Chris Bristow

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.

David, that confused me for a second. I am not in the photos so you must mean Mr Cappel who posed for that picture many years ago. That image is used by Lne'rs to show that the lean can be reproduced. Obviously it does not even come close. I do think there would be some blur. The end of the Carcano would show some blur if he was moving but I don't see any blur there. One thing about the left foot position I have found is once you lean right your weight comes of the left foot. At that point it does not make much difference in your posture except for a slight counter weight effect the farther you hold it out. The wiki page on the Imperial reflex camera says the slow shutter speed causes that camera to blur easily. They said you needed to hold the camera very steady. Interesting Not to rag on the skeptics but when that Cappel photo is offered as proof that he could lean that far, they always offer up the fact that 'They are the same height too'. But that is complete BS. They did arrange the photo to match the position of his head with the post above, but to do that they had to raise the camera about 4 inches. Easy to confirm this by comparing the roofline of the house next-door to where it intersects with the stairs. The comparison they offer has an image of 133a next to the Cappel image but it is rotated 4 to 4 1/2 degrees farther left than 133a. But even then Mr Cappel's lean does not match Oswald's. If the stance can be debunked legitimately why do they offer a photo that misrepresents height and has to be rotated 4 degrees from the comparison photo, and even then they can't match the stance.!

I find it impossible to duplicate Oswald's lean in 133a. There are two crucial elements of Oswald's posture that must be matched to test his stance and that is the angle of his right foot and his hips. I have seen Oswald's extreme angle achieved but the right foot and hips are usually swung way out, far past Oswald's. when you reproduce his foot and hip angles even if it's just a loose approximation, the stance become hugely problematic I will explain how I determined the hip and foot angles below. Whenever you take measurements like these there will be some ambiguity. Each measurement has a tolerance and by the time you add up all the variables in a persons posture you have too much variability. To limit the ambiguity I have done two things. First I will give a very large tolerance to the hip angle measurement. I found the hip angle is well below 10 degrees, but for the purposes of testing the stance you can increase the hip angle to 20 degrees. Secondly, the only part of Oswald's stance that I test is from the waist down. Simply trying to match the vertical alignment of his right knee, shin and waist is all you need to discover the problem with his posture. even if you try to lean your upper body to counter the lean(Which Oswald did not do) it will not allow you to reproduce his lean. One odd side note is that Oswald is leaning all of his body equally like a mannequin leaned against a wall. You can draw a straight line from his adams apple right down through the crouch and and between his feet. The line traces the center of his body the whole way down. There is disagreement on which version of 133a is actually level. The fence is either leaning 2,3, or 4 degrees. To avoid any ambiguities I will use the 4 degree tilt which has Oswald leaning the least. However I think it is actually around 2 1/2 degrees based on the door frame visible on the house in the background of the Getty image below. There wasn't much in that yard that was vertical. The bannister leaned right. The post by Oswald leaned left. It makes so you can't trust much of anything. But that vertical door frame is, imo, a very good reference to find vertical. In the Getty image below I have rotated them to match. You can see that Mr Cappel on the right does not swing his leg way out but you can also see from the green lines that he is not leaning out over his stance like Oswald. There only two things to verify before you can attempt to duplicate his stance, the foot and hips angle THE ANGLE OF HIS SHOE This first image was taken from directly above a shoe that is angled at about 38 degrees. The two images below are the same shoe at 38 degrees but the angles are now distorted to between 68 and 72 degrees. The images are at 68 degrees and 72 degrees and were taken from 10 and 12 feet away. The distorted angle of his right foot in 133a is about 68 degrees so the actual angle of his foot was around 38 degrees. The camera distance is an estimate so to be fair I will give an extra 12 degrees and say the actual angle of Oswald's shoe was no more than 50 degrees. FINDING THE HIP ANGLE The images below shows a recreation of the telephone line shadows that fell on the ground behind Oswald and across his hips. The diagrams on the left are overheads of the corresponding image on the right. The only difference in the diagrams is that in the upper one Oswald is facing directly West, his hips are parallel with the shadow on the ground. Because he is standing parallel the shadow across his hips(simulated by the white box standing behind the protractor) is also parallel with the shadow on the ground. But Oswald was actually facing the camera, which according to the HSCA had a line of sight of 22 degrees North of East. The image on the bottom shows that rotating his hips to face the camera caused the shadow across his hips to take on an angle. There are a few basic and obvious facts we can draw from the shadow on Oswald's hips. First, we know Oswald's hips could not be anywhere near a 22 degree angle because the shadows would be parallel as In the top image. Second the amount of angle divergence between the ground and hip shadows is around 8 degrees and matches 133a so Oswald was facing much closer to the camera than directly West as in the top image. I think the hip shadow shows his hips must have been at no more than 7 degrees of angle if that. But to test his stance you could go as far as 15 degrees or even 20 degrees and it will still prevent you from achieving Oswald's alignment of shin, knee and waist. You can see the shin, knee, and waist alignment If you look at the green lines below. You will see the green line on the right runs vertically from Oswald's shin, through his knee and up to the waist where it intersects about one inch left of Oswald's center line. That is about one inch left of where his belt buckle would be. To summarize, I have found that is you keep the right foot to 50 degrees and the hip to 20 degrees it becomes extremely difficult to maintain Oswald's lean, if not impossible. The easiest way I found to approach the stance is as follows. First I leaned out far enough to align my shin and waist which leaves the knee out to the right of the alignment. Even before tucking the knee in to finish the alignment it was very painful and placed way too much strain on the right knee to be able to fully stand there without keeping one hand on the wall. Someone here made a good point that Oswald may have been in a transition from one stance to another at that moment. So it would just be a momentary strain. But in that posture you feel like you are just a couple millimeters away from an injury and it gives you an intuitive understanding that you can't afford to hop around in or out of that stance cause you are just to close to your limit. finally when you try and tweak your knee into alignment you realize that even if you could maintain that posture for a few seconds why would you? It is really such a torturous stance that you are left with the nagging realization that it just makes no sense. I would advise anyone who attempts this stance to be careful because you could injure yourself. I found it necessary to put my hand against the wall for support.

