Chris Bristow

An interesting perspective, thank you.

I do think there is reason to doubt Marina's involvement. Changing her story on the number of photos is suspicious. There is a possibility of coercion as part of a cover too. I think her father was a ranking intelligence official which is also suspicious if true, and I believe she could have been a low level operative. I use her name more as a place marker for the camera and often say "the camera position" when being more careful about what is implied. You are right I mentioned the TWO days a year when the azimuth and elevation match the BYP at t 4:30pm. That is 3/31 and 9/11. I remembered that fact as I wrote the post but immediately dismissed it as not germane. Don't know why I did that because it does make it possible to manufacture the image on 9/11. Skeptics point out there was another BYP that Marina said she burned. So now she has to claim she took 4 photos that day? Well without seeing that photo we don't know if it was a BYP or from another time. Even if she claimed it was a BYP we still have to consider coercion. "These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos." Absolutely yes that is 214 Neeley St. When I talked about the Sun and "the house in the background" I meant the house next to Oswald's, the house just east of 214 Neely. (The stairs next to him run east/west. Oswald is facing 22 degrees south of west.) At 9:15 on the day in question the Sun was at 83 degrees azimuth and would have been 15 degrees off of and behind Oswald's left shoulder. The elevation was 18 degrees and so maybe the Sun was just rising over the roof of that house next door or still behind it. 18 degrees would never create the overhead shadows. It is so far off what we see maybe he was misquoted somewhere along the way. "For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes." If the Sun was in back of Oswald the shadow would fall in front of him not to the rear. The nose shadow issue frustrates me a bit because there is a solid explanation for it but it is hard to explain and hard to visualize the answer. I have reproduced it photographically so I know there is an answer. First consider that there two other condition that will make the light fall directly below the nose when the Sun is not directly above. 1. Lets say the Sun is at elevation 50 degrees and you are facing directly towards it. If you are facing the direction of the Sun the shadow will fall directly below the nose regardless of elevation. 2. You can be facing 90 degrees away from the Sun(You would be facing azimuth 270, directly west) but if you tilt your head in the direction of the Sun and tilt it to match the elevation(Sun elevation 50 degrees means you would tilt your head over 40 degrees from 90 degrees(vertical) to 50 degrees. The shadow will again fall directly below your nose. In both cases you orient your head so you see the sun directly above your forehead and between your eyes. Oswald was facing 13 degrees away from the Sun which would cause about 10 degrees of nose shadow angle(13 gets you 10 but the reason takes more unpacking, let me know if you want to discuss it). So we have to account for the 10 degrees we should see. Here is how it goes. first Oswald's face is actually looking two degrees to his left, he is not looking straight into camera. It is subtle but measurable in the increased size of the right side of his face.(Temple to bridge of nose has a large 10% difference from left half to right.). This reduces the 10 degrees to 8 cause while his body is facing the camera his face is looking 2 degrees more towards the Sun. His facing two degrees left of camera also causes the tip of his nose to swing to the left of center so the tip is not directly over the philtrum. To measure the shadow angle we have to draw a line from the tip of the nose to the tip of the shadow. The shadow being on the philtrum(center of face) and the tip of his nose being off center results in 4 degrees of shadow angle present on his face. We have 2 degrees cancelled by his looking left of camera and 4 degrees measurable under his nose. That explains 6 of the 10 degrees we expect to see. That leaves 4 degrees to explain and that is due to the 4 degrees of head tilt. Each aspect of this explanation is perfectly consistent with the way shadows are known to behave and I have tested each aspect of this and it is all reproducible. So I have to conclude the nose shadow is not an issue. As to Jack Whites other statements some are interesting like the wrist watch or the fingers but it seems like they can't be resolved. I have used the rifle to gauge his height and it came out correct as I recall. I think that depends on whether you take the rifle length to be what he ordered or what is claimed they supplied.

