Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Pamela Brown

The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night

Recommended Posts

Bill said:

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached.

With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6. Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill said:

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached.

With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6. Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill said:

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached.

With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6. Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill said:

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached.

With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6. Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

I seem to be having trouble uploading the z255 attachment. I'll try doing it in a separate post.

Pamela :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill said:

I can only suggest that you use the best images possible so to try and limit in photographical interpretation errors. Chosing anything less is asking for false conclusions to be reached.

With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6.  Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all due respect, I believe you are mistaken about the JBC reflection in the windshield of the Altgens 1-6.  Look at the position of JFK's hands at Z 255 and you will see that the area of the tiny reflection could not be JFK's hands, as they were clenched and apart.

I seem to be having trouble uploading the z255 attachment.  I'll try doing it in a separate post.

Photo experts for the last 40 years have not said anything like what you are talking about. The sun is in front of the car in the SW - except for the back of the rear view mirror we are seeing JFK's face and left hand in Altgens 6 with JFK's index finger pointed towards his throat wound. I repectably challenge you to name one photo expert who says that we are seeing a reflection of some sort.

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a jpg of Z255. I apologize for the size and quality. I haven't figured out how to capture from the IOA DVD yet. In the DVD version it is possible to see that both of JFK's fists are cleanched and they are not together. Therefore, the small reflected image of JBC cannot be JFK's right fist.

Pamela

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a jpg of Z255.  I apologize for the size and quality.  I haven't figured out how to capture from the IOA DVD yet.  In the DVD version it is possible to see that both of JFK's fists are cleanched and they are not together.  Therefore, the small reflected image of JBC cannot be JFK's right fist.

Pamela

Pam - I am a bit confused. You first marked out a place on the Altgens photo under the mirror and it wasn't even touching Connally. That's when I told you it was JFK's left hand and forefinger. Now you are talking about JFK's right hand which no one has ever said that it could be seen in Altgens photograph. So how did JFK's right hand get into this discussion?

I have taken the liberty to place your original Newspaper Altgens 6 photo with the box you placed on it and put it over the better quality Altgens 6 print and have allowed the two to fade in and out. I think if you were to closely at a really good print that you would see JFK's lips and lower right hand chin in the boxed area. Just to our left of JFK's forefinger is a small demple on JFK's face. I hope the images help. (See the animation on the right)

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela

Let me start out by saying I do not believe that Oswald was a “nut.” I also believe there was a conspiracy. With that said I would like to ask some questions of your article and make a few observations.

A) “In order to accommodate their thinking that Oswald (LHO) fired all the shots as well as to resolve the issue of there having been no bullet fragments found in either the neck wound of President Kennedy (JFK) or in the back or chest wounds of Governor Connally (JBC) they suggest that the 'magic' bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital about 2 hours after the assassination, (rather than being planted, as all indications show), created 7 wounds in JFK and JBC and emerged in nearly pristine condition.”

“One question I am certain that the doctors must have asked, is simply "where are the bullets"? Only two small fragments were retrieved from JFK's skull, two others from the front of the Presidential Limousine, plus one tiny sliver from the arm of JBC. Only the 'magic bullet' could clearly be connected to the Mannlicher-Carcano (MC) supposedly owned by LHO.”

Whoever “planted, as all indications show” the “magic bullet” must have been very happy to find that there were no bullet fragments discovered “in either the neck wound of President Kennedy (JFK) or in the back or chest wounds of Governor Connally (JBC)…” This would suggest that the doctors/nurses etc. that initially worked on Connally were part of the conspiracy. A bullet that would be found in “nearly pristine condition” could only be a part of the cover-up if no bullet fragments were to be found. Since the bullet was discovered before the surgery on Connally was completed, all in attendance in the operating room could be considered suspects in disposing of any unwanted fragments or the “pristine bullet” would never fly as evidence. Conversely if fragments were found the “pristine bullet” could not have been pristine. Do you think fragments were discarded to protect the concept of a “pristine bullet” or that there were no fragments and whoever “planted, as all indications show” the bullet was, some how, sure none would be found?

:blink: Where did the bullet go that created the “..about an inch, an inch and a quarter long is all…” (Testimony of John Connally) hole in Connally’s left thigh?

Once again we have to go to those in the operating room or to the person who “planted, as all indications show” the “magic bullet” to have also removed the left thigh bullet and, as seems logical, to have discarded it. Connally, who was conscious enough to attempt to get out of the limousine at Parkland Hospital does not ever recall someone removing a bullet from his left thigh on the way into surgery. He admittedly was fading in and out of consciousness but how difficult would the removal of a bullet be while he is being wheeled into surgery with his wife at his side? Once again the staff in the operating room are the most likely culprits or the bullet was easily removed by the same person that “planted, as all indications show” it. Logic would seem to indicate that if the “pristine” bullet planter could easily remove the bullet, without being noticed, while Connally is being wheeled into surgery it would be just as easy for that bullet to just fall out on the stretcher and that obviously did not happen because it was “planted, as all indications show.” Do you think the left thigh bullet was easy to remove on the way into the operating room or that it would have required surgery to be removed?

