Chris Bristow

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB and SL:

This is a reservation I have: 

1. OK, let's say a bullet travels from the GK area, likely the fence junction, and strikes JFK in his right temple. Indeed, the Z film appears to show as much, in many regards.  

2. Then, at Parkland, any number of medical personnel say JFK has a large wound in right rear lower occipital area. Drawings made clearly show the large wound on the right rear lower portion of JFK's head.  

3. OK, by deduction, the GK shot striking JFK exited through the rear lower head wound. 

4. Bullets do not always travels in straight lines though bodies. But this implies the bullet made a 90-degree turn inside JFK's head. 

5. Further, if the rear right lower head wound is an exit wound, why was gore thrown at the two motorcycles officers to JFK's left? You would expect the gore to be thrown nearly straight backwards from JFK's head. 

6. There appear to be no wounds at all on the left side of JFK's head. 

My reluctant conclusion is that surviving evidence and the autopsy are not on the level. 

This murk allows JFKA researchers to curate evidence, and witnesses, and then divine the right answer. 

 

I read somewhere bullets deflect by up to 40 degrees. A knoll shot entering at the temple and exiting in the right occipital does not work, imo. 

A tangential shot entering just behind the ear and chipping out a chunk of the occipital makes more  sense.  That would fit the knoll angle and the debris  hitting Hargis.

Dr Clark was a neurosurgeon and obviously knew where the occipital was. According to Dr Grossman he stood next to  Clark as Clark held JFK's head in his hands and concluded the wound was mortal.  So Clark must have Clearly seen the wound that he said was "occipital Parietal" and more to the point, Clark said it may have been a tangential wound. At least one other doctor said it could have been tangential but I don't remember who. 

If not for the possibility of a strike hitting behind the ear and exiting near the occiput(And maybe deflecting some) I would have to reject the knoll fence shooter. But the tangential strike allows for that trajectory. I have never found any solid way to rule out a possible knoll shot.

21 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

This is the agony of eyewitness accounts, as anyone who worked in the court system, or covered it, knows. 

I have talked to District Attorneys and US Asst. Attorneys who both said eyewitness accounts are "50/50," almost verbatim copies of each other, and have seen/heard dubious eyewitness accounts in the courtroom myself. 

I think Pat Speer did some good work in this area by tabulating earwitness accounts in the DP, and showing the results. 

@Pat Speer

And do we believe Lee Bowers 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men with guns in the railroad yards, or statements he made later, evidently to friends and church-members (although we are getting hearsay about what Bower said)?

Both the LN and CT communities have taken the luxury of curating eyewitness accounts to meet narratives. 

I am a CT'er. In fact, I think elements of the intel state have deposed four presidents in the postwar era. I see conspiracies against me when my line moves slowly at 7/11.

But eyewitness accounts....

 

 

 

Yes a lot of interesting accounts that we can't take to the bank. But if there is a consistency in the reports of many witnesses  it gets more credible.

The 1st shot sounded like a firecracker to so many people that it is probable they did hear a distinct difference. Maybe a short shot or maybe a 2nd rifle. 

 I thinks some thought it was just a firecracker and might be why they reported just 2 shots. 

 The locations of TSBD ear witnesses vs knoll witnesses is really strange. They are all mixed together throughout the plaza. Does that mean the knoll witnesses were just confused? Or did  the last 2 shots coming  in rapid succession from 2 locations split their opinions? I think if up to 1/3rd of the knoll witnesses were just mistaken they would not have been so consistent. I think the majority reporting just  2 specific locations points to there being shots from both the knoll and the TSBD. 

 The huge percentage of Parkland staff that used the term occipital or back of the head is, imo, the strongest case for an autopsy coverup. 

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From my review:

From here, the book describes the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. First off are Bill and Gayle Newman who were to the limousine’s right, at the base of the grassy knoll. They were never called by the Commission, but filed affidavits and were interviewed by the FBI. (Thompson, p. 30) They may have been the closest witnesses to Kennedy’s shooting. The couple said the shots came from behind them and Kennedy was hit in the right temple, which would be clear evidence that a rifleman was behind the picket fence. But in addition to the Newmans, Thompson adds Abraham Zapruder and Emmett Hudson, who were in the same area, to this list. He later notes that it appears the FBI altered Hudson’s original statement to the Secret Service. (Thompson, p. 43) Hudson was the first witness Thompson located who indicated that there was another shot after the fatal head shot.

 

The author transitions over to witnesses who were further away from the limousine or not in as good a position to see or hear what had happened to JFK, but whose testimony is still important. In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, he notes that it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit. In this profusely illustrated book, one can see that Martin was looking toward the president right before the firing sequence began. (Thompson, pp. 50, 58) Some have said this kind of evidence is eyewitness testimony. I disagree. It qualifies as physical evidence which indicates directionality.

