Chris Bristow

Tom Hume, Thanks for the reply, The keystone effect may be the reason Oswald seems to be looking about one degree to the left. I have compared a photo were Oswald is looking 2 degrees left taken my own photos to conclude that if the face is rotated 2 degrees it has little effect. Question: I thought the keystone effect in this case was due to a horizontal tilt of the photo which would narrow the face instead of widen it? John Butler, thanks for the reply, the photo you posted does look chubby. The problem for me is so many folks look very different after boot camp I expect them to beef up in the neck and face too. The other problem is fat makes it hard to find bone structure to measure. The eye position looks correct to me but it can't be measured to the mm. I will take a closer look. One thing you can see from his collar is that the camera was not straight in front of Oswald it was maybe one foot to the left of center. That will cause dimensional differences between his left and right side.

John, regarding the level of the eyes I have to tell you there are a few mistakes. As an Optician I have measured over 20,000 patients pupillary distance as well as the difference in relative height between the eyes. When a patient has one eye that is 3mm or more lower than the other we may compensate by lowering the bifocal in that eye. People do have uneven eyes. A persons ears do not always line up relative to the eyes, they can be unequal. In this case though his left ear will rise up to closely match the other side if you rotate your photo about 3+ degrees to the left. Here is the mug shot photo and backyard photo rotated to vertical for comparison. The uneven eyes in the passport photo are also due to his tilted head. If you rotate your photo it will correct the uneven eye and ears. My best measurement shows his right eye sits 1mm farther out and 1mm or less down. His pupillary distance should be about 34/33 If you want a related puzzle to consider, the mug shot and backyard photos cannot be matched in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions at the same time without distorting one of the photos. The backyard image has a much wider face. You will notice in the photos below the distance between the ears matches within 3% but the vertical dimension is way off.

One more comp.

The 'NORTH' sign below the Stemmons sign appears to have a much larger vertical dimension on the day of the assassination than when the Nuns were there to pray, the next day?. Comparing just the vertical dimensions of the North sign with the vertical dimension of the 77 sign or with the "S" in the word Stemmons, there is a large difference. In the Rickerby photos the 77 sign is about 2.25 times larger than the North sign while in the Nuns photo it is 3 times larger. In the 'Nuns' photo the 77 sign is mounted higher up, closer to the Stemmons sign to compensate for the smaller north sign. In later photos the north sign has returned to the original size. I have a comp photo here.

Paul I know there are lots of fake proofs around using incorrect optical principles and such, but some like John Costella's theory about pincushion distortion in the Stemmons sign are pretty solid. I can't see any valid debunking of his theory. The only counter theory that I know of states that because the poles were leaning there is a swinging motion that you see as the camera panned right. This is the explanation for the change in the poles lean from frame 193 to 228. The problem with that explanation is a pole leaning away from the camera would exhibit a 'with the motion swing.' (I.E. camera pans right, pole also swings right) conversely a pole leaning toward the camera exhibits an against the motion swing. Since the right pole on the Stemmons sign leaned away and Zapruder panned to the right, the direction of the pole swing has to be to the right. But from 193 to 228 the right pole swings to the left. This means the lean of the pole does not explain Costella's anomaly. Not to mention Zapruder panned about one third of one degree but it would take about 11 degrees of movement to cause the 2 degree change seen in the right pole from frame 193 to 228. So if the lean of the pole is not the answer what is the reason for Costella's anomaly? Put a different way the images that have not been corrected for pincushion distortion show the right pole leaning 1 1/2 degrees in both frames 193 and 228. Pincushion should cause a very obvious 2 degree shift but there appears to be no change. There should also be an additional approx 1/4 degree shift to the right due to the poles leaning which I do not see. So at this point I think Mr Costella's observations still raise valid questions about fakery.

Chris Newton, "Has anyone isolated (and maybe flipped for clarity) the reflections on the trunk of the limo? It would be interesting to see if there are any defects in the skyline it shows." Yes I have looked very closely at the trunk reflections and in the end it all seemed correct. The buildings, sky, people, everything. The only thing I found is what appears to be a reflection of the white piece of trash on the grass is actually a pillar directly behind the trash on the South side of the plaza.

Steven, you said "The possibility that a Lincoln Continental would have an exposed "indented screw" as part of the upholstery and that the driver's and passenger's doors would be so obviously asymmetrical as to this feature is inconceivable to me." What seems inconceivable is installing a rivet on the passenger side but not on the drivers side. If your mark is a bullet hole where is the rivet on for the driver side?

