Chris Bristow
-
Posts
1,001 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Chris Bristow
-
-
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.
-
19 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
Actually, if it was Jackson (and Jackson was also the "Knoll Rider") then the extraneous sounds in the dicta belt evidence make a lot more sense--the engine noises, etc. And don't forget that in the Gallery record, Gary Mack explains that the shot sequence occurs a few seconds after someone (Chaney, probably) says "Alright, Jackson"--probably in response to Jackson giving hand signals that. he was going to hang back for a few seconds, or whatever.
There is a huge problem with McLain as the one who had the "bike with the mic"--he testified that he had stopped halfway down Houston Street when he heard the shots, not in the "predicted location" (based on a diagram that cannot be verified as accurate). Dale Myers received an Emmy for proving that McLain could not have been in the "predicted location"--by using the exact same images that the HSCA used to "prove" that McLain was the guy who had the "Bike with the Mike." (!!!)
Note that I consider the entire mic placement diagram to be so much b.s. There is absolutely zero evidence for its veracity. Barger, who prepared the diagram, wasn't even present during the acoustical tests. He created the diagram based on a list of "street features" that he had been given. That list of "street features" is unavailable for independent review. Where is it? Who created it? Where are the photographs to back it up? These are questions that cannot be answered.
The acoustic evidence does not go out the window--however, it is open to a different interpretation than what has traditionally been applied. I just finished an article on the acoustics which I will post a thread about as soon as I finish responding here, at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/some-brief-notes-on-the-acoustics.html. You can also watch Part 9 of my documentary series, which has most of the same information, except I don't think I gave my alternate echo correlation, because I didn't want to confuse matters. Read my new article, and you will see that I can get an echo correlation from my own "predicted location" of the shooter being on the road, and the "bike with the mike" belonging to Douglas Jackson.
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. -
12 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
You're correct about it being 5 feet. I looked it up. I apologize for my mistake. However, I can still get an acoustic echo match, using the exact same lengths as https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_1_Weiss.pdf p. 20, with my SS shooter (Hickey) and my motorcycle officer with the stuck mic--Jackson, not McLain. McLain was halfway between Houston and Elm when the shooting began. However, Jackson was in the perfect position to pick up the acoustic shockwave. I contend that Jackson was also the "Knoll Rider." The shockwave would have caused him to perceive the AR-15 shot as having come from the "Knoll", since acoustic shockwaves cause a misperception of the source of the sound as perpendicular to the path of the bullet.
It's on my to-do list to write an article on the acoustics. I will post a thread on that--including my drawing with echo correlations that match the distances as noted in the 3 echo paths on p. 20 above, as soon as I get a round tuit.
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. -
On 5/29/2024 at 4:34 AM, Pamela Brown said:
I used the initial viewing to evaluate what I saw after that...
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.
-
2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
I can’t speak to your analysis, but Linda Willis was speaking about what showed in the photo immediately after it was developed, and Jim Towner commented that “trains” should have been visible in one of the photos used in a Sixth Floor Museum brochure, in a SFM Living History interview, so there’s confirmation for the Willis statement.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
Showing Hickey holding the AR-15.
Oddly, there are 3 agents on the running board of the follow-up car in the McIntyre photo, but in the Volkland/Stemmons Freeway photo, they're all inside the car, with 3 agents sitting across the front seat. At what point did the agents get inside the car?
The reason I ask, is there are extraneous sounds of "doors slamming" in the acoustical evidence, which I like. I also think many of the photos and especially the Zapruder film were altered (e.g., Linda Willis describing at least one of her father's pictures as having been "physically altered." So I'd like to know if McIntire ever authenticated his photo, or gave a history of his photo after he took it?
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.
-
4 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
Exactly! And that double-bang is also evident in the acoustic analysis, with the first shot of the double-bang acoustically attributed to the "Grassy Knoll." (I actually contend that it came from the road in front of the Knoll, from the SS follow-up car, close enough to the test shot location to mimic the echo pattern of a knoll shot. Bear in mind there was something like a 25' foot side-side allowance along the fence for the shooter's location, which I also think would allow for a frontal variance.