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?

On 10/3/2024 at 8:55 AM, Karl Kinaski said:

The editors of all those Dealy plaza films were moving around bystanders like Lego bricks. 

picture comparison puzzle.

Find the difference and ask yourself which one is fake: The Bell-Frame (on the left)or the Muchmore Frames? (On the right.)

 

 Solution to the puzzle: Jean Hill and Mary Moorman are jumping all over Beverly Oliver and the Brehms while simultaneously changing their positions. All three frames are sold to you as unaltered. 

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.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Which is exactly within the range of the estimates that have been given for more than 60 years -- ie., there's no substantive case for alteration here.

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?

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

This above photo was taken when? Besides the old sedan I think I see some 1964 year models. One thing is for sure...Bowers had a dynamite view of the inside of the picket fence. With 20/20 vision ( corrected with glasses or not ) he would easily be able to accurately see the men on this side of it as he described imo.

I always wondered...did Bowers have a pair of binoculars at hand in his job of directing train traffic? I would think he would. Watching trains come and go with many out of close sight range... of course.

Even if Bowers stated some things he saw that were questionable...the huge majority of his WC testimony was accurate, unembellished and even understated imo.

When Bowers WC questioners cut him off and didn't follow up on several of his answers, he respectfully and amiably let them take their line of inquiry where they wanted it to go. I thought Bowers was an honest, credible, thoughtful, respectful and good character WC witness.

 

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. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

Thanks for these informative posts. 

I have always been uncomfortable with witnesses who issued evolving statements over time, or who told officials different versions of that they may have said to friends.

That leaves researchers...well, which version do you believe? 

The above has a tangent from Tink Thompson on Bowers. 

The only explanation I can devise to "justify" Bower's evolving statements is that he was hired as a lookout, perhaps not knowing the full extent of what he was getting into. 

Feeling compromised, he lied and made gross omissions on his 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men in pairs, by the fence, or guns of any kind. In short, he was an accessory before and after the fact in the JFKA. 

Later, feeling remorse, Bowers began to spill the beans.

Then he was murdered. 

But...the above narrative is getting into speculation land, with both feet. 

 

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.

20 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

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.

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I think it was Kathy Beckett who posted this image some time ago. This is the view of Bowers Tower from next to where Emmet Hudson was standing on the steps. Bowers said he saw someone with a plaid shirt walking back and forth on the other side of the fence from him. This image helped convince me this could have been the man standing with Hudson in the Muchmore film and Moorman photo--who I had previously ID'ed as F. Lee Mudd. 

 

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

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually it has been done and published multiple places including in a couple of journals...possibly in the DPUK journal.  Somebody got in and filmed views out of each window in the tower.  Which I could tell  you exactly where to find it but someone must recall seeing it. 

 

A better photo would be nice. But the tower view does not show the stairs, so my question about whether Bowers could see Hudson won't be solved unless a photo is taken from Hudson's position looking back towards the tower. Or possibly a photo from the tower that has a stand-in for Hudson's location.  It is too close a call to use mapped out lines of sight from Google Earth to answer it definitively.
   If Bowers couldn't see Hudson then he didn't see Mudd or Heygood dumping his bike either. If that is true then the question remains, who did Bowers see in a white shirt and dark trouser and who did he see with a plaid shirt?  

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've stood backed up to the south side of the tower, a floor below Bowers view, looking at the back side of the fence.  He had a clear view of it from 30 - 40 yards away.  As well as the yard, overpass and down it to the south.

It's not about a glimpse of the motorcade passing.  What he saw, what he said, what he didn't. 

Yes he had a pretty clear view to a knoll shooter located anywhere behind the fence. Although if a shooter was standing at the rear of a parked sedan, the 5 ft high roof would block much of Bowers view.  The southeast corner of the fence was just over 100 yards away according to Google Earth but I don't doubt Bowers could still identify people standing in that general area.
 I think his testimony about the motorcade and Heygood is relevant because it goes to the lack of accuracy of his recall. He also mentioned the limo entering the underpass which he could not see but could only infer.
   As to the bike racing up the knoll incline, I could only assume he conflated his actual visual memory with another witnesses account because it seems no bike cop actually raced up the knoll. Maybe he just saw a bit of Heygood attempting to jump the curb and that created a false memory of seeing a bike ride up the knoll. Our mind sometimes fills in the blanks based on assumptions and we create false memories. Dodd did see Haygood dump his bike at the curb and leave it there, which matches the films, so I trust that is what happened. His story of a bike racing up the knoll is just another anomaly that makes him seem less credible.
  Bowers has stated that he saw no one in the parking area behind the fence. The problem is, if the two men he described were on the south side(Grass side) of the fence he could not have seen or described the "Fairly dark trousers" one of them was wearing. The only explanation that remained was that he saw Hudson and Mudd, who was wearing a plaid shirt. But Bowers line of sight did not allow him to see and describe the pants he saw one of them wearing. He also said those two men were in direct line with the mouth of the underpass. His description of the two mean was detailed and It seems the only plausible answer is that he did see the two men on the parking lot side, even though he denied seeing anyone in the parking lot. That is the testimony that bothers me the most. where did he see those two people?

