Chris Bristow

Were the tramps found in the boxcars or the Pullman cars? I noticed in the 2nd McIntyre photo of the Queen Mary at the Stemmons on ramp, you can see the signal tower and the boxcars are not under it yet. So I guess they did not arrive till Bowers reopened the yard to traffic.

This thru the scope shot from the movie "Inside The Target Car" is a misrepresentation. They placed the limo at Z313 instead of 223. If they had placed the limo correctly it would be about 3 feet higher and 100 farther away. We would see more of JFK's head, maybe 3 or 4 more inches of his head. If it was a level shot from the overpass or the annex parking lot the shot would have passed about 2 feet above and right of Altgen's head. That is only about 1 degrees steeper angle than we see from Altgen's location and height. I would guess most of JFK's head was a clear shot to a south knoll shooter The window tint would have obscured a view of JFK's face but the top of the window frame would likely not be in the way.

John. when the limo is turning onto Elm the trajectory moves across the TSB but I don't think it gets as high as the second floor. When it is still in the intersection the limo is level. It does not start down the Elm slope till after the crosswalk. It is hard to tell just exactly where Elm gets to a full 3.5 degrees slope but from the intersection there is no shot from the Triple overpass. The angle from the windshield hole to JFK's would be about 3 degrees and extending that angle to the overpass puts it around 30 feet above the tracks. Very rough estimate.

John, here is an image I posted on a different thread from this sight. It shows the angle from the limo to the knoll form overhead. You can redraw that line on an overhead map and see where it lands. I'm at my limit for images on this sight at the moment. I really mean it when I say you can't find a direction from a photo that is not above looking down. That is a hard core rule so none of the attempts to draw a line to the knoll will ever work. A diagonal line across the image will not denote height not N,S,E,W. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26726-anyone-care-to-disprove-this-throat-shot-scientific-theory-from-the-south-knoll/?tab=comments#comment-429430 SCROLL DOWN TO THE MAP. The train reported by the cop on the West side of the overpass is interesting but hard to accept. The disappearing train in the train yard is explainable. From the top of the plaza around 430 HASL you can see the train in the yard, but by the time you are around the Stemmons sign maybe 421 HASL you can no longer see the train. I did lines of sight and verified the wall hides the train in the yard below around 420 feet above sea level. I know you posted a tread on the train seen on the overpass in a photo but to my mind it was the background not a train. It is also very hard to place the gunman up in the annex parking lot without stretching the numbers on the vertical angle of the trajectory thru the windshield. A gunman in the train would be even higher. I originally placed the gunman there till I saw David Lifton's results that put the trajectory down on the commerce sidewalk. I re examined my result and found a mistake. After that I agreed with Lifton's results. My mistake was based on the limo being at 45 degrees from West. I assumed that if the slope of the plaza was 4 degrees when pointed directly West and zero if the limo pointed South(South would mean the limo was sideways in the plaza and then the 4 degrees would only be a side to side lean. I assumed at 45 degrees the slope would be half. 2 degrees forward angle and 2 degrees side to side. But that is wrong. If a limo started the motion when facing directly West then swung the car toward the South the front would trace 45 degrees of a circle. 45 degrees of arc as it turns from West to South.) When it starts the limo the front of the limo is moving move South, then after it pasess the 45 degree point it starts moving more East than South. The result is the direction of the limo does not change from West to South in a consistent manner. It starts slow the increases it change of slope after the 45 degree mark. So at the throat shot the limo faced 45 degrees ssouth of West but the slope only decreased by one degree. One degree is about 14 feet difference at the South knoll. So the drops the shooter location down to the Commerce sidewalk. There was a documentary recently about both shots coming from the Annex parking lot but they never get into calculating the shooters height o I don;t know their thinking on the issue. Here is that doc on Youtube.

