Chris Bristow

Oswald might consider that someone from the 4th or 5th floors may immediately run bravely up to the sixth floor. Maybe they pass Oswald on the stairs, find the rifle seconds later, then run to the window and yell "stop that man". He would also have to be concerned that someone could just show up on the 6th floor right before the shooting, during the shooting, or a few seconds after. If he was really thinking about it he would have to weigh the extra time to hide it versus it's being found too quickly.

"The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it." Well if we could define it as posterior you would see it in the back of the head photo. It may just be my opinion but your spin is so absurd I can't take it seriously. Thanks for the discussion.

"Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that. I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland." Yes you are right, I was totally mistaken. Sorry for that. I think he was having it both ways in that he was trying not to make waves which he did for years before and after. I think he did not believe what he was saying for the same reason you do, the scalp looks undamaged. That will probably be the most we would agree on.

"Now, some prominent CTs, perhaps even most of them, have played word games for decades--deliberately interpreting "back of the head" to mean the far back of the head" What?? Almost everyone says the right rear not the far back of the head. "the very witnesses they claim as support for this have pulled the rug out from them by routinely pointing to a location above the ear...above the occipital bone." Putting my hand in the same position as you show McClellend's my index and middle finger extend into the occipital bone. To say they are above the occipital is plain wrong. Look at his whole hand. His thumb is so low it absolutely is not above the occipital. The index finger is also low. You are trying to split hairs based on small differences. We should expect them to vary and some do place it lower. When you contrast their opinions with the official location the difference is glaring and can't be explained by doctors just making the same mistake. no one has ever provided a credible explanation for why so many said right occipital parietal or right posterior. It is the large majority and it is far too many to be explained away as 'doctors make mistakes', far too many!

A far cry from the official location . Yes above and behind in the right posterior. Their positions support the occipital parietal testimony. Only Dulany and Ward are pointing to questionable locations. This does not support your case it supports the Ct.

Does anyone know if it was Floyd Riebe who took the back of the head photo? I know he said it was fake but was he credited with taking it in the official report?

I find it amazing that skeptics like yourself can appear so ignorant about subjects like McClellend in the Nova doc. As Micah pointed out to you and as MOST EVERY seasoned JFK researcher knows full well, McClellend did not capitulate. Cherry picking to the point of a complete misrepresentation of Mcclellend at the archives is easily disproved but it is repeated year after year. A strong argument for the Parkland O.C. issue is the weak and completely false arguments put forth by skeptics.

Thanks for posting that. Mcclellend never capitulated at the archives. And I just watched that again and McClellend said something I missed "The doctor has taken this loose piece of scalp WHICH IS HANGING BACK IN MOST OF THE PICTURES EXPOSING THIS LARGE WOUND"(He draws a circle at the occipital parietal). So did he see photos showing the O.C. wound? He continues saying "Naturally the scalp appears to be in it's normal state".

No we don't agree. To say it is not 'remotely' accurate is far from accurate. They made the bone too thick and with the hair the wound appears very large, but the size of opening is about right. As to the location there is only about 1 1/2 inches difference between where he usually places his hand. Mcclellend has demonstrated the wound locations many times and we know where he puts it based on the photographic evidence. The small difference in location does not erase all that photographic evidence. Compare that to the official wound and there is no denying he saw a wound in the O.C. the skeptics often say the photographic evidence trumps the oral testimony and in this case it certainly does. I have seen videos when doctors have to search for the right location when placing their hand behind their head. Jones once put his hand low and then moved his fingers up a bit, then felt around and moved it again. We have no visual map of the back of the head and many staff have been seen feeling around for the location they want to show. Small differences are no big deal and we should expect that. But when contrasted against the official parietal wound there is no contest. We can always find some contradiction from them over the years but the fact that so many used the term occipital parietal or right posterior makes their recollection extremely unlikely to be mistakes.

