Chris Bristow

Hargis was seen at the north Elm lamppost about 16 seconds after the head shot. This makes it impossible for him to have run to the patio wall. Hargis did say he ran uphill to get a better more elevated view of the knoll. The best Hargis could have done, imo, is continued his run for about 15 ft up the grass(Taking about one second and gaining about 3 ft of elevation.), before stopping and heading for the lamppost. He also said he saw witnesses in that area and no one was acting suspiciously or "Running". But Hargis could have seen those patio witnesses upper torsos well before reaching the wall. He could have yelled to Roscoe White from near the sidewalk as he ran. It is possible Hargis did see the witnesses on the patio and did talk to White and still ended up at the lamppost in 16 seconds. It comes down to a couple seconds and I don't think there is a record of the exact second LBJ's SS follow up car passed by and allowed Hargis to start across Elm.

Thanks Steve. "In shock" makes perfect sense.

Hargis dismounted and immediately ran across Elm St looking for a shooter. Martin, Chaney and Jackson did not attempt to keep pace with the limo and none of them dismounted to search for a shooter. Martin just putted along slowly to the underpass and then rode out of the plaza. The films and photos suggest Chaney and Jackson just stopped and sat there for a few seconds before following far behind the limo. What were they supposed to be doing once shots were fired?

Thanks for that. He does say the SS car stopped and it sounds like it was when he was looking down to the onramp. Only mentioning the SS car stopping there is a bit strange though. His timeline takes some sudden jumps like when he starts to say he watched the limo go under the bridge then suddenly jumps back to the plaza. It does make me wonder because he was able to see the limo enter and exit the triple overpass bridge as well. Still his account is pretty strong support for the SS car stopping on the onramp.

I would not trust anything Gary Mack had to say after seeing the lie he perpetrated in the "Inside The Target Car" documentary in which he completely misrepresented the position of JFK's head as being firmly tucked up against Jackies left shoulder at the head shot. That lie allowed him to claim Jackie would also have been hit by a knoll shot. We know for a fact his head was at her right shoulder and a good 8 to 10 inches away from her head as seen in Z 312 and the Muchmore film. I don't believe he was so ignorant as to make such a blatant mistake. I also don't get how the Queen Mary would come to a stop on the ramp below unless the limo also came to a stop in front of it. I'm sure there are a lot of search results for Hoffman's statements, can you point me to his story about the Q.M. coming to a stop?

Another discrepancy in the record is the McIntyre photo that shows Ellis, Lumpkin and another cop identified as Grey, leading the limo onto the Stemmons. Where is Chaney? The official story is that Chaney is seen on the left underneath the overpass which contradicts Curry's telling Chaney to escort the them to Parkland while still in the plaza. The Bell film shows those 3 cops well out in front of the limo as it exited the underpass. Too early for Chaney to have gotten ahead of them and he is not seen in between Curry and those 3 cops. The account you posted has Chaney clearing the other bike cops from in front of the limo which the McIntyre photo also contradicts. I don't get why Chaney would clear the other bikes from in front of the limo if he is just going to replace them and lead the motorcade to Parkland by himself. Those bikes were not fast but speed wise they accelerate as fast as a modern Lincoln with a top speed of 100mph+. The limo engine was not stock but the limo was heavy. How fast JFK's limo could accelerate was not publicized. If the Curry/Chaney meeting happened on the onramp those discrepancies would make sense but then Chaney, Jackson, Curry and Hargis all made the same mistake. I would add Lawson and Sorrels but I still have to find those statements again. I have some CT minded suspicions about the McIntyre photo which was said to have been given to Gary Mack in the 80'S. It is just weird that the limo must be doing 50 mph at that point but the bike cops look as if they are moving along very slowly. Lumpkin is riding the middle position which is slightly tricky when going around a curve at speed, yet he is riding with one hand as if moving at a slower speed. Secondly the camera shows a diagonal camera jiggle blur on everything in the photo from the bikes under the pass, the billboard and the white posts with the red lines. But the 3 bike cops are in nearly perfect focus with the front tire tread of Ellis' bike being sharply in focus. You can see the tiny light bulbs in the cops red lights and their blur does not match the camera jiggle direction.

