Chris Bristow

How much variation in the wound description is normal? I noticed when Dr Jones was demonstrating the head wound location he started in the temporal occipital down behind the ear. Then he raises it an inch or two, felt around some more, then raised it another two inches and ended up in the upper occipital parietal. This doctor knows his anatomy and has been asked to demonstrate the wound location many times prior, yet he had to feel around for it and lands in three different spots before finding the location he wanted. I think this shows that we have to allow for a fair amount of variance when you have so many weighing in and some only saw it for a moment. But when you compare the wound placements of low vs high occipital against the amount of variation between the official location and that of the occipital locations, the official vs Parkland location is far greater than the occipital variances from Parkland. The fact so many saw it in the O.C. makes any version of the argument 'They all just got it wrong' untenable. The Parkland issue has been dissected for decades and there are many arguments that hinge on small difference in description. Zedlitz reported a much larger wound but he palpitated the wound and had a tactile impression as well as visual. Since the wound was described as a mess of hair, scalp, bone and brain it is possible Zedlitz 12cm size could have included what other staff did not see with their eyes alone. Zedlitz Saw the wound in the beginning possibly before the reported piece of brain fell out in front of McClelland. In addition Dr Perry's chest compressions sent large amounts of brain and blood out of the wound. What other doctors reported as a cavity could have become more visible after Dr Zedlitz's left. Many witnesses like Bell and even McClelland have used the term "Back of the head" as they placed their hand in the RIGHT posterior. Many used the same generic "Back of the head" description in a general way but then specifically indicated the right rear. The drawing nurse Bowron approved(Is that contested?) shows the right rear even though she used the general term "Back of the head". Theran Ward wrote 'Back of the head" in his report but the photo of Theran Ward shows him touching his fingers to the right mastoid area. Testimony from the WC has been cited to show Dr Clark agreed with the hole being on top of the head because he did not disagree with Specter when Specter said "Now you have described the massive wound at the top of the president's head" Well Arlen Specter completely misquoted Clark and this has to be taken into account. Just a few pages earlier Clark said "There was a large gaping wound in the RIGHT POSTERIOR PART." Clark neither corrected Specter or modified his own testimony at that point. Clark did not clear up the misquote he simply did not address it at all. This can't be taken evidence he was agreeing with specter. It is ambiguous at best. It is also said Clark called off the resuscitation because there was no heartbeat. But in reality his last words before calling off the resuscitation was "And the head wound was un survivable". Or as Dr's Perry and Peters testified, he used the word "mortal'. Lack of a pulse or neurological and muscular response was noted by Clark. To call off the efforts based on those facts is a judgment call but the patients condition being deemed mortal is definitive. There is no judgment call to be made after that. The patient will not live and there is zero reason to continue with resuscitation. The two points here are Clark had to get a good look at the wound, and his reason for giving up on JFK was more about the head wound than the lack of pulse. In the end we have an autopsy photo that shows the right rear in tact. I know McClelland theorized about them pulling the scalp over the hole but the official autopsy has no hole there. I think we can give plausible explanations for the variation of the Occipital wound description. But I don't think there is a good explanation for the huge difference in the official wound location and occipital wound locations. I know this thread has veered of the single bullet theory some but this thread is already 16 yrs old. Maybe the next generation will sort it out by 2039?

The witnesses who used terms like "In rapid succession" or "almost at the same time" are very compelling. Some just said "The last two shots were closer together". I didn't realize those witnesses were completely at odds with the official narrative too as the first shot would have to happen around frame 96 for anyone to notice a difference in timing. The explanation usually given is they heard echos. But most people reported 2 to 3 shots which means they were not mistaking echos as shots or they would have reported 4 to 6 shots. In addition I have seen only a single account of a witness reporting the first two shots as close together. If echos were an issue why would people hear an echo only on the last shot and not the first? I thinks those facts rule out echos altogether, at least people being fooled by echos. There were some reports of echos from the triple underpass and the buildings at Elm/Huston and Main/Huston, but they were recognized as echos. This seems to be one of those issues that has no credible explanation.

