Chris Bristow

I think the lack of motion blur on the Elm St shadows may have a logical explanation. I can't seem to remove attachments at the moment to free up space for an image but if you put Z frames 342 and 345 side by side they will illustrate my point. Z 342 has a lot of motion blur and 345 is sharp. The motion blur in 342 is lateral and basically follows the direction of the limo as most of the blurred fames do. The blur on Bothun and Altgens show no vertical blur, evidenced by the sharp line across the tops of their heads. So the shadows should show little to no blur on the top and bottom(Along the length of the shadow). Any blur would be lateral and show mostly next to the top of the head and next to the feet. The other visible evidence of motion blurring on Altgens and Bothun is in their shirt. coat, ties etc. But the shadow has no detail to show anything within, it is just black on black. So any lateral motion blurring is not discernible inside the shadows. On the other hand, the shadow angle is about 15 degrees off of the motion blur direction so maybe it should show some blurring. But the length of the blur is very short and I would still not expect to see much blur, since it is mostly moving with the length of the shadow. That is just a guesstimate. I think it is important to take into account the fact that dark shadowed images are not actually images on the film in the camera. If the shadow has no detail within it then the shadow is simply a lack of light hitting the film. The light reflecting off the grass burns a real physical latent image onto the film, but the shadow leaves no image, it is just a lack of light. The location on the film that represents the shadow is just and unexposed area with no latent image. This makes a big difference with motion blur. Instead of 2 objects being overlapped like shadow over grass, there is just the image of grass and the shadow, or lack of light, adds no image to the grass. The grass there might still appear darker than the grass next to it because of the lack of further exposure during the time the shadow, or lack of light, overlaps with the grass. That may resemble the overlap of two objects but is a little different. Depending on how long the shadow is overlapped and how bright the grass is, the shadow can completely disappear. From another perspective consider a shadow that is motion blurred over a grass image. The lack of light lands on a location that is already been exposed by the light coming off the grass. The already existing image of the grass remains and the shadow is not seen. A comparison of the lamppost in Z frames 411 and 413 shows the canceling out effect. The right side of the lamppost in the 411 image is missing and that is why the lamppost is much skinnier than in 413. The right side has been overlapped with the image of the street behind it and that part of the lamppost is cancelled out because the street is so bright. On the grass most of the lamppost has been cancelled. But because the grass image is not as bright as the street there is sill some darkening of the grass where the the overlap was. I can't be sure how much the cancelling out effect plays a part in the image we see. It has a lot to do with how long the overlap lasted during the open shutter time and how bright the background is. But the lateral direction of the motion blur and the inability to discern any blurring within the shadows may explain why the horizontals shadows are sharper than the vertical people.

I have seen that interview and based my evaluation of her recollection on it. I do not contest her father's claim of seeing trains in one of the photos. But there is no doubt about where the train sat and there is no doubt about where Mr Willis stood when taking Willis 5. Based on that, it is a fact that the trains would not be visible through the colonnade windows in Willis 5. There is another interview in which she specifically shows the Willis 5 photo and says this is the photo that her dad said the trains were missing from. Here are both interviews. She shows Willis 5 and confirms it as the photo the trains were removed from at 25:20. She mention another witness taking a photo about the same time that does show the trains. My guess is that she is talking about the Nix film. The trains are visible in Nix but that is due to his location. The contention that the trains were removed from Willis 5 is simply incorrect. They were not visible from his location and that is why they are not in Willis 5.

Denise, I think Linda Willis' point about no train being visible in Willis 5 has a plausible explanation. The red line on the map shows Phil Willis' line of sight to the 3rd(Southernmost) Pullman car. The location of the black X denoting rear of the last Pullman car can be verified by the two photo inserts that both show the train from very different angles. Willis' red line of sight passes through the eastern edge of the 4th colonnade window which is not quiet visible in Willis 5. So from Phil Willis' location in Willis 5 the trains would not have been visible. Linda Wills did say she and her father walked forward on the grass and took some more photos after the assassination. The black line of sight estimates a position 30 ft west of the Willis 5 photo. Any photos taken from there would show the train in 3 of the colonnade windows. So Linda Willis' memory of trains visible in some photos would be correct but not in Willis 5. The missing photos showing the trains may be part of the group of photos taken after they walked forward. But there never could have been trains visible in Willis 5. NOTE: Other than the 3 Pullman cars there were no other trains in the yard during the shooting. The boxcars seen in the lower insert arrived after the assassination. They are not there in either Of the McIntyre photos taken approx 25 seconds after the head shot.