We really don't need to consult drawings at all when it comes to McClelland. There are numerous photos and videos of him placing his hand where he saw the wound,. It is often argued that we should take the opinions of the doctors performing the autopsy over the Parkland staff. I think this really ignores the fundamental basis of the CT. We doubt the validity of the autopsy because of the consistency of the Parkland staff. But there are also a number of people at the autopsy who saw the hole in the right rear of the head. Sibert and O'Neill 's report from that day supports the WC. But I'm sure we've seen the videos they did later in which they placed the wound in the right occipital parietal The photographic record is very consistent as to where the Parkland staff saw the wound. Videos show many staff stating the wound was in the back of the head. But they also Place their hand in the right rear occipital parietal a second after they say back of the head. There are many instances where you can find a doctor or nurse saying it was in the back of the head and then immediately clarifying or specifying the right rear. I think it's abundantly clear from the Warren Commission testimony that Dr Clark made a close inspection of the head wound. He declared it was unsurvivable and with the very next words out of his mouth he told the doctors to give up the resuscitation. Of course he did, there's no reason to continue resuscitation if your opinion is that the patient will not survive. Dr Clark testified the wound was in the right posterior. When asked at the WC to speculate on the loss of brain function that might have resulted, Dr Clark stated the loss of the right occipital and part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. So he again affirms that the wound was occipital. The arrb transcribed his notes from 11/22 and he stated that there was a large wound in the right occipital parietal region. Very consistent reports from the doctor responsible for making the decision to give up the resuscitation. I know I'm just repeating things that most everyone here knows. But imo an fair examination of the Parkland testimony and subsequent statements shows there is a very strong consistency in their accounts.

Yes the hole in the shirt is the death of the tumbling bullet theory. Thank you for mentioning that. Knowing the bullet did not tumble into Connally's rib makes the pristine nature of the tip of 399 much harder to explain.

As I understand it Gary Mack claimed he talked to Curry and Chaney who independently said it happened on the on ramp. I don't believe this was ever confirmed before their deaths. The problem is the story has many too holes in it. Gary Mack said Curry stopped on the on ramp for two reason. First he was not sure if anyone was shot and Greer did not know the way to Parkland. If he needed to confirm anything he could have had Decker use he radio. Why would he bring the rush to Parkland to a full stop if JFK might have been shot? The testimony of Sorrels and Lawson who were in the back seat of Curry's car show they both told Curry to 'get to Parkland' right after the head shots and while still in the plaza. By the time they reached the west side of the underpass the limo had caught up to Curry and two agents in the limo yelled "Get to Parkland". That was later confirmed to be Hill and Greer. There were also two radio calls before they left the plaza. One from Kinney right after the head shot and one from Kellerman seconds later. Kinney had started his siren as he made that radio call. In the face of all that how could Curry not know they needed to rush to Parkland regardless of who was or was not hit? Officer Chaney would have likely heard the two radio calls and definitely heard Kinney's siren. He would have seen the motorcade rush out of the plaza. Hard to believe he would think he needs to inform Curry after that. but if he did ride after Curry he would not have known the limo would stop on the on ramp. He was about 800 ft behind them if that is Chaney in the McIntyre photo. So in Chaney's mind he would be chasing Curry way down the Stemmons freeway. The most important and time sensitive message of his career but instead of using the radio he starts a long chase. I don't think the on ramp story is credible.

Chaney's claim that he immediately drove forward after the headshot and informed Curry of the situation is corroborated by Hargis, Curry and both agents in in the backseat of Curry's car. In the Nix film however Chaney never rides forward. I assume if you take out the limo stop Chaney's ride forward has to come out too as there will be no time for him to ride forward, stop at Chief Curry's car, and have a quick conversation. The fact there are five witnesses to Chaney's ride forward yet it does not appear in the Nix film, supports the notion that the limo stop was removed.

Measuring how far the limo advances per frame against the background shows it slowed from 12 to 9 mph then almost to 8 mph. The bikes surge up on the limo at 3mph at the same time it slowed by 3 mph. It all matches very well, altered or not. The Nix film also matches it. I know people talk about how difficult it would be to match the two films but the position of the limo can be accurately measured frame by frame. A few inches of movement per frame(8.5 inches per frame at 9mph) is not easy to pin down from Nix's distance, but if you measure 5 or ten frame sections it is more accurate. You can also compare the limo movement in Nix frames to Z's pedestal which is very accurate for a few critical frames as the pedestal is only 18 or 24 inches wide(Can't remember). The hard part in altering the limo position in Nix would be witness Foster who blocks part of the limo. If alteration involved a cut and past the missing part of the limo behind Foster would complicate the cut and paste. I think the four bike cops right next to the limo are the best witnesses for a limo slowing/stopping. Their job was to constantly pace the limo through the entire motorcade and would be very aware of any changes of speed. That is why I think their non reaction to the limo slowing by 3mph is suspicious and may be an artifact of alteration. Two of them said the limo fully stopped and two said it almost stopped. Many of the car stop witnesses were not sure if it stopped or almost stopped. I think that is an indication that it may have slowed so much people could not be sure if it fully stopped.