I think many of the observations you listed have been explained over time. 3. OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Oswald is facing Marina with the Sun 13 degrees off to his left. In 133 we should see about 13 degrees plus 6 more for Oswald's lean. But the perspective distortion of Marina's shallow camera angle flattens out all angular lines. I just double checked it and 20 degrees of actual shadow angle as viewed from directly above doubles to 40 degrees when viewed from 10 feet away and matching Marina's camera height. As far as I can tell what we see in 133a and C are correct. In the past I have photographically reproduced these effects to match the BYP's 133b shows about 28 degrees of shadow angle. (Hard to measure because he feet are cut off). Since he is standing straight there should only be 13 degrees of shadow but the perspective distortion is doubling that as it did in 133a. 11. FACE SHADOWS: To compare the shadows 133b has to rotated 1 degree right and 133c 2 degrees left for all to be level. Once you do it is hard to see any difference in the position of the heads. But even if there was a difference a 1 1/2 shadow under the nose would only change by 1/40th of an inch per degree of head tilt. I don't think the image is sharp enough to detect. 14. The camera did change position vertically and it was more than fractions of an inch. Look at the roof line of the house in the background and where it meets the top of the post next to Oswald. That shows that Marina lowered the camera a couple inches. The story goes that Oswald came over and advanced the film after each shot and Marina just stood there. If you take a photo and don't change your feet at all you can lift the camera back up for a second shot and the camera position will not change horizontally. I tested that. 15. When Jack White tilted the photo"keystoned it" and got it to match the other I think he was just reversing the natural keystone effect from Marina tilting her camera down in 133a. The last part about Mr Wilson's analysis of the BYP is a real head scratch-er. He said if the photos were taken on the day they said it would have to be 9:15 in the am. Wow. On 3/31/63 the Sun was in the East at 18 degrees elevation around 9am. The Sun would have been behind the house in the background. The shadow running from the post next to Oswald intersects with the post on the Northwest side of the 2nd story landing. That means the azimuth was very close to 232 not 83 as it was at 9:15am. His conclusion that the conditions in the photo match 9:15am if taken on 3/31 is really nuts. Marina said the photos were taken in the early afternoon but the only time the azimuth of 232 with an elevation of 40 or 50 degrees happened was around 4:40pm. The azimuth can be tightly locked in to within 4 degrees by the post shadow. The elevation has been checked by many by measuring shadow lengths and has to be around 49. That does not allow for any other time than 3/31 around 4:40.

Painters attempt to recreate the world as our eye or brain sees it. With photography we have to add another level because film is Limited and its ability to recreate the world. So I don't know if we should expect to see glare around the fingernail.

All I can say it it looks strange as if the ends of the fingers are cut off. The fingers length is just a bit shorter than the comparison photo. I compared the distance between the little knuckle and index finger knuckle and decided to decrease the Backyard hand by 6%. a very small amount but that is what I based the finger lengths on. The fingers also look fatter but it may just be the brighter exposure or the slightly shorter finger length. I used to think it may be due to Oswald curling his fingers a bit but your comp photo has his hand more curled the the BY photo. So it is one of those weird things that may or may not be the result of a cut and paste.

My intention was not to divert the discussion to Parkland. I was referencing Parkland In order to support my opinion that there is reason to doubt the official evidence you sited. I did not feel comfortable just stating that I doubt the evidence you accept without giving my reasoning.

Do you mean like anatomically wrong or in comparison to other photos of Oswald? I spent a lot of time looking at his eyes because I was an optician for many years and looked for inconsistencies between different photos. One interesting thing is that his right eye is 1 mm farther out from the center of his Bridge than his left eye. Not really out of the ordinary but it is consistent in all photos where he's looking straight forward, like mugshots and Military photos.

Steve, a fundamental aspect of the conspiracy theory is that there was a cover-up of the evidence. Personally I have examined every explanation for the Parkland doctors account of the head wound. There WC testimony refutes every argument that tries to explain how 20 staff members reported a wound completely inconsistent with the official story, and only four staff members support the official story. Even after you throw out all the crazy CT stuff that has built up over 50 years there is still serious problems with the official story. So I do believe it is possible that evidence in the case could have been altered. I think it is possible that Witnesses were coerced. I think when you consider just how close the CIA came to a full cover up of MK Ultra, it is reasonable to assume that in another case they were able to go just a little farther and successfully cover it up. The MK Ultra project was a massive 10 year project in multiple countries. If the numbers in the Parkland doctors issue was reversed and 20 staff saw the hole in the official location and only four supported the CT location, I would be called a crazy conspiracy theorist if I support the argument that we should listen to the four doctors over the 20 staff members. But the Skeptics will try and Float the idea that those 20 staff members just got it wrong. I think it is perfectly rational to have about the official story.

Tony, it is even more Awkward looking because the original unflipped version of the photo is rotated a couple degrees too far to the left. The most accurate version will show the picket fence leaning 2 and 1/4 to 2 and 1/2 degrees to the right. There's a well-known comparison photo in which a tall and skinny guy named Capell attempts to duplicate Oswald stance, and it is a very poor attempt. But in that photo you can see the door jamb on the house behind Oswald. It is about the only object in the backyard photos that can accurately reflect the vertical plane. Everything else save for the corner of the house is wonky . When that door jamb is aligned the picket fence sits at 2 and 1/4 degrees right. In the comparison image of 133a and the Capell photo they have rotated Oswald two extra degrees to the right to decrease his lean. Then they took the Capell image and rotated it two degrees to the left to make it appear like he was leaning more than he was. Now that's photographic fakery! I will find that comparison photo and Post it.

