Chris Bristow

"Don't you think that those three things were the only things needed to explain the known major discrepancies?" I think those suggest alteration, especially regarding the back of the head. My approach is to look at specific claims of alteration and see if I can test them. If I find a plausible explanation that may debunk an alteration claim then that is what I state. I think it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff and eliminate alteration theories that can be debunked or have possible solutions. Other times I find the skeptics answers fall short and can be debunked. I have found people new to the CT side who are convinced simply because there are so many claims of alteration that they must be real. I personally think after 60 years most agree there are many false alteration theories that have been floated. Those muddy the waters and I think it is beneficial to debunk the ones that don't hold up to scrutiny. I think the debunks add significantly to our overall understanding of photographic manipulation. The more we know the better we can evaluate the mountain of alteration claims. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SUPPORT FOR AND DEBUNKING OF ALTERATION THEORIES. Airbrushing is a tried and tested technique that goes way back in the 1880's. Covering the wound with a dark shadow instead of trying to simulate hair would also make it much easier to pull off. As I mentioned earlier the Z film has the only angle that allowed for a direct view of the rights O.C area and the only film that needed serious work. Skeptics often claim you would have to alter all the films but this is not true for the O.C wound. Some people have looked at the lack of parallax of the lamppost(Z frames 261/281), first noticed by Dr Costella, and are completely convinced it is absolute proof of alteration. I also found it very compelling. After placing it on the back burner for a year I realized a possible answer for it. Not saying it is debunked, but there is a plausible answer. From the time we see Z in Willis 5 to the Moorman photo he has turned his stance by about 90 or more degrees. If he initiated that pivot by moving his right foot first he would have to start by shifting his weight onto his left leg. That moves his torso and the camera lens an inch or two to the left while at the same time Z was panning to the right. That shifting of weight cancels out the rightward pan and the parallax effect in that moment. I tested this by reproducing Z's panning and shifting of weight while capturing an image of a pole and background that match the distances of the lamppost and bushes in the background. I found the parallax was very effectively cancelled out as my weight shifted. This is not a debunking but to me it means the missing parallax has another possible explanation. Prior to that finding I was considering the theory could be a definitive proof of alteration but now there is room for doubt. I have also heard many people on Facebook who stood behind the knoll fence and decided they would be too easily be seen by the witnesses on Elm. This one factor caused them to claim they knew for sure there was no gunman there. But besides the 5 ft fence hiding most of the individual, they did not realize the tree at the fence left only a 5 inch tall gap between the fence top and the trees leaves and branches on 11/22. The Shadow of the tree would also have left a shooter in shadow at 12:30. A shooter firing over the fence and under the tree would mean they would be hunched over to aim through the sites leaving even less of them visible. The angle to frame 313 would allow them to be tucked up closer to the fence. People claim Z would have seen a shooter there but the first tree from the corner on the east facing fence completely blocked Z's view to a knoll shooter location. This is proven by the last frames of the Z film when he looks directly at the theorized knoll shooter position. I don't know if there was a shooter there but I know if there was they had much better coverage than people assume. When it comes to the limo slowing lets say it slowed to 2mph. You could take out 3 out of every 4 frames and a 2mph speed would become 8 mph. That is doable. But when it comes to the deceleration part taking frames out fails. Say that during the deceleration the speed first drops by 25%. How do you make the limo look like it is going 25% faster? The intuitive answer is take out every 4th frame but that does not work. If you tried to take out frames 4 and 8 it would be 25% less frames. But from frame 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 the speed would not change. If you took out frame 4 the limo would travel twice as far from frame 3 to frame 5, so the speed would appear to double. The limo would end up lurch down the road in an unrealistic manner. Using just a traveling matte process would also fail after a few frames as the perspective/angle to the limo and the angle of the curb from the vanishing point would quickly become mismatched. Prior to frame 313 the vanishing point of the street makes the curb angle upward to the left side of the screen. At 313 Z is perpendicular to the street and the curb looks level in that frame. Then after 313 the curb starts angling up to the right/opposite side of the frame. That constantly changing vanishing point perspective of the street means you can't mismatch the angle from the limo to Z and to the background by more than a couple feet. And you can't just rotate the frame without making all vertical objects like people start leaning. A Limo stop or extreme slowing would have made for a 40+ ft difference in the limo to the background by the time it re accelerated. That is too much for the matte process. I think there might be a way to use a combination of matte and frame removal to solve those problems but it would be tricky. How they could remove a Limo stop is a bit of a mystery to me but. It would not be a simple process.