He helped take JFK out of the casket yet remembered him wearing clothes, yes that is a big mistake. It puts a big question mark on his credibility but I don't know if it makes all of his testimony incorrect. He would have paid more attention to the taking and inspecting the X-rays so I would give more credit to his memory of the wound. But that is just my opinion, he could be wrong about the wound too.

I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit because he gave the deposition 3 decades after the event. He could have simply conflated his memory with some other person he x-ray'd during his career. To take each of the head X-rays he had to take the head in his hands and align it on 3 separate axis. He had to use the shape of the head itself to determine the correct axis. So I have much more confidence in his memory of the wound location than what JFK was wearing when his body first arrived.

"Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?" I am not interested is guessing your motivation for what looks to be gaslighting in the Parkland issue. I think a mountain of criticism may have suddenly fallen on you because you have created a mountain of mis information regarding Parkland.

I am not surprised that Keven has been so aggressive in his criticism of Pat Speer's opinions on the Parkland issue. Considering the comments of others who are well versed in the Parkland testimonies, I think I am not the only one who sees many of his explanations as an extreme form of gaslighting.

Thanks for noting the misunderstanding. It was my fault when I characterized people who deny the O.C. wound as skeptics, when that term usually defines CT skeptics.

Just to clear up this point, he did get a look at the back of the head in terms of the occipital parietal wound in the right rear, right posterior. It was only the supposed 'other' bullet hole below the occipital wound that he did not see due to excessive blood there. Akin had mental problems decades after his testimony in 1963. But there is nothing I have found to disqualify his statements made 20 years prior. When it comes to doctors assumptions about where the shot came from I don't pay much attention. It is just a guesswork based on what they saw or didn't see on 11/22 and in the Z film reaction of JFK. The location is the big issue because so many of them saw the blowout near the occipital area. Some like Baxter went further and wrote on 11/22 that the occipital bone itself was "Missing". With testimonies being repeated many times over several decades by 20+ witnesses there will be some contradictions, but that is to be expected. There are just far too many accounts of a wound near the occipital to be explained away with conjecture. This person lied, that person just got it wrong, some just went along with the majority, etc. 18 or more staff from trauma room 1 saw a wound that does not exist in the official photos and x-rays. Conservatively 6 more at the autopsy came forward after the non disclosure statements were lifted by the HSCA. I don't include testimony that is questionable, like Stringer's failing memory in his ARRB deposition. In the end there is no credible way to explain 24 witnesses who saw the blasted out area of the occipital parietal. I have heard all the arguments and it amounts to a lot of speculation, cherry picking, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. It does not add up and points to a big lack of credibility. The attack on Crenshaw by the esteemed Journal of American Medical Associations, is in itself proof that doctors who supported the O.C wound location could have their reputations and careers put in jeopardy. The claim that Crenshaw might not have even been in the room that day, basically accusing him of being a complete xxxx, confirms that cheap attacks on the Parkland staff were required to discredit them. It also puts in question the stories of the few who likely recanted to protect their careers. The absurd yet often repeated claim that those Parkland doctors were too busy trying to save his life to correctly locate the O.C wound(I think that was from Bugliosi?) is another example of the weak arguments needed to discredit the doctors. It was Jenkins himself who drew the attention of the others to a wound he deemed unsurvivable. So yes they were made aware of the wound that so many said was in the O.C. Clark calling off the resuscitation of the president based on the wound he said was "A blasted out area of the occipital parietal" is proof that he, a neurosurgeon, took a good enough look to make the historic decision to give up on the POTUS. Of course I am just rehashing the basis of the longstanding debate we all know very well, but the question of the O.C wound has a mountain of support and very weak counter arguments. A great deal of research is needed to address all the claims made and clear the muddied waters. In the end there is no doubt that the Parkland issue is valid and points very strongly to a coverup of an occipital wound. Imo, the fact that on the weekend of 11/22 the prime suspect was a previous Soviet defector, would be enough to instigate, at least temporarily, a coverup of any evidence that points to a conspiracy. Simply to navigate around the possibility of a conflict with Russia that could lead down a path to nuclear warfare. Hustling his body out of Parkland without allowing Dr Rose to do an autopsy may have been the first step in a coverup designed to protect us from nuclear war. So no deep state plot to kill JFK is needed and Oswald could be part of a 2 man conspiracy. Oswald firing 3 shots from the TSBD. Not saying that to promote a new theory, just looking for the simplest possible scenario.

