45ci 3 wheelers with their rattling sound. The 3 wheelers have longer clunkier exhaust systems and make a very specific noise. Both felt they were hearing a 3 wheeled 45ci 'meterreader' bike. I'm just guessing that the clarity of the whistler is due to several factors. They must be whistling directly toward the mic as it is mounted right in front of the rider. It is just above the gas tanks which would reduce the road and engine noise. It is tucked under the windshield which blocks some sound from the front. The rider's torso would limit noise from behind. The data showing Jackson as the culprit after it being attributed to McClain, makes the data seem so malleable that is cast doubt on entire subject, imo. The points raised and opinions of McClain and the dispatcher are consistent and very qualified. Personally I think the difference in engine sound is very obvious. The Doppler shift of the sirens is too great for it to be from a bike traveling with the motorcade, even if it is approaching or pulling ahead of the motorcade. I think a strong case can be made that the stuck mic was nowhere near the plaza.

If it was Jackson not McClain then the entire acoustic evidence goes out the window. With only a 5 ft variance on the knoll shooter location and Jackson being 190 ft from McClain the acoustic evidence would be trashed. If it was Jackson, who was only maybe 20 ft from Hickey, how did they come up with the knoll as the shooter location when it was about 100 ft away from Jackson. To support Hickey as the shooter with acoustic evidence requires twisting the facts into knots. To ascribe the knoll smoke to Hickey the wind had to be going northwest, another big contortion of the facts.

i think my question to you on your initial impression upon seeing the later, and in my opinion altered, Z film may have sounded like I was casting doubt. But that was not my intention.

Yes she spoke about what one of her fathers photos showed right after developing. I just assume it was one of his photos that was never returned to him. I assume that because I know for sure Willis 5 could not have shown the trains in the yard. That is not an assumption. We know exactly where Willis stood for Willis 5 because the lines of sight in That photo prove where it was taken from. We know exactly where the rear of the 3rd Pullman car was based on the McIntyre photos and the other photo I posted. They both show the exact same location. The Roberdeau map and Google Earth both verify Willis could not see the trains from his position in Willis 5 and that is an imperical fact. My point is that trains were not removed from Willis 5 as there were no trains visible from that spot on Elm. I have plotted Towner's line of sight for the post assassination footage but cant remember the results. I will recheck it. His recollection is independent of the Willis testimony and can't corroborate it as they were not standing in the same exact spot. Even if Towner was just 15 feet West of Willis 5 the train would become partially visible through the colonnade Windows. I don't know why you can't speak to the analysis of Willis' lines of sight that I posted. Maybe I was not clear enough in my graphic. But It is an irrefutable illustration of Willis' line of sight to the trains.

I have heard stories from both sides saying the limo stopped on the onramp(Gary Mack's story about what Curry told him and Davis Lifton's account of finding two witnesses standing at the Stemmons onramp.), That would allow time for the SS agents to jump from the running boards to the seats. Makes sense since they are on the running boards so they can can jump off and run for the limo, but they can't do that on the freeway. Linda Willis did say her father recalled seeing trains in the yard through the colonnade windows. But in Willis 5 the southernmost end of the Pullman cars were not visible to him. From that line of sight the back of the 3rd Pullman car was at the far end of the 4th colonnade window and blocked from Willis' view. She said they walked forward after willis 5 and took more photos. If they walked just 35 ft the train would have been visible in those photos. Those are most likely the photos that he remembered the trains from and were likely the photos not returned to him. Here is a graphic showing the Willis 5 line of sight to the Pullman car. The rear of the 3rd Pullman car is found in the photo with the boxcar in the background. It is also seen in the McIntyre photos. Willis 5 was not altered as she suspected, they just couldn't see the train from there.