The manipulation needed of just a few frames around 313 is huge and it would be far easier to manipulate the actual Z film. Now you are saying the 2nd film would be used from fr 269 to 330. That is absolutely absurd. Maybe you should put me on ignore because you are spouting completely crazy stuff now.

"Minor differences in perspective can be adjusted for in production". Any image taken from the pergola would mean cutting and pasting Mary Moorman and Foster and the people behind Foster into a different location by about 3 ft. It also means adjusting the relative size of the limo to Moorman and the others in the background. The pergola film would have a 4 degree difference in angle to the limo. Modifying that is much more complicated than just skewing the perspective of the image in post production. As an example the side window on the passenger side lines up to the same window on the drivers side in a specific way. Every part of the limo that has a matching component on the far side would have to individually altered otherwise the vanishing point would be off. That means the angle of the crossbar and the antenna on the rear trunk and the angle of the windshield and the angle of the back seat would have to be individually altered to different degrees to keep the lines of sight through the limo correct. Just manipulating Z's film would be less cumbersome than trying to adjust a 2nd film to match Z even if just a few frames around the headshot. Trying to use a second film from a different location is nonsensical.

I have to disagree on this 2nd photographer theory. Even standing a few feet behind Zapruder would significantly alter many lines of sight as he panned the camera. If a 2nd film was taken directly behind Z, let alone many feet behind him in the pergola, then only one line of sight would line up in both films. People post videos on YouTube and say they filmed it from Z's location. But the lines of sight easily prove they got lazy and just stood behind the pedestal. Only a couple feet difference but easily measurable in their lines of sight in he plaza In the Z film we can see the subtle parallax effects as he pans his camera to the right This matches his location throughout the Z film. Any frame that give clues to his location, like the alignment of lampposts to the background verifies his location as being on the pedestal which is less than 24" wide. Any variation on Z's location would verify a 2nd cameraman. But I have tested the lines of sight throughout the film and they all lead back to Z. Maybe a 2nd film could be made to assist with alteration but it would have to be taken from Z's pedestal. 11/22 was 29 days before the solstice. if you wanted to make a 2nd film to assist with alteration and it was taken 29 days after the solstice on Jan 19th the the Sun's elevation and azimuth would match if taken at 10:30 am on Jan 19th.

Yes I noticed the close up shows a different angle that suggests it was taken later. But as far as the accuracy of the measurement there are a couple variables. Because that close up photo was taken at maybe a 45 degree downward angle to the box the perceived angle of the shadow is skewed a bit. It will appear to be at more of an angle than it does when photographed from directly above. Directly above the box would give the most accurate result. The photograph matches the angle in the Sun calculator but the distortion of the 45 degree angle photo to the box means the real angle should be less than a 3:00 clock Sun. The camera is also at an angle to the wall and the window. that gives the wall 4 degrees of vanishing point angle. That may cancel out the distortion of the 45 degree downward camera angle to the box and put the time back to 3:00 pm. An example of the angular distortions is seen in the box in the originally posted photo vs the close up. there is a 10 degree difference in the angle of the box in those two photos. But at the same time the vertical aspect of the window is almost exactly the same in both those photos. So the difference of 10 degrees is a matter of both time of day and angular distortion. As you drop the angle of the camera the totally vertical and totally horizontal lines will not distort at all but everything between vertical and horizontal will get distorted and bent towards the horizontal. I am splitting hairs but the time may be closer to around 2:30.

