Chris Bristow

5 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Chris,

Your thread made me think of a topic covered in this thread several years back, about an A/C worker finding a 30.06 casing on the roof of the Dallas County Records Building (caddy-corner from the TSBD).  While other entries describe slugs and fragments being planted in DP over the years, the likelihood of an innocent explanation for one spent shell casing on top of a DP building with line of sight to the limo in 1963, and from a more easterly angle is what led me to post this reply.  I hope it leads to something.

Thanks

I have heard that a shell was found there. It is interesting. I could see finding a round or a fragment but not sure how you explain a shell. Although if you are into shooting you likely pick up your brass so it is possible a workman on the roof had a spent shell in his pocket from another day and it fell out onto the roof. I have had single shells in my pocket after packing up to leave and finding one last piece of brass under my foot. I am reaching with that but they are so into guns there that a spent shell anywhere is feasible. 
It used to be that on the new year at midnight about a million rounds get fired into the air. We would sit under a covered porch in Pasadena, Ca and count the rounds as they hit the street, a roof, a car. One landed every 15 or 20 seconds. So I would expect to find a lot of lead in Dealey Plaza.
 

19 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've thought for some time it likely came from the Dal Tex building, maybe the second floor.  The angle would be closer to right for a shot passing through in essence his arm pit, along a rib and exiting the nipple.  Possibly a miss intended for JFK?  The deflection from a raised wrist into his thigh is perplexing.

I would think it was a miss intended for JFK. What frame do you think Connally was hit in? I can't see how it could have that trajectory through his body unless he was facing almost straight forward which places the shot very early around 235. In the past I have given  weight to both the Connally's opinions that he was hit as he turned 'back' around from right to left.

Like many people I find it very hard to believe that Connally lost 4 inches of rib on his right side then turned that direction to see JFK. He said he turned as far as he could! According to Cyril Weicht, in addition to his wrist injury he also had the tendon to his right thumb severed. But he not only managed to hold on to his Stetson for 5 seconds, he articulated his wrist to bend downward in order to fit his Stetson between himself and the door as he turned. 
 Connally said he was hit as he turned back around but when JFK was hit in the head Connally had only turned half way back. That would mean the bullet that entered his back and exited under his nipple had to have come from somewhere like the  old courthouse. Could it have come from the East and changed direction upon striking the rib? I don't know.
 I have a vague memory of a CT about a gunman on the roof. wondering if anyone has thoughts on any of this.

15 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Chris,

I support Dr.Costella's theory too.

I still have a nagging doubt about the lamppost theory, like there is something I am missing, something I still need to learn. But what I can check supports it. I assume the Barnes photo is not pincushion corrected but I doubt it could account for the difference we can see and for the vertical and horizontal keystone effect that should be hiding some of the rightward lean that  Dr Costella's comparison reveals. Maybe some of Barne's other Dealey photos will give a clue as to how much distortion his camera had.
  What is this GIF you posted? The cars make it look like the photos are taken less than a second apart yet the Stemmons perspective changes. What is up with that?

On 5/25/2019 at 4:33 PM, Chris Bristow said:

My evaluation of this theory is negative. At the same time I find Dr Costella's Pincushion theory about the Stemmons sign to be one of the most compelling bits of evidence to date. I have looked deeply into the subject and after two years I still can't find a valid reason to explain it. So I am not attempting to impugn his integrity as a researcher, but the lamppost anomaly may not be evidence of alterations.
The image below shows that the angle of the lamppost changes relative to the wall as you pan across. So for the Barnes photo and the the Z film to match you would have to duplicate the direction the camera is pointing to. In the Barnes photo the camera is pointing about one or two feet to the right of the Stemmons sign. In the Z film you don't even see the lamppost till frame 261 when the camera is pointing around 18 degrees to the right. So a comparison is impossible.
I have not measured this yet but I think the change is due to the the angle of the wall changing as you pan. As the cameras lens pans it's angle to the wall changes. The wall is at an angle to the camera to begin with and it adds to the vanishing point by a keystone effect. The wall appears to angle down more and more toward the center of the photo as the camera angle increases. That widens the angle of the lamppost to the wall, so in the series of photos were I aligned it by the angle of the wall the lamppost leans more and more to the left.(Often we mistake vanishing point as something that causes things to appear higher in the frame as they recede into the distance. It actually moves everything toward the center of the photo.)
 One other problem with comparing the Barnes photo against anything is the extreme amount of distortion in it.   In the Barnes photo below the buildings lean outward more and more as they appear farther and farther from the center of the photo. The center of the photo generally shows were the optical center of the lens is. (At the optical center the distortion is about zero because the front and rear surfaces of the lens are parallel.) The buildings lean outward from that center. This is equally true for the horizontal axis. The same distortion occurs as you move up or down from the optical center. It is harder to find because there are not a lot of horizontal lines to track.
 I have to conclude that the changing angle of the lamppost is normal and expected. Actually I don't like to reach full conclusions because in these complicated issues it is easy to miss something. how many times has some theory seemed valid then after a while new information or evaluation can turn things around. So I am pretty confident in this analysis but am still open to being proved wrong.
 

