Chris Bristow

 Below is a crop of fr359 and a blurry image that looks like a blue arrow or wedge icon. It is just to the left of the comp icon I inserted. It looks like it has a white border around it. The question is do modern optical printers place icons on the screen that do not appear in the final product?

Note; after posting the image it looks much worse than on my PC.

I would like to start with some questions about using separate mattes for the limo movement and the background movement(camera panning) in order to remove a limo stop. The only way we know the limos speed or lack of it is the how the background moves by. So by altering the speed of the background with a separate matte for the background and the limo you could remove the limo stop all together. Here is a list of problems that would need to be addresses to accomplish such an edit.
1. If the limo completely stopped for 2 seconds there would 36 frames that have to be completely removed(This is assuming Zapruder would stop panning and stay fixed on the limo which would stop the background from moving across the frame). If the printer was capable of frame by frame compositing then you would stop the process and do a fast forward through the background  that was not moving then restart the process of compositing the 2 mattes into one film after forwarding past the background stop. Maybe those stopped frames would be removed on the background copy before combining the two elements in the printer. Does anyone know the method that would be used with an optical printer?
2. Would it be more difficult to handle the slowing of the limo to a stop and the acceleration from the stop than just taking out the fully stopped frames? Lets say the limo slowed very quickly from 8 mph to 4 mph in a single frame(Maybe not possible but it simplifies this thought experiment). You could take out every other frame starting at the 4mph transition frame and the limo would double it speed and continue at what looked like 8 mph. That works out fine. But what if the limo slows from 8 to 4 mph for 9 frames before changing speed again? Now I have to double the speed but I don't have an even number of frames. How do I remove half of 9 frames? I can't just run one of the mattes a little faster because the film is just a series of single photos strung together. Each frame of the mattes has to be married to another single frame.  Even a single extra frame would cause a momentary jerk of the motion. How would the edit be accomplished?
3. I have seen theories in which the limo movement was re timed from a point well before the slowing or stopping like when it was behind the Stemmons or just after. Would changing more of the limos timing down Elm help in dealing with the limo stop?
If it was re timed that early it also presents some new problems that more mattes may have fixed. A big problem is the reflections from the limo's trunk show Brehm and a  very tiny and distorted but identifiable para-style behind him. It later shows Mary Ann Moorman and Jean Hill and the same para-style around them. Altering the limo's position on Elm more than maybe 4 feet would create a big mismatch of the trunk reflections. Would that require another matte for the trunk?
changing the limos position on Elm would also create incorrect lines of sight through the limo like where the rear handholds on the trunk line up next to JFK, Jackie and the side windows too. Rotating the image of the limo in the matte can give the impression that the limos was facing the correct direction as you look at it's angle down Elm. But the rotation will not correct the lines of sight through the limo. If a rear handhold is sticking of out of JFK's ear rotating the image will not change those relative positions of JFK to the handhold.
 

On 7/21/2021 at 8:13 PM, David G. Healy said:

yeah, if you took a lower third film layer of the limo and elm street to where the grass meets the upper curb and all things inside the limo then rotate it a bit around the *Y axis, say 5-7 points, blow it up a tad, re-frame it.... ya might have something.... least I thought I did.... frankly no one gave a damn....  an example is in this essay (link below)I did over 20 years ago.... can't remember the exact page, but it's in there....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UB-0H4xpIXce-kW7EdCWAVppl7srdf5v/view

 

you'll also find thousands of posys on this forum here concerning Dealey Plaza topo's/plat's

search is your buddy.....

I find the subject of optical printers and mattes very interesting and would like to go deeper into it. Don't want to hijack this thread so I will start a new topic. I hope you can weigh in. I had a couple years of film school in the 70's and have pondered the process as it relates to the Z film many times. Having the shadow atop the curb as the demarcation appealing because it is just so perfect a place to separate elements.

Does anyone have any ideas on what a 3D computer Recreation of Dealey Plaza and the limo movement could reveal?

  A few months ago I noticed that frame 312 definitively shows that the limo was not aligned with the direction of the Lane markers. The proof is in the relative positions of the small side window frames. The one on the left side of the car sits slightly to the right of the one on the right side of the car. This is only possible if the car was either about 6 to 8 feet farther east than is depicted in the film, or the limo is turned six or seven degrees to the right of the direction of Elm Street at that point. It's possible that Greer veered to the right a bit as he looked over his right shoulder.

