Chris Bristow

After watching Hargis say that, I considered it from a skeptical standpoint. Hargis looked to be in his 70's, maybe his memory was bad. Maybe he mixed up the other Officer White who ran from the overpass to the TSBD. But that officer said he watched the limo go under the overpass before starting for the TSBD. That makes the timing questionable. He also said he had to wait for a freight train to pass before he ran from the overpass. Although his story about a freight train on the overpass during the shooting sequence is very dubious. What other officers could have been on the knoll as quickly as Hargis? Smith from Elm and Huston, or Foster from the overpass maybe? And if there was a 2nd cop there why was that never reported? Hargis was able to cross the St behind LBJ's SS follow up car about 9 seconds after the headshot. He could run to the knoll wall in 7 seconds. A Bond photo has him running from the lamppost and back towards his bike at 35 seconds after fr 313. In his retelling he was only on the knoll a few seconds so the timing is tight but possible.

Michael Brownlow has a several part interview with Hargis on Youtube. In one of those Hargis said that when he arrived at the wall on the knoll(I assume he meant the patio wall.) He ran into Roscoe White. He said neither he nor White could tell where the shots had come from. Hargis arrived on the knoll less than 25 seconds after the headshot. How did Roscoe White get there so quickly? Is there any other documentation about White being in the plaza? If he was on the knoll in 25 seconds then where did he come from? He is not found in any of the films so if he was near the Knoll he must have been in the parking lot or just behind the colonnade or on the Elm St extension or behind the TSBD.

Roger, Sandy and Keven: Thanks for all the additional information.

Denise, I checked the link I provided and it has both interviews. The second interview has her pointing to the Willis 5 photo as she says that is the photo her dad said had the trains removed. It starts at 25:16. EDIT: Just took another look and I think it is the same interview with some extra footage and a later interview spliced in the middle of it. Either way go to 25:16

I have heard many skeptics dismiss the rear blowout theory because the Z film shows no such wound. The film is a powerful tool and totally convincing for those who reject the possibility of alteration. If it was destroyed they would not have that powerful tool to use as pushback against the Parkland witnesses. If they were covering up an occipital blowout the witnesses testimony from Parkland would be a big problem. You can fake documents and X-rays but controlling a couple dozen witnesses is much harder or impossible. However when it comes to witnesses memory vs actual film images, the film tends trump the witness accounts. Even if you have 20+ witnesses, many people will assume all the witnesses have to be wrong. Covering up a rear blowout would be a minimal alteration that only requires blacking out the occipital which was already in shadow. You would not need to create fake hair in the posterior area. Could that go undetected? I don't know. But if they could be confident about that alteration, the Z film would be beneficial to them and would not have been destroyed. Of the ten films taken that day only the Z film would require removal of an occipital blowout. The head is never seen with any clarity or seen at all in the Hughes, Paschall, Bell, Daniels, Towner or Dorman films. The Nix and Bronson films had no view what so ever of the right posterior area of JFK's head because JFK's head was turned about 18 degrees to his left relative to Elm. Muchmore had a somewhat better angle but her view to the right occipital was nearly side on due to the way the head curves around to the side at that location. Additionally his head disappears behind Jean Hill just three frames after the headshot. So if a 4th shot(Rear blowout) happened just 1/4 second after the headshot it would not have been recorded by Muchmore. After JFK passes Jean Hill, Hargis blocks the view except for a frame or two that shows just a sliver of his head. The only film that would require alteration is the Z film. Even the Moorman photo was taken less than 1/4 second after the headshot and would most likely not show the 4th shot. On the other hand, the fact they did not release the film to the public may indicate it was not altered. Why would they alter it then hide it away? I can only guess that it may have been their ace in the hole in case they failed to discount and discredit the Parkland accounts. Maybe the longer they held it the more confident they could be that no other film evidence would surface to reveal their alteration. Maybe holding it for years lessened the chance that new technology would expose their film as fake.

