Chris Bristow

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.

While I disagreed with you about the distortions in the photo like the curb angle and image jump through the side window I still consider the disappearing 'flower' to be of interest. The other distortions seem to be consistent with the page of the magazine not being flat when photographed. The uneven top of the un cropped image supports that notion. I don't think it is the button or whatever on Nellie's lapel as it should not be visible from Z's position. I favor the collar theory at the moment. It is very strange that the flower/collar disappears when the saturation of other reddish things like the back of her dress are so intense. In the flower image the saturation is much less but the flower is clear. The only thing that supports a natural explanation is that in the non flower image Jackie's right arm and the front of her dress have a dark cast but in the flower image they are much brighter in comparison. If we assume a similar effect over the flower image it would be darker and maybe the effect is greater and it disappears. Maybe that is a stretch but the possibility that the printing of other copies had a localized error that didn't allow the reds and yellows to be reproduced at that location is something I can't fully rule out. The question for me would be what version of the Z film can we see that is the closest to the camera original and does not have the flower.

After staring at that disappearing flower I think it may not be a flower but the rear part of Nellie's collar. The color is closer to her collar with the Sun falling on it and in earlier frames and seems to have a similar look with a shadow through it. It looks to be a little lower than I would expect in that frame but at the same time it is such a different color than the yellow roses I see in all other images of the bouquet.

I think several doctors had stated it was hopeless from the start. But you're not going to just give up on the president without going through the motions. They agreed the wound was mortal so to me it doesn't matter much exactly when they consider him dead or what qualifications they put on declaring him dead. The wound being mortal he was as good as dead from frame 313 on.

I have never tried to unravel the strange varying reports of people present at the autopsy. The timeline of who left then returned or the observation of the body before and after Custer and other were asked to temporarily leave is confusing. How Jenkins ends up weighing a nearly complete brain when Connor said the brain was mostly gone is a mystery.

Pat, this is long but only the first part is in response to your post. I go on to address other popular Parkland issues for whoever is interested. Dr Grossman made the same point that the term occipital is used in a general way to mean back of the head. This argument does not hold water when trying to explain the Parkland issue. First, most of The Parkland staff used the more specific term 'occipital parietal'. Second many of them have been photographed showing the location and others have done drawings. Whatever term they used they disagreed with the official location. The Parkland issue would have been resolved decades ago if it was just a matter of loose terms being used. The first time any of those doctors saw the official location they would have simply said "Yes that's the location I meant regardless of the term I used at the time." But they do not agree with the official location to this day. It was not just confusion regarding what they meant to indicate. Regarding Dr Jenkins letter calling the wound temporal and occipital I find it strange that he would not use the term parietal since the official wound was almost all in the parietal. There are several hypothesis about the staff not being good at anatomy or not having the time to locate the wound or not being accurate because JFK was in a supline posture. I know you did not mention the supline position but I mention that argument because I want to point out that pretty much every patient that they have treated in the ER was in a supline position. So it does not make sense that his posture would throw them all off. Because 20 of 25 staff who claimed to see the wound disagreed with the official location I find very unlikely that they would all place the wound in similar positions within a couple inches if they were all mistaken. I'm sure we would agree sometimes some people talk out their ass but 20 of 25 is far too many staff to claim they were just all talking out their ass. I have heard similar arguments like 'they just lied" or "they got it wrong and were so embarrassed that they continued the lie for decades". To support these arguments there has to be more than a hypothesis about the doctors lack of integrity. There has to be examples of these doctors and staff being dishonest in the past. But not just accusations against a few of them. I would accept that maybe as high as 4 out of every 20 people may have the lack of character needed to lie. But that fails to explain 20 of 25. It does not even start to explain the high numbers. All the explanations are unsupported ad hominem hypothesis with nothing to support the fact that 20 of 25 lied or all made the same mistake. I do not see how your example about your own head injury adds to your point. If you were hit in the back of head many times it is likely that at least one hit glanced off after hitting the back of the head or just missed the head and raked your ear. If you had injuries in both places it could simply mean you were hit in both places. If you mean you thought the strikes were back of the head but were on the side it is just the impressions you experienced while being beaten. What your body told you was happening is a world apart from the doctors looking at a persons wounds. There is no plausible explanation for the high number of staff that disagreed with the official version. 20 staff is too high a number to be explained away as them being dishonest or bad at anatomy. I'm going to touch on some very popular skeptics claims that you did not bring up. If you have an opinion feel free but I am not posing theses question as a challenge for you to address. The most repeated skeptics claim seems to be that they just never got a good look. To me that is a zombie lie that will not die. The fact is Dr Clark cited 3 reasons for calling off the resuscitation efforts after inspecting the head wound. 1.) The efforts thus far had not gotten any muscular or neurological response. 2.) the Electrocardiograph showed no heartbeat. 3.) THE HEAD WOUND WAS MORTAL! How could anyone ever claim they did not have time to see the wound when the monumental decision to call of the resuscitation of the president was based in part of Clark's conclusion that the head wound was mortal? Many skeptics point to the sound bites from the famous Nova doc of the doctors at the National Archives inspecting the x-rays and or photos. Dr's Jenkins and McClellend explain why they would not have looked closely at the wound. But Dr McCellend was referring to the beginning when they were trying to establish the airway and breath. He is right it is unethical and irresponsible to go looking at the head when they are still trying get the patient breathing. In Dr Jenkin's sound bite he says it would have been wrong to inspect the head wound but he specifically says 'after the president was dead'. Those two soundbites mislead people because Clark's head wound inspection was after inserting the tracheotomy tube and before he was pronounced dead. Often Dr Perry's statement that he was not able to do a detailed examination is used to prove they never got a close enough look to really see the head wound. Dr Perry starts the sentence with the word "but". That is often left out of the quote. Perry first gives a very accurate description of the wound consistent with the other reports and testimonies, it's location and size, its avulsed nature and the brain tissue being visible. Then he continues with "But I was not able to do a detailed examination." That fact he says he did not do a 'detailed' examination, yet still provided all those facts that corroborate the other staff members, should prove that a detailed examination was not needed to located and describe the wound. Some claim they got the location wrong because the scalp was shoved back. But the fact that JFK's face and right ear were not mutilated or displaced gave the Dr's an easy road map to the location of the wound relative to the ear. Last point is about the variance of the exact location by different staff members. I have a clip(Can't find it right now) of Dr Jones demonstrating the wound location. When his hands first touch his head it is very low temporal occipital. Then as he feels his fingers on the back of his head he readjusts the wound upwards twice and ends up about 2 1/2 inches higher. I saw a similar thing with Aubrey Bell. When they have to feel around on their head for the right location it suggests the wound location can vary some even when they all looked at the same patient. We should expect them to vary a bit but none of them come close to the official location even when you allow for the variance. For all of them the bottom of the wound was nowhere near the official location. in the well known image of a dozen staff from Parkland and Bethesdsa the skeptics point to Theran Ward because it looks like he is pointing to the right ear as the location. In his statement he said the wound was in the back of the head(He was not a doctor) and never mentions the ear. But I think it is clear he is touching the wound location with his 4 fingers and is landing on the mastoid. That puts the palm of his hand over the ear but his own words support where the 4 fingers were touching.

