Chris Bristow

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Bothun's shadow is about 13 degrees as are the other shadows in the frame.  In the Dorman frame shadows vary from about 40 some degrees to about 15 degrees.  The lesser degree shadows you have lined in red.  The Blue line shadows are closer to 40 some degrees.  This doesn't match your example for Bothun.  The lesser degree shadows are due to curving around the street which puts people at a different angle then Bothun.  

Visually and by measuring the angles they are not the same.

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.

On 9/10/2021 at 10:01 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Do I see a "chunk" of something on the trunk in the still photos?

And it looks as if Jackie is staring right at it.

I think this chunk of something is what Jackie raised up and out of her seat to retrieve.

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.

On 9/12/2021 at 7:17 AM, John Butler said:

Chris Bristow is correct in saying the "camera flash" from Altgens lasts through 9 frames.  That is 1/2 second according to Zapruder's camera speed.  Is that reasonable for a camera flash effect to last?

If it is not a camera flash then possibly it could be simply some camera or film error  lasting for 9 frames.  I reject the notion that it is sunlight reflection coloring Altgens with highlights brighter then other figures in the frame.  Altgens and Jackie seem to be highlighted the same with a bright highlight on their right sides.  That puts the sun in the wrong position to the front and right to provide that highlight.  The Dorman frame from earlier shows how figures should be highlighted when the sun is in the rear at an angle.  

 

  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.

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris and Chris, both excellent fellows in this kind of work, have brought to light more Zapruder nonsense.  Contrary to folks who think the Zapruder and other films are self-authenticating, the Zapruder film is full of technical and content errors.  This reminded me of work I had done earlier on Z frame 342.  Here is the frame:

Do you notice anything peculiar about the content of this frame?  I have just noticed something I hadn't see, rather recognized, in this frame.  This frame shows Ike Altgens and Dick Bothun taking photos of the p. limo.  Altgens claimed he didn't take any photos of the president being shot.  This in a way can be verified by this frame since his camera is not flashing.  Maybe the camera doesn't flash when photos are taken.  I don't know.  But, Dick Bothun's camera is flashing.  He took a photo of this scene.  Where is it?  I say, Where Is It?

Altgens is the figure standing back from Bothun in this frame.  Notice their ties.  Bothun has a shorter tie than Altgens.  Altgens tie which is longer transforms into Bothun's tie which is shorter in the next photo.  This is said to be Altgens, not Bothun.

Going back to Z 342, I think Bothun and Altgens as portrayed in Z 342 are one and the same.  There are several people who do excellent work on measuring and comparing things.  I offer a challenge to take measurements of the two figures and decide if they are the same or different people.  I did this sometime back with a rather simple method and concluded they were the same.  To me this is another example of poor quality content editing found throughout the Zapruder film.

If Bothun and Altgens are one and the same where is Altgens photo that was taken in Z frame 342? 

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

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

I had not seen the joint schematic/side view of the limo together.  The schematic and side depiction are completely different.  Is the side depiction supposed to be SS 300x?  It has no rear step on bumper.  The front door edges (side depiction) are a good 4" to 6" forward of the schematic, the center brace section rear edge is actually at what is shown to be the front edge on the schematic.  Whether on purpose or accidental, I think the schematic may represent the POST assassination rebuilt vehicle that Johnson used.  I had encountered that thought when I first pulled the schematic up and now I am pretty sure that is the case.  However, this is the only schematic I could find and it is labeled as the assassination vehicle.  I think that we may need to find the configuration and measurements from another document (IF one exists).  This vehicle shows NO handholds on the rear either.

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

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

I think that's about as close as one can estimate without a high dollar "scientific study".🤣

PS:  I just used the schematic from the House Select Committee which claimed to be the limo as configured on 11/22/63.

I used the HSCA schematic too. I think the trunk is pretty accurate except for the distance between the hand holds which is marked 36". But when I size the image to match the width at 76.8" and the length at 256/ 258" the dist between the hand holds measures 38". As I mentioned before the placement of the windshield(Visors) is about 12" too far forward. Any lines of sight calculated using the windshield in the HSCA diagram compared to photos of the limo will be wrong.
 Because we know Z's exact elevation above the limo and his angle off  in all frames of the Z film we should be able to create a very accurate map of the trunk. Even if we have to adjust the HSCA length vs width I think it could be determined within 2 inches. but it would take considerable effort. I think as it stands the lines of sight of Jackie on the trunk  in Nix and Z are so close that it refutes this particular alteration theory.