I have been very interested in Dr Costella's observations of the Z film. I think the shifting Stemmons sign pole is still a valid mystery. There has never been a valid debunking of Dr Costella's Stemmons pole issue that I know of. It has stood the test of time, imo. I think his observation about the lack of motion blur on the limo around frame 232 has merit too. There are a number of theories in the linked video that, imo, have not stood the test of time. The couple seen around fr 232 are not facing the limo but that is, imo, normal. The Z film view is deceptive and makes it look like JFK has yet to pass by them. But an overhead view like the West map shows JFK had already passed them by fr 210. They would be looking at the back of his head by frame 223. They appear to be looking in the direction of LBJ in the Z film and some witnesses who specifically did not like JFK said they came to see their local politicians like Connally and LBJ. I don't think their direction of their gaze can be taken as evidence of alteration. I idea that the images of Moorman and Hill have Been enlarged does not seem to match the measurements. At least it does not work with the image size comparisons I have made. Without going into the weeds I would point out that the head sizes of JFK and Jackie are definitely larger than those of Hill and Mary Moorman. It seems to match the relative distances of the limo and the witnesses to Z. The location of the curb and elements like the peristyles also seem to be correct and show no sign of magnification which would change their exact positions in the film. The 'legs together/legs apart guy' in frames 380/381 can be explained by the motion blur in frame 380 that makes it look like his legs are together when they are already apart. if you take the legs apart image in 381 and add the same motion blur found in fr 380 you can almost exactly reproduce the leg image in frame 380. Here is a link to a very short video that demonstrates this effect of motion blur. https://youtu.be/HuPNRfENhnI In the preceding frames he also appears to have his legs together. In those frames the blur increases with each frame as his legs are spreading apart more in each frame. The increased blur in conjunction with the legs opening up maintains the effect thru those frames . That explanation is somewhat subtle but I was able recreated that effect, although I lost that video comparison years ago. The lack of parallax of the lamppost and the background around frame 272 is very interesting. But now I think there is at least a possible explanation for that. In Willis 5 Zapruder is facing roughly east and by frame 315 the Moorman photo shows he has pivoted around by approx 70 degrees to face southwest. To do this he had to shift his weight to one foot in order to start his turn. If he started this turn by shifting his weight to the left foot in order to lift his right foot the camera would move left by a couple inches. So at that moment he would be panning the camera to the right his torso and the camera would be shifting left. That leftward shift of his weight and torso position cancel out any parallax that would happen as a result of panning to the right. I have tested this by reproducing all the parameter including the amount he turned and the relative position and distance of the lamppost to Z and to the background. There are two variables in that test. Those are the point at which Z shifted his weight to start the turn and which leg he moved first. I tried to move in as natural an unbiased manner as I could when reproducing Z's actions. What I found is the shift of weight to the left foot very neatly cancelled out the parallax of my lamppost and background. The background was maybe 25 ft further than the bushes in the Z film background. This is not an absolute proof of how the lack of parallax occurred in that Z film sequence, but it is certainly a plausible explanation of how it might have happened. The documentary also mentions the "odd blurred extension" on the lower left side of the post but I'm sure most everyone knows that is just the No Parking sign on the lamppost. Hargis' surge forward as the passengers lunge forward may very well be an artifact of alteration. The Nix film shows the limo slowing by about 3 mph and that is the speed at which Hargis closes in on the limo. Personally I can't see Hargis being caught off guard to such a degree that he did not compensate for the slight slowing of the limo. How someone could remove a limo stop or near stop is a big mystery. Simply removing frames or using a matte process are seriously problematic. But the account of the four bike cops saying it either completely stopped or almost completely stopped is an even bigger head scratcher. How could all four cops who were supposed to maintain their positions near the rear bumper through the entire parade, make such a gross error? How could they think it stopped when it is shown to only be slowing to 8mph? Even if the limo just slowed to 2 mph for 2 seconds before accelerating, it would change its position relative to the bike cops by about 40 feet. They would go from being at the rear bumper to being 20 feet out in front of the limo if they did not react to the slowing. How all four cops who are closely watching the changing speed of the limo throughout the parade could all make such a huge error in perception is hard to fathom.

