Chris Bristow

Many of the topics in the JFK issue scream conspiracy yet the debates become rabbit holes with no resolution. Complicated subjects like the magic bullet have longstanding threads that go back decades. The same debate is repeated every few years. There is enough wiggle room to create 1% of doubt and then the debate hits a wall. Just how much did the shirt and coat bunch up? Exactly where did the bullet enter JFK's back? Can a bullet slow down enough so it won't deform and still have enough energy to break the radius bone in two? Why has it been impossible to duplicate the near pristine magic bullet for the last half century? Those are rhetorical questions because like most folks here I already have a strong personal opinion. Some smart person once said that if a group of people are 100% convinced of something they will take action on it. But if even a slight doubt is injected the group won't take any action at all. I think this is why some skeptics arguments look absurd on the face of it but if it creates even an iota of doubt the issue becomes clouded. When the skeptics argue that the Parkland doctors never got to look at the head wound because they were too busy trying to save JFK's life you just have to laugh. (Maybe the whole thing is too morbid to laugh at their crazy statement, ok) The ABC's of resuscitation would prevent them from doing any detailed examination until the airway, breath and circulation is established. But the WC testimony alone completely and utterly refutes claims that they did not take a look at the head wound before they left the room. They have to add the caveat "detailed" examination but it still does not fly. Doctor Perry said he only did a cursory examination of the head wound but noted it was a large avulsive wound in the right occipital parietal with lacerated scalp and missing bone with a serious laceration of the brain. This statements ruins the skeptics argument that we can't trust the Parkland staff because they never did a "thorough examination". Perry's statement is proof that they could ascertain the basics of the wound without any detailed examination. further proof lies in the consistency of so many of the staff's testimony. The most compelling testimony that should bury that skeptical argument is what doctor Clark stated. When he decided to call of the resuscitation he cited three reasons for doing so. 1) the cardiograph showed no heart beat. 2) JFK had shown no muscular or neurological response to their efforts. 3) The head wound was mortal! The absolute fact that Dr Clark based his decision in part on the head wound being mortal should have ended the crazy talking point about the doctors never getting a good look at the head wound. It is a complete refutation of their argument. But the argument is a zombie lie in that it will not die. I have driven that point home in discussions with skeptics and then a couple months later they are back to repeating the crazy lie. Their goal is to create that 1% doubt in the uneducated not to resolve the issue. Every point the skeptics try to put forth to explain why 20 of the 25 staff who expressed an opinion on the wound support the Ct not the official wound location, falls flat. Even if we eliminate a half dozen of those 20 staff for minor inconsistencies in their testimony the score is still 14 to 4. Then if we apply the same scrutiny to the 4 doctors who support the official record we have to loose Dr Carrico who did a total flip after 20 years, completely contradicting his sworn statement in the WC and HSCA and his notes on 11/22. Then we have Dr Jenkins letter on the 22nd contradicting his official story(Maybe we just put an asterisk next to that one). The skeptics can't afford to be too critical as they only have 4 doctors on their side to start with. If we really want to be critical the score may be 12 to 1. There is just no way for them to explain away the Parkland doctors testimony. Not a single argument holds water. I think it is the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and a cover up of the medical evidence that exists in the JFK conspiracy issue.

Watching this Youtube video of Dr Jenkins I was surprised to hear what he says at the 7min mark. He states, "You hear accounts of how many doctors did a thorough examination, that's not true", but he adds "I think everybody took a look but not a thorough examination by any means." The fact that "everyone" got a look at the head wound before they left the room sends some of the skeptics claims to the trash bin. Skeptics say the room was too crowded for many people to see the head wound. In effect they call their WC testimony into question. They claim they never got a chance because resuscitation required all there attention. Well at some point "everyone"(Lets just say a bunch of them) took a look at the head wound.

Dr Jones is asked about the accuracy of movies recounting that day and he says that one film portrayed the scene by showing or claiming that blood was squirting everywhere. He disputes this by saying when someone has died blood is not pumping. The WC testimony has more than one doctor saying that blood was gushing out of what must be a major laceration in the brain as a result of the heart message Dr Perry was doing. I think Baxter is quoted as seeing the blood gushing out and onto the curtains and saying to Perry "My god Mac what are you doing?". One of the nurses mentioned putting towels on the floor so the doctors would not slip in the blood around the head of the gurney. Many doctors said there was lots of blood and brain matter that had come out of the hole in the skull. Dr Clark estimated that JFK lost 1500 cc of blood based on what he saw in Trauma room one. That would be 30 % of your blood.