I have considered the truck on Commerce before but I was talking about a truck in the Annex parking lot. Your line in the Z film won't be right unless you are above. If you drew a line from his throat thru Kellerman's head and out thru the passenger side it would look exactly like the line you drew. You can't represent a N.S.E or W line from the side, has to be from overhead to be correct

And there was no Blimp either! I have mapped out the trajectory to a fairly high degree. Using a side view from the motorcade to get the height difference between JFK's throat and the windshield gives the rise. (Actually it sort of gives the run too so just drawing a line from the hole to JFK gives the slope angle.) Altgens view did not allow for a measurement of the run. I am correcting myself here, some photos do allow an estimate for both run and rise measurements. I used an overhead diagram to get the lateral track from the hole to JFK. The trajectory plots back to the South knoll where the underpass meets the Commerce st sidewalk. It may be possible to place the shooter about 14 feet higher(About one degree difference in the Trajectory) which would be a level shot from the Annex parking lot. The Sun is behind you and the limo is at its closest point to moving straight at the shooter at 223. If the shooter was prone in the back of a covered truck that was backed into the northern side of the parking lot it would have been great cover. Plus the truck could just pull out and be Southbound on Huston in seconds. Problem is you have to stretch things a bit to get the trajectory to come from a place that high. As to the strange sight lines you got from A6 and the Hughes film it is due to the lack of information available in those 2d images. The a6 image does give us the distance from the hole to JFK and without both the correct rise and RUN you will not get an accurate slope angle. Consider that Altgens was standing only about ten feet left of the bullet trajectory. Imagine if Altgens had fired the bullet himself and it came from his camera lens at the moment he took the photo, what would the trajectory line look like? It would be a single dot!! No line at all. The rise would be visible to you but you would see none of the run.

Well there are 2 things represented by the red line, slope angle from the windshield to JFK and the direction the shot comes from. To get the slope angle you need the distance from the windshield to JFK and the height diff between the hole and JFK's throat. That is the run and and rise. But this photo can't show us the distance between the windshield and JFK(run) it only gives the rise. So a line from hole to JFK won't be correct. If the photo was taken from a position perpendicular to the trajectory from windshield hole to JFK it would show the correct slope. The other thing we can't measure from Altgens position is the horizontal line from windshield to JFK which would lead back to the shooters location in the South knoll. from an overhead view you could draw a line that would accurately reflect the horizontal track from Windshield to JFK because from overhead you can see the true distance from JFK to the windshield and you can see the actual horizontal angle from JFK to the windshield. So just like the rise and run of a line that slopes downward(Like from Oswald to the limo), you need two measurements to get the horizontal line correct. The dist to JFK from the windshield and how far to the side of the hole is he sitting. That is the same as the rise and run of a vertical slope but in the vertical you need height and distance(Rise and run), and for the horizontal you need dist from JFK to hole and dist from JFK to the side of the hole within the limo(Run and rise) except in this case the rise is a horizontal measurement across the limo. So you would draw a line from the windshield hole straight back parallel to the length of the limo. Then measure the distance from were that line hits the back seat to JFK to get the rise which in this case is a horizontal measurement so I guess you could call it travel or something since it does not actually ruse up.

Some have said the bullet hole is an image of a Croft ladies handbag. I think I can see the very top of the bag and a bit of the right edge. The copy of the croft bag I have is lousy. You can barley make out that the bag is made up of white squares surrounded by brown stripes. The upper right corner of the bag is a white square. In a-6 I have red lines pointing to the white squares. it is not much to look at but they are in the correct spot and size to be her handbag. If that is the top of the handbag the bullet hole is too low and a bit to far right to be her handbag. The bullet hole is dark in the center and surrounded by white which is the opposite of the handbag. The white part of the bullet hole is also too large and too round to be part of the handbag. In the lower left corner is an image of a bullet hole fired from the right. It leaves a crack running through the hole at the same angle as the Alt6 image. The middle image of bullet holes through the blueish windshield are also from the right and they leave holes that are shaped like Mickey Mouse ears or you could say it is heart shaped. The Alt6 image has the same basic shape although Mickey's left ear is faded and a bit harder to see. I really find it compelling that the Alt7 image is in the correct spot as John Butler pointed out, The line extending from the bottom of the crack is also correct.

