Chris Bristow

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.

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.