Thanks, It is an interesting little anomaly. Does the shadow indicate that the silhouette of Oswald was a cutout placed on top of the Dallas Police photo? I thought this was supposed to be a cutout silhouette with white paper behind it? If the Dallas photo itself was cutout over white paper then the shadow would fall inside the silhouette wouldn't it? Let's say he first used a cutout silhouette of Oswald over the Dallas cop image and it was uneven and cast a shadow. Then he used the resulting image with the shadow mistake (Because he was just practicing) to cutout the 133c silhouette. That would result in a cutout photo with a shadow outside the white silhouette I guess you are right not to trust what they say. If I have the story right Dt. Brown tried to say he cut himself out of the photo but had to completely change the story because the cutout shape is Oswald in 133c. But isn't that also a Dallas Police photo of the Backyard? There would be no Oswald or Brown to cut out of it. That particular Dallas photo he used has to be one of those with no person in the picture because cutting out a 133c silhouette would not remove all of Dt Brown even if he had been in the photo. The only cutting out he did was Oswald in 133c and a silhouette into the Dallas cop photo. Roscoe White snatched 133c at some point and kept it out of evidence. Maybe it was found separate from 133a and B and he pocketed it then. Maybe he took any records of it being found. somehow he kept it hidden. but that would not prevent him from influencing the 133c pose Dt Brown did. Maybe he decided to snatch the photo after they replicated the pose. That sounds pretty stupid of him but my point is he could be responsible for Brown's 133c pose.

Here is a strange thing. The cutout image has a dark line over the left forearm that matches the leather sling that drapes over Oswald's forearm. The problem is, it is in the white cutout part that is supposed to be a white sheet of paper that laid behind the cutout portion. The shadow image lays in the same spot over the forearm. Even slight variations match. Maybe some copies of the cutout have remnants of overlaid comparisons? If this is part of the original image then the mystery is what process would leave traces of the cutout image? There is also a difference between the two part of the newspaper that matches 133c. The fold on the left is distinct but it is barley visible without some further enhancement.

Dealey would be interesting but 214 Neeley St on the 31st of March with a camera and tape measure,, that would;d be enlightening.

Shifting stance is a legit consideration. I would expect some blur especially at the end of the gun barrel which should reflect very slight movements. What I find in the stance is if I just duplicate the belt buckle over the shin I am so close to tipping over that I would have to put one hand on the wall to shift at all. But that is before I add my knee to the alignment. The knee will naturally fall farther out and you have to tweak it inward to make it align. At that point it matches 133a perfectly. But I am well past the tipping point and my knee is under too much strain to use it to support my weight. But I am old so I will pester my nephew to try it. I think if you try it, even being loose about the parameters, you will end up scratching your head too.