20 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My best guess is ~Z 296. 

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe290.html

The above website allows you to look at one frame at a time. Somewhat blurry copy, unfortunately. 

It seems very likely the bullet did come above and behind, based on the testimony of Robert Shaw, who I think is very credible.

An oddity about the JBC shooting may not be the back, but rather his wrist. The doctors say the bullet entered the dorsal or non-palm side of the wrist. It is almost impossible for a normal human to hold the dorsal side of the wrist/palm so that it faces the chest. The volar or palm side, yes. 

Dr. Robert Shaw said it was possible another bullet entirely had entered and exited Connally's wrist. 

This may seem like a stretch, since there were only three audible shots, at least inside the limo. But occupants of the limo said bullets were entering the cab as if from automatic weapons fire, or in flurries. This suggests perhaps an additional automatic rifle with a silencer was used that day. 

 

 

That Costella website also allows you to downloadall the Z frames in one zip file.  The lightbox site allows you to download the Groden version which is clearer. It does not provide all 485 frames though. https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't doubt Vox's experiment or their honesty. I think the error with the Minox and Reflex cameras is fairly significant and makes me not put a huge amount of faith in their other claims, but I do think it was just an error.

Still, the mystery of the back yard photos persists. I would have liked them to address the white silhouette "cutout" backyard photo, and how it was possible that a third photo pose ended up in the possession of Dallas policeman Roscoe White and not in the official evidence files.

Marina and Marguerite discussed destroying the copy in their possession before the cops found it. How did Marina not know there were other copies floating around? Who developed the pictures, where did they do it? How many copies were made? How many different poses were taken? Who gave an inscribed copy to George De Mohrenschildt, and why?

If it was Oswald, then why would he deny the crime and the legitimacy of the photos themselves? The Warren Commission declined to make Oswald's lack of mental health part of their report, but who other than a delusional person would claim they could prove legitimate photos to be fakes? Photos that he apparently was developing himself? Photos that seem to have no other purpose than to tie Oswald to the weapons and Russian politics.

How many times in his life has Oswald posed for pictures with weapons, outside of his time in the military?

I've also read that the two Russian language papers held in the photos were of opposing political philosophies, as if someone in Russia held up a copy of National Review and a copy of The Nation at the same time and tried to present that as a coherent political motivation. Why would someone do that? What message does Oswald send by posing for a picture with those papers in one hand while also holding the rifle that killed the president in the other and having the handgun that killed the policeman on his hip?

And here's another thing I don't think anyone has addressed: Oswald's famous police-killing handgun was so important to his plans that he made sure to include it in his pictures, yet on the day of the assassination, he left this handgun at home. If he could smuggle a rifle into the TSBD, he surely could have taken a handgun as well. How did he not think that he might have had a need for the handgun during his initial escape? He felt the need for it later. Oswald made sure to have the handgun in his picture, to pose at least three ways with it, to order or develop, on his own, multiple copies, to even go so far as to write a note on one copy and give it to his only friend. Why then, on assassination day, would he leave the handgun behind as if it were an afterthought? Actually, saying "he left it behind" is being generous. I mean, the handgun wasn't even at the place Oswald had spent the previous night.

Why Oswald did not bring his handgun to work is definitely odd. Pretty much agree with your post overall. I took a close look at the ghost cutout images "white silhouette "cutout" and the story behind them and I believe I have an explanation for all of it. Here is a re post from another thread I did.