The biggest implication of the limos position is that the shot from the West End of the Knoll fence no longer works. Other than Sherry Fraser's Theory I have never seen the limo represented as being at an angle in the street.

6 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Let's start from the perspective/hypothesis that if you're going to set someone up as the patsy for an assassination, what do you need to do beforehand?  I think it is only logical that the person be tracked in terms of their whereabouts and also their mindset, ahead of time. 

Lee seemed to think he was taking a Russian bride, which would give him greater credentials as he switched from side-to-side.  But he soon realized Marina was something more than that. It was at that point he began to separate himself from her.  He even tried to send her back to the USSR.  (Thank you, Beatles)...

I think Lee's growing realization that he was indeed being tracked and observed and information was going to others contributed to his increasing anger and frustration at Marina...

The theory that he was a paid FBI Informer has some Merit. The Attorney General of Texas telling the WC that his trusted source said Oswald was getting 200 dollars a month from the f b i. As I recall there was similar testimony by someone who worked in the New Orleans FBI office.

If this is true he could have been thoroughly controlled, manipulated and groomed for his role as a patsy. He could have been instructed to go to the Texas theater that afternoon to me to contact. He could have been told to take the bag into the TSB that morning. He could have been told to bring a handgun to the theater. He could have been given a specific route to walk to the theater to put him near The tippet Killing at the correct time. They may say walk this specific route and if a car pulls up next to you and gives the code word get in the car. If they don't show up proceed to the theater and be there by 1:15 p.m. . Maybe they tell him to keep his Hidell I D in his wallet because he might need it.

I'm reaching pretty far with those scenarios but the point is if he was a low-level intelligence operative he could have been very tightly controlled.

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Re: Marina secret agent, spy, operative, sleeper;

We can safely say that Hollywood's version of glamorous international spies is out the window. Marina was sent over with rotting teeth and had to borrow money for urgent dental treatment. 

If I see a person with super clean white straight teeth I trust them less. Maybe the whole rotten teeth thing was a KGB ploy. I'm kidding except for the first part.

4 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Chris Bristow said: "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..."

It was her uncle who was involved with the government and may have been KGB.  

Agent Hosty tried to convince me that Marina was a sleeper agent. At the time I just wanted to ask him about Lee. Now, it does not seem impossible that she was being used to keep track of his whereabouts (which he seemed to sense and made more difficult).  She may have been reporting that to someone. Ruth Paine and George deM are logical possibilities...

An interesting perspective, thank you.

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Do you really think that Marina took those photos?  And, she took them at at around 4:50 0'clock in the afternoon 3/31/63?  Do you believe her?  She has a rep of saying what the WC people want her to say and then changing that when it didn't meet expectations.  I believe Marina was a Soviet Spy and still was serving the fatherland after the JFKA.

Didn't we have some conversation about the date and time several years ago and you suggesting that since this was close to the Vernal Equinox it was difficult to tell whether these photos were taken several days after either the Vernal Equinox or Autumnal Equinox sense the light would be the same in either Sept. or Oct.  

Tony's claim of being made from film taken on a Friday night doesn't quite fit this.

These are the BYPs meaning they were taken in the back yard where Marina and Oswald were living at the time of the photos.

So, in this photo the back of the house is where this gate in the photo is?    And, is the Oswald figure is standing in the backyard and the house is orientated North/South rather than East/West?  For the sun to be behind the house is ok for the shadow that the Oswald figure makes.  For the Oswald figure to he highlighted the way he is the light must come from above to produce a shadow directly under the nose.  The light is not consistent with the nose shadow and the body shadow.  the shadow should bend to the left hand as the body shadow does.  It's just one of many inconsistencies in the light in this photo.

And, not last because I have got to run, what about Jack's other statements? 

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. 
 

On 7/13/2021 at 10:39 AM, John Butler said:

JC,

I don't believe I said all media has been altered.  What I've said is most if not all have been altered.  And, even if I did day all, then that is closer to the truth than not.

Consider this about the BYPs without howling about "moon landing" Jack White:

Jack White and the backyard photos,  Many others have come to the same conclusions and have added even more.  Gil Jesus talks about the BYPs in this part VIII discussion available here on the forum.

Photographic expert Jack White has studied these photographs for two decades and testified before the House Select Committee. His conclusion is that the photographs are fakes. His pointed findings include:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concludes that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o'clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o'clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o'clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn't show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. This pose had been attempted to be duplicated but could not.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: On the photographs the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand looks stubby.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn't own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5'9", the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it's proper length, Oswald's height is six inches too short.

