Chris Bristow

Ya I favor the south knoll over the grassy knoll.

I think the short answer is yes. Lets say he fired the head shot then turned to place the rifle in the trunk or under the hood of the vehicle right behind his position. That would take only 5 second if the hood is already popped open. Then he walks at 3.5 mph around the back of the colonnade and east up the Elm annex Rd. After 15 seconds he would be crossing the path between the fence and the pergola. At 25 seconds he would be at the middle of the colonnade. At very close to 45 seconds he has passed the east pergola and would be in the spot where Mr Bothun photographed the "Silhoutte Man". We know for a fact that Silhoutte Man exited the plaza unimpeded and disappeared. We can also conclude that walking at an average speed would put the knoll shooter at the same location as Silhouette Man. I'm not saying Silhouette Man was the shooter but he proves it is feasible that a shooter walking from the knoll fence could have disappeared exactly as Silhouette Man did. interesting to note that Officer J. Smith would have been passing right by Silhouette Man when the Bothun photo was taken and somewhere along there he encountered the guy who flashed SS ID. Who would have seen the shooter? first the guy next to Emmet Hudson ran right past the fence and could have seen him or maybe he would be bending down to stash the rifle. Either way he never came forward. Next Dogman and the other 'Runner' next to him would have at least seen the shooter from the back. They never came forward. I guess if I starred into the face of the assassin and could identify them I would stay silent! Next is Mr Hester and he would have got a good look. But since they heard the shots come over their heads from the TSB, a person walking behind the colonnade may not raise suspicion. Just to save space I have an unrelated observation. Emmet Hudson is a star witness for the LN'er because he was just feet from the knoll fence and said he clearly heard the shots from the TSB. He said he could hear the shots extra clearly because he and the guy next to him both hit the ground and from down there you could tell where the shots came from. Well FYI, Hudson and the other guy are seen in many images all throughout the shooting sequence and they are standing the whole time! He never drops to the ground unless it is for maybe 5 seconds between shots. The star witness' memory about how he heard the shots could not be more wrong.

I think there are a couple things we could look at to test for some of the issues you talked about. The single sprocket wiggle is really obvious in the copying of the Nix film. The grass in the background undulates throughout the film. If it is effecting Foster in the Z film it may be visible in the grass around her too. It may also be seen in undulating objects throughout the film. I guess if the film flexed and arched like the Nix film was said to have, then the focus would change but I have never found anything like the undulating Nix images in the Z film. We are comparing two consecutive frames here and that makes many of the difference you noted moot, imo. But I don't think the natural spherical aberration of the lens design, aging or film emulsion difference from frame to frame would have much effect or we would see it in many frames. There could be an aberration or defect in the lens at a specific spot and we may find it in other frames and verify it. Something as big as Foster, imo, would have been seen already.

Normally I measure the distance the background advances per frame and use that to figure how much motion blur there should be. It usually matches but not always. I think this is because while the amount the camera pans when the shutter is closed is usually about the same as when it is open, it is not always the case. Normally we take the distance panned between frames, divide by 2 and that is how much motion blur we would see during the open shutter time. The complication arises because panning is a jerky motion and more of the movement can happen when the shutter is open. In that case you will measure more pixels of blur during the open shutter and more total blur in that frame than other frames. Lets say in 310 the limo is moving 9mph. If the camera is tracking a bit slow at 5 mph we would have 4 mph motion blur on the limo and 5 mph blur on Foster. The blur is almost equal as we see in 310. Now lets assume the camera panning sped up in frame 311 to a speed 5 mph faster than the limo so 14 mph panning speed(The limo position shifts slightly left from 311 to 312 supporting the idea that the panning sped up). Then in 311 the limo would still have 5 mph motion blur but in the opposite direction, it would look the same. We would now see 14 mph blur on Foster. The limo would barley change but Fosters blur almost triples. Since the panning could be more during the shutter closed moment than the open moment I can't measure the advance per frame to see if the camera panned faster during the open shutter moment of 311. But the amount of horizontal motion blur in 311(see Moorman) suggests the camera panned much more during the open shutter of 311 than frame 310. So the limo would have the same 5 mph blur in both frames but Foster would go from 5 mph in 310 to 14 mph in 311. One last bit to consider is there is vertical blur in 311 but not 310. The biggest clue is the angle of the blurred reflection on the crossbar from 310 to 311. Without that vertical blur in 311 the limo may look much closer to the clarity of 312. I think the variables make it impossible to confirm if what we see is the result of alteration.