I am not trying to debunk alteration theory, just looking at each claim individually and trying to give it an honest evaluation. I would say the back of the head in the Z film is very likely altered. Based on the testimony of the 4 bike cops I would say maybe a limo stop was removed. Very very hard to do that as just removing frames or using a traveling mat will fail badly. Skeptics argue that you could not have altered all those different films of the assassination but at least when it comes to the head wound, that is a straw man. Removing the right occipital head wound was not needed for the Hughes, Bell and Paschell films because none of them their films show the head with any clarity and start well after frame 313. Nix and Bronson had no view to JFK's right occipital parietal because his head was turned about 25 degrees left. Even Muchmore had a very limited mostly side on view of that part of the head. But Muchmore's view is also blocked by Hill, then Hargis and Moorman just 2 frames after the headshot. So it is very unlikely Muchmore would have filmed the 4th shot anyway. Moorman was taken too soon after the headshot to have recorded a 4th shot even if it happened 1/4 second after the headshot. Taking out a head wound would have to have been done on the Z film but that is about it. Another strawman argument claims they would have to alter the actual 8mm film which sounds way too small to airbrush. But a technique used in animation projects the frames onto a table with a large, maybe 8" square cell, aligned to the projection. They draw or airbrush onto the cell using the projected image overlay as a reference. Then that cell is reduced and integrated into an 8mm copy with an optical printer. It is also claimed the tractor feed marks on the sprocket area of the Z film perfectly match Z's camera so it must be a camera original. But they, FBI/SS, had possession of the camera and could have run the film stock for their altered copy through Z's camera. Considering the people who are suspected of faking the film are the ones who provide us with the full provenance of the film it is hard to know what they could have gotten away with that weekend. But even though I am a CT with regard to alteration and to Parkland, there are many claims that can be debunked. No surprise really. JFK's assassination is the most popular whodunit in the last century and people love to solve a whodunit.

Thanks that explains everything.

In some Z film frames there are motion blurred people like Altgens or the Franzen family who have shadows that are barley blurred at all. This is thought to be an artifact of alteration. But I think the reason is that the motion blur matches the direction that the shadows lay on. The image below shows the unaltered frame 342 on the right and a motion blurred version on the left. A copy of Mr Bothun's shadow has been added in a vertical position. The image on the left shows the vertical shadow to be very blurred but the original horizontal shadow is much clearer even though the the motion blur was added to the entire frame. When the motion blur smears the vertical shadow it is very obvious on the sides of the shadow. But in the original horizontal shadow the blur is spread along the length and so will show mostly at the head and feet while the sides are effected much less. Additionally motion blur is visible on Bothun's coat and tie and his face. But the shadow has no detail and no blur can seen within the shadow. I think both those factors are the reason the shadows of some people on Elm have much less visible motion blur than the people casting the shadows.

Denis, I have been trying to reconcile the light falling on the box below the DPD officer which looks to me like direct sunlight falling on it. That would mean the photo was taken early in the morning and so would not be from 11/22. However the double beam that lands to the right of the window indicates we are not even looking at the snipers window. Those double beams run east/west in videos of the museum. The small black pipes also run east west. The window would have to be on the west side of the building which would explain the Sun's angle as an afternoon Sun. That would make sense for the photo being taken on the 22nd. Am I seeing this correctly?

Well we don't know if any or how many might be destroyed on the way here. It would also be hard to know what % crash here vs the ones that would come and go without incident.

Maybe for the same reason people with big motorhomes tow a small car with them. Once you get to this dimension you need something more manageable to zip around our planet with.

The triangle shadows effect can be seen in Willis 5. The Colonnade windows have similar triangles that are always in the lower left and upper right corners. There is motion blur on all the stationary background objects and the angle of the blur matches the angle of the triangles. If triangles appeared in the opposite corners (Upper left, lower right.), those angles would not match the motion blur direction and would be 90 degrees off the blur direction. The 6th floor photo does not have motion blur but the similarities of the window corner triangles is notable.