Linda Willis said her father Phil Willis remembered trains being in the background in Willis #5. He was present when it was developed and saw trains but when he received his photos back from the FBI the trains were gone. The graphics below show the last Pullman car(Southern most car) was hidden from the Willis #5 line of sight. I think Linda Willis said they walked 20 or 30 feet west on the grass after taking #5. As soon as they started walking the last Pullman car would become visible to them. After approx 30 feet the trains would take up about 3 windows of the Colonnade. The photo on the top right that shows the Pullman also shows boxcars under the switching light tower on the western most tracks. Mr Willis could not have seen those either because they were not there during the shooting. The last McIntyre photo of JFK's SS follow up car getting on the Stemmons shows they were not under the tower just 20 seconds after the shooting. The same photo also confirms the Pullman cars location. The Hughes film shows the RR yard but not the rear end of the Pullman in question. Hughes can still be used to figure out the last Pullman cars location and it matches all the other evidence. I have to think it is likely Mr Willis did see the trains when he walked west from #5 and later conflated the memory with the photo. I don't like trying to get inside peoples heads and make assumptions about their mistakes to bolster my opinion, but the photographic evidence and long tested accurate maps of the plaza don't leave much room for error here. It has been 24 hours and after going on about the evidence in my initial post I was premature to say Mr Willis must have been wrong. Linda Willis explained in a video that possibly one or more photos were missing. We know they walked forward and took several more photos. It's entirely possible that he took a photo of The Colonnade from there and would have seen the trains. That could easily be the missing photo.

At the time of the shooting the Sun's elevation was 37 deg and the azimuth was 8 deg. Around frame 130 the Sun's azimuth would line up with the trunk or hood of the limo and the corner of the TSB. (I'm taking the slope of Elm into account.) Bouncing off the trunk at 37 deg the reflection would land on the TSB 66 ft above the trunk of the limo. That is approx 3 ft from Oswald's eye level. I know everyone uses slightly different figures for Oswald's elevation but I think a reflection traveling that far would expand and be may ten or more feet across. The fact the limo trunk is curved means the reflection would have to spread out to the side. I think it is likely whoever was in the window experienced a moment of glare off the hood and trunk as they were about to fire at 133. I don't know if it would have been blinding but if he was looking through the scope at that moment and caught a bit of the trunk that would be very bright, imo.

Leroy Blevins got a whole lot of mileage out of this Theory. it is all over the internet. But in the end there is no real Visual Evidence of ac people in the pergola. Interpretation of light and dark spots within the pergola need to be compared with other places in the pergola. Through the west door and above the windows in the back the same pattern light and dark spots are. The same type seen at the supposed shooter location firing through the South entry. The image of Abraham zabruder is said to be the same in color as the shooter in the doorway. Well any color matching is done by a human who is colorizing the film, so It can't really be a basis of comparison. If we were to compare the black and white version of those two images you would have to ask, why is the image of people in bright sunlight comparable to someone in total shadow? Multiple frames in the Nix film show scratches pretty much identical to what is considered the vapor trail in Nick's frame 40. This has to be weighed against the claim of a vapor trail and frame 40 The theory of a shooter leaving the pergola within 2/3 of a second of the headshot is not possible. Anyone who knows what it's like to fire a rifle, knows that the shot and recoil on your body takes up to a half a second. Let's say as little as eight frames. That leaves about one quarter of a second to go from shooting through the South doorway to exiting the West doorway. It has been claimed that the Mormon photo shows the person about to egress. Now we are down to two frames from the shot to being 10 ft away from there and running out the west door. Not possible. The evidence supporting the pergola shooter regarding the timing of events compared to JC's reaction does not overcome the problematic Logistics of the claim. Finally the Blevins theory that Connally was shot at frame 40 which shows the vapor trail is measurably impossible. The trajectory passes close to the center of the Pyracantha bush. I was very liberal when calculating the highest trajectory possible over the bush. It just does not work. No matter how you plot the trajectory the bush blocked any view to the limo. I went to some lengths to check the measurements of the trajectory. It was significantly boring. If you want to check my math in the Nix frame 40 thread it will be equally boring and take a few hours to verify exact Heights above sea level, but I I'm fully open to criticism of that. The exact height above sea level of Connally's injury and the rifle in the pergola take some effort to pin down. In the end the trajectory goes right through the bush even being as liberal as possible about a higher trajectory that would pass over it. My personal opinion is that we don't have to argue about subjective interpretation of images. At this point it can be mathematically proven that the second part of the theory regarding a shot to Connally is impossible as it is blocked by the pyracantha bush . The image of the headshot to JFK is wildly off in the angle of the vapor trail. It points far above JFK. While a headshot from the pergola would pass over the top of the bush there is nothing to support a theory of a shot from there other than personal opinions about photographic interpretation. If the majority looked at it and agreed they saw a person there that would be of some value. But that is not the case. This seems to be one of those CT' s is refuted simply by the facts of the case.