Ok, I glossed right over the 'WAS'. I had checked that issue on the Google books site and yes the photo is no longer in that issue. I assume since we can find no other versions with the flower that you took the image right off the actual magazine page?

Could not find any frames after the head shot in this issue.

I am with you on the flower oddity. The missing portion of the sprocket hole seems to be deliberate. There is bit of the ghost sprocket above it there but I guess they darkened it in. So did you photograph the no flower frame directly from the magazine? whether you did or the image came from another person who photographed the page it could definitely distort the overall image.

Bothun and the guy behind him and the couple at the top are all fairly accurate. although I would measure the guy behind Bothon from the head to a point in between his front and back leg. That is because he is in the middle of a step and his head is not over either foot. So I take a couple degrees off his angle. The couple at the top are leaning left as seen in Nix so I would subtract a few degrees from that shadow. Malcom Summers can't be used as anyone with any lean will change the shadow angle. The lean is always reflected in the shadow unless they are leaning straight towards the Sun or directly away from it. Jackie looks to be leaning towards the camera so it is hard to tell how much. We can't use her either because of the lean. Altgens is the tricky one. Motion blur of a shadow over something bright like the curb top totally changes the angle. In the link below you will see frames 352 and 353 compared. The insert is fr 353 and the shadow angle has moved almost 90 deg! Any motion blur will start to move the shadow on the curb top so the angle in fr 347 is distorted to a steeper angle. The other problem is the curb is lower than the grass so the shadow takes a jog right when it hit the curb. Next, Altgens right leg is stepping forward and the lower leg is leaning forward and that steepens the shadow of the right leg. The truest shadow is of his left leg but only the part on the grass. The grass being darker than the curb it does not erase and alter the shadow like the bright curb which eats part of the shadows and changes the look of the angle. Notice in the insert(Fr 353) the shadow angle is almost 90 degrees different than fr 352. But the bit of shadow of his left leg that is on the grass(The dotted line) is very close to Bothun's shadow angle. I expect the shadows to move towards the horizontal as the people are farther and farther away. That is what we see in Altgens, Bothun, the guy behind and the couple at the top after making some minor correction for lean. There is only a difference of about 5 degrees from the couple at the top and Altgens at the bottom and that seems to be about right. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yavjr-PItcTdC4NwszUqYbCTrbUIlLEo/view?usp=sharing

Thanks I'll look it up, and sorry I called you Mitch.

John. when it comes to shadows and alteration in these films we can all have differing opinions. But some of the things you disagree with are not opinions but hard science. You said you do not accept vertical changes could change the shadow of the Sun and that is true, they do not. But they DO change your perceived angle of the shadow. perspective will change shadow angles. That is NOT an opinion it is very hard science. It is observable, measurable and there is non theoretical scientific explanation for all of it. A few minutes on google maps street view and over head view will prove this. I posted a link to a video of a tourist duplicating Z's film. There are many of these on Youtube so I hope we can agree they are not all fake. Look at the 8 second mark. you will see the tree on the left and lamppost on the right have different shadow angle. At the 10 second mark you will see the flagpole and lamppost in the foreground have mismatched shadows. At the 13 second mark you will see every lamppost has a different shadow angle. you can tell from the glare that the Sun is over the East side of the Annex building, The shadow to the left of the Sun angle left. The shadows to the right of the Sun angle right. The shadow of the 2nd flagpole Between Main and Commerce point almost straight to Z because it is almost lined up with the Sun. This is all perfectly consistent with the science of optics. If you switched to a view from above the plaza in google maps you will see all lamppost shadows actually point to the same direction. But as you lower the angle of view the shadows will start to diverge outward. If you simply drop the elevation you you will start to see a similar effect. This is because as you drop you are still directly above the objects directly below you. But you are at an angle to the objects off the the side of the image. So from above all shadow angles match. As the angle becomes more shallow they start to diverge and do not match. As you go from high above to lets say Dormans shallow angle from the 4th floor the shadows diverge more and more. They gradually go from matching to diverging the lower the angle is. Again this is not opinion or theory it is hard science. We know exactly why that occurs and if it did not, that would be the mystery. If you want to know if something is fake you must also understand all the ways it can look fake but be actual perspective changes. you need to fully grok the perspective issue so you can eliminate those and see if anything is left. consider this thought experiment. If I look at a pole and the Sun is directly behind it the shadow will point straight to me. but if I walk 20 feet to the left the Sun will no longer line up right behind that pole. Where does the shadow point now? Obviously it can no longer point to me because the pole, Sun and me are not on a straight line after walking 20 feet to the left. At that point the shadow will not point to me. If it points to me in one position but not the next position it is the very definition of different angles. That is due too perspective. Regarding Mitch's statement about all shadows converging is correct, they do. From high above all shadows in the plaza look to be parallel but they are not.They actually converge 93 million miles away at the Sun. That is too far for us to measure any convergence. it is just too small an angle. The angle you view a shadow from will change the perceived angle and the distance to the shadows is a factor too because the farther away it is the shallower the angle to it.

