Chris Bristow

The DT only has 3 columns of windows and none are lined up with the window. All are visible to the right of the TSB. Even if the photo is off by a couple of feet it does not even come close to lining the roof up with the 6th floor window. I would not spend any more time on this cause it just does not add up. If I were you I would drop it and find another interesting CT to explore. We have all had theories we liked that got shot down. Most theories do not pan out so we do more eliminating of theories than anything else.

Occasionally I hear a person say they have looked at the evidence on both sides and felt the case for the lone nut was overwhelming. I find a problem with this approach. Fundamental to the CT is the idea that the evidence has been altered. To make an unbiased inquiry you have to consider the possibility of a coverup. Before you can evaluate the evidence on face value you have to address the accusations of a coverup. You have to start by asking "Is there a large amount of credible circumstantial evidence of a coverup. That should include missing evidence or evidence that shows signs of tampering. It may include corroborated testimony by multiple witness that contradicts the official version. If you find little or no evidence of a coverup you can confidently evaluate the official story vs the CT. But if you decide there is strong circumstantial evidence then you can assign the likelihood of a possibility of a coverup. If you think there is an 80% chance of a coverup then there is you answer regarding the assassination. Assuming any smoking gun was hidden your 80% likelihood is the closest you will ever get to an answer. I always felt the testimony of the Parkland staff regarding a hole in the back of the head was strong circumstantial evidence. Of course every time you listen to a debate about it the facts change. You also hear crap about how they all capitulated to the WC so CASE CLOSED! Nothing more to see right? Well there is a lot to unpack about this capitulation like after 7 of them looked at the x-rays in 65' and said "well x-rays don't lie, we were all wrong". But then for the next 50 years they said there WAS a big hole in the back! So why did they lie that one time in 65'. Well saying there was a big hole would be to claim the autopsy was bungled or faked. In 65 this would have been an Earth shaking claim that would have been headlines around the world the next day and that is not a hyperbolic statement. It would have put the doctor who said it at the center of a huge controversy. It would affect them and there family for years to come. You would not make a decision like this without careful consideration yet they were shown the x-rays then minutes later they were in front of the press being asked for an opinion. considering the awkward position they were PLACED into that day and the fact they changed their story for the next 50 years, I think this 'capitulation' did not solve the controversy that started with their WC testimony. Another supposed 'case closed' event was the Nova doc in the 80's in which they "All" capitulated again. But it was mostly slightly of hand. They inferred that McClelland capitulated and then show a clip and if you don't listen closely you will hear McClelland say he agrees that the autopsy photo is correct. But listen closely and you realize he was not capitulating at all! He said he would agree with the photo as correct with the caveat that the only reason it does not show a hole in the back is because they are pulling the scalp up over the hole!! Yet many skeptics point to the Nova doc as case closed proof. When Dr Crenshaw published a book in the 80's he was criticized in the Journal of American Medical Association. They said he exaggerated his role in the emergency room and they had the gall to say that "We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Dr Crenshaw was even in the room that day." Well they went to far with this hit piece and got sued. That is because Nurse Henchcliffe and DR Curtis already testified at the WC that Crenshaw was in the room. Busted! But it gets even richer because Dr Baxter who took the lead in this attack article also testified to the WC about what other doctors were present. And the first one he mentions is Dr Crenshaw!! As you unpack the skeptics arguments regarding the Parkland staff they quickly fall apart. Another failing argument is that the doctors themselves said they never got a close look so they must all be wrong. One doctor suggested to Clark that they do open heart message but two other doctors said before you decide on that Dr Clark you need to see the head wound. Dr Clark looked at the head wound and decided the brain was too damaged for JFK to breath on his own. Based on this observation of the head wound Dr Clark decided not to do the open heart. So he made a major medical decision based on his observation. Dr Perry also said he did not do a "minute detailed" inspection of the wound and skeptics jump on this. But he includes that he just noticed a large avulsive wound of the right occipital parietal area. So not only does this show that he saw the large head wound in the back it proves that they did not need to do a detailed examination to verify the location of the wound as being in the posterior portion of the head. The WC testimony by 16 doctors about the hole in the back breaks down as follows. 6 were not specific about the location. Dr Dulany, Bashour and Dr White said "Head wound" Dr Curtis just said "Injury to cranial contents". Dr Hunt said she "did not get a chance to see the headwound" Dr Giesecko said the wound "went from the brow to the occiput" and he put it on the wrong side of the head. That leaves 10 doctors who were specific about the location. 3 doctors used either the term temporal or anterior or temporal parietal so they are in line with the official story. That is Dr's Baxter, Jenkins and Sayler. This leaves 7 doctors that said the hole was in the back of the head. 4 used the term occipital parietal. That was Dr's Perry, Peters. Akin and Carrico. Three doctors used the term "right posterior". Dr's McClelland, Jones and Clark. Four nurses testified at the WC. Nelson, Standridge and Henchcliffe were not specific but Nurse Bowron said "Back of head". So the final score from the WC is 8 staff members said back of head and 3 said temporal or anterior. Dr Dulany later gave a more specific location and said occipital parietal so you may want to add him to the hole in the back. Dr Sayler later contradicted his WC testimony and said it was in the back so you may want to throw him out. Dr Carrico testified that it was occipital parietal in both the WC and HSCA testimony. Then 15 years later he changed it!! Make of that what you will. Mark Twain said once that it is obvious to all that as our body gets old and decays our mental functions improve..... The ARRB provided more testimony from the Parkland staff in which Audrey Bell stated the wound was "Occipital parietal" and Nurse Hutton said "Back of the head". Dr Grossman and Crenshaw never testified but Grossman has stated the hole was temporal and Crenshaw who we discussed before said occipital parietal. Finally the ambulance driver Abrey Rike who helped put JFK in the casket he had provided said the wound was in the back. I left several people out who said they saw a hole in the back but for various reasons that puts their testimony in question I did not include them. That is Dr's Ledelitz, goldstritch and Seldin and nurse Tuhey. So when we take all the staffs statements into account the final score is 13 staff members saw the hole in the rear 4 staff members saw the hole in the temporal area 6 staff gave no specific opinion I should also note that 6 people at the autopsy also saw the hole in the back. And that many of the photos and notes taken went missing according to the two who provided the noted and photos. The x-ray tech Custer also stated the x-rays in evidence do not match what he took that day. In the end I think the Parkland staffs testimony is very strong circumstantial evidence. combine this with 6 autopsy staff coo-berating the hole in the back and the claims of evidence tampering of the x-rays, notes and photographs by Custer, Sibert and O'neill and I think you have plenty of circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on the official story. Here is a link to volume 6 of the WC with all the doctors testimony. I can provide page numbers to all the testimony regarding the location of the wound. CASE CLOSED as the skeptics like to say.