When Akin says he could not see the back of the head "as such", he was referring specifically to the question about seeing "any other bullet wound" below the "Gaping hole" specter mentions. He said he could not see the other wound because of all the blood and bits of bone sitting below the occipital parietal wound. He specifies that he was talking about the neck. It seems Akin was not contradicting what he just said about the occipital parietal wound, he was just talking about not seeing a second wound below the "Gaping wound" due to the blood and bits of bone. Specter asked Clark and other witnesses about seeing a separate entry hole just above and 2.5cm right of the occipital protuberance. Specter asks "if that wound could have been present without your observing it?" Clark replies "yes, with the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp such a wound could be present." He seems to be saying the 'blasted out occipital parietal could have obscured the entry wound at the protuberance. The location of that occipital parietal wound as above and out from the protuberance wound fits the reported location the occipital wound. The occipital parietal wound was reported by so many as being in the right rear. So it was largely visible on the side of the head behind and above the ear and also extended back behind the visible head near the protuberance.

Dr Akin made several comment to the WC regarding the wound he saw in the occipital parietal: Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw him? Dr. AKIN. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding. ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head? Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag- ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet hit his head? Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

I think the skeptics lost the Parkland debate a long time ago. The misrepresentations, cherry picking, and gaslighting have become far too obvious over time. I assume many researchers see right through it. It is truly a 'House of cards", imo.

The Betamax copies were the earliest available as I recall and the MPI version shows no sprocket area. But the frames on that sight and all the Groden frames I have seen elsewhere have everything in the pocket area. The color matches the rest of the frame area very well so I don't think the Groden sprocket areas are a later addition. As I understand it those frames were provided by Groden, although he has never provided the complete set.

In this day and age I don't think there is any way to confirm a perviously unknown frame because it can all be faked, imo. If a limo stop was removed it could not be done by just removing frames. A deceleration from maybe 8mph to 2mph or less has to involve some matte process to shift the background in order to keep the limo moving at 8mph during the deceleration sequence. To hide a deceleration of 25% you can't just remove 25% of the frames. . EXAMPLE: Starting with frames 1,2,3,4 you remove 25%. So you take out number 3 and are left with a sequence of 1,2,4,5. Nothing has changed from 1 to 2 or 4 to 5 so the limo speed won't change. But from 3 to 5 the limo speed will double because its now going twice as far from 3 to 5. So the limo would be lurching down the street during deceleration or acceleration. I think trying to recreate a limo stop or slowing by just adding frames would not work without adding the interpolation program to move the background. Basically the computer version of the matte process used in 60's era films.

The Groden frame set can be downloaded here. https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets

If you just duplicated 312 the limo would be in the same place for 2 frames. That is visible to the eye but also measurable in pairs of frames. The interlacing programs nudge the background to the left for each frame making the limo appear to move forward in every frame.

Interlacing programs must have gotten much better since the fake video I saw in 17'. But it may have been from 2010. Even that older program could recognize JFK's forward head movement in 313 relative to his head in 312. That is impressive since his head in 313 is blurred and partially hidden in the cloud of blood. The sophistication is growing so rapidly now that anything can be faked.

About 7 or more years ago there was a YouTube video claiming to reveal a dramatic slowing of the limo. Between 312 and 313 the limo's speed was cut in half. Long story short, someone had created/added an extra frame (312a). It was apparently made with a frame interpolation program. The program can take 2 consecutive frames and create an intermediate frame in which anything that moves from frame 1(312) to frame 2(313) is recreated to appear in a location in between those two positions. Example: You have two frames that show a baseball being thrown. Frame 1 shows the ball 4 inches from the pitcher's hand and frame 2 shows it has moved to 8 inches from the pitcher's hand. The interpolation program will create a new frame, frame 1A, that shows the ball 6 inches from the pitcher's hand. The new frame becomes an intermediate frame. This is done between all frames and doubles the total number of frames. Then the projection rate is also doubled. The result is a film that moves at its original speed, but having twice as many frames smoothes out the appearance of the film. This is applied to old films to make them look less choppy. In the real Z film the limo moves about 8 inches from 312 to 313. Adding a single interpolated frame (312a) causes the limo to take 2 frames to move that same 8 inches. When projected at the normal Z frame rate the limo appears to cut its speed in half from 312 to 312a to 313. Of course cutting your speed in half then suddenly going back to its normal speed at 314 is impossible. Therefore I think the best answer to explain the faked Z copy is frame interpolation. It was used to add a single frame between 312 and 313. The top images are the real 312 and the faked 312a. JFK's head tips forward to an intermediate position in 312a. A position that does not occur in the Z film. An additional proof of interpolation fakery appears in frames 349 and 350 of the same fake Z film(Below). There is no extra frame there but 350 is a fake composite of 349 and 350. I think it is a remnant of experimentation with interpolation. In the images at bottom the real 349 is on the left and a fake 350 is on the right. From 349 to 350 Altgens moves left relative to Jackie. that is real and correct in both frames. But the yellow paint on the curb does not move left from 349 to 350. The red lines show how much Altgens moved and how much the curb should have moved with him. But the yellow curb has barely moved at all. Additionally the fake 350 on the right should reveal Altgens shadow across the curb as it does in the real 350. The yellow curb in the fake 350 on the right and lack of Altgens shadow are both from frame 349. It seems that the fake 350 was an error that combined the real positions of everyone on the grass while the curb is a repeat of frame 349. I bumped up the saturation in the real 350 on the right to make the yellow curb more obvious. The curb in the real 350 is skinny compared to the real 349 because there is a bit more vertical camera jiggle in 349. That is one more proof that the fake 350 has the curb from the real 349.

