Chris Bristow

yes I figured you must but was not sure of the point you wanted to make so I mentioned it.

Chris, well that is a re creation. Some of the Love field and parade footage towards Dealey shows JFK hanging onto the door, way to the right. When you translate to an overhead using Alt 6 for the bullet hole it hits JC in the head. Of course he is behind the sign at that point so there is wiggle room but not much.

Well there are witness' that stood right in front of the limo at parkland and saw a :"through and through hole". A medical student(And gun advocate) and one of the motor cops, Lumpkin or Ellis. Then there is separate testimony from a windshield dept supervisor at Ford Motor Co Detroit who saw the limo there Monday morning with a 'through and through' hole before they destroyed that windshield and installed a new one. So I lean towards the hole being real. If we apply Occams razor but consider the fact that bullets were being fired at the limo would that mean a through an through hole would be logical? i don't know really but it is all speculation.

That's interesting, what is the proof? By the way I am not agruing for it being real or unreal in this thread. I am open to either.

I decided to plot the trajectory of the supposed bullet hole in the windshield in Altgens 6. I would think if it is not a bullet hole the trajectory would likely point to some implausible location for a sniper. it might point up in the air or into the ground, or somewhere on the lawn that was photographed and shows no shooter. I heard it had been calculated to originate from the commerce St underpass but I wanted to use multiple photographs of JFK to see just how accurately it can be plotted. plotting the vertical and horizontal angles I found it leads to the top of the hill in the South corner of the plaza next to the parking lot and about 20 ft East of the railroad tracks. There are two interesting things about that location. First it allows for an almost level shot if the shooter is crouched or prone at the top of that hill. Secondly the shot occurred at the point when the limo came the closest to pointing directly at the sniper location, about 16 degrees from driving straight at the sniper. When first plotting it out I included the 4 degree slope of the plaza. using 4 degrees the shot could have come from the Commerce tunnel. But then I measured the angle of the limo at the location of the throat shot and although it does not look like a 46 degree angle ,it turned out the limo was moving across the 4 degree slope at a 46 degree angle. Just like a skier that goes straight down a hill is at a steeper angle than someone going across the slope, the limos angle was only 2 degrees from front to back. the other 2 degrees would manifest as the limo leaning 2 degrees from side to side but the grade of the road corrects that. (if the limo was on Main street and sideways in the road, it would have a 4 degree lean side to side while from from to back to front it would have zero angle. So applying a 2 degree lean from front to back moves the shooter location to the top of the hill. The location of JFK's throat was hard to pin down so I gave it a 5 inch box in which it could be positioned. that allows for 4 degrees of variance. Each degree translates to about one and a quarter inches per degree at JFK's neck and 14 feet at the sniper location. The Commerce tunnel is at the edge of that box but the top of the hill seems like a better location as it has a quick exit through the parking lot behind it, a level shot, and minimal tracking of the target as it is movings towards the sniper at the moment of the neck shot. But there is one thing about the windshield theory that is a problem. it is hard to find a position for Connelly and JfK where the bullet does not pass through Connelly's head. if the shot did happen through the windshield it would have comes very close to JC's head. He never said he felt a round pass by is head which is strange. There is always debate about JC's reactions and whether it indicates he was struck by the same bullet as JFK. But if he reacted to a shot passing right by his head, how could we separate that reaction from his being hit by a round. Besides JC's lapel flipping up and down there is no movement that could not be attributed to the bullet passing by his head.

Thanks Jorma, so in Harvey we have 2,600 rpm? you said 26, not sure why you meant. Anyway the comparison of the two bikes was interesting. I wonder what difference there might be between a mic mounted to the bike(traveling with it), and a mic on the side of the road that must experience some doppler shift. The main point to me though is not the comparison of the 2 bikes but the fact that McClain said he was at a stop when the headshot happened. We should hear a bike idling at about 600 rrm, 1000 rpm at the most. So we have to discount McClains statements or figure out why we hear the motor running at 2,600 rpm. The dicta belt shows the bike was running at a consistent speed. Do you know the full time period that we hear that motor running? or do you know when the recording started and ended using Zapruder frames. With that info I can plot out where McClain was during the times we hear the motor. I want to see if it is plausible for him to be moving at 2,600 rpm at those points on the dicta belt. Note: the link you gave me had an article unrelated to the motor cop issue. Thanks

I have had serious doubts about the dicta belt ever since I read McClain's statement He said he had pulled to a stop when the head shot happened. The engine sounds very much like a 45 cubic inch police 3 wheeler doing maybe 23,00 rpm. It sounds nothing like an idling 74 cubic inch motor. I know the sound comes across as a pattern of static, but the 45ci harley is very distinct. Here is a good example of a harley 45 tricycle. In addition to the piston sound they have this hum that sounds like steel wool rubbing against sheet metal.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMaFghu3IYU Were you able to determine the rpm recorded on the dictabelt?