I thought the location of the limo in Wiegman just 9 seconds after the head may have been proof the limo never slowed. But the limo is going over 30mph as it approached the underpass and covering 45 ft per second. So it would only be one second out of place. If the limo stop was removed they would only have to increase the limo speed from head shot to the underpass by a relatively small amount to make in coincide with the Wiegman film.

I will download it in a few days, thanks.

Thanks for the info.

In pondering how they could have faked the Z film I have a long shot possibility. Since they had possession of Z camera and the limo and were in Dealey plaza for recreations and the survey, they could have re filmed the background to use as part of a recreated version. Maybe if they had the limo there they could also film it moving down Elm. This would help in creating a matte of the limo occupants that could be combined with the new limo and background. It would solve some problems. As an example if the limo stopped so did Z's panning. That would complicate matching the original background to a matte. If the limo just slowed rapidly to 3 mph for maybe 2 seconds before acceleration it would lose 45 feet of travel down Elm. If you tried to correct it by using a matte to make the background move continuously then the limo and the background would have a 45 foot mismatch between background angle and the limos angle. The problem with this theory is the only time you could re film the plaza and have both the azimuth and elevation of the Sun match each other would be the weekend of Jan 20th around 10:30am. That is because the 20th is the same number of days after the winter solstice as Nov 22nd is before the solstice. That is the only other time you could match the shadows correctly. Does anyone know the dates the FBI was in the plaza for the survey or recreations?

I run onto a couple problems trying to evaluate motion blur. First problem is that motion blur becomes detectable on shiny white objects before it is detectable in images such as faces. That makes motion blur of a soft image like a person different than sharper and brighter images. It means we would not recognize blur on foster as soon or as much as the reflections on the limo's crossbar. In addition dark objects show less blur and any shadow or dark object can have its blur canceled out by a bright object surrounding the shadowed object. In frame 310 there is some motion blur measurable in the reflection on the crossbar. (The same reflections Dr Costella uses for his motion blur analysis of frame 232). Comparing frame 312 (Image 5) and frame 310(image 6) shows about 12 pixels of motion blur in frame 310. Images 1 thru 4 test for the amount of motion blur seen in Foster. For comparison I used the images of the women on East Elm from around frame 130 something. The women in the center is almost the exact same distance from Z as Foster and so both women are close in size within the frame. The frame used is one of the best focused. Image 2 has 8 pixels of blur added and image 4 has 12 pixels added. I would say Foster's blur in frame 310(image 3) is about 10 pixels when compared to images 2 and 4. So the limo has 12 pixels and Foster 10 pixels for 22 pixels of total blur in frame 310. The Groden frames are 1280 pixels wide and when the frame is at 100% magnification it has 96 pixels per inch. If the frame is correct on the screen it shout be 13.3 inches wide. That is 168mm wide, 37pixels per cm, 3.7 pixels per mm. I'm using Metric from here on out. The limo advances relative to the background 14mm or 52 pixels from frame 309 to 310. divide by 2 to get the distance traveled during the open shutter and you get 26 pixels. So if the camera tracked the limo perfectly there would be zero blur on the limo and 26 pixels of motion blur seen on Foster. (Using her stationary left leg for the measurement). But the blur on the limo of 12 pixels means we just about split the amount of blur between Miss Foster and the limo. It comes out to 12 limo and 10 foster for a total of 22 pixels blur total. 4 pixels short of 26 we should see. I think the 4 pixels are within tolerance. If either of the frames used for comparison, 312 for the limo and 130 something for the foster comp, are not perfectly focused, if they have a small amount of motion blur already, then that takes away from the results of the comparison.