Bright glaring light sources in the background can bleed over onto objects in the foreground because glare has lots of diverging light rays. Some of the diverging light rays coming off the window would strike the back of the pillar and never make it to the camera. But rays diverging at a lesser angle would just skirt by the edge of the pillar and continue on to the camera film. Because they are still diverging from the pillar to the camera film they end up overlapping with the image of the pillar on the film. Diverging rays are also why a glaring spot will look larger than the object casting the glare. This image on the pillar appears strange because the vertical edge is very sharp. Multiple rays diverging at slightly different angles should cause the edge to be soft since the differently diverging rays are landing on the film at slightly different places. But adjusting the contrast can take a fuzzy line and make it look sharper. I think it can also be inherent in the particular settings used in an enlarger when copies are made. I would have assumed the little triangle shadows were just an artifact created from the corners of the dark window frame eliminating some angular glare. But one triangle appears on the top right side of the box and is nowhere near a corner. All the triangles have almost the same angle of 45 degrees and I would have assumed the 90 degree angles of the window frame corners are the reason. But the triangle on the the top of the box in the center has a vertical window frame piece while the box itself is 7 degrees tilted, yet that triangle has the same angle as the others. That is odd. Just spit balling here, but Polaroid lens filters were used in the sixties and would have been a good choice for this photo as the Sunlight was glaring through the window. The lines/windows in sunglass Polaroid filters are positioned horizontally in the frame to eliminate diverging rays on the vertical axis because the Sun is generally above the viewer and the glare/reflection from the Sun mostly bounces back along the vertical axis towards the Sun. If you are driving in the direction of the Sun the Polaroid is most effective. But much less effective when the Sun is off to the side. If you are driving toward the Sun and tilt your head 45 degrees to the side the glare cutting effect goes away because the lines/windows in the lens need to be perpendicular to the Sun to have the full glare cutting effect. On cameras the filter can be rotated to match the position of the Sun. Just guessing here but maybe the the corners of the window frame eliminate diverging rays from above and to the side and the Polaroid filters additionally eliminates diverging rays spreading vertically. But that does not explain the triangle that appears on the top right side of the box in the window. I found one old film of the 6th floor window that showed a very slight triangle effect in the corners which give a partial explanation. The twisted window frame on the right side of the box maybe due to light being reflected off the side of the box facing the window and striking the window frame where it is especially reflective or where the angle of the paint happens to point directly back to the camera. Like a chip of paint that is hanging off the frame and sending a reflection to the camera that makes that part of the frame disappear.

Hargis was seen at the north Elm lamppost about 16 seconds after the head shot. This makes it impossible for him to have run to the patio wall. Hargis did say he ran uphill to get a better more elevated view of the knoll. The best Hargis could have done, imo, is continued his run for about 15 ft up the grass(Taking about one second and gaining about 3 ft of elevation.), before stopping and heading for the lamppost. He also said he saw witnesses in that area and no one was acting suspiciously or "Running". But Hargis could have seen those patio witnesses upper torsos well before reaching the wall. He could have yelled to Roscoe White from near the sidewalk as he ran. It is possible Hargis did see the witnesses on the patio and did talk to White and still ended up at the lamppost in 16 seconds. It comes down to a couple seconds and I don't think there is a record of the exact second LBJ's SS follow up car passed by and allowed Hargis to start across Elm.

Thanks Steve. "In shock" makes perfect sense.

Hargis dismounted and immediately ran across Elm St looking for a shooter. Martin, Chaney and Jackson did not attempt to keep pace with the limo and none of them dismounted to search for a shooter. Martin just putted along slowly to the underpass and then rode out of the plaza. The films and photos suggest Chaney and Jackson just stopped and sat there for a few seconds before following far behind the limo. What were they supposed to be doing once shots were fired?

Thanks for that. He does say the SS car stopped and it sounds like it was when he was looking down to the onramp. Only mentioning the SS car stopping there is a bit strange though. His timeline takes some sudden jumps like when he starts to say he watched the limo go under the bridge then suddenly jumps back to the plaza. It does make me wonder because he was able to see the limo enter and exit the triple overpass bridge as well. Still his account is pretty strong support for the SS car stopping on the onramp.

