Dean Hagerman Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Thanks for the GIF Craig, however... Im not convinced that Jackies hand has anything to do with the blow out that we see in frame 337 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Thanks for the GIF Craig, however...Im not convinced that Jackies hand has anything to do with the blow out that we see in frame 337 I'm still waiting for someone to establish there actually is a blowout, compared to hair in the sun, which is a perfect fit. Now to be cleal, is Jackies hand pushing upward towards what you consider the blowout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) I see the shape of JFK's head. Thats what you asked for, correct? And thats the problem C.Lamson. Your shape has almost nothing to do with reality. Well if my shape has nothing to do with reality , then yours is wrong as well since they are the same except for the area of the top of the head which YOU skip...M.H. FAIL Here in this Gif below we can see the shape of JFK's head at Zapruder frame 337. Let us compare this Gif with that what you have done to the image (ouch) Lets see, exactly as mine except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL In my outline is a part of Kennedy's forehead intentionelly not included. This portions can be seen in particular in frames 326-330. Whether this is actually hair or brain tissue hanging out of the cranium has to be further examined. I tend to say the latter. Lets see, exactly as yours except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL In this Zapruder frames below we can clearly see a damage at the top of Kennedy's head. Portions of his cranium at this location was simply gone. You included this area to his head. C.L. Error Sorry to burst your bubble there Martin, but the section of JFK's head you declined to outline in your lax drawing is actuallly there, regardless of the content (complete head or not) Its still PART of the shape of his head. Thats what you asked for, and I provided. Again Epic fail M.H. It's pretty clear by now this is no longer about trying you trying to prove your point that the area in question is hair or a blowout, but rather your attempt (and epic fail) to disect my rough outline of JFK's head. Fine, you draw better outlines than I do. OH wait, you screwed yours up too. Sheesh you FAIL at that too! We don't have to discuss the face of JFK in your work. Your lax outline is nowhere near to reality. C.L Error Well good since the face had ZERO to do with the subject at hand. M.H EPIC FAIL You guessed the lower back of JFK's head overpainting Jackies white glove. This part is not visible to the camera and therefore hidden. Well you can guess. Let me use your words: Believe/feeling is no proof. No I do not "guess at all. I simply did as you told and viewed the surrounding frames. Those frames show quite clearly the section of JFK's head under the gloved hand. You asked for the shape of JFK's head. I gave you the shape of the top and back of JFK's head..(the area under discussion if you recall). That shape INCLUDES the area under her glove. I don't have to guess his head is there, I can SEE it in the previous frames. M.H. MAJOR EPIC FAIL at his own directions. OUCH! Step by step? Sheesh, lets just get on with it, no need to drag it out over a bunch of posts. Post it all and be done with it. You want to dictate the tempo of my research and when i have to post???? Guess what the answer is..... I don't know what you do the whole time. I have a company with serious work to do. You apparently not. I can say what I please and you can respond as you please. However your "response" is a major failure. I hope Ray has some patience, I have very little for you. Post your stuff and get on with it... Well, when in China a rice sack topple or you made statements like this....has the same effect to me. Nice analogy. You work here is worth about a sack of rice or less. Now you want to attempt to actually prove it's not hair..... Now Martin, How can you discount the fact that the area in question slowly, with the passage of time and the forward movement of the head becomes more exposed to the direct rays of the sun? Oh Craig my charming dear, i made my standpoint clear, providing relevant evidence why i analyized the image as i did. Conclusive and rational. Your answer appears to be rather an emotional reaction (i've seen your unedited version) than a constructive response. Repeating special wordings is a good indicator for that. I don't know whether you are unwilling to examine my work logical, you are limited to understand the photographic evidence, you have problems with your glasses or can't admit mistakes. I don't know. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. From what i read on this forum, i don't think i exaggerate to say you have a good knowledge about the technique aspects of cameras. This is a standard routine of a professional photographer. On the other hand (you as a professional photographer) it's sad to see how limited your understanding of the photographic evidence in the JFK assassination sometimes is. If you don't got it yet (or unwilling to get it), i can't help you. As i said, i made my standpoint clear (Post #93) and you have stated your point of view. I'll let judge the forum members and all the frequent anonymous visitors who is right and who is wrong. I'am not just for you here Craig and have zero interests in endless boring races (which have seen so often in the past on various forums). ************************************** I'am open for any constructive discussion/study with all the other forum members for sure. Martin Edited February 2, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I see the shape of JFK's head. Thats what you asked for, correct? And thats the problem C.Lamson. Your shape has almost nothing to do with reality. Well if my shape has nothing to do with