I don't have a 3d model maker but using a slope angle calculator and the altitudes and distances from the West map and Google Earth I saw the line of sight from the throat shot at Fr 223 to Oswald's rifle continues back to the roof of the Dal Tex near the north west corner. If a roof shooter walked about 15 ft south they would clear the TSB and have a shot for fr 223. The trajectory would only vary from Oswald's by 2 or 3 degrees vertically and laterally. The close trajectories would make it impossible for a forensics investigation to tell the difference between the two, which would be great for setting up Oswald as a patsy. I think the forensics could not determine the shooter location as the Dal Tex roof because for every 1/2 inch of variation on the location of JFK's and JC's entry wound(where the wounds exist in space within the limo) there is a one degree change of trajectory. The Z film only allows for rough estimations of how much JC was rotated or leaning back or arching his back, so I Assume we can only estimate the location of the entry wounds to within maybe 1 1/2 inches for each man or 3 degrees per man. That means there are 6 degrees of possible variance and a cone of possible trajectories would be 18 ft across by the time the cone lands on the 6th floor window. They could never establish the wound entry points accurately enough to proof a shooter on the roof. Edit 1/21/24: I said " the line of sight from Oswald's rifle continues back to the roof of the Dal Tex". I meant if you shift that trajectory east about 7 feet it clears the TSBD and then leads back to the Daltex. I was not referring to that very creative theory, that the bullet entered the TSBD through the east window and out Oswald's window. The roof of the Daltex was just the right height and distance that a shooter there could match the Frame 223 6th floor trajectory to within 2 or 3 degrees. That makes it possible that an additional shot from there could have hit Connally and been indistinguishable from the SBT.

Yes and the timeline provided by Chief Curry and at least one of agents in the backseat verified that it happened before the limo caught up to them which was before they passed through the triple. Hargis also had Cheney throwing it in first gear and immediately racing forward to Curry. People can speculate about the witnesses state of Minds when it comes to perceiving a limo slowing or almost stopping. But I think explaining away the perceptions of Cheney, Hargis, Curry, Sorrels and I think Lawson is a harder sell.

I have to say something about Gary Macks explanation for the CT about Chaney riding forward to tell Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. His explanation is the most ludicrous story I have ever heard from a LN'er. He claimed the people involved came to him independently and told him the meeting actually happened on the Stemmons on ramp, that Chaney chased the motorcade down and caught them there. Mack said the McIntye photo shows Chaney in the far background under the triple. So Chaney initially pulls over and witnesses the following. He hears Kinney hit his siren. He sees Hill leap onto the car. He sees the limo, follow up car and Curry as they accelerate out of the plaza. If he was the guy in the McIntye photo he would also see them separated from the motorcade and racing together as they near the Stemmons on ramp. I believe Curry had also started his siren by then. After all that Chaney believes he has to tell Curry to get to Parkland? The next issue would be that Chaney would have to assume that he is going to be chasing Curry down the Stemmons a long ways before he can give the most important and time sensitive message of his career(Old Harleys are not fast by any means). The limo is 800 ft ahead of him and he would not know it is stopping on the on ramp(Per Mack's story). Why would he not use his radio?? If the radio was too crowded it was due to the assassination and he would know that everyone including Curry is aware. I can't believe Chaney was attempting to chase the limo down the freeway. The next crazy part is Mack claimed Chaney stopped the motorcade on the Stemmons on ramp and that is when Chaney caught up with them. Gary Mack claimed that Curry said he stopped for two reasons. 1. Greer did not know the way to Parkland so he had to tell him. 2. Curry was not yet sure if anyone was hit by gunfire so he stopped to check!! First ,I can't buy the idea that he would stop the rush to the hospital just to make sure someone was shot? I guess we replace doctors with SS agents to evaluate JFK? Second, if Greer did not know where was he going was he going to get lost? following right behind Curry with sirens blaring and all the traffic pulling over and running all the red lights together? How could he get lost? The other factor is the radio. Curry had Decker riding shotgun and he could man the radio. Same for Kellerman in the limo. No need to friggin stop the rush to the hospital when you could solve both question over the radio. Gary Macks explanation has too many large holes in it. I believe by the time he told the story the others were dead and could not verify Mack's account.

There seems to be two distinct issues regarding the location of the hole in JFK's head. Was there a hole in the side or top that Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors missed? The second issue is the question of whether there was a hole in the occipital parietal? It's the second question that is important because doctors could miss a hole due to the hair or the flap on the side closing. But what is much harder to reconcile is Clint Hill and the Parkland doctors thinking there was a hole where there was not one , according to the official autopsy.

