John Connally's Lapel

[David Von Pein]

I'll be dipped. Healy got something right for once. It is Fetzer's site that I linked to in Post 58. I had never realized that before.

Thanks, David. You're a peach. I'll correct my previous error where I called it the "Costella site".

Edited May 12, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

I'll be dipped. Healy got something right for once. It is Fetzer's site that I linked to in Post 58. I had never realized that before.

Thanks, David. You're a peach. I'll correct my previous error where I called it the "Costella site".

one has to keep an eye on you amateur lone nut photo analysis buffs. Keep it up though, you just might get curious about that 16.xmillion $ (US taxpayer expense) Zapruder cartoon...

[Gary Murr]

Oh, I think you know the answer as well as I do. In fact, I've seen you discuss this several times. No matter, the whupping begins with or without your cooperation.

Every single thing relating to JFK's wounds (and his clothing) indicates that ONE bullet, passing back to front, went through JFK's upper body.

...Bruising of pleura.

...Bruising of lung.

...Entry hole for a bullet in the upper back.

...Clothing fibers pointing OUTWARD in the front of the shirt. (I'd love to hear a reasonable excuse from the CTers to explain this one. And if the word "fake" could be avoided, it would be refreshing.)

...No bullets in President Kennedy's body.

But let the "whupping" begin, Big Bad Bobby. You know it all, after all. So who WOULDN'T quiver in their boots at the sight of Robert Prudhomme coming after them with a C7 vertebra under his arm?

Refresh my aging memory for me David, but who specifically indicated that the "clothing fibers" pointed "outward in the front..." of John Connally's shirt? And when/where was this observation recorded?

Gary Murr

[Ray Mitcham]

...Clothing fibers pointing OUTWARD in the front of the shirt. (I'd love to hear a reasonable excuse from the CTers to explain this one. And if the word "fake" could be avoided, it would be refreshing.)

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's jacket.

Bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt.

Slits (that don't match) on the front of JFK's shirt.

Bullet hole in the back of Connally's jacket

Bullet hole in the back of Connally's shirt.

Bullet hole in the front of Connally's shirt

Bullet hole int hef font of Connally's jacket.

Notice the odd one out, David. How does a bullet make slits (which don't line up)?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

Refresh my aging memory for me David, but who specifically indicated that the "clothing fibers" pointed "outward in the front..." of John Connally's shirt? And when/where was this observation recorded?

Why are you bringing up Connally's shirt? I never said a thing about Connally's shirt. I was talking about JFK's shirt.

Re: Kennedy's shirt fibers.....

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made."

Also see CD205....

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=157&tab=page

Also see Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", pages 243-244 of Endnotes.

Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

I have no idea what you are talking about when in Z224/225 gif you mention John Connally's tie? What point are you making.

At the moment I am just worked on your Z225/226 gif. Were you aware that between these two frames Zapruder lowered his camera? That is why you see such movement that suggests to you that Connally has been injured and is flinching. When these frames are stabilised all we see is Connally turning to his left.

James

[David Von Pein]

James,

But the 225-226 clip isn't the one showing the flinching. It's the 224-225 clip that shows the flinch/shoulder-hunching, and quite clearly. And this two-frame GIF looks pretty "stabilized" to me.

And look at Connally's necktie here. It's "bulging outward", perfectly consistent with the movement we would expect to see in a tie being worn by someone who has just FLINCHED, which we also see in the 224-225 clip.

So what's causing the "tie bulge", James, if it's NOT also related to the flinching we see Connally doing here?....

Edited July 3, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Stabilized Zapruder Film (in slow motion), with Connally's "flinching" easily seen in this stabilized version here. (And don't tell me you can't see it here, James. It's quite visible.) ....

Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

Try not to be insulting. Of course I can see what you are referring to. However 460 off frames are of no use to me. I need frames 220 to 225. I do not need anything else.

At the moment I am puzzled by your 224 frame in the 224/225 gif. Are you aware that the 224 frame you are using in this gif is made up out of two parts.