I found that the copy of Nix I have shows slightly less than The Groden version Chris Davidson posted. The edges of the frame are cut off. The top left image is the Groden version and shows that little upside down V shaped notch at top center. To the left of that the 2nd arrow shows a black mark hanging down from the top. That hanging mark is visible at multiple points and stays in the same position relative to the notch. The middle image shows the position of that black blob just about when the theorized 'shooter' image appears to move across the wall of the pergola. I think the black mark is what looks like a shadow of a shooter escaping. If it is a shooter how are they leaving just 2/3 of a second after the head shot? The image on the right has an insert that shows two of the three light spots. They are the same spots in the bottom images marked as B. In my version of the nix film those spots never disappear anywhere around the time the shooter is leaving. That is not possible. I have to assume if the original copy, or whatever I have, shows those light spots the whole time and the Groden copy does not, logic dictates the Groden copy is showing us an artifact that occurred in that copy. It would be beyond belief to say the persistent images in any copy of the Nix film are artifacts that appear when the shooter is blocking them and in the exact same place as the spots we see though the rest of the film and in the Moorman photo too. So if you go through the original Nix frames in question on the standard copy and increase the exposure you will find those light spots never disappear not even for a single frame. Those spots go as low as 3 feet and as high as 4 feet. Also consider that the two lower bright spots at the bottom of the image never disappear either. Unless we are going to say the shooter took a 4 foot leap as they escaped there could be no shooter there. As to the timing working out for the vapor trail and JC's reaction I don't think the vapor trail is real. in frame 26(Two frames after the head shot as I have them numbered, there is a scratch that passes thru Fosters head. almost exactly like the 'vapor trail". In fact there are many such scratches in many frames, some thicker some thinner, but they are almost identical. We can quibble on many sub issues but the 3 bright spots not being blocked in any of the pertinent frames means no one was there to block them from Nix's view.

I thought The set of Z frames you can download from the Costella site is the same set of frames made available to download from the National Archives? I assumed because you can download the set of 486 single frames they had noting to do with adaptation for video.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27741-nix-frame-40-the-pergola-shot/

Here is a link to the thread on the trajectory over/through the Pyracantha.

I think the evidence for the pergola shooter amounts to nothing more than pareidolia. This is what my eyes tell me but I think there may be physical proof to refute the pergola theory. The second shot that Leroy Blevins said was the shot to Connally has a fatal flaw, I believe. Plotting the overhead trajectory shows it passes over or through the pyracantha bush. When you add the vertical trajectory it passes right through the bush. I was very liberal in my estimate and tried to place the trajectory as high as possible but it still did not clear the bush. The bullet would exit the front of the bush very near the center. That means Connally would not have been visible to the shooter. Maybe I'm way off on the numbers. The height of the rifle above sea level is the hardest to estimate . I will post a link to the thread with all the numbers. It is on this Forum. Unless there's a specific correction to be made to the height above sea level that I used for the rifle and Connally, the pergola shot to Connally does not work. The vapor trail or muzzle blast seen from the pergola looks very much like scratches on the film that you can see in many previous frames. It does have the right angle to it. But with all the other scratches on previous frames I have to conclude it's just another scratch. Regarding the JFK headshot there is a clear path from the pergola. I would like to point out though that the vapor trail from that shot would be pointing almost directly at the Nix line of sight. That means we would not see a line we would only see a single Dot of light or a very small horizontal smear of light. In addition the vapor trail in that frame would need to point at a downward angle across the frame not level as it appears in the photo. You would have a downward angle very similar to the theorized shot to Connally

Yes I should explain each of those and they are all about the light and shadows on the wall. I am not identifying and people in the images. Top Left: Nix film after the shooting when he walked about 20 ft west and dropped a few inches in elevation. A Pullman car window is the square image in the left center. All the arrows point to the north west wall. That is the wall just to the right of the west pergola door. The Moorman Image at top right shows the edge of the wall relative to the shadows and bright spots in question. Top Right: Close up of the same wall in the Mary Moorman photo. Bottom Left: Nix film during the shooting. Nix has not moved west yet so the Pullman car window should be behind the pergola wall. The same 6 bright spots are shown in each image. Bottom Right: A screen grab from the first video in your post.

