Chris Bristow

I was always baffled by the claim that the WTC fell at a free fall rate. When you can see the debris falling off the sides and falling faster than the WTC it makes you wonder how they could make that claim. The other claim about the exhaust from explosions blasting out windows and blowing smoke out didn't make a lot of sense either. if an entire floor collapses in about one second all the air inside it has to go somewhere very quickly.

Good eyes! I don't know if the Bronson film shows him stepping with the left or right foot. I'm going to have to strain my eyes a bit. Finding that couple through the trees debunks a separate conspiracy theory. They are shown in the Nix film with the Franzen family in the background. It is thought that they were standing very close to the franzen's and so when they don't show up next to them in the Z film it is thought to be Evidence of alteration. But your finding them in the Bronson film adds further proof they were standing about 40 ft closer to Nix than the alteration Theory supposes. It can be proven by the Nix footage but it requires a detailed breakdown of Nix's point of view. Your find in the Bronson film is more direct and simple proof that debunks that particular CT.

I'm going to go to your links and give your papers to read.

Many witnesses said the car stopped or almost stopped. They described it as going so slow they couldn't be sure if it stopped or almost stopped. This is consistent and indicates the car crawled along very slowly for a moment. That's why so many people said it stopped or almost stopped. You said that Chaney's quote about the car stopping after the first shot was a second hand report. That makes it much less reliable. I could see getting the order of events wrong when they happen very close together. But the cops pacing right next to the limo would have a very good idea of exactly how much it slowed. if Hargis is correct and the limo stopped just after the headshot then the Moorman photo would not need to be altered. There is a clip of Chaney from the 1990's in which he states that the limo came almost to a halt. What is interesting is that he prefaces his statement by saying " this is not to be shown publicly but that guy came almost to a stop." That's a slight paraphrase because he added a sentence in the middle to try and explain why Greer stopped. What I have to wonder is why would he preface it by saying it should not be shown publicly. The official story about how much the limo slowed down is demonstrated in the Z film and by 1995 we had seen the official version. I can't think of any reason for him to ask for it not to be shown to the public other than he is contradicting the official story. in the Z film the limo slows to 8 mph. His description of coming almost to a stop is not at all consistent with the official story. For a motorcycle trying to Pace the limo the difference between 8 miles an hour and almost stopping is huge. The bike cops testimony is very powerful and extremely credible. I rode motorcycles for many years and find it impossible to believe that they didn't know the difference between almost stopping and continuing at 8 mph when they're riding 3 ft from Limo! Add to that the fact that none of those four cops supported the story about the limo continuing at 8 miles an hour. Not one of them supported the official version. I don't think I can overstate how damning their testimony is.

That's a very good point. I didn't recognize that before.

Okay, yes my point was vague and wordy. I wanted to know how confident you were in your memory of the original event. You gave a pretty direct answer to that question. I would guess everyone watching that film would have had their eyes directly on Kennedy which adds to the credibility of your observation. I think most researchers look at frame 313 and wonder what we might have seen underneath that blob. Your observation also brings up the question as to how much of the other bloody images are real. It opens up a whole can of worms.

It is possible the swelling on Oswald's left eye caused some blurred vision. If he closed that eye it would be better. Just a thought.

From your post: "I viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in NYC in the late fall of 1964 that differs from what we are currently seeing. I had no idea at the time just how unusual my experience was." I often wonder how difficult it would be to compare the memory of the Z film seen in 64' to maybe 14 years later? I know folks like Greg Burnham said he saw the unaltered film and the umbrella man was pumping his umbrella vigorously. I guess the difference between that account and the Z film would be easy to distinguish even after many years. I would think a limo slowing would be harder to compare after many years compared to a full stopped . If the film was projected at a slightly different speed it might complicate the issue too. I'm not implying you got it wrong at all, but I an wondering how obvious the difference was to you.

That's a good find, thanks for providing it. The Mary Moorman photo was not altered. The only way the limo could have slowed/stopped would be if the slowing started just a few frames before the head shot or if the Moorman photo represents a frame after 315, or both combined. I suppose it could be claimed it was altered Friday night but they would have to have already calculated the Z film slowing and knew how much to move the limo and bikes. If there was an organized conspiracy and they had the clean up possibilities mapped out maybe it was possible. Usually when considering a new idea like the limo stopping later it starts easy then complications arise. So I am just trying to address everything and rule out what does not work. The newspaper photo has barley visible portions of the fingerprint on it. I thought that occurred during the time the FBI was holding the photo but it must have happened by Saturday. I assume the photo must have gone out over the AP "Wire" for it to printed in a California paper by Saturday. There must be other copies out there. With each response you repeat the same arguments that I have already considered. Laying speculation upon speculation leads to speculative conclusions. I consider those but conjecture like all the bike cops being mistaken does not hold much weight. When you can't make a good solid argument against something like the bike cops accounts you should not try to address the point with such speculation as 'they just got it wrong" (Paraphrased). This weakens your overall argument and lessens your credibility in my view. You may think repeating your opinions over and over will cause a light bulb to go off in my head, but it does not serve to bolster your case at all.