When I say the field of view is off by 2 feet I mean the DT appears two feet higher than the actual line of sight would show . So you can take the photo and imagine what it would look like. Now that is not two feet of height relative to the TSB that is two feet of the DT which being farther away appears smaller, so two feet is not much at all . The DT building would need to drop more like 10 feet to have the roof line up with the LOWER part of the snipers window. The top of the DT would have to line up with the open part of Oswald's window. There is no wiggle room left because we know fairly well the location and height of the Google earth camera which duplicates the B&L image Chris Davidson posted. Even considering the tolerances the shot is just not going to line up. If you could get someone to crouch down at JFK's head height while standing on the X on Elm and photograph the TSB you would have absolute final proof of the trajectory. However the since the camera height is shown in Google Earth and is consistently 9 feet above the ground in all street view images the only variable left is how many feet back from the X the google camera sat. From the street you can can compare your location with the lane markers to within a couple feet then you get out of street view and measure the lane marker from above. But even being 2 feet off would only change the DT buildings appearance by roughly 4 inches. It looks like it is case closed on this theory, I see no way to make it work.

I have been playing with this slope calculator. It is the easiest I found. Some require 2 graph points per location but since we usually know the 'run' length already it is not needed. https://www.blocklayer.com/riserun.asp One problem arises: if the bullet is traveling in a flat trajectory relative to Elm then it passes through the Queen Mary at the same 3.5 foot height as JFK's head. A 15 foot elevation at the DT building plus the slope of Elm which places JFK's head 9 feet below the DT gives a 24 foot elevation and would result in a 4.1 degree slope of Elm and the almost flat trajectory. So the shot would not work at a 15 foot elevation from the DT building because it would not clear the Cadillac limo. A height of 50 feet at the DT plus the 9 feet on Elm for a total drop of 59 feet to JFK would just clear the windshield of the Cadillac if that windshield is about 20 behind JFK and about 5 feet high.

