Chris Bristow

Jeff, yes I am saying the nose shadow is consistent with the other shadows and does not show fakery. that does not mean the head was not pasted on the body ir just means they got the shadows right. what did the HSCA say about Oswald's leaning. Did they determine it was possible?

If it was noon the shadow angle off of Oswald would have been about 48 degrees. The photo shows about forty but when you account for perspective it has to be less than 20 degrees. The image seems to refute the 3pm time and puts it past 4pm. Can you explain the angle of his shadow? By the way the photo you have provided previously where they have Mr Cappel imitating Oswald's lean is very flawed. First they claim he is exactly Oswald's height but he is actually 4 to 5 inches taller. While the top of his head matches Oswald's at the pole behind him, the camera was raised to accomplish this. Look at where the roofline of the house in the background aligns with the stairway and it proves the camera was raised. If you want to compare their height's just look at how they each line up with the part of the stairway right next to them( basically the same distance from the camera as they are). You will see there is about 1/2 of one step difference in their height's. The stairs are 8 inches high, so Mr Cappel is 4 inches taller than Oswald. The other thing has already been pointed out, that is Mr Cappels photo is rotated 2 or 3 degrees left compared to 133 which makes it look like he is leaning more than he is. If you rotate him to match Oswald he is not even leaning with his lower body. All he is doing is leaning his upper body and still is not displacing his head to the right of his feet anywhere near Oswald's stance. Oswald's entire body leans but Cappel comes nowhere near this. And of course if you lean Oswald's picture right to match Cappel he is leaning even farther and that is a problem. I think I saw you say that this photo proves the lean is not fake and that is complete nonsense. That photo is of no value

Well John I did not say they are real. I am only saying the nose shadow is as it should be.I really do not mean to be offensive but you are very much mistaken when you say all shadows should have the same angle is not true. Shadows do move directly off objects like you say and angled objects create angled shadows that move directly off it. The attached photo shows several different angles, the rear is horizontal, the side vertical and the pole has an angled shadow. Secondly uneven ground will change the apparent shadow angle too. Third thing is you perspective, you may notice in the Z film that poles to the right of the Sun have a shadow that(From Z's perspective) lean to the right. But poles on the left of the Sun lean to the left(from Z's position.

I have been trying to sort out the issue of the shadow below Oswald's nose. I have a few observations and questions. First, while the shadow does fall on the center of the lips and face it does not mean that the shadow is vertical. Oswald is actually looking slightly off to his left, about three degrees. Because of this his nose is not lined up directly over his lips. A line running from the tip of his nose to the tip of the shadow shows about 7 degrees of angle. If we consider his head tilt at 4 degrees which cancels 4 degrees of shadow angle, and the 3 degrees leftward rotation of his face, which also cancels the shadow angle we can account for 14 degrees of shadow We can say the shadow below the nose verifies 14 degrees angle between the line of sight of the camera and the Sun. If 14 degrees is correct then the shadow on the ground should show the full 14 degrees angle when compared to Marina's line of sight. However the shadow on the ground appears to be around 40 degrees off Marina's line of sight(Taking into account Oswald's amont of lean in 133a,b,c). But the 40 degrees visible is the result of distortion by the angle of view. So if anyone has any information on photogrammetry results of 133a I would really appreciate it. Short of having Marina's exact location/angle I can make some basic observations and place an upper limit on the actual angle. As an example, an angle of 15 degrees will appear as approx 40 degrees when photographed from 9 feet. The farther you move away the wider the angle becomes. So I am making an assumption that Marina had to be be at least 9 feet away. I took some sample photos to come to this assumption.This means that the 40 degree angle we see is really no greater than APPROX 15 degrees. If Marina was farther away it was even less. The first implication is that the 15 degrees accounted for by the position of the nose shadow is consistent and sufficient to account for the shadow angle on the ground at the time the photo was taken. The second implication involves Marina's line of sight which together with the angle of the shadow gives the azimuth and time of day. I found Marina's line of sight to be about 27 degrees North of East. Adding 15 degrees of shadow angle makes a shadow angle correspond to an azimuth of 228 or shadow angle of 42. That puts the time of the photos at around 4:05pm March 31st 63'. Based on my assumption that Marina could be no closer than 9 feet from Oswald, the real shadow could be no greater than 15 degrees and so the time could be no earlier that 4:05pm(considering a 15min error possibility). In order to get a good line of sight for Marina I used modern photos that still retain markers in the yard to approximate camera position. These later photos, taken after the house next door was torn down, allows you to see a house 1/2 block East on the NorthEast corner Elsbeth st. It is still there on google maps and allows for a very accurate line of sight for Marina. I tried to verify the 15 degree shadow on the ground a separate way. To do this I had to make an assumption that the pickets on the fence are 3 inches wide. I based it on the posts that holds up the platform at the top of the stairs being 4x4's. (4x4'sactually measure 3.25 x 3.25). If anyone has input on what the size the pickets or posts are I would love to know. I made an estimate of the shadows angle using 2 measurement. First, the elevation of the Sun at 4:20pm of 52 degrees which resulted in shadow of 53 inches. Second, the position of the shadow at the 3rd picket and Oswald's head lining up above the 5th picket allowed for an estimate of the deviation from object to shadow. Using both those measurements the shadow angle came out to approx 13 degrees. If I change the width of the picket to 4 inches the result grows to 18 degrees. So what I conclude from this inquiry is that it would be impossible for Marina to be any closer than 9 feet and get the shot we see. If this is the case then the shadow on the ground can be no more than 16 degrees off of her line of sight. This means the nose shadow or lack of it can be accounted for by the 7 degrees of measured angle, the head tilt of 4 degrees and rotation off the line of sight at 3 degrees. It also puts the time of the photos to around 4:20pm. One issue I can't address is that in 133b his head is tilted 4 degrees more than 133a. It is measurable after you rotate the two images to match. But 133b is not clear enough to see if the angle at the lips is 4 degrees less than 133a. I am open to input but as of now it seems the shadow under the nose may be a false issue.

