Chris Bristow

12 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Both parties were more than qualified to determine whether the pleura was punctured. Which is why I think a cover-up appears more likely than a mistake.

Cyril wecht made a big deal out of the fact that Humes was a desk jockey who had little experience in autopsy. I think the Skeptics would seize on this as a reason that dr. Humes might have made a mistake. I wouldn't know how to answer that claim without having some medical knowledge myself. So I'm in the woods on this, I just don't know what to think.

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

I've looked up a few more examples from combat veterans and they generally do say that there is a feel to it, even in the midst of general shooting...from the air movement.  So what does that tell us about the security detail...based on the official story how close where the bullets passing?   And of course there were impacts inside the presidential limo....impacts into bone, and supposedly fragment denting chrome.  Did anybody mention "feeling" bullets pass them or hearing any impacts...you would almost think as eager as they were to support the official story you would get some remark....Kellerman talks about a salvo of bullets coming into the limo,  was he commenting about hearing shots and didn't sense any impacts inside the car?

Somewhere I read Connelly or Kellerman said they heard the sound of JFK's head getting hit I think he described it as being like a watermelon. I have heard ricochets land near me and they make more noise than a regular bullet because of their tumbling or being deformed. When we were very young and dumb an idiot friend of mine walked up to a nickel on the ground and fired his 22 from about 3 inches away. I felt a sting across the front of my stomach and found something grazed me and left a little blood. I never heard anything but it was only like five feet away so any sound would have been obscured by the initial shot. I kept my distance after that but by the end of the day another friend of mine had pretty much the exact same injury as I did. If you went to one of those crazy uncontrolled shooting places in in the Foothills outside of Los Angeles in the 70s there would be goddamn people everywhere not to mention a lot of people had beer

When Kellerman said the last rounds came in as a flurry he must have been referring to the sound or feeling of bullets entering the limo. I guess when Greer said the last rounds came in almost simultaneously he must have been referring to the same phenomena. Don't know if they meant the sound of them coming in or the sound of them impacting or that feeling of a shock wave but it must have been one of those three.

7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

At least fourteen medical professionals from Parkland made statements indicating that tubes were inserted into the pleural cavity. Bethesda's Humes and Boswell, however, claimed there was no tear in the pleural cavity. So I think H&B may have been lying about the internal injuries they found in Kennedy's body.

Okay I get the basic idea, thanks. I feel like I would need a lot more medical knowledge to formal educated opinion on this one

5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

In my opinion, the chest tube problem is an even more compelling difference between Parkland and Bethesda.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/druq3a/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_6_chest_tubes/

I got through part of that article. Definitely not a quick read. I'll save it and sort it out later. Can you give a short summary of this? A page or a paragraph or a sentence that sums it up

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Interesting analysis, Chris, thanks for sharing it.

I once did a breakdown of the Parkland observations based on @Vince Palamara 's book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda", I'll have to see if I can find it again and compare notes. One of my main takeaways was that every medical professional at Parkland who observed Kennedy's anterior neck wound prior to the tracheostomy described it at the time as one of entrance. If I recall correctly only one doctor later wavered and said it could have been an entrance or an exit wound. Everyone else stuck to their story. And this story of an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's neck was so well known early on that Life magazine reported incorrectly that the (at the time still unseen by the public) Zapruder film showed Kennedy turned around in his seat and facing the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

In my opinion, part of the problem with assessing the evidence of a cover-up before making a judgement on the possibility of conspiracy is that "they" have tried to float the idea of a "benign cover-up" - that they were trying to cover their reputations after the fact, not hide their criminal behavior beforehand. The government agencies or entities that appear to have covered certain things up were simply embarrassed by their appearance of negligence prior to the assassination, so after the assassination they fudged things behind the scenes to make themselves appear less negligent. This was a theory Newsweek magazine tried to pitch in the '90's as a way of explaining what seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating a cover-up.

I assumed when they were pitching the benign cover up they weren't acknowledging a big hole in the back of the head. It seems you couldn't acknowledge that and still call it benign since it implies another shooter and a falsified autopsy. Unless they were saying the benign cover-up included faking some of the autopsy?

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

The Secret Service agents in the Queen Mary testified to rifle reports, but not to bullets passing over their heads.  We can doubt their candor, but Altgens 6 doesn't show agents reacting to shots traveling through their airspace.

That does bring up some interesting points. Since Oswald's height above JFK was about 1/4 of the distance to JFK the trajectory of the bullet would be gaining one foot in altitude for every 4 feet you trace it backwards from JFK. So if the guys in the back seat of the Cadillac we're 25 ft back from JFK the bullet would be about six feet higher than JFK's head as it passed over them. So JFK's head is about 3 to 3 and 1/2 feet off the ground add 6 feet to that and the bullet is about 10 ft in the air. Elm Street raises up about a foot. So subtract 1 foot from the 10-foot altitude of the bullet and the round was about nine feet off the ground when it passed over the back seat of the Cadillac. So how high were those people sitting on the back of the seat? About 6 feet Maybe? So even with Oswald shooting from the TSB the round would have been about three feet over their heads. That's pretty close. Not to divert to a different subject but if the shot through the windshield was real it would have had to have passed within a couple inches a John Connelly's left ear. Actually half the time I calculated the trajectory hit passed through Connolly's head so I'm being generous. He did flip his hat around in a weird way right after emerging from the Stemmons Freeway sign but never mentioned anything about a bullet passing close.