I wonder if you had to buy the double pack with negative and positive separate rolls or if it was possible and cheaper to just buy the positive only roll and not install a negative pack. That may mean there never was a negative. I could see a problem with running film that is not as thick the double roll. It may not sit flat and distort the image.

I have looked for any newspaper image of the Moorman photo and find nothing. The Alltgens 6 & 7 photos were in the paper that night and if you google "Altgens image newspaper" you will find many reports and images of the newspapers. The same type of search for Mary Moorman turns up nothing. If we do find a newspaper image it would have to date to 11/63 to be relevant. ""Indeed. But since there's no good reason to suppose that the premise is true, the speculation is pointless. It only serves to encourage the 'everything is a fake' brigade."" If there was something more than your biased opinion to go on then your claim would carry some weight. I expect you will again repeat all your opinions that add up to your conclusion that there was no limo slowing or stopping. But assumptions like " They just got it wrong" is a tired old argument that is only based on conjecture but usually put forth as some kind of real evidence. "They just got it wrong is one of the most common and, imo, the weakest points skeptics put forth. The fact it is used to explain away so many account makes it even weaker. Again, I think one of the best argument for the limo stop is the accounts of the 4 bike cops who were tasked with keeping pace with the limo and were only a few feet from when it is supposed to have stopped. There testimony supports the idea the limo slowed so much that many thought it fully stopped for a brief moment while others did not see that brief moment and only knew for sure that is slowed to almost a stop. Many said "It stopped or almost stopped". The bike cops testimony carries a lot of weight but the best the skeptics can say is "They just got it wrong".

Found it!. Here is the manual of a Highlander 80A. It had two separate packs, one positive one negative. There should be a negative out there somewhere. Thanks for leading me to that. Now we have to ask what happened to it? The photo was auctioned off but I find no mention of a negative anywhere. Did the FBI take the negative with the original when they studied the image and put their fingerprint on it? Did they return it? The original negative would be of great value if it was made public. Here is a link to the manual at the relevant page. https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1001935/Polaroid-80a-Highlander.html?page=4#manual

Your link to the method for creating a negative from a polaroid was interesting. I Assume Mary Moorman would have thrown out the backing paper with the potential negative like we all did back then. But if they recovered it they could do the bleach process. I have to wonder about the quality of the backing image. I can't see how it would be any sharper than the photo itself. A real negative on film is the sharpest image available and that is what gives it value. That polaroid negative was created on paper so I doubt it was like a real negative. The article mentioned that the backing image is darker. I think that would mean it has less information than the original. Of course if they did create a sort of negative and alter the original they would most likely destroy the incriminating negative after using it. I have to look again at the info on her camera model. If I find she had the type with the separate negative pack I will post it here. The ad you showed was not about negatives it was about making a copy of your photo from the original photo. that won't be any clearer than the original in fact it can't be as good as the original as every copy degrades the image.

Here is a fast and cheap experiment/attempt at altering the photo. Much easier to move the limo and the bikes than the background. I slightly enlarged the limo but if it was further down the street it should be smaller. I also had to crop it and narrow the field of the photo by 3%. I did not have an image of the front of Chaney's bike so when I moved him back a bit the right side of the limo was stretched. If an original photo showed a bit more of Chaney's bike the problem would be solved. If the photo was altered we don't know for sure what they had to work with so it is hard to guess at the specific changes that could be made. Polaroid cameras do not have negatives and even if you printed a negative from the original photo it would be no better than the photo itself. A negative is needed to compare things like the film grain pattern. If you shop in a piece of an image from a different photo or, I think, even a copy of the same photo the grain may not look the same. Having no original negative for the Mary Moorman photo limits what can be analyzed. Old Polaroids had to be swiped with a hardener within minutes of taking the photo otherwise the image would turn faded and blurry. I don't know if the earlier photo of the bike cop on Elm was not hardened soon enough but it looks distinctly different than the limo photo. If there can be such a difference in those two photos it would make subtle comparison impossible, imo. The first photo of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman standing by the car is much clearer and may be suitable for some comparison.

As I understand it the original was returned to Mary Ann Moorman after the FBI analyzed it. I guess the question would be after altering a photo printed on the Polaroid in camera paper could you then copy and print that onto the same type of Polaroid paper?

It shows the limo slowing to 8 mph which does not match the witness statements in question.