I am trying to find out if Oswald had a slight degree of Knock knees. My nephew has knock knee and he can come pretty close to duplicating Oswald's leaning position in CE133 from the waist down. The hard part to reproduce is the alignment of Oswald's right knee within about an inch of his center line at the waist(Where the belt buckle would be). I could not come close to it, in fact I took a photo where I was just about to fall over, yet still had to rotate the photo 7 degrees to attain the knee to buckle alignment. That is six degrees past where I would fall over. Although knock knees can bring you close to the alignment, Oswald's lower right leg looks like it is leaning slightly outward instead of in towards the opposing knee. Matching the lower legs outward angle may negate the benefit of a knock kneed stance. Only having to duplicate the knee/waist alignment makes testing the stance simple. If you keep the lower leg leaning outward or even just straight up there are no more joint articulations that you can do to align the knee under the midline at the waist. All you can do at that point is start leaning your legs and hips as a whole. If you try and match the image as it appeared in LIFE mag you will need to align right at the belt buckle. If you try to match the image in the Dartmouth study you only need to get within an inch of the belt buckle. The Dartmouth photo is rotated ones degree farther right so is a bit easier to do, but if you look at the full photo 3 degrees of rotation is obviously past level. I put up a video on Youtube to challenge anyone to duplicate Oswald's posture from the waist down. You can do anything you like above the waist and you can even cheat the stance to see what it takes to do it. But I found that even with a rifle as a counter balance it is impossible for me to do and having to rotate my photo 7 degrees was so far beyond the tipping point that I am stumped. That said, I am not married to this idea and am open to input.

Pamela, Ya unfortunately there are lots of crazy conspiracy theories out there. People will start to believe a theory if they see many small unrelated facts that raise questions. Like years ago Jack White raised so many questions that it seemed there had to be something to the conspiracy. But they were just questions and many of them have been shown to have no merit. I try to keep this in mind when considering the JFK assassination. Still consider the conspiracy as the most likely truth though. Thanks for the info you provided.

I don't think it is a real mark, it looks too much like a bullet strike, it has to be a deliberate hoax.

So the Marsh copy has the mark on the bumper too. But it is not in the National Archives copy.

I think Zapruder knew he had something worth a lot of money. He may have also considered that the value of it would be greater if he sold it before other films surfaced. He took off so quickly he was ten steps ahead of Miss Stitzman. I have wondered about his motivation to leave so quickly when the normal reaction would to be stunned after the event.

Thanks I'm sure it's got some interesting bits.

Thanks Pamela, I assumed this was likely a false issue because it is so obvious yet I could not find it addressed on JFK forums. I thought it may be a defect on the photo but the resemblance to a bullet strike made my finally ask about it. I post videos on Youtube and a few debunk conspiracy theories that I found lacking. So I am open to input on either side of the issue.

Thanks, I wondered why I could not find anything on it. I will leave it up for anyone else that was not ware of this hoax.

On the upper part of the front bumper, just above the "GG" on the license plate, is what looks like a bullet strike. When a bullet hits paint or chrome on a car it often shows a dark hole or dent in the center surrounded by paint primer for about 1/2 inch, then the paint or chrome around the primer. The mark on the bumper fits that description.