I would not trust anything Gary Mack had to say after seeing the lie he perpetrated in the "Inside The Target Car" documentary in which he completely misrepresented the position of JFK's head as being firmly tucked up against Jackies left shoulder at the head shot. That lie allowed him to claim Jackie would also have been hit by a knoll shot. We know for a fact his head was at her right shoulder and a good 8 to 10 inches away from her head as seen in Z 312 and the Muchmore film. I don't believe he was so ignorant as to make such a blatant mistake. I also don't get how the Queen Mary would come to a stop on the ramp below unless the limo also came to a stop in front of it. I'm sure there are a lot of search results for Hoffman's statements, can you point me to his story about the Q.M. coming to a stop?

Another discrepancy in the record is the McIntyre photo that shows Ellis, Lumpkin and another cop identified as Grey, leading the limo onto the Stemmons. Where is Chaney? The official story is that Chaney is seen on the left underneath the overpass which contradicts Curry's telling Chaney to escort the them to Parkland while still in the plaza. The Bell film shows those 3 cops well out in front of the limo as it exited the underpass. Too early for Chaney to have gotten ahead of them and he is not seen in between Curry and those 3 cops. The account you posted has Chaney clearing the other bike cops from in front of the limo which the McIntyre photo also contradicts. I don't get why Chaney would clear the other bikes from in front of the limo if he is just going to replace them and lead the motorcade to Parkland by himself. Those bikes were not fast but speed wise they accelerate as fast as a modern Lincoln with a top speed of 100mph+. The limo engine was not stock but the limo was heavy. How fast JFK's limo could accelerate was not publicized. If the Curry/Chaney meeting happened on the onramp those discrepancies would make sense but then Chaney, Jackson, Curry and Hargis all made the same mistake. I would add Lawson and Sorrels but I still have to find those statements again. I have some CT minded suspicions about the McIntyre photo which was said to have been given to Gary Mack in the 80'S. It is just weird that the limo must be doing 50 mph at that point but the bike cops look as if they are moving along very slowly. Lumpkin is riding the middle position which is slightly tricky when going around a curve at speed, yet he is riding with one hand as if moving at a slower speed. Secondly the camera shows a diagonal camera jiggle blur on everything in the photo from the bikes under the pass, the billboard and the white posts with the red lines. But the 3 bike cops are in nearly perfect focus with the front tire tread of Ellis' bike being sharply in focus. You can see the tiny light bulbs in the cops red lights and their blur does not match the camera jiggle direction.

If the Z film is unaltered then the limo position in Altgens 7 shows it was taken 4 to 5 seconds after the head shot. The limo would only be 4 seconds away from the overpass in Altgens 7. If all that is correct where is Chaney? Chaney would not have enough time to catch Curry and then disappear in 4 seconds and he would not have enough time to have his meeting with Curry after Altgens 7. Maybe the limo really did stop on the onramp but that is hard to believe unless it was because Jackie did try to jump out. Maybe Mack's version of them stopping because Greer needed directions and to verify if there were injuries was coverup for Jackie's sake.

I don't remember Ellis saying that. Do you have a reference for Earle Browns statement? I do remember Hoffman saying the limo saying took a long time to appear on the onramp below him indicating it might have stopped.

I tend to agree the limo probably did not stop on the onramp. But if it didn't there is no way for Chaney to catch up to it unless he chased it down the freeway for quite a ways. The McIntyre photo supposedly shows Chaney in the underpass some 800 ft behind the limo as it approaches the onramp. The Bell film shows the LBJ's car and his SS car moving towards the underpass and Chaney is not in the picture. Chaney either spoke to Curry in the plaza or he pulled up to Curry well after they entered the Stemmons. The latter does not make much sense to me. I don't think Curry said they completely stopped in the plaza. If Chaney caught up to him in the plaza maybe they were both just going very slow. If Curry was about 125 ft in front of the limo at the head shot then he was 100 ft away from the underpass. If Curry was crawling along very slowly it might all make sense. But then again Altgens 7 is about 4 seconds after the head shot and does not show Chaney. It is all very weird. Curry's timeline puts the Chaney event east of the underpass. The Bell film and McIntyre photo make it impossible for the meeting to have happened west of the underpass, unless it happened way down the Stemons freeway I have to look again at Lawsons and Sorrels accounts but I think their timelines also put the event east of the underpass.