I guess you mean it says a hundred and two in the map and then 110 in the link. Must be the tower that makes the difference. Or they just got it wrong. People agree that relative to JFK's head Oswald was 60 feet above him. But now I'm not fully confident that each floor in the TSB is 10 feet as is generally assumed. If it's 10 ft per floor on a 4-foot base and the TD building is 102 feet , then the theory is dead. if the floors were 12 feet it would still miss the lineup by a couple feet.

Colm, I made a mistake when I assumed the Dallas textile building to be the same height or close to the TSB. When I used Google Earth to check the line of sight from Elm Street back to the TSB things didn't line up. What I found is although both buildings are seven stories the Dallas textile is considerably taller. So using the street view I was able to position myself 20 feet East of the frame 313 X. The Google Earth camera was 9 feet off the ground which put it's line of sight 2 ft higher then Oswald's line to JFK. My view from there was nearly identical to The View in the photo Chris Davidson posted. Adjusting for being two feet higher would mean the Dallas textile building wood drop by about 1 foot as it relates to the TSB. So Chris Davidson's photo is only a foot or two off of the exact line of sight, vertical line of sight, that you're trying to determine. So if we picture the DT building a couple feet lower in relation to the TSB that gives you the real line of sight. And it looks like the building is still about 6 to 8 feet too high 4 a shooter on the roof to be able to look through Oswald window. Unless I've made a mistake again it looks like the headshot is impossible. If I knew the height of the DT building we could determine exactly where the line of sight hits the DT building but I couldn't find that factoid.

I'm not advancing a theory that the crossbar isn't there I just can't see it. It does make more sense, as someone mentioned, that a higher floor would be much better. I don't know if a fire escape would get in the way because it's so close to the shooter. The shooter could move 6 inches and the fire escapes position relative to Elm will change by 15 to 20 ft. So I don't think he'd have a problem getting around the fire escape

You do not need a drone. If you were to stand on the X on Elm Street and at a height that matches the back of JFK's head you would have the view that you need from the other side. Then you could use binoculars or a laser.

I don't know if there will be any specific facts to refute the theory unless the line of sight is incorrect. Otherwise it is simply the logistics that make this a non-starter. Some theories like Greer as the shooter or Nellie Connally are non-starters even on this site. And I think we are generally considered to be crazy conspiracy theorists here for the most part. I have no problem with that I'm more comfortable here than any other site. Facebook is a freaking xxxxshow! There are only two people in the limo that have not been accused of being the shooter, that's Lambchop and JFK himself. I've been tempted to float a JFK suicide Theory on Facebook just to see what happens. Oh and because the line of sight is just extending Oswald's line at frame 313 the trees would not be an issue, as we know it at 313 they were very much out of the way

In the comparison image on the right the bottom crossbar doesn't line up below the top two. It's a couple feet to the right. I don't know why. A few feet to the right in a 6 is a bit obscured by other stuff but it doesn't look like it's there.

The logistics of this Theory are too fantastic to be seriously considered. Sometimes extreme coincidences do happen. The fact that Oswald line of sight to Kennedy's head can be extended backwards out the East window is a moderate coincidence, in my opinion. The fact that it comes near to the water tower is not an extreme coincidence. You can't tell for sure exactly where it is on a north-south either. It is not an extreme coincidence that we can line up the frame 313 line of sight with a point on the building across the street. In fact the options on the roof go anywhere from being prone two standing up on top of the water tower. There is a point that lines up with frame 313 somewhere near the middle of that range but in a prone position I think it might be closer to frame 316 or 17. The last issue for me is that there are too many witnesses who know that there was a guy standing in the window shooting. This includes the two witnesses in the window directly below Oswald on the 5th floor.

Thanks I think it likely is the answer.