I can't think of any photo of Elm St that was taken from the position necessary to capture a shadow that was vertical in the frame. Cancellare came the closest when he captured Wiegman. Z would have seen vertical shadows when his camera was pointing directly towards the Sun around frame 406, but there is nothing to create the long shadows. It would be interesting to see an image like that, let me know if you find it. I tested the shadows on the Franzen's by adding motion blur to a sharp Z Frame. They became very blurry but their shadows still appeared much sharper. The, blurry witness with sharp shadows, alteration theory is an old one that has not stood the test of time and the advent of computer photoshop software.

I think the lack of motion blur on the Elm St shadows may have a logical explanation. I can't seem to remove attachments at the moment to free up space for an image but if you put Z frames 342 and 345 side by side they will illustrate my point. Z 342 has a lot of motion blur and 345 is sharp. The motion blur in 342 is lateral and basically follows the direction of the limo as most of the blurred fames do. The blur on Bothun and Altgens show no vertical blur, evidenced by the sharp line across the tops of their heads. So the shadows should show little to no blur on the top and bottom(Along the length of the shadow). Any blur would be lateral and show mostly next to the top of the head and next to the feet. The other visible evidence of motion blurring on Altgens and Bothun is in their shirt. coat, ties etc. But the shadow has no detail to show anything within, it is just black on black. So any lateral motion blurring is not discernible inside the shadows. On the other hand, the shadow angle is about 15 degrees off of the motion blur direction so maybe it should show some blurring. But the length of the blur is very short and I would still not expect to see much blur, since it is mostly moving with the length of the shadow. That is just a guesstimate. I think it is important to take into account the fact that dark shadowed images are not actually images on the film in the camera. If the shadow has no detail within it then the shadow is simply a lack of light hitting the film. The light reflecting off the grass burns a real physical latent image onto the film, but the shadow leaves no image, it is just a lack of light. The location on the film that represents the shadow is just and unexposed area with no latent image. This makes a big difference with motion blur. Instead of 2 objects being overlapped like shadow over grass, there is just the image of grass and the shadow, or lack of light, adds no image to the grass. The grass there might still appear darker than the grass next to it because of the lack of further exposure during the time the shadow, or lack of light, overlaps with the grass. That may resemble the overlap of two objects but is a little different. Depending on how long the shadow is overlapped and how bright the grass is, the shadow can completely disappear. From another perspective consider a shadow that is motion blurred over a grass image. The lack of light lands on a location that is already been exposed by the light coming off the grass. The already existing image of the grass remains and the shadow is not seen. A comparison of the lamppost in Z frames 411 and 413 shows the canceling out effect. The right side of the lamppost in the 411 image is missing and that is why the lamppost is much skinnier than in 413. The right side has been overlapped with the image of the street behind it and that part of the lamppost is cancelled out because the street is so bright. On the grass most of the lamppost has been cancelled. But because the grass image is not as bright as the street there is sill some darkening of the grass where the the overlap was. I can't be sure how much the cancelling out effect plays a part in the image we see. It has a lot to do with how long the overlap lasted during the open shutter time and how bright the background is. But the lateral direction of the motion blur and the inability to discern any blurring within the shadows may explain why the horizontals shadows are sharper than the vertical people.