I'm also certain that the misperception of separate and distinct shots as "echos" contributed to a general under-reporting of the number of shots. Clint Hill said that the last shot had "some kind of an echo" while various bystanders described a double-bang. That shot/echo confusion, plus inattention blindness, explains why witnesses only reported "3 or 4" initially (later settling on "3" after the news started reported on only 3 hulls being found in the TSBD), while the acoustical evidence has at least 5 "suspect impulses" including a double-bang spacing of the last two shots (with echo patterns that could be matched to test shots from the TSBD or Grassy Knoll. There was also an additional impulse before and another one after these 5 that I feel should not have been rejected, but the only test shot locations were the TSBD and the fence area of the knoll, not the places where I think these two shots were fired)
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.
-
11 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
Wasn’t Stemmons Freeway traffic held up during the motorcade, along with railroad traffic? Someone on the other side should have heard shots even though they were almost directly upwind from the source.
Dan Rather claimed he was on the other side of the railroad overpass to catch any film from the CBS cameraman in the motorcade to bring it back to KLRD for development. He claims he didn’t hear the shots but sensed something was wrong when the limo sped by him so he walked over to Dealey Plaza, saw the crowd was obviously distraught and instead of doing the obvious and asking someone what happened, went directly to KLRD. For what it’s worth as there is no photographic evidence to corroborate his claim.
A rifle shot will make sound from the muzzle discharge and the sonic boom of the bullet, assuming it is supersonic which the MC ammunition was. The cone of the sonic boom will reach people at times quite differently than the muzzle blast which could be perceived as echoes.
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. -
1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:
Thank you!
I know everyone always tried to describe Dealey Plaza as this "chamber of sound" and usually ascribe the acoustics there as to why witnesses thought shots came from the Grassy Knoll instead of the TSBD, but I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't hear the shots no matter how faint or the screams of the crowd turn from exhilaration to horror.
Those two types of screams are totally different. I remember someone describing the scene just after the assassination as something akin to a chorus of horrifying screams or something to that effect.
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. -
7 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:
The film that I saw in NYC in 1964 was the Zapruder. I think it was unaltered. I am the only one I know who knows about it will talk about it publicly...
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.
-
6 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:
This may be old news to some, but it's a bit of a revelation to me that came, last week, regarding the "fatal" wound.
I've always been of the mind that the shot hit the forehead above the right eye and went straight thru the back of the head. The problem was that, with the position of JFK's head as seen in the Z film at that moment, I couldn't figure out a trajectory from the South Knoll or the North Knoll that could do it, considering the position of JFK's head at that moment. I thought, maybe there were frames removed that would have shown a different head position, making a shot like that from the grassy knoll conceivable.
In spite of the possibility that, that could still be true, I think the better hypothesis, as Dr. Clark suggested at some point, is that the shot made a tangential wound across the back of the head. As Clark said, the wound in the occipital/parietal, could have been of both entrance and exit.
Bang, problem solved. JFK was slumped, head down and turned to the left, exposing the back of the head to the grassy knoll.
I remember some years ago when reading James Files' "story" he said something that struck me. He said, as he was about to take the shot from behind the fence, a bullet came from the rear and knocked JFK's head forward just a split second before he pulled the trigger. His shot, he said, was aimed at the center of the head. Even a blind squirrel gets some nuts...
A tangential shot to the back of the head, from the grassy knoll, can explain a lot of things: the force of the spray and matter hitting Hargis, debris on the trunk of the limo, debris in the follow up car, bullet slug in the infield, and so on.
As I said, it's a revelation to me.
If not for the possibility of a tangential shot chipping out the O.C wound, the GK theory would be dead.
-
11 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
Here is a screenshot from the recreation of a south knoll shot from Inside the Target Car. Had JFK been in the actual position he was just prior to 313, Greer, the windshield or perhaps Nellie Connally would have been in the way. Possibly spectators on the infield.