😎 SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a flat chin but Oswald had a clift chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where the cut took place to paste Oswald's face onto the photograph.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B and adjusted and overlayed them, nothing matched up which isn't suppose to happen with two slightly different poses. However, the faces on the two photographs did.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald's head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow to this angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a six 14 1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15 inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off which made the photos appear like they had been taken at slightly different locations. However, except for small fractions, everything lines up on both photographs when the two were compared. That is, the camera did not change position and the only way to do this would be with a tripod which was not used.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds but they were not off much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appears to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

 

During the 1991 JFK Assassination Symposium held in Dallas,Texas of November of that year, computer image processing expert Tom Wilson corroborated all of the White analysis and added that he inspected the feet on the man in the backyard photograph as to light refraction and compared this to official records of the day concerning the position of the sun. Wilson stated that the photograph was taken at 9:12 A.M. if it was taken on the day it was alleged to have been taken. But Marina Oswald's testimony stated that the photographs were taken in the early afternoon which is completely inconsistant with the Wilson study.

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.

On 7/10/2021 at 7:51 PM, John Butler said:

Chris,

I agree.  But, someone has tried to put fingernails on the stubs.  I have painted lots of hands in various paintings and the fingernails have to shine or glow a bit from the skin surrounding the nail.  At the top of the nail and sides there must be an area of darkness that distinguishes itself from the skin and the nail for there to be separation.  I think I see that on the end of the stubs.  In order for hands in a painting or for that matter, skin and nails, the details must be right.  

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.

21 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Chris, what's your take on the hand in the backyard photo;

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.

11 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

The topic of this thread is the backyard photos. That's what I am addressing here. No need to sidetrack the conversation over to Parkland doctors.

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. 

On 7/7/2021 at 10:23 AM, Steve Thomas said:

I don't know.

To me, his eyebrows and his eyes look all wrong - especially the outside corner of his right eye.

Steve Thomas

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.

11 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

There's some incredible pretzel logic going on here with these backyard photos. Apparently some people want to reject the following:

1. The HSCA photo panel of experts (not Jack White or armchair internet jockeys) authenticated the photos as real.

2. FBI Shaneyfelt matched the irregular edge markings from Oswald's camera to an original negative.

3. Yes, there was one or two NEGATIVES found in Oswald's possessions. Did your secret conspirators leave that in there as well? Explain that, please.

4. Marina admitted taking them.

5. George DeM. had one (133-A). Well isn't that interesting, the secret Ninja Conspirators gave one to George. Wow! 

6. The HSCA photo panel examined the ORIGINAL PHOTOS AND NEGATIVE to come to their conclusion they were real, not faked.

7. Oswald's own mother, Marguerite admitted under oath that she saw one that Marina burned. Now why would she do that? 

8. Somehow these secret conspirators knew where Oswald was living at Neely street, way back in April 1963! Wow, amazing stuff. Somehow they secretly went over there and snapped photos, but couldn't get the leaning pose down right! 

Of course the simple answer is they were real, not faked. If you want to wrap yourself into a pretzel trying to explain all this away......go right ahead. Your armchair photoshopping of Oswald's pictures will never be believable. Frankly all this is laughable. 

When you ignore the evidence, the sky's the limit. You can make up anything. 

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.

18 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I got so used to seeing the backyard photos, I flipped the image to see it afresh. By that I mean, the stance should be achievable whether horizontally flipped or not. Looks just as awkward. 

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.

13 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Tony, no i wouldn't,  back in 63 I'm sure most outsiders would assume that the bubble top was bullet proof. However whoever was running the show would have known the bubble top was on when JFK left love field.  By the time the parade hit Dealey Plaza a go or no go regarding the bubble top would have been already made and passed on to shooting teams. 

Hi Chris, wow 20ft above the limo or ground level in the parking area?  sure didnt look like I'd need to be 20ft higher then ground level when standing in that parking lot.

Adam.

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.

44 minutes ago, Adam Johnson said:

Hi Ron, I've been there a few times myself. On one trip to Dallas i was really only interested in whether the throat shot at Z223-Z225 came from the south knoll.

Its really the only shot i honestly believe may have been able to be made from that area during the assassination, because of what we see on Zapruder, Nix and Bell films.