I put alteration aside just to make a point about the, imo, impossible timing of Chaney's ride forward. If there was no limo stop removed the timing is even more problematic. While taking out a limo stop is the hardest and most difficult alteration to achieve I still think it was done based on the 4 cops testimony about it fully stopping or almost stopping. I have to search for all the relevant statements again because it has been some years since I researched the issue. Several of them testified to the WC more than once and some gave interviews to journalists. I have found testimony in volumes 3,4 and 7 So far. I found Sorrels saying "Get out of here" but not specifically about going to Parkland. Starves Ellis made his comment in an interview. He said the motorcade came to a full stop and he turned around and rode back and became part of the Chaney Curry exchange. But he tended to put himself at the center of his stories which makes me have some doubt about the details of his account. I will look for the interview. Hargis' account is in his WC testimony. He mentions Chaney's ride forward in his testimony in vol 4 pg 294. Lawson says in vol 4 pg 353 that he heard a radio message saying "We should get to the nearest hospital" as he saw Clint Hill on the back of the limo. A few sentences later he is asked what the lead car was doing at the time and he mentions the bike cop who pulled forward to inform them. He seems to be giving a timeline and then says the limo jumped forward while still a good distance behind them. That would be in the plaza before the limo caught them in the underpass. That is all I have found so far. I have heard the version where Hargis runs between the limo and follow up car. Only If the limo stopped would this be possible. Other wise I doubt Hargis would step in front of the follow up car and cause a delay for the SS officers trying to get LBJ out of the plaza as quickly as they could.

As usual you cherry pick statements and then see them through the lens of your own bias interpretation. "he points to a wound location slightly to the side of the wound on the "McClelland" drawing." "slightly to the side" means what exactly? What does "side wound" mean exactly? In this case it means what you want it to mean. Your interpretation of those statements completely ignores the photographic evidence of Jones demonstrating the wound location, and I think most would agree photos trump written and verbal comments. As I mentioned in my post the Parkland witnesses vary some when they define the occipital wound, that is to be expected. "he was unable to observe the EXACT extent or dimensions of this wound". That is understandable considering the hair got in the way and he was on JFK's left side. But we are talking about the general wound location on the head not so much its exact dimensions and size. Even if you are looking at a wound through the mass of blood and hair it is not going to make you think the wound is in a completely different location. With JFK's face and right ear in tact it would not have been difficult to determine wound location relative to his ear as he looked over from the JFK's left side "President Kennedy had very thick dark hair that covered the injured area". "You take that out of context to imply that "He had thereby confirmed that he'd failed to see the large hole missing scalp and bone depicted in the "McClelland"drawing." Saying "very thick dark hair that covered the injured area" does not necessarily mean totally covered. He clearly said he saw the wound and knew the location so when he said "hair that covered the injured area" it can only be taken to mean the hair partially covered the wound. But from his position I would expect him to see less of the large blasted out area as he was looking at it side on or top down. However that would not cause him to see it in the occipital parietal if it was not located there. His apparent inconsistency regarding the blasted out area does not mean his account was wrong. That is a biased interpretation. "Jones counters Dr. McClelland's claim the head shot came from the front, and cites the studies of Dr. John Lattimer as evidence the shot actually came from behind." Ya I have seen that interview. But the basis of the CT is about wound location. The doctors can speculate all they want on the direction of the shot but it is the missing occipital parietal wound in the autopsy that is the issue. That is what points to a coverup. I personally think the discrepancy between the wound seen at Parkland and the official report indicates a coverup of a frontal shot but it is the omission of the occipital wound that strongly suggests a coverup. "Jones would later defer to the accuracy of the autopsy photos,". I must have missed that, but films of Jones show he was most definitely a "Back of he head" witness. When it comes to a few people recanting their back of the head statements I have to take that with a grain of salt. Crenshaw was seriously attacked by one of the most recognized medical journals " the Journal of American Medical Associations" when they inferred he was a complete xxxx and may have never even been in the room that day. I think any medical professional who was aware of that cheap attack on Crenshaw saw the writing on the wall. If you talk about an occipital wound your entire career could be put in jeopardy. To be attacked by that well known publication is very serious. And we know that 5 Parkland staff testified to the WC that Crenshaw was in the room that day. It is clear they were not interested in researching the facts. If a person holds the opinion that the wound was occipital then changes their opinion on a dime decades later I think it is fair to ask which of their two conflicting accounts was wrong and which was right? Take Carrico as an example. He writes O.C in his report that day. He testifies to same at the WC. He doubles down to the HSCA. He triples down in the KRON interview and is photographed with his hand in the upper O.C. Then after decades he suddenly flips!. A rational evaluation of his conflicting statements leans heavily towards his 4 original accounts over his interview with the 6th floor museum so many years later. But the bias of Parkland skeptics like yourself leads you to accept his last version of the wound location without question. It is bias like that which casts doubt on those who argue so fervently against the parkland staff and many at the autopsy.