If the Z film is unaltered then the limo position in Altgens 7 shows it was taken 4 to 5 seconds after the head shot. The limo would only be 4 seconds away from the overpass in Altgens 7. If all that is correct where is Chaney? Chaney would not have enough time to catch Curry and then disappear in 4 seconds and he would not have enough time to have his meeting with Curry after Altgens 7. Maybe the limo really did stop on the onramp but that is hard to believe unless it was because Jackie did try to jump out. Maybe Mack's version of them stopping because Greer needed directions and to verify if there were injuries was coverup for Jackie's sake.

I don't remember Ellis saying that. Do you have a reference for Earle Browns statement? I do remember Hoffman saying the limo saying took a long time to appear on the onramp below him indicating it might have stopped.

I tend to agree the limo probably did not stop on the onramp. But if it didn't there is no way for Chaney to catch up to it unless he chased it down the freeway for quite a ways. The McIntyre photo supposedly shows Chaney in the underpass some 800 ft behind the limo as it approaches the onramp. The Bell film shows the LBJ's car and his SS car moving towards the underpass and Chaney is not in the picture. Chaney either spoke to Curry in the plaza or he pulled up to Curry well after they entered the Stemmons. The latter does not make much sense to me. I don't think Curry said they completely stopped in the plaza. If Chaney caught up to him in the plaza maybe they were both just going very slow. If Curry was about 125 ft in front of the limo at the head shot then he was 100 ft away from the underpass. If Curry was crawling along very slowly it might all make sense. But then again Altgens 7 is about 4 seconds after the head shot and does not show Chaney. It is all very weird. Curry's timeline puts the Chaney event east of the underpass. The Bell film and McIntyre photo make it impossible for the meeting to have happened west of the underpass, unless it happened way down the Stemons freeway I have to look again at Lawsons and Sorrels accounts but I think their timelines also put the event east of the underpass.

I put alteration aside just to make a point about the, imo, impossible timing of Chaney's ride forward. If there was no limo stop removed the timing is even more problematic. While taking out a limo stop is the hardest and most difficult alteration to achieve I still think it was done based on the 4 cops testimony about it fully stopping or almost stopping. I have to search for all the relevant statements again because it has been some years since I researched the issue. Several of them testified to the WC more than once and some gave interviews to journalists. I have found testimony in volumes 3,4 and 7 So far. I found Sorrels saying "Get out of here" but not specifically about going to Parkland. Starves Ellis made his comment in an interview. He said the motorcade came to a full stop and he turned around and rode back and became part of the Chaney Curry exchange. But he tended to put himself at the center of his stories which makes me have some doubt about the details of his account. I will look for the interview. Hargis' account is in his WC testimony. He mentions Chaney's ride forward in his testimony in vol 4 pg 294. Lawson says in vol 4 pg 353 that he heard a radio message saying "We should get to the nearest hospital" as he saw Clint Hill on the back of the limo. A few sentences later he is asked what the lead car was doing at the time and he mentions the bike cop who pulled forward to inform them. He seems to be giving a timeline and then says the limo jumped forward while still a good distance behind them. That would be in the plaza before the limo caught them in the underpass. That is all I have found so far. I have heard the version where Hargis runs between the limo and follow up car. Only If the limo stopped would this be possible. Other wise I doubt Hargis would step in front of the follow up car and cause a delay for the SS officers trying to get LBJ out of the plaza as quickly as they could.

