Chris Bristow

In Hudson's Sheriff's dept statement from 11/22 he says he and the guy next to him both dropped to the ground. He isn't specific about which shot made them drop. In his WC testimony of 7/64 he again said they both dropped to the ground. and said that is when he heard "The 3rd shot". But we know from the Muchmore film that neither he nor the guy next to him ever dropped down. The Nix film shows Hudson still standing 3 seconds after the headshot and Z 413 show's his hat at least 4 to 5 ft off the ground 5 seconds after the headshot.( I think he was in a semi crouch by then.) How Hudson's memory of the event would be so flawed, even to the Sheriff on the day of the assassination, is very strange. 4 days later he gave his, possibly altered, statement to the FBI and there was no mention of laying down. Maybe because it states Hudson called their attention to the Moorman photo from a newspaper and identified himself in the photo. A photo that shows both Hudson and the other guy standing. But then he testifies to the WC 8 months later and again says he and the other guy both hit the ground. Even though the FBI statement indicates Hudson had seen himself standing in the Moorman photo. Hudson's testimony is a mess.

What would a diversionary device look like? If it was set off by a radio signal wouldn't there be a small reciever left behind, or at least fragments of it?

After mapping out the lines of sight from Bell and Muchmore's positions, to Moorman, Babushka and Brehm, some definitive conclusions can be drawn. Moorman and Hill did switch positions but they moved no more the 2 ft from their location in the Muchmore frame. Hill ended up sitting 2 ft west of Moorman's original standing location. The reason they appear under the witnesses on the steps in Muchmore and near Z's pedestal in the Bell film is all due of Bell's position relative to Muchmore's. Those backgrounds are exactly what we would expect to see if Moorman and Hill did not move more that 2 ft. Babushka Lady and Brehm did change position from Muchmore to Bell. They both apparently walked around 20 ft west. Although Brehm is seen standing in front of Babushka Lady in Muchmore and Z, but is seated behind her in Bell after they walked 20 ft west. The question is, could Brehm and Babushka move 20 ft in the time frame from Muchmore to Bell? Consider that Hargis is just coming to a stop in the Muchmore frame. But in the Bell frame he has already stopped the bike, dismounted, and ran about 40 ft across Elm. He also had to wait a second or two for LBJ and his SS car to pass by before crossing the street. Then he traveled another 30 ft up to the lamppost on north Elm by the time we see him in the Bell film. If he had time for that, Brehm and Babushka could have easily walked 20 ft. Zapruder is seen in the Bell frame approx 15 ft away from the pedestal. But we know he did not stop filming till the limo entered the underpass 9 seconds after the headshot. That means the time frame from Muchmore's headshot frame and Bells frame can't be as little as 12 seconds because that only leaves 3 seconds for Z to climb down off the pedestal and walk 15 ft. Bell must have taken his finger off the trigger for several seconds in the blurred frames that occurred after the limo and before we see the 1st extremely smeared image of Hargis' bike. It is likely that after Bell filmed the limo he had to make a quick decision about the next best thing to film and that is why he stopped the camera momentarily. The 1st frame of Hargis' smeared bike seems over exposed. That does happen on the first frame after the trigger is depressed because the camera is not up to speed and the frame is open a bit longer. I think Hargis' movements alone prove that Bell had to have stopped filming for a several seconds. Or maybe a few seconds of camera jiggle was removed from the Bell film.

This range of estimates you referenced are based on the Z, Nix and Muchmore films right? Well my estimates are based on the same films, the same data. Of course they match!! My results only help to confirm that the film analysis shows a speed of 8 mph. The matching results say nothing about the issue of alteration.

I think the problem of adjusting for angular speed can be avoided by using stationary objects like Mary Moorman or Z's pedestal in the Nix film to measure how much of the limo passes by those stationary objects frame by frame. The distance of the stationary object to the limo does not matter, it just needs to be stationary to measure the progress of the limo past it. I understand that a limo traveling at an angle to the camera does change how much of it would pass by Mary Moorman frame by frame. If the limo is traveling at a 45 degree angle to the camera it will take twice as many frames for it to pass Moorman than if it was moving directly across Z's field of view. But at that 45 degree angle the limo's length, from Z's view, is cut in half. This make the angular speed a non issue because the limo's length being reduced by 1/2 perfectly compensates for the fact that the limo would take twice as long to pass by Moorman when traveling at the 45 degree angle. We know the length of the limo and its separate sections down to the inch, that allows for a ruler to be correctly sized under the image of the limo. From the taillight to the front fin at the headlight is about 249". Place a 249mm ruler under the limo and 1mm will equal 1 inch. To adjust the ruler for a limo moving at a 45 degree angle, all you have to do it shrink the 249mm ruler to match the shrunken length of the limo as seen from 45 degrees. Using a stationary object to measure the limo's progress down Elm also eliminates the need to consider how Z's framing of the limo keeps changing. When Z pans a bit too fast it does cause the limo to change position in the frame but so does a stationary object like Moorman. When using Moorman as the marker to measure the progress of the limo down Elm, the framing of the image is not relevant to the measurement of Moorman vs the limo within the frame. To put it another way, Moorman's position relative to the limo only changes because of the limo's motion and does not change as the camera jiggles or pans too fast/slow. Comparing Z's pedestal to the limo in Nix, I get the limo moving at around 8mph at its slowest(I think that is around 18 frames after the head shot.). If the film is altered then of course 8mph does not represent reality, but 8 mph is what the films shows.

