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.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The wound shown in the autopsy photos is on the right posterior part of the head, depending on how you define it. Hill and others have made it clear that the "back of the head" to them starts above the ear. And that's where the wound is shown in the photos. 

Many CTs, however, have long claimed that the witnesses claiming it was on the back of the head were claiming it was in the middle of the back of the head at the level of the ears. Some even claim it was directly between the ears. That way they can match the recollections of these witnesses with the claim the Harper fragment is occipital bone, and that the doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were correct in their assessment. 

I, on the other hand, have royally pissed people off by pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the witnesses saying it was right rear and pointing out a location above the ear are consistent with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone and the cerebellum being blasted and exposed. It's like saying someone pointing at the Sphinx was pointing at the pyramids. It might seem true from a distance but the closer you get the clearer it becomes...that they're blowing smoke. 

 

"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.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:

And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.

Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.

 

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.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988

 

"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.

55 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So... How many of the supposed back of the head witnesses place the wound at the level of the ear, where it is shown in the McClelland drawing, and where it would have to have been to expose the cerebellum from behind? (Keep in mind that Groden took snippets of videos of two of the Bethesda witnesses describing the right side of the skull missing after the scalp was peeled back, and made it look like they were describing.a blow-out on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy.)I believe the answer is two": Crenshaw and Bell--neither of whom said anything before decades had passed, and both of whom were inconsistent in their depictions on anatomy drawings. 

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. They desperately want to believe everything adds up and the back of the head was blasted out. Only...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...above the cerebellum. The location they point to, on average, is roughly halfway between where so many want the wound to be and where it is shown on the autopsy photos. Now, a non-zealot would say "Well, if there are photos showing one thing, and people recall something slightly different, then the photos are probably accurate." But that doesn't happen in this case. Instead, people say "Well, the photos show one thing, and people recall something slightly different, so they must really mean they saw something that was depicted in a drawing 50 years ago, that someone told me was accurate." (I witnessed this myself at one point. I was in a group discussion with James Jenkins in which he was asked and asked repeatedly if there was a blow-out wound on the far back of JFK's head, and he answered over and over that there was no such wound--that the skull was shattered on the far back--as is shown on the x-rays--but that the scalp over this shattered bone was intact. Well, within days one of those in attendance reported back to someone that Jenkins had said the autopsy photos didn't quite match what he recalled, and this person then wrote a widely disseminated online article claiming that Jenkins had disavowed the autopsy photos--and that this was because the back of the head was blown-out...EXACTLY WHAT JENKINS SAID HAD NOT HAPPENED.)

And this sleight of hand--this twisting of what the witnesses said to fit the largely unsupported argument the back of the head was blown out--is nothing new. For example, Groden and Livingstone claimed (and Groden continues to claim) that the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, when this is simply not true. When shown the autopsy photos and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe 40 years or so ago, a number of Parkland witnesses said they didn't believe the photos accurately depicted what they recalled...but an even greater number said the McClelland drawing did not accurately depict what they recalled. 

So let's throw that drawing in the trash, okay? It's garbage. And McClelland himself knew it to be as much when he was interviewed for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and showed them where he (at that time) recalled seeing a wound. 

"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!
 
 

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, McClelland was easily manipulated into telling people what they wanted to hear. But do either of these drawings reflect what the Parkland witnesses by and large recalled? NO!!! Most of the witnesses on the slide below are pointing out a location entirely above the top of the ear, not directly behind the ear. The only two witnesses who support the accuracy of these drawings, moreover, are Crenshaw and Bell, neither of whom spoke on the matter for decades after the shooting, and neither of whom placed the wound in a consistent location when asked to place it on drawings showing the rear and side of the skull. 

And yes, I know, we've been through this before, and I thought you'd agreed that the wound as widely recalled was high up on the back of the head, and not where it is placed in the McClelland drawings. So what's changed? Is it that you can not acknowledge that there has been widespread deception on the part of CTs, much as there has been widespread deception on the part of LNs? 

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?

