Physical evidence of the first shot (miss)

[Charles Collins]

Charles, I like your idea that the view angle based on position and elevation relative to the limo may have played a factor in how easily a pavement strike was able to be viewed. Like you said, having a lighter background as viewed would likely help to see any small dark debris and pulverized pavement “smoke” that popped up.  Also, if a shot did hit fairly close to the limo, the limo dark/deep blue color as a background probably wouldn't help visibility matters any.

Separately, if the Holland picture I attached in my last post does not show or if it goes away, it is probably due to me trying to attach it from Google drive or Google photo. I’m not sure how reliable that method will be.

Yes, the myth busters demonstration is a good visual confirmation of the light background and low angle making a big difference. The side views are much easier to see than the ones with the asphalt for the background.

I haven’t seen the Holland image show up in your earlier post. I think that I have a good idea of the concept you described. But an image almost always helps.

[Brian Roselle]

Thanks for letting me know the picture didn't display. Sorry about the inconvenience.

I was hoping to use my Google Drive as the source. I'll try one more time and if that doesn't work I will look at another place to store pictures to share.



I tried to insert the picture just above this sentence.

If it doesn't show, this following link is to the picture.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-/view?usp=sharing

[Charles Collins]

Thanks for letting me know the picture didn't display. Sorry about the inconvenience.

I was hoping to use my Google Drive as the source. I'll try one more time and if that doesn't work I will look at another place to store pictures to share.



I tried to insert the picture just above this sentence.

If it doesn't show, this following link is to the picture.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_51YR3g6ujVBNBJiXF42s9rvCVO31Y-/view?usp=sharing

It works, thanks! Yes that is what I had pictured in my mind based on your description alone.

[Brian Roselle]

It’s kind of hard to imagine that this could be related to the first shot, but depending on its evaluation it might warrant further investigation.

In the Miller photo, a small blotch appears on the limo door next to the keyhole by Kellerman. Visually it appears positioned above the apparent reflected interface between the ground and the sky, so the sky appears to be in its background and it's not associated with the ground.
What comes to mind as possible sources of that mark might be:
-   A mark on the limo surface itself
-   A reflection of some object nearby in the air
-   An anomaly in the photo’s developing or printing, locally at that spot



Any thoughts? Are there other obvious explanations besides these?
This is the cleanest version of the photo I have which was originally printed in The Saturday Evening Post, issue date 12/4/63.

[Charles Collins]

It’s kind of hard to imagine that this could be related to the first shot, but depending on its evaluation it might warrant further investigation.

In the Miller photo, a small blotch appears on the limo door next to the keyhole by Kellerman. Visually it appears positioned above the apparent reflected interface between the ground and the sky, so the sky appears to be in its background and it's not associated with the ground.
What comes to mind as possible sources of that mark might be:
-   A mark on the limo surface itself
-   A reflection of some object nearby in the air
-   An anomaly in the photo’s developing or printing, locally at that spot



Any thoughts? Are there other obvious explanations besides these?
This is the cleanest version of the photo I have which was originally printed in The Saturday Evening Post, issue date 12/4/63.

Wow, that’s interesting! Will definitely be investigating. It appears to be large enough to warrant the attention of the folks who looked at the limo in Washington. However, I suppose it could have been debris that fell off or washed off.

[Richard Smith]

Wow, that’s interesting! Will definitely be investigating. It appears to be large enough to warrant the attention of the folks who looked at the limo in Washington. However, I suppose it could have been debris that fell off or washed off.

Don't see it on some other versions of that same picture.  I wonder if it is just an anomaly of that particular copy?  There are several clear photos of that area before the assassination and nothing in that area.

[Brian Roselle]

Richard you are right in that not all the Miller pictures show this detail. I think those are later copies that lost resolution as this one seems to match the early one published in the following Post magazine on Dec 14. The other pictures I have seen also don’t show that vertical blur in the middle of the door just behind it. The resolution of this picture appears just good enough to show that vertical blur which I believe is actually the antenna of an accompanying motorcycle cop. And to your point, when ruling out reflections from people near the limo, in all the higher resolution photos I have of the limo from Love field to before arriving in Dealey Plaza, I didn't see a sign of an abrasion or mark around that spot.

Charles also hit the nail on the head regarding Washington. I can see a mark in the Washington garage in the better FBI and Secret service photos. In fact in a high resolution picture at Parkland I copied from Robin Unger I also see it. It just seems interesting that it appears to show up after Dealey Plaza but not before.