Oswald's assumption that the image of his face was taken after his arrest at the dpd just doesn't make a lot of sense. I think If he was being set up as a patsy those photographs would have been made in advance. I don't think it would be impossible to have obtained a covert image of his face. When it comes to the proof that the photographs are real I think it is possible evidence can be faked. There is certainly enough questions surrounding evidence in the JFK case that I just can't take the grain analysis at face value. I find the vast majority of conspiracy claims regarding alteration in the backyard photos does not add up. I believe the same is true for the Z film. Dr John Costella's Theory about the lack of pincushion Distortion in the Stemmons sign is in my opinion the most irrefutable evidence of fakery ever to be put forth about the Z film. But a close second is Oswald's lean in 133a. It is more subjective than the pincushion Theory because it requires trying to duplicate the stance to see just how absurd it is. I know the Dartmouth people claimed they provided proof that his stance was stable. But a computer model is just an approximation and I found three mistakes in their model. I don't think their model is worth much of anything.

Adam, it surprised me a bit but the math works out to approx 20 ft difference. Just to set the stage the ground elevation in the annex parking lot is approx 424 ft hasl and Elm St at the throat shot is 421.4 hasl. Jfk was 3.5 ft off the ground so his throat was at 425 ft hasl. That is only a one foot elevation difference between throat and a prone shooter so the shot would have been almost level. When you look at the downward angle from the Altgens 6 theorized hole to JFK's neck you get a 3 degree angle. The shot was level but the 3.5 degree slope of Elm makes for that 3 degree downward angle from windshield to throat. That gives the basic relationship of shooter to JFK. If you measure the angle from throat to the top of the windshield you get 3 more degrees upward angle. 3 degrees of extra angle to clear the windshield makes for .63 inches of rise per foot of travel. 400 feet from throat to parking lot means .63" x 400' = 252" / 12" = 21 ft elevation gain.

A truck backed into the north most parking spots sure would be a great place to hide and egress from. To shoot over the windshield would require an increase in elevation of 20 ft so I don't see that as an option. If you move east to shoot around the windshield you would have to stand in the center of/behind the colonnade on south Commerce. The only shot from the south knoll is through the windshield and I don't know if snipers shoot through windshields. One big problem is the bullet would deflect down by a couple degrees. That would mean the throat shot would have to come from a place 15 feet lower than the parking lot. I see no real cover down on the Commerce sidewalk and almost none under the commerce underpass walkway. The head shot does line up with JFK very well. His head at 25 degrees right as seen in the Z film would allow for the temple shot and right occipital exit wound. The shooter would have to shoot within 5 feet of the Franzen family when the bullet would be only 4 feet off the ground but there is a shot to be taken.

The witnesses standing next to each other at the TSB and telling different stories is a perfect example of the problems with witnesses. But when the majority tell the same story it is significant and can lead to the truth. There is that well known story of the classroom of students who are surprised by a sudden loud argument. Right afterwards they are all asked to recount what they witnessed and 25% get it wrong just minutes after the event. By the next day something like 40% develop false memories. This is considered a strong argument against trusting witnesses but I think it proves eyewitnesses can be used to find the truth. That is because while 25% immediately got the story wrong 75% got it right. So the statements taken in the plaza right after the event should be roughly 75% accurate. If statements taken on the second day are 60% consistent with the 75% from the first day it adds to the weight of the witnesses memories. Muffled shots and silencers aside over 75% of all the witnesses said they heard three shots. I think that is one of the witness facts we can be fairly sure of. I always thought the dicta belt recorded a 45ci Harley trike not McClain's 74ci. I always thought McClain had to know if that whistling was him or not. He and the dispatcher swear it is not McClain. McClain said he was not a "whistle wile you work kind of guy". He was a bit gruff actually and I think he would know if it was him whistling. Then there is the dopplar shift of the sirens passing the open mic. Maybe the issue of the dicta belt combing different channels addresses those oddity's but I have no clue at this point.

The common explanation is echos but that raises some questions. If Oswald fired all three shots from the same location why did almost everyone report the first shot as a single shot? what happened to that echo? If echos were an issue why did the majority of witnesses report only three shots? I also believe the testimony of Greer and Kellerman are especially qualified because in addition to muzzle blast and shockwave they heard the rounds come zinging into the limo. I think it was Kellerman who said he heard a round come in and stop when he heard it hit JFK's head. Greer said 'The last rounds were almost simultaneous", Kellerman "A flurry of shells". Add 23 or so others who used terms like 'in rapid succession' or 'almost at the same time' and some who demonstrated the timing by tapping a table and you have an extremely compelling case for a second shooter.