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You're oh so correct about this point, Pat.

And even Dr. McClelland himself, during his 1988 NOVA/PBS television appearance, has totally contradicted his ridiculous "Huge Hole In The Back Of The Head" sketch.

In a 2012 discussion, I imparted this....

"Here's another way to try and get my point across about the absurdity of Dr. McClelland's stance on this subject of JFK's head wounds:

At some point after the assassination, someone created a drawing that depicted the large exit wound in JFK's head according to the way Dr. McClelland said the wound looked to him. This is that drawing:



Now, given the fact that Robert McClelland generally agrees with the information depicted in the above drawing, let me ask this:

How can that drawing be accurate when even Dr. McClelland agrees that the right-rear scalp of President Kennedy remained completely undamaged and unfazed by the assassin's bullet?

In other words, how can the two things depicted in the composite photo below possibly co-exist on the very same head at the end of the day on November 22, 1963?



I firmly believe that those two things shown in the above composite picture cannot co-exist on JFK's head...and, therefore, Dr. Robert N. McClelland was mistaken about the location of the large hole in the President's skull."

David Von Pein
January 26, 2012

 

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.

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I know this has been pointed out to you before - but McClelland said the autopsy photographs were only consistent with his memory on the condition that the hand in the photo is holding a piece of scalp over a hole in the back of the head.

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".

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So we can agree then that the so-called McClelland drawing is not remotely accurate and that those claiming it is have been grossly deceptive. 

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.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/sites/default/files/public/tslac/landing/documents/jfk-damaged-clothing18.pdf

See page 3, above.

The bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt is nearly round 3/8th by 3/8ths, and that is after enlargement to remove cloth for testing. 

The Mannlicher-Carcano slug is a little more than 1/4 inch in diameter, but 1 and 1/4 inch long.

That leaves less than 1/16th of inch around the entering bullet on all sides (and again, the original hole has been enlarged by removal of fabric). 

In other words, the bullet that struck JBC in his back was not tumbling. 

JBC was likely was shot from above, and that angle was amplified by JBC leaning back at time of impact. Hence the elliptical wound. 

We know, from the small bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt, that the tumbling bullet story is not possible.

JBC's wounds were enlarged during surgery, the removal of dead flesh, per Shaw's testimony. Looking at JBC's scars is not misleading. 

JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, who had worked on hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, concluded JBC had suffered a direct shot. 

This seems pretty cut and dried. 

 

 

 

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.

9 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

You are probably aware of this, but Curry later told researchers that Chaney caught up with them about the time they reached the on-ramp to Stemmons. There's also the McIntyre photo where two motorcycles (one of them Chaney's) can be seen in the background coming through the underpass in hot pursuit. Some very illuminating discussions can be found in threads from 2010.

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.

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - what to make out of the fact that most good photos of UAP are fakes, yet eye witnesses and radar detection seem genuine? Some would conclude that the lack of verifiable photos proves their non existence. Another way to look at this discrepancy is that something interferes with photographing them. I’m inclined towards the latter explanation. 

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.

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.

On 8/18/2022 at 6:17 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Motion is much easier to compare.

Jackie's hand should help you with the timing.

Right Stride, Left Stride, Right Stride

Might take some time to load.

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.

On 8/18/2022 at 8:20 PM, Pamela Brown said:

Exactly. I am quite uncomfortable looking at the other copies of the Z-film(s).  

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

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

At least, until someone demonstrates that it could have been altered before being distributed to journalists on the afternoon of the assassination, we have to conclude that it wasn't altered.

If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, it must show us the actual position of the limo a fraction of a second after the head shot.

Insofar as the Moorman photo is consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film, the Moorman film, the Nix film, the Bronson film, and the Altgens 7 photo, these images too must show us where the limo was during the shooting.

If that's the case, any witnesses whose statements do not match what we see in these mutually consistent images, must be mistaken. That group of mistaken witnesses must include the police motorcyclists, whose statements in any case are not as consistent or unambiguous as Chris seems to think.