After watching the Willis interview I find she talks about her dad's "film" and a missing "frame" but she also calls her dads photos "slides" and refers to her dad's "picture". I don't see any reason to think she is calling his photos a motion picture film. Her comments about the missing train is specifically about the view of the train behind the "cement arcade" that you could see through the arcade windows. She was not referring to the overpass. Some of the Bond photos do show the train in the train yard behind the arcade. They also shows the train ends before it would appear between the pergola and knoll fence. That and the Hughes film of the Pullman cars in the train yard tell us right where they sat. The cars would not be visible in Willis 5 unless they had a view of the right side(Eastern 1/3) of the arcade(Colonnade). The Willis family likely saw the trains through the arcade when they walked farther west for Willis 6 and mistakenly assumed they should be visible in Willis 5.

How the limo stop could have been removed is a fascinating puzzle. Removing frames would have required some additional work. Foster's movement across the frame would have to corrected because removing frames would cause that movement to jump. Her steps would also have to be altered because she takes almost one full step per second. The movements of everyone in the limo would also jump visibly if one full second of limo stop was removed. Adding a matte process has been suggested before but it also has difficulties to overcome. The reflections in the trunk match the limo position on Elm at least up to frame 340 approx. A 2nd matte would have to be applied to the trunk reflection to keep a match to the background. The exact angle of the limo to Z matches the limo's position on Elm from approx frame 230 until well after the head shot, maybe frame 335. If a matte process changed the limo location on Elm they would have to change the limo angle to Z. You could skew a limo image and make it sort of appear like a different angle of view. But that does not alter the lines of sight through the limo as seen by Z. In other words skewing an image can alter the box shape of the limo but if, lets say, JC's ear is blocked by the side window, that image cannot change. His ear can't be revealed or hidden more by skewing the image. If you use the ear to window frame as a line of sight in an overhead drawing of the limo you will get the true limo angle to Z and it would not match the matte processed limo location. If the limo just slowed from 9 to 3mph for a few seconds there would be a mismatch with the background of about 40ft. Using a matte process to advance the background and hide the slowing would mean taking background from later frames and splicing portions of it into the current frame matte. You can't just use the next frames full background. You would need to take about 6 inches of the next frame and splice it into right edge the current frame. Once done the next frame would have 6" deficit from the start. You need to slide the background over 6" because the 6" on the left is now part of the previous frame. So now in order to do the matte on the next frame you will need 12" of the frame after it. This just keeps adding up and I'm not sure where it leads. How alteration was achieved is a tough question but I still think it must have occurred. Maybe it was a combination of removing a frame or two combined with a matte process. I guess if the background was magnified as has been theorized it would give the alteration people a little more background material to use for the mattes. I thought the Wiegman image of the limo near the underpass just 8 sec after the head shot made the limo stop impossible. But if the limo just slowed way down for a few seconds and was 40ft behind were it should be, then it would only be one second off where it should have been when it was reaching the underpass. Traveling at at least 30mph at the underpass the limo would advance 43ft in one second. Since we estimate the timing of the shots from Wiegman's reaction and his jump from the press car there is at least one second of wiggle room. So now I don't think the Wiegmans limo images makes a limo slowing/stopping impossible.

I never read his book and have never seen any of the claims he was said to have made. Don't know who said what but would like to see some verification that the other doctors talked trash about him as is claimed.