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

You have raised interesting questions in your excellent post.

Hopefully, someone can get permission to enter the Union Terminal Tower and take clear, crisp photos. Odd that this has not been done. 

I am a CT'er, but Bowers is looking more iffy, the more we learn. His Nov. 22 affidavit is rather anodyne. 

I always say, we have to equally skeptical of both CT and LN narratives and evidence. 

Yes his testimony is strange and we are left guessing as to his motive or memory. Thank for the compliment.

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There seems a real paucity of photos taken from inside the Union Terminal Tower, that would show what Bowers could see. 

This is what I found online:

Of course, the trees and foliage may have changed over the years. 

Seems to me that automobiles and foliage would have obscured Bowers' view into the junction of the stockade fence, which is where many suspect a gunsel or smoke-and-bang diversion was situated.  

Whether Bowers could see much into the opening onto Elm Street...well, you tell me. 

 

 

That is a better copy than the one I posted. But the stairs are not visible in  any view from the tower. So are we looking at part of  the stairs that curve down to Elm, or do we see the grass area between the stairs and fence? Or is it a bit of both? Hudson is very close to the line between seeing him or him being blocked by the pergola. I can't determine this from the photos taken from the tower. The lines of sight suggest we are seeing mostly the grass area just west of the steps.
Maybe the dark area to the right is just the fence or maybe it is the large tree sitting sitting near the patio. I suggested in my post that we are seeing Main St in the background not Elm. That seemed absurd to the but the math of the angle and drop doesn't allow us to see Elm.
 The area behind the east fence is hard to see. But according to the lines of sight we should see behind the fence. It looks like we are seeing the corner of the fence on the left and the north end of it on the right, but that does not agree with the lines of sight We may be seeing the opposite. The light and shadows on the west side of the east fence may be creating an illusion.

After mapping out Bowers lines of sight to Emmet Hudson and to Elm St. I did not accept the results, but I have rechecked it multiple times now and believe it is correct. 
 The key factor in mapping bowers view is the slope angle from the top of Bowers window to the top of the stairs at the patio(The stair top denotes the bottom of Bowers line of sight to Hudson and Elm St.) the tower window at 448ft HASL and the top of the steps at 426 ft, along with the distance from window to stairs being 320 ft, gives a downward line of sight of 3.9 degrees. This slope angle has a drop of 0.83" per ft which can be used to determine how much of Elm St, or the limo, or Hudson, that Bowers could see. 
   The distance from the stair top to the limo was 78 ft.. 78 ft with a drop of 0.83 per ft = 5.4 ft of drop. So with the stair top at 426 ft - 5.4 ft drop, means Bowers view of Elm was at about 420 ft HASL. The street level of Elm at that point is 413 ft. That means Bowers could not see the first 7 ft above ground level at the middle lane where the limo was. Even if I give a couple extra feet, Bowers could not have seen the limo below a height of 5 ft. The limo would have been almost completely invisible to Bowers.
 Maybe Bowers recollection is a mixture of what he really saw conflated with what he heard of other witnesses accounts. 
 He would not have been able to see DPD Heygood drop his bike at the curb either. Or maybe as Heygood attempted to jump the curb Bowers may have seen just seen his head. 
 I had assumed the insert photo(bottom right), which shows the view from the tower, also shows what I thought was the south curb of Elm St, but that is impossible. Bowers lowest view to the the south curb would be about 5 ft above the curb. Even if I give it a couple extra feet and lower it to 3 ft, Bowers could not see the south curb of Elm St at all.
  From the tower, Bowers line of sight to the middle of Main St, 170 ft  from the steps, indicates the curb in the insert photo was Main St, not Elm. Intuitively that seem very wrong but the math seems to prove this.
 