I first read the story about Chaney and Curry's meeting happening on the Stemmons onramp in a piece from Gary Mack. He claimed they each came to him independently and related the same account. I think they had both passed away by the time he told the story so it could not be verified. It is one of the most absurd stories I have ever heard and is so full of holes that it is a joke, imo. According to Mack, that stop happened for two reasons. Greer did not know how to get to parkland and needed directions, and secondly Curry was not sure if there really was an emergency that would necessitate a rush to Parkland. It is true that Greer did not know the route to Parkland, but the idea of bringing their rush to the hospital to a halt so someone could inform Greer, or to make sure they even needed to rush to Parkland is ridiculous. If they suspected there was a medical emergency is Curry going to stop the motorcade to have a talk with them? Even if Curry wanted to instruct Greer or ascertain the possible injuries he could use the radio. In addition it does not make sense that Greer could get lost when he was right behind Curry. With sirens going the traffic was getting out of the way and there is no chance Greer and Curry would get separated by a traffic light. The idea he would stop the motorcade is unthinkable. What is he going to do, have some cops check everyone to see if they have been shot? Then there is the testimony of Curry in which he gives the timeline. According to Curry the conversation with Chaney absolutely happens in the plaza before hitting the underpass. That is true of all the witnesses to Chaney's ride forward. By the time they get to the Stemmonns onramp Curry was fully aware there was an emergency. He heard the shots fired and then both Sorrels and Lawson yell 'Shots fired get to Parkland"(Per their testimony.).He sees the limo speed up towards him so he floors it. But he says the limo still caught up to him under the overpass. He must have heard Kinney's siren too. Kinney and Kellerman also put out radio calls before they reached the underpass. When the limo caught Curry in the underpass Curry said he heard two people from the limo yell "Get to Parkland!". Hill and Greer have verified they yelled this. By that time the limo was slightly ahead of Curry and accelerating, (Approx 35mph just before going under the overpass.) The idea that Curry would tell Mack that he needed to stop the motorcade to verify that they needed to rush to Parkland is not believable. Chaney would have also seen the panic in the plaza, heard Kinney's siren, and seen Curry and the limo accelerating out of the plaza. He may have also heard the two radio calls from Kinney and Kellerman. As seen in the McIntyre photo Chaney would also have seen that the Limo was about 800 ft ahead of him by then and that it was racing for the onramp. Kinney's siren was still blaring. But instead of attempting to use his radio Chaney must have decided he would catch up to the limo before giving his message to Curry. He was not aware the Limo would stop on the onramp. He must have assumed that he would be chasing it down the Stemmons freeway for some time before he could catch up and relay the most important and time sensitive message of his career. If Chaney did catch up on the onramp Curry, would he still think he had to inform Curry that there was a problem in the motorcade at that point? Davis Lifton has said they stopped on the onramp because Jackie tried to jump out of the limo. Possibly due to a delayed panic reaction. Maybe that is true and Curry's reason for stopping was a cover story for Jackie's benefit. But the sequence of events up to that point point make it very clear both Chaney and Curry already knew there was an emergency. Gary Mack's story does not pass the smell test. It is more likely Mack made the whole thing up to explain away the testimony of Curry, Chaney, Hargis, Sorrels and Lawson.