Much of your response is your personal opinion of peoples behavior and motivations. I don't agree with a number of points. "The doctors were told by their supervisors not to talk too much or share too many details about what they witnessed, beyond the basics of the President's care. This is not surprising" Yes but asking a doctor not to talk about the neck wound is too specific not to be considered pressure regarding a specific aspect of his testimony. "There was a lot of conflicting info in the press. The SS and Moore thought they could minimize this by bringing the Parkland doctors in the loop and did so. Now, was this pressure? " What was not conflicting was the opinion that the wound was "occipital parietal" or more generally 'Right posterior". That was the large majority speaking. That would be more like witness tampering if he asked them to agree with the autopsy. "The observations of ER doctors are not conclusions. They don't have time to make conclusions. They do their best to keep the patient alive. It is the job of pathologists and coroners to establish the exact cause of death" This is an often used argument that ignores the fundamental premise of the CT. It is because the Parkland accounts stand in stark contrast to the autopsy, and because they are consistent in doing so, that it raises doubt about the authenticity of the autopsy. So yes we would usually defer to the pathologists at Bethesda, but not in this case. First someone has to give a credible explanation for all those Parkland staff members making the same mistake, give or take and inch or two. I have heard all the explanations and they all fall flat, mostly due to the WC testimony. "Now, did McClelland give in to pressure? You bet he did. It's human nature. My beef is that so many on my side of the fence, which is to say the CT side of the fence, are unwilling to recognize their double-standard-." Did McClelland give in to pressure? cases like this are pure conjecture on your part. But you still conclude "You bet he did." You base it on him putting the wound a couple inches higher in the beginning then altering it later. The accounts of the wounds vary by a couple inches vertically throughout the Parkland accounts. I once saw a video of Jones in which he puts his hand on the back of his head then re adjusts it upward twice before he feels the right location with his fingers. They should be expected to vary some but even with that 2 inch variation they all put the wound in the rear. The autopsy shows no hole anywhere near their locations. Witnesses can give false answers to go along with the crowd. But in the case of these medical professionals who are at the center of a controversy it is less likely they will be willing to start making things up. And if McClelland did make up or imagine the incident about the agent grabbing and threatening Perry, why did Perry sit there silently and not discount or at least question Dr McClelland? Best guess would be because it did happen. They were coerced, they lied to go along with the crowd, they were too busy to really see the wound, all this is just conjecture and refuted by their sworn testimony at the WC. Dr Clark who located the wound in the occipital parietal in his notes from 11/22 undeniably took a close inspection of the brain. This was corroborated by many doctors like Perry, Peters, Bashour and Clark himself in the WC testimony. He declared the wound "mortal" as he and Jenkins stood there inspecting it. The word mortal is definitive. It means he inspected the wound closely enough to conclude JFK was as good as dead. The very next thing he did was to instruct the staff to stop the resuscitation efforts! The claim they never got a good look when Dr Clark literally gave up on JFK immediately after declaring the head wound as "mortal" is obviously wrong. I think when it comes to the head wound location Dr Clarks testimony is an utter refutation of the false notion that "They don't have time to make conclusions." I will look for the quote from McClelland about Perry, I never saved it but saw it recently.

Yes the lie perpetrated in the JAMA article about Crenshaw not being in the room " We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day" was disproven by the prior testimony of nurse Henchcliffe and Dr Curtis. I call it is a lie because the lead Dr in the JAMA article, Dr Baxter, also testified prior that Crenshaw was in the room. In fact when asked, Crenshaw's name was the first name he mentioned. "They all rejected Crenshaw's version of events ". All the Parkland staff? In the ARRB testimony McClellend talks about Perry's intimidation and Jones talks about his. If they all said no one was frightened into silence after Crenshaw's book in the 80's why did he then make those statements in the 90's? I think we also have to consider that if any doctors were frightened into silence then of course they would deny being frightened into silence right? I have not seen any of the news stories or articles that support the idea that all or some of the Dr's rejected the stories about intimidation. do you have a link to support this? and do you know if the claims Posner made can be substantiated beyond his word?

I think I read something like that is Posner's book. Is there any documentation of this other than what Posner? said. Are these supposed to be direct quotes? Going by memory I thought that the statements by Gerald Posner in his book did not have quotes. In all the years that McClellend gave interviews and did speaking events I never heard any reference to Crenshaw as a xxxx.