Officer Chaney claimed as soon as JFK was hit in the head he rode forward 300 feet to Curry's car to inform him that JFK was shot and to divert to Parkland. The Nix and Z film contradict Chaney, they shows Chaney pulling to a stop and Curry leaving the plaza without Chaney ever riding up. The problem is Chaney's ride forward to Curry has multiple witnesses. I posted some facts about this a year ago but I wanted to detail all the absurdities surrounding Mack's impossible story. First the witnesses. 1. Hargis said Chaney "dropped it in first gear and rode forward. 2. Chief Jesse Curry (in lead car, in front of the Presidential limousine), April 15, 1964: “I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at the time, and I didn’t know—I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this was followed by two more reports, and at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the President’s caravan and realized that proba- bly something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up be- side us and I asked if something happened back there and he said, ‘Yes,’ and I said, ‘Has somebody been shot?’ And he said, ‘I think so.’ ” [Warren Commission testimony: 12H28] 3. Winston Lawson (Secret Service agent, in the lead car ahead of the Presi- dential limousine), April 23, 1964: “... I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us, and mentioned that the Presi- dent had been hit.” [Warren Commission testimony: 4H353] 4. Forrest Sorrels (Secret Service agent, in the lead car in front of the Presi- dential limousine), May 7, 1964: “Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, ‘Let’s get out of here’ and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President’s car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lurch forward. And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Com- mission testimony: 7H345] 5. Officer Starvis also verified that saw and heard Chaney ride forward and give the message to Curry. Five credible witnesses saw this happen so why might the films not reflect this? Well IF a limo stop was removed from the films they would have to remove Chaney's ride forward too. Without a short limo stop there is no way for Chaney to get ahead of the limo enough to have a conversation with Chaney before the limo overtakes him. Sometime in the 80's Gary Mack came forward with an explanation. He said several of the people involved, I think it was Chaney, Curry and Hargis? came to him separately and said the meeting between Chaney and Curry actually happened on the on ramp to the Stemmons after they left the plaza. But when you unpack this absurd explanation it stinks. If Chaney remained in the plaza what would he have seen and heard? 1. At the head shot agent Kinney(Driving the Beast) radios " President shot Get to Parkland and turns on his siren" 2. Jackie is on the trunk and Hill jumps on limo. 3. Limo starts to speed away. Kellerman gives 2nd emergency radio call. 4. Hargis runs across the street with gun drawn. 5. Curry sees the limo racing towards him and floors his Galaxy 500( a extra hot production engine) 6. The limo and Curry race out of the plaza together. Absurd fact 1. Chaney decides that he must go catch Curry to tell him that JFK was shot and most important that we should divert to Parkland! But the fact that Curry and the limo are racing away combined with the radio calls and siren should tell Chaney they already know! 2. So Chaney proceeds to chase after Curry and Mack said the Mcintyre photo shows him(If it is Chaney) to be 800 feet back from Curry. So he should expect to catch up somewhere down the Stemmons freeway. But if Chaney can see Curry and the limo speeding towards the on ramp would he not get a clue that the motorcade is racing to Parkland? 3. Chaney is trying to deliver the most important and time sensitive message he will likely ever give yet instead of using his radio he decides to chase them down the freeway. If the radio had been to busy to get through it would have been talk about getting to parkland which would have told Chaney that everyone was already informed. 4. Lucky for Chaney(According to Gary Mack) the motorcade came to halt on the on ramp just long enough for him to catch up and tell curry JFK had been shot and to divert to Parkland. Now it is likely true that the motorcade did stop there for a second. It is supported by hoffman who said there was a big delay before he saw the limo on the on ramp and two newer witnesses who said the limo stopped because Jackie tried to jump out! Maybe a delayed flight reaction to the bullets landing so near her? The absurd part is Mack's explanation as to why they stopped. He said that Curry said he did not know if anyone was hit(Since Chaney never told him in he plaza) so he stopped to see if anyone was hit! So the president may be hit but you are going to stop and check him out?? SS agents, not doctors are going to waste time checking his clothing and looking for bullet holes in his body? I believe the protocol when shots are fired is to go straight to the hospital and then determine if he needs care. Mack gave a second part of the explanation and said since Greer didn't know how to get to parkland Curry stopped to make sure he knew. How is Greer going to get lost with Curry and several motorcycles right in front of him? You usually get separated by getting caught at a red light or the driver in front doesn't check the rear view enough. What is completely absurd about both explanations is not just that Curry would not stop, he had a radio and could have addressed both issues without ever stopping. On top of all that Curry's testimony makes it clear he spoke to Chaney in the plaza. Chaney also said he clearly heard two people yell "Get to Parkland from the limo when the limo caught him under the triple overpass. Hill and Greer or Kellerman verified they were the ones yelling "Get to Parkland" when they caught Curry under the Triple overpass. So why would Curry need to stop to check if anyone was hit after they are screaming "Get to Parkland"? The first radio call also stated JFK was shot. Gary Macks story is a total mess. The only logical conclusion is he lied when he said they all came to him independently and gave this same nonsensical story.