Looks like the fire escape. After identifying the X In the comparison photo I think I can see most of the X in a 6. At some point it's sort of turns into a roast shark test. The talk-to-text still has a lot a room for improvement, but I'll bet you know what I meant.

Yeah I see that structure inside the yellow Square in your photo and it does look like it's in the right place and would add some elevation needed to make the shot. As far as a diagram an overhead map of Dealey can show you that the limo would fit in to the field of view horizontally. For the vertical it would be nice to have a 3D program but short of that we can use the slope and verify the limo would have been visible f-313. Personally I think the limo must have stopped because of the corroborating witnesses around Chaney's ride forward to Chief Curry. The limo would have to stop to allow time for Cheney to get in front of it and then stop and have a conversation with Chief Curry. But David Andrews made a very important point. Multiple Witnesses saw someone standing in the window firing and that would have completely blown the Daltex Shooters View. Looking at the theory in the past I thought it was a fun one but not too realistic. Would have been much easier just to shoot from a window in the dal-tex in a direct line to the limo.

Ok so the slope angle from the nest to JFK's head was 13.5 to 13.9 degrees. If we extend that 130 foot to the DalTex it comes out to to 91feet above JFK's head. A person standing on the roof would only be a few feet short of what is needed. I know the floors are 10 feet but I don't know about the last floor to the roof. If it is 10 feet then the shooter would have to be on a ladder to get the last 3 or 4 feet. As far as the view to the left and right it looks like the limo would have been centered in that field of view. You have an interesting point about the limo stopping. The shooter would have to know in advance that it would stop and be aware of exactly where it would stop. Without that the shooter would be placing themselves in a horrible position in which the limo would only be a target for split second before they would be shooting though the window pane of Oswald's window. The high position of the Dal Tex roof would mean the top 7 to 10 inches of Oswald's window would not be visible. So even if the shooter shot through glass the limo would pass out of sight within a just over one and 1 and 1/2 seconds. That would be complicated by the horizontal part of the window frames blocking the view on both the windows he would be shooting through.

I always suspected that the rifle image on the 2nd or 3rd floor was actually part of the fire escape. The fire escape was removed years ago so Google Earth would not solve it. Until last week I never found a good enough image of it to make a comparison. Here is a clear image of the fire escape next to Alt 6. There is an X shaped cross bar marked and that is responsible for the rifle image. The new image was taken from a few feet to the left of Altgens position so it does not line up perfectly but I think it is still obvious

If the windows are 6 feet wide then the shooter would have had about a 3 foot wide view of the South window as he looked thru the East window from a 45 degree angle. The best I can figure is that would be about a 12 foot wide view of Elm at 313. The width of 2 limos would have fit into his field of view. But because the top window was closed and the bottom only half open the Dal Tex shooter would have only had about 1/4 the size of the horizontal field before he would be shooting thru glass. So the window of opportunity would be as little as 3 feet on Elm at 313. Even if I double that to allow for error, that is only 6 feet that the limo would travel from when it first appears at the bottom of the window. The shooter would only have about 1/3 of a second to track the limo and fire. Even if we double that to 2/3 it seems like an impossible task. It was noted that firing thru 2 windows from the Dal Tex would explain why the shooter waited till the limo was on Elm. But I was thinking just recently that if a shooter in the TSB fired at the limo on Huston the limo may have just accelerated straight down Huston and never turned on to Elm at all. If the shooter waits till the limo is on Elm then the limo can only escape by traveling all the way down Elm with no cover at all till the underpass. If the limo escaped by continuing North on Huston it would be out of sight from the TSB as soon as it crossed Elm.

Stephen, I compared the pupillary distance in about 20 photos of Oswald. I had been an optician for many years and measured over 10,000 patients PD's by hand. Oswald right eye sits 1 mm farther out from the bridge of the nose then his left eye. All of Oswald measurements were very accurate but I'm not saying that proves them to be real. Although in maybe half the photos Oswald's head was turned very slightly to the side by as little as 2°. That changes the pupillary distance significantly and you can take it into account. But you still end up with some guesswork. I used multiple pictures of myself and others to determine just how much to compensate for the slightly rotated head. I never found any big errors and the size of his Iris was always pretty consistent.

