Chris Bristow

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like a simple lack of logic to me.

Kellerman said the last two shots came in as a flurry while the Times "Hail of bullets" should mean all the shots. Kellerman also mentioned this flurry happened just as the limo started to accelerate.

Most consider the Wiegman image of 'smoke' to be an illusion created by yellowed leaves, but people still debate it. If it was smoke it had to travel almost 40 ft along the trajectory from the fence toward JFK. It could never travel that far even if the wind had been behind it, Which it wasn't. People can argue aspects of the Wiegman smoke theory but 40 ft of travel should absolutely end that debate. Modern gunpowder is smokeless! That is what they say but we still see some smoke now and then. I had wondered if a freshly cleaned gun may smoke more on the 1st shot as it burns off the gun oil. I hit the jackpot on Youtube with this video of these two guys testing a very heavily oiled rifle. They explain that they used way too much oil to see what would happen. There was so much smoke generated that the old smokeless gunpowder argument is made irrelevant . It simply could have been a moderately over lubed gun on it's first shot. I also wonder if that thick, oily and heavy looking smoke would have lingered longer?