Chris Bristow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If events on Elm had to be denied and covered up an altered Z film would be of significant value as propaganda. In fact the Z film is touted as proof positive that the limo did not stop and JFK's head wound was not in the rear. I think there would be good reason not to ditch the film if they could make a passable forgery and keep control of it in order to avoid serious scrutiny. Without the Z film to support their case it would be much harder to cast doubt on the consistent accounts of so many witnesses. A patch on the back of the head would have been fairly easy. The limo stop would have been much more complicated. The violent backward movement may have been impossible to change and make it look real. You couldn't just reverse frames unless you did a matte of JFK in the limo. In addition you would have to take out the bloody effects of the blast and put it back in reverse order so he gets shot at the beginning of the movement not the end. If there was a limo stop and they had the ability to remove it I think it would have been a high priority because it could have been very incriminating. If they were not able to convincingly manipulate JFK's violent rearward movement they may just be forced to leave it in and engage in disinformation.

It is interesting that most every report of the location of the shots comes down to just two places. If people were confused I would think reports would come from multiple places. I would think that supports the theory of two separate shooter locations. If the shots had been simultaneous, just as an example, the witnesses between the Thornton and Stemmons signs would have heard both noises combined into a single shot. People in the limo like agent Greer would have heard the shots separated by an eighth of a second. People around the front of the TSB would have heard a delay of about 1/5 of a second. That is still very short and I would think the muzzle blast sounds would overlap. But the Sonic crack being so sharp and short I think people could differentiate between 1/8 of a second or probably less. Most everyone theorizes that a grassy knoll shot came after the last TSB shot. If that is the case then the people who heard the two noises combined as one shot would be standing west of the Stemmons Freeway sign. If the grassy knoll shot came after the TSB shot then Greer's account should imply that the shots were even closer together than he heard. if the shots were simultaneous Bowers would have heard the grassy knoll shot first by about a 20th of a second. Probably undetectable. The timing of his Taps on the table would suggest the last two shots were separated by about a fifth of a second.

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.