I spent 2 or 3 hours up there on two consecutive days watching cars roll down Elm Street from about a dozen possible shooting positions. The second day was sunny and clear and i made sure i was there from 11:30am untill about 2pm.

My conclusion was the shot couldnt have been taken from up on the triple underpass Commerce Street section or the downward sloping exit section of the walkway. 

I decided if a shot came from the South knoll it had to have come from the postal annex building parking area in the north western most corner area. Even then i believe it would have to have been fired from 4 to 8 feet above the ground level. I dont think lying prone on the ground at the wire fence line would have been a good option.

So if i was gunna fire from there, i would have been in the back seat of a car firing out one of the windows or in the back of a truck or in the back of a tray back truck parked in that north western corner...take my one shot and be gone asap.

My reasoning is I'm never going to fire from over the South Knoll and have my round have to go thru the limo windscreen to hit my target, by moving further to the right into the carpark area and by adding some additional elevation to my firing position i would take the windscreen and passengers out of the equation.  Then it was just a timing, distance and windspeed evaluation and make your shot. This shot, then has difficulties but not impossibilities. 

Even after all these years reading books and forums and watching YouTube videos i trust my eyes and my experiences more then anything else and by physically walking Dealey Plaza the above details are what i believe would have been possible. Whether that is what took place, i dont know. 

Some of David Joseph's posts, some autopsy info and David Liftons video tapped interviews have lead me to question my initial belief's and look at this frontal shot possibility. 

The bruised right lung, the undamaged pluera matter around the right lung, the reported search of a downward bullet track thru JFK's body that was stopped at the autopsy are all things i cannot reconcile that point to a possible front to back trajectory for the throat wound. 

However I'm still 80%/20% that the throat wound was a back to front trajectory and the round continued on past John Connelly's left shoulder and ear and struck the inside of the limousines windscreen. 

Wow, i feel clean again.

Stay safe everyone,  wear a mask, wash your hands often. 

Adam.

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.

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Chris B.-

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Oh, I agree there had to at least a second shooter, but based on the Z-film. 

Anyone who has worked in and around law, or the court system, knows how dubious witness testimony is. 

Echoes? People might have heard different echoes as they were at different places in Dealey Plaza. Other people just have faulty memories. Some heard four shots. 

Some of the witness testimony is inexplicable. Two TSBD employees side-by-side outside the TSBD watching the motorcade, and one said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, and other said from the TSBD. Side-by-side!

You are correct, occupants of the Presidential limo described bullets entering the cab as if by "automatic" fire (Connally), or in a "flurry" (Kellerman). 

Based on multiple and credible witness testimony, but backed up by the Z-film, I say we can rule out a single shooter armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. That dog don't hunt.

I wish I could make heads-or-tails out of the Dallas PD dictabelt, and the experts say it indicates perhaps even five shots. I listened to it a few times and I hear nothing decipherable. 

Of course, if a pneumatic gun was used, that would not even show up on the dictabelt. 

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.

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Benjamin, the simplest explanation to me for those unsure of two guns in Dealey Plaza is Boom, Boom-Boom.  That sequence of shots described by multiple witnesses.  The Boom-Boom part being too close together for one gun.  I know lone nutters and others dismiss witnesses statements as being mistaken but they were there, we were not.  jmho

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.

20 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Plots, angles and windshield crack aside, my two cents (FWIW) is that the fatal head shot originated from south of the Triple Underpass, most likely somewhere within the confines of the Terminal Annex building's parking lot. 

An ideal sniper location would be the south end atop the overpass, which affords the best pan angle on the limousine as it proceeded down Elm, with the greatest elevation over the limo's obstructions. It's a challenging shot, but is an excellent sniper location with favorable ingress/egress.  The ingress/egress aspect is what most convinces me, as that is a primary consideration by experts for this type of operation.  As I posted back in October 2018, making the shot is only half the objective, the other is escaping either undetected or without being molested. The military practice to overcome this obstacle is termed “Canyon Shoot”. This practice utilizes multiple snipers from locations suited to draw attention to those origins where they cannot be accessed, or by allowing the terrain to confuse the shot origin to the enemy present.

