The Motorcade in Photos and Films in Chronological Order

[Barry Pollard]

Not on the knoll no IMO he was never there.
You can't see the lampost in the above and you can't see Hargis, the best evidence to compare Paschall with is Bell, there you see both.
IMHO Hargis went no further than the first blades of grass beacuse wiith this expaination it makes sense we don't see him up there, Weigman hit the dirt and showed he was no threat, Hargis seeing this, turned back.
That's why Wiegman got down, he saw the cop coming for him, that's why the woman got out of the way too, she was lying down already before Wiegman got there but in Paschell she's back on her feet and we see her fall to the floor for a second time. Can you see her do that?
Altgens also reacted to Hargis, he took a still of what the cop was running toward not of the cop himself who had already turned back.
IKE: "... by the time I got there, they were coming back down."
That image was important to him, he ran across the street to get it but in the end we see nothing because Hargis, looking for clues, reacted to anything and it turned out to be nothing but some dumb cameraman.
This is stuff we have to make up to explain what the testimony lacks. Jackson my favourite, says one cop rode up the grass on his motorbike, got off then ran inside the TSBD , making two he saw go in...

[Royell Storing]

Not on the knoll no IMO he was never there.
You can't see the lampost in the above and you can't see Hargis, the best evidence to compare Paschall with is Bell, there you see both.
IMHO Hargis went no further than the first blades of grass beacuse wiith this expaination it makes sense we don't see him up there, Weigman hit the dirt and showed he was no threat, Hargis seeing this, turned back.
That's why Wiegman got down, he saw the cop coming for him, that's why the woman got out of the way too, she was lying down already before Wiegman got there but in Paschell she's back on her feet and we see her fall to the floor for a second time. Can you see her do that?
Altgens also reacted to Hargis, he took a still of what the cop was running toward not of the cop himself who had already turned back.
IKE: "... by the time I got there, they were coming back down."
That image was important to him, he ran across the street to get it but in the end we see nothing because Hargis, looking for clues, reacted to anything and it turned out to be nothing but some dumb cameraman.
This is stuff we have to make up to explain what the testimony lacks. Jackson my favourite, says one cop rode up the grass on his motorbike, got off then ran inside the TSBD , making two he saw go in...

         Attempting to get ALL the JFK Assassination Images to match-up is futile. Doing so results in Chasing Your Tail which is a Mission Accomplished by those responsible for the image alteration we continue to see. There are JFK Assassination Images which are legit, and some are Bogus. The Current Zapruder Film which was locked up for its' initial 12 years of existence & contains a Conspicuous GAP in the filming of JFK's Limo is at the Top of the list regarding Altered JFK Assassination Images.   

[Barry Pollard]

Matching testimony to the films/photos is mostly futile but you always learn something and there is nothing in the solid evidence that doesn't match or cannot be explained IMHO.
I can't even think of an issue in the photographic evidence I have a problem with.
Were you referring to the missing turn onto Elm? That falls into the hearsay department so as interesting as it is/was I tend to ignore it, it works
You can only prove alteration within the evidence itself, so call my bluff and point to a problem in the evidence, not the testimony and I'll explain it or call for help.

[Royell Storing]

Matching testimony to the films/photos is mostly futile but you always learn something and there is nothing in the solid evidence that doesn't match or cannot be explained IMHO.
I can't even think of an issue in the photographic evidence I have a problem with.
Were you referring to the missing turn onto Elm? That falls into the hearsay department so as interesting as it is/was I tend to ignore it, it works
You can only prove alteration within the evidence itself, so call my bluff and point to a problem in the evidence, not the testimony and I'll explain it or call for help.

       When considering the Zapruder Film Omitting the JFK Limo turn onto Elm St, bear in mind the interview of Sitzman conducted by Tink Thompson for his groundbreaking 1966 "Six Seconds In Dallas". Sitzman clearly tells Thompson from their Elevated Perch position, they could see the JFK Limo Turning onto Houston St, Traveling down Houston St, and Turning onto Elm St. This stuff about Zapruder not knowing where the JFK Limo was and therefore missing it turning onto Elm St is Pure Baloney. If you look at the 3 Cops in front of the JFK Limo that Zapruder Did somehow manage to See/Film turning onto Elm St, the background of that Z Film sequence does capture portions of the Dal Tex Bld. The Dal Tex Bld is mere feet from the TSBD and has often been speculated as to housing a shooter. A possible segment of the Zapruder Film capturing the JFK Limo turning from Houston onto Elm St would have Included that same Dal Tex Bld scant seconds before shots were fired.