I thought the variance of the acoustic evidence on the knoll shooter was only about 5 ft. The knoll position is 100 ft or 1/10th sec beyond Hickey's location. Even if their variance was 50 ft on the knoll position they should easily have distinguished between a shot from the knoll and Hickey since he was 100 ft closer to McClain. The smoke reported from the knoll has also been attributed to Hickey but this is, imo, impossible. The wind was blowing northeast. But even if it gusted directly north momentarily Hickeys smoke would be carried towards the southwest corner of the TSBD. For smoke from Hickey to appear along the witness lines of sight to the knoll fence it would have to drift on the wind about 130 ft to the Elm St extension near the southwest corner of the TSBD. It would pass behind the Stemmons sign and Zapruder and would be obviously much further away than the fence. Not to mention it would be traveling right to left as opposed to the knoll smoke accounts that had it moving left to right. As to the number of shots there does seem to be many factors contributing to the confusion. I think the safest assumption is 4 shots but that is just a guess.

You made some interesting points. Yes I have heard they stopped the northbound traffic just prior to the limo entering the freeway. I had heard the railroad traffic was shut down but recently looked for corroboration without any luck. DPD White was on the west side of the overpass and testified that he did not see or hear the assassination because a "long" freight train was passing in front of him. No trains are found in any of the photographic evidence. If there was a southbound train it had to be moving over 30mph because Altgens 7 does not show a train. If it was moving north it would have to be 4 cars long because in Willis 5 it has not reached the north end of the overpass yet. (At least it appears to me that the background on the north end of the overpass is visible in Willis 5.) A train would have blocked that view. Micheal Brownlow asked two of the witnesses on the overpass if there was a train passing and they both said "no". Brownlow did not say why he was asking. I don't know what White heard or saw that day but it sounds like he was lying. It is definitely possible a witness can hear one shot and not hear another. I think the first shot being mistaken by so many as a firecracker influenced their initial opinions on the number of shots. That's maybe why we get a lot of people hearing just 2 shots.

Unless there was a lot of freeway noise I can't see how they would miss shots from the TSBD. The knoll was not in a direct line of sight to Daniels but the 6th floor was , and was at a distance of 900 ft. Noisy crowds cheering may obscure the sound of shots but I doubt anyone near Daniels was cheering during the shot sequence when the Limo was still in the plaza. The echo explanation never made much sense to me. If echos fooled people that day they would have reported closer to 6 shots. If echos were the reason for the reported last shots being close together, why did they not report the earlier shots as close together? Some, like Kinney and DPD J. Smith, did report echos but they recognized Them as such.

How many years later until you saw it again and did it cause you to doubt any particular memory from 64'?

It is interesting that a shot from the roof of the Daltex matches the 6th floor throat shot trajectory so closely. A shooter there could fire past the southeast corner of the TSBD and match the 6th floor trajectory by just 3 degrees vertically and horizontally. The problem with a shot from the Daltex passing through the 6th floor window is it allows for less than a 1 degrees change in trajectory making it impossible to track and shoot. A 21 degree slope angle drops at 4.60 " per ft A 22 degree slope angle drops at 4.84" per ft. Changing the slope from 21 to 22 increases the drop by .24" per ft. The 6th floor window is approx 130 ft from the Daltex roof position. So 130 ft X .24"drop per ft = 31" of drop through the 6th floor window. But the 6th floor window was open less than 20". The part of Elm seen through the TSBD from the Daltex is only about 22 ft along its length. The limo was moving at 12mph and would have been visible in the window for slightly over 1 second.

If not for the possibility of a tangential shot chipping out the O.C wound, the GK theory would be dead.

