Chris Bristow

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.

I consider the acceleration and braking as a possible factor in his movement. But a south knoll shot (annex parking lot by the RR tracks) would not pass through the windshield if JFK was leaned over to his left. It would have to pass just behind Greer. If JFK was sitting straight up in his original position like fr 224 then Greer and most likely Connally (Leaning back) would be in the way. That shot would pass over Greer's outboard rearview mirror. When I calculate those angles I consider the limo was not facing straight between the lane markers at fr 312. Frame 312 shows the limo was crooked and facing 6 degrees to the right of Elm's direction at the location of fr312. That considerably changes the possibility of shots from the south knoll and the west end of the north knoll.

The quick dissipation of the head shot has always seemed weird to me and people have varying opinions about it. In frames 294/295 the limo moves forward at about 9mph(About 8 inches). Jackie's head moves about 2 inches or 2mph. I have not tested that to see how feasible it is, but I would guess it is possible. The best test would be to find a 8mm home movie and look at separate frames to see how much body motion is natural from frame too frame. I have some 8mm but no viewer or projector. If a frame was removed between 294/295 the limo speed would double. So you can't remove frames from just one section or it will be obvious when the limo doubles its speed. you would have to remove every other frame throughout the film to keep the limo speed from jumping. The problem is removing frames speeds up the limo by very specific amounts. Remove every other frame and the speed doubles, remove every 3rd frame and speed increases by 50%. (EXAMPLE: 30 frames at 1 ft per frame and 1 sec per frame = 30 ft in 30 sec). The limo will travel 30 feet from the first frame to the last regardless of how many frames you remove, so removing 1/3 the frames increases the limo speed by 50%. The takeaway is removing frames is mathematically limited to certain changes. This would pose a problem for trying to alter the limo speed smoothly unless it's slowing matched the mathematical limitations. The solution would be to use the matte process to separate the background and the limo to control apparent speed. But that would change the limos position on Elm relative to Z. That would cause his angle to the limos direction of travel to be wrong. It would also mean all the reflection on the trunk and some other reflections would be mismatched to the limos position on Elm. That is a lot of work and I don't know what to make of it.

Yeah it's frames 294 and 295

I've never understood Kellerman's testimony about accelerating rapidly right at the third shot. He says the car really jumps but it's only going 35 miles an hour when it hits the underpass. Once I'm willing to consider the Z film has been altered it becomes very difficult to know what really happened. At what frame would the shot have come through the windshield to his forehead and where would the shooter be?

I'm not saying there wasn't a shot from the rear I'm just not sure the head movement represents that. I know McClelland theorized that they pulled the scalp up over the big defect in the back but I think he was just trying to get along at the time. With all the reports of the large defect and skin being blown out there I can't see how that photograph would not show lacerations and damaged scalp in the occipital parietal. It all looks too good and makes me think the photo is doctored.

I'm not sure what to think about the braking. Kellerman and Greer seem to fall forward after the headshot. But I still have some skepticism about the validity of the Z film when it comes to how much the limo slowed and when.

Recently I noticed Jackie's head movement in frames 294/295 is as great as JFK's head movement from 312 to 313. The GIF below shows the movement. I have always assumed the sudden movement of JFK's head must be due to a bullet impact. The accepted notion was that much movement in one frame is abnormal and must be due to the force of a bullet, but Jackie seems to do it and she wasn't shot. Maybe JFK's head movement was just a physical jerk related to the wound in his throat. Of course the movement happens right when his head explodes so I might assume it is from the rear head shot, but I used to think it had to be.

I noticed the trunk of the limo gave off a bright reflection at one point. So looking at the Sun's position and elevation of 37 degrees during the shooting, the hood and trunk would have sent a bright reflection toward Oswald between frames 123 to 133. At 133 the Sun would line up with the trunk and the 6th floor East window. The reflection would have been very large as it spreads out with distance and would cover more than the entire window. In fact it would about 30 feet tall when it hit the TSBD. It is likely that a shooter in that window would have had a moment or two of blinding reflection because the alignment of Sun, trunk and window were exact at frame 133 for the trunk and maybe 123 for the hood. I wonder how intense that reflection would be if you are looking through a scope at that moment?

I think the weakest part of the theory is that it requires the 'official' head wound location. The Parkland staff's testimony is highly consistent and there is a great deal of corroboration by autopsy personnel. The weight of the evidence in their testimony and reports from that day are far greater than the very weak counter arguments that support the WC or Hickey injury location. It does seem likely that he discharged the AR as many people like Sen Yarborough distinctly smelled gunpowder.

