Chris Bristow

34 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Good find !

You were correct on me showing the wrong ad, oops... sorry about that I was to fast in my assumpion it was what I had in mind, but it wasn't. 

I just can't remember how and what specifically, but it could be I mixed up with the professional services they  rendered : in a April 15, 1965 Patent Appl. (for an actual photocopier) they mention some of the history "Appellant operates the "POLAROID COPY SERVICE" through which it has sold copies, enlargements, and negatives of "POLAROID" prints and transparencies since 1949".    But that was professional services (the FBI etc. would now about that of course, or had access in some way).  

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

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

Indeed. But since there's no good reason to suppose that the premise is true, the speculation is pointless. It only serves to encourage the 'everything is a fake' brigade.

This bizarre discussion is a bit like trying to work out exactly where in Arizona the moon landings photographs were taken.

Online copies exist of newspapers from the weekend of the assassination which contain the Moorman photo. I don't have a reference to hand, but I don't recall noticing any discrepancies between the images I've seen and the Moorman photo that currently exists. One way to confirm or deny that alterations were made would be to examine these newspaper images in detail.

Either the photo was altered during the three hours or so before it was distributed to journalists, or it wasn't altered. If it wasn't altered, the limo didn't move into the left-hand lane, and the witnesses who claimed that it did move, simply made a mistake when recalling a trivial detail of a sudden, brief and traumatic event. In other words, they were normal human beings.

And the two police motorcycles to the left of the limo must have been added, which I suspect would not be a trivial task.

I doubt that it would be possible to take a convincing photo of an altered Polaroid photo using a fixed-lens Polaroid camera like Moorman's, though it might have been possible to do so with some sort of cobbled-together apparatus that used the Polaroid process. To believe that this happened, two things need to be demonstrated: (a) that such a procedure was technically feasible, and (b) that the Bad Guys had sufficient time, and access to the necessary parts, to cobble together the apparatus.

What also needs to be demonstrated is that it was technically feasible to produce an altered image that didn't contain evidence that it had been altered. Would a Polaroid copy of a Polaroid original contain features, such as excessive contrast, which would confirm that it's a copy (and the absence of which would confirm that it's the original)? We know that this is the case with Kodachrome film, which is why we can be sure that the Zapruder film in the National Archives is not a copy and must be the original film that was in Zapruder's camera.

It matches quite a few of the witness statements: the ones that claimed the car merely slowed down. It is also consistent with the recollections of the majority of the spectators, who apparently didn't think that the limo's slowing down was worth mentioning.

The witnesses who claimed the car came to a halt were outliers. The balance of the current evidence shows that their recollections were mistaken. It's a lot of fuss about nothing.

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

9 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

This was the in-between type introduced in 1955, you had a negative roll and a print-roll

https://obsoletemedia.org/polaroid-type-47/

And attached is a later 1959 adv. showing the Land camera and system to re-use the negative (sb. first print) to make multiple prints possible. With some know-how it was possible to alter the negative (or the first print).  I remember there was another type of "instant" camera's but I have forgotten the name.  Anyway, pretty much any photo could be faked, certainly in the early 1960's.    

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

Here is a link to the manual at the relevant page.
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1001935/Polaroid-80a-Highlander.html?page=4#manual

10 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

This was the in-between type introduced in 1955, you had a negative roll and a print-roll

https://obsoletemedia.org/polaroid-type-47/

And attached is a later 1959 adv. showing the Land camera and system to re-use the negative (sb. first print) to make multiple prints possible. With some know-how it was possible to alter the negative (or the first print).  I remember there was another type of "instant" camera's but I have forgotten the name.  Anyway, pretty much any photo could be faked, certainly in the early 1960's.    

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

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

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, the original Moorman Polaroid exists. How could it have been altered?

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

8 hours ago, Barry Keane said:

It does not matter one iota that the Zapruder was altered or not( which I don't believe it was) It still shows the limo stopping and the head shot! Move on ask the real question, why was JFK killed. The shooters are irrevavalent, why, why why was he killed not how? 

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

11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris also writes:

Within a year of the assassination, all of the frames were published which show the limo when it is claimed to have pulled to the left and stopped. Life magazine printed a number of frames just a week after the assassination, then again in December 1963, in October 1964, and in December 1966 (and possibly on other occasions). In September 1964, the Warren Commission published frames 171-334 in Commission Exhibit 885 (Hearings and Exhibits, vol.18, pp.1-80): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=15.

As far as I'm aware, all of those printed frames match the supposedly altered film that we see today. The film-altering masterminds who supposedly removed the limo stop must have done so before those frames were published.

Although the Zapruder film wasn't widely watched as a movie by the general public until the famous TV broadcast in 1975, a number of bootleg copies were in circulation from the late 1960s onwards. Many thousands of people watched these bootlegs at informal gatherings and organised events during the late 60s and early 70s.