So, it would seem possible, we have two distinct groups of conspirators at Parkland Hospital. The bullet planter and the operating room staff that extracted the left thigh bullet and discarded it along with any unwanted bullet fragments. By default they would have to be conspirators because they were acting in concert although independently of each other.

Would you agree that those in the Connally operating room could be considered conspirators in this sense?

C) “Each scenario of "THE SBT" now, contains the following consistency -- One bullet, CE 399, fired by LHO from the M-C from the 6th floor of the TSBD, caused JFK's back wound and neck wound, as well as all of JBC's wounds to back, chest, wrist and thigh.” “…The HSCA also did a trajectory analysis of the shots. However, when it came to their SB scenario, they only concerned themselves with where the shot had hit JFK, and ignored the subsequent position of JBC.”

Taking into account the position of John Connally, in your opinion, from where was the bullet that caused Connally’s left thigh wound fired? Left, right, front or rear? From the right you would have a trajectory analysis that would be very steep because of the side of the limousine and would be inconsistent with the actual wound. From the left you would have Nellie to contend with plus the wound. From the front you have the dashboard and the angle of the wound. From the rear the bullet would have to have traveled through Connally first but that would suggest a single bullet that was “spent” by the time it hit the left thigh. From where did this “magic bullet” come from?

D) “In the WC's enthusiasm for truth they had two drawings created of the two limousines -- the Presidential Limousine SS-100-X and SS-679-X that was used in the reenactment. There are numerous measurements shown on them. However, there is one dimension missing -- the height. Of course, that is THE critical dimension for making a comparison between one car and the other.” “…Arlen Specter and Kelley agreed that the clearance from the jump seat to the passenger door was 6 inches. (VH132) They also agreed the difference between the height of the two men was 1 1/2 inches.” “…In addition, the height differential used by the WC was a mere one and 1/2 inches. The HSCA later stated that this difference was 8 cm, or app. 3.5 inches. Quite a difference, don't you think?”

The “difference between the height of the two men” is referenced clearly in John Connally’s testimony before the Warren Commission:

Mr. SPECTER. What was the relative height of the Jump seats, Governor, with respect to the seat of the President and Mrs. Kennedy immediately to your rear?

Governor CONNALLY. They were somewhat lower. The back seat of that particular Lincoln limousine, which is a specially designed and built automobile, as you know, for the President of the United States, has an adjustable back seat. It can be lowered or raised. I would say the back seat was approximately 6 inches higher than the jump seats on which Mrs. Connally and I sat.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you know for certain whether or not the movable back seat was elevated at the time?

Governor CONNALLY. No; I could not be sure of it, although I know there were---there was a time or two when he did elevate it, and I think beyond question on most of the ride in San Antonio, Forth Worth, Houston, and Dallas, it was elevated. For a while the reason I know is--I sat on the back seat with him during part of the ride, particularly in San Antonio, not in Dallas, but in San Antonio. The wind was blowing, and we were traveling fairly fast, and Mrs. Kennedy preferred to sit on the jump seat, and I was sitting on the back seat part of the time, and the seat was elevated, and I think it was on substantially all the trip.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the portion elevated, that where only the President sat?

Governor CONNALLY. No: the entire back seat.

In reality there was perhaps a six-inch spread of height differences available depending upon how the seat had been adjusted. In other words the seat could have been positioned anywhere up to six inches higher or lower depending on the wishes of the person riding in the rear seat. Did you take the fact that the limousine had an adjustable seat into account when making your conclusions?

E) “Therefore, the possibility of a SB scenario that the WC worked so hard to create was based on faulty measurements. We can only agree that whatever conclusions the WC came to were incorrect, because they were based on incorrect data.

If the seat was adjustable the measurements of the two different scenarios are not based on faulty measurements but rather incomplete data gathered within moments of the assassination. Any height measurement made after the fact would be subject to question because of the nature of the adjustable seat. The information you have presented together with the Connally testimony seems to indicate that the question of seat height is well within the possible parameters of the adjustable seat. Would you agree?

F) “All that matters to the LNTs is that there 'is' 'an SBT'. They 'believe' in 'the SBT'. They do this as a matter of blind faith, as is evidenced by the fact that they continue to spew forth ridiculous garbage only to deceive the naive.”

I am not a LNT by any means but I do have the above questions drawn from your comments.

Jim Root

Edited by Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Miller,Dec 16 2004, 11:23 PM said:

Photo experts for the last 40 years have not said anything like what you are talking about.

Really Bill? That is called the fallacy of the appeal to authority. Neither do we have all the answers yet about the assassination. Why is that? In part, because we listen to 'authorities' rather than using our own brains.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Miller,Dec 17 2004, 08:33 AM said:

Pam - I am a bit confused.

Yes, that's evident by your reply.

There are two areas of discussion; you seem to be lumping them together. Let me see if I can make myself more clear.

