Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Because the medical folks at Parkland didn't see the blob. They didn't see the top of the head blown open. The reason for the people at Parkland not seeing the top of the head opened up was because Jackie tried holding the flap back into place. After the five minute ride to Parkland ... the President's hair was soaked in blood and like most wounds I ever had - the blood starts to dry/clot and works to seal the wound when it gets sticky. Then there was the testimony of the Parkland doctors where they said they didn't inspect for any wounds for if they didn't stabilize the President's condition - none of that would matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) As I've said ad nauseum on this forum, the B/H Z camera, high tech for that time, would be blown out of the water with today's 20 mega pixel phone cameras. A single frame of 8mm film was the size of a pinky nail. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4e/8a/6f/4e8a6f573ce8e0720332abcea3060722.jpg As with any media that small, when you blow it up you're going to see dark and light "blobs" and the graininess more. It was a very bright day that day and the contrast of sunlight and shadow definitely made things a little too bright or dark washing things out. In this case, the back of JFK's head, with his dark hair in shadow, was going to be a little bit darkened. What many of the crazies on this forum think is a painted in blob to cover up a hole is nothing more than what's described above. You can see this exact same "blob" effect on the back of Kennedy's suit: http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/Selectionposterimages2.jpg Look how dark and "blobbish" it is. So what happened there - is that where the secret dart from the mystery umbrella went into him, paralyzing and freezing him in place for the coup de grace? And that was painted out too? It's so ridiculous and outrageous that if people opened up their eyes, they would see that the Z film was the single biggest case proving conspiracy. The shot timing alone, where Kennedy reacts to a throat shot, then a back shot, and Connally not reacting until seconds later, demolishes the SBT. Then of course JBC himself stuck with his statement until the day he died that he was NOT hit with the same bullet that hit JFK. It's why the government suppressed the film until '75. But no - the crazies have just got to think it's more - the painted in frames and all of the other ridiculous nonsense. Edited January 28, 2017 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: ...and Connally not reacting until seconds later, demolishes the SBT. It would appear by the above wholly inaccurate statement that you, Michael, have never bothered to properly examine Zapruder frames 224 through 230. John Connally does plenty of "reacting" prior to the "seconds later" interpretation you falsely place on the event.... Quote Then of course JBC himself stuck with his statement until the day he died that he was NOT hit with the same bullet that hit JFK. But Governor Connally, in 1967, DID concede that the SBT was possible. But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Planet Earth would ever want to post this video of Connally saying the SBT is "possible".... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view Edited January 23, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Michael - I agree as I didn't know Sandy was talking about the rear of the head. The bones only sprung open exposing a hole to anyone looking at it from behind. Zapruder's camera only see's the head in profile around the time of the kill shot. Once the car is further down the street - there is too much poor quality in the image from things you mentioned compounded by motion and panning blur to ever see such detail as some think should be present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: It would appear by the above wholly inaccurate statement that you, Michael, have never bothered to properly examine Zapruder frames 224 through 230. Connally does plenty of "reacting" prior to the "seconds later" interpretation you falsely place on the event.... But Governor Connally, in 1967, DID concede that the SBT was possible.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view Connally conceded a scenario that he didn't believe nor ever supported. As we may remember - Connally heard the FIRST shot and always said that he never heard the shot that hit him - and then heard the impact of the third shot. But witnesses like Mary Woodward who was standing abreast of the President who seem to be looking right at her said that when the first shot rang out that the President immediately brought his hand towards his face - A slowed down version of the Zapruder film shows JFK coming out from behind the road sign with eyes closed and both hands on their way up to his mouth as if you cough so to dislodge what ever he felt had entered his throat - So all is left to know is when Connally was actually hit by the bullet that slammed into his back. He described it as feeling like a doubled up fist impacting with him. That seem pretty obvious when one watches Connally's shoulders for the moment the right one drops and moves slightly forward while the left one rises into the air. It is a shame that Connally never got to see these sorts of things before 1967. But then again he only said in 67' that the scenario he gave would be the only way for both men to have been hit by the same bullet. He always stood by the first shot hitting the President and the next shot hitting him which seems to be supported by the images provided here. Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Bill Miller said: The reason for the people at Parkland not seeing the top of the head opened up was because Jackie tried holding the flap back into place. After the five minute ride to Parkland ... the President's hair was soaked in blood and like most wounds I ever had - the blood starts to dry/clot and works to seal the wound when it gets sticky. Then there was the testimony of the Parkland doctors where they said they didn't inspect for any wounds for if they didn't stabilize the President's condition - none of that would matter. Bill, Thanks for your answer. Your belief is is not supported by any (early) Parkland testimony. But I know... you believe that the opened up top-of-head wound had sort of sealed itself back closed. And you would say that nobody at Parkland noticed it. I guess if you cannot accept any possibility of Z film alteration, this is the only explanation you can accept. Do you accept that the back-of-head autopsy photo has been altered? Given that it now shows no gaping hole in the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, Michael Walton said: But no - the crazies have just got to think it's more - the painted in frames and all of the other ridiculous nonsense. [deleted] Edited January 23, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Bill, Thanks for your answer. Your belief is is not supported by any (early) Parkland testimony. But I know... you believe that the opened up top-of-head wound had sort of sealed itself back closed. And you would say that nobody at Parkland noticed it. I have not the time to look for every source, but here are two that mentioned the skull plate that was atop of the President's head - how Jackie held it