Chris Bristow

Curry said he saw the limo coming up on him and he floored it because he was supposed to stay in from of it. He said by the time he reached the West end of the triple pass the limo had caught up to him. At that point he could hear Greer and Hill yelling "Get to Parkland'. His statement about losing the acceleration race seems inconsistent with the slow moving limo. I also get about 24 mph as the speed in the underpass. But the film seems to run a bit slow when viewing people running so maybe it was closer to 35. Maybe the limo slowed to allow Curry to remain in front. Maybe Greer took a long distance to get up speed because of Jackie on the trunk. At frame 363 the Z film has it going 15 mph. If the limo was going very slow at the Stemmons onramp it would explain why the Macintyre photo shows the 3 lead bikes cruising at around 25mph. Riding 3 abreast with Lumkin (center) resting his left hand in his lap. Not something the center bike would do at 45 mph when taking a sharp curve. In case this is of value to anyone I want to point out that in the Jack Daniels film the shadows of the 2 cars directly behind the limo show that Curry fell in behind the limo and in front of the Queen Mary, yet Curry testified that the limo never got in front of his ford Galaxy 500. But by the silhouette of Curry's front bumper and the shadow of the flagpole on the front bumper of the QM show that Curry must have followed the limo up the onramp.

I just did a line of sight for the Latin man. In Bronson he lines up with the Pergola and Bronson's position off Main St.. Match that position to the Z film and he lines up with the wall in the background very close to what we see in the Z film. I don't have any exact marker on the wall to pin it down, but within a foot or two it puts the Latin man just East of the sign and at the curb.

I think the Newman's 2nd child is standing next to Mrs Newman and is blocked by Moorman. Actually I think you can see the child just over the top of Moorman's head. Nix was a couple feet to the left of Bronson and his film reveals Newman's 2nd child to be right next to mrs Newman. Nix was shooting from 5 feet below Bronson's position(Bronson was standing on top of a pillar) so the child's head is not above Morrman's Chism's 2nd child may be standing in front of her. It could also be the flag on the limo but that would allow for the 2nd child's image to be behind or mixed with the flag.

I was surprised to find errors in the West Breneman survey map. The misplaced lane markers like the line near the front left tire in Altgens 6 is well known and all the lane markers East of the one in Altgens 6 are also a couple feet West of there actual positions in '63. What I found recently is that the two lampposts on the East side of Main St are about 10 feet West of there actual positions on 11,22,63. That is a very large error for a survey map. You can verify the error by doing a line of sight for Nix when he pans past the lamppost on the North side of Main St. The lamppost should line up with the right side of the Fort Worth sign according to the map but in reality it comes closer to the stairs just East of the F.T. sign. Images of the lamppost from 11,22 show it is about 10 feet further East than the map shows. That is a pretty large error! So I am wondering if anyone has any other errors to report?

Greer only looked back for a second so unless he hit the brakes really hard I don't think the limo could change speed much. He slowed from about 12mph to 8 mph in that second from frame 290 to 319. I am guessing he let off the gas and tapped the brake. Under normal less stressful conditions the average driver does not let off the gas when they look to the rear for one second.

The Conspiracy theory is that the freshly painted yellow marks on the curb defined the kill zone that Greer was to slow or stop at. The fact that Chaney, Hargis, Chief Curry and the FBI and CIA agents in his back seat all said Chaney rode forward to notify Curry(300 feet ahead of the limo) of the shots fired is another anomaly related to the limo stop. If they did take the limo stop out then there is no time for Chaney to ride up to Curry, then stop and have a short conversation. So the theory is they had to take out Chaney's ride forward too.

Good point and I don't know. If it was meant for the head it might account for about a 12 inch drop from the head to the entrance wound in the back.

That ammo was known for it's unreliability and it is possible that one shot was a bad round that has a much lower velocity. It could also be the reason people heard a firecracker as opposed to a rifle shot. It could also explain how one shot went wild and struck Teague. Not that I believe this is what happened but it is a valid theory.

After doing some experimental photos I found that images taken from the front and rear would have the same distortion in the form of widening angles. Magnification of the lower part of the crack occurs from the front and magnification of the top happens when photographed from the rear but no changes in angles. Then I found the HSCA uncropped photo of the removed windshield and took that angle into account. I also under estimated the angle of the windshield in my first test. After correcting both errors I found the difference in angles between the HSCA and WC photos is exactly what you should expect to see.

I am not alluding to fakery but those photos don't match!. The two top cracks are about 43 degrees apart in the HSCA and almost 65 degrees in the White House garage photo. Adjusting for perspective can spread the HSCA angle out to match the other but then several other cracks are way off. The Garage photo was taken from the front and if the HSCA photo was taken from inside the limo it might explain this. Can someone tell me the source of the HSCA image?