reality , then yours is wrong as well since they are the same except for the area of the top of the head which YOU skip...M.H. FAIL Here in this Gif below we can see the shape of JFK's head at Zapruder frame 337. Let us compare this Gif with that what you have done to the image (ouch) Lets see, exactly as mine except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL In my outline is a part of Kennedy's forehead intentionelly not included. This portions can be seen in particular in frames 326-330. Whether this is actually hair or brain tissue hanging out of the cranium has to be further examined. I tend to say the latter. Lets see, exactly as yours except you missed the top of his head. OUCH indeed M.H. FAIL In this Zapruder frames below we can clearly see a damage at the top of Kennedy's head. Portions of his cranium at this location was simply gone. You included this area to his head. C.L. Error Sorry to burst your bubble there Martin, but the section of JFK's head you declined to outline in your lax drawing is actuallly there, regardless of the content (complete head or not) Its still PART of the shape of his head. Thats what you asked for, and I provided. Again Epic fail M.H. It's pretty clear by now this is no longer about trying you trying to prove your point that the area in question is hair or a blowout, but rather your attempt (and epic fail) to disect my rough outline of JFK's head. Fine, you draw better outlines than I do. OH wait, you screwed yours up too. Sheesh you FAIL at that too! We don't have to discuss the face of JFK in your work. Your lax outline is nowhere near to reality. C.L Error Well good since the face had ZERO to do with the subject at hand. M.H EPIC FAIL You guessed the lower back of JFK's head overpainting Jackies white glove. This part is not visible to the camera and therefore hidden. Well you can guess. Let me use your words: Believe/feeling is no proof. No I do not "guess at all. I simply did as you told and viewed the surrounding frames. Those frames show quite clearly the section of JFK's head under the gloved hand. You asked for the shape of JFK's head. I gave you the shape of the top and back of JFK's head..(the area under discussion if you recall). That shape INCLUDES the area under her glove. I don't have to guess his head is there, I can SEE it in the previous frames. M.H. MAJOR EPIC FAIL at his own directions. OUCH! Step by step? Sheesh, lets just get on with it, no need to drag it out over a bunch of posts. Post it all and be done with it. You want to dictate the tempo of my research and when i have to post???? Guess what the answer is..... I don't know what you do the whole time. I have a company with serious work to do. You apparently not. I can say what I please and you can respond as you please. However your "response" is a major failure. I hope Ray has some patience, I have very little for you. Post your stuff and get on with it... Well, when in China a rice sack topple or you made statements like this....has the same effect to me. Nice analogy. You work here is worth about a sack of rice or less. Now you want to attempt to actually prove it's not hair..... Now Martin, How can you discount the fact that the area in question slowly, with the passage of time and the forward movement of the head becomes more exposed to the direct rays of the sun? Oh Craig my charming dear, i made my standpoint clear, providing relevant evidence why i analyized the image as i did. Conclusive and rational. Your answer appears to be rather an emotional reaction (i've seen your unedited version) than a constructive response. Repeating special wordings is a good indicator for that. I don't know whether you are unwilling to examine my work logical, you are limited to understand the photographic evidence, you have problems with your glasses or can't admit mistakes. I don't know. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. From what i read on this forum, i don't think i exaggerate to say you have a good knowledge about the technique aspects of cameras. This is a standard routine of a professional photographer. On the other hand (you as a professional photographer) it's sad to see how limited to understand the photographic evidence in the JFK assassination sometimes is. If you don't got it yet (or unwillig to get it), i can't help you. As i said, i made my standpoint clear (Post #93) and you have stated your point of view. I'll let judge the forum members and all the frequent anonymous visitors who is right and who is wrong. I'am not just for you here Craig and have zero interests in endless boring races (which have seen so often in the past on various forums). ************************************** I'am open for any constructive discussion/study with all the other forum members for sure. Martin Well said, Martin. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Your statement was incorrect. Just like your statement that Groden worked in a Photo lab in 1964 ROTFL. I provided a cite that said Groden worked in a photo lab in NJ in 1964. Maybe it is right, maybe it is wrong. You said he was 19 and in the Army then. You were wrong. But why play such silly little girl games? This is a different issue. More important that people have the facts of record straight, isn't it? :-) No pulse at Parkland. Keep telling yourself that your right Barb, I bet it makes you feel real good and helps you sleep at night while the nightmares of Z-film alteration invade your head all night long And JFK did have a pulse at Parkland, he had a heartbeat so all they had to do was take his pulse on his chest ROTFL. It's my eyes that are rolling! Do you even know the medical definition of a pulse? A few heartbeats heard by auscultation does not a pulse make. No blood pressure means no blood is being pumped around the body. No blood pressure = no pulse. I understand you can never be wrong, but is it worth