I have seen that interview and based my evaluation of her recollection on it. I do not contest her father's claim of seeing trains in one of the photos. But there is no doubt about where the train sat and there is no doubt about where Mr Willis stood when taking Willis 5. Based on that, it is a fact that the trains would not be visible through the colonnade windows in Willis 5. There is another interview in which she specifically shows the Willis 5 photo and says this is the photo that her dad said the trains were missing from. Here are both interviews. She shows Willis 5 and confirms it as the photo the trains were removed from at 25:20. She mention another witness taking a photo about the same time that does show the trains. My guess is that she is talking about the Nix film. The trains are visible in Nix but that is due to his location. The contention that the trains were removed from Willis 5 is simply incorrect. They were not visible from his location and that is why they are not in Willis 5.

Denise, I think Linda Willis' point about no train being visible in Willis 5 has a plausible explanation. The red line on the map shows Phil Willis' line of sight to the 3rd(Southernmost) Pullman car. The location of the black X denoting rear of the last Pullman car can be verified by the two photo inserts that both show the train from very different angles. Willis' red line of sight passes through the eastern edge of the 4th colonnade window which is not quiet visible in Willis 5. So from Phil Willis' location in Willis 5 the trains would not have been visible. Linda Wills did say she and her father walked forward on the grass and took some more photos after the assassination. The black line of sight estimates a position 30 ft west of the Willis 5 photo. Any photos taken from there would show the train in 3 of the colonnade windows. So Linda Willis' memory of trains visible in some photos would be correct but not in Willis 5. The missing photos showing the trains may be part of the group of photos taken after they walked forward. But there never could have been trains visible in Willis 5. NOTE: Other than the 3 Pullman cars there were no other trains in the yard during the shooting. The boxcars seen in the lower insert arrived after the assassination. They are not there in either Of the McIntyre photos taken approx 25 seconds after the head shot.

He helped take JFK out of the casket yet remembered him wearing clothes, yes that is a big mistake. It puts a big question mark on his credibility but I don't know if it makes all of his testimony incorrect. He would have paid more attention to the taking and inspecting the X-rays so I would give more credit to his memory of the wound. But that is just my opinion, he could be wrong about the wound too.

I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit because he gave the deposition 3 decades after the event. He could have simply conflated his memory with some other person he x-ray'd during his career. To take each of the head X-rays he had to take the head in his hands and align it on 3 separate axis. He had to use the shape of the head itself to determine the correct axis. So I have much more confidence in his memory of the wound location than what JFK was wearing when his body first arrived.

"Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol?" I am not interested is guessing your motivation for what looks to be gaslighting in the Parkland issue. I think a mountain of criticism may have suddenly fallen on you because you have created a mountain of mis information regarding Parkland.

I am not surprised that Keven has been so aggressive in his criticism of Pat Speer's opinions on the Parkland issue. Considering the comments of others who are well versed in the Parkland testimonies, I think I am not the only one who sees many of his explanations as an extreme form of gaslighting.

Thanks for noting the misunderstanding. It was my fault when I characterized people who deny the O.C. wound as skeptics, when that term usually defines CT skeptics.