I was very suspicious of the extreme keystone effect in the Barnes image and the fact that the lamppost is near the edge of the image while the Costella panorama took the lamppost image from frame 270 in which the lamppost is centered in the frame. Now I think I can put my keystone concerns aside because those effects would cause the lamppost to lean more to the left not to the right as in the Z film. That lends support to the Costella theory and so I think I can say that keystoning( both vertical and horizontal) is not the cause of the lamppost anomaly.
 
  What I did find is that the difference in the leaning lampposts between the Barnes and Costella image is only about 3/4 of one degree. The red line on the lamppost in the Costella panorama was slightly off and added to its rightward lean. With a small difference of 3/4 of one degree it becomes harder to rule out some of the subtle camera distortions like pincushion.
 

So in the end much of what I found supports The lamppost theory but because the error is only 3/4 of a degree I can't be sure of anything. It looks to me like  the Barnes image has not been pincushion corrected and that would cause the lamppost to lean slightly farther left. That may be the cause of the anomaly.  But because the effect is so small you would need to reproduce the photos with the same camera.
 

2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Ya gonna have to make a better argument than this. 

Who is Barnes, why *his* footage, and where can his footage be found, the camera and lens Barnes imagery used, the media recorded on?

In you example are you using footage where pin cushion distortion has been removed? Thanks ahead of time for your input.

 

Here's a link too Dr. John Costella's presentation at the University of Minnesota in 2003 regarding his Z-film analysis with his 'proofs', the entire presentation: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1B3_sICTAc

 

David, there are some facts that I neglected to state, sorry for that. On Dr Costella's website his comparison photo is the 'Barnes' photo taken very near Zapruders location. I think he was an FBI photographer or employed by a local newspaper. Dr Costella compares it to an image of his panorama and the lamppost looks to be from frame 361 of the Z film.
The footage I used is from Youtube and I didn't check if it was pincushion corrected. Pincushion would cause the pole to swing from left to right as it moves across the screen and would cause the angle between wall and lamppost to decrease not increase So I discounted the need to account for pincushion related to the lamppost.
I checked the wall in the Ytube image and it has a very small amount of pincushion curvature and imo would not come close to accounting for the change in angles. Objects on the horizontal center line of a photo are displaced horizontally and the top of a wall on the horizontal middle line is displaced horizontally and so there is little to no angular change of the top of the wall in that case. The closer to that center line the less angular deviation. The  Ytube video has the top of the wall much closer to that center than to the top. In the Z film the wall is almost at the top of the frame and exhibits much more curvature because of that(And an old style camera). But even the zfilm distortion would not account for the large change of angle seen in the Ytube video.
 I don't have the info on the camera Barnes used but I wanted just to point out that every copy of that image I have seen is very distorted.
 It is strange just how much change there is in the Ytube video. I will have to reproduce the situation in miniature and see if I can duplicate the change of angle. ( I usually do that before posting, oh well)If I can't reproduce it I will consider that I made a mistake, and the change in vanishing point perspective I theorized would cause the change of angle is not enough to even measure. Thanks for the input.
 

My evaluation of this theory is negative. At the same time I find Dr Costella's Pincushion theory about the Stemmons sign to be one of the most compelling bits of evidence to date. I have looked deeply into the subject and after two years I still can't find a valid reason to explain it. So I am not attempting to impugn his integrity as a researcher, but the lamppost anomaly may not be evidence of alterations.
The image below shows that the angle of the lamppost changes relative to the wall as you pan across. So for the Barnes photo and the the Z film to match you would have to duplicate the direction the camera is pointing to. In the Barnes photo the camera is pointing about one or two feet to the right of the Stemmons sign. In the Z film you don't even see the lamppost till frame 261 when the camera is pointing around 18 degrees to the right. So a comparison is impossible.
I have not measured this yet but I think the change is due to the the angle of the wall changing as you pan. As the cameras lens pans it's angle to the wall changes. The wall is at an angle to the camera to begin with and it adds to the vanishing point by a keystone effect. The wall appears to angle down more and more toward the center of the photo as the camera angle increases. That widens the angle of the lamppost to the wall, so in the series of photos were I aligned it by the angle of the wall the lamppost leans more and more to the left.(Often we mistake vanishing point as something that causes things to appear higher in the frame as they recede into the distance. It actually moves everything toward the center of the photo.)
 One other problem with comparing the Barnes photo against anything is the extreme amount of distortion in it.   In the Barnes photo below the buildings lean outward more and more as they appear farther and farther from the center of the photo. The center of the photo generally shows were the optical center of the lens is. (At the optical center the distortion is about zero because the front and rear surfaces of the lens are parallel.) The buildings lean outward from that center. This is equally true for the horizontal axis. The same distortion occurs as you move up or down from the optical center. It is harder to find because there are not a lot of horizontal lines to track.
 I have to conclude that the changing angle of the lamppost is normal and expected. Actually I don't like to reach full conclusions because in these complicated issues it is easy to miss something. how many times has some theory seemed valid then after a while new information or evaluation can turn things around. So I am pretty confident in this analysis but am still open to being proved wrong.
 