From http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street:

• Bobby Hargis told the Warren Commission: "At that time [immediately before the head shot] the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say 'Get going.' I felt blood hit me in the face and the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." In a later taped interview, he claimed that the car "slowed down almost to a stop."
• James Chaney was reported second-hand as saying that "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." According to another second-hand report, Chaney said that "the Presidential car stopped momentarily after the first shot," but also that "the automobile came to - almost came to a complete halt after the first shot - did not quite stop, but almost did."
• B.J. Martin stated that the presidential car stopped "just for a moment."
• Douglas L. Jackson stated that "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

As we can see, Chaney's first quoted statement ("the car ... pulled to the left and stopped") is contradicted by the Moorman photo. If the Moorman photo wasn't altered, Chaney must be mistaken.

It's worth noting that Hargis and Chaney contradicted each other, and made statements that cannot both be correct. Hargis claimed that the limo stopped after the head shot, which Chaney claimed that the limo stopped after the first shot. At least one of them must be wrong, unless the limo stopped twice.

Witnesses make mistakes sometimes, even when riding police motorcycles!

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.

11 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Or maybe he just glanced at it. But I'm not talking about what he perceived, I'm talking about what he knew. If the photos were real and he recognized the photo he was shown and he knew he was wearing a holster when it was taken, why didn't he say that they superimposed a rifle and a gun-in-a-holster instead of a gun in his pocket ? 

This to me is a strange utterance that implies that he had no knowledge of the gun in the holster.

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

47 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

Not sure what your point is. I am able to recall what I saw. There was no 'blob', for example...

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.

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

And while we're at it, let's throw one more report in there for good measure. This one comes from the papers of Capt. Will Fritz and is a report by SS agent Thomas Kelley who was present during Fritz's interrogation of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). Kelley reports that at the 6pm interrogation, Fritz showed Oswald "blowups" of the photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29106

The fact that the Dallas Police had the ability to blow up the pictures indicates the department had the capability to alter photographs.

Oswald responds that he was photographed a number of times on Friday by police who superimposed on the photographs a rifle and "PUT A GUN IN HIS POCKET". This is a curious statement.

If Oswald had the gun in a holster when the pictures were taken, why would he think the gun in the picture was in his pocket ?

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. 

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Just a heads-up to info some of you already have that I saw a copy of what may have been the unaltered Zapruder in NYC in lat 1964.  

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.

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

I was sure I'd seen at least one newspaper containing the Moorman photo, and that I'd mentioned this in a previous thread, so I trawled through my posting history. Here's an example I'd found a while ago:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres48.jpg

That's the front page of The Fresno Bee of Saturday 23rd. As far as I can see, that copy of the photo seems to be identical to the existing photo. If so, any alterations must have been made on the afternoon of the assassination, before the original had been copied and distributed to journalists.

Although I haven't checked them all, there may well be other examples here:

https://www.downhold.org/lowry/JFK-NUPFRONTS.html

In addition, Richard Trask's Pictures of the Pain, p.242, implies (but doesn't state explicitly) that the photo was printed in the Friday evening edition of the Dallas Times Herald (on page A-17, in case anyone wants to look it up online or in a physical newspaper archive). Trask states that Moorman's photo was copied at the Dallas Times Herald's photo lab, the same lab that printed the Altgens photos, one of which also contradicts the claim that the limo moved into the left-hand lane. The Altgens photos were distributed shortly after 1pm, leaving virtually no time for them to have been altered.

It all comes down to deciding which of two alternatives is the more likely:

• A small number of witnesses got a small detail wrong when recollecting a brief, stressful experience, as witnesses are known to do.
• Or several home movies and photographs, which corroborate each other, were altered.

Since no-one has come close to demonstrating that the second option is correct, the only rational conclusion is that the first option is correct.

On the plus side, Chris is at least looking to argue rationally that all of these images were altered, rather than take the usual approach of looking at a poor-quality copy, seeing a blob or squiggle that probably doesn't exist in a better-quality version, and declaring it to be proof of alteration.

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.