I noticed many different distortions between the two versions of 347. The trunk is stretched in the flower copy. Each copy is rotated to a slightly different axis. It is less than one degree so I can't correct it. Anyone have a program that will allow you to rotate less than one degree? The entire image has a sort of a crinkle in it. As you flip between photos there is an obvious distortion causing the left side to change it's axis relative to the right side. The two axis meet under Altgens feet. So the curb on the right changes axis compared to the curb on the left side of the image. Did the copies you are using come from the internet? I have to wonder if they photographed 347 right off the magazine page. That may explain some of the distortions but not the flower. The displaced curb as seen through the side window imo should be a matter of refraction. Curved windows will displace an image. Even a flat window will do it if it is thick enough and you view it from a steep angle to the glass. A non prescription glass like a window has parallel surfaces. A ray of light hitting the front surface at a 40 downward angle will pass through the glass and hit the back side at the same 40 degrees so no change in the angle of light happens. But as the light passes through the glass at the 40 degree downward angle it travels down and hits the back surface at a lower position. It leaves the glass at the same 40 degree angle but now it is a bit lower than when it hit the front surface. That causes the image you see through the glass to be displaced downward. It is a result of the thickness of the glass and the angle the light enters at. A curved window will cause even more displacement. The front and rear surfaces are still parallel but when the light travels down it exits at a point where the curvature of the glass is not at the same angle as where the light entered the front surface. That change of angle mimics a prescription lens that has different front and back curvatures. The result is even more displacement. Actually depending on exactly where the light hits it may cancel out the displacement because every different angle of incidence creates different refractive angles. The displacement we see in the side window occurs in many frames leading up to 347. If we had the exact curvature and thickness of the side window we could fairly accurately calculate just how much displacement we should see and in what direction from Z's point of view. But we know that the window will displace images and because it happens in many other frames I have to conclude it is most likely due to refraction. Since we can't find any other copies of Z that show the flower or have the same distortion it is crucial to know how the flower version was obtained. If they did take it right off a magazine page and did not flatten the page out by placing glass over it then there would be distortion. Still does not readily explain the missing flower but would probably explain the distortion. We know how a magazine page is shaped when sitting on a table. The portion near the binding raises up initially then flattens out as it approaches the outer edge. If the trunk occupied the area of the page near the binding and the stretched part of the trunk is at the highest point of the page it would explain the stretched trunk very well.

Are both versions of frame 347(with and without the flower) printed in the same issue? I find no flower in the MPI version on Lightbox and no flower in the Official Archives copy. I find no similar image of that flower anywhere in the Z film. Did you take the flower image from a photo of the magazine image? I know many versions of the cover photo of 133a are taken from photographing the magazine laying on a table and that distorts it because they don't have the magazine pressed flat. Still a distortion may erase a flower but it sure isn't going to add a flower! So where that fr 347 with the flower originated from is very important. Very very strange.

A little bit of rotation difference and a fair amount of distortion. When the flower disappears a darkening of Jackie's right arm occurs. That may be related to the disappearing flower. Nothing else is affected but her arm and the single flower. I guess it could be due to some error in the printing but it is very weird.

Another interesting observation. They did do something to the eliminate the sprocket hole. The ghost sprocket that sits on top of the lower sprocket hole is still slightly visible in the MPI frame. I wonder if the printer could be set to not process objects above a certain brightness?

It looks like your measurements are correct. As a person walks they lean a bit forward as they put weight on the front foot. Even a person standing still can shift weight from the heels to the ball of the foot. I write off small differences due to that effect. What is certain is that Observing shadows in the plaza from different angles absolutely changes the shadow angle. In Z 405 the shadows from the lampposts point downward to the right side of the frame. At frame 221 the shadow of the tree is pointing to the left and is almost horizontal. This is because Z is panning and changing his camera angle to the Sun. He does not move to a different location, he simply changes the direction the camera is pointing. If your going to consider the possibility that the shadows are an incorrect alteration of the film, you first have to calculate what differences you should see due to perspective and subtract that from the perceived anomaly. That is not a vague estimation of distortion. We know the height and angles very well so we can determine exactly what distortion we should see. If you subtract the real world distortion and there is still some anomaly left, then you have a hypothesis to work with. But so far the natural differences in camera height and angle to the subject, and to the Sun, provide a accurate explanation for the different shadow angles in Z and Dorman.