Just to clear up this point, he did get a look at the back of the head in terms of the occipital parietal wound in the right rear, right posterior. It was only the supposed 'other' bullet hole below the occipital wound that he did not see due to excessive blood there. Akin had mental problems decades after his testimony in 1963. But there is nothing I have found to disqualify his statements made 20 years prior. When it comes to doctors assumptions about where the shot came from I don't pay much attention. It is just a guesswork based on what they saw or didn't see on 11/22 and in the Z film reaction of JFK. The location is the big issue because so many of them saw the blowout near the occipital area. Some like Baxter went further and wrote on 11/22 that the occipital bone itself was "Missing". With testimonies being repeated many times over several decades by 20+ witnesses there will be some contradictions, but that is to be expected. There are just far too many accounts of a wound near the occipital to be explained away with conjecture. This person lied, that person just got it wrong, some just went along with the majority, etc. 18 or more staff from trauma room 1 saw a wound that does not exist in the official photos and x-rays. Conservatively 6 more at the autopsy came forward after the non disclosure statements were lifted by the HSCA. I don't include testimony that is questionable, like Stringer's failing memory in his ARRB deposition. In the end there is no credible way to explain 24 witnesses who saw the blasted out area of the occipital parietal. I have heard all the arguments and it amounts to a lot of speculation, cherry picking, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. It does not add up and points to a big lack of credibility. The attack on Crenshaw by the esteemed Journal of American Medical Associations, is in itself proof that doctors who supported the O.C wound location could have their reputations and careers put in jeopardy. The claim that Crenshaw might not have even been in the room that day, basically accusing him of being a complete xxxx, confirms that cheap attacks on the Parkland staff were required to discredit them. It also puts in question the stories of the few who likely recanted to protect their careers. The absurd yet often repeated claim that those Parkland doctors were too busy trying to save his life to correctly locate the O.C wound(I think that was from Bugliosi?) is another example of the weak arguments needed to discredit the doctors. It was Jenkins himself who drew the attention of the others to a wound he deemed unsurvivable. So yes they were made aware of the wound that so many said was in the O.C. Clark calling off the resuscitation of the president based on the wound he said was "A blasted out area of the occipital parietal" is proof that he, a neurosurgeon, took a good enough look to make the historic decision to give up on the POTUS. Of course I am just rehashing the basis of the longstanding debate we all know very well, but the question of the O.C wound has a mountain of support and very weak counter arguments. A great deal of research is needed to address all the claims made and clear the muddied waters. In the end there is no doubt that the Parkland issue is valid and points very strongly to a coverup of an occipital wound. Imo, the fact that on the weekend of 11/22 the prime suspect was a previous Soviet defector, would be enough to instigate, at least temporarily, a coverup of any evidence that points to a conspiracy. Simply to navigate around the possibility of a conflict with Russia that could lead down a path to nuclear warfare. Hustling his body out of Parkland without allowing Dr Rose to do an autopsy may have been the first step in a coverup designed to protect us from nuclear war. So no deep state plot to kill JFK is needed and Oswald could be part of a 2 man conspiracy. Oswald firing 3 shots from the TSBD. Not saying that to promote a new theory, just looking for the simplest possible scenario.

When Akin says he could not see the back of the head "as such", he was referring specifically to the question about seeing "any other bullet wound" below the "Gaping hole" specter mentions. He said he could not see the other wound because of all the blood and bits of bone sitting below the occipital parietal wound. He specifies that he was talking about the neck. It seems Akin was not contradicting what he just said about the occipital parietal wound, he was just talking about not seeing a second wound below the "Gaping wound" due to the blood and bits of bone. Specter asked Clark and other witnesses about seeing a separate entry hole just above and 2.5cm right of the occipital protuberance. Specter asks "if that wound could have been present without your observing it?" Clark replies "yes, with the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp such a wound could be present." He seems to be saying the 'blasted out occipital parietal could have obscured the entry wound at the protuberance. The location of that occipital parietal wound as above and out from the protuberance wound fits the reported location the occipital wound. The occipital parietal wound was reported by so many as being in the right rear. So it was largely visible on the side of the head behind and above the ear and also extended back behind the visible head near the protuberance.

Dr Akin made several comment to the WC regarding the wound he saw in the occipital parietal: Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw him? Dr. AKIN. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding. ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in the back of the head? Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't. I could not see the back of the President's head as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag- ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet hit his head? Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

I think the skeptics lost the Parkland debate a long time ago. The misrepresentations, cherry picking, and gaslighting have become far too obvious over time. I assume many researchers see right through it. It is truly a 'House of cards", imo.

The Betamax copies were the earliest available as I recall and the MPI version shows no sprocket area. But the frames on that sight and all the Groden frames I have seen elsewhere have everything in the pocket area. The color matches the rest of the frame area very well so I don't think the Groden sprocket areas are a later addition. As I understand it those frames were provided by Groden, although he has never provided the complete set.