I was glad to see they pointed out the different perspectives of Alt 6 and 7 with regard to the location of the windshield hole relative to the mirror. They also noted how the Sun reflected through the hole in Alt 7 which obscured the hole with glare. In addition the view of the hole in Alt 7 would have been an oval as opposed to Alt 6 which would be much closer to round and more visible. It is definitely thought provoking but there were some mistakes too. At 31:40 they show the 25 degree line to the shooter from a near overhead view. They compare it to a Z film frame in which an insert shows another 25 degree blue line over JFK's head to indicate that he is looking 25 degrees left. It is an unworkable comparison because the near overhead view is a measure of direction(N,S,E,W) but the blue line they laid over the Z frame insert has almost nothing to do with the 4 directions. Z was filming from a position much closer to horizontal so the blue line represents a measure of change of height not direction. I wish we had a photo through a scope to a matching limo from the South knoll position. There are some variables that are pretty subtle. They placed the hole at 50 inches and that looks like the half way point of the windshield viewed from the side. But it looks like the hole was about 6 /10th of the way up from the bottom of the windshield, maybe. One big variable is just how much a bullet will deflect downward as it passes through the windshield. Every degree of deflection would mean the shooter position would have to be 6 feet lower. They put the shooter up in the parking lot but two degrees difference would put him on the sidewalk of Commerce St. 3 degrees deflection and there is no place for a shooter above ground. Another hard calculation for me was finding the inclination of the limo. Going straight down Main a limo would incline the full 3 1/2 degree slope of the plaza. The limo was actually going at a 45 degree angle to the Westward slope at Z223. But being at 45 degrees does not mean the slope was cut in half. The change of slope from 3.5 to zero as a car would change direction from due West to Due South is not consistent. It starts slow and so the limo facing 45 degrees South of West meant the slope was reduced by only about 25%. The slope was roughly 2.6 degrees. That combined with approximations of JFK's neck height and the windshield hole and especially the amount of bullet deflection make it hard to really tell if the shot would work. I think the distance from the windshield to the neck was 4 feet? That would mean every degree of change would alter the position on JFK's neck or the windshield. by .8 inches vertically or the shooters position by 6 feet vertically. I think many of us have used the official overhead drawing of the limo before and it is most helpful in finding the trajectory angle,,, I thought!! Look at the image below of the overhead drawing, the model, and the side view. Most of it lines up but the windshield is too far forward in the overhead and in the model. I drew two lines plotting the trajectory on the overhead drawing that depicts both possible angles from both windshield locations. They vary by two degrees so a bit more ambiguity. That only moves the shooter 12 feet left or right , it is not a deal breaker. But the variation in vertical angles like the bullet deflection could place the shooter down on the street which seems impossible since there is no cover. However there was a covered truck on Commerce which could have allowed for a shooter hidden at street level, maybe.

