Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Bristow

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,924 profile views

Chris Bristow's Achievements

  1. On the curb image that aligns with Martin's fender/headlight that we discussed recently I have a couple observations. Because Martin is on Hargis' left he is slightly farther away and so slightly higher in the frame. Because of that there is no frame in which Martin's fender would align with the curb as Hargis' fender does. I still think what we see is Martin's fender as it is in the correct location when compared to Hargis' Fender/windshield/headlight. NOTE: When the front brakes are applied the upper telescoping forks recede into the lower legs. The fender is attached to the lower legs and when the upper legs recede into the lower legs the headlight and fender get a little closer together. So this may be why Martin's fender is very slightly closer to his headlight when compared to Hargis. The overlapping image of the Hargis' bike onto the Stemmons sign has a possible explanation. When an object that shows a lot of glare is reflecting back to the camera it can overlap objects that are closer to the camera. A glaring object has a lot of diverging rays which is largely why it glares. The diverging rays spread out and make the object look bigger. Some of the rays diverge enough that they hit the Stemmons sign and never reach Z' camera. But other rays diverge less and make it past the sign. Because they are diverging through their entire path to the camera the continue to spread out from the sign to the camera. By the time they reach Z's film they are overlapping the Stemmons image and since the glare is much brighter than the sign it burns an image of glare right over the sign image.
  2. Chris I think the white thing in the red box on the left under Hill's arm is Officer Martin's front fender and just above is his headlight. There are many other frames of both Hargis and Martin that give a good comparison of the headlight/fender image . Hargis's front fender, headlight and windshield also give us a map to determine where Martin's front fender and headlight would be relative to his windshield, and it is imo a perfect match.
  3. I have one question. How often does she say that? Couldn't resist, sorry just kidding.
  4. I was already aware of the Nova documentary when I saw this clip. It was black and white and the style and everything suggested it was the 1960s. I must conclude I just had a bad memory if nobody knows of this. Thanks for the links.
  5. There were so many separate instances of coercion. I wonder if anyone has put that all together in a single Paper, would love to read that.
  6. There is an old film clip from maybe 1964 where approx 5 to 7 of the Parkland doctors are sitting at a long table after viewing the official x-rays. The press asks them for their opinion now since they have viewed the autopsy x-rays. As I remember each doctor said almost the same thing "X-rays don't lie so I guess we got it wrong". The last one is Dr Clark who adds something like "We never got a a good look". Their demeanor, as I recall, is that they all seemed to be eating crow. But the incredible part was Dr Clark saying they didn't get a good look when one of his 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation was the mortal head wound. How could he claim he didn't get a good look?? I think it supports the notion that there was coercion going on back then as I am sure several of the doctors have done a 180 in the years after. I found that clip on Youtube maybe 7 years ago and can't find it since. Has anyone seen this before?
  7. I always wondered about Jackie's motive for crawling out on the trunk. Now I don't think I would call it crawling as much as stretching and reaching. I say that because she never brings her knees up on the trunk. If she did it to escape being shot I think she would have brought her whole body up on the trunk in one single move, sort of a jump. But she seems to be stretching to reach something much more than moving to avoid something, imo. ITEK did an analysis years ago and claimed they identified a piece of skull moving back along the trunk but it had several problems. 1) It starts at the right front corner of the trunk and moved straight back along it. Real bone from JFK's head would have to take an angled trajectory to the far side of the trunk from JFK's head which was in the middle of the seat, but the supposed bone fragment comes from behind Jackie and moves in a straight line to the rear. 2) It moves slowly along the trunk at almost* the same speed as the reflections. All the other bone we see is ejected at 100 mph upward in 313. ("Almost" as fast as the reflection because there is parallax involved as explained below.) 3) When it reaches the antenna in frame 329 it does not bounce off it passes right through. It appears to jog left or inbound a bit but all reflection take that slight jog after the antenna, I think that is because the trunk starts to slope there. 4) if compared to the white piece of trash on the lawn it appears to slow as the gap between the trash and the supposed bone fragrant lessens toward the end. This is consistent with the image being a reflection of the top left side of the South Paristyle on Main street. Just like the bottom of the left side of the North Paristyle on Elm appears in the trunk around frame 279, The top part of the left side of the North Paristyle appears in the trunk from 326 to 331. The parallax between the trash and the North paristyle causes the distance between them to decrease. The distance between Z, the trash and the North paristyle almost exactly matches the distance between Z, the new lampost on the south side of Elm and the paristyle directly behind the lamppost. Several Youtube videos reproduce Z's pan across the parastyle and the parallax between the lamppost and pillar match the amount we see between the supposed bone fragment and the trash on the ground. I think these facts prove the ITEK bone fragment is just a reflection.
