Dal Tex Roof Shooter

[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.

[Steve Barber]

 Have I, now?  Care to explain in detail, everything I have been "wrong" about? 

[Chris Bristow]

Steve, I agree the gunman would not have just sat there. But we don't even need the speculation because remaining in the same place while the camera pans is a physical impossibility. Absolute proof that is not a natural artifact of an image coming through the lens.

[Christer Jacobsson]

Steve, I agree the gunman would not have just sat there. But we don't even need the speculation because remaining in the same place while the camera pans is a physical impossibility. Absolute proof that is not a natural artifact of an image coming through the lens.

Or something which a photographic laboratory has pasted in afterwards within most of the frames in addition to the actual few frames that actually reveals a shooter..

Best Rgds, Christer