The bootlegs appear to have come from two main sources: the copy of the film used in the Clay Shaw trial, and copies made for the personal use of Time-Life executives. See David Wrone, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp.59-61, for an account of the surprising extent of public access to the film while it was supposedly being hidden away and worked on by a team of expert, though strangely incompetent, film-altering masterminds.

All the other photographic evidence that was known about at that time, perhaps.

But what about the photos and films that came to light after those alterations were supposedly made (assuming there's any agreement about exactly when the hypothetical alterations were made)? And what about any images that still haven't come to light? How could the masterminds ever be sure that the photographic record was complete?

There are substantial practical problems in matching an altered film with other images. For a start, consider the difficulty of actually getting hold of those images. We know of spectators who went off to other parts of the US, and abroad, very soon after the assassination. How many others, that we don't know about, might have done the same? No real effort was made by the authorities to identify the spectators in Dealey Plaza, let alone to round up any of their cameras and films, as I pointed out last year:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24498-david-lifton-spots-a-piece-of-scalp-in-the-moorman-photo/?do=findComment&comment=442261

Each time the masterminds might hypothetically have found a photo or film that contradicted one of their alterations, what would they do? Would they destroy those images, or would they alter them to match their altered Zapruder film? I've listed the known films and photos that ought to, but do not, show the hypothetical limo-stop. If the Zapruder film was altered to remove the limo-stop, all of these images must have been altered too.

Was that even physically possible? The Moorman photo, for example, is a Polaroid. Can Polaroids be altered without leaving traces that give the game away? If anyone is claiming that the Moorman photo was altered, they need to demonstrate that such a thing could actually have been done.

Even if it was technically possible to alter all of these images without leaving physical traces, could it have been done in the time available? The Moorman photo was broadcast on TV shortly after 3 o'clock that afternoon, and copies were circulating among journalists soon after that. The Altgens photos were distributed shortly after 1 o'clock that afternoon. The Muchmore film was sold, unseen and undeveloped, a few days after the assassination.

The practical problems with altering all of these images are substantial, and they require a detailed explanation.

The whole film-and-photo-alteration idea, whether or not the purpose was to remove an incriminating limo-stop, proposes an expanded conspiracy for no good reason. There are two possibilities:

• A group of conspirators arranged to (a) shoot a politician and (b) frame a patsy; and a small minority of the eye-witnesses mistakenly recalled seeing the politician's car stop when it merely slowed down.
• Or a larger group of conspirators, which now includes photo-alteration specialists and trackers-down of home movies and photographs, arranged to (a) shoot a politician, (b) frame a patsy, (c) obtain access to dozens of photographs and home movies from locations all over the US and abroad, and (d) alter as many of those images as was necessary to remove an incriminating car-stop which a large majority of the eye-witnesses failed to mention.

Which of those scenarios is the more likely?

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.
 
  

42 minutes ago, Allen Lowe said:

You’ve obviously never witnessed a shooting, which I have. Things freeze up, fear takes over, snd certain kinds of actions are exaggerated. In the Z film You can clearly see that the limo slows down. The affect of that slowing down plus the altered state of panic likely produced the sense that everything had stopped.

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).

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

"By then," maybe. I'm talking about early/initial alterations that would have needed to be "changed" later on, to reflect the extant photo record. Are you thus claiming that the original alterations could have themselves been altered again later on, so as to keep the photo record consistent?

"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.

56 minutes ago, Barry Keane said:

Success of what? The head snap is there still. A shooter from in front, conspiracy!

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.

9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

But Chris, even if you're right, and all they did was alter portions of the film at first, they'd still potentially be in the same trouble because they wouldn't have the complete Dealey Plaza film and photo record to compare their alterations with.

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.

1 hour ago, Barry Keane said:

I agree. But if it was indeed altered, it didn't achieve it's intention. So it was a waste of time and effort.

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.

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chuck, how could the conspirators be confident when altering the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination that dozens of additional films and photographs from Dealey Plaza wouldn't immediately contradict their forgeries?

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.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Having said all that, I want to note that two issues remain:

1. It would be useful to compare individual frames of the Secret Service's copy of the Z film to the corresponding frames of the extant Z film.
2. There are (minor) selective double exposures in the Costella copy of the Z film, such as in frame 311. I've always assumed that Costella's copy had never been converted to a television format as doing so would substantially lower the resolution of the frames.
   
   If Costella's film hasn't been converted to TV video: What is the cause of the selective double exposure?
   
   If Costella's film HAS been converted to TV video: Why isn't the selective double exposure severe, like it is in the Z film contained in the Secret Service film?

 

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.