Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) Cliff, You may be right that it wasn't Betzner. It was some new film that had been found in someone's closet or some such nonsense. The Jefferies film! The Jefferies film is great. Taken on Main St it shows JFK's jacket bulging up into his hairline. But at the corner of Main and Houston JFK brushed the back of his head and the bulge got knocked down (Weaver photo). The shirt collar is visible in Betzner, but not in Jefferies. It showed the jacket bunched up as Lamson has described it--about 3". It was an obvious fake. What isn't fake--to the best of my knowledge!--is this Altgens, where you can see the through and through hole in the windshield. I have other studies in my books, but you can't be serious when you suggest I should transfer their content to a thread like this. YOU NEED TO READ THEM! I'm just asking what proof precludes the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot, and why we should view the neck x-ray as inauthentic. I've yet to see so much as a hint of an argument here. Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) dupe Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) You keep showing the less important of these two photographs, where the second is the crucial one. Were those Warren Commission staffers in the limo, or FBI men? If Specter were in control of the re-creation why does he stand there looking like an idiot with his pointer four inches above the wound? Edited April 8, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Cliff, You are being obstinate. I have given you the pages numbers of the books that discuss all of this. The kind of argument you are making here--"Well, I haven't seen the proof on this thread in the past five minutes!"--is (or should be) beneath you. Track down MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and read the chapter by Doug Weldon for openers. I can't reproduce it here on this thread. I have explained where you should go for the most important discussions of the evidence related to this specific question and I really don't think I should have to spoon-feed you beyond this. If you are serious, you will study the sources I have provided. I can assure you, there is no reason to doubt that this was the throat shot. Jim Cliff, This worries me. Have you never read Douglas Weldon's chapter in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)? We have many witnesses to the hole in the windshield from Parkland, which was even described in his column in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (21 December 1963) by Richard Dudman and discussed by Bob Livingston, M.D., in several of his contributions to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). The Dudman piece may be found on page 167, Bob's on pages 165-166, among other places. The hole is even visible in the Altgens, as I have explained in many places, including on page 149 of MURDER. (I contrast it with the substitute presented by the Secret Service, which is shown on page 157, as well as yet another on page 158. And did you miss my comparison of the windshields on page 436 of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Are you unaware of these reports and of Weldon's study or are they excluded by the methodology you have announced of basing your work on "the historical record", as though "the historical record" were clear and unambiguous. I am fairly taken aback by your dismissal of the studies of the medical evidence by David W. Mantik, who is the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, and your apparent ignorance of Weldon's studies. He even tracked down the official at Ford who had been responsible for replacing the windshield. How can you be serious and neglect it? Jim It showed the jacket bunched up as Lamson has described it--about 3". It was an obvious fake. What isn't fake--to the best of my knowledge!--is this Altgens, where you can see the through and through hole in the windshield. I have other studies in my books, but you can't be serious when you suggest I should transfer their content to a thread like this. YOU NEED TO READ THEM! I'm just asking what proof precludes the windshield shot being separate from the throat shot, and why we should view the neck x-ray as inauthentic. I've yet to see so much as a hint of an argument here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) From Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, pg. 192: Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, who assisted in the May 24 reenactment, recalled that the chalk mark on JFK's stand in "represented the point of the shot which wounded the President." The chalk mark, Kelley told the Commission, was based on the "medical drawings by physicians and people at Parkland" and an examination of the coat JFK was wearing at the time of the assassination. In this reenactment the coat on "President Kennedy" is not riding up his back Edited April 9, 2011 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Cliff, You are being obstinate. I have given you the pages numbers of the books that discuss all of this. The kind of argument you are making here--"Well, I haven't seen the proof on this thread in the past five minutes!"--is (or should be) beneath you. Track down MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and read the chapter by Doug Weldon for openers. I've read my limit on the subject, Jim. I followed Weldon's battles with Pamela Brown. I followed Doug's debates with Tink. I'm not arguing that there was no t&t windshield hole, I'm just pointing out that there is no proof that the throat wound and the windshield strike were the same shot. I can't reproduce it here on this thread. Could you paraphrase the evidence which rules out the throat shot as separate from the windshield shot? I have explained where you should go for the most important discussions of the evidence related to this specific question and I really don't think I should have to spoon-feed you beyond this. Jim the only argument you have presented is that the throat shot lines up with the windshield t&t and a location on the south overpass, which is far from dispositive. If you are serious, you will study the sources I have provided. I can assure you, there is no