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. -
3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
I disagree. If Don Roberdeau’s drawing is anything close to accurate, a shot from the knoll would have have made a fairly sharp left turn (~70 degrees) to exit the right rear of the head. The force on the left half of the brain and skull would have been pretty large. Even if the bullet fragmented, there would be substantial damage to the left half of the brain. A shot from the south knoll sort of solves the problem but introduces the problems of shooting through the windshield, Greer or the Connallys.
In my judgement, the head shot was off-center and oblique leaving a large entrance wound. Think of the Apple logo. It traveled forward along the right side of the skull and it exited around the right temple, blew out material along the right side of the skull in a cloud which was quickly dispersed back and to the left by the combined force of a west-southwest wind and the relative wind from the southwest direction of travel of the limo. Larger fragments of brain tissue and skull not as much affected by the wind were carried forward by the momentum transferred from the incoming bullet.
Then again, maybe Greer or Nellie Connally did it.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:
Good picture of the sidewalk and the expansion joints here. It's three joints evidently in between the lamp post and the sign, not one. Could well be 18 feet. Again find the measurements of those squares on the sidewalk and we should have a pretty good idea of the distance along one axis. And it could be outside of an 11 degree FOV, from Zapruder's POV, as between the post and the Stemmons sign, yes. (The limo was 21 feet, and evidently not all of its width could be captured at a distance of 65 feet.) But it still seems unusual that it would take approx two seconds of run time from the Stemmons sign leaving the frame to get the lamp post in the frame.
https://ar.europeanwriterstour.com/images-2023/kennedy-assassination-grassy-knoll
And just to reiterate, I think, where we are is this
The Zapruder film shows an 11 degree FOV. An 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of his equipment -- the camera and lens. What we don't know was whether an 11 degree FOV was within the technical limits of the human operator, Zapruder, whether at that focal length (a 200mm full-frame equivalent more or less), obtaining as stable footage as he did was possible.
In addition, does the presence of "blurry people with sharp shadows" possibly indicate post-acquisition film manipulation as in say, narrowing the FOV some time after Zapruder shot the film through an enlargement and then crop and reinsertion procedure? This would assume that Zapruder had shot his film at a focal length setting of something less than 27 degrees. A normal setting, which wold have had a wider FOV, for instance, would be easier for the operator to shoot and achieve stable footage.
Finally, there are indications of possible film editing (splicing and cut and paste marks) and possible conflicts in imagery relating to the sign and the lamp post both in the extant Zapruder film, as well as some still photographs of the area, some which of which have been pointed out in this thread.
You could also determine the height of the lamppost and then the length of its shadow based on the Sun's elevation of 37 degrees. Add the sight angle of the shadow across the sidewalk and you have a yardstick to find the distance from lamppost to the sign.
-
1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:
Zapruder’s secretary, Marylyn Sitzman was on the pedestal with him for stability. You can see them both in Willis 5.
Yes I think she said he specifically felt uneasy standing up on the pillar.
-
On 5/19/2024 at 10:12 AM, Sandy Larsen said:
First, I'm pretty sure that you meant Dr. Clark, not Perry. Here is what Dr. Clark said in the news conference:
"The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."
He clearly was referring to a gaping exit wound on the back of the head and not the top of the head. Because he surmised the entrance wound for the gaping exit might have been the neck (throat) wound. Besides, all of his other early notes and statements support the back-of-head location.
No, what Dr. Clark described is not what is seen in the Zapruder film. He saw a gaping hole in the back of the head. The Zapruder film shows a gaping wound at Kennedy's right temple.
Now, what you yourself describe is indeed what the Zapruder film shows. Problem is, not a single witness saw what the Z-film shows... a gaping wound of the temple. Furthermore, the autopsy photos contradict the location of the Zapruder's gaping wound.