1 minute ago, Jim Glover said:

Good Point I didn't even consider the light from the lower window. Just to show how the dirty windows play with decreasing the light I notice that when the bottom windows are Pulled up so that there are two dirty windows to block light it looks like no transparency at all like at first i thought the upper windows had plywood or paper behind them. 

Yes the glare does make it look like it blocks all the light. The angle of the photo helps do that since the angle of the Sun at 39 and the camera angle to the window are similar. If the Sun hits the window at 39 degrees then the greatest glare will  be seen by anyone who views the window from a similar but opposite angle. I guess the camera angle was around maybe 55 degrees. I will check that. there is another photo on this thread taken from inside with several people standing at the window. The sharp shadows on the floor give an idea of how much light was blocked by the dirty window.

On 5/23/2019 at 7:56 PM, Jim Glover said:

Well Chris, it could be the difference between direct sunlight on the faces of the workers and the shadow of their faces on their necks while the face in the window does not have direct un-obstructed sunlight on the face behind the dirty window as that light is diffused and darkened greatly by the dirty window diffusing contrast without the direct sunlight on the faces of the workers. I do see a shadow of the pain on the bottom of the nose of the Oswald looking figure going down over the chin and then widening as the neck would be farther away from the window than the face.  I also notice on our face in the window there is just very slightly more light on the west side (sunny side of the neck). Also there is a sliver of bright direct sunlight on the west side of the neck of the guy in the window on our left.  So, You are looking at two different lighting situations and positions as the guys are kneeling and have no dirty window in the way to diffuse the light... less contrast. Two different lighting environments give different lighting effects in my estimation. I would see your point if there was no closed dirty window but then we wouldn't be trying to figure this out.

Jim, I considered the different lighting but it still seemed like the neck would be in shadow. Some illumination from the lower part of the window could bounce up under his neck but it looked too bright to me. 
Edit: I just looked at the azimuth and elevation and now I am convinced that there should be a shadow under his neck. The elevation of the Sun was 39 degrees so if the top of the window is 7 feet then the shadow would land on the floor about 8 feet back. That means Oswald could stand 2 feet back from the window and the Sun would still directly hit his entire face. Others have verified that his height of 5'9" seems correct in the window. He has to be right behind the window for it to appear that way. As soon as he moved back his height relative to the window would quickly decrease.
The Azimuth at 12:30 was between 9 and 13 degrees.  I knew that before but sort of forgot and was surprised because the photo makes it look like a steeper angle. But it would allow for the light to hit his face.
The extra light on the right side of his face looks to me like glare off the window. I can't see anything that resembles his face in that bit of extra light. The shadow under his nose is a bit weird too. Looking at the two guys in the window below you can see the nose shadow is much shorter. Also you can see the guy on the left is looking to his right which brings his left ear into the Sun. The other guy is looking almost straight ahead like the Oswald image but his ear is hidden in shadow while Oswald's left ear is fully lit.
So if we know Oswald was getting direct Sunlight on the front of his face yet his neck and left ear appear to be just as bright as face, that is a problem. No glare from the window is going to match direct sunlight in intensity.
 So the Sun would have definitely cast a shadow down his neck, the only judgement call is how much did the dirty window block and how much did it reflect light up under his chin. Personally I don't think the dirty window would obscure or prevent the neck shadow or cast enough diffuse light on his neck to illuminate it.
 I know there are people who would say dissecting this image is stupid because we know it is a fake. But when we debate things like this it gives insight into how a fake can be spotted. 

On 4/22/2019 at 11:20 PM, Jim Glover said:

Thanks Denis, Bad Idea to give anyone an important negative. This seems to be a pattern.

I don't use Blevin's enhancements.  The Commission Exhibit was printed more than a decade before the negative was ruined by someone at HSCA. And it does not show anyone in the "snipers window".

Both of the guys in this photo have very dark shadows on their  necks but the fake image of Oswald shows his neck clearly. The lighting on his neck looks like the same intensity as on his face.

4 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

The presidential limo arrived back at the white house garage between 9:00pm and 9:35pm Nov 22nd.

Between 1:35am and 4:30am Nov 23rd, the Secret Service and the FBI photographed the limo.

At 10:00am on Nov 23rd this guy from Ford Motor Company arrives at the white house garage...

He returns to the white house garage and the limo on the 24th Nov.

On the 25th of Nov he calls a Virginia glass company and has them come to the white house garage
that day to remove the windshield.

He returns to the white house garage on Nov 27th to fix the blood stained carpeting on the back floor of the limo.

The white house upholsterer is working on the carpeting piece up until Friday Nov 29th.

He returns Monday the 2nd of December to the white house garage and installs the carpeting and metal frame 
work/trim to the rear limo floor.

Subject: Subject: The JFK Limo at the White House Garage - Ford Memo 12/18/63
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 19:25:52 -0500
From: Pamela McElwain <pamelam@primenet.com>


I'm including below a typed copy of a document that was sent to me
some time ago on a general request from the National Archives for data
on the limo SS-100-X. I am not finding a document number for it, am
requesting that from NARA, but do find numbers for two similar
documents, also inter-company Ford memos regarding "Changes in the
White House 'Bubbletop'".  They are 180-10112-10188 and
180-10505-10086.  Both are also 2-page memos, and their status is
"Postponed in full".