I always thought Nellie's and JBC's account combined with his turn around well after 226 while still clutching his hat, put the issue beyond reasonable doubt for me. Your piece on the lack of real evidence for the bullet tumbling was another great addition to the knowledge base. It also highlights the dishonesty of the WC and folks who supported that myth. Dr Shaw having done surgery on 900 WW2 solders is another great factoid that you noted. Personally I think John Costella's Stemmons pincushion distortion argument may be absolute measurable proof the Z film is tampered with. Even solid theories can fall as time goes on but no one has debunked it. I keep looking for ways to test it and it always holds up. The other issue for me is Oswald's lean in 133a. The stance could be duplicated but you are on the verge of falling over and the right knee hurts bad. That is if you allow the right hip to angle back at 20 to 30 degrees. That has always been the standard and even the Dartmouth stability model put the hips back around 30 degrees. But there are two measurements possible in 133a that both show the hips were almost straight forward, no more than 5 degrees angled. First as you move the right hip back your center line marked by the fly flap or the button above it skews off the to the right by 1 3/4 inches when the hip is just 22 degrees back. The fly flap in 133a shows the pants button is only 1/2 inch off center. The second proof that gives the same result is the shadow of the telephone lines across Oswald's hips. It is 9 degrees off of the shadow on the ground that emerges from his hip shadow. If Oswald was facing West (22 degrees away from the camera) the long axis of his hips would be parallel to the telephone lines and the shadow on his hips would also be parallel to the shadow on the ground from the cameras view. But turning his hips 22 degrees to face the camera causes the shadow to rise up 9 degrees relative to the ground shadow. This confirms his hips were facing almost directly towards the camera. Not angling the hips back at least 20 degrees makes the stance impossible. I think it takes it beyond reasonable doubt when you try to match the hip angle. I know people will point to photographs of the stance being duplicated but I have never found a case in which the parameters of the stance were correctly reproduced. the biggest fail is how far they swing the right foot out. when perspective distortion is accounted for his right foot swings 45 degrees out from the cameras view(The distortion causes it to read about 65 degrees). But if a person swings their foot way out to maybe 70 degrees it becomes very easy to exceed Oswald's lean because you can put weight on the ball of the right foot. 1) Right foot should be at 45 degrees 2)right shin should align under the right knee. 3)Center line of body at the waist(The pants button) should be no more than 1 inch to the right(Camera views right) of the vertical shin/knee alignment line. 4) The last and weirdest alignment is that although Oswald is leaning so far as to be almost falling over he does not counter balance his upper body at all! You can draw a line from his Adams apple right down to the waist and below the fly flap to the ground and when it passes the waist it is perfectly centered. This only happens when the upper body has no counter lean and when the hips are not angled back. So the straight line from throat to waist and through the fly flap is another proof of the hip angle. When you try to duplicate the stance and find how absurd it is the fact he does not counter balance at all is just nuts. Stand in a position where you are almost falling over and try not to automatically counter balance, it really is nuts. My original thread on this is a few years old so I had to rant about it again. I still think it is crazy and maybe measurable proof of the stance being impossible with the hips at 5 degrees angle. The graphic below illustrates the mechanics of the shadow angles. The diagrams on the left are overhead views of the photo on the right.