Here are several images of the shadow and light on the wall of the pergola. The blustery wind caused this to change second by second. But if you start with the Mary Moorman image in the upper right you should recognize a pareidolia face on the wall. It sort of looks like the joker and is facing slightly left. The top arrow in Moorman and the arrow marked A in the upper left (Nix) image point to the Jokers left eye. Below the face are 3 bright spots marked B in the Nix image. At the bottom are two more bright spots on the wall seen in all the images. (Mary Moorman was a bit lower so the lowest two spots barely rise above the wall in the foreground.) I think those 2 lower spots should have been blocked for a second if somebody past in front of them as they exited the pergola. Maybe they could duck down and go under the 3 spots (B) while they stepped over the two lower spots of light? Seems like quite a squeeze. Unrelated to this post is the CT that the bottom left nix image revealed a shooter in the background. The 'shooter' image is made up of the two lower bright spots. In comparing that image in the Moorman and Nix images it is obvious the head and left arm of the 'shooter' is light falling on the wall of the pergola.

Here is an overlay of frames 274 and 275. The limo does stay in focus because Z was panning with the limo.

"I don't think I was alone in concluding Kinney had moved the bullet...long before Loucks came forward and said Kinney admitted moving the bullet. As a result, it's safe to say that he either was told such a thing by Kinney, or was pretending he did after reading what's been written online."" I would think it is very safe to say Loucks may have made up the story because it was already online. I don't think it becomes any safer to say anything about Kinney based on Loucks claims simply because he had access to the story online. When we attribute peoples behavior to being 'horrified' it can explain crazy illogical behavior and there is no doubt they were horrified. But SS agents destroying evidence is a hard one to grasp. They could have easily put the top on or moved the limo and they did both. This makes it harder to accept that they went to the trouble of getting a bucket and did some cleaning only because they were horrified. I have had a long standing question about the limo seat and the wiping up of the blood. Looking at the back seat I would expect to see multiple large wipe marks if someone wiped a sponge across the seat. Did no one attempt to clean the main part of the gore. Did they just clean around the edges? Sorry for any typos here. My neighbor just drove their car thru my garage door a few minutes ago. Thought a bomb went off!

I don't know that it is " safe to say" that Kinney moved the bullet. It is an assumption made by more than one person but that does not allow us to say it's likely true. Loucks jumping on the bandwagon of an existing Theory may be interesting but in itself doesn't allow us to assume it is true. Maybe there are some related facts that support the story that I am not aware of. But at this point I can find no logical reason for Kinney to plant the bullet. I think the theory is lacking a credible motive for moving the bullet.

After Loucks told the story about Kinney moving the bullet I lost any faith I had in his credibility. It does not effect Kinney's cred though.

I assume that but am not that familiar with the issue.

The reasoning given for why Kinney moved ce399 from the limo to the stretcher makes no sense to me. He took ce399 out of the limo because "He wanted to get the car cleaned up"? The limo had JFK's brains all over the back seat, how does removing a bullet help clean it up at all? It is completely nonsensical. "He didn't want the president to be remembered like that". Like what? finding the bullet on the stretcher as opposed to the limo somehow preserves what JFK was "remembered" as? This story defies logic. I know people can act strange in such circumstances but even that explanation falls way short. imo.

EDIT: I refer to the darker areas as shadows but they are really just reflecting less light due to the angle of the gouge changing at the demarcation of darker and lighter areas. I think a most confusing part of understanding these two images is the reversed shadows. The top image illuminates the left side and leaves the right side darker because it sits at a slightly different angle to the light. The bottom photo is taken from farther right and illuminates the top right side and puts the left side of the ridge in shadow. That left side is out of focus and the shadow line in not clear but it appears to lean a bit more than the bottom demarcation. That would be the effect of the camera being a little more to the right in the bottom image. In the bottom photo the far right side of the mark has an almost vertical edge. In the top photo that same edge leans maybe 15 degrees to the left. The bottom photo is looking straight at that vertical edge and so you can't see the top of it is leaning directly away from the camera. It is leaning away from the camera because the bullet gets smaller as you get closer to the tip. But in the top photo you see that vertical edge from the side. The bullet narrows towards the top and the slightly oblique angle reveals that. That is why it appears to lean left more in the top photo. The mark having multiple angled surfaces makes the lighting of different parts change form one photo to the other. Beyond that there are maybe a dozen markers that match between the two images.