Yes the images used for those cutouts are Dallas PD photos 140 and 141. The shadows at the bottom of the screen door are a match. Those photos were also taken from a position a couple feet to the left and the camera was very low compared to the Backyard photos. Lt Brown duplicated the 133c stance for one of the photos but the cutout was made from Oswald's image in 133c. A cutout of LT Brown is a very different shape than Oswald in 133c. Stovall and Roscoe White had made personal copies of 133c, so it is no surprise that Roscoe White, who supervised the Dallas PD backyard photos, had access to 133c in order to duplicate the stance Oswald's stance in 133a. Besides rotating the images to an incorrect position whoever did it also tried to match Oswald's height to the roof line in the background like the real 133c. But because the camera was lower than the real BY photos the roof line lines up much lower relative to the post next to Oswald. aligning his head with the roof line caused his feet to be placed a bit lower. That would mean Oswald was standing a little closer than 133c. But that also means he should appear larger or taller relative to the top of the post next to him. He should have gained a couple inches in size but he shrunk.

Ya I remember the day I learned about all her CIA connections I just kept shaking my head.

Yes there is a photo of the back of his house, I think in New Orleans. It is a great example of pincushion distortion. The roof is curved down and the sides of the patio curve in. Skeptics point to the tests done on Oswald's Imperial reflex camera as showing proof the backyard photos are taken with his camera. Ok fine but if Oswald was being set up then they could have acquired his camera to make the Backyard photos. I believe it was in the possession of his brother prior to the assassination. If Ruth Paine's father was affiliated with the CIA through the SAID? project, and her mother was on the CIA payroll in Irvine CA, and her sister was a Psychologist in Langley,VA, we may assume that if there was a CIA plot and Ruth Paine was a CIA operative very close to The Oswald's they would have been able to get there hands on the Imperial reflex camera.

As to the photos being fake or real I don't have a hard opinion. I can't explain the stance at all and it is very suspicious to me. The shoes don't impress me much. Shoes like that were very common and I can't see anything about them that is unique. If 100 people tried to match all the parameters of his stance including his hips being forward and completely failed(And those people had a 30 inch inseam which is weird for a guy 5'9") I would be 99% convinced the stance is a photoshop.

