Jump to content
The Education Forum

Back exit wound?


David Andrews
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tom Rossley, whose site is www.whokilledjfk.net, was on Black Op Radio this week.

At the "Single Bullet" tab on his home page is this analysis of a Croft photo by "someone from law enforcement."

What is opinion out there on this segment from the page? Whole page at http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm

With all respect to Mr. Rossley.

Comparison Croft photo:

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let me point out that investigating some problematic things can often lead to other discoveries.

Take a look at this youtube offering, described as an "undamaged" Zapruder with missing frames intact. I seem to see more of Jack and Jackie before they disappear behind the "sign." I seem to see JFK reacting before disappearing behind the sign.

I also seem to see the moment where Jackie's head (already turned toward JFK after the Croft photo moment) turns more sharply toward JFK's face, before she, too, disappears behind the sign. I don't see that last detail in "stabilized" Zapruders.

"Undamaged" Zapruder at:

(Sorry - I don't know how to upload the clip.)

Comparison rear-view still:

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, presuming the Z-film is not a fake, there is no way Kennedy was hit at the time of the Croft photo. The Croft photo is at Z-161. The Z-film shows Kennedy turn to his right, smile and wave to some women after this point. There is no way he could have or would have done this after being shot. The witnesses, furthermore, claimed Kennedy was shot during this wave. This supports that Kennedy was hit circa Z-190. Connally, when first shown the film, thought Kennedy was hit at this time. Since the Warren Commission was afraid to say Kennedy was hit at this time, as the limousine was at this time partially hidden behind a tree, they decided to have the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt testify that there was no evidence Kennedy was hit before coming out from behind the sign. They then proposed JFK was hit somewhere between Z-210 and Z-225, when he was behind the sign or just coming out from behind the sign. I believe they knew this to be a lie.

In any event, the HSCA photographic panel studied the film and, as Connally, decided Kennedy was hit before heading behind the sign in the film. The HSCA said okay, and claimed a shooter from the sniper's nest might have tried to fire through a break in the tree at this point. Okay. I agree. In their zeal to prop up the single-bullet theory, however, the HSCA decided Connally was also hit at this point, and that he showed no reaction until seconds later.

Well, this was a problem, even for single-assassin theorists, who never met a ridiculous assertion propping up the single-bullet theory that they didn't like. Close study of the film by theorists in the 80's and 90's suggested that yes, indeed, the HSCA was full of smoke, and that Connally was hit circa Z-224 and not Z-190. Now this is the good part. They then decided to pretend there was no evidence Kennedy was hit before Z-224. The claimed his rapid reaction to being wounded after Z-224 was related to something called Thorburn's response. This was later proved to be a hoax. They created animated versions of the Z-film showing Kennedy smiling and waving until being hit at the same time as Connally. This animation has since been proven to be inaccurate, and inaccurate in such a way that it suggests a deliberate deception.

Kennedy's movements on the film before he heads behind the sign are the proof of the lie. Dale Myers, the creator of the most widely-seen animated version of the shooting, tried to get around the HSCA photographic panel's interpretation by claiming close study of the film shows that Kennedy was not reacting to a shot, but checking out some chicks. Ridiculous. But at least he has plausible deniability. When the eyes of history look down on him and say "How could you be so mistaken?" he can claim "Well, I guess I was wrong! Sorry!" Not so Vincent Bugliosi. In the 1986 mock trial of Oswald, Bugliosi called as a prosecution witness Cecil Kirk, head of the HSCA photographic panel. He had Kirk testify Kennedy was hit circa frame 190, before he went behind the sign. When Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History came out in 2007, however, Bugliosi was now claiming, a la Myers, that Kennedy was not hit until circa frame 224. So you'd think he'd just ignore Kirk, right? Wrong? He repeatedly cites Kirk in his book, trading upon Kirk's expertise, but NEVER tells his readers that not only did Kirk believe Kennedy was shot seconds before Bugliosi claims Connally was shot, but that Bugliosi had taken testimony saying as much in the mock trial serving as the back drop for Bugliosi's book.

ARRGGHH! Will the parade of lies and liars never cease!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm after two different things in post #1 and post #2. I appreciate why people may be confused.

In post #1, I asked for opinion because I was hoping that someone would refute most points made about the Croft photo by that "someone in law enforcement."

There was one point that I excepted for consideration: what if there was a back exit wound from the front throat wound, later concealed by photo and autopsy tampering? Clint Hill, after all, reported seeing a bullet strike at JFK's right shoulder - and how easy is it to see an entrance strike on a moving dark suitcoat? Another writer has postulated that the head damage is the result of the frontal throat shot exiting - and that's clearly at odds with timing by the extant Z-film and by witness testimony-timing.