  First the two cutout images are using two of the Dallas PD backyard photos 91-001/140 and 91-001/1 as the backgrounds. The camera position is correct in both and the shadows on the bottom of the door behind the stairs are perfect matches. In other words if they are not the same photo they were both taken at the exact minute on only one or two possible days of the year and from the exact same position. 
 I used to think the cutouts may be related to the forging of the original backyard photos. But because the background in the cutouts was taken after they found the original backyard photos, the cutouts must be an attempt to fulfill the SS request to duplicate the BYP's.
  This attempt must have been a half hearted endeavor, maybe a first draft, because the shadows in the backyard are nowhere near a correct match for the shadows on Oswald. Secondly Oswald in the cutout is placed several inches too low. Roscoe, I assume,  lined up  the roof line in the background to Oswald's head which comes close to matching 133a and 133c. But if you compare Oswald's height to the post on his right it is obvious that he was placed about 4 inches too low. The camera in the Dallas PD images is positioned very low like maybe 18 to 24  inches off the ground. That caused objects like the roof line in the background to drop when compared to objects in the foreground like the post to Oswald's right.
 Lowering the cutout created some big perspective problems because when lowering Oswald his feet appear lower in the image. When the feet  get lowered they land on a spot of grass that is closer to the camera. Creating the effect of Oswald being closer to the camera means you would have to increase his size as you move him closer. But his head is lower in relation to the post. Moving forward would have increased his size relative to the pole. So the perspective is all messed up.
 Regarding Oswald's  lean it seems Roscoe did a decent job on the cutout that matches 91-001/140. But in the other he tilted the cutout about 6 degrees too far. Because of the perspective problems and misaligned shadows I am inclined to think that Roscoe may have just made a sloppy mistake when he leaned the cutout 6 degrees too far left. He did much better on the other cutout and it is interesting that he cropped the feet off. Maybe he was trying to hide the perspective problem he created by placing it too low. 
  I had considered that Roscoe may have stolen 133c before it got into evidence. But I know now that the copy found by his wife in the 70's was a first generation copy not the original. I also read that copies were made of the BYP's for some of the cops involved. Roscoe White and Stoval (maybe wrong spelling) both received copies of 133c. I can only guess that the original 133c somehow got lost in the shuffle before the rest were entered into evidence.
 Roscoe white had his own copy of 133c and would have been able to pose  LT Brown to match 133c. And he would have used it to trace out the same pose in the cutouts.

8 hours ago, Richard Price said:

Chris, thank you for your work.  I wanted to point out a couple of inaccuracies to hopefully help you refine your positioning (if you are still refining it).  The distance from  the inner edges of the handholds, which you reference as antenna is 36" instead of 30", making the center point of the trunk 18" from the mid-line of the trunk.  Using measurements from my wife who is approximately the same height, I would also add the following "guestimates":  Jackie is 67" tall.  Given that she has her knees and lower legs wedged into the front of the back seat for stability, that would leave approximately 47" for her torso and head.  Estimate about 9"-10" for her head, that leaves in the range of 37" of her torso (to the shoulders) stretched across the trunk at a slight angle.  The distance from the front of the back seat to the front edge of the handholds is approximately 49", therefore her shoulders should reach about 12' forward of the handholds whose rear edge is approximately 6'-7" from the rear edge of the trunk.  I don't have a measurement of the handholds from front to back, but they are probably between 1"-2" for ease of grasping when mounting the car.  The rearward reach of her hand onto the trunk is more difficult to estimate since her arms are at an angle instead of straight out from her shoulders.  Assuming that her arms are in the same proportion as my wife's (same height), her hands could be all the way to the rear at the same position as the rear handholds or within an inch or two.

 

PS:  I hope my reply is not replicating (somewhere), I tried to post it and it just disappeared from my screen.

Thank you and your wife for the input. Jackie was 5'7", you nailed that. I found it hard to get anything accurate about the distance between the handholds. The Limo drawing from the HSCA that I used puts the distance as 36" and the width of the limo at 76.8". But when I size the limo to a 76mm width the distance between the hand holds measures 40" which left me  confused. The HSCA drawing has many things wrong with it including the position and length of the windshield. 
 I put the antenna at 30" to err on the side of caution. The farther the antenna is from the center line the easier it is to support my theory on her position so I placed the antenna more inboard.
There are certain facts we can be sure of because we have 2 different lines of sight from very different directions. I used two lines of sight for Nix to give a range of possible locations for the front of Jackie's hat. Her hat has to fall in that range somewhere. The photo comparison puts her hat between 5" and 14" back from the base of the hand holds depending on how far the hat is from the center line. Her right hand appearing behind the left side of the right hand hold in fr 377 tells us the palm of her hand is somewhere between 2" and 5" back from the base of the hand holds. The fact that the palm of her right hand appears behind the base of the handhold in 377 and the fact Z's line of sight is around 28 degrees means the palm of her right hand has to be several inches back from the base of the hand holds.
 You put her shoulders about 12" back from the hand holds. I will subtract  just 8" for the head because I am measuring to the front of the hat. That puts her hat 4" back from the hand hold. Does that match your estimate? I get 5" to 12". I think the photographic evidence may not allow for her hat to only 4" from the hand holds. The point at which Z's blue line of sight is 4" from the hand hold occurs when the blue line is directly behind the hand hold.