By "skeptics" I meant the people who argue AGAINST the occipital parietal wound. Looking briefly at your response, I would say I agree with all your points.

"Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive". Dr McClelland doubled down on the main issue in that very same soundbite from the NOVA doc. He stated pulling the scalp up covered the existence of the "large wound" as he simultaneously demonstrated it to be in the occipital parietal. It is the hole that the Warren Commission denied and is somehow missing from the X-rays and photos. Deception has always been the rule for Parkland skeptics when it comes to the occipital parietal wound, but we all know what Dr McClelland's views were. His opinion offered in the NOVA doc while looking at the back of head photo was an immediate, off the cuff, remark. The fact he ignored the reports of the missing scalp in his attempted explanation is barely worth mention. The same old tired talking points have been strung together and repackaged so many times and in so many ways that your efforts have become absolutely transparent. The endless repeating of misleading and puffed up arguments have been refuted many times. SOME EXAMPLES: McClelland had theorized the scalp may have been pulled up to cover the wound. That has led to another deceptive line to confuse photo alterationists. Paraphrased as: "Even Dr McClelland has said the head photo wasn't photoshopped!" The alterations being led to assume McClelland agreed there was no coverup. When actually he was talking about a literal coverup!. Deceptions like that demonstrate the shaky ground the skeptics stand on. Another well known and misleading generalization is about the doctors recanting their statements. It often ignores the fact that only a few doctors had done so. The additional fact that doctors were being attacked for their views, and had a good reason to 'recant', is more than noteworthy. Dr Crenshaw was maligned by the highly prestigious medical journal, JAMA. This is a prime example of an attack on Parkland staff . I feel compelled to repeat what so many already know. The JAMA article inferred that Crenshaw may not even have been in the room that day! Imagine what being maligned and called a xxxx by that prestigious journal could do a doctors reputation! Whether retired or in practice, it is very damaging to them and their families. Of course we have doctors who testified under oath to the Warren Commission that he WAS in the room. Doctors Curtis, McClelland, Sayler,and even Baxter(Who was one of the 4 doctors interviewed for that JAMA article.). JAMA was sued and settled out of court. We are left to ask why such provably incorrect claims have been made over the decades? It is fully apparent to anyone versed on the subject that the skeptics have completely failed to make their case. The repetition of inadequate arguments has served well to highlight the transparency of the deception. That is why I said earlier that the debate has been over for some time. The head wound issue has always been a house of cards for the skeptics. That issue, imo, that has already been brought down. I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost.

Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive". Are you referring to his statement in the NOVA documentary at the National Archives when he said it looks like they have pulled the scalp up over the wound?

I think they would bring in well qualified people for modifying autopsy materials If their motivation is about covering up evidence of a second assassin firing a 4th shot from the front, it would have been a loyal act intended to prevent the U.S. from spiralling into a nuclear exchange with the Russian's. In the 1st hours we knew a Russian defector worked on the 6th floor. If a Russian plot unfolded, and if caught red handed, the Russian's might already have a contgency ready for a 1st strike. We could not know for sure and that was a big problem. Reports from Parkland were of a right occipital parietal wound around 8cm. That's enough to Indicate a possible 2nd shooter. Dr Clark held JFK'S head in his hands as he noted the "Blasted out area of the RIGHT occipital pareital. Being a Neurosurgeon he knew where the occipital was. Making the most historic decision to stop the resuscitation of the President, based on his observation that the wound was "Unsurvivable", leaves little doubt about the accuracy of his evaluation of the wound's nature and its location. If they undertook a coverup, at least temporarily. It would have been for noble motives. To prevent a possible nuclear war. No deep state plot hatched in advanced, just a small coverup. No need to intimidate witnesses because they will keep their mouths shut out of loyalty, to help protect the country. And literally protect their families. Over the decades more than 25 witnesses have given their account many times. But when you sort through it honestly the evidence shows far too many put the wound in the RIGHT occipital area to be explained away. It is very obvious that the debate is over. It will still crawl on with the same old straw men, but, imo, and I'm sure many others, it's been over for a while. There was a cover-up at Bethesda.