In this day and age I don't think there is any way to confirm a perviously unknown frame because it can all be faked, imo. If a limo stop was removed it could not be done by just removing frames. A deceleration from maybe 8mph to 2mph or less has to involve some matte process to shift the background in order to keep the limo moving at 8mph during the deceleration sequence. To hide a deceleration of 25% you can't just remove 25% of the frames. . EXAMPLE: Starting with frames 1,2,3,4 you remove 25%. So you take out number 3 and are left with a sequence of 1,2,4,5. Nothing has changed from 1 to 2 or 4 to 5 so the limo speed won't change. But from 3 to 5 the limo speed will double because its now going twice as far from 3 to 5. So the limo would be lurching down the street during deceleration or acceleration. I think trying to recreate a limo stop or slowing by just adding frames would not work without adding the interpolation program to move the background. Basically the computer version of the matte process used in 60's era films.

The Groden frame set can be downloaded here. https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets

If you just duplicated 312 the limo would be in the same place for 2 frames. That is visible to the eye but also measurable in pairs of frames. The interlacing programs nudge the background to the left for each frame making the limo appear to move forward in every frame.

Interlacing programs must have gotten much better since the fake video I saw in 17'. But it may have been from 2010. Even that older program could recognize JFK's forward head movement in 313 relative to his head in 312. That is impressive since his head in 313 is blurred and partially hidden in the cloud of blood. The sophistication is growing so rapidly now that anything can be faked.

About 7 or more years ago there was a YouTube video claiming to reveal a dramatic slowing of the limo. Between 312 and 313 the limo's speed was cut in half. Long story short, someone had created/added an extra frame (312a). It was apparently made with a frame interpolation program. The program can take 2 consecutive frames and create an intermediate frame in which anything that moves from frame 1(312) to frame 2(313) is recreated to appear in a location in between those two positions. Example: You have two frames that show a baseball being thrown. Frame 1 shows the ball 4 inches from the pitcher's hand and frame 2 shows it has moved to 8 inches from the pitcher's hand. The interpolation program will create a new frame, frame 1A, that shows the ball 6 inches from the pitcher's hand. The new frame becomes an intermediate frame. This is done between all frames and doubles the total number of frames. Then the projection rate is also doubled. The result is a film that moves at its original speed, but having twice as many frames smoothes out the appearance of the film. This is applied to old films to make them look less choppy. In the real Z film the limo moves about 8 inches from 312 to 313. Adding a single interpolated frame (312a) causes the limo to take 2 frames to move that same 8 inches. When projected at the normal Z frame rate the limo appears to cut its speed in half from 312 to 312a to 313. Of course cutting your speed in half then suddenly going back to its normal speed at 314 is impossible. Therefore I think the best answer to explain the faked Z copy is frame interpolation. It was used to add a single frame between 312 and 313. The top images are the real 312 and the faked 312a. JFK's head tips forward to an intermediate position in 312a. A position that does not occur in the Z film. An additional proof of interpolation fakery appears in frames 349 and 350 of the same fake Z film(Below). There is no extra frame there but 350 is a fake composite of 349 and 350. I think it is a remnant of experimentation with interpolation. In the images at bottom the real 349 is on the left and a fake 350 is on the right. From 349 to 350 Altgens moves left relative to Jackie. that is real and correct in both frames. But the yellow paint on the curb does not move left from 349 to 350. The red lines show how much Altgens moved and how much the curb should have moved with him. But the yellow curb has barely moved at all. Additionally the fake 350 on the right should reveal Altgens shadow across the curb as it does in the real 350. The yellow curb in the fake 350 on the right and lack of Altgens shadow are both from frame 349. It seems that the fake 350 was an error that combined the real positions of everyone on the grass while the curb is a repeat of frame 349. I bumped up the saturation in the real 350 on the right to make the yellow curb more obvious. The curb in the real 350 is skinny compared to the real 349 because there is a bit more vertical camera jiggle in 349. That is one more proof that the fake 350 has the curb from the real 349.