As usual you cherry pick statements and then see them through the lens of your own bias interpretation. "he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing." "slightly to the side" means what exactly? What does "side wound" mean exactly? In this case it means what you want it to mean. Your interpretation of those statements completely ignores the photographic evidence of Jones demonstrating the wound location, and I think most would agree photos trump written and verbal comments. As I mentioned in my post the Parkland witnesses vary some when they define the occipital wound, that is to be expected. "he was unable to observe the EXACT extent or dimensions of this wound". That is understandable considering the hair got in the way and he was on JFK's left side. But we are talking about the general wound location on the head not so much its exact dimensions and size. Even if you are looking at a wound through the mass of blood and hair it is not going to make you think the wound is in a completely different location. With JFK's face and right ear in tact it would not have been difficult to determine wound location relative to his ear as he looked over from the JFK's left side "President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area". "You take that out of context to imply that "He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing." Saying "very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" does not necessarily mean totally covered. He clearly said he saw the wound and knew the location so when he said "hair that covered the injured area" it can only be taken to mean the hair partially covered the wound. But from his position I would expect him to see less of the large blasted out area as he was looking at it side on or top down. However that would not cause him to see it in the occipital parietal if it was not located there. His apparent inconsistency regarding the blasted out area does not mean his account was wrong. That is a biased interpretation. "Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind." Ya I have seen that interview. But the basis of the CT is about wound location. The doctors can speculate all they want on the direction of the shot but it is the missing occipital parietal wound in the autopsy that is the issue. That is what points to a coverup. I personally think the discrepancy between the wound seen at Parkland and the official report indicates a coverup of a frontal shot but it is the omission of the occipital wound that strongly suggests a coverup. "Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos,". I must have missed that, but films of Jones show he was most definitely a "Back of he head" witness. When it comes to a few people recanting their back of the head statements I have to take that with a grain of salt. Crenshaw was seriously attacked by one of the most recognized medical journals " the Journal of American Medical Associations" when they inferred he was a complete xxxx and may have never even been in the room that day. I think any medical professional who was aware of that cheap attack on Crenshaw saw the writing on the wall. If you talk about an occipital wound your entire career could be put in jeopardy. To be attacked by that well known publication is very serious. And we know that 5 Parkland staff testified to the WC that Crenshaw was in the room that day. It is clear they were not interested in researching the facts. If a person holds the opinion that the wound was occipital then changes their opinion on a dime decades later I think it is fair to ask which of their two conflicting accounts was wrong and which was right? Take Carrico as an example. He writes O.C in his report that day. He testifies to same at the WC. He doubles down to the HSCA. He triples down in the KRON interview and is photographed with his hand in the upper O.C. Then after decades he suddenly flips!. A rational evaluation of his conflicting statements leans heavily towards his 4 original accounts over his interview with the 6th floor museum so many years later. But the bias of Parkland skeptics like yourself leads you to accept his last version of the wound location without question. It is bias like that which casts doubt on those who argue so fervently against the parkland staff and many at the autopsy.

