Chris Bristow

I would say it is very unlikely that a shot came from that position mostly because there was no cover, but that is just an opinion. The deflection of the bullet may prove it was impossible.

The theory about the bullet hole in the windshield in Altgens 6 places the shooter at Commerce St and the overpass. A shot from there lines up the hole in the windshield with JFK's neck. I mapped it out and came up with the same results as others have. But now I find that military snipers say even high velocity rounds will deflect downward by an inch or more from the windshield to the target in the (front) seat. This is due to the 45 degree backward angle of the windshield. For a bullet to pass through the location of the Altgens 6 hole then deflect downward 2 inches and hit JFk's neck the shooter would have to be at least 8 feet lower than the junction of the triple overpass and the Commerce St. sidewalk. I don't see how you could get any lower! The only solution is to move the shooter closer which allows for the round to hit at a more upward angle and account for the deflection. To maintain the angle and still have cover the only option is the manhole on the South West side of Elm. The manhole is 200 feet from the front of the limo and the hood is about 3 feet high. That means the angle from the manhole would allow you to see JFK's head but I am not keen about a manhole theory. Anyone have an insight?

Joe, I have heard that the separation bar had a window separating the front seat from the passengers but it was not installed that day. If it had been the FBI would have had to document the holes in it. Just yesterday I was trying to test the theory that a fragment caused the Tague injury and curb strike. I found that there is room for fragments to go under the bar and either escape over the top of the windshield or maybe hit the visor. Going over the separation bar would require a 5 degree upward angle.

Recently I read about the investigation onto the cause of the sinking of the Titanic. Many witnesses recounted how the ship nosed down and the stern lifted up out of the water before breaking in two. The investigators decided that sounded a bit too fantastic. They concluded the stress and drama of the event caused people to embellish their story. They ignored the consistency of the reports and their own personal bias took over. They wrote those stories off. It sounds like a cheap excuse when skeptics say witnesses must have talked among themselves or seen similar news artciles. It can happen but I think it has also become an excuse to explain away difficult evidence.

Yes, oh boy. It is very simple to do multiple lines of sight in Altgens 6 which shows the exact location of the limo at Z 255. Even if A6 or Z is claimed to be fake it is faked to put the limo at Z255. There is not a single thing in that photo that supports the idea that the limo is East of the Stemmona sign. The sign is just outside the field of view in A6. That can also be verified by adding the cameras field of view to Altgens lines of sight . If a researcher wants to be taken seriously they have to learn to check their claims before presenting. Make a few mistakes or ignore the basic rules of perspective and optics and you will not be taken seriously after that.

The unreliable Carcano ammo was known to misfire. That could cause a shallow wound. Multiple witness reports of people hearing firecrackers as opposed to a shockwave and muzzle blast could also be due to a misfire. I have noticed from witness statements that folks in Dallas are especially knowledgeable about guns in general. Many knew the difference between shock wave and muzzle blast. I have always wondered how so many described hearing firecrackers, I think it must be around 30 people. I think it was McClain who said all the pigeons around the TSB flew away when the headshot occurred. Why didn't the first shots startle the birds? Maybe they were misfires.

I think if the rifle on the left was evidence found they would not hold it by the stock because it would obscure fingerprints. This next bit is not directly related to the topic, but for what it is worth I have seen comparisons of different photos of the Carcano from the Dallas PD, Warren Commission and the photo on the right, and the dimension all differ. It is simply due to the angle of the rifle to the camera. In the photo on the right the butt of the rifle is oversized because it is closer to the camera. That enlarged part decreases as you move towards the end of the barrel. Because the butt is magnified the overall rifle length is extended, so if you match image sizes to compare it to another rifle you end up shrinking it too much. This makes for some weird distorted comparisons. The Butt appears magnified but the magnification gradually and consistently lessens until it appears smaller than the comparison rifle at the end of the barrel. This odd combination of size distortion, imo, verifies that we are seeing the same rifle from different angles Below is the same rifle photographed from 12 feet. The bottom of the rifle on the left sits about 4 inches closer. You can see the bulk of the magnification occurs from the trigger down. I can't find the original scope so I put my custom one on. It is a 1x1 magnification with a nice wide field of view and absolutely zero optical distortion, and was originally very absorbent.

You peaked my interest about the Eyeglass frames. I was an Optician for many years. What I see is Milteer's glasses are larger especially in the vertical dimension. the style on the JFK observer is close to a Dobbs 2 (you can see it here http://optometristattic.com/7775_Optometrist_Attic.htm ) or the B&L 'Clubmaster'. Milteer's glasses look like the plastic/metal combination but are more squared than the Dobbs 2 and the JFK guy's frames. In those days frame selection was one millionth of what it is today. That metal/plastic combo was everywhere although maybe Woolworth and Sears advertised like they had an exclusive.

Best example yet.

At first I did think the photo was from Muchmore and then Hughes. They all show the same moment as Altgens 5 from different angles when they filmed on Huston before Elm. That mistake in no way nullifies my point. An interesting point about Tony's removal of the Shadow. Is that you can accuse him of making his own shape out of it. But what it does show is that there's enough image within the original dark area to fully show the tire as it should be from that angle.