The overhead graphic shows Z's LOS in blue and Nix's LOS in red. The blue circle is a very rough estimate of where Jackie's hand sat based on the Z film. From Nix's perspective Jackie's hand sat behind the handhold. But Nix's LOS shows the closer her hand was to the midline of the trunk, the farther back it was from the rear of the limo. Maybe the blue circle could be moved more a bit more to the drivers side, but the basic principle still holds. Jackie's hand was further from the back of the limo than Nix's low angle of view suggests.

The person who took the photo from Hudson's position, which I posted Saturday, also took video as he walked to the left(west) of the stairs. This was done to determine how far Hudson would have to move in order to see the tower. Here are 4 frames of that video with a still shot at the end. The color of the tower's red roof is easy to identify as the frames progress left to right. The tower is not visible in the 1st image, even though that image was taken 1 ft. off the edge of Hudson's stair. That 2nd image was taken about 2 ft away from Hudson's location. We can see maybe 9 ft. of the tower roof and Bowers window might just be coming into view. It depends on just how much of the tower roof was hidden behind the pergola to begin with. The last image was taken 7 ft away from Hudson's position. 7 ft allows for 38 ft to be be revealed at the distance of the tower. Using the roof(which measures 28 ft across on Google Earth) as a yardstick, the roof extends almost exactly 38 ft from the pergola. The small white building just to the west of the tower and it's door are visible in the original photo I posted Saturday. Using it as a reference shows the tower roof was hidden behind the pergola by about 2 ft.. Bowers could never have seen Hudson and Mudd. So where could these two people have been standing that allowed Bowers to describe one of them wearing a light shirt and dark trousers and the other having a plain shirt or coat?

He did come across as honest and thoughtful. I don't think he lied but did have some false memories. His eyeglass Rx was very minor and it looks to be a farsighted correction. So even if his Rx was a bit old he could simply remove his glasses and have very good distance vision when he wanted to. If he was slightly nearsighted with some astigmatism his Rx was still minor and he could have easily seen people standing 100 yards away.

I think his initial instinct on 1/22 was to keep his mouth shut about any gunman he might have seen. After watching the suspicious cars seemingly casing the the parking, two gunman on the Knoll, and hearing there was also a shooter in the TSBD, he had to believe this assassination was an organized plot. He would have to wonder who is behind the plot. He would know that if he is publicly outed as a witness who saw the shooters, and might be able to identify them, he may be targeted himself. The Mob killing witnesses was a real thing, and I think it was well known then. I think he had good reason to lie right from the start. Then he appeared to have false memories about the cop riding up the knoll. I thought that might have come from extrapolating his memory of seeing Heygood's attempt to hop the curb. But that photo of Hudson's view proves that Bowers could never have seen Heygood's attempt. If Heygood ran up to about Hudson's level and a few feet to the west, Bowers would see a cop with a helmet from the chest up. Maybe he just assumed Heygood was on his motor. When it comes to the two guys he saw he must have seen them somewhere and well enough to describe their clothing. Exactly where and when he saw them is unknown. Plaid shirts were very common then as Lovelady and Bill Newman and a couple other kids around the plaza wore plaid that day. There were up to 5 witnesses on the patio that day and they all ran away. You would think that the knoll gunman issue being such so controversial that one of them would have eventually come forward. I wonder if they feared reprisal for what they might have witnessed. If a knoll gunman exited to the east, those witnesses could have come face to face with him/them as they fled into the parking area. I'm seeing your speculation and raising you one.

Lasse's photo now proves that Bowers never saw Hudson or Mudd or Heygood attempting to jump the curb. So the big question is, where were the two people he described as having a plaid shirt and the other with dark trousers. He couldn't see anybodies trouser on the far side of the fence from his position in the tower. So they couldn't be on the south side of the fence or on the steps. The only plausible answer is he saw them in the parking lot and was not correct when he claimed no one was behind the fence. What a stroke of luck to find someone live in the plaza and willing to test the Hudson line of sight in real time and post the photo within 2 minutes.

One small correction Lasse just said he is a dude. Ooops

The issue has been resolved!! Moments ago I found Lasse Madsen on Facebook and she is in the plaza at this very moment and has an interest and experience in photography. I asked if she could do the photo from Hudson's position and in like 2 minutes she gave me the photo I needed. In the photo below I used the left corner of the top stair and the corner of the pergola above to verify her line of sight and she was standing right on Hudson's spot. Her photo proves that Bowers tower was not visible at all to Hudson and that means Bowers had no view at all to Hudson. Many thanks to Lasse Hudson who works for a company that makes Hirg end 8mm movie camera's with very good optics.

That is a great photo. Thanks for that. The point where the top of the shadow(The top of the stairs) meets the pergola is a very good match for the photos already posted here. It has to have been taken from the same basic altitude as the tower window. It looks like the camera was at the east side of the window. What I can't identify is the small tree in the center of the gap between pergola and the fence.

I appreciate the photo but it appears to be taken from a few ft west of Hudsons's position. It still might help to narrow the possibilities if I can determine the camera position in the photo. Thanks