I first read the story about Chaney and Curry's meeting happening on the Stemmons onramp in a piece from Gary Mack. He claimed they each came to him independently and related the same account. I think they had both passed away by the time he told the story so it could not be verified. It is one of the most absurd stories I have ever heard and is so full of holes that it is a joke, imo. According to Mack, that stop happened for two reasons. Greer did not know how to get to parkland and needed directions, and secondly Curry was not sure if there really was an emergency that would necessitate a rush to Parkland. It is true that Greer did not know the route to Parkland, but the idea of bringing their rush to the hospital to a halt so someone could inform Greer, or to make sure they even needed to rush to Parkland is ridiculous. If they suspected there was a medical emergency is Curry going to stop the motorcade to have a talk with them? Even if Curry wanted to instruct Greer or ascertain the possible injuries he could use the radio. In addition it does not make sense that Greer could get lost when he was right behind Curry. With sirens going the traffic was getting out of the way and there is no chance Greer and Curry would get separated by a traffic light. The idea he would stop the motorcade is unthinkable. What is he going to do, have some cops check everyone to see if they have been shot? Then there is the testimony of Curry in which he gives the timeline. According to Curry the conversation with Chaney absolutely happens in the plaza before hitting the underpass. That is true of all the witnesses to Chaney's ride forward. By the time they get to the Stemmonns onramp Curry was fully aware there was an emergency. He heard the shots fired and then both Sorrels and Lawson yell 'Shots fired get to Parkland"(Per their testimony.).He sees the limo speed up towards him so he floors it. But he says the limo still caught up to him under the overpass. He must have heard Kinney's siren too. Kinney and Kellerman also put out radio calls before they reached the underpass. When the limo caught Curry in the underpass Curry said he heard two people from the limo yell "Get to Parkland!". Hill and Greer have verified they yelled this. By that time the limo was slightly ahead of Curry and accelerating, (Approx 35mph just before going under the overpass.) The idea that Curry would tell Mack that he needed to stop the motorcade to verify that they needed to rush to Parkland is not believable. Chaney would have also seen the panic in the plaza, heard Kinney's siren, and seen Curry and the limo accelerating out of the plaza. He may have also heard the two radio calls from Kinney and Kellerman. As seen in the McIntyre photo Chaney would also have seen that the Limo was about 800 ft ahead of him by then and that it was racing for the onramp. Kinney's siren was still blaring. But instead of attempting to use his radio Chaney must have decided he would catch up to the limo before giving his message to Curry. He was not aware the Limo would stop on the onramp. He must have assumed that he would be chasing it down the Stemmons freeway for some time before he could catch up and relay the most important and time sensitive message of his career. If Chaney did catch up on the onramp Curry, would he still think he had to inform Curry that there was a problem in the motorcade at that point? Davis Lifton has said they stopped on the onramp because Jackie tried to jump out of the limo. Possibly due to a delayed panic reaction. Maybe that is true and Curry's reason for stopping was a cover story for Jackie's benefit. But the sequence of events up to that point point make it very clear both Chaney and Curry already knew there was an emergency. Gary Mack's story does not pass the smell test. It is more likely Mack made the whole thing up to explain away the testimony of Curry, Chaney, Hargis, Sorrels and Lawson.

Here is a short clip of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. He starts with his hand very low and then changes that 3 times until his hand is located a couple inches higher. The clip is from years after the assassination and he had probably demonstrated the wound location many times by then. The fact that he still had to feel around the back of his head for the correct location, and changes it several times, shows how the witnesses will naturally vary on the location they demonstrate. I think this is due to the fact he is trying to find the wound he originally saw with his eyes using the tactile feeling of the hand on the head. The problem is we just can't see the back of our own head. I think with regards to the height of the wound we will see some differences in the witness accounts just because they have to feel around for it. But the locations they show depict a wound that is nonexistent in the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Curry said he was 100 to 125ft in front of the limo on Elm. In Altgens 7, about 5 seconds after the head shot, Curry has his brake lights on and is still about 100 ft ahead of the limo. Curry is in the middle lane and the limo is already shifting to the right lane to get around Curry. It appears from Altgens 7 the limo was able to navigate to the side of Curry and was not inhibited by Curry's vehicle. But Curry said a bike cop pulled up next to him to say shots had been fired. Hargis, Sorrels, Lawson, Starves Ellis and Chaney(The bike cop who rode forward to Curry.) all said this happened before they reached the underpass. Hargis specifically said he saw Chaney throw it in 1st gear and race forward immediately after the head shot. But the Nix and Z films combined show Chaney never rode forward before Curry left the plaza. This puts the testimony and photographic records in question. Either all those witnesses were wrong, or the films were altered. I think if a limo stop was removed from the films there may be no time for Chaney to ride forward and talk to Curry. That would be reason to remove Chaney's ride forward. Putting alteration aside it is still perplexing how Chaney could drop it in 1st gear, accelerate forward, cover maybe 125 ft, then slow back down to the speed of Curry's car in order to have their 3 sentence conversation before the limo catches them both. It does not seem Chaney could get far enough ahead of the limo, in the short space of 125 ft, to then have time pull up alongside Curry and exchange words before the limo caught up to them. So if Chaney did ride forward the timing we see in the films and photos does not make sense and throws up a big question mark regarding the timing of the limo relative to Curry's vehicle.