I said: "If there was a limo stop removed the alteration was an undeniable success." My premise started with the logical operator "IF". That means most of your statements are irreverent to my premise. There are bits of the debate that I find worthy of discussion but so much of it is just rehashed arguments that have been repeated for decades. How multiple films could have been altered is, imo, the strongest argument against the alteration theory. It is an interesting and long standing debate as to whether it could be done. After years of trying to figure out how to resolve the myriad problems associated with removing a limo stop, I finally found a logical process to at least solve the problems that come from attempting a matte process and/or removing frames from the Z film. I posted it a few months ago. My point is it took years of thought experiments to solve those Z film problems. I have to assume people very knowledgeable in photogrammetry may have been able to alter the other films. The Z film would have been the most complicated alteration, imo. I'm going to spitball here and throw out some observation about the Moorman photo. If it was published right away it would impossible to alter. If not they would need to alter the position of the limo by about 12 inches to the west to match an altered Z film. That would require blowing up the photo slightly then cropping it back to its original form. That gives them some extra image area on the left side of the photo. Then they do a matte to separate the background from the limo. Then they slide that background a little to the right which makes the limo look like it was a farther down Elm. The Polaroid camera made no negative just the print on photographic paper in the camera. That makes it vastly harder to uncover fakery. I have not looked at this in detail yet but it seems to be within the realm of possibility. I look at these issues from the standpoint of how likely or unlikely they might be. I try not to engage in absolute terms. Absolute terms in debate are often just opinions stated as facts. I find the 4 bike cops testimony compelling and will usually point to their close proximity to the limo and their attention that was always focused on matching the limo speed. I have repeated that in the past but it is just an opinion. In the past I have discussed the minutia of what each cop said and their contradictions and corroborations. It always reaches a dead end because we must interpret their meaning and subtleties of the event. As an example IF the limo slowed to maybe 1 or 2 mph then very briefly stopped some would likely miss the stop in the panic of the moment. That is the type of ambiguity that prevents the argument from reaching a resolution that results in a fact. It is an interesting subject that can be tossed back and forth a few times but then is quickly exhausted. It becomes a another useless rabbit hole. You said: "I'd be surprised if there are more than a few thousand people in the world who are even aware of those witnesses' existence. The whole limo-stop question has always been a trivial aspect of the assassination debate, even among the enthusiasts. Among the general public, its impact is surely negligible." I bet most people with any knowledge in the JFK assassination CT know about the limo stop theory. "even among the enthusiasts." Wow seriously?? Probably 99.9% of the members on this forum must have heard of it. How could these members have never heard of it unless they are new to the forum? Trying to throw the kitchen sink here? So my goal with the "IF" post was to address a specific topic not rehash a dozen or more subjects, some of which I think are frivolous. I think your "more than a few thousand people" comment is frivolous so of course you have every right to reply. But that being my opinion don't expect me engage in a debate about it.

Maybe people did freeze but I can't conclude that it explains all the witness reports. Consider that Hargis, Chaney, Jackson and Martin said it stopped or almost stopped. Those bike cops are tasked with maintaining a certain distance from the limo through the entire motorcade. They would be keenly aware of changes to the speed of the limo and they were the closest to the limo. They were also cops who, imo, would be less likely to freak out in a shooting and more likely to jump into action. But my point in this thread was not about debating whether the limo stopped. My point is if it stopped and they took it out of the Z film, then the film served as valuable propaganda. That is the entirety of my point. If it was a proven fact that the limo did not slow to almost a stop then there would be no discussion about altering the film to remove the stop. But what we have is strong opinions and debates, not facts.

The GIF shows what looks like a little piece of debris coming off JFK's head. It looks like it's moving very slowly or it could be moving directly away from the camera towards the grass. Looking at watermelons being blasted there are some parts that fly away at high speed and others that just fall to the ground without much energy. It appears to land on a spot on the grass that is already very light in color, so it may not be landing on the grass next at all. The perspective makes it look like it's headed towards the grass but it could also be flying Eastward and landing on the trunk. Finally it's sort of looks like it is coming from the back of his head not the top

It would be interesting to stand on each X, drop down to JFK's head level then video 360 degrees around the X. It would test all the lines of sight to JFK from pretty much all the theorized shooter locations. You may need to do it twice for a higher view(6th floor) and lower angle(the storm drains).

"By then" definitely. Almost every bit of photographic evidence was known by 1978. Their risk lessened with every year they held the film without releasing it. If later evidence contradicted their alterations they could destroy the film or bury it or use more modern technology to modify an alteration. It is not necessary to debate if it could have been altered twice because the point here is simply that they did not have to worry about being outed by the contradictory evidence because they had a choice regarding releasing the film, keeping it locked up or just destroying it. By 1978 the issue of new contradictory evidence was almost a complete non issue.

Success of what??? I made it very clear I was talking about success in hiding a limo stop. A shot from the front does not have to implicate the SS but the limo almost stopping at 313 would raise huge questions. If the limo stopped they were successful in hiding it regardless of whether they addressed the head shot or not.

The fact it wasn't released for so many years means they would have had almost the complete daily Plaza record by then. And when it was released it was leaked. It wasn't their intention to release it to the public even in 1978.

If their sole intention was to remove evidence of a second shooter in the front then yes it failed. But if there was a limo stop removed the alteration was an undeniable success. As I stated before the Z film has convinced Millions that the witnesses had to be wrong. Whenever I see a debate on the limo stop the Skeptics inevitably point to the Z film as absolute proof that it didn't stop, " case closed", they often say. The Z film has been their go-to argument for decades. It's an extremely powerful tool in the limo stop debate.

Jonathan, they did not immediately release the Z film. The only thing the public saw for years is some individual frames. Since they didn't release it, we might assume that if it was altered they were holding it as an Ace in the Hole. Either way holding on to it for years would allow them to compare their forgery to all the other documented photographic evidence.