Clark used the term "right posterior to the WC and in his report from 11/22 he wrote "Occipital parietal." Being a Neurosurgeon He must know where the occipital bone is and where the occipital parietal area is. He also recognized both cerebellar tissue and cerebrum. One or two others also stated the wound looked tangential. That allows for the occipital wound to have come from the Grassy Knoll.
-
9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:
You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally. All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot. Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development.
Where is this footage of the Chisms by Z that you refer to?
Enlargement blurring some objects such as people but not others such as shadows is exactly what you would expect to happen. This is because the tonal variations in people -- skin color, clothing, etc -- are less distinct from their backgrounds than a shadow's are. Shadows hide details after all, and therefore have less "material" in them to become blurred. A hard edge of a shadow line remains the same whether blown up or not. A person's face however will become fuzzy especially when/if the film stock is magnified (blow-up) past it's generally accepted limits. If you enlarge an 8mm frame as though you were enlarging a 35mm frame, let alone a large format frame, the more prevalent grain in the smaller film is going to be magnified. That grain is going to be most visible in lighter areas -- like faces -- and less visible in darker areas -- like shadows.
There's an image here, which was from 8mm film but massively blown up. You can see the shadow lines stay sharp.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/using-8mm-movie-camera-lens-in-enlarger.185187/
"You're taking "test footage" in the case of Zapruder too literally. All I meant was that he might have done a practice shot moments before the actual shot. Not some elaborate procedure of days before requiring similar light and then development."
Ok so he could look through the viewfinder and maybe practice his pivot while maintaining a smooth pan. Imagine having to change your stance on a 4 ft high 2 ft wide pedestal top without being able to look away from the viewfinder to make sure you don't step off the edge and fall 4 ft. In addition much of our balance is linked to vision. All he had to look at was a tiny image and the closest object viewable is the sign 50 ft away. Precarious!
I see the Chism footage once in a while but I don't know where to find it.
A sharper more defined shadow has less visible blur after enlarging but I don't know if it explains the Z film shadows. My original post addresses most of the the discrepancy seen in Z. Beyond that you would need to test it. -
9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:
Thanks. And I agree that he would probably not manipulate the zoom lever while shooting the motorcade and if he had, demonstrable shake would have been introduced into the footage.
I have thought it curious that his film shows no "test footage," done prior to the actual motorcade's passing, to make sure his settings were acceptable. Especially given how new he was to the equipment.
I tested a couple frames around frame 200, frame 312, and around frame 403. There is a few feet of footage Z took prior to the motorcade of the Chism's standing at the east pergola. But test footage would have to done on a day with similar light on a separate film roll and then developed before he could use it as a test.
"QUERY: Would such enlargement process and then reduction at crop result in "blurry people with sharp shadows," the original topic, after all, that this thread is to address?"
I see no reason for that process to blur some objects but not others like a shadow. -
3 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
Geometrically, the limo is actually a chord rather than an arc. But the Angle of View is relatively small so it doesn’t make a significant difference. I treated it as an isosceles triangle with sides of 65’ and base of 12.5’.
Angle of View is 2*arcsine(6.25/65) = 11 degrees.
Your approach was very clever as it does not require a table of inverse trig functions. I did a few more sample calculations and your method works well (within 2 degrees) at resulting Angles of View as large as 55 degrees!
"Geometrically, the limo is actually a chord rather than an arc."
Ya that dawned on me once. After checking how much error it introduced I decided it was not a big deal. That is true when just using a small 11 degree FOV but for larger fields it may screw up my measurements.
I see you have tested up to 55 degrees. Thanks, I had forgotten the inaccuracy of measuring a straight line as an arc. That would have caught up with me eventually. -
3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:
No, I understand. You have accurately identified the FOV of the Zapruder film as being 11 degrees. And I mistakenly said 11 degrees wasn't possible with Z's camera and lens. It was -- at full zoom. I apologize for taking issue with you on that. I guess I got my FOV's for lenses at 35mm film confused with 8 mm film.
