Wim Dankbaar Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) Why can you as much of her glove as you see? Edited November 3, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Can you elaborate? I've no idea what the point of this post is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I think others will see my point. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Well I'm sorry but it escapes me too !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Wim likes to be mysterious, lest he be wrong. Tell us, Wim...what are we all missing that you see? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Hall Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Wim- Could you please tell us what the handwritten note says? I can't read it or blow the picture up to a legible degree. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 (edited) I thought it was obvious. You should not see that whole glove if part of JFK's head weren't missing. That is not the contour of a normal intact head. It has a crater in it. I like to be mysterious? Well, at least not as mysterious as "badgeman", disappearing Mrs Franzen and a moonlanding that allegedly never happened. Wim Edited November 3, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 OK... I thought that was what you were getting at, but the image is too indistinct to tell. It is more interesting that is where Jackie is looking...at the back of his head. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 OK... I thought that was what you were getting at, but the image is too indistinct to tell.It is more interesting that is where Jackie is looking...at the back of his head. Jack Well, the image is a lot more distinct than "badgeman". Besides, there is the laws of physics. You should not see an object that is covered with another object. The fact that you see as much of Jackie's glove, means that the normal curve of JFK's back skull is absent (because of a gaping wound that all the doctors saw). http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 (edited) Christopher, I`ll give it my best..... Brad,the drawing below is an exact copy in regard to location & dimensions of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966.Best wishes Robert McClelland. Edited November 4, 2008 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 This should be easier to see.... Dated Jan. 24th 1994......Dr.McClelland B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Why can you as much of her glove as you see? In the Nix film, when Kennedy gets the shot, you see her hand tap on, then lift, from Pres. Kennedy's head, as she gets up to crawl onto the trunk of the limo. I think only one glove was caked with blood and the other not too much. I think we're seeing the cleaner one. IMO. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Small gif made from frames taken from JFK THE MOVIE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share Posted November 6, 2008 Very interesting, but I disagree with Robert Harris on two points. 1) The second headshot from the knoll did not occur half a second later but a split second later, almost simultaneously. within one Zapruder frame, thus within 1/18 second. The shot from the rear was not an explosive bullet, the shot from the front was. The forward headsnap is caused by the bullet from behind, which strikes first. This forward headsnap is not visible to the naked eye at normal speed. It can only be detected by comparing frame 312 and 313. The head snaps forward about 2-3 inches. This is caused by the bullet from the behind. What we see being blown out of the right temple at frame 313 is debris from the IMPACT from the grassy knoll bullet, which strikes a fraction later than the back bullet. Many people don't know this, but that is how debris behaves when a bullet strikes something. It leaves a cone of debris in the opposite direction of the bullet, much like a stone hitting the water. This same bullet then explodes inside the skull after penetrating the temple bone, causing the major blowout in the back of the head, as well as the temple flap of skull where it entered. 2) The autopsy photo of the back of the head IS a forgery. There is no way that the damage done to the back of the head , described by all the doctors and actually visible in the Zapruder film could look like that just by folding back a bone flap with skin and hair on it. Besides, there was still much bone missing (think of the large Harper fragment for example). This photo does not show any holes in the head. It looks like Kennedy has received no wound there whatsoever. In addition, an honest autopsy would show the wounds as they actually were and appeared to the eye, NOT to cover-up (literally) how they looked like. Examining and photographing the wounds as they are, is what an autopsy is all about. The wounds in this photo are no way near to what they actually looked like. Wim PS: Duncan, you're good with drawing lines in photographs. Can you draw the countours of JFK's head in the two photos I posted to start this topic? That would make it really clear. 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