Others have thought the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I have always wondered where the frontal throat bullet went. Was it a small-caliber or low-powered load? Why no exit wound for it? In Altgens 6, when Clint Hill and others on the Queen Mary are looking behind them, and the motor cop at left is looking at Kennedy, are they reacting to the exit flight of the frontal shot, which has just penetrated both the limo windshield and JFK's throat and back?

That was where my interest in the Croft photo analysis was headed to for me, and that was why I was fishing for opinion to consider. I did name this thread "Back Exit Wound?" but I should have taken time to be up-front about my interest, hunting rather than fishing.

Not everything I, or anybody, posts here is presented as a testament or a certainty. Sometimes people just want opinion. Apparently, in not responding, everybody agreed that the Croft analysis is beneath notice - but also believed that I put credence in it. Please don't understand me too quickly, as Andre Gide said. Though I see why people might have.

In post #2 I was hoping that people would look at that "undamaged" Zapruder that I found up on youtube while I was looking for points to refute the Croft photo analysis. When I look at the "undamaged" version, and compare it to a "stabilized" Z also up on youtube - I really think I'm seeing more motion from JFK just before he disappears. And I think I'm seeing motion by Jackie that does not appear in the stabilized. (I should not have called JFK's motion a "reaction," which made it sound as if I was linking it to the Croft photo analysis.)

I believe we can see more action inside the limo at the top of the sign in the "undamaged" clip than we see in other versions. I wanted other eyes to compare the "undamaged" to their preferred Z-version, and offer commentary. I wasn't trying to use the comparison to prove the Croft photo analysis.

I really should have posted the "undamaged" thread separately, but I was stuck on the idea of showing that all research is capable of merit, even if in just accidentally producing another item needing consideration while disproving another. It's an error to get that stuck on dragging good out of bad, probably as well an error to try to defend that motive at length. I'm glad that Pat was able to use this to point out discrepancies in the timing to Z. I think, though, that the extant Z is as tampered with as CE 399 is pristine.

I wish everybody would take 12 seconds in Dallas and compare that "undamaged" Zapruder to another version and give an opinion on differences at the top of the sign. I'm sorry that I didn't make my position in both posts/objects clearer.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm after two different things in post #1 and post #2. I appreciate why people may be confused.

In post #1, I asked for opinion because I was hoping that someone would refute most points made about the Croft photo by that "someone in law enforcement."

There was one point that I excepted for consideration: what if there was a back exit wound from the front throat wound, later concealed by photo and autopsy tampering? Clint Hill, after all, reported seeing a bullet strike at JFK's right shoulder - and how easy is it to see an entrance strike on a moving dark suitcoat? Another writer has postulated that the head damage is the result of the frontal throat shot exiting - and that's clearly at odds with timing by the extant Z-film and by witness testimony-timing.

Others have thought the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I have always wondered where the frontal throat bullet went. Was it a small-caliber or low-powered load? Why no exit wound for it? In Altgens 6, when Clint Hill and others on the Queen Mary are looking behind them, and the motor cop at left is looking at Kennedy, are they reacting to the exit flight of the frontal shot, which has just penetrated both the limo windshield and JFK's throat and back?

That was where my interest in the Croft photo analysis was headed to for me, and that was why I was fishing for opinion to consider. I did name this thread "Back Exit Wound?" but I should have taken time to be up-front about my interest, hunting rather than fishing.

Not everything I, or anybody, posts here is presented as a testament or a certainty. Sometimes people just want opinion. Apparently, in not responding, everybody agreed that the Croft analysis beneath notice - but also believed that I put credence in it. Please don't understand me too quickly, as Andre Gide said. Though I see why people might have.

In post #2 I was hoping that people would look at that "undamaged" Zapruder that I found up on youtube while I was looking for points to refute the Croft photo analysis. When I look at the "undamaged" version, and compare it to a "stabilized" Z also up on youtube - I really think I'm seeing more motion from JFK just before he disappears. And I think I'm seeing motion by Jackie that does not appear in the stabilized. (I should not have called JFK's motion a "reaction," which made it sound as if I was linking it to the Croft photo analysis.)

I believe we can see more action inside the limo at the top of the sign in the "undamaged" clip than we see in other versions. I wanted other eyes to compare the "undamaged" to their preferred Z-version, and offer commentary. I wasn't trying to use the comparison to prove the Croft photo analysis.