As I have stated a couple times there is good reason to believe that witnesses may have decided not to mention the O.C. wound. One example I already listed is the character assassination Crenshaw suffered in the JAMA article. So the fact that many flipped their story could easily be due to events like that. That is the more plausible scenario, as opposed to believing they flipped because most of the got it wrong on 11/22 or just copied what others said. It is the far more logical assumption by a long shot. The large parietal wound at the autopsy does not relate to my point. Not that I ignore it, it is the lack of the O.C. wound at the autopsy that was reported by so many at Parkland that indicates a coverup. The photo at bottom which shows Sayler is from the film clip I have seen on Youtube. He clearly puts the wound behind the ear at the O.C. O'Conner and Custer would not be describing the wound after the bone fell out because they were asked to describe the gunshot wound. Why would you "presume" that? Custer's best look was when he did the x-rays. That was when he held the head in his hands as he positioned it on 3 different axis at one time for an x-ray. To my best recollection O'Conner described the wound as he saw it when he first unwrapped the head. The fact that very credible witnesses like Baxter, Carrico and Clark ALL put the wound in the occipital on 11/22 is very strong evidence that their account were unbiased and accurate. Especially Clark who based his decision to stop resuscitation based on his very close look at the wound in the "Right occipital parietal". Clark's account alone is virtually unassailable. There is a plausible reason for some to flip but no good reason to explain so many getting it wrong yet giving the same basic location when contrasted against the official location. Saying people lied or just repeated what they heard is speculation. But the consistent accounts from 11/22 and the WC is fact. How could Clark, again, a neurosurgeon, hold JFK's head in his hands and get it so wrong. You really have to reach to explain that away. He based the decision to give up on the president on his opinion that the wound was "unsurvivable". I know I have said that a few times in the last day or three but it has no valid explanation. None! The strongest case is by far that the Parkland staff indeed saw what they claimed. Good reason for them to clam up about the O.C wound so naming more people who flipped does not make your case. It only points to 2 options. They lied about the O.C. or they lied when they flipped. When we allow for the possibility that they flipped to avoid the heat, your argument has little meat left on the bones.

Just one tiny point here. "The last shots were almost simultaneous" per Greer. if the last shot came just 3 frames after 313 it would not have appeared in the Moorman photo.

Would you say then, that Sayler lied when he showed the wound as being in the back of the head? Could we not consider the possibility that maybe he and others lied to you? There is the likelihood, as has been stated before, that there was good reason for witnesses not to admit what they actually saw. I think the attack on Crenshaw by the journal of American Medical Association puts that option very much on the table. Sayler either grossly misrepresented the wound in the photo or he misrepresented it to you. I see a plausible reason for him to lie to you but not much reason for him to lie about the wound in the photo. Unless he was out for money and notoriety. But that does not comport with what he told you in a conference full of people "desperate to believe the fatal wound was a large blow-out wound on the far back of the head.". I try to view the issue skeptically from both sides and have to wonder if maybe your own perceptions could be a bit colored by your views. As an example you said "Dr. Joe Goldstrich had told us he didn't get a good look at the wound but had previously recollected seeing JFK on his back, with brain exposed--suggesting the wound was on the top of the head, not back." I think your statement shows a bias, as Goldstritch's comment did not suggest the wound was on the top. We have many witnesses who saw brain hanging out from the wound in the O.C. Even as JFK lay on his back, a large portion of the reported O.C. wound would have been visible. Yet you 'suggest' his statement supports the views you have written extensively on. Sayler and the others have contradicted themselves. So now we are left to figure out on which occasions they misrepresented their observations. As time went by there were more reasons to hold back their true recollection. A good example would be the attack on Crenshaw in the 80's. But reports written on 11/22, like Clark's, and testimony given in March of 64' are more compelling. Even current WC supporters like Baxter and Carrico wrote reports that day that placed the wound firmly in the O.C. I believe the overwhelming number of reports that put the wound in the O.C. are completely unexplainable. Even after we scrutinize them and assign nefarious motives to some, the weight, the number of the reports falls very heavily on the side of the O.C. wound. That is the strongest evidence for the validity of the Parkland accounts. All explanations for it fail, imo.