Dal Tex Roof Shooter

[Christer Jacobsson]

So what's visible in these three combined film frames if it's not a shooter ?
Rgds,
Christer

[Steve Barber]

So what's visible in these three combined film frames if it's not a shooter ? : https://photos.app.goo.gl/i7vy3NVBf6J4bWrk8

Rgds,
Christer

  You just insulted my intelligence with such a ridiculous, idiotic blob of nothing that you claim shows a "gunman". 

   People like you simply cannot--and are not-taken seriously.   I can just see this in a courtroom!  Everyone in the room would burst out in laughter, and the judge would throw the case out!   

 Please don't try this stuff on people.  It's nothing but insulting and childish.

[Christer Jacobsson]

I like you too Mr. Barber. 

Kind Regards,
Christer

[Chris Bristow]

I need to elaborate my point about the path of light(image of the shooter) from the DalTex roof or the records building. It is absolutely impossible for light from those rooftops to enter the camera in frames like Z485. If the image was due to the film cartridge being tuned over the shooter would appear upside down in the image. The ghost images in the margin are artifacts of the zoom lens and are made from the frames before and after whatever frame you are looking at. If in addition to the frames before and after the frame in question there is any image overlay onto  the other half of the film stock(Two 8mm strips side by side on 16mm stock which allows you to turn over the cartridge and access the other half the negative strip) it would still violate the next two basic optical principles.
 The second impossible feature is the image never moves from its location below the sprocket hole. This is the 2nd impossible feature because ALL stationary objects must move across the screen or off the screen as the camera pans. It is absolutely impossible for Dal Tex to move across the screen and then disappear and have the shooter image remain still as Zapruder panned right.
 the 3rd impossible factor is the image remains focused regardless of the content of the frame. Take frame 485, the image is very blurred yet the shooter is focused. Frames 484 and 486 are also blurred so there is no way for the bleed over of the zoom lens to cause a focused image in 485.
  A very basic rule of optics regarding reflections is that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. Just like a pool ball will bounce off at the same angle it strikes at. This basic rule is used to map out the path of light rays and predict what will enter the lens and what won't. Light from the Dal Tex building is 70 degrees away from being able to enter the lens at frame 485. That makes it impossible. If it is a zoom artifact from the other 8mm strip next to it the image would have to be upside down but more importantly it would still contradict the 2nd and 3rd principles. Mapping the path of the light rays also demonstrates that it is impossible for the shooter image to remain in the same location throughout the film.
  I am not a LN'er and believe there is strong circumstantial evidence that puts the official story in serious doubt. But the subject also has a ton of conspiracy proofs that do not hold up. This is a conspiracy theory that is provably and measurably wrong and should be thrown on the trash heap.
EDIT: One point I forgot. The limo was on Zapruder's right but the shooter is pointing the rifle to Zapruder's left the entire time. The shooters gun is not pointing anywhere near the limo!
 

[Jim Brunsman]

Once again, Barber is wrong unless we are going to totally discredit the testimony of multiple witnesses at the autopsy. Humes could feel the end of the wound with his finger. How is that wound supposed to cause a wound in the throat? Barber has been spouting false garbage for decades and I am extremely tired of it.

[Bill Chapman]

  You just insulted my intelligence with such a ridiculous, idiotic blob of nothing that you claim shows a "gunman". 

   People like you simply cannot--and are not-taken seriously.   I can just see this in a courtroom!  Everyone in the room would burst out in laughter, and the judge would throw the case out!   

 Please don't try this stuff on people.  It's nothing but insulting and childish.

I don't see a rifle in there
These guys...

[Chris Bristow]

The image of the supposed gunman has one more problem. The rifle is not pointing anywhere near Elm St. We should not see it's length as if seeing it from the side. It should be pointing almost directly toward Zapruder up to frame 200 or so and to Z's right after that. Look at the frame with the supposed muzzle blast relative to the head and again the shooter is pointing far to the North of where he should be.

[Steve Barber]

 Nor do I.  I also don't see a person. I also don't see anything that would convince me there's a "Dal Tex Roof Shooter
 
It doesn't add up.

 The object is in a constant state of immobility.
 The object is in the same position all the way through the film--even after all the shots have been fired--which no gunman/assassin would ever do.  Gunmen/assassin's shoot their victim and quickly depart.  Not this "assassin".  He remains in the same, exact position throughout the film from start to finish, even after the car disappears into the underpass.  The whole thing is ludicrous and ridiculous.