When I see my front tire next to your image from Altgen's 5 it does make me do a double take. The back of the tire in the Hughes image looks strange because it shoots straight down till it obscures the lower part of the white wall. My image shows some of that but the camera angle is shallow. The strangeness is magnified because a shadow extends out from the bottom of the tire at a place that makes it look like part of the tire shooting downward. It makes it look like the tire extends way below where it actually does. The red lines in my example above trace out the actual line of the tire. The rest is shadow. THE BEST CASE FOR THE SHADOW: Ok here's the thing with the shadow. The azimuth was only 8 degrees West of North/South at that time.( It can often seem like more in the Z film but Elm isn't running East West in the plaza and that gives a false impression.) The front tire was finishing its turn but you can still see that the front wheel had not straightened out yet.(Watch the Hughes film to verify the angle of the front wheel). It looks to me to be around 10 or 12 degrees. After 8 degrees the back of the tire itself will start casting a shadow in front of it. A point 6 inches high on the back outer edge of the tire would place a shadow about 7 inches away on the ground right beside the tire(Elevation of the Sun was 36 degrees). It could also start a few inches either side of the 7 inch mark. We know for sure what the azimuth and elevation was and that Huston St runs N/S. So we can say for sure that if the tire was angled more than 8 degrees we would have to start seeing shadow next to the tire. Looks to me like 10 to 12 degrees. It is also possible that the shadow is caused by the bulge of the sidewall at the bottom of the tire. In that case the wheel could be turned less than 8 degrees. Because the bulge would only be a couple inches off the ground the shadow would land almost directly below it as a shadow cast by an object only two inches off the ground can't travel more than an inch or two before it meets the ground.

I believe it was me that said it was a trick of shadows and angles and I still think it is the case. The closest comp I could find is a slightly wider angle but is still a very close match. The high contrast helps to see the difference between the darker shadow and the tire. There is shadow on the ground and a bit at the bottom of the tire due to its natural bulging. The other image is from a YouTube ad for a 63 Lincoln so we can assume it is not faked. It gives a good view of the bottom of the tire because the Sun is not casting the same shadows. The Muchmore image does look very weird but it does not stand up to scutiny.

"A matter of seconds" yup so true.

Yes I agree patriotism can be a cause of dissonance as well. Religion can do that too. Many reject the alien possibility because it contradicts religious beliefs.

I have to take these reports with a grain of salt. Number 6 Elsie Doorman said she stopped filming on Houston St but her film goes on long after that. She catches the Willis girl running and then pans back to see the Car behind Johnson's limo as it turns onto Elm. It is also possible they heard firecrackers.

thanks for the info. I will definitely review the witness statements.

I wonder about noises like the 4 escort Harley's that may have muffled rifle shots. The position of the escorts relative to the witness when the shot occured may explain something. There has to be a reason or reasons those people did not hear 3 shots. Many witness also said the early shot sounded like firecrackers. One thing the witness statements show is folks in Dallas were very educated on firearms. statements like"I was going out at lunch to pick up my gun from the gunsmith. Or I was buying ammo etc. One woman who was sitting in her car with her children saw a guy run out the rear of the TSBD and she said he had a rifle "Not some bolt action thing, this was a high powered automatic with a scope" That is a very rough paraphrase but you get the idea. So many heard firecrackers you have to wonder about it. the Carcano ammo was known to misfire, maybe it was that, or maybe firecrackers were meant to be a misdirection from a second shooters position. The Dallas folks being educated on firearms also lends credibility to the last two shots being close together. Many of them demonstrated that they knew the difference between the sonic wave and muzzle blast.

It would be fascinating to see maps that shows witness locations with the number of shots they heard. If you could add when they heard the shots it would be even better. I just recently considered doing a graphic that shows an overhead of the limo moving along while color coded markers come.and go showing location and timing of the witness accounts. Since most witness reports give less than specific times for each shot you would have to make colored markers appear for multiple frames. I wonder if it may pin down why many witness only heard two shots. It may shed some light on when the shots really happened. It would take a fair amount of work to do this but I might get around.to it.