in place on the the way to Parkland - and how Dr. Jenkin's examined it after JFK was dead. And it was mentioned in WC testimony by some of the medical personnnel that wounds were not looked for because life saving procedures came first. By GLEN JOHNSON Associated Press Writer BOSTON (AP) -- Even in her grief, Jacqueline Kennedy had the strength to recount her husband's assassination in vivid detail and the presence of mind to convey her hopes for his memorials. "His last expression was so neat," Mrs. Kennedy told journalist Theodore H. White in comments released for the first time Friday. "He had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off ... and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head. "Then he slumped in my lap," she said. "His blood and brains were in my lap. "I kept saying: `Jack, Jack, Jack' and someone was yelling: `He's dead, he's dead.' All the ride to the hospital I kept bending over him saying: `Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down, trying to keep the brains in," she said on Nov. 29, 1963, a week after the president's assassination. Advance to time mark: 6:05 Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Do you accept that the back-of-head autopsy photo has been altered? Given that it now shows no gaping hole in the back? I just mentioned a few pages ago how the back of the President's head was avulsed where the bones were sprung open. Now are you asking if I am aware that the autopsy photos do not show any avulsion to the back of the head. I have studied the autopsy photos many times in detail. I have also discussed with Dennis David in detail what the real images of the autopsy looked like after his seeing them at Bethesda in the company of William Pitzer. So yes I am aware that the autopsy photos are not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Michael Walton said: Further, Z had his lens, which I'm sure was good for the time but not great, set at the widest angle so when we "zoom in" on the Z film you're going to see a closer close up of the footage but you're also going to see dark and light "blobs" and the graininess more. But no - the crazies have just got to think it's more - the painted in frames and all of the other ridiculous nonsense. Really, would you care to elaborate on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, Bill Miller said: I just mentioned a few pages ago how the back of the President's head was avulsed where the bones were sprung open. Now are you asking if I am aware that the autopsy photos do not show any avulsion to the back of the head. I have studied the autopsy photos many times in detail. I have also discussed with Dennis David in detail what the real images of the autopsy looked like after his seeing them at Bethesda in the company of William Pitzer. So yes I am aware that the autopsy photos are not accurate. I'm just surprised that you have such trouble believing a few frames in a film were altered, when at the same time you accept that autopsy photos (or at least one) was altered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I'm just surprised that you have such trouble believing a few frames in a film were altered, when at the same time you accept that autopsy photos (or at least one) was altered. I rely on being informed and not by what I wish to believe. There is no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered and I have given the several solid reasons for my saying that. As far as the autopsy photos being altered ... I cannot say the photos were altered or whether they were staged as there is a difference. All hat I said was that I am aware that the autopsy photos are not accurate and I stand by that.Those photos do not match the eye witness accounts of those who actually saw the damage to the rear of the President's head both at Parkland and at Bethesda. The Xrays have always looked to me as though someone took a skull and shot it from behind and blew out the right frontal bones around the cheek and eye. On the other hand, there were witnesses who saw the top of the President's head come off - which was what you were saying there was no proof of. I have now addressed that as well. Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) John Connally was one of the best and most adamant witnesses against the fraud of the Warren Report. When asked if he thought Oswald fired the rifle that killed Kennedy, this was his reply. "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." (Into the Nightmare, by Joe McBride, p.418) Does it get any better than that? Edited January 23, 2017 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: John Connally was one of the best and most adamant witnesses against the fraud of the Warren Report. When asked if he thought Oswald fired the rifle that killed Kennedy, this was his reply. "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." (Into the Nightmare, by Joe McBride, p.418) Does it get any better than that? Let's see what John Connally was saying in 1966.... JOHN B. CONNALLY (NOV. 23, 1966) -- "I want to make it very clear, however, that simply because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail [the SBT] does not mean that I disagree with the substance of their overall findings. I think the Commission did an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances." REPORTER -- "Are you satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was one and only one assassin?" JOHN CONNALLY -- "I have no reason to question it whatsoever. I'm satisfied beyond any doubt that there was only one. .... We should turn our attention to doing a little research on, and evaluation of, the credentials of the self-appointed experts, who, with no evidence, no new facts, nevertheless use distortion, inference, innuendo, in order to cast doubts and create confusion." https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOak9yQlQ2MWliMGs/view Edited January 23, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: Let's see what John Connally was saying in 1966.... JOHN B. CONNALLY (NOV. 23, 1966) -- "I want to make it very clear, however, that simply because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail [the SBT] does not mean that I disagree with the substance of their overall findings. I think the Commission did an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances." REPORTER -- "Are you satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was one and only one assassin?" JOHN CONNALLY -- "I have no reason to question it whatsoever. I'm satisfied beyond any doubt that there was only one. .... We should turn our attention to doing a little research on, and evaluation of, the credentials of the self-appointed experts, who, with no evidence, no new facts, nevertheless use distortion, inference, innuendo, in order to cast doubts and create confusion." I wonder if Connally had heard all the shots so to know the timing sequence if he had felt that way. How did he put it ... his initial thoughts was that it was more than one person or one person using an automatic rifle. I also wonder if he knew that so many people heard two shots close together when the kill shot to the President was fatally hit .... how did Agent Kellerman put it ... 'sounded like when a plane breaks the sound barrier ... Boom - Boom!' Edited January 23, 2017 by Bill Miller 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