The non symmetry of the rivets is a bit strange but if the mark on the driver door is from a bullet then there is no corresponding rivet on the driver door at all!

One mistake Files made was he said the Stemmons sign was about to cut of his field of view and so he "had to take the shot". Of course the headshot came 5 seconds after Kennedy passed the sign, even earlier from Files position. It could not be any other sign as the Ft Worth sign blocked his view several seconds after the headshot. It could only have been the tree on his right. Surprising that such a crucial part of his decision involved that last chance to shoot but he remembers it wrong. He exchanged a cordial letter with a member of the 'family' while in jail, that tells me he did not make it all up. I would think if he falsely implicated Roselli and others he would not be in good favor with the family. I think the basic story could be true but when it comes to filling in for Roselli as a shooter, he may have added that so he could be billed as the guy who shot Kennedy. It is possible he had someone plant the shell casing with the tooth mark. One other thing bothers me. Don't mob hits use professional hit men? People who can not be directly tied to the family. People who come in just to be the gunman, then disappear with no connections? In this case the gunman were also the front team, the same people who were driving around the town days before, visiting the plaza. I thought big hits like the president would not be played so loose. Maybe that is just Hollywood? One more question. I heard a discussion about whether Oswald drove or had a license but Files said Oswald drove a Blue Falcon to his motel room. Has anyone found a Blue Ford Falcon connected to Oswald.

Many of the witnesses said the limo stopped 'or almost stopped'. they were fairly consistent with that caveat which I think adds to their credibility. When you see a car moving very slowly from a distance it takes a second to recognize the motion. So at first we might think it is stopped, then after a second we see motion. if it is barely moving we might be unsure of our perception. Did my head shake or maybe background movement made it look like the limo moved. the fact so many witnesses were not sure if it was going very slow or if it stopped is consistent with seeing a slow moving car from a distance.

I wanted to make comparisons between Oswald's pupillary distance in his mug shot vs the backyard photos. So I thought I could skip matching the size of the two by using the photos from the last Dartmouth study of Oswald's chin. Well those two photos have some problems. You can match the height or the width but not both. There is a mismatch of about 15% to 18%. Here is a short slideshow comparing Oswald facial dimensions. Comparing Oswald height and width and pupillary distance in his mug shot shows it is inconsistent with the backyard image. While the width of the mug shot (ear to ear) is within a 6% of the backyard image, the mug shot face is 15% taller. The structure of the backyard image with its narrow P.D. and wide face looks very similar to the photo of the Oswald impersonator from the Mexico consulate. The shape of the narrow brow and the wide cheeks looks very similar to me. https://youtu.be/4IYlhF5vjiI

Did the SS ever make an attempt to identify those two agents? The explanation for their presence is that a call went out to off duty agents of many agencies to provide extra security that day. So there was no official SS presence on the ground in Dealey Plaza just unnamed volunteers. The SS could have determined which of their agents was there simply by asking all of them so why do we not have witness statements from these two. First hand accounts of the assassination and closest to the knoll. Two people claim to be SS you would think the agency would want to verify who they were.

To me the backyard face looks like it has very narrow set eyes based on the brow structure when compared with Oswald's mug shot. So to compare them, without having to match there size myself, I used the photos from the Dartmouth website in which they examined the light falling on Oswald's chin. After tweeking the contrast the backyard photo showed the pupil of his left eye. So allowing for the slight rotation of his head and adding another millimeter because Oswald's right eye is one mm wider than the left, the backyard man's pupillary distance came out to about 57 while the mugshot PD is about 67. That is a huge difference, the full range of the male PD's is only about 15 mm(As an Optician I have measured over 20,00 patients pupillary measurements)) But here is the twist, those two photos seemed to be sized well if you only look at the width, although the mug shot was about 6% wider. But when you place those images side by side they are not even close. The mug shot face is more than 13% larger. It seems the backyard photo has a head that is much wider than the mughshot. You can size the photos to match in width or height but not both. I have some comparison photos but I can only upload 975 bytes.

Would a slower frame rate be needed in this case? It seems the extra frame and the fact there is only 3 inches of movement in it would explain the slowing of the limo without a change in frame rate.

Chris, ya. I think the 'french' version was not fully interlaced because over 15 frames or so I only found one frame inconsistent with the official Zapruder frames. I would guess they used the interlacing program to make a single frame at 312 to create the effect of the limo stopping. Since the interlaced frame did not split the action evenly between 312 and 313(The interlaced frame advances the limo only 3 to 4 inches) it made the limo appear to almost halt for that frame. Plus adding a frame there makes the limo take two frames to advance from the 312 position to the 313 position and effectively cut the limo speed in half.

