Chris Bristow

5 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I went to DP and stood on the pedestal myself, and videotaped cars coming down Elm Street so I know what it feels like to stand precariously up there and try to keep a moving vehicle that is also going down an incline in the center of the frame.  With nobody standing in front of the pedestal, it would seem much easier (and afford a better field of view as well) to stand a little bit in front of the pedestal and film from there, safely at ground level but still above the action being filmed. When you add the fact that Zapruder wanted/needed Sitzman to help "steady him" on the pedestal, it makes even less sense that he would mount and maintain that precarious filming position as a personal choice.  When you watch Abe demonstrating the enormous blow-out of the side of JFK's head in his filmed TV interview a few hours later (that nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing), you'll realize that his demonstration matched the appearance of JFK's head at Bethesda, not Parkland.  Not sure how to account for Mr. Zapruder's expressing such a clear image from the future - as if it came straight through his camera. It did look that way on the film that was eventually developed, so Mr. Zapruder's account was certified correct, after all, right?  Food for thought.

I have often pondered Zapruder's precarious position on the pedestal. He seems to have switched his stance from the Willis 5 position facing toward the Stemmons sign to a position about 45 degrees to his right by the Moorman photo. If that is correct he had to switch his stance while looking through the viewfinder. He could not see were to place his feet and his balance must have been compromised because he could only see the tiny landmarks through the viewfinder.
 Did you find it necessary to pivot while you panned?. I tried to test a changing stance during the pan and found switching your weight to the left foot as you pan to the right momentarily cancels out any parallax. I found the switching of stance happened right about the time I would be panning past the lamppost. I considered it may be the reason we see no parallax from the lamppost and background in the Z film.
  I am not positive on this but standing in front of the pedestal would cause the Newman's to block the view to JFK. I measured it and it is a close call but it is likely Newman would have blocked at least part of the view.

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Failure Analysis served as the expert for both sides of the 1992 ABA Mock trial. Different teams were established. I know the former CEO of the firm who worked for the defense. I also have some CDs from the trial.  I know that Failure Analysis did a test showing that a frangible bullet would not have transited the other side of the skull- thus rebutting the claim that a shot from the GK would have hit Jackie.

I believe that Posner only used the portions of the Failure Analysis work that was developed for the prosecution.  

The first I heard of the theory that a knoll shot would have hit Jackie was in the documentary "Inside The Target Car" with Gary Mack.
  It was a complete fabrication. Mack positioned JFK's head firmly  up against the actresses left shoulder to put Jackie in the GK line of sight. We know from Z frame 312 that JFK's head did not align with her left shoulder and we know from the Muchmore film that their heads were at least 6" apart at the head shot.
 The theorized knoll shooter position at 15 ft west of the fence corner lines up above the 6" gap between their heads in the Muchmore film. That means Marie Muchmore, the gap between the heads, and the knoll shooter position are all on the same line of sight. They are at opposite ends of the LOS so they would both see almost the same gap at the head shot. A shot from the knoll would not have hit Jackie.
 Z frame 312 alone proves the shot would not hit Jackie. Taking into account the LOS from the knoll and Jackie's head being forward of JFK's the shot would have not hit her. The Failure analysis people must have plotted the knoll LOS so it is surprising they did not realize Jackie was out of the way.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

They were moving. If something splashed up in the air Hargis would have driven right through it as it came down. That is what he said happened. Some have tried to claim blood, brain, and bone were propelled towards Hargis, moving with the direction of the bullet. But that's not how it works. A piece of bone broke off by a bullet would not be pushed by the bullet in the direction the bullet was heading. The piece of bone pushed by the bullet would be pulverized upon impact. Some of the bone surrounding that hole might fracture and break off and fly into the air, but it wouldn't go forward in a straight line, as the bone and matter would explode away from the bullet path, not ride along with it. 

In any event, the fact is that Hargis said from the start that the bullet impacted the right side of the head, and that he saw nothing impact or explode from the back of the head. 

I take this as support for something I'd already come to suspect/know based upon the medical evidence--that the large head wound was caused by a tangential impact at the supposed exit. 

