Don Sylva Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I don't post much, been around a long time,but I've never been so lost in a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Perhaps this roughly coloured rendition will be of assistance : Now, that's better! I understand the whole assassination by that one ink-spilled concoction. Ed, when it comes time to play in the darkroom, please put the cork in the bottle and leave it outside. Kathy Collins Edited January 17, 2008 by Kathleen Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Agree or not, Ed does have the right to his opinion, does he not ?? So are any snide references to anyones meds, or bottles, called for ?? Not imo..... but that also is your right....to do so.... No one is forcing anyone to open this thread... Thanks Ed...for your opinion..... Take care B....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Agree or not, Ed does have the right to his opinion, does he not ??So are any snide references to anyones meds, or bottles, called for ?? Not imo..... but that also is your right....to do so.... No one is forcing anyone to open this thread... Thanks Ed...for your opinion..... Take care B....... Like I said before ... I am reminded of a post Ed made whereas he cropped a portion of the sunlit fence in Moorman's photo - enlarged it to ridiculous proportions - posted that it was proof of a cop taking pictures - while refusing to say what assassination photo or film it had come out of. Yes, Ed may be entitled to his or her opinion, but Ed has also earned to have his opinion questioned in a snide way because of his past post. You see, posting a crop out of an image and claiming it to be something is OK ... even if wrong it is unintentional. Refusing to post the image source which would expose the absurdity of the claim doesn't seem so unintentional. So 'snide' remarks could be viewed as holding back compared to what could be said. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Like I said before ... I am reminded of a post Ed made whereas he cropped a portion of the sunlit fence in Moorman's photo - enlarged it to ridiculous proportions - posted that it was proof of a cop taking pictures - while refusing to say what assassination photo or film it had come out of. Yes, Ed may be entitled to his or her opinion, but Ed has also earned to have his opinion questioned in a snide way because of his past post. You see, posting a crop out of an image and claiming it to be something is OK ... even if wrong it is unintentional. Refusing to post the image source which would expose the absurdity of the claim doesn't seem so unintentional. So 'snide' remarks could be viewed as holding back compared to what could be said. Bill Miller And I am reminded of a post in the past made about finding a shooter in a tree......and not by Ed.. So you are saying in effect that snide remarks about such as well as meds and bottles are to be allowed, Why any snide remarks, what do they prove, ? nada.......that perhaps some have problems. Some always seem to have to say something, good bad or indifferent. B........carry on snideys.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Agree or not, Ed does have the right to his opinion, does he not ??So are any snide references to anyones meds, or bottles, called for ?? Not imo..... but that also is your right....to do so.... No one is forcing anyone to open this thread... Thanks Ed...for your opinion..... Take care B....... Bernice, if I ever posted a photo like that and tried to claim significance, I'd be outta here and especially so on that other forum. I never heard anyone come to my aid when I posted LHO was a "punk," etc. over there. I was called an agent provocateur. Was I entitled to my opinion? Not to some people. Kathy Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) THE GEOMETRY OF THE HEAD SHOT The attached autopsy picture of JFK's head has been rotated 90 degrees to the right as shown. The purple lines are projections of the edges of the v-shaped evulsed opening depicted immediately above JFK's right eyebrow. The green line bisects the angle between the two lines, and presumably lies directly within the plane of the trajectory of the fatal head shot. The yellow line would parallel the upright edge of the rear seat, and the red line the top of the seat. In other words, what we see depicted is the image of the dead president 'squared' exactly into the rear seat of the limousine.This illustration would be very close to what actually would have been the case if JFK been sitting absolutely upright, with his head turned neither to his left or his right, nor inclined neither upward or downward. However, in actual fact Zapruder frame #312 shows that JFK's head was inclined both forward and downward, and is also leaning to the left. The more to the left his head turns , the less the evulsed wound 'squares' with a shot originating from the TSBD ... and note that even in the absolutely upright position that would be, to say the least, not indicated. The more his head inclines downward, the more the trajectory of the head shot becomes elevated away from the horizontal. By re-orienting the autopsy head picture and superimposing it on the image of JFK's head on Z.#312, it can be seen that the green line now indicates that the trajectory of the bullet intersects JFK's head at an even steeper angle than if he had been seated in a perfectly upright position, and it is then even more skewed away from the direction of a line running back to the TSBD. What the foregoing implies, is that the position of JFK's head as depicted in Zapruder frame # 312 is inconsistent with what the geometry of the head wound indicates. In other words, it further evidences the fact that what we are looking at is quite simply a deliberately contrived illusion of JFK's head . Additionally, the adduced trajectory by extension points to two possibilities in relation to the determination of the location from which the head shot was fired. The first is the post-office building, and the second is the grassy knoll. It can be shown that the head shot could not have originated from the latter location. However, that aspect would take quite some time to explain, and it would most certainly require opening a new thread. Given the above, and considering that the fatal wound to the head involved the occipital-parietal area of the skull, and while still leaving the GK location open as an alternative location, JFK's head and face as depicted in the above renditions of the Zapruder frame, is nothing more than a deliberately contrived illusion. When I report that I see Jackie was taking JFK's pulse immediately prior to the head shot, that's precisely what I see. Edited January 17, 2008 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I shouldn't have made the remarks I did and I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings. You can tell Ed is a remarkably intelligent man. I don't usually see what he sees. I was a little giddy last night and I apologize for it. I hope Ed knows many members of this forum take him seriously and try to understand what he is showing. I give "permission" for Kathy Beckett to delete my posts here. Kathy Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Moorman's view: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now