I also put a lot of weight on the ingress/egress issue. If they fired from a covered truck parked at the North most section they would have perfect cover and immediate egress. I think egress would be such and important factor that theories about assassins in the storm drains have no merit. I think the simultaneous shots from different assassins runs into a problem with the head shot. Because JFK had leaned way over and down the only moment a south knoll gunman had to fire the head shot is when JFK was visible between the side window and Greer. That was a short window around 313. Only the gunman would know when it lined up so a person in another location could not give the signal to fire. The window was limited by the Franzen family who were no more than 5 feet from the bullets path at 313. By frame 318 they would be in the way. The bullet would have been less than 5 feet off the ground when it did pass or hit them. I think it is possible 2 shooters firing shots in the same small time span may just randomly have near simultaneous shots. Especially the head shot because they were running out of time by then. also if the limo did "Stop or almost completely stop" a second before the head shot as so many said, that would be the best moment for the last shots. Unless the Z film has been altered there was no shot from either of the north grassy knoll positions. And if the Z film was altered and there was actually a shot from the north knoll then the shot from the south knoll would be impossible. His head was either 25 degrees left of profile from Z allowing for the south knoll shot, or it was facing to the right allowing the North knoll shot.

Thanks Mark, that pins it down.

Is there any information on when Hargis crossed to the north side of elm? If the limo never went below 8mph he could not have run between it and the follow up car. I doubt LBJ's car or his follow up car would have paused to let Hargis by because there were bullets flying. He said he ran up to the brick wall to get a better look at the overpass near the fence. I'm wondering how Hargis got across the street and back again in the time it took McClain to reach the point in the photo.

I'm going to throw out a skeptical assessment. It looks to me as if anomaly 1# is a shadow from the south curb that rides right over Ready's left shoulder and becomes part of his suit. anomaly 2# looks like Hickey's right arm and shoulder. The gap, 3#, is the back seat visible between Ready and hickey.

They officials are not left with many options to explain the phenomena. An amazing advancement by our adversaries or ..... Consider the same reports of craft that appear intelligently designed and controlled and behaved outrageously, were leaked by the Project Blue Book astronomer Allen Hynek in 1970. We have to assume if it is our adversary they had that technology a half a century ago!

The only point I'd like to make about the doorman frames is that in the first one you can see the shadow coming off the front of the Harley, I assume it's Chaney, and it angles off to the right. If you extended a line through the shadow it would probably hit the crowd about 30 feet down the road, in front of the limo. The point at which that line intersects the crowd is the point at which the Sun is directly behind the bike cop from their perspective. So everyone on Houston had a moment when the sun was right behind the limo and the glare was at its maximum.

Well the sun is in the Southwest and people on Elm would be looking East as the limo approached. If they looked at the limo after it passed them there would be some glare. The people on Houston would have a glare problem as the limo approached. I think taking a photo on Houston and centering JFK in the picture would have to include a lot of sky in the background. The Horizon would be a little above half way up in the frame? But Zapruder was looking down on the limo and zoomed in so he didn't catch any sky as he panned his camera. That's why he didn't get any glare.

It is true there is lack of images from certain areas. People on the East side of Houston held their hands up to block the Sun to see the limo coming and I would assume that is an awkward place to try and take a photo. The people on Elm would have not had any problem taking photos as he approached. Most of the photos show the limo after it passed like Beltzner and Willis. I think people on Elm would not have a great view till the limo gets close because JFK is almost behind Connally and no clear view of Jackie from the North side of Elm till they get very close. I think by the time the limo was close most would not want to be looking through a viewfinder.

If they were holding a camera it was not up to their face during the Croft photo. The point at which JFK is the closest and not one of them is taking a picture. Sometimes when people want a really good view of a very special moment they hold the camera down and try to aim without the viewfinder. Other people just don't want to waste the moment fiddling with the camera.

I love that photo because it is so clear. You don't have to strain your eyes like much of the photographic evidence. I think the limo was going around 15mph. It would travel one inch at a shutter speed of 1/250th. The antenna on the back looks perfect. That leaves one inch of blur That matches the people in the background pretty well. One inch is 1/15th the width of the hub cap or slightly more than the side of Nellie's window frame.

It's hard to evaluate because I don't know the speed of that car. At 25 miles an hour it would be going 3 times the speed of the limo.