On the curb image that aligns with Martin's fender/headlight that we discussed recently I have a couple observations. Because Martin is on Hargis' left he is slightly farther away and so slightly higher in the frame. Because of that there is no frame in which Martin's fender would align with the curb as Hargis' fender does. I still think what we see is Martin's fender as it is in the correct location when compared to Hargis' Fender/windshield/headlight. NOTE: When the front brakes are applied the upper telescoping forks recede into the lower legs. The fender is attached to the lower legs and when the upper legs recede into the lower legs the headlight and fender get a little closer together. So this may be why Martin's fender is very slightly closer to his headlight when compared to Hargis. The overlapping image of the Hargis' bike onto the Stemmons sign has a possible explanation. When an object that shows a lot of glare is reflecting back to the camera it can overlap objects that are closer to the camera. A glaring object has a lot of diverging rays which is largely why it glares. The diverging rays spread out and make the object look bigger. Some of the rays diverge enough that they hit the Stemmons sign and never reach Z' camera. But other rays diverge less and make it past the sign. Because they are diverging through their entire path to the camera the continue to spread out from the sign to the camera. By the time they reach Z's film they are overlapping the Stemmons image and since the glare is much brighter than the sign it burns an image of glare right over the sign image.

Chris I think the white thing in the red box on the left under Hill's arm is Officer Martin's front fender and just above is his headlight. There are many other frames of both Hargis and Martin that give a good comparison of the headlight/fender image . Hargis's front fender, headlight and windshield also give us a map to determine where Martin's front fender and headlight would be relative to his windshield, and it is imo a perfect match.

I have one question. How often does she say that? Couldn't resist, sorry just kidding.

I was already aware of the Nova documentary when I saw this clip. It was black and white and the style and everything suggested it was the 1960s. I must conclude I just had a bad memory if nobody knows of this. Thanks for the links.

There were so many separate instances of coercion. I wonder if anyone has put that all together in a single Paper, would love to read that.

There is an old film clip from maybe 1964 where approx 5 to 7 of the Parkland doctors are sitting at a long table after viewing the official x-rays. The press asks them for their opinion now since they have viewed the autopsy x-rays. As I remember each doctor said almost the same thing "X-rays don't lie so I guess we got it wrong". The last one is Dr Clark who adds something like "We never got a a good look". Their demeanor, as I recall, is that they all seemed to be eating crow. But the incredible part was Dr Clark saying they didn't get a good look when one of his 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation was the mortal head wound. How could he claim he didn't get a good look?? I think it supports the notion that there was coercion going on back then as I am sure several of the doctors have done a 180 in the years after. I found that clip on Youtube maybe 7 years ago and can't find it since. Has anyone seen this before?

I always wondered about Jackie's motive for crawling out on the trunk. Now I don't think I would call it crawling as much as stretching and reaching. I say that because she never brings her knees up on the trunk. If she did it to escape being shot I think she would have brought her whole body up on the trunk in one single move, sort of a jump. But she seems to be stretching to reach something much more than moving to avoid something, imo. ITEK did an analysis years ago and claimed they identified a piece of skull moving back along the trunk but it had several problems. 1) It starts at the right front corner of the trunk and moved straight back along it. Real bone from JFK's head would have to take an angled trajectory to the far side of the trunk from JFK's head which was in the middle of the seat, but the supposed bone fragment comes from behind Jackie and moves in a straight line to the rear. 2) It moves slowly along the trunk at almost* the same speed as the reflections. All the other bone we see is ejected at 100 mph upward in 313. ("Almost" as fast as the reflection because there is parallax involved as explained below.) 3) When it reaches the antenna in frame 329 it does not bounce off it passes right through. It appears to jog left or inbound a bit but all reflection take that slight jog after the antenna, I think that is because the trunk starts to slope there. 4) if compared to the white piece of trash on the lawn it appears to slow as the gap between the trash and the supposed bone fragrant lessens toward the end. This is consistent with the image being a reflection of the top left side of the South Paristyle on Main street. Just like the bottom of the left side of the North Paristyle on Elm appears in the trunk around frame 279, The top part of the left side of the North Paristyle appears in the trunk from 326 to 331. The parallax between the trash and the North paristyle causes the distance between them to decrease. The distance between Z, the trash and the North paristyle almost exactly matches the distance between Z, the new lampost on the south side of Elm and the paristyle directly behind the lamppost. Several Youtube videos reproduce Z's pan across the parastyle and the parallax between the lamppost and pillar match the amount we see between the supposed bone fragment and the trash on the ground. I think these facts prove the ITEK bone fragment is just a reflection.

As Sean pointed out those are 3 of the 4 antenna on the trunk.Check out frame 349 of the Groden set to verify.

After hearing Facebook's algorithms are designed for making people mad at other people, I see articles like the WoPo article in a different light.

Good observation! I see the direction of the cross hatching pattern does not match everything around it.