This document is both puzzling and fascinating to me, because it
indicates that the original intent of the SS was to put the limo back
into service as quickly as possible.  It is quite pathetic to think of
this lonely man, Vaughn Ferguson, trying to clean the blood away from
the seat cushion buttons with his pen knife, and trying to clean the
carpet.  For some reason (well the SS DID need a good parade car for
the President) the fact that an assassination had just occurred in
this vehicle, and that even if it could be put back into service,
driving in it might not bring good luck, was no deterrence to
expediently correcting the damage to the car; this decision had to
have been made made at the time the limo was returned to the White
House garage.

It was, then, at some time subsequent to this memo, (which relates to
the days immediately following the assassination, though written on
December 18th), that the decision was made to send the car to Ohio on
December 12 for rebuilding as an armored vehicle.

Also note Ferguson's description of the windshield, its removal, and
the sequence of action on the limo lap robes.  The 'lap robes' were
blankets carried in the side pockets of the rear of the limo, used
when the weather was cool, yet the top down, to keep the passengers
warm.

(Markley and Ferguson were Ford Company employees; Morgan Geis was
SAIC of the White House Garage.  btw, it is odd that SS-100-X was
referred to as the WH 'Bubbletop' as the car usually referred to by
that name was the Eisenhower Lincoln. And the plastic top on SS-100-X
that was referred to as the 'bubbletop' was the only top for this car;
it had a 'leatherette' cover that was placed over it to make it look
like an enclosed sedan.  This was what was done at Parkland Hospital,
for example.)

Ford Motor Company  Washington Office
Intra-Company Communication December 18, 1963

TO: R.W. Markley, JR.
FROM: F. Vaughn Ferguson
Re: Changes in White House "Bubbletop"

On November 23rd, the day following the President's assassination, I
went to the White House garage in response to a telephone call to my
home from the Secret Service.  When I arrived about 10:00 a.m., the
White House "Bubbletop" was in a stall in the garage with two Secret
Service men detailed to guard it.  A canvas cover was over the unit. I
was permitted only to see the windshield of the car and then only
after the guards had received permission from higher ranking Secret
Service personnel.  Examination of the windshield disclosed no
perforation, but substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from
the center of the windshield at a point directly beneath the mirror.

I was at the garage only about one hour that day, but while I was
there Morgan Geis contacted the Secret Service and told them to have
me make arrangements to replace the windshield.

The following day, when I returned to the garage, the unit was no
longer under guard.  The Secret Service had cleaned the leather
upholstery the day before, but underneath the upholstery buttons dried
blood was still in evidence.  On my own initiative, I pulled up these
upholstery buttons and with a knife removed the caked blood around
them.  At this time, there was a heavy odor of dried blood still
noticeable.  There was a large blood spot on the floor covering which
the Secret Service had not been able to remove, but I did nothing
further about it that day.

In response to my call of November 25, personnel from Arlington Glass
came to the White House garage that same day to replace the
windshield.  The Arlington Glass personnel advised Morgan Geis and me
that removal would cause additional damage to the windshield but Geis
told them to go ahead and remove it anyway.  The Arlington Glass
personnel did remove it by putting their feet against the inside of
the windshield and pushing it out.  In doing so, additional cracks
formed (downward to the bottom of the windshield).  A Mr. Davis of the
Secret Service then took the windshield and put it in the stockroom
under lock and key and I have not seen it since.

That same day, November 25, I tried to clean the blood spot on the
carpet with only moderate success.  Late that afternoon I called Hess
and Eisenhardt who agreed to send new carpeting including masking and
binding.  It was also that day that Morgan Geis called my attention to
a dent in the chrome topping of the windshield at a point just above
the rear view mirror and asked why I hadn't fixed it while I was at
it.  I told him that my experience with chrome had been that in trying
to remove a dent of that size lead only to additional marks that
further marred the trim. In addition, the dent is not visible when the
top is on the unit.

On November 26th, late in the afternoon after I had left, the carpet
masking and binding arrived at the garage from Hess and Eisenhardt.
When I got to the garage on the 27th and was told that the carpeting
material was in, I contacted Morgan Geis who arranged with the White
House upholsery man to receive the metal piece containing the carpet,
remove the old carpeting, replace it with the new carpet, and return
the piect to me for reinstallation in the "Bubbletop."  This
upholsterer did not complete the job until late Friday afternoon the
29th.

On the morning of December 2nd, the re-carpeted piece was delivered to
me by a Secret Service agent named Davis and I then reinstalled it.
Also on the 2nd of December I noticed that the two lap robes had a few
blood spots on them, but, more than that, were soiled from handling
and required cleaning.  The White House chauffeurs were detailed to
take the lap robes to Fort Myer for cleaning.  These persons remained
with the lap robes until they were cleaned and returned the same day.

I think this represents a complete account of changes made in the
"Bubbletop" since November 22.