I would think at least part of the head wound would have been visible as JFK lay supline. As you know the location described and illustrated by so many put the wound on the right rear not the absolute rear. When Dr Peters called Dr Clark's attention to the wound he was able tell Dr Clark it looked "fatal". Dr Peters also puts the wound on the "right" occipital parietal. Dr Clark inspected the wound well enough to say it was "mortal"(Per Perry and Peters). In his WC testimony it says "insurviuvable" and confirmed it was in the right* posterior. I have seen many instances where witnesses say "Back of the head" but then more specifically point to the right O.C. Theran Ward said "Back of the head in his report but is shown touching his fingers to the right mastoid area. Nurse Bowron said 'Back of the head" but the drawing she agreed with was in the right rear. The back of the head is the entire posterior half and it seems common for people to say back of the head as a generalization. I seem to recall even McClelland using the term back of the head as he pointed to the right occipital parietal. But of course we know he has placed it in the right rear all his life. I wonder if after turning JFK's head to show Bell did Perry turn it back to face up? Or did he leave it turned a bit as the doctors would soon be inspecting it after the initial efforts of restoring breath and circulation. Bell was there very early on so if Perry left the head slightly turned it would be visible for all the doctors who saw it after Audrey Bell. I think it is possible all the gore, scalp and hair may have made it hard to find the wound initially. But in stark contradiction to that many staff saw the large amount of blood and brain tissue being ejected with every chest compression. Multiple staff mentioned this. So how is it they can't find the wound at first when blood comes gushing out with every chest compression? Baxter said in his WC testimony that 'literally the right* side of his head had been blown off". Specter asked him what he saw "when he arrived". Baxter said when he arrived in the room he noticed a head wound that was largely covered in blood and it's extent was not immediately determined. Dr Carrico who was the first doctor there said they removed his clothes then looked at he throat wound. They felt around his back for wounds then verified there was no large sucking chest wound, "then we proceeded to look at the head wound", "which had been previously observed." When was "previously"? They had just got his clothes off and made a couple observation but someone had already looked at the head wound. In addition it should be noted that in taking his clothes off the body would have to be moved around a bit. How do you get the shirt and coat off? You have to pull the shirt and coat from under him or lift him up a little. So I have to assume that they could see at least part of the wound before tuning the head. I can only assume the term "Back of the head" or "posterior" were used in a general way because far too many staff put the wound on the right rear.

Thanks for the info about the GIF. It does seem important. I will check out your GIF's.

There is a well known GIF of multiple shots of the back of the head as they turn it. I think it might be Dr Mantik's but I can't access the site. I never knew if just the 1st and last images are real and the rest were morphed, or if they are all real. Anyone know about that GIF?