making yourself look so silly? Ask a doctor. The information I have stated is quite valid. But you don't have to believe me, read the doctor reports from Parkland that day, I gave you 2 quotes before. Do you think Carrico, the first physician to attend JFK, didn't know a pulse from a few random heartbeats detected by auscultation? DATE AND HOUR 11/22/63 1620 DOCTOR: Carrico When patient entered Emergency room on ambulance carriage had slow agonal respiratory efforts and scant cardiac beats by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of ant. neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted and through the laryngoscope a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was passed past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration using the resp assistor on auto-matic were instituted. Concurrently an IV infusion of lactated Ringer solution was begun via catheter placed in right leg and blood was drawn for type and crossmatch. Type O Rh negative blood was obtained as well as hydrocortisone. In view of tracheal injury and decreased BS an tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Bilat. chest tubes inserted. A 2nd bld infusion was begun in left arm. In addition Dr. Jenkins began resp with anethesia machine, cardiac monitor, and stimulator attached. Solu cortef IV given (300mg), attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted. Despite these measures as well as external cardiac massage, BP never returned and EKG evidence of cardiac activity was never obtained. Charles J. Carrico M.D Enough silliness. Your need to chest thump is not as important as people having valid information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 JFK was brain dead in Dealey Plaza the instant the bullet blew his brains out. Any other body movements of any kind are known as fibrillation and are not indicators of life. Any speculation otherwise is unwise. Brain dead is dead. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Do you even know the medical definition of a pulse? I dont care What do you not understand? Your not proving anything to me because I could care less what the medical definition of a pulse is Jack is correct in that the second the bullet hit JFKs head he was gone forever, im saying that the Doctors saw some signs of life, why else would they do CPR and other life saving procedures instead of just pronouncing him DOA? Dont reply Barb, your wasting your time because I dont care Dean "No Pulse" Hagerman Edited February 2, 2010 by Dean Hagerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 ''Considerable quantities of blood were present in the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Peters and Dr. Clark arrived. Dr. Clark noted that the President had bled profusely from the back of the head.'' ''There was a large (3 by 3 cm.) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also.'' ''When Dr. Clark noted that there was no carotid pulse, he began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral levels.'' (''by approximately 12:50 at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Dr. Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse.'') (''At 12 :50 p.m. Dr. Bashour was called from the first floor of the hospital and told that President Kennedy had been shot. He and Dr. Donald Seldin, professor and chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, went to the emergency room. Upon examination, they found that the President had no pulsations, no heart beats, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The President was declared dead at 1:00 p.m.'') ''Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so that Dr. Clark could evaluate the head wound.'' ''There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the right posterior skull, at brief examination, appeared gone. The previously described extruding brain was present. Profuse bleeding had occurred and 1500 cc. of blood was estimated to be on the drapes and floor of the emergency operating room. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound.'' By this time an electrocardiograph was hooked up. There was brief electrical activity of the heart which soon stopped. ''With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage.'' - Which one might reasonably expect Dr Clark to expect. iow as the major blood vessels feeding the brain discharged copious amounts of blood, Dr Clark massaged the heart resulting in a moment of heart activity and pulse, however: this massage massively a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity and blood pressure naturally dropped ensuring that the momentary heart activity was just that, momentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Hi Craig,I don't see Jackie actually put her hand on the back of his head and push the hair up. I see her start to place her hand on the back of his head, hesitate, then place her hand down lower ... on his neck. At the same time, she has that horrified look on her face as she seems to be looking right at the back of his head, where the hair is all frizzy and oddly ruffled. That is the area where Parkland reported seeing a gaping wound, and as McClelland noted, part of the parietal bone and part of the occipital bone were fractured and sprung open. Parkland reported a gaping wound that they could see into, not that some large part of the back of his head was sheared off. He had a lot of hair and I think that gaping wound was down in there in that frizzed up hair we see. I think Jackie saw that bones sprung open gaping wound as she was about to place her hand there .... and thus the "O" of her mouth and haunting look as she looks right at it. Up close and personal like, as they saw it at Parkland, and with JFK then on his back and rescusitative actions taken place, they would have been able to see brain in and oozing out of the wound they described. As we see on the Z film, and as some witnesses reported at the time, the right side of his skull burst open and with that force came a good portion of the contents of his head. Bests, Barb :-) Hi Barb. Here is the relevant sequence of Jackies arm/hand movement. Frames 327-339. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to stable the entire sequence smooth because there is some horrible Camera motion blur in some frames. Her hand lasted for 9 frames on his back. So, half of a second. It appears to me that most parts of her hand (expect the thumb) moved on the upper part of his shoulder/neck area. At the end of the sequence her hand glitched/moved slightely forward and then back. BTW, fine descreption about the Parkland witnesses. best to you Martin EDIT: Thank you Jack. Edited February 2, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 JFK was brain dead in Dealey Plaza the instant the bullet blew his brains out.Any other body movements of any kind are known as fibrillation and are not indicators of life. Any speculation otherwise is unwise. Brain dead is dead. Jack Well see there, Jack .... we do agree on some things. Without getting into fibrillation, yes, brain dead is brain dead .... and he was essentially dead in Dealey Plaza in an instant. The agonal breaths and few scattered heartbeats initially heard at Parkland, with no pulse, no blood pressure and his pupils fixed and dilated meant he was, for all intents and purposes, quite dead. Exactly! Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) dupe canceled Edited February 2, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb Junkkarinen Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Hi Craig,I don't see Jackie actually put her hand on the back of his head and push the hair up. I see her start to place her hand on the back of his head, hesitate, then place her hand down lower ... on his neck. At the same time, she has that horrified look on her face as she seems to be looking right at the back of his head, where the hair is all frizzy and oddly ruffled. That is the area where Parkland reported seeing a gaping wound, and as McClelland noted, part of the parietal bone and part of the occipital bone were fractured and sprung open. Parkland reported a gaping wound that they could see into, not that some large part of the back of his head was sheared off. He had a lot of hair and I think that gaping wound was down in there in that frizzed up hair we see. I think Jackie saw that bones sprung open gaping wound as she was about to place her hand there .... and thus the "O" of her mouth and haunting look as she looks right at it. Up close and personal like, as they saw it at Parkland, and with JFK then on his back and rescusitative actions taken place, they would have been able to see brain in and oozing out of the wound they described. As we see on the Z film, and as some witnesses reported at the time, the right side of his skull burst open and with that force came a good portion of the contents of his head. Bests, Barb :-) Hi Barb. Here is the relevant sequence of Jackies arm/hand movement. Frames 327-339. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to stable the entire sequence smooth because there is some horrible Camera motion blur in some frames. Her hand lasted for 9 frames on his back. So, half of a second. It appears to me that most parts of her hand (expect the thumb) moved on the upper part of his shoulder/neck area. At the end of the sequence her hand glitched/moved slightely forward and then back. Yes, that's it. Her hand is never up on the back of his head where the hair is all frizzled. And I can't really see the hesitation I noted before here ...of course, it all happens so fast. But I think she did a natural thing by starting to put her hand on the back of his head, then did that slightly forward and back and lower movement. I first noticed this in an extreme slo-mo played on a new fangled type of disc a guy had at COPA in '94 ... Dave Lentz, I believe. It looked like a 33rpm record size if I am recalling correctly. Anyway, about a dozen of us were crowded into someone's hotel room to watch this thing and it was the clearest thing I'd ever seen with the ability to go quite slow and toggle back and forth. It was either that year or the next that I saw the 1st generation slides at the Archives for the first time and I have been haunted by 335 and 337 ever since ... and what it is I believe I see Jackie doing there and her horrified reaction. Thanks so much for putting this clip up. :-) BTW, fine descreption about the Parkland witnesses. best to you Martin Thank you. I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon. Thanks again, Barb :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I think her following movements are also relevant (this is one (of a number) points I suspect a frame missing and replaced) when the limo is next to Altgens and as she launches back over the seat she pushes Kennedys head out of the way in a way that seems to indicate that she sensed a hopelessness and acted swiftly pushing Kennedy out of the way and grabbing for poss important body part/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I have spent a lot of time over the years on Parkland. They know what they saw ... and recorded it for the medico-legal record that very afternoon. Barb: Does the medico-legal record at Parkland include ANY RECORD of a BACK WOUND? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Martin:Her hand lasted for 9 frames on his back. So, half of a second.It appears to me that most parts of her hand (expect the thumb) moved on the upper part of his shoulder/neck area. At the end of the sequence her hand glitched/moved slightely forward and then back. Bingo, Martin. It's not the sunlight, it is no head wound, it's Jackies Hand...bad day for Mr Know it all Lamson... KK 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