Okay I went back to page one and looked at the composite you have. You hinted that there were things wrong but I did not see the flower disappear at the time. It is very interesting because it does really disappear. The saturation levels are very different but I don't think that would explain it, so it is very interesting. You said it was a composite of two consecutive frames. So you're saying the MPI image has something added to it's left side for sprocket holes and at the top which reveals the legs of the couple standing back behind Bothun?

The top image from Life Mag is frame 347 and the bottom image is frame 346. Maybe Life put the wrong frame number? You listed the bottom image as an MPI version but I have never seen any MPI versions that include the sprocket holes. I did notice that the register of the Life image is narrower that the bottom image. Maybe Life shrunk the width a bit to fit multiple images on the page.

I just started posting my images from Google Drive but they appear as links not photos. Anyone have a quick answer for that?

John to correct for the elevation of the Sun being too high to be reflected to Z consider that all you have to do is tilt the camera down a bit as Altgens would have to do to shoot towards Jackie and JFK. If the Sun is at 36 degrees high and the line from Bothun to Z is 20 degrees, then all you have to do is tilt the camera forward by about 16 degrees. That means the top surface would receive the sunlight at about 20 degrees and bounce off at the same 20 degrees. 20 degrees would take the reflection straight to Z. I don't understand why a flash would be the same color as the light below it. I think both are reflections. I think the 'watch' is the cuff of his white shirt. also the camera is not up to his face so he is taking a photo without looking in the viewfinder? One little factoid that may or may not effect this. He was using his personal camera that day because he was off work. Some photo shoots will use a light in the daytime but it is many times larger than a flash attachment. It is used to fill in shadows that occur from the single light source of the Sun. no one uses a flash attachment in the bright sunlight regardless of the direction they face. A photog might have a flash attachment on because the story might take him indoors. But Altgens was there to get outdoor shots of the motorcade. flash equipment was big in those days and it is clear from one of the Bothun photos that Altgens did not have one on his camera.

I think I have the Dorman issue sorted out. In the map below the blue lines represent the sun's angle through the plaza. The azimuth was only 8 degrees West of South but the entire plaza and Huston St are not aligned to the compass points. Huston points 15 degrees East of North. The map however does not represent this, it shows Huston as horizontal(North South) on the map. So the Sun's line through the plaza and the shadows sit at about 23 degrees on the map. I am going to reference all shadow angles from the perspective of the camera. Bothun's shadow is 60 degrees away from pointing straight to Z's camera. Dormans two lines of sight to the shadows are 28 and 50 degrees off the camera as noted on the map. In a world without distortion we would see the same angles represented in the photos. If the photos were taken from directly above we would see the true shadow angles. But the lower the angle of the camera the more perspective will take all angled lines and bend them towards the 180(Horizontal). Lines above the middle of the image will bend down to the middle and lines below the middle will bend upwards to the middle. This is why Bothun's angle is 60 but measures as about 16 in the Z film. It is bent up towards the middle of the image. The top red line of Dorman's is really 50 degrees away from Dorman as seen on the map but in the photo it is bent up towards the center to 75 degrees from the bottom. The lower red line for Dorman is 28 degrees from the bottom but it is bent upwards to 40 degrees. The more angle the more distortion you get. A line that points more downward or upward will deviate much more than a line that was close to horizontal to begin with. Lines that are completely vertical to start with do not change at all. I think this explains why we see different shadow angles in Dorman. This also demonstrates the amount of distortion from the actual Shadow angle to the Z and Dorman distorted perspectives. When Z has his camera pointing to the tree and unknown couple in frame 222 his angle to the shadow angle is 90 degrees. That is why the shadow of the tree and the people both run horizontal across the screen. This is a good example of how the angle of the shadows in any frame are relative to the camera angle to that shadow. https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipPn4be3w9NHeGERqhRm51fEJS_b3vWmWjWxf2TC

The different shadow angles in Dorman have nothing to do with the curvature of the street. We are measuring the angles relative to the frame of the picture. It does not matter at all if the people are standing on a curve or straight road. The shadow is due to the position of the Sun, the camera, and the flat surface of the road. You said the people on the left side have a shadow angle of about 15 and Bothun is 13. That is almost a perfect match. So the question is why do the shadows then change to a steeper angle for the people on the right side. I believe it is a matter of perspective. But the bottom line is that some shadows almost match Bothun and some don't. Before we can say the shadows are incompatible we need to explain why some come within 2 degrees of matching and other don't. The difference between the people on the right and left is more than I expected. I don't understand it yet but assume it is more than one perspective element working together.