That is a good point in fact I think it makes the gunman theory completely implausible. The shadow of the tree trunk on the grass below means there also has to be a tree trunk right where the gunman image is.

I agree this the first photo is not original. Judging from the lamppost in the background we should see Fosters in the background. Second the North plaque above the route 77 sign on the Stemmons pole has way more space between it and the 77 sign and between it and the Stemmons sign above. And I just noticed the big giveaway, Moorman and Jean hills positions are reversed, Moorman should be on the right of Hill with her orange coat.

I have heard that sometime in the 80's Gary Mack said he was told by several of the people involved that Chaney caught Curry on the Stemmons on ramp, that is where the meeting took place. This is the explanation for why Chaney's ride forward is missing from films, it did not happen in the plaza. There are some big problems with this story. First, Curry had already been notified about shots fired several times. 1. As the shots were being fired both the agents in the back seat each told him what was happening and told him to rush to Parkland. 2. A radio message from the Beast alerts everybody to 'shots fired' 3. Kellerman radios the same message seconds later. 4 Curry sees the limo has floored it and is overtaking his car. 5. Clint hill and Greer both yell' 'get to parkland" when the limo catches up with Curry underneath the triple overpass. Curry testifies that he heard two people from the limo yelling "get to Parkland". At this point Curry and the limo race onto the Stemmons onramp. Now Chaney is supposed to catch up to Curry to tell him that shots have been fired!! How could Chaney think that Curry didn't already know? Chaney has a radio and should have heard the 2 radio calls. But it would also be obvious when the limo and Curry rushed away. Nix shows him stopping right after the head shot so he would have seen everybody reacting as the limo speeds off. Chaney is about to deliver this important message that is extremely time sensitive. Yet instead of using his radio he decides to try and catch Curry who is speeding away. Gary Mack said Curry slowed on the onramp which allowed Chaney to catch up. Did Chaney know that? If not he would have thought there was little hope of catching Curry without a long chase in order to give the most important time sensitive message of his career. Maybe the radio was too full of chatter about the emergency for Chaney to tell Curry about that emergency... Faking all the films would be a monumental task. Was it impossible? I don't know. But when we get stories like Gary Mack's illogical account of the incident it really makes you wonder.

I found this interesting. The alleged Altgens 6 bullet hole has a heart shaped center(Left), and so does this image of a bullet hole in a windshield. I cropped it but several of the holes in that image had the heart shape. I think it has something to do with the angle of the windshield which tends to cause the hole to be bigger at the top,

For anyone not convinced by the photographic proof both Ray and I have provided there is a simple way to resolve this for yourself. Simply walk outside and place two objects about two feet apart. Line up so one object casts it's shadow almost directly behind the object, I.E with the Sun at your back. You will instantly find that shadows can appear to converge exactly as demonstrated in the photographs we provided. This is really a debate we did not need to have because you can prove it to yourself in a couple minutes. If anyone wants to argue this further I would ask that you first spend a couple minutes outside and test the theory.

At least we all agree that shadow lines converge back towards the source. Obviously not rocket science. Ray's photo in the link and my last box photo offer proof that shadow lines moving out from the Sun can appear to converge due to perspective. So while there is still an issue regarding how much angle we should see, can we all agree that shadow lines moving away from the source CAN APPEAR to be converging?

Here is a photo that shows diverging shadows. If you line up with the Sun behind the box on the left, the object to the right will to appear to diverge. This is natural and anyone can verify it for themselves in minutes when the Sun is up. Looking from above, these two shadows appear parallel or maybe slightly converging. Not sure how much convergence I should see when the shadow lines would converge 93,000,000 miles away. I think your photo of the fence shadows converging towards the Sun illustrates the distortion effect of shallow camera angles because the shadow lines converge before they even get above the horizon. I do think the Oswald shadow shows 5 or so degrees more than it should. It should be 10 degrees based on the post shadow. With the distortion the camera angle causes that 10 degrees should be 25 to 30 degrees. But it is around 45 suggesting the undistorted angle is around 15 degrees. that is 5 degrees too much. I think the photos I posted in the other BY thread demonstrate that the nose vs body shadows can and do happen. I think this new photo of the boxes shows shadows can diverge which accounts for the post vs Oswald shadows. Simply by matching the camera angle and positions of objects we can duplicate the shadows. So unless we can find an error in the set up of my photos, I think we have to conclude that the shadows in the BY photos are not fake just because the run different directions. The pose Oswald took in 133b that was not discovered till 1977. But I think it was found in the possession of Roscoe Whites relative. So he was around when the Dallas cops took their Backyard comparisons. That means it is possible they had access to 133b from Roscoe White. One question, you said rotating Oswald to straight corrected the shadows. I have had a hard time evaluating the small difference in body shadows. Which shadow looks the most obvious to you. Also how many degrees did you rotate Oswald?