reason to doubt that this was the throat shot. Jim Assurances don't cut it. When you or Doug Weldon offer something other than a hypothesized trajectory to establish that the throat wound and the windshield strike were the same shot, I'll take it seriously. And the nature of the damage in the neck x-ray gives us plenty reason to doubt that JFK was hit with a conventional round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF ) Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat Now, thats interesting Robin. To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great. I would never have this idea i believe. The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures) You raise (again) interesting questions. best to you Martin Hi Martin. I was never intending to try to overlay exactly one image onto the other, as you say, that would be nearly inpossible as the two images were not taken from the same angle, height etc: The two NARA images have not been resized, or angle adjusted in any way. What i did do, is move one image layer across the top of the other, until the two bullit holes aligned the GIF above was the result. Cheers. Robin Edited April 9, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Blood stain. ( bullit hole aligned GIF ) Place your mouse cursor on the bullit hole to align the hole in the shirt with the hole in the coat Now, thats interesting Robin. To place clothing, maybe shot from different directions (camera location) to an overlay in a GIF is a good idea but it's difficult. It's maybe impossible to get it perfect. But the whole idea is great. I would never have this idea i believe. The difference is astonishing. I mean the blood traces/contures) You raise (again) interesting questions. best to you Martin A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap. Pat I agree that the blood down the centre of the back was probably from the back wound prior to Z-312 But your not seriously trying to say that the huge blood spot on the left side of the shirt ,was from the back wound as kennedy lay on his left side. ? Did all this blood on the front of the shirt also come from the back wound .? Coat and shirt as viewed from the front. Edited April 9, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Edited April 9, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) We can learn a lot about causality from discussing why phenomena occur, and occur in relation to each other - though a strict phenomenologist would sniff at the idea of questioning Why. Apropos of this, perhaps we should wonder why the back wound wasn't placed even higher on the back than it was in the autopsy photos. Why not make things even easier? What stopped it? Will this resolve important discrepancies? No, but we might better understand why they exist. Edited April 9, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Small aligned GIF Shirt image resized and rotated slightly.. Edited April 9, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 hi Robin; As has been mentioned, JFK fell to his left towards onto, Jackie's lap, that would cause the heavy blood flow to the left from the head wound,imo take care b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) hi Robin; As has been mentioned, JFK fell to his left towards onto, Jackie's lap, that would cause the heavy blood flow to the left from the head wound,imo take care b Yes i agree B Unless i read Pat's post to Martin incorrectly, he implied that the blood on the left of the shirt, came mainly from the BACK WOUND before the head shot and then continued as kennedy lay in jackie'a lap I do agree that the blood in the middle section of the back more than likely came from the back wound before frame z-312 What i don't agree with is that the back wound alone, caused the huge blood stain seen on kennedys left shirt shoulder, and on the front of the shirt on the same side . Pat Speers Quote: A quick thought. The blood on the shirt came primarily from the back wound. That is why so much of it drips straight down. It was already headed in this direction when Kennedy was hit in the head and fell over, and then continued on in this direction when Jackie put his head in her lap. Question: As kennedy lay in Jackie's lap and the blood from the head wound saturated the leftt shoulder of the suit coat. How did the blood on the suit coat, then get onto the left shoulder of the shirt. ? Did the blood from the head wound streem down the back of the neck onto the shirt. ? Looking at the painting below depicting ( one possible scenario for what may have happened at Parkland )kennedy's head in Jackies lap. why wasn't Jackies dress more blood stained to the same degree as we see on the shirt. ? Edited April 9, 2011 by Robin Unger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 Those small "shrapnel wounds" on his face appear to have been made by shards of glass from the windshield. Jim, keep in mind that the throat shot occurred circa Z190. Altgens was snapped at Z255. In between Connally was hit, perhaps twice. A military style volley with multiple shooters will sound like a single report, right? We don't know how many shots were fired into the limo by Z255. There is a possibility that a shot after Z190 struck the windshield prior to Z255. I'm jus' say'n... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Hi Martin. I was never intending to try to overlay exactly one image onto the other, as you say, that would be nearly inpossible as the two images were not taken from the same angle, height etc: The two NARA images have not been resized, or angle adjusted in any way. What i did do, is move one image layer across the top of the other, until the two bullit holes aligned the GIF above was the result. Cheers. Robin I know Robin. As i said, the whole idea to overlay the two images is great. best to you my friend Martin Edit: After re-reading some passages again i'am a bit confused. It is my understanding that Pat meant the backwound of the "head". I believe it's Pat's theory the JFK was hit once in the head from behind. Surely, i believe the vast majority of blood on the clothes does come from the head wound and not the wound in the back of JFK. Edited April 9, 2011 by Martin Hinrichs 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