CORRECTION: Nurse Bell was not in charge of the nurses in the E.R. Bell was the head surgical nurse. When Dr Jones received the call that JFK was coming he immediately turned to Audrey Bell, The surgical nurse supervisor, and told her to get an operating room ready for a quick surgery. (volume 6 pg 51.) I have been reading about prepping a room for surgery and it varies depending on what part of the body they are operating on. I would think Nurse Bell would likely take a look at the wound before deciding how to set up the operating room. I would also think if she is the supervisor she would look to see which of her nurses were assisting with JFK before leaving to attend to JC. I have heard attacks on her sanity and heard her called a xxxx in the past but I have not seen any real evidence other than conjecture. The most often repeated claims I see to explain away the consistency of the Parkland reports is they just made a mistake or they were too busy so they never got a good look, or they miss identified the wound location. The WC testimony lays out their inspection of the head wound and utterly refutes the notion that they did not get a good look at it or that they were too busy. Dr Peters calls Dr Clark's attention to the head wound because it looked "Fatal". Dr's Clark and Jenkins then inspect the wound. Doctor Clark then notes JFK's condition. 'No neurological or muscular response' and Bashour gives a thumbs down on the EKG. Then Clark states to the WC "And the head wound was insurvivable". The WC report does quote him as saying "insurvivable", a typo I assume. Dr's Perry and Peters testified that he used the specific word 'mortal'. The very next words out of Clark's mouth were to instruct the other doctors to stop the resuscitation efforts. So yes they did get a good look at the wound. The sheer volume of witnesses who put the wound in the occipital parietal or occipital temporal rule out them all making the same mistake. When you compare the official wound location to the Parkland testimony there is only a small variance as to location. There are outliers like Dulany and Theran Ward but even if you throw out questionable witnesses the score is still overwhelmingly on the side of the CT. It is also interesting that most of the doctors described the same slightly protruding right eye and and the slightly deviated pupils. They were paying close attention to JFK. I know the argument is made that the staff really put the wound in 'back' of the head. you will find several who say 'back of the head'. but in the same sentence they put their hand on the occipital parietal. There are many cases when they say 'Back of the head" but then more specifically point to or say occipital parietal. Theran Ward wrote "Back of the head in his report. but when photographed he touches his fingertips to the right mastoid area. Nurse Bowron used the same term but then agreed with a drawing that put it in the occipital parietal. The occipital parietal junction IS in the posterior(Rear) portion of the head. It is claimed the Parkland staff mostly all said it was all the way in the back and since JFK was laying on his back the far rear of the head would not have been visible to them. Therefore if they said it was in the 'back' they must all be wrong because they would not have been able to see it. This is a tortured theory that relies on reinterpreting the witnesses meanings of the wound location. Lets say the numbers were reversed and 19 staff supported the official story and only 4 supported the CT. Lets say as a CT person I tried to argue that we should take the word of those 4 doctors over the 19. I would be laughed out of the room for having a weak minded conspiracy brain. In what world would we accept 4 over 19? But in fact it is the skeptics that often accept the 4 over the 19 and don't even question it. I have seen multiple debates with skeptics over Parkland end the same way. They said "it does not matter anyway because the autopsy x-rays and photos trump the Parkland staff". It is interesting to note that if you get to the last point in the debate and they say "Well it does not matter anyway because.", it seems to be an admission that they did not prevail in the discussion up to that point. The final point is illogical though. The fundamental premise of the CT is that the overwhelming testimony from Parkland puts the official autopsy records in doubt. This issue has to be resolved before the autopsy records can be trusted. Problem is there has never been anything close to a satisfactory explanation for Parkland.

Thank you Chris and Steven for the weighted average. I have never looked closely at the 3 second difference. I used to think the Wiegman image of the limo was problematic it would loose maybe 40 ft of travel down Elm if it slowed to 2mph for a couple seconds. But seeing the limo was going over 35 mph at the Wiegman position means the 40 ft difference is only about one second. not being able to come up with a dead accurate timing from head shot to Wiegman I have to assume the Wiegman position could represent the limo having slowed to 2mph. Chris: I think 133 to 485 should be about 468 ft. I get 430 ft from 133 to 471 and frame 485 puts the limo about 40 ft farther into the overpass if going 35 mph. I get 16.8 mph average speed. 353frames (133-486) 425ft 425/353 = 1.2ft per frame = 14.94mph 16.8 - 14.94 = 1.86 difference in our two estimates. 1.86 mph is 2.71 additional feet traveled per second. Over 20 seconds it adds 70 ft. Near the overpass the limo was moving at 50 feet per second so this small difference would account for half of the missing travel time down Elm. From frame 313 to 471 is 8.5 seconds. The 3 measurements on my chart from 313 to 471 add up to 8.38 seconds. 313 to 414 at 14 mph = 4.88sec. 414 to 454 at 25mph = 2.5sec. 454 to 471 at 38 mph = 1.0sec. Adding these 3 separately I don't need to do a weighted average of the 3 but each separate one would need to be adjusted. I.E. At 414 the speed is 14 mph but obviously it was moving slower at the start of that measurement at 313. The weighted average was one mph different than my estimate. I would assume the difference would be much less when calculating the weighted from 313 to 471 as that is when the limo was moving the fastest so it would drag the average down less. Does the 3 second difference you found apply to frames after 313 more than before 313?

I know it is 26 seconds but I find it easier to evaluate it from fr 133 to 471 in this case. The map below averages the speed along 5 different stretches with an overall average of 16 mph. 430 ft in 18.1 seconds = 16.25 mph. The limo accelerated a lot in the last 100 ft. I noticed in your video that from the 27 second point to 29 seconds a minivan passes across the screen from left to right. That would mean you were panning slower than the car was moving. In that time the car moves about 110 ft down Elm and you pan about 60 ft along the south lane(The car moving across the frame takes up the other 40 ft.). That should mean your panning rate was about maybe 23 mph for that section of the video. There are several factors that are hard to adjust for like the cars in the video are already moving 30+ after they cross Huston, that is why I start with fr 133. But I think if you adjust for the camera panning around 23 mph and the JFK limo averaging closer to 16 mph the answer will come closer to what we see in the Z film.