Chris Bristow

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.

Alistair, I know the wider the aperture the more spherical aberration and the focus softens. That should cause an overall blurring and turn round objects into oval ones. I would guess lengthening the depth of field would soften the focus in other ways too but not sure about how that would work. The difference with motion/panning blur in this case is that horizontal line of blur that denotes the motion. As far as the difference between still photography and motion the only real difference I can think of is the shutter and aperture, otherwise each frame is like a still photo. At least nothing that will affect the motion blur that I can think of. Would like to hear an expert weigh in on it though.

Bingo, thanks Alistair. It says "Shutter: 2-speed everset rotary-leaf design; 1/25 and 1/100 plus Bulb". I assume plus bulb means 1/100 with the flash working. So hers was even slower than Zapruders and still blurred less.

John you said "If one looks at the photo the light pole aligns more with the rear of the Secret Service vehicle rather than the presidential limousine then 8 feet stretches to 40?" You are talking about what is next to the lightpost? I am talking about the Altgens LOS. Yes the lamppost is closer to the SS car but that is not the LOS we are using to plot positions. "From Altgens position in the Elm St. roadway then both the freeway signs and the SW corner of Elm St. should be shown. 8 feet stretches to 20 feet because we see the light pole and the limousine but not the signs? " The sign is not visible simply because it is out the frame of the camera. Maybe that is a crop but I am just saying the signs are not there because they are beyond the lamppost. Do you use the overhead map when plotting? Here is a map showing Altgens and Zapruders view in 255 and Zapruders view at 225. The green lines represent Zapruder at 225 and the two sets of red lines represent Z and A at 255. The Stemmons and Thornton signs are in the red boxes. This map should make it clear that Altgens should not see either sign. So maybe the photos have been changed but the missing signs are normal, we should not see them from Altgens LOS. The lamppost is the green dot just below the red arrow

Thanks Bill, Zapruder was 18 fps but the shutter speed was 1/40 I believe. That determines the amount of motion blur. You said the car was barley moving in Moorman's photo but Zapruder 313 is the same moment in time or very close, so the limo speed must be the same in both Zapruder and Moorman. I was looking at the side of the white wall to determine motion blur which looks pretty sharp, So I am wondering about the shutter speed of Moorman's camera

Does anyone know the shutter speed of Mary Moorman's polaroid? I thought she was at 1/50th and Zapruder at 1/40th. I'm asking because I don't see any motion blur from the limo or the background in the Moorman photo. Zapruder shows much more motion blur at 313 and he was far from the limo. Moorman was right next to it and had to pan much faster than Zapruder. It is if the limo was barely moving or stopped, imagine that.

In Altgens 6 you can see a lamppost above/behind the limo's right headlight. If you look on the survey map(below) of Dealey that lamppost is about 8 feet East of the Thornton sign and so the sign is out of frame. That is why both signs are not in the photo. A clean way to verify if it matches frame 255 is to draw 2 lines of sight using the white lane marker near the limos right front tire. First note the background directly above the two ends of the lane marker(Which are the right edge of the white pillar and the entrance to the TSBD.) then use the overhead survey map to draw a line from the markers to the background objects, then extend those lines down and they will meet at Altgens position(in the street) on the map. That will allow you to determine which lane marker is in the photo and therefore the location of the limo . If you want to double check it do a line of sight for the limo's right headlight and the lamppost above it. Both methods will verify the limo at the 255 position. One thing about Altgens LOS is plotting it puts him several feet closer to the curb than the map shows. I was very careful in the plotting and wonder if anyone else would like to plot it and test my results. If you use the maps location for Altgens the LOS swings more than 8 feet across the TBSD from what I plotted. So it is not a matter of a slight error.

Sandy, that clears it up and the rifle shadow issue looks very interesting. Once I accept something like this I still put a critical eye to it cause I can be fooled by my eye, but it looks like a solid claim. If you have anything specific you can relate about what was told you about distortion causing the fence to lean, let me know. I would like to sort out that issue. Strange, I though it was a different post of yours I was responding to. Thanks for the extra info on the distortion guys views.