I don't know if most are fakes but it's probably much more possible to create a fake than to encounter a real one. In the old days we had to run and find the camera before the thing disappeared. Then in our excitement we tried to take a nice sharp photo. I also think if I saw one I would be torn between looking away to get my camera or just staring at it, cuz you never know how long you'll get to view that extremely unique object. Or you might miss the part where it flies away at 12,000 miles an hour. I have no doubt that we are tracking unknown objects through our atmosphere. Objects that display characteristics that defy our understanding of physics. Objects that when seen look like they are intelligently constructed. Objects that seem to maneuver in ways that suggest they are intelligent. Those observations recently made public by the Pentagon through a report and through allowing interviews of the military staff involved make the same claims that J Allen hynek did a half a century ago after leaving his position at Project Blue Book. Either he made those claims up, just pulled them out of thin air and got really lucky, or our military knew the truth of the UFO phenomena 50 years ago. I think the reason we can't point to solid evidence is just because the subject is of extreme military value and therefore is a secret. In addition I think we all know that they've been running Decades of disinformation. Hynek gave multiple specific examples of when and how he lied about UFO reports. He was pressured to do this by Project Blue Book.

Never seen a UFO myself but I am hoping to stray a bit further from JFK and post this evaluation of the famous Trent UFO photos. I will delete it if it is out of bounds. I think the photos are likely a hoax, not a rear view mirror necessarily, but still a model on a string. Years ago the Scripts Institute of Photography acquired the original negatives of the Trent UFO photos and analyzed them. They said they found no indication of a thread suspending the saucer from the wire above. They also said the grain suggested the object was far away which allowed them to theorize it might be 50 feet long. I am 99% convinced of the reality of UFO's. But when I took a close look at the Trent photos I had to conclude they are most likely a hoax. If it is a real flying object some 400 feet away(Per Mrs Trent's account) or even 100 feet away then there are 3 very big coincidences that must have occurred. 1. When the magnification differences of the two photos are corrected (The camera moved several feet away from the wire for the 2nd photo), both objects align with the same location under the lower(Farther wire) . 2. . Both objects match in size which is strange because the magnification correction was for the wire at 14 feet from the camera not an object 100+ feet away. (Maccabee said 12 ft but I think it can be shown to be 15.) If the saucer in image 2 is real it would be at least 100 feet from the camera and the minifying would only be about 3%. Correcting at 20% should have made the image 2 saucer bigger than saucer one, but they match well. 3. In photo 2 the craft or model appears at the same distance below the wire. This is very odd because to correct for the minifying problem stated above a real craft would to move farther from the camera for image two. That should cause it to drop some towards the horizon and make it appear lower than image one, but they match well. I have not measured the 3rd factor yet, I don't know how much elevation change the camera would see. In the comparison photo(top left) the wires have been matched in size and overlapped to align at the small bend in the wire shown by the red arrows in the bottom images. The angular misalignment of the two sets of wires is not camera rotation, it is the change in perspective due to the camera having a greater angle to the wires in photo 2. The angular change of camera position does not alter where the saucer sits below the wires but rotating them to match would distort the location of the saucer relative to the wire so they must remain mismatched. When overlapped at the bend the images of the two photos show the 2 saucers in almost the exact same location below the wire, both horizontally and vertically. A very big coincidence unless it is a model hanging from the wire. The biggest variable is how much magnification to add to image 2 to correct for the greater distance of camera to wire. The distance from the camera to the water tank by the barn is known from Bruce Maccabee's measurements taken on site. The middle of the tank is about 28 feet from the camera and is reduced by 14% in photo 2. From that we can determine how much further the camera was from the tank in photo 2 and then also from the wire. It works out to the wire image being 80% of the wire size in photo 1 (The wire changes more than the tank because it is closer). Multiplying that 80% by 1.25 brings it back up to 100%. I think the 20% reduction is very close to correct but I added two more versions seen in the top right. They magnify the saucer 2 image by 1.17 and 1.33(right in the middle of the original 1.25) . It changes the comparison but is still in the range of possibility when we consider a model would probably swing slightly in even a light breeze. The swing would also change the apparent relative height of the saucers to the wire and may explain the height differences. Finally the angular change in image 2 also reduced the wire by another 6%. The 6% angular change does not change the drop below or saucer size so that correction was added manually by sliding the image 2 saucer 6% to the right. (That is 6% of the distance from the bend in the wire to where the saucer would intersect the wire above). The coincidences are hard to accept and I have to assume this is likely a hoax.

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.