Since John Costella put forth his theory about the lack of pincushion distortion in the Stemmons sign there has been only one counter claim refuting his theory. That is the leaning/swinging pole explanation and it really threw a monkey wrench into the matter. In trying to find a way to test the swinging pole theory I noticed a basic rule of perspective that seems to completely disqualify the leaning/swinging pole explanation. It is true that a leaning pole will appear to change its angle as perspective changes(As the camera panned), but the simple rule is a pole leaning AWAY from the observer will swing WITH the observers motion. Conversely a pole that leans TOWARD the observer will swing AGAINST the observers motion. The Stemmons signs right pole leaned AWAY from Zapruder and he panned to the right. This means the pole could only swing to the right but the motion in the comparison of frames 193 and 228 shows the pole swung to the left. This makes the swinging pole theory impossible. A quick way to test the rule is hold two pens, one straight up in your fist(for a reference point) and lean a second pen between your index and ring finger. Hold it out in from of you and lean from side to side, then lean it towards you and do the same. You will clearly see the two opposing motions. I have heard people express doubt about Zapruder panning only 6 inches or so and causing a full 2 degree change in the poles angle. I tested this on a small scale and full scale. I leaned a pole at a full 6 degrees(Per the Bothum photo which was taken from a position perpendicular to the direction the pole was leaning) and standing 50 feet from the pole I panned almost 8 inches and achieved only about 1/8 to 1/4 of a a degree of change. To achieve a full 2 degree swing I had to walk about 11 feet!! How did Zapruder do it panning only 6 inches from frame 193 to 228? I have heard no other counter claim refuting Dr Costella's claim since it was first made public roughly seven years ago. Are there any other explanations or is there a flaw in my observation? Thanks

Thanks Michael.

At the end of the Daniels film the camera points down and we see the shadow of two cars passing by. The first shadow of the front right corner seems to show Curry's car pass by first, then what is obviously the Queen Mary with it's flag mount on the bumper is second. Curry and others testified that the limo never took the lead and both the Daniel film and the McIntyre photo show the Queen Mary right on the limos rear bumper a moment before we see the shadows pass by. I am wondering if the Daniel film was cut and put back together in the wrong order but the images are to dark to see if there is a cut.

Thanks Ron, it could have been the Pullman's and the story morphed into a boxcar cause that's where tramps are expected to be.

Where was the "boxcar" that the tramps were found in? The Hughes film gives a good view of the yard and shows 3 pullman cars. Were they supposed to be behind the other cars?

Alberto, I just want to point out one thing here. These photos were made at about 12 feet and the angle is around 12 degrees. The two photos are aligned at the trigger. Notice how from the trigger down the leaning rifle is much longer, but above the trigger it is only slightly longer. That is lot of distortion. (You will have to click on it to see the lower part, sorry.) I made a mistake is setting up this photo. I made the distance from the camera match at the top of the barrel instead of the middle point of their length. So the top portion of the stock on the leaning rifle is closer to camera and so also slightly enlarged. Had I done this correctly it would have been smaller than the butt of the rifle. So the only point I can make is that the butt of the gun has become much larger than the top half.

Ray, yes the enlarged portion of the rifle tappers off as you move up but includes some the scope. The smaller scope is in the OP photos but not in my comparison. That is because my leaning rifle has not been resized. If I shrunk the leaning one to match the size of the other rifle the scope would also shrink. My comparison only illustrates the increase in size of the butt end. the proofs can be measured in the OP's original photo comparison. I messed up when I made the photos and cut off the end of the barrel. I have to use the end of the stock to see the shrinking of the barrel end of the gun. The butt ends are visible if you click on it

To see this photo in full you may have to click on it then click again to pause. The butt of the rifle is the issue but it is cutoff. Thanks Here is an interesting result I got from leaning a rifle at about 10 degrees(same rifle in both images). Not looking for pinpoint accuracy here, just making a point about image distortion when the camera is close to the subject. I photoshopped them to align at the triggers. The upper part of the rifle is doing what is expected, it is just a little smaller than the straight image. But the bottom of the rifle on the left has increased in length dramatically. The top has gotten smaller and the bottom has become bigger because percentage wise it is much closer to the camera. If the rifle had been forty feet away the lower part would only be slightly closer and the distortion would be next to nothing. It is the proximity to the camera that is the culprit. This creates a problem when you compensate for the reduced vertical dimension of the leaning rifle. If the rifle was 40 ft from the camera you could just resize the vertical to correct the length of the rifle. But if you try to resize a distorted picture like the rifle on the left you will only make a larger distorted image. Resizing the vertical image is done in a proportional way so it will not correct the large lower portion. Resizing a leaning object to it's original length will work as long as the image was not distorted by its proximity to the camera. If you then try and resize either rifle so the lengths match for comparison more problems become evident. First the bigger rifle butt is longer and when aligned at the bottom the larger butt displaces the scope forward. That is most of the reason the scope does not line up at the rear. Oh ya couldn't find the scope, that is a zero power paper roll tube. There is also a tricky third distortion problem. After increasing the length to compensate for the rifle leaning away from the camera you still have a rifle that is a bit too long due to the longer butt. This means when you go to match the length of the two images the distorted image will start off larger than it should be. This means it can't be enlarged to its real size(In Comparison to the other rifle) and parts other than the oversized butt will end up looking small in comparison. The proof is the parts will be smaller in BOTH the vertical and horizontal because the image could not be enlarged fully. If you look at the comparison that is the subject of this thread you will find the eyepiece on the scope is not only shorter it is about 12% smaller in height too! Conversley if you measure the relative sizes of the butt you will find the opposite. The butt of the gun in the image taken in front of the TSBD is larger in every dimension, yet the scope on that same image is smaller in both dimensions.This means the scope is smaller only because it is a smaller image. So I think this strange mismatch in the leaning rifle with the larger butt and smaller scope occurring in both the vertical and horizontal is strong evidence that this is just a case of photographic distortion.