F.V. Ferguson

I agree putting the limo back into service like that is the strangest part of the scenario. So completely morbid I can't accept that they would really even consider it except to cover up evidence.
The other thing is the story of the ford manger who saw the limo in Detroit on Sunday or Monday. It can't be true if Ferguson is truthful.
Ferguson made one mistake when he put the crack in the wrong place. 
"Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating a couple of inches from the  CENTER of the windshield at a point DIRECTLY BENEATH the mirror". I also find it weird that he offered up the fact that there was no perforation instead of just noting the crack. He was not an investigator and his plan was just to pop out the window and replace it. He also documented the lengthening of the cracks as they removed it. When Cter's say the windshield in the archives has different cracks the story of the lengthening cracks is offered up as part of the explanation. That is fine and expected but a strange coincidence that Ferguson decided to document it when he was just the guy directing repairs. 
 Ferguson is completely at odds with the Detroit managers story. The detailed accounts can't be just bad memory, The limo had the windshield removed in D.C. or Detroit not both. Someone is lying.
 The Detroit manager only has his word, no other witness came forward. On the other hand the CIA is known for changing/faking documents and getting people to keep their mouths shut.

Note: the CT theory that the archive windshield has a different set of cracks(different angles) than the Garage photos is not valid. I reproduce the angles on glass with tape and found when you match the different camera angle of each, they change exactly as the archive and garage photos do.

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

A lot of if then and maybes as far as witnesses go according to what you are saying.  I don't see selecting some from others as a realistic option.  Neither one of us were there so therefore we have to rely on what they said rather than impose our own interpretations on their statements. 

"You said the shot on the corner had 50 witnesses"

What I said was the whole assassination took place in the intersection and in front of the TSBD according to 50 + witnesses.

Actually Chris, there is enough reasonable doubt on just about anything about the assassination and that is why people are still trying to find answers to what happened.  It is nearly impossible to get folks to agree on any particular aspect of the shooting.

I just can't remember any witnesses who implied that the whole assassination happened in front of the TSBD. Do you have a list or partial list? As far as who to believe and who to throw out I am trying to rely on reports with lots of other collaborating witnesses.

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:Chris gives a good account of some of the very serious practical problems that would have had to be overcome to fake the Zapruder film. I'm not so sure about his final remark, however: "too many witnesses saw the limo stop for me to think the Z film is unaltered".

 

https://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU?list=WL

Jeremy, I think the qualifier "consistently and unambiguously" is too strict and does not allow for slight variations in the accounts. Many witnesses said it "stopped or almost stopped". This would imply it went so slow that many could not tell if it was fully stopped or almost stopped. slightly ambiguous but consistently stated that way by many witnesses.
I believe I have read close to all the witness statements from multiple law enforcement agencies that day to the WC and later interviews. Having read those I found that some skeptics bend the truth a bit and some add those 'qualifiers" that skew the results. If the limo did stop I would expect some witnesses to miss the stop entirely due to the intense drama of the event. Also witnesses in front and behind would not recognize the motion of the limo as well as those watching from the sides.
If it didn't stop I would not expect to see a lot of reports that it did stop, unless you can find a reason. For instance maybe the car behind rushed up so quickly and closed the gap that people mistook that for the limo slowing way down.
There was a witness right there at the head shot that did not see it stop. Because of their proximity I would be inclined to make a snap judgement. But Nellie Connally said Jfk never said a word, yet an SS agent in the follow up car said he clearly heard JFK say "I been shot". He remembers that "damn Boston accent". Both Witnesses are credible and both were just feet away from JFK. Both can't be right so we have to discount one of those reports. My point is even highly credible close up accounts can be wrong.
 Hargis was the closest to the limo and he has said it stopped, but later said "slowed way down" and I think at least once said it happened just the way we see it in the Z film. How do we make sense of that? Well in the video clip of Hargis below(I think from the eighties) he says something very telling. Before he admits the limo "Slowed" and seconds later elaborates "That it slowed down almost to a stop", he says "Now this is not to be shown publicly but". 
 So consider this. The Z film had been made public maybe 10 years before so why does he not want his retelling shown publicly? The answer is because his story does not match the Z film! The second thing you can take from it is some witnesses contradict the Z film and they are not willing to go public with it.
 Maybe Hargis was wrong, maybe all the witnesses were wrong and it did not stop. but if we take an honest look at the witness statements there are closer to 30 who saw it slow to almost a stop or completely stop. That is compelling.
  https://youtu.be/q0Ta8PsYJfU?list=WL

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Thanks for the response.  I didn't measure Jackie and John's shoulders at first.  She just appeared to be wider.  After your post I went back and lightened the crop so you can see Connally's whole form.  I measured that against Jackie's and she came out just a tiny fraction wider.

As far as trusting Newman, I don't.  His first statements are a bit wild and unverified by others.  He sees Kennedy standing in the vehicle.  I think in his first statement he gave the impression he was closer to the TSBD than other media shows him.  I have reservations on Bill Newman.  Why pick him or several others when you have 50 + witnesses saying the shooting of the president happened in the intersection and in front of the TSBD?  It because of the all pervasive influence of the Zapruder film over the last 40+ years since it was shown on TV.

I base my allegations of fraud and fakery in the Zapruder film on its content problems and not its technical merits.  I am not great with anything technical.  The content problems such as the 19 people I call Mannequin Row between the lamppost and the Stemmons sign on whether they were there or not.  Whether there was anyone on the railroad such as Officer Foster and 10 railroad men when Altgens took Altgens 7.  The Johnson security vehicle with two rear ends one in the front and the other where it should be.  Phil Willis' extra long leg.  etc.