The biggest shadow issue seems to be the nose shadow which would suggest the Sun is at high noon. But a shadow will also fall directly below the nose when you are facing in the direction of the Sun, toward the azimuth. The azimuth was approx 235. That means Oswald was facing about 13 degrees away from the Sun. If Oswald was facing 90 degrees away from the Sun the shadow angle on his nose would match the Sun's elevation which was about 49 degrees. Turn 90 degrees and face the Sun and the angle under the nose shrinks to zero. So a 90 change of direction would show a 49 degree change in the nose shadow from 49 to zero. Also the change as you go from zero to 90 degrees is not an even consistent change. It ends up close to about .8 degrees shadow change per degree of head rotation. So 13 degrees x .8 =10.4 degrees of shadow angle under Oswald's nose is the most we should find. But there are a couple more factors. Oswald's head is looking about 2 degrees to his left so although the shadow is centered on the philtrum the tip of his nose is not. Drawing a line from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow reveals 4 degrees of shadow angle visible. Secondly you can achieve the same zero angle alignment by tilting your head toward the Sun on the vertical axis as by rotating your head on a horizontal plane. So if I tilt my head to 49 degrees to match the Sun's elevation the sun's shadow angle under the nose goes to zero. Oswald has his head tilted 4 degrees and that accounts for(Cancels out) 4 more degrees of shadow angle. Finally because his head is looking 2 degrees left(Towards the Sun) we can subtract 2 degrees from the 10.4 degrees which leaves 8.4 degrees to account for. 4 degrees are measurable under his nose and 4 more cancelled out by the head tilt accounts for the 8.4 degrees of shadow. Another weird shadow is the one with the steep angle just below and behind the 2nd floor landing. It is caused by the South side of that landing. Or at least when I duplicated the azimuth and elevation relative to the faux landing I made from paper it duplicated that shadow's angle and location relative to the landing. Oswald's extra large head was explained by the WC? or HSCA? as being due to magnification that occurs as you tilt the camera plane down which moves the head image upward to a higher more distorted location. This does occur but in the test they moved a dummy head from center to almost the top of the frame. That is more than double the Backyard images. The magnification should also distort the face, stretching it and narrowing it at the bottom. So I find those tests questionable. I find Jack Whites idea that the same backgrounds were used and keystoned to make them appear slightly different is wrong. The place were the roof in the background meets the top of the post next to Oswald is different in each image. you can compress, stretch and distort the position of objects but you cannot cause the place where the roof meets the post to change. The roof and post sharing the same location in the image would cause both to distort and move together. All the other objects near there would also have to be hugely distorted to create the change of the roof to the post that we see. I have heard the use of stereoscopic viewers verifies that the Backyard photos are real. That method can be used to test the background but not Oswald as he was in a different posture in each photo. Maybe I am missing something there, I don't know. There are a a lot of smaller issues like the cut off fingers, the ring and wristwatch, that I don't have an opinion on other than maybe shadows make those objects visible in one photo and not the next. The leaning is the only thing that really baffles me. I believe I have found two errors in the Dartmouth computor simulation of Oswald's stance. They claimed to prove his stance as stable to within a 99.8 % probability. But the 1st error I found drops it to about 83% probability and the second error takes it down to around a 55% likelihood. Here is the Essay on the Dartmouth study. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26039-dartmouth-and-the-study-of-oswalds-lean-in-133a/

Ray, that shadow is the longest one in the photo. It starts in the Southwest corner of the lot at about 18 feet from Oswald and 20 feet in the air. The full shadow length was about 26 ft. 26x2 gives the diameter x 3.41 gives a 163 ft circumference for a circle with a 26 ft radius. divide 163 by 360 degrees and you get .45 ft(5.4 inches) of shadow movement or per degree for a 26 ft shadow length. Using the width of the post's West face at 3.5 " as a yardstick, the shadow moves about 7 inches. That is about 1 1/4 degrees of movement. Around 4:30pm on 3/31 in Dallas the Sun moved about 8/10th of a degree in 5 minutes. It would have taken the shadow about 7 or 8 minutes to move those 7 inches. I put the time of day around 4:30pm because the azimuth had to be between 230 and 235 for the shadow behind the post to lead to the post on the Northwest corner of the platform at the 2nd floor. The elevation at that time was 48 degrees. EDIT: I forgot something. The measure of 3.5 inches for the post is incorrect. It would be right if Marina's view was right in front of the post but being off to the side the 3.5 inch measurement shrinks. rough guess is I should shave about 30% off that so the time between 133c and 133a is closer to 5 minute or a little less.