Paul, if the story was that "the others got away." that would result in an extensive investigation into the other shooters present in the plaza. That could lead to the identity of the real shooters. It seems odd to me that their plan would allow loose ends like that. I'm sure you considered this already, what do you think of the issue?

David Lifton has mentioned the limo stopping somewhere around the underpass. This raises a question I have that someone may have some input on. At the end of the Jack Daniel film, after the limo passes, we see the camera tilt down and then see the front bumper of two more vehicles pass by. The first one may be Curries car but the 2nd one is the Cadillac SS follow up car identified by it flag post on the front bumper. So does it seem odd that the SS Cadillac would allow any car in between it and the limo?

Bill, that pasture slope is something I have wondered about. You can see it but measuring it is not easy. Luckily nothing I have studied so far required it. I have noticed in street repaving they added a few layers over the old ones, then after several of those they took out all the layers and started at the bottom again. So maybe the difference depends on when it is measured.

Bill ya 3 or 4, they say 4 degrees but I have not checked it myself. I assumed the curb was about 6 inches high and I would add one or two more for the carpet of grass. I have heard the street level has risen several inches due to resurfacing over the years and the crown of the street would raise him several inches if he really was 6 feet into the street. Lots of little unknowns but he definitely was 2 to 6 feet into the street in A. 6. Too bad Google Earth can't takes us off the street and onto the grass and other spots. A 3d Dealey plaza we could walk through would be great.

Bill, the limo also drops about 9 feet in altitude from Altgens 6 to 7, from No later than Z255 to z390(approx.). That is the main reason we see the trunk being lower in A. 7. The curb must add about 6 inches to the perspective also. The time between A, 6 and 7 should be about 8 seconds if From Z255 to Z390. Frame 390 is my best estimate based on a LOS from the middle of the spare tire cover to the lamppost behind it.

John you are 100% wrong on this one. The signs should not show up behind the limo. Please just take an unbiased look at the overhead map I provided on page 13. Just look at the red lines representing Zapruders field of view and line of sight vs Altgens. I have laid them both out and you should be able to see very clearly that Zapruder could see the signs but Altgens was far from Zapruders position . Zapruder was looking from almost behind the sign and Altgens was so far to the right of Zapruder that he did not have the signs in his line of sight. Lets sort this out. Look at the map and tell me what is incorrect with the LOS laid out for both men. If you cannot find a mistake then you may have to consider the maps as accurate. The maps are proof that the signs should not be visible in A 6. If you can prove otherwise please demonstrate it with a map.

If you want to know the actual position of the limo in Altgens 6 you can plot the line of sight from the two ends of the lane marker with the background. Every plot point lines up with Z255. No other lane marker will line up! Once you have determined which lane marker it matches on the WC survey map you can place the limo there and line up plot point behind it. If anyone considers the photos doctored then all bets are off and there is no reason to try and find its location. But as it stands Altgens 6 is a perfect match for Z 255. There are certain theories that fall apart when you confirm Z255 for A. 6. For instance the Willis girls arms reflected in the front right 1/4 panel are out to her side but in Z222 (approx.) they are not. But once you know the Z image of her comes some 33+ frames before the reflection in the limo, the issue is moot. I posted a map on page 13 that should prove A. 6 = z255. Depth of field, aperture and focus will not change the plot points. If there is a mistake in my map please point it out, but if there is no mistake then the map should resolve the question of which Z frame matches A. 6. Note: I tried to match the survey map lane marker with old photos and it seems to match well. But plotting Altgens position with the lane marker moves him about 3 feet south, closer to the curb. I wonder if anyone knows how the survey determined how far into the street Altgens stepped for A. 6.?

Sandy, I thought the auto focus may add a bit to the overall focus. I have noticed many times that double images appear where I expect blur. Like many frames of the Stemmons sign poles. Brighter images or things at varying distances may have something to do with why some images blur and others double, but it is weird. Your hypothesis has to do with something other than missing frames or matte work on the limo?

Ok I have not looked close at the Moorman shoes issue but the 2 photos of Moorman's shoes, second from the top on the right, doesn't that right shoe look way way too long? And the tongue is almost down by her toes.

Whenever the limo has no motion blur the camera was not unsteady or it jiggled just right. Either way we can determine the motion blur in those frames because the witness' will show all the blur caused by following the limo. Sandy I don't know if Zapruder had auto focus back then but maybe it shifted a bit from 308 to 309.