Ed O'Hagan Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 What you were not meant to see. Look very closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I see dark clouds over the White House and trouble for Liz and Dick. Help us out, Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ed, your photos, as usual, serve to explain how and who killed Kennedy. Priceless. Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Back brace or no back brace, it would have been neurologically/physiologically impossible for JFK - or anyone else for that matter - to have remained seated in an almost upright position after having been shot through the back and throat. The blue dots represent the approximate position of JFK's eyes. When her husband slumped sideways into her lap gasping, having been just shot in the back and the throat, do you really believe Jackie just sat there and did nothing? Look again , and you may conclude otherwise. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ed, The "approximate position of JFK's eyes"??? Believe me, I respect your work and want to understand the evidence as you present it. So please feel free to point out just how dense I am, and offense will not be taken. Are we not looking at JFK in profile? Are not the dots (from right to left) at the approximate positions of JFK's right eye and top of right ear? Are you suggesting that we are seeing a full-face image of JFK in this frame? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ed wrote: Back brace or no back brace, it would have been neurologically/physiologically impossible for JFK - or anyone else for that matter - to have remained seated in an almost upright position after having been shot through the back and throat. dgh: Agreed! The blue dots represent the approximate position of JFK's eyes. When her husband slumped sideways into her lap gasping, having been just shot in the back and the throat, do you really believe Jackie just sat there and did nothing? Look again , and you may conclude otherwise. .... dgh: so your suggesting Ed, JFK's head and body twisted to the right while he was falling-leaning towards Jackie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ed wrote:Back brace or no back brace, it would have been neurologically/physiologically impossible for JFK - or anyone else for that matter - to have remained seated in an almost upright position after having been shot through the back and throat. dgh: Agreed! The blue dots represent the approximate position of JFK's eyes. When her husband slumped sideways into her lap gasping, having been just shot in the back and the throat, do you really believe Jackie just sat there and did nothing? Look again , and you may conclude otherwise. .... dgh: so your suggesting Ed, JFK's head and body twisted to the right while he was falling-leaning towards Jackie? David, It appears that immediately prior to the head shot, JFK's head was resting in Jackie's arms below the level of the top of the rear seat, and thereby rendering a shot being fired from anywhere directly to the rear of the limousine impossible. However, the back of his head was then exposed in the direct line of fire of a rifleman located high in the post-office building , and who could see downwards into the limousine. Very briefly, since a more detailed account is posted on my website, what happened is very likely as follows: -The shooter fired at JFK's head, missed and hit John Connolly with a downward aimed shot which caused all of Connolly's wounds. His second shot hit JFK in the back of his head. The downward trajectory of the bullet and the downward tilting of JFK's resulted in providing the impression that the trajectory was less inclined to the horizontal than it actually was. - The impact of the bullet carried JFK diagonally forward and into the rear of the jump seat(s). The Connolly's were then resultingly thrown forward into the rear of the front seat(s). - Due to the fact that JFK's legs ended up blocking Jackie from getting to him directly, she was compelled to turn around , stand up on the seat, lean foward on the trunk, and side -step her way to the right side of the rear seat, to the point where she could reach his upper body. Z. frame # 456 is probably the best one to explore in this regard. ************ Charles , The facial 'profile' was easily contrived by a bit of shading . It was just as easily erased by me in the example provided below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Ed wrote:Back brace or no back brace, it would have been neurologically/physiologically impossible for JFK - or anyone else for that matter - to have remained seated in an almost upright position after having been shot through the back and throat. dgh: Agreed! Do you or Ed have any medical background? If there are any medical personnel that you could cite so to support your comments ... it would be appreciated. The blue dots represent the approximate position of JFK's eyes. When her husband slumped sideways into her lap gasping, having been just shot in the back and the throat, do you really believe Jackie just sat there and did nothing? Look again , and you may conclude otherwise. ....dgh: so your suggesting Ed, JFK's head and body twisted to the right while he was falling-leaning towards Jackie? Does not the Altgens #6 photo show JFK an Jackie's postures and physical location to one another ... I believe that it does. Edited January 15, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Believe me, I respect your work and want to understand the evidence as you present it. You'd have a better chance at understanding why Vincent van Gogh thought it was a good idea to cut his ear off. (sigh~) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Ed,The "approximate position of JFK's eyes"??? Are we not looking at JFK in profile? Are not the dots (from right to left) at the approximate positions of JFK's right eye and top of right ear? Are you suggesting that we are seeing a full-face image of JFK in this frame? Charles The dots do not line up with either of Kennedy's eyes. Ed is more visually astute than we. Ed is pulling our leg. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 The dots do not line up with either of Kennedy's eyes. Ed is more visually astute than we. Ed is pulling our leg. Right? Ed once posted the foliage shadows seen against the fence in Moorman's photo, and enlarged the image while claiming that we were seeing cops with cameras taking pictures of the assassination ... take it for what its worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Perhaps this roughly coloured rendition will be of assistance : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) Ed,With all due respect, that looks like the SE portion of the US. I am still concerned about JFK's "eyes" looking alot like the dot on Jackie's hat. There are artifacts on the film. The version Ed is using is MPI's version and it is a known fact that the Zapruder film was covered in artifacts ... some frames more than others. In most instances the artifacts are mold related. Some are created by way of pixel compression. I'd be less concerned about the dots and more concerned as to whether or not Ed is taking his meds. The notion that someone would think that further distortion of an image somehow offers more clarity is a sign that something is wrong with something unrelated to the film ... think about it! Edited January 17, 2008 by Bill Miller 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