1 -- The tiny reflection of JBC is the first area we discussed. As JFK's clenched fists are separated by about 5 inches at Z 255, that cannot be JFK's right fist, as you have tried to claim.

2 -- The back of the rear-view mirror area of the windshield, which contains reflections that have appeared to some to be part of JFK's face. It seems that you are not one of those.

I have taken the liberty to place your original Newspaper Altgens 6 photo with the box you placed on it and put it over the better quality Altgens 6 print and have allowed the two to fade in and out.

It is Z 255 that is the equivalent of the Altgens 1-6. You have published Z 254.

Pamela

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Root,Dec 16 2004, 05:01 PM said:

Do you know if there has ever been any movement in the attempt to retrieve the bullet fragment from Connelly's wrist and thigh?

Thank you for posting this article about Gov. Connally and the bullet fragments still in his body. It is my understanding that his body was cremated (quickly) and that finding the fragments per se would now be impossible. The entire scenario involving him, however, simply reeks IMO. From the time he was put under guard in PH until his death, I believe he was walking a tightwire and doing what he could to speak the truth of what he knew and yet stay in the public eye. I feel that it must have been very difficult for him. I have wondered if his insistence on a separate bullet hitting him than the first bullet that hit JFK may have been a symbol for him; his way of saying that he knew there was more than one gunman, though he was unable to speak out.

What is your take on neutron activation analysis to test the various bullets and fragments in this case?

It is my thinking that whatever bullet fragments were 'found' were what the SS wanted to be found. If they were planted, the various tests are not relevant, as they do not take that into account. So I haven't spent a lot of time analyzing them.

Where do you think the Connelly thigh wounding bullet was fired from?

It is my thinking that one of the shooters was in the TSBD (not LHO) and that this is probably where that shot came from.

Thank you for your great paper!

Thanks for your support! :blink:

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Root,Dec 19 2004, 10:27 PM said:

Do you think fragments were discarded to protect the concept of a “pristine bullet” or that there were no fragments and whoever “planted, as all indications show” the bullet was, some how, sure none would be found?

I do not believe that all the bullets/fragments that were in JBC's body made it to the FBI lab.

Where did the bullet go that created the “..about an inch, an inch and a quarter long is all…” (Testimony of John Connally) hole in Connally’s left thigh?

Whatever made that wound would most logically have remained lodged in his leg.

Once again we have to go to those in the operating room or to the person who “planted, as all indications show” the “magic bullet” to have also removed the left thigh bullet and, as seems logical, to have discarded it.

I'm not thinking both were done by the same person. Interesting point though.

Do you think the left thigh bullet was easy to remove on the way into the operating room or that it would have required surgery to be removed?

I don't know if I agree the bullet would have remained whole. I think the pieces would have been removed during surgery. The fact that the PH team talks about pieces being 'left in' JBC makes me think that could be a euphemism for some hanky panky going on regarding the fragments in him.

So, it would seem possible, we have two distinct groups of conspirators at Parkland Hospital. The bullet planter and the operating room staff that extracted the left thigh bullet and discarded it along with any unwanted bullet fragments. By default they would have to be conspirators because they were acting in concert although independently of each other.

Perhaps.

Would you agree that those in the Connally operating room could be considered conspirators in this sense?

Something happened during and/or subsequent to JBC's surgery. I think pressure may have been put on those involved. In addition, it's not impossible that fragments were 'lost' while in transit from Dallas to DC.

It is my position that JFK was hit by a shot to the throat and JBC by a shot to the back.

In reality there was perhaps a six-inch spread of height differences available depending upon how the seat had been adjusted. In other words the seat could have been positioned anywhere up to six inches higher or lower depending on the wishes of the person riding in the rear seat. Did you take the fact that the limousine had an adjustable seat into account when making your conclusions?

That is not relevant in that I used the WC's measurments. The WC never said anything about using a measurement other than at the limo's lowest rear seat position.

If the seat was adjustable the measurements of the two different scenarios are not based on faulty measurements but rather incomplete data gathered within moments of the assassination. Any height measurement made after the fact would be subject to question because of the nature of the adjustable seat. The information you have presented together with the Connally testimony seems to indicate that the question of seat height is well within the possible parameters of the adjustable seat. Would you agree?

No. The WC considered the seat height in its lowest position.

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela

"No. The WC considered the seat height in its lowest position."

How does this fit with the Connally testimony?

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Root,Dec 21 2004 said:

How does this fit with the Connally testimony?

Nellie Connally has made statements that she believed the back seat to have been elevated too. It may have been their perception, as the jump seats were so much lower than the back seat.

However, when the back seat was elevated it was clearly visible as you can see in this linked photo:

http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelajfk/window.jpg

However, during the Dallas motorcade and the assassination, the seat remained in its lowest position.

Look at the Altgens 1-7 at http://www.mindspring.com/~pamelam1/jfk.html halfway down the page (unable to upload attachments here)

Pamela

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×