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Chris, thank you for this sensible analysis and for not starting with a pre-determined conclusion on the issue. What you've shown here is that like it or not, the Dealey Plaza photo record is self-authenticating.

Some erroneous theories arise from comparisons of the Nix and Z films. I expect the most famous murder mystery of the last century will have many false theories surrounding it. So I would expect to find the majority of alteration theories to be wrong. But that does not mean all theories are wrong. As an example I find the theory about the lack of pincushion Distortion in the Stemmons Freeway sign to be very compelling.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

That's very interesting that you actually owned one. Did you have to manually change the focus setting? Was the type of film easily available?

While interesting, I don't think the video is a must see. I think the main takeaway is that the technology of CGI seems to support that the shadow on the nose and the body shadow on the ground are consistent with each other.

I was curious about the conflict between the cameras. I only now saw that there's another thread about this video. Sorry for the duplicate thread!

I reproduced the backyard shadows photographically so I know the CGI was not faked to get the results they wanted, Anytime you have a computer model like the Dartmouth Oswald study you can't verify the accuracy.
The nose shadow seems intuitively wrong but it does work. Naturally people think it has to be high noon for the shadow to fall straight down. But even if the sun was at a 50 degree elevation all you have to do is turn to face in the direction of the Sun and the shadow will fall straight down. Same is true if the Sun was at 45 degrees elevation and you tilted your head over from  straight up to 45 degrees toward the Sun the shadow would again fall directly below the nose to the philtrum.
 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, interesting chart. This is consistent with what is seen on the Z film, that JBC turns around to see what has happened to JFK, but after JFK has been shot through the neck. JBC does a near 180 in his seat, and looks over his own right shoulder to try to see JFK. But JFK has slumped to JFK's left (towards Jackie). JBC begins to turn to try to look over his own left shoulder, when struck.  His torso is "leaning back" when struck, thus explaining the relatively steep 28 degree angle.  

 

At what point in his turn back was he hit? . He never turns all the way back so then the question is where did the shot come from that took the path it did through him?

The longstanding alteration theory about Jackie's position on the trunk in the Nix film is that she is farther out on the trunk than in the Z film. I think many consider it to be just a matter of perspective. I wanted to put an accurate measurement to the Nix and Z images and see if it is just perspective. I'm using Nix frame 85 and Z 377. In the overhead diagram of the limo below Nix's line of sight is shown by the two red lines entering from the left. I drew two red lines to give a range of possible lines of sight to Jackie's pink hat because the tail light, the reference point, is blurry.
 The blue lines on the right represent Z's line of sight in fr 377. The blue line passes about 1 inch or two behind the right hand hold and also points to the front of Jackie's hat as the red lines do. Where these blue and red lines meet is the key. If the front of Jackie's hat sat where the red and blue lines meet then that location on the trunk would satisfy the positions we see her in in both Z and Nix.
  A big part of the perspective issue comes from the fact that Nix's view is so low we can't see where Jackie is along the red line. If she was close to the left side of the trunk she would be farther out on the trunk. But she could also be closer to the right hand hold as shown by where the blue and red lines meet.
  I think the position of her left hand next to the antenna gives a good approximation of where her head is(left to right). The two antenna that sit inboard are about 30 inches apart and are each 15 inches from the center of the trunk. Her hand is just slightly obscured by the base of the antenna and I assume her hand is maybe 3 inches from it. That puts her hand 12 inches from the center line of the trunk. She is leaning over that hand somewhat as she has taken some of the weight off her right hand to slide it forward. I will assume her head is almost over her left hand so 9 to 12 inches from center. I know that was a whole lot of estimating and assumptions so take it as a  rough estimate
The top red line on the trunk meets the blue line 9 inches from center, so if her head was 9 inches from center then it all makes sense. How far her head was from center is the one variable that you will have to judge for yourselves. Imo, the difference we see in Nix and Z is likely just a matter of perspective not alteration.