 

I could see him riding into debris but not as a result of the wind pushing it there, which is a popular theory. Debris does spread out and take an angle off the original trajectory, but maybe he was in a position slightly off the original trajectory and was struck by bone. Maybe it was the bone that Brehm claimed he saw hit the curb very near there.

I don't agree with your take on the location of the tangential head wound or your evaluation of the Parkland testimony so we probably could not see eye to eye on anything about the blood splatter on Hargis and Martin.

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Wind prob blew it back on Hargis. Wind was blowing at odd angles in that plaza - uneven vortices created due to layout of plaza and underpass.

Harper fragment could have landed on Hargis after being blown off the top of JFKs head. Might account for why Hargis thought he was hit.

The wind was blowing from to the Northeast and maybe some gusts went East. But even directly east doesn't send the debris towards Hargis.

The official or estimated location for the Harper fragment is like 100 ft Southwest of Hargis at 313. Of course even if it did hit him it would have to Loft around in the air for about 2/3 of a second. Then of course it wouldn't be striking him hard enough for him to think he got shot.

If you have to invoke wind vortices you are more than stretching it.

17 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

So, in one way, we are expected to believe Hargis's 3 feet away right there eyewitness view and take ( 2 shots only?) from the TXSBD but we are supposed to then "not" believe his statement that the limo "came almost to a stop" just as JFK was hit with the head shot?

I would have liked to ask Hargis how much solid brain matter hit him from JFK's exploding brain?

A little? A lot? Did the matter hit him lightly...or did he feel it with more force?

His comment that he thought he was "hit", meaning he thought for a moment he had been shot, implied he was struck with some force. He also said he assumed he might be getting hit with concrete. I don't know where that would come from or why he assumed that other than something substantial struck him. 

The Ln explanation for the blood on Hargis and Martin is that they just rode into a cloud of debris that hung in the air for 2/3 of a second as they drove into it. Hargis's testimony is inconsistent with that theory. If the hanging debris cloud theory is correct then it hung there for almost 2 seconds before Kinney drove into it.

It is hard to take what he says in your clip at face value when he prefaces his statement in the video below with "This is not to be shown publicly but". He then states the limo came "Almost to a stop".
  Obviously the limo coming "Almost to a stop" is inconsistent with the Z film in which the limo never gets below 8mph. What reason, other than the controversy, would he give his caveat right before he says the limo almost stopped?
   If he did hold the opinion that a shot came from the knoll/overpass I doubt he would say it publicly. He didn't want his limo stop opinion made public and got burned on that. I don't know if he would make the same mistake twice.

12 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Those were made based on reenactment photo's, you can tell by the bushes in the background that have grown.

Yes the bushes grew some.  The background roof line appears lower in the cutout relative to the foreground because the recreation camera was lower than 133c. That makes it look like they grew more than they did. But the structure right behind the bush does show they grew from March to November.
 

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Couple things about the ghost image...  there are multiple images as we can see a drop shadow in one of them and not the other...

As Pat mentioned, if Studebaker took photos, that could explain the drop shadow image along with the one that is flat...

Also, below, see how skewed the actual 133-c is compared to the ghost image.. the 2 parallel lines in white are on the original ghost image, so if you paste Oswald in 133-c  back into the ghost image, everything is off...   if you rotate the actual image counter-clockwise it fits but also appears like he's going to fall over... the strange stance he seems to have.

FWIW

I thought Jeff mentions that 133-c was actually seen that weekend but suppressed for some reason as how else would they know to put Det Brown into that position?

A 3rd image without a negative...  and a lost negative...  hmmm...