I was already aware what Perry and McClellend said. It does not matter that McClellend said he was not not pressured. It is was he said about Perry. Perry did say in response to Dr Jones claim about Arlen Specter that he had the opposite experience and was not pressured. But we have contradictory evidence from McClellend who says he saw an agent grab Perry and tell him not to say that again. Just pointing out the other statement by Perry does not address the contradiction between McClellend and Perry. In addressing the contradiction all we can do is speculate. I would say, imo, Perry became an apologist for the WC as a result of pressure. Should we would accept that McClellend never saw the incident with Perry? That he made it up or somehow fabricated the event in his own mind. Neither argument is supported by any behavior of Dr McClellend's throughout his life. Unless there is some evidence he was a xxxx or was creating false narratives as a result of being delusional his statement must hold some weight. Gunn restated the question and noted that the Dr's shook their heads. But he had re-phrased the question asking about pressure subsequent to the WC. When Dr Jones tried to explain the incident with Arlen Specter Perry interjected his opinion and it sure looks like he was trying to direct Jones statements. He asserts that Specter was just trying to evaluate Jones's character as to whether he would be 'discreet' about his opinions. Regardless of how discreet Jones might be about what he thought, it was outrageous that the lawyer told him not to mention his beliefs. Specter was trying to control the narrative. What if Dr Jones wanted to dissent, would that not be allowed? The WC had not even finished its work yet. Other evidence might come forward supporting the shot from the front. Maybe others would join in dissent after Jones talked. Telling Dr Jones not to talk about a specific testimony is not a general question about him being discreet. It looks much more like controlling the narrative. In the end we have Dr McClellend's statement about viewing the pressure on Perry with his own eyes and ears. This is not resolved simply by Perry making other statements that are inconsistent. It is very telling that when Dr McClellend stated what he saw and heard about Perry being pressured Perry was sitting right there and said nothing! He didn't say that never happened or I don't remember that or are you sure Robert? Not a word to refute what McClellend just said about him.

McClellend's testimony to the ARRB about seeing an agent grab Perry by the arm and say "Don't ever say that again." is really something. The fact it happened within a couple hours of the assassination is absolutely dumbfounding. Perry was sitting right there in the deposition when McClellend said it and he did not object to it or refute it. Recently saw the first part of you doc and enjoyed it much. Thanks. also just read a bit of a critical review on face book and it was packed with BS. They tried to revive the tumbling bullet theory that was so well disproven by Benjamin Cole. they claimed the evidence supports the tumbling bullet "More or less" then they cited the elongated holes in the FRONT of JC's coat and shirt!!. I had to laugh.

I was under the impression that the speed of JFK's forward head movement from 312 to 313 was fast enough that people assummed he had to have been shot. I was pointing to Jackie's movement to demonstrate that you can move your head as much as JFK did in one frame without having to be shot.

In frame 280 JC's white collar is visible and he is still facing toward the rear by a few degrees. In frame 287 a bit of the collar appears. The collar turns with the torso as opposed to his neck so it should mean his torso is still in a similar position at 287. At least we can still see the left side of his collar. It appears in the same location relative to his head in 380 so, I think, I can be confident his torso is still turned to be at least perpendicular to the limos length. He is at least turned sideways in the limo. I based the trajectory to the Old courthouse tower on him being sideways. It is a judgment call of course. Tink Thompson put the trajectory at the records building but that was in frame 224 when JC was turned only 20 to 30 degrees in his seat. In frame 380 he is turned to the rear by maybe 120 to 140 degrees from face forward? so the question is how much did he turn back in 10 frames? It seems the trajectory through his body would have to place the shooter south of the records building. I completely agree he looks liike he gets hit around 290 and his and Nellie's testimony supports this. I just can't place the shooter

I have never been able to accept that Connally was hit by the Magic Bullet because of his turning around to his right and continuing to hold on to his hat. I'm sure a lot of people hold that opinion. He said he twisted as far as he could to see Kennedy. So he twisted as far as he could to the right after losing four inches of rib on his right side? And how does he hold onto his hat after the radius bone has a compound fracture and at least part of the tendon to his thumb is severed. Not to mention he articulates his wrist downward as he tries to squeeze his hat between himself and the door as he turns. It seems too Farfetch'd. And Doctor Shaw felt the wound was too serious for a delayed reaction like that But if Connally was shot around or after frame 290 how do we Square the trajectory through his body against the location of the shooter. The trajectory led back to one of those Towers or roof of the building on the Southeast corner of Main and Houston. The red brick building. Is that the Old Courthouse? Never heard of a theory that put a shooter there but that's where they would have to be.

I don't know what he or she was really reacting to. All I can do is guess and read others opinions and consider the possibilities. But in the end I can't be sure what's real or not in the Z film. So I have no hard opinion on who got hit exactly when.