I think the issue of hitting JFK from the knoll without hitting Jackie is completely resolved by looking at the Muchmore film at the moment of the headshot. From her perspective you can clearly see that JFK's head was about 6 inches away from Jackie's. In addition the Muchmore line of sight lines up with the Knoll shooters line from the opposite side(Within a couple degrees). If the knoll shooter was in the position marked by the muddy shoe prints then they saw the same gap between the heads that Muchmore did, just from the other side. I recently saw "Inside The Target Car" documentary with Gary mack recreating the headshot. They ignored the line of sight and second axis that Muchmore could provide and based The Kennedy's head positions solely on the Z film. They came to the false conclusion that Jackie would have been in the way.

What bugs me is how the motor cops all surged forward towards the limo when it only slowed by 3 or 4 mph. They were tasked with keeping pace with the limo and had previous experience. How does an experienced rider get caught so off guard?. In fact all four of them move forward in the nix film. The follow up 'Beast' kept correct distance and the motor cops were right next to it. I can't see how they all missed the limo slowing down. I believe it could be because they were actually reacting to the limo slamming on the brakes. That part was removed and so now their move forward makes no sense. Finally i will repeat again that John Costella's pincushion theory about the Stemmons sign is the strongest proof that the film has fakery in it. The only counter theory floated in the 10 years since it was proposed is that a leaning pole will appear to swing as you pan and change your perspective. The problem with the theory is a pole that leans away swings in the wrong direction to account for Costella's observations. Only a pole leaning towards Zapruder would have produced the swing needed to explain what Costella observed. Secondly I put up a pole with the correct lean and from the correct angle and at 50 feet from the pole. I had to walk 11 feet to make the pole swing 2 degrees!. Zapruder only panned his camera 6 inches or so!!! Look at frames that have not been corrected for pincushion distortion, like the version available at Lightbox, and you find the poles in frames 193 and 228 (Same frames as Costella's pincushion corrected comparison) are parallel! The distortion should bend each pole inward almost one full degree. You should see about a 2 degree difference in the same pole from 193 to 228. No one has been able to explain this easily measurable anomaly. It is not some wild theory that requires faith in the person proposing it. It is not some cryptic accusation based on a questionable understanding of perspective or optics. This is a simple, measurable and straightforward observation with no good explanation. Pincushion distortion is something many have a vague understanding of and maybe that is why this theory falls by the wayside. It really only has a couple of rules to it and knowing them should allow anyone to figure out why a rectangle frame changes to a pincushion shape. First rule is that the distortion displaces images or pixels directly outward from the optical center.(This means if you draw a line from the center of the frame, through the pixel in question and beyond, you find the direction of displacement.) Second rule is the farther from the center the pixel lies, the more displacement it undergoes). The bottom of the Stemmons pole is farther from the center and so is displaced outwards more than the top. That is what causes the leaning effect. The entire pole is displaced outwards but the bottom is displaced more. The pincushion problem does not deal with obscure hard to comprehend concepts. I think anyone who takes a little time to see how pincushion works will find Dr Costella's theory highly credible.

I have a new issue I am trying to sort out now. From Z's pov the sun lined up with the light post on the North side of Elm by the walkway, about frame 408. But looking at the reflection of the Sun starting around 384 the Sun appears to line up behind the limo. The reflection on the window frame behind Nellie C. makes it appear that the limo is passing almost directly under the sun around that time. That is 18 degrees off where the Sun was. The 4 degree slope of Elm can't account for all the change in the reflections position(The limo was traveling across the slope not straight down it so the front to back tilt was only 3 degrees The Sun's angle of 38 degrees also lessens the effect of the tilt because it is 52 degrees off the direction of the slope.) Clint Hill hanging onto the back of the limo also reduced the tilt by about one degree. So the slope of Elm can't explain it and I am putting it out there for new ideas. I assume there is something that will explain this rationally. I am a CT'er but most of the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. One other weird aspect is when a car passes between the sun and the observer the reflection should stay lined up below the Sun unless the reflective surface is actively changing it's angle. The reflection on Nellies window travels several degrees West when compared with the background. Clint Hill could have caused some of this as he tried to crawl aboard, but he would have to change the angle more than one degree to create the reflections movement West, but both the Nix and Z film show one degree change at the most. Around frame 408 when the reflections should happen the only surfaces reflecting are ones that are angled back to the left like the back of the rear seat or the back of Kellerman's seat. One last bit of weirdness. The lamppost in frame 405 should line up with the sun's position but the little shadow behind the very top is pointing to about 5:30. It should be right at 6:00 pointing straight to Zapruder. The fact that the lamppost is slightly off center in the frame would not cause the shadow to move to the 5:30 position. That makes for a 15 degree difference in the Sun's position and closely aligns with the limo anomaly. My main question is about the limo and what caused the reflections to appear around frame 385.