James E., there is a link to the "French version" video in the first post above. Although they claim it is the French version it does not contain the long stop or any of the other things claimed by Dellarosa. Seeing that a frame rate conversion could create the additional frame puts a cloud over the French version before it has even surfaced.

Michael, I already have the Frames from the Costello site and I already know there is no 312a in it, as I stated in my first post. I am also not disagreeing with your opinion about it being the result of changing to a higher frame rate. I found an explanation online about how the extra frames are created and it explains 312a.

I just got my answer online. There must be some artifacts to find in 312a. I was wondering if it can explain frame 350. It is not an extra frame though.

I have always been confused about the higher frame rate. If the camera recored at 18.6 then the image at 312 would be 1/18 of a second before 313. What I don't understand is where the information came from that would show the limo in a position between those frames. I would think the shutter was closed in between and would not record Hargis in a position farther past other objects in the frame like Mary Moorman. I guess what I don't get is how objects within the frame change relative to each other if the position occurred while the shutter was closed.

What is billed as the French copy of the Z film has some interesting differences from the official WC version of the Z film. It does not have a chain of evidence and could just be a hoax. It would not be hard to take existing frames and alter them to make this extra frame 312a. Here is frame 312a and a link to the French version on Youtube. https://youtu.be/gMMNq99JQ4E?list=FLs5NVkPUrBDPE3U03TTXkmg Here is a Video I did on frame 312a https://youtu.be/jHHh6l9gpGw Here is frame 312a Two things you will see in 312a is the position of the limo and officer Hargis demonstrate that this frame comes after 312 and before 313. you will also see in 312a the limo only advances about 4 inches which makes the limo appear to stop for a brief second. The second thing you will see is Kennedy's head tucks downward just before the head shot(The head tuck in 312a represents about one third of the total head tuck in by 313. The head tuck is hard to see due to blood spay). Another more subtle difference exist in frame 350. The blurred curb that occurs in some frames is considered to be 'in camera' motion blur. The oddity is that it exists in the French copy but not in the official version. But the strangest difference is the yellow portion of curb. From frame 349 to 350 all of the background, witness's, grass, and curbing move left as the camera pans right. But the yellow portion of the curb remains in place from 349 to 350!!. It has been said that the yellow portion is just missing due to compression loss. However the gradient edge of the yellow image looks exactly like the edge in 349 which is in its correct position and is considered authentic. A compression loss is a square block of pixels not a gradient change. Secondly the portion of curb where the yellow is missing in frame 350 still shows the curb underneath. There is a shaded area extending past the gradient edge of yellow curb. It extends about 5 inches to the seam between curb sections(you may need to look at a higher resolution image to see it). Not only does that indicate that the data for that section was not lost, it shows the shaded area and the curb seam to be in position related to 349 not 350. By frame 351 the yellow curb jumps ahead a distance equal to two frames and becomes consistent with frame 351 of the official copy Here is a comp of frame 349 and 350

This is a recreation of the event.

Ever notice how large Hill's right hand looks in that frame? So what is up with the Windshield image?

Yes that is frame 17, Chaney can be seen just to the right of the image. In that frame no other cop has entered yet. I mistook the image for Chaney when trying to measure where his front wheel would be, that was before I realized it was a stationary image that never moved off her. To verify it was other than a bike cop I started at around frame 42 where you can fully identify all the cops by their movement, then ran the frames backwards to frame 17. It is frustrating that the image is so small and does not show the chin strap in many versions. But the image I posted at the top of the thread has such a strong similarity to the actual image of Chaney i.e. the shape of the helmets dome, the chin strap and leather collar , that even if it is not reproduced in most other copies, I still find it remarkable, not to mention Chaney's image finds and merges with it. That is one hell of a pair of coincidences

Chris, I see parts of the image but there is a red splotch in the face and chin strap area I think may be from enhancement. Every enhanced version I see blends the face and black strap into a single reddish image. I tried to upload a high quality version of the frame I posted the other day but it is too large to load well. Here is the website http://hdblenner.com/nixframes.htm. It is frame 17# that best shows the chin strap Here is a frame from M. K. Davis. No officer has entered the frame yet. I added some saturation, contrast and exposure to the M.K image. The full outline of the helmet is visible, even the top and the whiter color of the helmet is visible, however the chin strap and face is just a red blotch. The front of the helmet can look as if it is the shadow of Newman's arm against her side but it is too far in to match her body. In this enhanced version the face is also obscured by a reddish blotch.