As people discuss the shadows there is agreement that they don't all add up. But there are different opinions on just exactly how wrong they are. So here is my question for everyone. If the angles and directions of the shadows were all correct what would you expect to see? Exactly what direction and specific angle would you see for the nose and body shadows? Please base your answer on the following specs which are all close estimates. 1. Oswalds face was 8 degrees away from the Sun.(Based on the post shadow for reference. This agrees with the HSCA position.) 2. Oswald's head was tilted 3 or 4 degrees back towards the Sun.( depends on just how rotated the camera was.) 3. The Sun's elevation was approx 45 degrees.(The exact time of day was not known for sure but it makes little difference since Oswald was facing only 8 degrees away from the Sun. At this elevation you gain one degree of nose shadow angle for every degree that the face rotates away from the Sun.) NOTE: The body shadow becomes distorted as you go from above(True angle) to the distorted angle determined by the distance and height of the camera. The first 15 degrees will distort to 2.5 times it's actual angle. So multiply you answer by 2 1/2 then add another 6 to 8 degrees to account for Oswald's lean which is reflected in the shadow angle.

I just verified that I can walk around the box, a full 360 degree circle and the ground shadow changed by 360 degrees. You can make it face toward you, away or 90 degrees to either side. Of course to make Oswald's shadow point straight towards you , you would be standing next to the picket fence and would not see the nose.

This is not a video. It is just a high res copy of Macintyre one that I could not directly post. Check out the overall graininess then look closely at the the top of the windshield. I just noticed this and was amazed at how sharp the top line of the windshield is. If you wanted to remove a bullet hole it is best not to place the seem or transition too close to the object you are removing because that is where people may look for fakery. The image is very clear once you click on it.

I think he might have gone over to Commerce to get a good picture because Dealey Plaza is smaller than it looks and maybe he needed to get farther back to get a good shot of the whole area from the South. Go on google Earth and take a look from Commerce North. It is an 8 foot eye altitude and it almost duplicates the Bell image. Commerce sits lower than Main too.

John ,yes the lampposts have changed. The Brehman & West survey map of shows the old locations and many witness locations. After using the Google Earth street view I see that from Commerce St Main almost disappears. The camera is tilting up a bit and points over the couples heads but it must be around shoulder level. If Google Earth allowed us to drop the camera height to shoulder level i think it would reproduce the view we see in the photo. So I think i have to refute my own claim. The grass below the lamp post does not 'prove' anything.

Anyone notice something out of place in between the Stemmons sign and the lamppost on the South side of Elm? It sure looks like a lamppost near Mary Moorman's position. It and another lamppost appear for about 3 seconds till the camera pans away. It happens around 1:30 seconds. The grass below it proves it is not the lamppost on the North side of main. It can't be the type of video glitch that smears different frames together because the background it correct. In fact there is a car passing behind the lamppost that blends with the other people moving past. But there was no lampost on South Elm. I have now looked at it on a big screen and I can see some grass beyond the lamppost and a curb below which would indicate the lamppost is actually the one on North Main. But i still can't figure out why Main St is not visible. If the camera angle was really low you might see all grass and no street and the grass between Main and Elm would appear like a sliver as it does in the image. But we are looking over the heads of the couple in the foreground so the camera was not low. Where is Main St.?

John, read my last response to David. The fact that I can change the ground shadow 130 degrees by moving from a few feet while the nose shadow barley changes means there is something more to be considered when you see conflicting shadows. The nose shadow falls on a vertical surface so it does not change as I move around the box. The two shadow having different angles does not mean it is fake. When I swung around to the right side of the box the ground shadow leaned right while the nose shadow was still leaning left!

David, I rotated the box to closer reflect Oswald's angle off the Sun. I also tilted the box a bit to simulate Oswald's tilt because that cancels 3 degrees of shadow angle. The angle you have in the green BY image matches the head tilt. But check out the the BY face I included. The image is rotated to straight up yet there are still 5 degrees of shadow angle visible From the tip to shadow bottom. To get the actual shadow angle we would have to add that 5 degrees to the angle you're showing above. The other Oswald image has such a different sun angle I don't think we can use it. Oswald is almost 70 more degrees off the azimuth. I noticed that trying to compare the direction of the ground angle to the nose can be misleading. I could move left two feet and completely hide the ground shadow while there would be little or no change to the nose shadow. In fact I just realized I could walk around to the right side of the box and i would start to see the ground shadow lean to the right instead of the left while the nose shadow would not change much. I just ran back outside and double checked this theory and it is true. I can make the ground shadow change by almost 130 degrees. The nose barley changed. What do you think? I do think the ground shadow is a mismatch to the azimuth implied by the post shadow by about 20 degrees, but I see no problem with the directions of the nose vs ground shadow