Part a:- Frame 224

Part b:- a white box.

I am working with Adobe Premier CC 2014. Just in case you are thinking it when a frame is complete and there is no more data then the monitor goes black. It never goes white. That block of white is data in your 224 frame. I.e. it is part of the frame.

Therefore going from 224 to 225 this block of white will make a massive impact on what we see on the screen.

And before you jump to conclusions I am not suggesting this had anything to do with you. This was built into the frame at some point by a person unknown.

224 Part A

224 Part B

http://s1187.photobucket.com/user/jamesg27/media/224%20B_zps4nos6cbp.jpg.html'>

James.

[David Von Pein]

Of course I can see what you are referring to.

OK. Good. But you're going to come up with SOME type of excuse so that you don't have to call Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing". Right?

CTers do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of video anomaly. It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?

Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

CTers do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of video anomaly. It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say.

No CTers believe there may have been a head shot from behind? I believe there may have been, so I don't subscribe to the "crap" you refer to. But that's just me.

[Mark Knight]

David,

Try not to be insulting. Of course I can see what you are referring to. However 460 off frames are of no use to me. I need frames 220 to 225. I do not need anything else.

At the moment I am puzzled by your 224 frame in the 224/225 gif. Are you aware that the 224 frame you are using in this gif is made up out of two parts.

Part a:- Frame 224

Part b:- a white box.

I am working with Adobe Premier CC 2014. Just in case you are thinking it when a frame is complete and there is no more data then the monitor goes black. It never goes white. That block of white is data in your 224 frame. I.e. it is part of the frame.

Therefore going from 224 to 225 this block of white will make a massive impact on what we see on the screen.

And before you jump to conclusions I am not suggesting this had anything to do with you. This was built into the frame at some point by a person unknown.

224 Part A

224 Part B

James.

If DVP was not insulting, rude, and condescending, he couldn't communicate at all...if his posts here are any indication.

Actually examining the evidence isn't DVP's strong suit. Arguing it is.

And of course using modern technology to examine the evidence is vastly inferior to using the naked eye....riiiiiiiiiiiiight, David. We understand. That's why Howard Brennan's statement is more important that a test for nitrates/GSR on Oswald's cheek, too.

[David Von Pein]

The above is stated by Mark Knight as if Knight doesn't know that paraffin tests are essentially worthless (because of all the false positives and false negatives elicited by such tests).

But Mark Knight will still pretend that the nitrate/GSR/paraffin test on Oswald's cheek is proof that Oswald was innocent. What a crock. And most conspiracy theorists know it's a crock, but they'll never admit it, because they seem to enjoy perpetuating the myth more than admitting the truth about paraffin tests being pretty much useless. Otherwise, Mark would have never brought up the "nitrates/GSR" test in his last post at all.

Edited May 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

The above is stated by Mark Knight as if Knight doesn't know that paraffin tests are essentially worthless (because of all the false positives and false negatives elicited by such tests).

But Mark Knight will still pretend that the nitrate/GSR/paraffin test on Oswald's cheek is proof that Oswald was innocent. What a crock. And most conspiracy theorists know it's a crock, but they'll never admit it, because they seem to enjoy perpetuating the myth more than admitting the truth about paraffin tests being pretty much useless. Otherwise, Mark would have never brought up the "nitrates/GSR" test in his last post at all.

I'm one conspiracy theorist who did not know that parrafin tests are in effect a "crock," since I wasn't familiar with them. A quick web search produced the following, which leads me to believe that DVP's statement that it's a crock is itself a crock. But I'll let others be the judge.

· Firing a gun would deposit barium and antimony on parts of the skin close to the gun.

· If barium and antimony were found on Oswald’s skin, they may have been deposited by the firing of a gun. But they may instead have been deposited by other means: for example, the handling of books.

· If barium and antimony were not found on Oswald’s skin, he almost certainly did not fire a gun….

Oswald’s paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis, the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands, but not on his cheek…

The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald’s cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.

http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-rifle-and-paraffin-tests

[David Von Pein]

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"