"Cheers to you in your journey. Yet IMHO, the fact that the BYP are Fake does not necessarily contribute to a CT -- actually, an LN theory can also be made on the basis of my theory of the BYP. " Paul, interesting idea. I have no firm opinions on the assassination other than it was a conspiracy to kill JKF and to cover it up. Based on John Costella's Stemmons pincushion observations I am also pretty convinced the Z film was altered. I am going to revisit the subject in the forum and see if there is anyone that can provide an explanation other than the leaning/swinging pole. I found that because the pole was leaning away from Z it would not swing in the direction needed to explain Costella's anomaly. A pole leaning away swings in the same direction as the camera pans. A pole leaning towards the camera moves the opposite way from the camera. This basic principle means the leaning pole can't be the answer and with no other explanation offered in 9 years or so, I am very nearly convinced John Costella has offered definitive proof. I say "Very nearly" because I have yet to claim anything as definitive proof.

Sandy, maybe we are defining something differently if you said the angle of 133b is 11 degrees. The visible measurable angle of the rifle in the photo is 27 degrees from straight up. So it can't be any less than that. Because we are not seeing it from a 90 degree angle( away from the direction it is pointing) we see less than the full lean. By the way when I talk about were the rifle was pointing I mean where it was pointing in the horizontal plane not the vertical. How far off to the side, away from the camera is what I had meant. Not sure if that was a misunderstanding.

Sandy, I misspoke, I meant the rifle is pointing not leaning in a direction that is 45 degrees away from the camera's line of sight and that is just eyeballed. Knowing the how far it is pointing away from the LOS and how much it leans in the two dimensional image (27 degrees) you can determine the actual amount of lean it has. I don't have mathematical formula I just set up a leaning pole and took photos from positions around it from zero degrees to 90. That is how I determined we see about 75% of the total lean at 45 degrees off the LOS. Before that test I thought the visible lean would progress in a consistent manner as my position moved from zero degrees to 90, but interestingly it does not. The best part of these investigations is learning new optical principles. On the lens distortion issue I can't think of any distortion that would cause the entire stairway and fence and structure on the right to distort in a uniform way. Pincushion or barrel or induced cylinder would cause bending and curving of objects within the image. I have made a careful study of those distortions for many years because I had to troubleshoot patient complaints about their eyeglass prescriptions and always take into account the type and level of distortion they saw through the lens. If the objects around Oswald were distorted but he was not we would have to see the transition from distorted background to a non distorted Oswald, but I don't see it. I think a distortion that required that much rotation to correct would be far more obvious than the subtle distortions I am used to discerning. If the entire lens was skewed then Oswald would be too and rotating the stairs to level would also correct Oswald to his real angle. There might be a distortion we did not need to focus on in an Ophthalmic lens. Did he mention what type of distortion he meant?

When looking at the staircase shadows I am reminded how many old wooden staircases I have seen that are misaligned, like leaning posts and crooked supports under the stairs. So when we look at shadows like the ones on the staircase we have to assume the wood that the shadows fall on may not be completely flat or completely vertical. Of course we know from the moon landing hoax debunking that the angle of the shadow depends on the angle of the surface it lands on as much or more than the position of the Sun. A slight deviation off flat or vertical will make big enough changes in the shadows angle to mess up our measurements.

Sandy, I will redo my test when in real sunlight when the clouds part. I could easily be off some. The rifle in the photo is leaning at about 27 degrees and also appears to be leaning about 45 degrees away from the cameras line of sight. So we should perceive about 70 to 75% of the total lean viewing from 45 degrees. If my estimate of 45 degrees off the line of sight is right then the total actual lean is 34 degrees. Testing whether the shadow should hit the pole is a tough one to measure since you need Oswalds exact distance and angle to the post , his height and exact angles of lean. How far off was your test shadow from the backyard image? Just a thought, we all discuss if it is possible to lean over like Oswald but even if he could lean like that why the hell would he? Edited came out, retested and got results closer to yours. I could not get it to move as much as the indoor test so I think your theory still holds. WTF I did not put an emoji of the star in our solar system, I just wrote the word. Ok Edited again. Just for general edification. The mistake I made was due to the light source being a lamp that was only a foot or two from the test subject. That creates a situation where the light source angle changes as I moved the pen. The Sun is too far away of course, to cause that angle change.