The second issue is her right elbow appears to be way above the trunk in Z 377 with her forearm pointing upward at maybe 70 degrees. In the Nix frame it is obvious that her forearm is very low, almost parallel to the trunk. This is definitely a matter of perspective that makes her arm appear to be pointing upward in the Z frame when it is really very low as seen in the Nix frame. The image below of the wooden figure shows the same arm position from the Nix and Z perspectives. Jackie's elbow is pointing directly away from Z so we don't see any of the bending of the elbow joint. The arm looks more like one long straight limb. This makes it hard to tell if the forearm is pointing away from Z and is low or the forearm is pointing more upward. This is because in a 2d image of a 3d world moving up in the frame of the image could mean something is farther away, but it can also represent something that is higher off the ground. A good example is the left side of the limo is higher as it is farther away but obviously tall images raise up in a frame too.  So when the elbow is pointing directly away from Z it will be higher in the frame because it is farther in the distance than her hand(Just about as much as two sides of each hand hold.) but if you can't see the elbow location due to a blurry image you can mistake what is farther away for being higher up),
I believe the two images of the wooden model prove this effect. I also added some blur to the arm to hide the elbow joint because it is fairly blurry in Z 377 and adds to the illusion.

On 9/8/2021 at 1:21 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for this post. Are you able to reproduce the diagram of the 28-degree angle? 

I was verifying the diagram before I posted and read that Shaw disagreed with the diagram in his WC testimony.  He did not personally make the diagram. The article claimed he lowered the nipple AND the exit wound. But although he lowered the nipple he said the wound was in the right place, he just had to lower the nipple to reflect its position relative to the exit wound.(see below)
WC CE680

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is lots and lots of reasons to not accept that KBC was truck by the same bullet that passed through JFK's neck. 

 

 

Remember, JBC said, "I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)"

But as JBC emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign he is bolt upright. He then turns around to look for JFK, and makes a 180-degree turn in his seat. Maybe there was a lapel flap, maybe not. It does not seem germane. 

The Z-film, and JBC's testimony, and that of his wife all line up. 

The upshot is that was not enough time between the shot that struck JBC, and then the head shot to JFK, to have been accomplished by a lone single-shot bolt action rifle. Ergo, two guns. Ergo, conspiracy. 

For my part, I suspect two guns behind JFK, and diversionary noise and smoke (possibly from a snub nose .38) from the Grassy Knoll. Possible use of semi-automatic weapons with silencers and frangible bullets. 

 

The issue of the lapel flap is eclipsed by Connally turning all the way around and holding his hat after a compound break of the radius and severing the tendon to his thumb. Not to mention the nearly undamaged ce399. But I address the lapel simply because it is a claim made by the skeptics and it is always interesting trying to analyze any theory. 
 

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Never seen this before.  Thanks.  If the bullet came out of Connally's nipple  it had to be traveling at a steep downward angle from say the TSBD (?).  It kind of makes sense.  Arm pit, down the rib, out the nipple then the coat at a further downward angle.

Just saw a diagram recently made by Shaw and it had the bullet traveling at a 28 degree downward angle. connally must have been leaning back about 16 degrees if the trajectory was straight.

17 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

It could also have been the wind - there seems to have been a slight breeze that day and a minor gust could’ve swirled through the plaza with all that activity.

Either way, it’s immaterial to the fact that Zapruder not only confirms the Connally’s story but also the sequence of the last two shots. The majority of witnesses - from Robert MacNeil to Wesley Frazier - said the last two shots were almost simultaneous.

Connally appears to be in hit by 229. JFK’s head shot is at 313. The Z film runs 18 frames per second, proving JFK was hit less than a second after Connally.

Case for conspiracy closed.

Whodunnit?

That’s obvious to me as well - the CIA spooks who lied and covered up evidence for decades: Phillips, Helms, Angleton, Harvey, Morales.

Motive, means, opportunity and plenty of incriminating evidence.

 

 

 

There is a small mistake in your math. From frame 229 to 313 is 84 frames / 18 frames per second is  4.6 seconds.
I find Greer and Kellerman to be most reliable as they not only heard the muzzle blast and shock wave they heard the rounds come zinging into the car. Greer "The last shots were almost simultaneous." Kellerman "The last rounds came in as a flurry of shells".

16 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

The issue with the lapel flip is that the exit hole in Connally's jacket isn't in the lapel; it's lower.

 

Yes and I always thought their argument was about kinetic energy dispersed into the coat and causing the lapel to flap. Can that happen? If the front of his coat between the bullet exit and the lapel was tight against his chest at that second then the energy from the bullet into the coat could transfer along the tight portion and then Express that energy in the lapel which is free to move. Admittedly I'm reaching a bit.

2 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

The key for me is in 224 Connally clearly has not been hit while JFK clearly has, exactly as Connally recounted from his hospital bed at Parkland until his death, supported by his wife as well.