My original idea on how to fake the Z film was you really don't have to change anything except the contents of the presidential limousine.  That idea is supported by some frames in Zapruder that don't quite put all of the limo back after a cut and paste, I think if memory is working right that z 157 is a good example. 

Simply transfer the action from the intersection to down in front of the Grassy Knoll.  Then you can have shooting from the rear which is not likely if the shooting occurred in the intersection.  The imagery from the Zapruder Gap in my opinion is what we see there.   

Newman was not the only one to say JFK stood up. And many said they were in front of the TSBD but were making  general statements. You may be 100 feet to the side and 100 feet to the front of a building  but I could see them calling that being "In front of" the TSBD. I give those statements some latitude.
Maybe an hour after the event Brehm said he and his son were standing on Commerce. They were on Elm of course, but had walked across Commerce just a few minutes before. We often mix up our memory by combing events that did not happen together. I think placing the shots heard with the location of the limo will have many wrong  accounts. The whole thing happening in a matter of seconds and makes it even more unreliable. 
I think the best testimony is that with lots of corroborating witnesses. You said the shot on the corner had 50 witnesses. I thought that was an early missed shot, not the neck or head shot and that they mostly stated that there were additional shots afterwards. So I am not sure what it shows other than many did not hear that 1st shot and took the 2nd shot as the first.
Connally's wife said JFK never spoke a word. An SS agent in the Cadillac said he yelled "I been shot". (that would have to be the shallow back wound before the neck shot cause how could he yell after the throat shot), point is they both should be credible but one has to be 100% wrong. I think we should expect every witness to get some stuff wrong.

1 hour ago, Evan Marshall said:

I was the original training sgt for the SWAT Team in Detroit and we found that amour piercing rounds did not deflect near as much and frankly rounds thru windshields did all sorts of unpredictable things.

As a training specialist for the National Nuclear Security Administration's office of secure transportation we had access to all sorts of classified rounds but most were a refinement of earlier efforts and AP rounds existed before 1963.

 

An ap round would produce a caliber sized hole going in and out but again I cannot tell you how many times we recovered bullets at Homicide scenes that we would not figure out how they ended up where they did and since neither the body or limo were subjected to a thorough and professional search we've got to dig a lot deeper.

Thanks for the answer.

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

What a bizarre Z frame!

Z 223 crop from John Costella's z frames:

So I don't know what guys like Chris and Chris do to get some accuracy or pin point accuracy in their work.  There are always skeptics.

John, witnesses like the Newman's who said the head shot happened right in front of them are, imo, a good source and give us good idea of the location. They do not dispute the representations of their locations in Nix or the film taken right afterwards when they are still laying in the spot they dropped to.
I measured Connally from the center of his tie to the end of his left shoulder then doubled it. That measurement is way wider than Jackie.
 Off topic but it is funny how Connally said he was hit then looked down to see he was covered with blood. I don't see any blood in 223.
As far as faking things with the timing and location of the limo the problems are huge and the entire film would have to be a cut and paste recreation if they are doing more than just taking a limo stop out.  You can measure the angle of the limo as it changes relative to Zapruder every few frames. All the reflections on the limo change frame by frame and the shadows change as they wind down Elm.
To match it to the Nix film  you have the problem that the limo is partly obscured by people on the grass in Nix so you can't just reposition it, you have to patch it together from other images in the film
Even if they just took the limo stop out they would have to reanimate people like Foster because if you took out 2 seconds of limo stop her image would jump.
If you literally cut and pasted original elements of the film you would not have to worry about matching grain or color temperature but if you start adding things it might be impossible to perfect. The issue has many rabbit holes and requires experts in several different fields to really evaluate how they could fake it. That said too many witnesses saw the limo stop for me to think the Z film is unaltered.

1 hour ago, Evan Marshall said:

I was the original training sgt for the SWAT Team in Detroit and we found that amour piercing rounds did not deflect near as much and frankly rounds thru windshields did all sorts of unpredictable things.

As a training specialist for the National Nuclear Security Administration's office of secure transportation we had access to all sorts of classified rounds but most were a refinement of earlier efforts and AP rounds existed before 1963.

That is interesting but I have to ask, what would an armor piercing round due to JFK's neck? And with your experience I would like to ask if there is anything in the Altgens 6 image comparison that I posted above that strikes you as significant pro or con?

8 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Here is another couple of factors to consider for a frontal shot thru the windscreen NOT happening....

Greer and Kellermen's reactions from Z220 to Z240.......

Greers head/face/eyeballs were 18" or probably less from the spot a bullet is supposed to have punctured its way thru the windshield, Kellermens maybe  30" to 36" away .......Have you ever been driving a car or sitting in the front seat when a stone/rock flies up and hits the windshield??? Its pretty hard not to miss the sound and crack on the windshield........Kellermen and Greer never react to a thru and thru shot....NEVER.....Anyone here honestly believe if those two agents saw a bullet come thru the window only a foot or two from there heads they would not have assumed they were under attack and accelerated and zig zag the F@#k out of there. Stuff happening from behind them is confusing....a bullet thru the glass a foot from your eyes....NOT VERY CONFUSING

Two police officers and 8 to 12 people were standing on the overpass above elm street.....Do you honestly think I could stand on the overpass above commerce street and fire a rifle at the limo coming down Elm....and no one would see me standing 30 to 40 feet away.  It is a straight line of sight behind the overpass wall....no where to hide   from one end to the other....clear straight line. SO NO NOBODY ever stood above commerce street on the overpass and fired a miracle shot just over the windshield,  just under the partition chrome, just past Connally into JFK's throat and then had the round vanish from existence.