I looked at the shadows in 133a and eventually concluded that they all seemed to have rational explanations. But I always felt the lean was hard to understand. If you try to vertically align the right shin, knee and about one inch from the button on the pants, and limit your right foot to a 40 degree angle and your hips to around 35 degrees, it becomes very painful and very awkward. It really is a mystery why he would stand right at the tipping point. Why the hell would he assume such a painful stance? Later I found that the shadow of the telephone lines crosses his hips at an angle 9 degrees off of the same shadow on the ground. This shadow angle tells you where his hips were facing and it turns out Oswald had his hips turned almost directly at the camera. I estimate his hips could be angled no more than 8 degrees from the camera. If his hips were even at 11 degrees we would see a 4 degree difference between the shadow on his hips vs the ground. I find putting the hips at 30 degrees to be almost impossible and at 20 degrees I am already falling over. Here is a link to the essay I did last year. It details the entire issue. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25645-duplicating-oswalds-stance-in-133a/ In the image below the graphics on the left represent overhead views of the image to their right. The only difference between the top and bottom set is the top one shows Oswald facing West and the bottom set shows Oswald with his hips turned directly toward the camera. The shadow on the laptop represents the shadow on the ground and the shadow on the cardboard box represents the shadow across Oswald's hips. The elevation of the Sun and the azimuth relative to Oswald and Marina have been duplicated

For what it is worth I mapped out the trajectory of the supposed shot from the back of the pergola in Nix 40. (The window is actually in the walkway section next to the pergola). A shot from that window does not clear the wall behind Zapruder. To map it out I used a height of 432.6 HASL for the shooter. 426.6 + 6' for the rifle height( Maybe a few inches too high but that makes it extra fair). For JFK I used the HASL at 313 of 418' + 3'.6" = 421.6" head height(Again to be extra fair because JFK was 10 West and about 8 inches lower at Nix frame 40). That is an 11' rise and a 107' foot run. for each foot the bullet travels it would drop 1.2 inches. The little wall behind Zapruder is 30 feet from the shooter position so the bullet would have dropped 36 inches by the time it reaches the wall. That wall is the same height as Zapruder's pedestal at 430.6 HASL and the shooter height is 432.6. So the bullet would drop 3 feet and strike the wall at 429.6 which is one foot below the top of that wall. The shooter in Nix frame 40 would not have had a shot.

I think his head starts to moves back just before it disappears behind Hill. The rest is hidden by Hargis, Moorman and Hill. Lately I question whether he moves back AND LEFT. JFK is already leaning left at almost 45 degrees so I don't know if he goes left or just straight back from a leftward position. Some also claim a shot from the drain because JFK moves upward as if hit from below. But I would think if you are forced backwards from a hunched forward position you torso would naturally unfold and so rise up as it fell back. I think the force would naturally push his upper body back and that would straighten the torso.

I haven't fully grasped the implications of the elevation and timing differences but it is more subtle then the positions of Moorman and Hill. Hill and Moorman are actually in the correct positions when you consider the different positions of Muchmore and Zapruder.

Exhuming Governor Connally would tell us if the Dallas surgeon was correct when he said he left up to three grains of lead in Connelly's wrist. They left it there because it may do more damage to have to cut through all the tissue required to get to it. But if there was three grains of lead then the total amount of fragments found would add up to more than one Magic Bullet. That would be a Smoking Gun that proves a second shooter. So I also have to agree with Terry that they'll never let us exhume him.

I wonder about his Stetson because he was holding it in a way that would make it hard for the magic bullet to exit his wrist from the dorsal side as claimed without hitting his hat on it's way to his thigh.

Some of the most convincing testimony involving the limo stopping relates to Chaney's ride forward to tell Chief Curry that the president had been mortally wounded. The Zapruder film and the Orville Nix film contradict Chaney's claim that he rode forward after the headshot. But if the limo stop had been taken out they would have to take out Chaney's ride forward too. There would be no time for Chaney to ride forward and stop at Curry's car to have a chat. Because Chaney's claim was corroborated by Hargis, Chief Curry, Sorrels, Winston and I believe Stovall it is fairly compelling evidence that the films were altered, that the limo stop and Chaney's ride were removed

Thanks for the input. That's a nice clear image of the logo.

Does anyone know what the initials are(Looks like VS) on the towel under JFK's head on the blue part of the towel? Also was the gallery on a second floor looking down on the scene as other galleries? And for anyone who wants to strain their eyes you can see some of the room reflected in the chrome head brace in the photo that shows the phone in the background. Looks like you can make out a bowl and maybe cabinets.