The second issue is with Bowers lateral line of sight. The corner of the pergola may very well have blocked any view to Heygood, Mudd, or Emmet Hudson. The photo of the steps(lower left) was taken just 2 ft off of Hudson's line of sight to the tower and in that photo the tower is hidden behind the pergola. If you moved that photo 2 ft left to match Hudson's Line of sight, it would shift the view to the tower by 10 ft. That may allow Hudson to see the window and Bowers to see Hudson. But Bowers would have to be standing at the far west side of his window.  The window sits 8.5 ft in from the edge of the roof. So maybe Hudson would have been able to see about 1.5 ft of the window. This is a close call and it would require a photo taken from Hudson's exact location to verify if Bowers could have seen Hudson at all.
  Going back to the 3.9 degree vertical slope angle,  Bowers could only see about the top 20 inches of Hudson's body. Hudson's position, 11 steps down from the top,  placed him 66 inches below the stair top. Being 20 ft from the stair top gives 17 inches of slope angle drop(20 ft x 0.83" per ft = 17 inches drop.). If Hudson was 5'9" tall then bowers could only see 20" of Hudson at the most. That would make it impossible for Bowers to give a description of the color of Hudson's pants or Mr Mudd's pants. I think that eliminates any possibility of the two men Bowers described being Emmet Hudson and Mudd.
 In the photo insert from the tower window(Lower right), I shopped in an image of a person to give an idea of how much Hudson would have appeared above the stair top from bowers position. It would be hard to see how Bowers would mistake that person for someone standing up on the top of the knoll.
 

I don't think any president would have the power to release all the documents. They claim it comes down to revealing intelligence sources and methods. But  Dr Baxter's written report remained classified until the ARRB released it around 98'? Of course there was nohting about sources or methods in his report
   I know he read it out loud to the WC in 64',  but he changed the most contentious word in the report from "Occipital" to "Parietal. There is obviously more to the release issue than sources and methods

On 8/13/2024 at 10:49 AM, Roger Odisio said:

The idea that there were two head shots close together is corroborated by Tink Thompson in Last Second in Dallas, published in '21, and by a detailed talk given by Thompson, Bill Simpich, and Gary Aguilar at Duquesne U last fall.  Thompson believes there were two shots--one from the front and one from the back--within less than one second of each other. 

His conclusion is based primarily on a thorough reexamination of the acoustical evidence that arose after his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas.  As clear evidence of a shot from the front, he points to the bone and tissue from Kennedy's head that flew back and to the the left with such force that one of the motorcycle cops hit by it at first thought he had been shot.

I might add that the entrance wound in Kennedy's forehead is covered up in the extant Z film by the appearance of a blob in its place in 313 that that no one ever saw IRL.  An example of rushed and sloppy work that caused the killers to go back to Zapruder, give him another $1 million, and try to bury the film from public view for as long as they could get away with.

 

 The witnesses who  recounted  the timing of the shots by tapping a table or just saying bang 3 times is the most compelling to me.
Thompson has said there are several different background humming sounds that indicate multiple attempts at editing.
The changing Doppler shift during the freeway run completely blows the idea it was Mcclain's bike. And the whistling cop is clear as a bell during the stuck mic moments. But  McClain, insisted that was not him whistling. "he's not "a whistle while you work kind of guy". The dispatcher also backed up McClain. I can't see McClain not recognizing his own whistle or that he even whistles while riding.
I think any dispatcher comes to know the employees audio signatures very well, like the sound of different types of Harleys. Both he and McClain felt the engine noise of the stuck mic rider was a 45c.i. meter reader tricycle which has a very distinctive rattle.  Not sure what think about the acoustics other than it was likely altered.  

7 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

I watched the South Knoll video. It answers some questions but raises new questions. I am going to view it again and present some questions.

However, the video casts a lot of doubt (@ 1:00:30) on Zapruder film alteration which is the very topic of this thread and which you believe took place.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

 

The narrator said the back splatter proves the film was not substantially altered. It still allows for a hole in the right occipital to have been covered up. 
  I think one possible scenario is shots fired from both the rear and front.  Considering testimony like Greer's that placed the last two shots as "Almost simultaneous" the 4th shot may have come 1/3rd second or 6 frames after 313. In the Muchmore film JFK disappears behind Jean Hill after 6 frames. So the frontal shot may not have been  recorded by Muchmore. This applies to the Moorman photo as well since it was taken at about 1/9th sec after 313.
  They have the bullet passing by Nellie's right ear but she had turned almost 90 degrees to her right and maybe scooted forward toward J.C.. I also think JFK and Jackie were leaning forward more with their heads over the front edge of the seat.
 It is interesting that the Muchmore line of sight continues past the gap between their heads and straight to the GK shooter theorized position. A shooter there would see the exact same gap between their heads as Muchmore did. This debunks the old claim that Jackie would have also been hit by a GK shooter.