Evidently the other Chris on this thread has personally done a test with the correct camera model and lens 20 years ago or so. I have asked for more information from him on that. I am somewhat dubious that Zapruder could be as steady as he was shooting at full zoom, which was roughly equivalent to a 200mm lens on a full frame dslr. I would expect a lot more shakiness at that focal length, for a novice like Zapruder without stabilization (a tripod). Wouldn't you agree?
Further, Is there the possibility in your view, Chris, that Zapruder was not shooting at full zoom but -- and here you need to indulge speculation -- the alteration that occurred, at least one of perhaps others, too, was a blow-up of what had been filmed at a wider FOV, at the lens's normal setting, and then reduced back down, presumably to crop out incriminating imagery. If this were done, the persons who did it would of course have to know the technical spec limits of Zapruder's camera, specifically that the FOV could not be reduced more than to 10 or 11 degrees. If that was one of the alterations, that would explain why it was so steady. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to this "possibility."
However, I am also eager to hear back from the other Chris regarding his experience with shooting the camera, especially at full zoom -- whether it was possible to get a steady pan shot, hand-held.
Ok, we now see eye to eye on the FOV. I can't see any reason to consider that Z may not have been zoomed in. If you can test the stability of a hand held 11 FOV and it isn't stable, then there is something to consider.
To speculate that the film may have been cut down to 11 degrees I would need something more than "presumably to crop out incriminating imagery". That is your hypothesis and to make it into a theory you will need to bring some possible evidence of alteration in that vein. -
The math I used to get a FOV at frame 312 is as follows. Take the 65ft distance from Z to the right side of the limo as the radius of a circle. 65ft X 2 = 130(Diameter). 130 X 3.141(PI) = 408ft(Circumference). 408ft divided by 360(Degrees) = 1.13 ft per degree. In frame 312 we see 12.5ft of the right side of the Limo. 12.5ft divided by 1.13 = 11 degrees FOV.
-
On 5/13/2024 at 12:02 PM, Kevin Balch said:
How fast was the presidential limo traveling just before it braked to a complete stop?
How far behind the presidential limo was the Secret Service follow up car at the time the presidential limo braked to a complete stop?
Luis Alvarez inferred from the Z-film a minimum presidential limo speed of 8 miles per hour circa frame 310. My understanding is that the secret service followup car tried to maintain a separation distance of 5 feet behind the presidential limo. That is certainly evident from the Hughes film of the motorcade proceeding up Houston Street.
Does anyone believe differently, and what are your reasons?
The followup car starts about 6ft behind the limo in the Nix film. But as soon as Hill runs past the hood and toward the limo he is in front of the follow up. That is when space starts to open between the follow up car, Hill and the limo. Hill is running and stumbling at the limo for the next 3 seconds. Kinney must have allowed some space so he wouldn't run over hill if he fell. Then we see in the Bell film that the follow up car is a few car lengths behind the limo.
So a limo stop, which is said to have happened right after the headshot, would have happened when some distance had opened up between the cars. I don't know how much though.
On this subject I can't trust the Nix or Z film as I think a limo extreme slowing or momentary stop occurred. I can not say with absolute sureness so I don't proclaim it stopped. But I can't fathom all 4 bike cops and others like Moorman standing just a few feet away being so completely wrong about 8mph vs a sudden slowing or stopping. Many witnesses said 'It stopped or almost stopped' That consistency in their reports tell me it must have gone extremely slow for them to phrase it like that. -
The thread about a defect in the Moorman photo had nothing to do with the Z film. It was an interesting grid pattern defect in the grass but was very likely to be the result of extreme enhancement. I may have done another thread on the fake Youtube Z film with an added frame between 312 and 313. It caused the limo 2 appear at half speed for 2 frames and they claimed that was the limo stop.
EDIT: Ok I looked at the thread. It dovetailed off into other subjects after my question was answered and there was another Chis posting in the room being referenced.
Where did James Jenkins really place the gaping head wound -- Debate challenge for Tom Gram!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
.
"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?