 

 

 

By 'drop shadow'  you mean the red image?  Obviously not there in the background image 140 so it is an artifact of some kind and I wonder specifically what caused it.
 The lean in 133c is strange and 133a even stranger.   That is the most baffling part of the Backyard photos for me. I have never seen a recreation of the 133a lean that got the foot and hip angle correct. Also in 133a Oswald has no upper body counter lean at all. It is almost impossible to lean over to the point you are near falling and not automatically counter lean the upper body. I found the hips in 133a are almost straight forward, no more than 10 degrees of angled and closer to 5 degrees. If you match the right foot, hips and counter lean the stance gets crazy.
 Using the fence to compare  his lean in 133c and the ghost image from 141 shows the hand done cutout has him leaning 1 or 2 degrees more than 133c. so pasting 133c Oswald back into the cutout will cause him to lean more than 133c. Still the lean is strange.
  The actual 133c and the ghost image backgrounds are taken from different positions so the backgrounds and foreground will always be a mismatch. When they created the cutouts they matched his head to 133c and the roof line in the background. But the background roof line is a big mismatch with 133c. The lower camera in the recreation moves that background roof line down compared to the foreground. It can be seen where the roof line meets the stairway post next to Oswald. That mismatch places Oswald lower in the foreground and creates a huge perspective error. Being lower his feet land on the grass lower/closer to the camera.  That should make Oswald bigger in the image but the cutout size matches his original size relative to the stairway post. He is too small for his location on the grass. That larger/closer Oswald should have his head appear higher relative to the stairway post but it is well below 133c. So the cutouts do not compare well to the original 133c.
  The recreation photos used for the background were supposedly taken on 11/29. If that is true Roscoe White would have had his personal copy of 133 by then so matching the 133c stance does not strike me as being controversial.

I have heard the 'Ghost Cutout' photos that show the near perfect outline of Oswald in 133c were found years later in with the contents from Roscoe Whites desk. I have also heard the official explanation was that White was tasked with testing Oswald's claim that the photos were faked by attempting to create a fake. Either way whoever made the cutout must have had other working copies of 133c to cutout Oswald and trace his shape into a background image.

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So in other words, Chris, based on your conclusions, all of these images are of the same person, ie., the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald? I certainly believe that to be the case, and I'm on record as believing the Harvey and Lee theory to be absolute nonsense, but just wanted to clarify your position.

I am only weighing in on the photo comparisons. As to the Harvey and Lee theory I have no conclusive opinion. Body doubles have been used before like Saddam's doubles, so I don't rule out our intelligence agencies using body doubles.

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Chris.

I'm pretty sure that the one on the left is a drawing. I'm also pretty sure that the one on the left and one on the right are from the same source. They are almost identical.

 

Yes definitely both are from the same original source. I don't  know if it was a drawing or just a poor image with too much contrast.

Here is the passport comp. Everything matches well except the ear position which has already been addressed and is due to the slight forward head tilt in the passport image.. But there is a weird thing and that is the passport ears are bigger and further apart than the other photo. There is a possible explanation if the camera for the passport photo was taken from farther away. That does change the relative magnification of objects at different distances from the camera. The difference in width can happen with even a slight turn of the head. The passport image is looking dead ahead but the other is looking a few degrees to his left. There are possible explanation for the differences but I have not tested them.
 On the right is an interesting comp. The image on the right is rotated down approx 10 degrees(Maybe a little to much). The photos are aligned at the eyes. The nose obviously swings downward and will distort any comp when one head is pointing down more. But what is interesting is that the top of the philtrum and the lips are shifted down slightly too. So when we compare two photos that do not have equal head tilt we can expect to see a mismatch of the lips and the philtrum. We do see this in the passport comps.

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No it is not Chris... I would never compare Harvey to himself...  only to photos of LEE... and that overlay is made like the first, against the 1959 passport photo, just anchored on his left eye instead of right ear.

Let's be clear... all you've shown that Harvey at 17 and Harvey at 24 matches...

Harvey on the left... Lee on the right (before the 1959 passport photo)

I get confused on who is Harvey and who is Lee.
 Here are the two images I used and in the middle is your "Harvey and Lee superimposed" comp from page 1. The red circles and arrows show the match of artifacts and other elements in both the image on the left and your comparison. There are also matching horizontal scratches slightly visible on the nose but I did not mark them in red.
The blue arrows show the matching elements of the mug shot on the right with your comp. The two photos I used which I refer to as the induction and 1/22 mug shot photos are absolutely the two images that make up your "Harvey and Lee superimposed. 

