JFK's body movement at impact

[Larry Peters]

I was afraid that this topic would get lost in a thread that was over photo and film alteration. Below is a two from stabilized clip showing JFK's body movements at the moment of impact. As I said elswhere - only a missile traveling downward would cause the spatter seen in the Nix film, the avulsion seen in the Zapruder and Nix film frame examples showing the back right side of the head in profile and the body movement where the head rocks forward on impact while the shoulders are driven rearward at the same time.

Click onto the first and third photo to activate the animation

Edited July 13, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Drew Williams]

I was afraid that this topic would get lost in a thread that was over photo and film alteration. Below is a two from stabilized clip showing JFK's body movements at the moment of impact. As I said elswhere - only a missile traveling downward would cause the spatter seen in the Nix film, the avulsion seen in the Zapruder and Nix film frame examples showing the back right side of the head in profile and the body movement where the head rocks forward on impact while the shoulders are driven rearward at the same time.

Could there be more than one headshot? One from the front, one from the back, seperated by a fraction of a second?

[Larry Peters]

Could there be more than one headshot? One from the front, one from the back, seperated by a fraction of a second?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Drew, that's a great question. The person that stabilized that two frame clip and first brought this information to light had also done some later clips showing the moment that the head had started it's way backward. What this person said was that we all can see the result of what a bullet strike to JFK's head looked like at Z313. That if we inch the frames forward to the point where the head starts backwards, then we will notice that there isn't another sign of a missle impacting the head because with an already weakened skull - a second missile impacting the head should have caused even more damage than the first bullet. He pointed out that not one drop of splattered blood is seen when the head starts its way backwards. It was that lack of further debris being blasted from the head that showed many of us that a second shot to the head just didn't happen when following the evidence before us. His initial two frame clip showing the violent shoving of the shoulders to the rear seems to be why the head was snapped backwards after if had rocked forward and bounced off Kennedy's chest.

There is a better clip over at Lancer that details this event, but I think the one I have available from their site may do just as good. Watch the clip at the frame switch when the head starts backwards and should notice an absence of a second impact. No second explosion, no debris flying up into the air, no further damage to the skull. See what you think.

[ville huoponen]

But how about the supposed EOP entry wound? Were the doctors simply wrong about that? I´m assuming that you believe in the single tangential headshot that hit the right temple of JFK, caused the bat wing and exited from behind.

[Larry Peters]

But how about the supposed EOP entry wound? Were the doctors simply wrong about that? I´m assuming that you believe in the single tangential headshot that hit the right temple of JFK, caused the bat wing and exited from behind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the entry wound you are talking about is a spot of blood on the cowlick in an already altered autopsy photo. As I recall, they couldn't decide if that was the wound or the one Humes referenced further down on the lower head/neck area. But in either case - this was being done by way of a photograph being shown or referenced to the doctor.

I don't know anything about a shot hitting the right temple of JFK's head. The entry wound had to be along the bone plate that was dislodged from the top right side of the President's head. That wound is shown below and seems to still be attached by a small strip of scalp. The missing hair on the top part of the head is where that flap came from and along it's border somewhere has to be where the missile entered the skull. The information concerning the bullet entering along the bone plate in nearly every instance is something Dennis David said was taught at Bethesda.

Click on the first attachment below to start animation.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Larry Peters]

Duplicate message deleted

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[ville huoponen]

WC testimony of dr. Humes:"...wound was situated approximately 2.5 cm to the right, and slightly above the external occipital protuberance which is a bony prominence that can be felt in the low rear posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 cm to the right and slightly above that point..."

Now of course this wound certainly is not the ridiculous Posner & HSCA cowlick entry wound. There is absotively posilutely no way that Humes and Boswell could have erred.

I hardly need to stress that the back of the of head of JFK was gone as 100% of the witnessess said.

Now shouldn´t two holes in the back of the head mean two head shots?

[Larry Peters]

Now shouldn´t two holes in the back of the head mean two head shots?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I personally think you are talking about a round hole that was seen on an autopsy Xray that shows the back of the head intact while the right eye socket is blasted out Vs. an oval hole seen as a notch on an autopsy photo showing the peeled scalp. Something is not right here. (See pages 81 and 83 of Groden's book called "The Killing of a President")

What I can rely on is that there are not two missile impacts seen occuring on any of the assassination films. I just cannot see how a second missile slamming into JFK's already weakened head could do so without kicking up some noticeable debris and spray patterns as was done at Z313.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Anthony Frank]

His initial two frame clip showing the violent shoving of the shoulders to the rear seems to be why the head was snapped backwards after if had rocked forward and bounced off Kennedy's chest.

What about the first shot which struck Kennedy in the throat?

Contary to the Warren Commission claim that it came from behind, passed through his neck, and wounded Governor Connally, that bullet came from the front.

In fact, the Washington Post reported on December 18, 1963, that a bullet was “found deep in his shoulder,” and the fact is, it was a rifle shot to the front neck that put a bullet “deep in his shoulder.” [Washington Post, 12-18-63, page 3]

The fact is, twenty-six days after the President of the United States was violently assassinated, neither the American public nor the American press were entertaining the idea that anyone would claim that one of the bullets passed through President Kennedy and wounded the Governor of Texas.

The article on December 18, 1963, also said that the bullet found in Kennedy’s shoulder caused “a hematoma, a pooling of blood inside the neck and shoulder muscles.”

But this article was already trying to hammer the point that he was shot from behind.

It cited the “unofficial report of pathologists,” which allegedly concurred on the idea that “a fragment was deflected and passed out the front of the throat,” which had allegedly been “explained over television” by “one of the surgeons” from the hospital.

Within months of the Warren Commission's new story in September 1963, that the bullet came from behind and passed through Kennedy's throat, the doctors who tried to save his life refuted it.

Medical examinations of the neck wound had been made “before a tracheotomy had altered the wound in the front of the President’s neck . . . Doctor Rufus Baxter said the neck wound was ‘unlikely’ to be a wound of exit and ‘would more resemble a wound of entry’ . . . Doctor Charles Carrico described the wound as ‘fairly round, had no jagged edges’ . . . Doctor Ronald Jones had described it as the sort ‘you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient.’” [New York Times, 3-15-65, page 11]

Edited July 14, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[Anthony Frank]

Duplicate post deleted...

Edited July 14, 2004 by Anthony Frank

[Drew Williams]

Picture of shooter on south knoll?

[Larry Peters]

Picture of shooter on south knoll?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you consider the distance from the ground to the underside of the triple underpass and the distance to the camera - I am sure you'll see it is far too large to be a person. The picture quality in this print is not very good, but I take it to just be an artifact - possibly a fork in the tree standing just in the background.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Larry Peters

[Peter McGuire]

Picture of shooter on south knoll?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you consider the distance from the ground to the underside of the triple underpass and the distance to the camera - I am sure you'll see it is far too large to be a person. The picture quality in this print is not very good, but I take it to just be an artifact - possibly a fork in the tree standing just in the background.

How about the Z film is useless as a piece of evidence? Come on. If you believe in a government conspiracy , why whould you even consider any of their "evidence" valid.

The Z film shows a shot from the front, yet they make up some unbelievable story to counteract common sense. What is missing is the car behind the Presidential limousine, and the Agent's inaction.

When you are the government, and you are the perportrator's of the crime , you can do anything. Anything.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Peter McGuire