A topic on the JFK Assassination Forum asked why people believe in Ct's. It got me thinking about the other side of the issue. Anyone who accepts the possibility of CT's as being true has experienced the extreme cognitive dissonance that the general public can display. There's a knee jerk reaction to anything dubbed 'Conspiracy" that results in an immediate and absolute conclusion that ALL those things are fake. End of story! It seems to be a human condition to jump to conclusions and relieve the uncomfortable feeling of ambiguity. If you can write off everything that gets labeled "conspiracy" you can put all those ambiguities aside and move on. I believe if the truth of the Iran Contra scandal was leaked long before it became public there would have been a well developed Ct, and also many skeptics who wrote it off as too crazy to be true. The same would be true for MK Ultra. But the time between first hearing about these accusations and the confirmation of them was short and so no great conspiracy theory developed. But if they had, they would have been proved true in the end. The big failing of the "All is fake' position is that each conspiracy theory is different yet they write of all of them with a broad brush. In 1968 when Project Bluebook closed the lead astronomer/researcher Allen Hynek Leaked the fact that our military has been tracking solid objects moving in our atmosphere that 1. far out performed our aircraft. 2. Appeared to be under intelligent control. 3. Sometimes appeared to violate the laws of momentum I.E. instant acceleration, deceleration, and sharp turns at high speed. Ok so that sounds crazy and our Military denied it. But them in 2014 or 2016 the Pentagon admitted they had been studying ufo's as recently as 2011. They released a documented encounter from 2001 and guess what? it validated what Hynek said back in 1968. What this tells us is that from at least 2001 up till 2014 our military hid the truth that they indeed did track solid objects that far out preform our aircraft and violate the laws of momentum. This is exactly a conspiracy theory come true! Verified by the Pentagon! This proves that lumping all 'Conspiracy theories together is simply due to cognitive dissonance. there is nothing logical about it. There is also some craziness on the CT'er side. People will accept conspiracy theories as quickly as skeptics dismiss them. They can see assassins behind every bush, even when the bush is 12 inches tall. Maybe they are attempting to remove ambiguity too, or maybe Ct is just a lot of fun to embrace. I suspect there is an element of narcissism in discovering what no one else has. People can think illogically on both sides of the issue but I have a personal bias here. Those who avoid any intellectual rigor by dismissing all Ct as crazy and then form the opinion that considering a Ct makes you a bit of a lunatic, are soft brained fools. Or at least they are acting like fools. (Im am not talking about educated skeptics like those on this forum. I refer to the responses of the generally uneducated public) It is our own distaste for ambiguity and our human ego that makes us draw premature conclusions and state theory and opinion as fact. An open mind is essential to investigation and a closed mind is often doomed to misunderstand things from the start.

The right knee is strange looking. I can duplicate it with one hand on a wall to keep from falling over, and it won't support any weight, but anatomically it works. Gravity is another matter.

I have a second way to find the angle of the hips and the results match the shadow analysis. The image below shows that when facing straight forward the button and zipper flap appear centered. As you angle your hips back the zipper flap and button start to skew off to the side. At 11 degrees angle it is very apparent and when the angle reaches 22 degrees it has moved about 1 3/4 inches off center. (BELOW) In 133a the rifle covers the pants button but you can use the zipper flap below and trace a line up ward. The flap leans at the same angle as the rest of Oswald so I will assume he had his pants on straight. Tracing it upwards places the button less than one inch off center. That implies that Oswald's hips were angled less than 10 degrees. The red line in 133a denotes the middle point and the green line traces the zipper flap to the button location. In the image on the left you can also see the telephone line shadows. Finding the angle of the shadow across his hips can be tricky because of the uneven surfaces. To measure it I think it is best to take the point it hit Oswald's left hip which is easily seen, then use the shadow of his revolver on the ground to determine where the shadow exits his right hip. The shadow measures about 9 degrees steeper angle than the shadow on the ground. The shadow on the ground has it's own angle of 8 or 9 degrees which is exactly what happens when you photograph it from Marina's 22 degree line of sight. The fact that both the angle of the shadow on the ground and across Oswald are both around 9 degrees implies that Oswald matched Marina's 22 degree line of sight by turning his body(hips) almost straight towards her.

First Brown said he cut himself out of the photo and I guess he had to change the story because the silhouette is obviously Oswald in 133c. But then he claimed that the ghost image is 133c with Oswald cut out? Did he change his story after that? This ghost photo has the perspective of the Dallas PD photos not 133c. The camera is much lower in the Dallas cop photos which is obvious when you look at where the roof line of the house behind him meets the stairs. Did he really claim the background is from 133c? To make the ghost image he would have had to cut Oswald out of 133c then placed that over the Dallas PD image in order to trace Oswald's silhouette.

I don't know. I disagree with so much of his opinions on the BYP's. He said they used the same background but the roofline at the stairs is different in each BYP photo. don't know how he missed that. but to be fair he often said things like "This needs a closer look" instead of making claims. Then again I never found any of the photographic fakery observations he made about the Z film to be valid.

Yes he also seems to lean more with his upper body.

Andrej, Your hips are angled back at maybe 45 to 50 degrees and your right foot is almost 80 degrees out to the side. The point I stress is that Oswald's hips are no more than 20 degrees angled and his foot, when you subtract for perspective( Completely explained above) is angled no more than 50 degrees. I have considered your photo before and you lean even farther than Oswald but unless you match the foot and hip angle i don't think it is a valid test. It is the hips and foot angles that drastically limit how far you can lean. The Dartmouth images you posted have the fence rotated to 4 degrees which puts Oswald at 5 degrees of lean. I and many consider 2 1/2 to 3 degrees to be correct and that puts Oswald at around 7 degrees. They also show Oswald's hips at 35 plus degrees. I think the shadow analysis above makes it clear those hips can't even be at 20 degrees. EDIT:Oh ok that is your model not the Dartmouth one.