I really should have posted the "undamaged" thread separately, but I was stuck on the idea of showing that all research is capable of merit, even if in just accidentally producing another item needing consideration while disproving another. It's an error to get that stuck on dragging good out of bad, probably as well an error to try to defend that motive at length. I'm glad that Pat was able to use this to point out discrepancies in the timing to Z. I think, though, that the extant Z is is as tampered with as CE 399 is pristine.

I wish everybody would take 12 seconds in Dallas and compare that "undamaged" Zapruder to another version and give an opinion on differences at the top of the sign. I'm sorry that I didn't make my position in both posts/objects clearer.

David, while doing a comparison between the Z-film and Dale Myers' animation I took a closer look at frames 208-211 and came to a similar belief. While JFK stays put just above the top of the sign, Jackie bounces all over the place. It is clear she's reacting to a shot and staring at her husband. I believe that's one of the reasons Myers couldn't find the time to include her in his cartoon. It also raised the question with me if that wasn't why the frames disappeared. Perhaps someone...Specter?... realized if those frames were published, the public would never believe the first shot wasn't fired til Z-210, as the WC was preparing to propose.

followtheb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For David,

Groden's version with the sign stabilized.

http://72.130.171.59:8400/85004/4.gif

Jackie's head rises as they near the sign.

chris

Well, I'm after two different things in post #1 and post #2. I appreciate why people may be confused.

In post #1, I asked for opinion because I was hoping that someone would refute most points made about the Croft photo by that "someone in law enforcement."

There was one point that I excepted for consideration: what if there was a back exit wound from the front throat wound, later concealed by photo and autopsy tampering? Clint Hill, after all, reported seeing a bullet strike at JFK's right shoulder - and how easy is it to see an entrance strike on a moving dark suitcoat? Another writer has postulated that the head damage is the result of the frontal throat shot exiting - and that's clearly at odds with timing by the extant Z-film and by witness testimony-timing.

Others have thought the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I have always wondered where the frontal throat bullet went. Was it a small-caliber or low-powered load? Why no exit wound for it? In Altgens 6, when Clint Hill and others on the Queen Mary are looking behind them, and the motor cop at left is looking at Kennedy, are they reacting to the exit flight of the frontal shot, which has just penetrated both the limo windshield and JFK's throat and back?

That was where my interest in the Croft photo analysis was headed to for me, and that was why I was fishing for opinion to consider. I did name this thread "Back Exit Wound?" but I should have taken time to be up-front about my interest, hunting rather than fishing.

Not everything I, or anybody, posts here is presented as a testament or a certainty. Sometimes people just want opinion. Apparently, in not responding, everybody agreed that the Croft analysis beneath notice - but also believed that I put credence in it. Please don't understand me too quickly, as Andre Gide said. Though I see why people might have.

In post #2 I was hoping that people would look at that "undamaged" Zapruder that I found up on youtube while I was looking for points to refute the Croft photo analysis. When I look at the "undamaged" version, and compare it to a "stabilized" Z also up on youtube - I really think I'm seeing more motion from JFK just before he disappears. And I think I'm seeing motion by Jackie that does not appear in the stabilized. (I should not have called JFK's motion a "reaction," which made it sound as if I was linking it to the Croft photo analysis.)

I believe we can see more action inside the limo at the top of the sign in the "undamaged" clip than we see in other versions. I wanted other eyes to compare the "undamaged" to their preferred Z-version, and offer commentary. I wasn't trying to use the comparison to prove the Croft photo analysis.

I really should have posted the "undamaged" thread separately, but I was stuck on the idea of showing that all research is capable of merit, even if in just accidentally producing another item needing consideration while disproving another. It's an error to get that stuck on dragging good out of bad, probably as well an error to try to defend that motive at length. I'm glad that Pat was able to use this to point out discrepancies in the timing to Z. I think, though, that the extant Z is is as tampered with as CE 399 is pristine.

I wish everybody would take 12 seconds in Dallas and compare that "undamaged" Zapruder to another version and give an opinion on differences at the top of the sign. I'm sorry that I didn't make my position in both posts/objects clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Chris - that was useful to see. I think there's a bit more detail, though obscured by camera jerk, in the "undamaged" clip, though.

David,

You're welcome.

The clip I stabilized is from Groden's undamaged version.

I believe the U-tube version you gave the link to, is the same film.

I know of no other undamaged version, which is available.

I'll create the stabilization again, in movie form.

This might help "detail wise", as opposed to the gif.

Give me a little time.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...