Chris above you speak of how rounds thru slanted windshields are pulled downward from there point of entry....100% correct ..........do you know who the only person ever seen in the plaza at the time of the shooting that day who was in a possible position to maybe...maybe(a 100 million to one) to make a shoot thru the the windshield that would be pulled downward and maybe hit the president.....JAMES TAGUE...................but guess what he was captured on film and photos....and never had a rifle. 

OH and one more thing

A shot thru the windshield from front to back striking the president in the throat  NEVER HAPPENED

 

PS.  how did they fake the white house garage photos taken of the limo by SS and FBI within the first 18 hours of arriving back in Washington DC.....How did they get false testimony from white house garage staff, Secret Service agents and FBI agents during that first 18 to 24 hours in the White House Garage.  Windshield damage YES  thru and thru front to back,

NO NEVER HAPPENED      

After that first 24 hours..............anything could of happened to that strike.....so the ford guys could have been presented with a hole....but none of them saw that limo inside the first 18-24 hours at the white house garage, so their evidence is moot. 

I have considered Greer and Kellerman and the lack of reaction. It could be convincing evidence of no shot. On the other hand it could be due to complicity in a conspiracy. Greer did not seem to react to the shot at all. At Z255 Connally is alarmed and turning around. Kennedy is in obvious distress but 5 seconds after Greer is moving at 8mph! It is possible that Greer and Kellerman were part of the conspiracy to kill JFK. If not for that possibility I would say there is a 99% chance that the shot never happened. But personally I am convinced by the Parkland doctors that a shot came from the front or at the very least a big hole in his head was covered up. I am not here to debate that issue but because it convinces me I have to consider the involvement of our intelligence community and the SS.
Regarding a shot from the top of the overpass that went over the windshield I am not promoting that idea The line of sight may be there, as I think I said somewhere, but I am considering the problem of the South Knoll as it relates to the windshield hole.
 Not sure about a "One in a million" shot. Snipers talk about making specific calculations for firing through a windshield. The largest deflection would be in the vertical and would just hit JFK lower not miss him. If the sniper knows the type of vehicle and the angles beforehand it would be very beneficial and a JFK assassin would have had that info.
""PS.  how did they fake the white house garage photos taken of the limo by SS and FBI within the first 18 hours of arriving back in Washington DC.....How did they get false testimony from white house garage staff, Secret Service agents and FBI agents during that first 18 to 24 hours in the White House Garage.  Windshield damage YES  thru and thru front to back,""
 You don't have to fake photos in the 1st 18 hours. You have to alter them before they become public or as evidence in a trial.
""How did they get false testimony from white house garage staff""  Maybe they covered the windshield when not inspecting it themselves. Maybe they told the staff to stay away from the limo. Maybe they swore them to secrecy(That has been proven to be effective as many witnesses kept their silence till the HSCA  happened and they were relieved of their commitment to silence).

The idea that because the ford guys saw the limo many hours later does not make their testimony "moot" that is absurd. If they saw a hole in the limo windshield as they replaced it then where that hole came from is a valid question. Do I even need to say that?

This "Never happened" opinion is just that, an opinion, not a fact. Arguing opinions as facts is more of a pissing contest than an enlightening discussion of the facts and theories. I am not interested in debating opinions like it never happened or definitely happened.

3 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

1st shot/back shot was referred to as behind the Stemmons sign when viewing from Z's footage.

CE884 shows the elevations with a 3.27ft height adjustment for the back wound location above the pavement.

Subtract 3.27ft from the elevations listed in CE884 and you have the true street elevations at those frame numbers.

So between Z frames 210-222,  elev 423.53 (426.8 - 3.27) and 422.84 (426.11 - 3.27) = elev 423.07.

 

I think you are right, CE844 may be correct and Google Earth has a problem. Your numbers match the West Breneman map at Z210. At Z313 the WB map is 418 and CE844 shows 421, so they diverge a bit, while Google Earth is about 10 feet off in many places. I don't know why that is but none of those maps are fully consistent with CE844.
The WB map shows the manhole by the West end of the picket fence is 1 foot higher than than street level at Z210. That appears correct and If that is true then the South parking lot is at about the same elevation as Z210 because that manhole, the overpass, and the parking lot in the South corner are all within one foot elevation of each other according to Google Earth.  CE844 does not give the elevation for any of those points so I don't have one map that shows Z210 and the parking lot. It looks like it still is close to a level shot.

26 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Is Dealy Plaza symmetrical?

If so, are the parking lots on both the North/South knolls at the same elevation?

The 1st shot determined was elevation 423.07 (approx z217-218), that, plus a windshield height hole at approx 42.5 inches above the pavement equals an elevation of 423.07 + 3.54ft = 426.61ft.