In addition to ideal egress, there are several other aspects that convince me of this shot location:

1. The Umbrella and/or DCM (signal man) is facing towards those locations. The triangulated and simultaneous military-style ambush seems to be somehow coordinated by these two suspicious individuals.
2. There were multiple shooting teams - and simultaneity was part of the plan - hence the use of timing techniques (i.e. hand signals)
3. The brightness of the noonday sun above the South Knoll renders anyone looking in that direction (from the street or limousine) essentially blind to the whole area ... a classic sniper tactic
4. A shooter firing from the TSBD would initially fire and the other shooters in the plaza would cue off the Depository shooter by startle reaction and fire a round immediately on top of the shot fired by the Depository shooter. By utilizing startle reaction to cue simultaneous fire from three locations, three shots could easily sound like one.
5. A TSBD shooter would have initially been facing the President from the sixth floor when the presidential limousine rounded the corner ... yet he allegedly waited, and took the more difficult shot from behind (which on face makes no sense). That delay and longer shot range from the rear was obviously part of a triangulated ambush, with shooters on the Knolls (North and South) able to use the overpass railroad tracks for escape routes. 
6. Such a positioning of the President's limousine for the kill shot would appear to be associated with Abraham Zapruder's camera POV, as well the expected echo distortion.  

Gene

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.

8 hours ago, Mark Tyler said:

You are right Chris, Hargis didn't get across before LBJ's car passed him.  Here is a Wiegman film frame from about Z447, or 7-8 seconds seconds after the head shot:

As you can just about see at the left of the frame, he has just dismounted and is ready to scamper across the road.  The Mayor's car stopped for a few seconds which gave him enough time to cross the road.  You can see the brake lights of the Press Pool car in the foreground which is reacting to the Mayor's car stopping just ahead.

Once Hargis got to the north side of Elm Street he stood at the lamppost for about 15 seconds as he surveyed the area before running back to his bike, and was was caught by the Bond 4 photo that Pat referenced.  Here is Hargis standing at the lamppost (top right and bottom right images):

Thanks Mark, that pins it down.

On 2/3/2021 at 8:46 AM, Pat Speer said:

If I had to sum it up in one image, David, it's this one...known as Bond 4.

The motorcyclist on the far left is H.B. McLain. The acoustics evidence holds that he was 20 feet short of the corner of Houston and Elm when the first shot was fired and that he traveled at 10-11 mph afterwards. And yet here he is in a photo taken more than 30 seconds after the first shot.

Note the officer on foot in front of Hill and Moorman. That's Bobby Hargis. In the seconds after the shooting, he has 1) parked his bike, 2) dismounted his bike, 3) run over to the white wall across the street, 4) looked around, 5) run over to the lamp post by the Newmans, and 6) run back to his bike. 

Now note the photographer behind the lamp post. That's Dave Wiegman. He turned his camera on within 4 seconds or so of the first shot, jumped out of Camera Car #1, and filmed almost non-stop after. He is at this time filming the Newmans, a scene that comes more than 30 seconds into his film. 

Now note the camera man behind Wiegman. That's Thomas Atkins. Both Wiegman and Atkins were riding in Camera Car #1--2 cars behind McLain's supposed location at the time of the first shot. And yet here they are filming on the knoll as McLain drives by.

In the scenario pushed by the acoustics devotees, Wiegman, on foot, raced past McLain on his motorcycle, and filmed the Hesters etc before McLain could even catch up.

It's absolute nonsense. The acoustics experts hired by the HSCA claimed the mike recording the shots traveled 10-11 mph across the plaza. And yet, the photo evidence makes clear McLain was either traveling at a much slower rate--slower than the idling speed of a Harley--or had started from much further back than 20 feet south of Houston and Elm. 

 

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.

On 5/13/2021 at 10:41 AM, Chris Davidson said:

A more detailed description of what is being shown:

Anatomy 101
#1 is Ready’s left shoulder line
#2 does not belong to Ready
#2 is the left arm +hand+partial shoulder+partial left side torso of somebody.
That arm/shoulder/torso is facing fairly close to the same direction as Ready.
There is no human head attached to it unless you want to somehow convince others the head is cocked downwards. Good luck with that!!!
That arm/shoulder/torso is not in front of Ready
 #3 is an object in front of where Ready’s left shoulder connects to his arm
The only thing we should see in #3 is the rest of Ready’s shoulder/arm connection just as we see in the layered unaltered frame.
There should be nothing(because there was nothing) in front of Ready. I suggest watching the fade in/out very carefully at that moment.
#4 is Ready’s hand holding the QueenMary hand bar.
The unaltered frame also shows Ready holding the hand bar unobstructed. This is what one would expect when there is no obstruction  accounted for.

 

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!