Paul, I do think the photos being fake is by far the most likely scenario. Of all the photographic evidence in the JFK case I am most convinced by John Costella's, Stemmons pincushion issues. So I am definitely in the CT camp and appreciate all that Jack White has done to illuminate the public.

Sandy, I was looking over the shadows of the rifle and newspaper and noticed something. While the newspaper looks to be pointing straight up, the rifle is leaning towards the camera and slightly to the right. To the degree it is leaning at the camera the shadow will move toward a horizontal position. Holding a pen upright on a table under a close light source and rocking it from straight up to 30 degrees forward changed the direction of the shadow by almost 90 degrees. Just how far forward the rifle leans is hard to confirm but it may be a plausible answer for the direction of the shadow.

I took these images from the Dartmouth study assuming they were already sized. The ear tips match well, the mug shot is about 3% larger than the backyard photo. But the face front is an additional 12% larger than the backyard photo. Even though the horizontal measurements of the faces are only off by 3%, the horizontal measurements of the pupillary distances are over 10% larger in the mug shot. The height vs width dimensions are way off, but even the width of the ears vs the eyes are way off. And they are on the same horizontal plane! Makes difficult to compare the Pupillary distance when nothing else matches. I can't find any good reason for these large differences Note: the pupillary measurement on the backyard photo.is taken from a high contrast image of his left eye. The slight rotation of the backyard face was taken into account for the PD measurement.

In the comparison above I have removed the shadow below the tire(On the left) and used an inverted image from Alrgens6(On the right to compare it with. That is followed by a gif of the original image contrasted against the 'shadow removed' image. It looks like the shadow is creating the cut out notch effect. The line of the tire after the photoshop looks a bit too straight but overall it looks pretty convincing, the shadow is the cause of the notch. Here is a single photo to compare tire tread size. The image on the right is again from Altgens 6 inverted.

According to statements made by two of the motor cops they saw the incident happen over their shoulders. Lumpkin said they had come to a stop before the underpass, that he saw the commotion and heard Curry say "Lets go boys". Ellis said Chaney rode up to him and informed him the president's head was blown off. Very strange accounts, all different than the Z film. I was looking at the photo because of the 'missing freight train' theory and became curious about how slow and casually the cops seem to be moving. I am promoting no theory regarding it. It is just weird they were about to get run over unless they hit the throttle bigtime. Diverging a bit I can accept a witness may mistakenly think they see a puff of smoke after hearing a gunshot. But for Officer J.C. White do they have to conclude he only thought he saw a FREIGHT TRAIN pass 20 feet in front of him during the head shot? I just mention it for humors sake.

Thanks David very cool.

Well that might explain why he looks like he is smiling!

Thanks David, the Stemmons was taken down in 1964 so anything added to the Thornton, I assume, would have occurred in 64'. I really don't know what that image above the Thornton is the result of. Anybody got an idea?

Something bothers me about this picture. It looks like the motor cops are putting along at 25mph based on the lean and slight wheel turn Ellis shows. The limo must be doing 50 plus? If so it is less than 2 seconds behind the escort at approx 130 feet back. By their statements they are fully aware they are rushing to Parkland at this point but are riding 3 abreast into a turn they should be rushing through. Lumpkin has his left hand in his lap! I swear Lumpkin and Ellis look like they are smiling. I would expect them to be falling into single file at 40+ mph and not riding with one hand. The slideshow is just that one photo, no need to click on it.

Thanks to Robin for the date and statements about the sign removal. My other question is about the Thornton sign. It has an extra portion added to the top. Is this maybe a Stemmons sign added to it after removing the original? Or is this a kind of photographic artifact?

The Thornton sign is visible but the Stemmons sign is missing. I know about the conspiracy rumors but was it ever taken down officially, and does anyone know the date of this photo? The Stemmons should have it's left pole lined up behind(or close to) the lamppost on the far left and the rest of the sign should protrude to the right. The Thornton sign is exactly where it should be based on the position of the 3 lampposts in front of the TSBD. The other strange thing is on top of the Thornton sign there appears to be another image of the sign starting a couple inches above it. It is about 1/3 the height of the sign. The second video has a close up enhanced view after 10 seconds but the friggin start icon sits right over the subject matter in the thumbnail so you will have to click on it to see the double image.