Joseph, the composite you posted in the other thread that was found in Marguerite's possession was obviously a composite but what is it in the photo you posted that would indicate it's a composite? I have heard people say that the left and right side of that face do not match in proportion but as far as I could tell that was simply because his head is looking a little to the left.

So 32, 33, 34, and 35 are all the same photograph with different contrast and possibly a different register like Joseph did with the photo from the newspaper? That's semicircular bright area over Oswald left shoulder is identical in all four.

John, I am definitely open to fakery in any image I look at, basically because I'm pretty convinced that the Stemmons pincushion issue put forth by Dr Costella demonstrates an actual case of fakery. I also posted a thread about a year ago about Oswald's lean in 133 a and I'm almost completely convinced that it represents a cut and paste. At the same time I can probably name about 30 claims of photographic fakery that can be debunked. I just took a look at Jack White's claim that he proved Mary Mormons position as shown in the Zapruder film does not match the line of sight in her photo. What I found was he based it on the position of a limo he placed on Elm Street at frame 313. He then overlaid Zapruder frame 312 to match the position of the limo. But I can now prove he had placed the limo in the wrong position. At least four feet farther east than it should have been. I have found most all of Jack White's claims we're not valid. And to go all conspiracy here I suspect his partner Gary Mack was actually there to screw up his investigations. That bad composite of Oswald may have been able to fool the DMV and maybe a passport application. But of course any composite in the backyard photos like that and we would have solid proof today that those photos are fake. Things in the backyard photos are debatable but no scientifically testable positive proof. I think they would have had to do a much better job on evidence or we would have busted them. I do believe there must be higher levels of technique and compositing of faces but I bet there's some severe limitations to it. That's a guess because we don't know what the CIA could do then or now

I don't see anything really weird about Ruby's hand or gun but shooting with the middle finger and pointing with the index finger an interesting technique. It looks like that is what he is doing from the length of his trigger finger and the knuckle of his index finger seems higher than the trigger. And he only shows two fingers on the grip. The lack of mic shadow makes sense since there is no mic there in the second photo. But since the shadow was caused by a flash it would not be present after the flash anyway. I think the mic could be retracted in less than a second especially since it may have been a fear reaction from being a few feet from the round going off. Ruby shuffled forward a foot or two in that time frame so I think there was easily enough time to pull up on the mic.

John, raincoat guy and the other guy are on opposite walls. Raincoat guy is on the wall to the right and the other guy is on the wall on the left. Notice their positions relative to Ruby. Raincoat guy is on Ruby's right while the other guy is on Ruby's left.

Wow that is interesting. It says Marguerite's files, did they mean Marina's files? Were these files brought from Russia? I would love to know the story on that. The photo must have been a practice run because it never would have passed inspection. The pupillary distance is way off, one ear is way lower than the other, the mouth is longer on one side, his left eye is lower than his right and his eyes line up with the ears differently on each side. I used to assume that if there were two Oswald's those two photos are of the same Oswald. But that wouldn't make sense if they would be placing two of them together. I can't see any reason to splice two photos of the same person together. That is very interesting indeed. For anyone looking closely at the photo I made you can ignore the lips. Rather than rotate both faces to vertical I got lazy and left them tilted. But the crop line down the middle of the face is a vertical line so it shows some errors by the time you get down to the lips.

I tried to composite the two photos just as an experiment and had some difficulties. The eyes are positioned correctly relative to each other but nothing else lines up. In the image below the ears won't line up because the Oswald on the right is tilting his head down ever so slightly. that slight tilt makes Oswald's eye line up below the top of the ear while in the left image his eye is above his ear. In the right image Oswald was looking about one degree to his right. That means in the original image the right side is about 10%+ larger then the left side in the horizontal while the vertical does not change. When you try and put the two together they are not a perfect match. You would also need the same lighting to composite two separate photos. Not saying it can't be done but you would need two photos were the head tilt and lighting match very closely. When you make a composite of two left or two right sides like David did above the head tilt does not matter but if the face is looking even one degree to the side it distorts it. If the face is looking to the right then the composite using the right side will have a wider face than the composite of the left side and pupillary distance will change. It is interesting that once you make a composite like that you create a face that has perfect symmetry and loose much of the personality.