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Maybe I didn't express myself adequately...  both the Marine photo and the center photo are of HARVEY OSWALD... we do not have Lee's induction photo... they should match.  I asked Chris to use the last known photo of Lee Oswald, the 1959 passport photo and do the comparison...

When you place Lee over Harvey's face you get this.  these are 2 different people.  match the head size and the ears wont match.. line the eyes up and the rest of the face is as off as this image anchored on his right ear...  I see I'm a few pixels off to the left but that doesn't change the facial features not matching, or the sloping shoulders of Lee matching the straighter physique of Harvey...

 

Here's the photo he's trying to use

In my first post I felt matching the ears in the passport comp would give a false result by shifting eyes/nose/mouth unrealistically.  You responded:
"I agree Chris, which is why I did it 2 ways on page 1... first aligned to the right ear, and below that aligned to the left eye, the 2 color one... the left eye overlay is almost impossible to differentiate front from back Oswald... but look at the rest of the overlay...mouth, nose and eyes do not align at all, and the size/shape of the head is different (and the body skeleton's are different as to how their shoulders fall...)"

  I thought you were agreeing at least partially and pointing to your second example which eliminated any ear questions by matching the left eye.
   That 2nd overlay titled " Harvey superimposed over Lee" is the famous 1/22 mugshot and the Marine induction photo.That is why my last comparison used them. The induction photo having that scratch on the film across the nose and the beat up mugshot face made them easy to identify.
 I will do a comp of the passport and other photo.  If both eyes can be fully matched then you can be assured that the rotation and sizing are near perfect. Head turn or tilting up/down will still distort the comparison but I don't think there is any way around that.
 

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

How do you know the photo on the left is distorted?

(BTW, the one on the right looks like a drawing to me.)

 

   The two versions of the photo online are what we see in my comparison. with the pupillary distances matched you can see the left image is much smaller as their chins levels show. So one of them is definitely distorted. The version on the right matches whoever is in the mugshot extremely well. So if you stretch the image on the left in the vertical only it becomes the same as the image on the right which is an almost perfect match to the mug shot. The fact that stretching the image causes the ear size and chin angles and the nose all to line up so well leads to my assumption that the left image is the distorted one.
 

Killing a patsy before they could talk was a known mob tactic in 1963. If Oswald was being set up as a patsy for The Killing of a president he was probably aware of the possibility of being murdered in short order.

After watching Oswald get murdered live on TV my father plopped down on the couch and stared blankly for several seconds. I was only seven but I thought it was a very weird reaction. About 10 years later he explained to me that the fact that Patsy's get murdered very quickly was the first thing he thought about. He was not a CT person. Oswald was a politically aware person so I have to think he considered that as a patsy he might be in danger.

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Chris,

This is a photo of the same man...  there is no LEE OSWALD Marine induction photo, only Harvey's.

Try the same thing with the 1959 passport image... THAT is Lee...

And if you can't believe your own eyes that these two men are simply not the same so be it...  I'm not here to convince anyone of anything...  just post the info and y'all can come to your own conclusions...

I refuse to argue with anyone else about the overwhelming amount of evidence which illustrates the existence of 2 different people.

It's as if y'all refuse to acknowledge what the CIA was trying to do... the only info we were getting from Russia was thru the Gehlen/Dulles National Socialist spy network we "adopted" after the war... and elsewhere in the world where they had bugs and taps going on Russia entities.

Read "Wilderness of Mirrors"... story of Angleton and William Harvey... The CIA didn't just decide to take 1954 - 1963 off, they were killing people all around the world... leaders of countries FFS.  