Here is the Hargis interview where he mentions Roscoe White at about 8:00 min. https://youtu.be/047rHDKqqxA?si=CTxy66OOK2lPFNas If the link does not work search the following on Youtube. "Michael Brownlow interviews B. W. (Bobby) Hargis - Part 1/2". Listening to this interview I now think the "Wall" Hargis mentioned in his WC testimony was not the patio wall. He said "I ran up to the triple underpass, the Grassy Knoll." But how could he run all the way to the underpass yet be seen running back to his bike in the Bond photo just 35 seconds after the head shot? DPD Coulsen is seen behind Hargis in the Bond photo and in one of the Cancellare photos which confirms the 35 sec mark of the Bond photo.

Yes that would be a simpler way to do it and they could provide plausible reason for wanting to see his copy. Although Zapruder died in 1970 so maybe they would have approached the family.

Ok. If you copy the following, "JFK assassination two different Dealey plaza interviews with witness Linda Willis" and paste it into the Youtube search box, it should be the 1st video that comes. It is 29:24 min long with the Willis 5 comment at 25:30.

The only complication I see is the switching out of Zapruder's copy. I think the story is that Life mag traded a 1st generation copy for his original on that weekend. If the limo stop was taken out the night of the assassination then Zapruder was given that altered copy. If they took out the Limo stop much later, they would have had to covertly switch out Zapruder's first generation copy given to him on that weekend. Breaking into his home is definitely something the C.I.A would be capable of.

After watching Hargis say that, I considered it from a skeptical standpoint. Hargis looked to be in his 70's, maybe his memory was bad. Maybe he mixed up the other Officer White who ran from the overpass to the TSBD. But that officer said he watched the limo go under the overpass before starting for the TSBD. That makes the timing questionable. He also said he had to wait for a freight train to pass before he ran from the overpass. Although his story about a freight train on the overpass during the shooting sequence is very dubious. What other officers could have been on the knoll as quickly as Hargis? Smith from Elm and Huston, or Foster from the overpass maybe? And if there was a 2nd cop there why was that never reported? Hargis was able to cross the St behind LBJ's SS follow up car about 9 seconds after the headshot. He could run to the knoll wall in 7 seconds. A Bond photo has him running from the lamppost and back towards his bike at 35 seconds after fr 313. In his retelling he was only on the knoll a few seconds so the timing is tight but possible.

Michael Brownlow has a several part interview with Hargis on Youtube. In one of those Hargis said that when he arrived at the wall on the knoll(I assume he meant the patio wall.) He ran into Roscoe White. He said neither he nor White could tell where the shots had come from. Hargis arrived on the knoll less than 25 seconds after the headshot. How did Roscoe White get there so quickly? Is there any other documentation about White being in the plaza? If he was on the knoll in 25 seconds then where did he come from? He is not found in any of the films so if he was near the Knoll he must have been in the parking lot or just behind the colonnade or on the Elm St extension or behind the TSBD.

Roger, Sandy and Keven: Thanks for all the additional information.

Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. EDIT: Just took another look and I think it is the same interview with some extra footage and a later interview spliced in the middle of it. Either way go to 25:16

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses. If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed. Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head. The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too. There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration. I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur. https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago. The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right. I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened. The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost. Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo. How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.

I can't think of any photo of Elm St that was taken from the position necessary to capture a shadow that was vertical in the frame. Cancellare came the closest when he captured Wiegman. Z would have seen vertical shadows when his camera was pointing directly towards the Sun around frame 406, but there is nothing to create the long shadows. It would be interesting to see an image like that, let me know if you find it. I tested the shadows on the Franzen's by adding motion blur to a sharp Z Frame. They became very blurry but their shadows still appeared much sharper. The, blurry witness with sharp shadows, alteration theory is an old one that has not stood the test of time and the advent of computer photoshop software.