  8. As Sean pointed out those are 3 of the 4 antenna on the trunk.Check out frame 349 of the Groden set to verify.
  9. After hearing Facebook's algorithms are designed for making people mad at other people, I see articles like the WoPo article in a different light.
  10. Good observation! I see the direction of the cross hatching pattern does not match everything around it.
  11. While I disagreed with you about the distortions in the photo like the curb angle and image jump through the side window I still consider the disappearing 'flower' to be of interest. The other distortions seem to be consistent with the page of the magazine not being flat when photographed. The uneven top of the un cropped image supports that notion. I don't think it is the button or whatever on Nellie's lapel as it should not be visible from Z's position. I favor the collar theory at the moment. It is very strange that the flower/collar disappears when the saturation of other reddish things like the back of her dress are so intense. In the flower image the saturation is much less but the flower is clear. The only thing that supports a natural explanation is that in the non flower image Jackie's right arm and the front of her dress have a dark cast but in the flower image they are much brighter in comparison. If we assume a similar effect over the flower image it would be darker and maybe the effect is greater and it disappears. Maybe that is a stretch but the possibility that the printing of other copies had a localized error that didn't allow the reds and yellows to be reproduced at that location is something I can't fully rule out. The question for me would be what version of the Z film can we see that is the closest to the camera original and does not have the flower.
  12. After staring at that disappearing flower I think it may not be a flower but the rear part of Nellie's collar. The color is closer to her collar with the Sun falling on it and in earlier frames and seems to have a similar look with a shadow through it. It looks to be a little lower than I would expect in that frame but at the same time it is such a different color than the yellow roses I see in all other images of the bouquet.
  13. I think several doctors had stated it was hopeless from the start. But you're not going to just give up on the president without going through the motions. They agreed the wound was mortal so to me it doesn't matter much exactly when they consider him dead or what qualifications they put on declaring him dead. The wound being mortal he was as good as dead from frame 313 on.
  14. I have never tried to unravel the strange varying reports of people present at the autopsy. The timeline of who left then returned or the observation of the body before and after Custer and other were asked to temporarily leave is confusing. How Jenkins ends up weighing a nearly complete brain when Connor said the brain was mostly gone is a mystery.