That Target Car image was taken from 16 degrees to the side. They are standing at a point along the parking lot fence that confirms the line of sight to the limo shown through the scope. There are two adjustments needed. Gary Mack is standing about 25 ft west(3 parking spaces) of the Sherry Fiester south knoll theory. Her position adds 5 degrees to the LOS. Second, As Fiester has pointed out the limo in 312 is crooked in the street by 4 degrees. (Maybe from Greer looking over his right shoulder and pulling the wheel to the right.) I get 6 degrees using Z's lines of sight through the limo. I'll compromise and say it's 5 degrees. That modifies Gary Mack's south knoll angle to the limo by 10 degrees total. Lastly, Moorman and Muchmore can be used to determine JFK's head position at 313. JFK is leaning by around 40 degrees. His head is at or very close to the center of the bench seat. The Gary Mack south knoll recreation has him almost straight up, not at the center. Those 3 changes line up the shot coming in just behind Greer and in front of the side window. Nellie has turned sideways in her seat and is scooted forward and leaning a bit to her left at 313. She seems to be out of the trajectory of the south knoll shot with it passing just behind her head based on 313 and the Moorman photo. But it is close. If you look at the position JFK and Jackie are in for the south knoll recreation and compare that to the position Gary Mack put them in for the grassy knoll recreation they are very different. For the Grassy knoll Mack has placed JFK much further to his left and his head is tucked up against Jackie's left shoulder. That puts Jackie's head in the line of sight and so later they claim she would have been hit too, making the grassy knoll shot impossible. I found that to be very dishonest. The Muchmore line of sight though the gap between their heads continues directly to the theorized GK shooter's position. Muchmore, a GK shooter position and the gap between their heads are all on the same line of sight proving a GK shooter would see an 8 to 10" gap between their heads. The Muchmore head shot image alone is proof JFK's head was nowhere near Mack's recreation. Jackie was never in the line of sight as there was a very large gap between their heads. So Mack completely misrepresented JFK's head position for the GK 313 shot and now I see he completely changed that position for the south knoll recreation.

I think the Roberdeau map is correct in terms of the direction of Elm at frame 313 and the knoll angle to it. It shows JFK's head turned about 25 degrees to the left of the limos direction at 313 which is also accurate. Although I think JFK's head was at the middle of the bench seat I still agree with the basic angle of the knoll to JFK. The Roberdeau map denotes an entry wound at the right temple area but Dr Clark's estimation of a tangential wound is different. His tangential strike would hit just behind JFK's right ear at the mastoid protuberance and chip out the occipital parietal area. It would not create a separate exit wound. The exit is at the other side of the occipital chunk knocked out by the angular strike at the mastoid. His theory may have been an attempt to explain why there was no separate entry and exit wound. His idea that the neck wound was the entry for the occipital exit is, I think , a separate assumption as that occipital wound would not be tangential. The south knoll theory does not have the bullet passing through the windshield. the south knoll proposed trajectory passes just behind Greer and in front of the side window. JFK having leaned over to place his head in the middle of the bench seat and turned 25 degrees left lines up that shot to his right temple and exiting in the right O.C. The documentary "Inside The Target Car" showed the south knoll shot coming through the windshield but that was based on JFK sitting straight up, not leaning at a good 40 angle over to his left as seen in Muchmore and Moorman. the same documentary tried to show JFK and Jackie aligned in such a way as to have Jackie in the line of sight from the grassy knoll. That is one of the biggest lies ever promoted by the LN side thanks to Gary Mack.(That was a short tangential rant because I find his propaganda to be some of the worst BS I have ever seen.) The head shot being "Off angle" could maybe cause a larger entrance wound. But if so it contradicts the official WC report and autopsy results and photographs that show there was no large wound in the back of the head at all. Are you is disagreement with the official story? It sounds like you have a different take on the head wound. The direction of the debris going towards Hargis does not seem consistent with the wind to me. The wind from the southwest was heading northeast. It does not seem to push the debris to Hargis unless the wind gusted directly east for a moment. But Hill's and Moorman's coat show a northeast wind at the headshot. Hargis noted something striking him hard enough that he thought he might have been "Hit" himself. While it is likely he also rode into a cloud of blood after 313, his being "hit" suggests something more than, and prior to, his riding into the cloud of blood/debris after the initial impact. His recollection would indicate debris continuing from the grassy knoll direction and hitting him immediately after the 313 shot since it hit him with enough force that he thought he was "Hit" too.