Important to put oneself into a 1963 Cold War mindset.. not easy to do but necessary to understand what was going on here.

https://www.abebooks.com/Wilderness-Mirrors-Intrigue-Deception-Secrets-Destroyed/30947081664/bd?ref_=ps_nb_ggl_US_Shopp_Textbook&cm_mmc=ggl-_-US_Shopp_Textbook-_-product_id=COM9781585748242USED-_-keyword=&gclid=Cj0KCQiAofieBhDXARIsAHTTldqC-tCDYc-5BAdZw8pAfgKT5xNIrreG-tvAB-crsqkIUB3PZ0fPcB0aAj7nEALw_wcB

 

 

If I mixed up Harvey and Lee it was not an expression of my opinion, just a mistake. I really don't have an opinion on the issue of whether there was a Harvey and a Lee. I like to examine each issues separately and if I do come to a conclusion it is only about that particular set of photos

In examining those two sets of photos I cannot find any mismatching measurements. There are about 20 photos of Oswald out there and I've measured all of them. In the few photos where he's facing directly toward the camera you can measure a very subtle difference in his pupillary distance. His right eye sits 1 mm farther out from the bridge of his nose than his left eye does. Assuming he has a pupillary distance of approximately 67 mm, his monocular pupillary distance would be  34 mm in the right and 33 mm in the left. Oswald's mugshots and Marine photos are the ones where he's generally facing straightforward. Those are all consistent with that 1 mm difference. If Oswald had a twin that twin may have the same small difference. I will measure some photos of twins online and see if that holds true. if true it would support the idea that the two people are twins.

Measuring a 1 mm difference in the pupillary distance is common practice when making eyeglasses. Sometimes doctors will add a pupillary distance to their prescription and they will even split a millimeter in half.

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I agree Chris, which is why I did it 2 ways on page 1... first aligned to the right ear, and below that aligned to the left eye, the 2 color one... the left eye overlay is almost impossible to differentiate front from back Oswald... but look at the rest of the overlay...

mouth, nose and eyes do not align at all, and the size/shape of the head is different (and the body skeleton's are different as to how their shoulders fall...)

Just for added backup, go to CE1961 and 1962...  1961 is where Oswald was throughout his military service, 1962 is ALLEN FELDE telling a much different story and why ELY found so many conflicts in his Military bio...

And then the FBI goes out and finds the wrong FELDE (below)

They go find ROBERT ALLEN FELDE when the man's name was ALLEN R FELDE...  the NOTE in the report even admits they have the wrong FELDE...

Good ole FBI . When they do finally find FELDE in JUNE 1964, we get CE1962 above.

  Here is a comp based on the photos from the second overlay. I rotated one of them a single degree. The photo download on the left turned out to be seriously distorted. Compared to the second copy on the far right it is obviously shrunken in the vertical but the pupillary distances match. It is also slightly magnified in the central area.
 The image on the right is very good match for Oswald's mug shot. Everything is nearly a perfect match except the lips. I think that difference could be Oswald raising his lower lip, possibly due to stress.
 

I think there is an adjustment that needs to be made to the photo overlay comparisons of Harvey and Lee on page one. There is a subtle difference in the tilt of the head between Harvey and Lee that makes a very big difference if you try and align the overlays by using the ears.

A very accurate way to determine the difference in head tilt from Harvey to Lee is to draw a line through the center of the eyes and see where it intersects the ears. Harvey's eyes sit a little above his ears while Lee's cross just below the top of the ear because Harvey's head is tilted up a little bit. Oswald's profile mugshot can be used to mark those two different points and show there is a six degree difference in the head tilts. It is easy to see in the position of his nostrils and the tip of his nose that Harvey has his head tilted up.

Using the ears to align the photos will cause the two pairs of overlaid eyes to appear at two distinctly different levels. The same will be true for the nose and mouth.

Personally I think the best alignment for comparison is the eyes. match the two images for pupillary distance and then lay the eyes over each other.

Still we have to take into consideration that the eyes are the farthest from the camera, the lips are a little closer, and the nose even closer. As soon as you start to tilt up  the eyes, lips and nose will diverge in an unequal manner. 

The most minor variation is that Harvey is looking slightly to his left. This  results in the bridge of the nose being misaligned in the overlays when you use the eyes to align the photos. It will also cause the eyes to sit slightly off center laterally when compared to the ears.