  15. Pat, this is long but only the first part is in response to your post. I go on to address other popular Parkland issues for whoever is interested. Dr Grossman made the same point that the term occipital is used in a general way to mean back of the head. This argument does not hold water when trying to explain the Parkland issue. First, most of The Parkland staff used the more specific term 'occipital parietal'. Second many of them have been photographed showing the location and others have done drawings. Whatever term they used they disagreed with the official location. The Parkland issue would have been resolved decades ago if it was just a matter of loose terms being used. The first time any of those doctors saw the official location they would have simply said "Yes that's the location I meant regardless of the term I used at the time." But they do not agree with the official location to this day. It was not just confusion regarding what they meant to indicate. Regarding Dr Jenkins letter calling the wound temporal and occipital I find it strange that he would not use the term parietal since the official wound was almost all in the parietal. There are several hypothesis about the staff not being good at anatomy or not having the time to locate the wound or not being accurate because JFK was in a supline posture. I know you did not mention the supline position but I mention that argument because I want to point out that pretty much every patient that they have treated in the ER was in a supline position. So it does not make sense that his posture would throw them all off. Because 20 of 25 staff who claimed to see the wound disagreed with the official location I find very unlikely that they would all place the wound in similar positions within a couple inches if they were all mistaken. I'm sure we would agree sometimes some people talk out their ass but 20 of 25 is far too many staff to claim they were just all talking out their ass. I have heard similar arguments like 'they just lied" or "they got it wrong and were so embarrassed that they continued the lie for decades". To support these arguments there has to be more than a hypothesis about the doctors lack of integrity. There has to be examples of these doctors and staff being dishonest in the past. But not just accusations against a few of them. I would accept that maybe as high as 4 out of every 20 people may have the lack of character needed to lie. But that fails to explain 20 of 25. It does not even start to explain the high numbers. All the explanations are unsupported ad hominem hypothesis with nothing to support the fact that 20 of 25 lied or all made the same mistake. I do not see how your example about your own head injury adds to your point. If you were hit in the back of head many times it is likely that at least one hit glanced off after hitting the back of the head or just missed the head and raked your ear. If you had injuries in both places it could simply mean you were hit in both places. If you mean you thought the strikes were back of the head but were on the side it is just the impressions you experienced while being beaten. What your body told you was happening is a world apart from the doctors looking at a persons wounds. There is no plausible explanation for the high number of staff that disagreed with the official version. 20 staff is too high a number to be explained away as them being dishonest or bad at anatomy. I'm going to touch on some very popular skeptics claims that you did not bring up. If you have an opinion feel free but I am not posing theses question as a challenge for you to address. The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound. 1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response. 2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat. 3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL! How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal? Many skeptics point to the sound bites from the famous Nova doc of the doctors at the National Archives inspecting the x-rays and or photos. Dr's Jenkins and McClellend explain why they would not have looked closely at the wound. But Dr McCellend was referring to the beginning when they were trying to establish the airway and breath. He is right it is unethical and irresponsible to go looking at the head when they are still trying get the patient breathing. In Dr Jenkin's sound bite he says it would have been wrong to inspect the head wound but he specifically says 'after the president was dead'. Those two soundbites mislead people because Clark's head wound inspection was after inserting the tracheotomy tube and before he was pronounced dead. Often Dr Perry's statement that he was not able to do a detailed examination is used to prove they never got a close enough look to really see the head wound. Dr Perry starts the sentence with the word "but". That is often left out of the quote. Perry first gives a very accurate description of the wound consistent with the other reports and testimonies, it's location and size, its avulsed nature and the brain tissue being visible. Then he continues with "But I was not able to do a detailed examination." That fact he says he did not do a 'detailed' examination, yet still provided all those facts that corroborate the other staff members, should prove that a detailed examination was not needed to located and describe the wound. Some claim they got the location wrong because the scalp was shoved back. But the fact that JFK's face and right ear were not mutilated or displaced gave the Dr's an easy road map to the location of the wound relative to the ear. Last point is about the variance of the exact location by different staff members. I have a clip(Can't find it right now) of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. When his hands first touch his head it is very low temporal occipital. Then as he feels his fingers on the back of his head he readjusts the wound upwards twice and ends up about 2 1/2 inches higher. I saw a similar thing with Aubrey Bell. When they have to feel around on their head for the right location it suggests the wound location can vary some even when they all looked at the same patient. We should expect them to vary a bit but none of them come close to the official location even when you allow for the variance. For all of them the bottom of the wound was nowhere near the official location. in the well known image of a dozen staff from Parkland and Bethesdsa the skeptics point to Theran Ward because it looks like he is pointing to the right ear as the location. In his statement he said the wound was in the back of the head(He was not a doctor) and never mentions the ear. But I think it is clear he is touching the wound location with his 4 fingers and is landing on the mastoid. That puts the palm of his hand over the ear but his own words support where the 4 fingers were touching.
  • Create New...