That alone demolishes the WC and the lone nut theory. It was a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

Yes there are much greater issues with regard to the magic bullet theory than the lapel flap. Connally turns around almost a hundred and eighty degrees after losing four in of rib on the right and sustaining a punctured lung. At Parkland one of the nurses remark that it was a sucking chest wound that was spraying out blood. He also holds on to his hat after having the radius bone broken in two near the wrist. He even articulates his wrist downward as he turns to the right. I believe he also had his tendon to the thumb severed.

The condition of ce 399 after breaking all that bone makes no sense and has never been duplicated in 50 years. I heard Latimer reproduced it..

Ya it was an Imperial reflex top view camera and the height of the camera in the BY photos matches the height she would have held a top viewfinder. The difference is over 10 inches. The WC or HSCA proved it was the Imperial reflex by the scratches on the negative  that matched the camera they got from Oswald's brother. I assume they just made a mistake about it being the the Minox.
  That video shows an angle of the computer model of Oswald I had not found before. It shows clearly that they placed Oswald's left leg way forward of where it was in 133a.

I have been looking at the Groden copy and it is clearer for viewing the lapel. In frame 222 the lapel looks like it has already flipped over most of the way, but in 223 it is back to normal. Then in 224 it is flipped again. Is it possible that the lapel is flipping due to Connally's wrist or hat rubbing against the lapel?
In frame 222 we see his right sleeve cuff coming up into view. Then in 223 the arm drops back down below the door and the lapel returns to normal for one frame. (The glint of sunlight off his right shirt cuff is barley visible just above the door near the bottom of the lapel.)
His wrist is higher in 222 with lapel partially flipped.
his wrist drops in 223 and the lapel is not flipped.
His wrist rises back up in 224 and the lapel is flipped again. The right cuff is identifiable in frames 229/230, if you flip back and forth you see the cuff move down with his hat.)

In frame 238 thru 239 it looks like his other lapel has flipped over. This happens as he drags his right arm and hat back to the right which may be catching the left lapel and flipping it over. Or maybe his left arm is dragging across his lapel as he tries to turn to the right. The left arm naturally drags across the chest if you try and twist your torso to the right in a seated position.
    In 238 and 239 the left lapel looks like it is flipped. Regardless of whether it is flipped or it is an anomaly due to lighting or something. how do we know the right lapel flip in 224 is due to a bullet if we see the same phenomena in frame 238 and 239?

The Warren Commission meeting about Waggoner carr is in the executive sessions of the Warren Commission report. The sessions are listed by the date they occurred so it will be easy to find January 27th. They took the report seriously.

  One reason I would doubt that Oswald was a high-level spy is that I assume they would set up a low-level person as a patsy. The more sophisticated they are the greater chance they will catch on to being set up.

There's an overriding theme at Fox News about the corrupt "Deep state"  The cover up in the JFK assassination fits their narrative so I don't think they are out to get Oliver Stone and Jim. Although they could play it both ways and say something like " Even liberals get it right once in awhile".

I think a lot of people feel that RT is a more subtle version of Pravda. It also fits their narrative that attempts to drive wedges between different groups of Americans

I'm still very happy to see this new documentary getting promoted . The issue is too important and has been swept under the rug by journalists for decades.

12 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi Chris, you are proposing, what appears to me at least, a complex process. I beleive there has been frame removal, I doubt 36 frames. I think Chris Davidson's work suggests less frames. Around extant Z313 frame removal is aided by the fact the camera direction forms approximately a 90 degree angle with the limo direction, and we highly suspect a slowing of the vehicle that has been removed. My wild estimate is around 18 frames that have not all been removed in a sequence. They have been removed to hide a hard braking, a pause,a second frontal head shot a rapid acceleration (at least more rapid then we now see).

In my view the use of a matte to cover the rear headwound is pursuasive, and is seen before the wound is actualy produced. I'm not pursuaded by the use of any other mattes, thus far.

I am not attempting to be an advocate or a critic for the process just wondering how it could have been achieved. I used 36 frames simply because I am assuming a 2 second stop for the sake of argument. It is one of those unknowns that make it hard to create a model. Many witnesses said 'The limo stopped or almost stopped' it makes me think it may have just slowed to such a crawl that it was hard for people to quickly assess whether it fully stopped.
 I like the matte theory but am not sure just how complicated it might get.