I have found that most all of the fake film arguments are crap. Issues like Jack White's 5 foot Zapruder or the guy who opens his legs in a single frame (385) can be explained. One issue that is still open is John Costella's lack of pincushion distortion in the stemmons sign. The only explanation put forth was that Zapruder panning caused the leaning of the pole to make it appear to swing left as he panned. But a pole leaning away from the observer swings WITH their panning motion not against it as in Zapruder frames 193 to 228. This makes the leaning pole rebuttal impossible. Pincushion distortion should cause the pole in the right corner to lean inward(leftward) about 1 degree and in the left corner (228) it should lean inward(to the right) 1 degree. But in uncorrected frames the pole in 228 and 193 are parallel. No one has a good explanation for this yet. A new issue I cannot resolve. Update: I am moving this subject and posting the issue as a new topic

If the lowest peak of the is 380 then it cannot be the motorcycle. I think redline is around 7000 rpm. I would guess 22,800 would sound like a constant tone not a motorcycle. I have been looking at 1/16th slices of the recording for a pattern that should repeat about 3 times in 1/16thsec and see nothing. The start of this video has a 1200 idling around 500 rpm and also has other good example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IlU268hgLI It sounds to me like the stuck mic was happening during the whistling with the 3,000 rpm motor running. I have not sorted out all the material you gave yet. I will take a closer look One thing about the whistling cop is he was a mile or more from Dealey when it happened. if he had the stuck mic all bets are off and the dicta belt is worthless. When people use those radios the never just key the mic and start whistling. Air time is precious because only one person can talk at a time. So if you have nothing important to convey it would be outrageous to just start whistling. You would be in trouble for it the first time you died it.

Ya it could be the Croft Lady. My eyes went fuzzy trying to identify who was in the background. Another part I can't make sense of is what looks like the hair on the left side of JFK's head seem to continue behind his head. It has a ribbed look to it . That dark area also bleeds over slightly onto the rear view mirror. But the Croft Lady is still the most obvious possibility.

We can disagree on which is left and right but do you agree her hands could not be near what is said to be the "hole"? We can see all of JFK's coat and the hand rail in the back and that leaves no place for her arm. We would have to see her arm if her glove was at the position of the hole.

I have been reviewing the dicta belt and one important point regarding rpm is that a single engine cycle is made up of several different popping sounds. Two cylinders firing and two exhaust sounds. But there may be a third sound too. An single cycle of an idling harley has a sound like 'ba dump bump', three different noises you can hear. When you listen to the dicta belt you can hear the rhythm of the cycle that make up one rpm. The rpm sounds closer to 3,000 rpm. It may be that the hz also represents additional sounds the mic may pick up. Some hogs still ran solid lifters and they are noisy, even more when not adjusted. For the hz to represent the rpm a single rpm would have to be made up of 22 different sounds. So i do not think the Hz is showing the rpms, yet i can clearly hear something running at about 3000 rpm. One last thing about McCalin's statement. He pointed out the person with the keyed mic was whistling as he rode. McClain said he was not a whistler, but there was a guy on the force that whistled all the time and he rode a 45. McCain, another Dallas motor cop, myself and other Harley folks recognize the sound as a Harley 45 tricycle. That is subjective of course. if the Hz had some peak or distinctive shape in a single peak that repeated about 50 times a second, then we may have found the rpm's within HZ cycle

Jerome the link led me to your work history not anything by Plumlee. this has happened twice recently and the error maybe on my side not yours

yes his saying "I've been hit" makes the throat shot as the first hit almost impossible.

Thanks for the witness list, had no idea that many reported a hole.

Micah, Jackies left hand is holding JFK's forearm from underneath. if her right hand was at JFK's shoulder it would have to cover the right hand hold on the right rear of the limo. or it would have to obscure part of JFK's coat. But we can see the hand hold and his coat. there is no place for her arm to reaching up to the anomaly in the windshield. But am am not trying to prove the bullet hole is real! i am only testing the theory by tracing the possible trajectory. Had i found the trajectory led up into the air i might be willing to argue that the hole is not real. that would be based on the fact there was no blimp in the plaza that day so no platform for a shooter in the air. i am sort of kidding but my point is i am not here to debate whether the hole is real or not.