  Aligning the overlay using the eyes will correct most of the differences. There will still be subtle differences and whether they are due to a difference in head tilt and head turn would require some fairly subtle modeling.

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Chris, I think we're talking about different trees.  The one in the pictures you post is near the underpass.  I was talking about the ones directly in front of the TSBD that may have interfered with a clear shot at JFK from the 6th floor S/E window.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Dallasjfk.jpg

They also overhang the fence on the Grassy Knoll.

I assume you mean the two larger trees towards the center of the photo are oak as opposed to the smaller ones along the fence. The issue about the smoke and the yellow leaves applies to that one tree branch. I don't know what kind of tree that is.

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The leaves weren't yellow.  The trees are Texas Live Oaks.  They are green throughout the year.  They shed their tiny leaves in March or April when the new ones come out.

Which is another reason Oswald or anyone else could not have not seen through them for a clear shot.  

Here are some photos of the yellowed branch. The photo on the left shows the tree had a couple more yellowing branches up above. Might have been a sick tree.

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

The leaves weren't yellow.  The trees are Texas Live Oaks.  They are green throughout the year.  They shed their tiny leaves in March or April when the new ones come out.

Which is another reason Oswald or anyone else could not have not seen through them for a clear shot.  

Ron, I think the tree in question was an evergreen but for whatever reason that single Branch was yellow. it's visible in several photographs but I'm going to have to look for one of them. It is not one of the trees right next to the fence.

Robin Unger's clear GIF's of the Bell film seem to show exhaust clouds from the back of the limo and more so from the back of the follow up limo as they approach and disappear into the shadow of the overpass. The follow up car shows large plumes on either side of it just as it moves into the shadow.
 It would make sense that a witness looking down at the street might not see smoke on the knoll if it only lasted for a moment.  Mr Johnson did not see the knoll smoke and stated "Maybe it's because they were looking that way, and I was looking down on the car." A pretty sound conclusion.
 I don't know about the bikes putting out smoke as neither, Hargis, Martin, Chaney or Jackson laid on the throttle. Some claim when Heygood dropped his bike smoke clouds came up. I think the Couch film proves that wrong. In addition Heygood did not drop his bike until at least 40 seconds after frame 313. If the 2 limo's smoked as they went under the triple they must have put out smoke when they initially punched it.

1 hour ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Guess you didn’t watch the video to the end. There’s film of the smoke. And the rail yard ‘smoke’ witnesses outnumber whatever supposed witness your claiming to exist by a lot.

And calling these guys ‘wild-eyed’ is insulting and completely inaccurate. They are obviously the opposite of that. Salt of the earth guys to me.

 

They are credible, imo. But the Wiegman image of the 'smoke' has it 40ft from the theorized shooter location on the knoll fence. I have heard Tink Thompson say the shooter was only 8 ft west of the corner, in that case the smoke traveled over 30 ft. It sounds impossible.
There was a wind that generally is thought to have been moving north to northeast. If we stretch that and consider a gust may have blown directly east at that moment it would have pushed the smoke further. But it would have to stay together as it was pushed 20 to 30 ft.
When Zapruder filmed the knoll fence it was almost simultaneous with the Wiegman frame. In Z's film the trees are moving all over the place like trees do in a blustery wind but they look to me as if the wind was northeast. To see the trees you have to increase the exposure on the last 20 frames or so.
 If we are to believe it is smoke in the image then after the gun was fired and the discharge sent the smoke maybe 10 ft, the puff went another 20 to 30 ft on the wind. Holland, who looked right at the smoke would have seen it move at about 4mph over the next 8 seconds until it lined up just below the TSB entrance.  According to the witnesses the smoke lingered for a few seconds but no one reported it moving away.  
 The popular explanation that we are seeing the yellowed leaves on a branch of the tree behind the 'smoke' is probably the best answer. Other photos confirm that particular branch had turned yellow.

35 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

One of the railway guys on the triple underpass said that there was no smoke near the fence -- NO SMOKE trumps SMOKE -- its simple logic.

Sounds like a simple lack of logic to me.