I can never find anything on the trunk. There is something at the end of her hand that extends just past the right hand hold but I think it is just her fingers. It seem to appear as she moves her hand forward but not before. some company did an analysis and claimed they found a chunk moving back along the trunk. I am convinced what they pointed out was just a reflection. I am going to do a post on it.

NOTE: I deleted the image I posted and have an updated version on the next page. I think the Sun is in the correct position to cause a reflection off the left side of Altgens camera and send that light towards Z's camera. It should hit the camera at about 25 degrees from behind and bounce forward at 25 degrees and that would send the reflection towards Z. The light did not have to be in front to cause the highlights we see. I would guess that a flash would not last a half second but that is just a guess. I think the bigger issue is flash attachments are not used in bright daylight. They are useless in bright daylight and it looks like he has no flash attachment in one of the Bothun photos. The shadow angle difference in Z 342 and the Dorman image may have a logical explanation. First in the Dorman image below there is something interesting. The people on the left, closer to Huston, have a very different shadow angle than the people on the right side of the composite image. The shadow of the people on the left match Altgens shadow in 342 very closely(red lines). But on the right they are way off. It is natural for people at different position to appear to have different shadow angles as viewed from the camera. Check out Z frame 406 and look at the shadows of the light posts. They point slightly to the right because Z has now panned past the Sun's position. In 342 they point far to the left. So where the camera is pointing relative to the Sun greatly effects the angle of shadow we see. Dorman's camera was pointed about 10 degrees farther East than Z and it should cause about a 5 degree difference in the shadows. The next factor is Dorman was looking down on the street at a steeper angle than Z was looking towards Altgens. Z was about 10 degrees above and Dorman 21 degrees above the street. This makes a 10 degree difference in the perceived angle of the shadows. The lower you go the more the shadow will level out towards the 180 line(horizontal). The top part of the graphic below shows the difference Dorman's higher position on the 4th floor would change the shadow angle, about 10 degrees. I get a 20 degree difference in the shadows using the image you provided of Dorman and fr 342. But the fact that there is such a variance between the people on the right side of the Dorman image and the people on the left throws a monkey wrench in to the equation. The elevation difference and slight difference in the camera direction relative to the Sun would account for at least 15 degrees of the difference we see in fr 342 and the Dorman images.

I was a little mixed up by your description of 342. Altgens is the guy closer to the curb, he is on the right. Bothun is standing behind him and has the long tie, Altgens has the short tie. Altgens took his famous photo (Alt6) while standing 3 to 6 feet into the street right next to where we see him in 342. Altgens had 4.75 seconds to return to the curb and point his camera as we see it in 342. That timing is easily possible for Altgens if he is the guy on the right. but I don't think it would have been possible to get to Bothun's position in 342 in that 4.75 second window. I believe Altgens has verified himself in the Z film. To me it looks like Bothun never raises his hand and camera to his face in the Z film. but Altgens has his camera up and he is pivoting to keep the limo in frame, so ya I wonder if he took a photo around 342. The bright light we see on Altgens camera is visible for the 1st 9 frames. That would eliminate the possibility that it is a flash mechanism. I think it is likely a reflection and disappears as he pivots. A flash is not used in bright daylight. It's effect is zero unless maybe the subject is inches from the camera. most flash attachments were bigger than the camera and sat several inches above or to the side of the camera which I think prevented red eye and bright reflection in a subjects eye who was looking at the camera. There does not seem to be a flash attachment on his camera in the second photo you posted which I think is one of two that Bothun took. Here is another of Altgens that is credited to Bothun https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzwgjDKb2nEyGXxq9clixmplj67HKq1o/view?usp=sharing

Here is a comparison of the limo I used and some images of the limo from that day. Top one is fr 312, below is the comp I used before, below that Is from the Towner film and at the bottom I didn't get a location. They all match pretty well except Towner because she was a little too close and it caused some magnification of the center part of he limo like Nellie's window. The center bar is movable so I didn't count it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zClI2_7xM-UMlfWNMW8jL6BJeU6bOLN7/view?usp=sharing

Note the windshield placement. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lRHFR1z7p5vTjyEDi8dSx4oiGHp8dREs/view?usp=sharing