David Von Pein

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

This could be the most amazing statement ever posted on the forum. Just wanted to acknowledge it. It's not so amazing. It's true.

And here are two more versions for good measure. The top one is a slow-motion version that I created using all 486 "Costella" frames (at Jim Fetzer's site). And those Costella frames are quite clear too. And, sure enough, all of Connally's flinching and arm-raising activities are visible here too. It's a little more difficult to see Connally's reactions in this version, but that's only because the size of the image is smaller than the other versions above. But I can still quite easily see the flinching and hat-raising.... And then there's the 1998 MPI version, which also very clearly shows the exact same JBC reactions....

Incredible. What a pack of deniers we've got here. You guys win the 2015 prize in the category of.... "Failure To See The Obvious". Congratulations. For the record, I have several other versions of the Z-Film (collected from various online sources, that is), and I just checked each one, and every single version I have shows exactly the same reactions on the part of John Connally. I'll post them all again below. So, I guess James Gordon's next move is to tell me that ALL of these clips (which have come from different Internet sources over the years) are filled with nothing but "corrupt" frames too. .... Shoulders rising (and tie bulging outward): Different version---with the shoulders also rising and the tie moving in the exact same manner as in the clip above this one (just an illusion, Jim?): And here's another, again showing the very distinct riseof Connally's shoulders, plus the hat flip, plus the tie movement: And here's yet another source for the same Z-Film scene, again showing JBC's shoulders hiking up at Z225 (also "corrupt", James?): If James Gordon comes up with more lame excuses to deny what his eyes are seeing in all of the above versions of the Z-Film, he'll win a new trophy --- the "Robert Groden Award" --- in memory of Mr. Groden's fiasco at the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where Groden was shown 30 different pictures of Simpson wearing the very same shoes, but Groden still insisted one of the photos showing the same shoes was a fake.

Not to the degree of pinpoint, to-the-millimeter accuracy that CTers think they can prove or disprove things with regard to the bullet transiting JFK's body. Common sense ALONE practically proves the SBT. And the LACK of things that SHOULD be in evidence--but aren't--only further strengthen the SBT's viability --- e.g., the LACK of bullets in JFK's body, and the LACK of substantial damage inside JFK's back & neck areas. Those things would be present if the CTers are right. But they're not there. And CTers can never tell us WHY they're not there (without resorting to the "Everything's Fake" routine).

They're very likely connected, though.... 1.) Bullet hits Connally's coat. 2.) Coat moves a little bit after being hit by bullet. 3.) The brisk breeze catches ahold of the moving coat and causes lapel to flip up. Tell me how that's not possible. Raspberry.

It's not just Connally's left shoulder that's flinching. His right shoulder is rising too. But I suppose that's just a "shadow" too, right?

Of course the large lapel movement at precisely Z224 had something to do with the bullet hitting JBC. It would be an incredible coincidence if that were not the case.

Bob, The wind probably caught ahold of the lapel after the bullet passed through Connally's jacket, causing it to flip up more dramatically. Is that not at least POSSIBLE, Robert?

This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs of JBC being in distress in Z225-Z230. It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real. And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth? Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot in an involuntary manner starting at Z225? And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?

Bob, Nothing you say from this point on can possibly debunk the last comment I made in my last post about "using HIS [JFK's] BODY and ONLY HIS BODY". You'll try to pretend, of course, that my comment has no validity whatsoever, but we all know you'll just be pretending.

Fair enough, Ron. Bye.

Ron, Your previous comment sprinkled with sarcasm implied that you don't trust anything the DPD did. How could I possibly interpret this comment any other way?.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot."

Why do you ask stupid questions? That's not meant as an insult. I'm curious. It's not a stupid question. Esp. after you had just got through writing this sarcastic comment.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot." Ergo, my follow-up question is far from stupid.

Yes, Ron, you're right about the policeman (J.C. White) who made the really strange comment about how a train on the overpass blocked his view of the rest of the Plaza to the east. One of the Altgens pictures proves that story to be a "crock" indeed. But that's a minor issue. You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron?

The FBI isn't even needed to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD, all by itself, proved LHO's (double) guilt on Day 1. Or don't you trust anything the DPD did (or said) either, Ron? Plus, Oswald's own actions serve as practically a confession, even without factoring in any of the physical evidence examined by either the DPD or FBI.

That's what I figured, Ron. That's why I quoted Belin. I know he's every CTer's favorite.

"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"

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.

Before Robert P. gets started with the "whupping" that he promised to lash me with (which is a "whupping" that will, I can only assume, lead to an immediate re-opening of the JFK case by somebody in a position of authority somewhere on Earth, due to the rock-solid "anti-SBT" facts that Prudhomme will be unearthing before our eyes here at The Education Forum; right, Bob?), I'll provide some much-needed common sense (and raw facts) concerning the Single-Bullet Theory for any lurkers who might be lurking.... Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Where Is The SBT Alternative? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Arlen Specter's SBT Notebook If CE399 Didn't Hit Connally---What Bullet Did? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/SBT INDEX And.... I'd like to also point out this basic and simple observation.... Without digging up John F. Kennedy's body and using HIS BODY and ONLY HIS BODY when attempting to figure out whether or not a bullet could have traversed JFK's upper back and neck, this bold statement made today by Robert Prudhomme falls completely flat and is a promise that Prudhomme does not have a hope of fulfilling.... "I intend...to show DVP that it was physically impossible for a bullet to travel through JFK, as described by the WC, and strike Connally in the right armpit."

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?

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.) ....

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?....

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.

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".