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.
 

41 minutes ago, Colm Byrne said:

I can't thank you guys enough for taking the time to read into this theory, it sure will save me a lot of time, effort, and money,  if the possibility can be fully determined before moving onto the next stages, of actual on site visits

To the eye it looks very possible at least for the 2nd & 3rd shots, and even from this photo of an area model, with the roof water tower omitted,  but I suppose without going up there we are not going to be accurate to exact precision.

If field of view is only out by 2 feet, in these off site judgments then perhaps taking the real on site calculations might be worth the shot.

What are your opinions on me taking this chance please? does the line of fire seem to be off? and if it is indeed a  possibility, we then only have another massive coincidence, in a case already full of them, but this said it would in actual fact contradict the official findings of the alleged 6th floor window as being the only scenario for the trajectories

 

 

.

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.

On 3/27/2020 at 6:38 AM, John Butler said:

Excellent point.  I apply this also to the 2nd and 3rd floor corner offices near Houston of the TSBD.

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. 

7 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

One or the other ???

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_877.pdf

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.

10 hours ago, John Butler said:

The first floor window is open or it has been darkened.  The simpler idea is there is nothing there including no crossbars.  Why?

The first and second floor windows at the fire escape would be a bad choice for a shooter.  Wouldn't you have to shoot through the fire escape to hit a target on Elm Street?  Shooting form these windows doesn't make sense when you have many others to choose from.  The guy on the steps really does look like a spotter or coordinator just like the Danny Arce appearing character on the street.

There are so many things that can be challenged in Altgens 6 it is hard to take it seriously.  The Dal-Tex building does not appear to be manipulated as the rest of Altgens 6.

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

12 minutes ago, Colm Byrne said:

Thanks guys it's great to get a bit of help, with such things like finding and posting this photo, also even the slightest suggestion, can guide, to taking it to the next level

I have taken advice, as mentioned here, and have asked for permission to Dallas city for  flying a drone above the Dal Tex roof, perhaps I might not need the TSBD to get this theory verified just yet, as precise calculations probably can be taken without looking through the windows for the exact field of fire view.

The window being closed at 1pm does not change the possibility of the theory,  by the time those cops got on scene anyone could have replaced a glass pane with a couple of tacks or a bit of putty, or even closed the whole frame in a split second, as a lot of fixers were around the building laying the floors.

If I can get some filming of the area, from a height where that old tower on the roof was, then this would be a good start, it might not require and traffic disruption,

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.

57 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Why waste my time?  Someone needs to counter this ridiculous nonsense.  Live oaks shed there leaves in March or April as they grow new ones is just a small part of your problem.  Like added distance.  Really?  Further away, through now two windows flew Arlen Specter's Magic Pristine bullet.  Bologna. 

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.

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks Chris. I think you have debunked this rifle theory.

 

Thanks I think it likely is the answer.

57 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It's hard to say.  Looks like part of the fire escape.

Sure you are not confusing that with this:

The window is open with some sort of curtain or mesh screen loose at the bottom.  One other windows looks this way.

 

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.

24 minutes ago, Colm Byrne said:

 

 

Thanks again for the interesting projections/measurements it is an invaluable insight, into the theory, and very helpful.

What would your opinion on this tower be in relation to the view for any would be shooter? looking down onto Elm?

You have a great amount of knowledge regarding the height of the Daltex floors etc,  how great it would be to have a diagram of the structure which was there back in the day, do you think could it have provided the extra elevation to allow the shot?

I can't say if the limo stopped, or not, but have read some interesting discussions on the topic, we know it did slow down considerably, as Hill jumped on the back and when Greer looks back over his shoulder, I do fully take on board your opinion on the very small opportunity available to take the shot if the limo was moving at any speed, but the chances are the drivers back round would render him as someone who would not have lost any sleep over J.F.K early departure as President, and I feel his help might have been imperative for this theory to work.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Colm Byrne said:

Hello Chris this is the type of post, which I was waiting on so thanks for taking the time with the calculations etc.

I do note you say it, would seem like an impossible task, but not impossible.

Do we know for sure if the top window was closed?  or if the limo, stopped? if it paused even for two seconds this would be more than enough time.

What needs to be established first of all is, was the limo visible through the TSBD from the tower on the roof of the Daltex, I would wonder why this theory was never investigated during all other inquires made to date, Would I be the first to consider it?

 

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.

On 2/19/2020 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Lavin said:

Although there are disputes about the accuracy of bio metrics and facial recognition software and its use in society, I believe it has been established that the main bio metric features of the face ie the dimensions between the eyes, ears, nose, lips, chin and ears stay the same.

Has anyone made such a study on the photos that have been presented as L.H.O over the years? 

With regard to the photo in question - is this not a case of 1. a digital copy of 2. an analogue copy of 3. a copy of 4. a blow up of 5. a poor quality original?

is it not feasible that any alterations were made purely to provide a printable image? 

Have other readers ever had to work with photocopies of photocopies of original sources and found things do not show up as expected? I have on numerous occasions in my career in education.

Obviously this is not journalism of a high standard merely a reproduction of another report but this was clearly not a major story at the time and would not warrant using resources to track down a quality image.

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.

11 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So here is the "composite" shot and the newspaper image....  how come his ties are always skewed to one side?

I had to "fatten" up the image on the right to match... but it's the same photo.

 

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.