Drommer plat shows the elev at the picket fence corner of 96.5 while the elev at the sidewalk under the 6th floor snipers window is elev 100.4.

That difference = 3.9ft

Converted back to West's measurements, that would be elev 430.2 - 100.4 = 329.8 + 96.5 = elev 426.3.

Or, 430.2 - 3.9ft = 426.3

I assume the ground was level(symmetry) from the east to the west end of the picket fence.

 

 

By first shot do you mean the throat shot or the possible missed shot closer to Houston? I am talking about the throat shot around Z210. Google Earth shows an elevation of 415 ft at the 1st x in the road and 414ft in the South parking lot.

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

This is not with regard to the neck wound, but I believe it was former poster Al Carrier who made a good case that a shot from the South Knoll could just clear the top of the windshield and inflict the fatal head wound.

 

 

 

 

Interesting idea. I found that a fragment from the head shot could have gone under the cross bar and over the windshield. His head at 313 was at about the height of his neck at 209 so it seems like it could work.

On 5/12/2019 at 6:41 AM, Adam Johnson said:

Hi Chris,

I have been a shooter since i was 9, over 40 years now....i never joined the military but i have shot at many targets and many moving animals. I have visited Dealey Plaza twice, once in 1997 and again in 2000. I spent a whole day moving around the plaza, the knoll and picket fence area, the overpass and underpass.. I went across to the south knoll then back up to the overpass from the south side.

Lots of good information there, thanks. The Dal Tex photo is  a view I have never seen. I agree that the head shot scenarios have merit.
There are definitely some problems with the windshield anomaly being a bullet hole. It would have to pass very close to Connally and maybe pelt him with glass. Not to mention the shock wave inches from his ear that he never mentioned or the lack of an exit wound.
 On the other hand I can't explain multiple witnesses who saw a "Through and and through" bullet hole as they stood right in front of the limo. As you may know Dr Glanges stood right in front of the limo and saw the hole. She was a women who shot rifles since she was very young. She reloaded ammo with her father all his life and she knew the difference between high and low velocity impacts. Then George Whitaker, a manger at the Ford factory in Michigan said the limo arrived Monday for a new windshield. He recounts a bullet hole below.
""After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape — and to then get the new windshield back to the  building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front.""
  It is hard to write off those consistent statements. I have recently considered that maybe there was a windshield shot that missed. If that was the case I could place the shooter in a different location. The parking lot in the South corner next to the RR tracks is a great place for a sniper because the shot would be almost level and the limo would be heading toward the shooter(Or the closest it would come to driving straight towards the shooter). The Sun is at the shooters back and he could shoot from the back of an enclosed truck that has backed into a parking space. That gives perfect cover and maybe some room for the gunsmoke to be contained inside the truck if the shooter stood back from the rear end. That also means a very quick exit as the truck could just drive straight away. That shot would could hit low and left and miss JFK.
 Here is another bit I find compelling. Look at the bullet holes on the right. You see a heart shape or maybe Mickey Mouse ears shaped hole in black. The middle image of the Altgens 6 hole has the same feature. It's size is also similar. notice the image on the left has that angled crack that seems to happen when you hit an angled windshield from the right. Altgens 6 shares that feature too.. I finally found a good image of Altgens 7 and the same angled line is present in the same place as Altgens 6.
 So I don't know what went on. There are interesting pros and cons but nothing that convinces me, yet.

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

To connect the windshield/throat shot to one from the front one has to have a location on where the presidential limousine was located when the first shot occurred.  Change that location and you have a different angle and perhaps a different direction.

 

Yes if it happened earlier the shot gets moved to the middle of Commerce or maybe the divider between Main and Commerce(Very rough guess). Maybe it raises the shot enough to come from the top of the triple.
The Z film could be faked but the witness accounts put the reaction to the neck/back shot around Z209 to 215. so that is what I am testing.

16 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

For professionals, maybe a military quality expert sniper, there is cover for one and possibly a spotter/radio man.  And egress over the tracks and down the hill to a car.  With a scoped 22 possibly silenced (the firecracker sound reported by some) hollow point, which wouldn't exit, the throat shot is possible.  From beside the last concrete pillar on the south side of the overpass.  Been there, crouched down.  You can't see/be seen from the part of the Railroad Overpass over Elm where Holland and others were.  Would not have been a problem for example Chris Kyle.

Ron, do you mean on top of the triple? To correct for deflection you have to move to a lower location than the sidewalk on Commerce under the triple. The bullet has to take more of an upward angle through the windshield hole in altgens 6 to correct for deflection. But how do you get lower than that sidewalk?

46 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Penn Jones once told me to get into the manhole to check out the theory. I took a photo from that

angle. It was theoretically possible, but the window of opportunity was so short and uncertain

it seemed unlikely. The storm drain at the end of the picket fence where it adjoins the

railroad overcrossing, on the other hand, looked like a much easier and more certain

shooting location for a trained sniper.

 

I never considered that location for the throat shot. It is an almost level shot from 300 feet, and it does not have to pass through the windshield. But the bullet would cross the sidewalk at around 4 feet high.