More from the past on BYP

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, John Butler said:

You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame.  If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment.  You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence.

Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. 

This only goes to prove a very significant point....

I.E.:

A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.

Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.

Edited August 22, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

This only goes to prove a very significant point....

I.E.:

A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.

Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers.

Like the HSCA medical panel with their anatomically impossible interpretation of the skull photos forcing their interpretation of an entry and exit in the skull only 5 inches apart?

[Karl Hilliard]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Like the HSCA medical panel ...

...consisting of a ballistics forensic urologist did it not?

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

...consisting of a ballistics forensic urologist did it not?

https://imgur.com/a/9UMt94M

If you can fit a whole brain through a five-inch skull cavity, explain how. 

[John Butler]

David Von Pein   

• Super Member
•  
• 
• Members
•  
• 5,090 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:Indiana, USA

• Report post
•  

Posted 4 hours ago (edited)

12 hours ago, John Butler said:

You'll need software that will show the film frame by frame.  If you don't do that then you can't make an intelligent comment.  You can only make comments like David Von Pein and others who haven't taken the time to look at the evidence.

Hook your computer to a 60 inch color TV for best viewing. 

This only goes to prove a very significant point....

I.E.:

A conspiracy theorist can (and will) come up with almost any type of cockeyed theory if he looks long and hard enough at something---even when looking at a film taken of JFK on Main Street when no gunshots at all were being fired at the President.

Thanks, John Butler, for once again proving that important "I See What I Want To See" fact concerning the wholly subjective observations of conspiracy believers. I'm sure Robert Harris is very proud of you.

Edited 4 hours ago by David Von Pein

 

Second shot:

 

[Ray Mitcham]

What are we supposed to be seeing? It's no good arrowing something without saying what you think you can see.

[David Josephs]

12 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

https://imgur.com/a/9UMt94M

If you can fit a whole brain through a five-inch skull cavity, explain how. 

Doesn't matter if the hole was 10 inches... the connected tissue in the brain keeps it from just "falling out"...  too many important connections need to be severed including the spinal cord...
We also have to differentiate between pre-8pm and post 8pm procedures....

PURDY: How big was that opening? Was it an official opening?
ROBINSON: Well, there, of course, was an opening from the bullets,but then they had enlarged that. The brain had been removed, and you could see it.

MD180 Robinson Meeting Report:
Removal of President’s Brain: Robinson drew dotted lines on the drawing he executed of the posterior skull which shows the wound between the ears. When asked by ARRB staff what the dotted lines represented, he said “saw cuts.” He explained that some sawing was done to remove some bone before the brain could be removed, and then went on to describe what is a normal craniotomy procedure, saying that this procedure was performed on JFK. He seemed to remember the use of a saw, and the scalp being reflected forward.

Boswell ARRB:
Q. Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in order to remove the brain?
(Boswell). No.
Q. Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?
A. No.
Q. Who was it who removed the brain?
A. I think Jim Humes did, but I can't be sure of that.

Humes ARRB
Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there? 
(HUMES). I don't know. I don't really--can't really recall why. 
Q. Was the fresh brain weighed? 
A. I don't recall. I don't recall. It's as simple as that.

Taking HUMES' description of the injuries I mapped them onto a real brain and skull...

"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately (1 & 2) 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.  The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a (3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
(4) When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions."

[Joe Bauer]

I don't see anything in the 3 pictures regards JFK's face, body and clothing showing any changes or signs that would indicate him being hit during this time.

JFK and Connolly have smiles that do change slightly but not enough to show any signs of distress, great or even minor.

 

[Chris Bristow]

I posted this in another thread but I think it makes a valuable point regarding  the direction of shadows under the nose. The shadow on the front of the box simulates the  shadow under Oswald's nose and lies on a vertical plane. The shadow behind the box, which lays on a horizontal plane, represents Oswald's body shadow. The direction of the shadow on the ground appears to move upward in the photo due to vanishing point perspective while the nose shadow on the box has a downward direction. The fact that these shadows appear to contradict each other, is in reality, just a matter of perspective. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Chris Bristow

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

I posted this in another thread but I think it makes a valuable point regarding  the direction of shadows under the nose. The shadow on the front of the box simulates the  shadow under Oswald's nose and lies on a vertical plane. The shadow behind the box, which lays on a horizontal plane, represents Oswald's body shadow. The direction of the shadow on the ground appears to move upward in the photo due to vanishing point perspective while the nose shadow on the box has a downward direction. The fact that these shadows appear to contradict each other, is in reality, just a matter of perspective. 

 

In my opinion the lengths of the shadows are too short to show much of an impact due to perspective. I believe that the shadows behave differently primarily because one is on a vertical surface and the other on a horizontal surface.

(Though I do agree that the angle of the shadow on the ground is changed a little due to perspective.)

 

[Chris Bristow]

Sandy, I did say it was just perspective but I really meant to include the vertical vs horizontal factors as part the perspective.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

 

 

Consider the following thought experiment....

If the sun were to move so that it was directly in front of the side of the box we are looking at (let's call it the "face" of the box), the shadow on the ground would rotate clockwise so that it will be directly behind the box. Yet the shadow on the face of the box -- due to the "nose"  -- would rotate counterclockwise so that it will be cast straight down the face of the box. Therefore they will rotate in opposite angular directions. And yet our thought experiment did not consider perspective at all. So what we see happen in the photo is precisely what our thought experiment demonstrates in spite of the fact that we didn't take perspective into account

This proves that perspective is not a factor in explaining the opposing movements of the two shadows.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Sandy, I did say it was just perspective but I really meant to include the vertical vs horizontal factors as part the perspective.

 

Oh, okay. Sorry.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

Sandy Larsen's thought experiment is correct.  How do you apply this to the backyard shadows?  If the light source in 133a is to the front then the shadow moving downwards under the Oswald figures nose is correct.  His body shadow should be directly behind him as Sandy demonstrated for the box when you move the light source to the front.

If you apply this reasoning to the BYP 133a then the shadow under the Oswald figures nose should match the body shadow in moving toward picture left.  It would not be straight down but moving toward picture left.  This is not the case in BYP 133a.  The shadows don't match.

Edited August 30, 2018 by John Butler

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 10:35 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The ring can be seen on Oswald's RIGHT ring finger in 133A and 133B. But on his LEFT ring finger in 133C.
 

133A

 

133B

 

133C

 

Regarding 133C, look for the ring on the other hand to confirm the finding. It's not there.

This is yet one more discrepancy indicating the photos are fake.

C

133A.  Small (wedding ?) ring on right finger.  A small or wedding ring on the right finger, but wedding rings go on the left hand.  Can't see a ring on the left hand because of the slightly outward but otherwise straightforward bent angle of it. 

133B.  Bigger looking ring on right finger, Marine Corps Ring?  Can't see back hand/left fingers behind pamphlets in left hand.

133C.  (bigger?) Marine Corps ring on left hand.  No ring/left hand blurred?

This is confusing.  Or maybe somehow manipulated.  Did Jack White ever comment on this?

Edited August 30, 2018 by Ron Bulman