Jump to content
The Education Forum

Please explain what I am seeing in this Dealey Plaza video.


Sandy Larsen

Recommended Posts

First look at this still:

croft.jpg

That's the west end of the TSBD in the background. There is nothing but parking lot west of that.

Okay, now look at this short video:

couchloveladyshelley7l8kuy.gif

Looking at the 2nd story of the TSBD, the southwest corner of it can be seen just to the left of the right-most traffic sign. HOWEVER, there appears to be something extending west of that on the bottom floor. There is a dark rectangular area that has within five whitish diamond shapes arranged the way they would be on dice. It looks like it has a flat roof over it. The left end of the "roof" looks like it is attached to another building-like structure. This is all supposed to be parking lot, as seen in the top photo.

Please explain how my eyes are fooling me.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! Turns out my eyes weren't deceiving me after all.

As far as I can tell, that first-floor extension is now gone... at least on the west end of the building. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So what I see in the top photo isn't the TSBD proper, but rather the extension.

Thanks David!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First look at this still:

croft.jpg

I hate to bring up old stuff, but I guess I for one am not up to speed on it, so would appreciate some brief comment. I note in this still that JFK's coat is considerably bunched, and someone drew a red box around it. This photo would be only seconds before the shooting.

Cliff Varnell, you're the person to ask. What's up with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First look at this still:

croft.jpg

I hate to bring up old stuff, but I guess I for one am not up to speed on it, so would appreciate some brief comment. I note in this still that JFK's coat is considerably bunched, and someone drew a red box around it. This photo would be only seconds before the shooting.

Cliff Varnell, you're the person to ask. What's up with that?

Ron, check out JFK's visible shirt collar.

The jacket collar rode in a normal position, the lower margin of the collar at C6/C7, just above the base of the neck.

According to all LNers and a whole lot of CTs JFK was shot in the back base of the neck, or slightly below.

According to this scenario multiple inches of shirt and jacket were bunched up entirely above this in-shoot without pushing upon the jacket collar.

Flat-out impossible.

Obvious, ain't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, check out JFK's visible shirt collar.

The jacket collar rode in a normal position, the lower margin of the collar at C6/C7, just above the base of the neck.

According to all LNers and a whole lot of CTs JFK was shot in the back base of the neck, or slightly below.

According to this scenario multiple inches of shirt and jacket were bunched up entirely above this in-shoot without pushing upon the jacket collar.

Flat-out impossible.

Obvious, ain't it?

Okay, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to all LNers and a whole lot of CTs JFK was shot in the back base of the neck, or slightly below.

Really? A lot of CTers believe JFK was shot higher than he really was? That's very surprising.

Can you give some examples? Either famous ones or ones on this forum.

Dr. Cyril Wecht

Dr. David Mantik

Dr. Josiah Thompson

Roger Feinman

Pat Speer

Stuart Wexler

Martin Hay

John Hunt

Jim DiEugenio seems to think they have an argument, apparently, given his hostility toward the clothing evidence.

The only way I can explain this is "incompetent research methods," pure and simple.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to all LNers and a whole lot of CTs JFK was shot in the back base of the neck, or slightly below.

Really? A lot of CTers believe JFK was shot higher than he really was? That's very surprising.

Can you give some examples? Either famous ones or ones on this forum.

Dr. Cyril Wecht

Dr. David Mantik

Dr. Josiah Thompson

Roger Feinman

Pat Speer

Stuart Wexler

Martin Hay

John Hunt

Jim DiEugenio seems to think they have an argument, apparently, given his hostility toward the clothing evidence.

The only way I can explain this is "incompetent research methods," pure and simple.

Thanks for the list, Cliff. Maybe they buy into the bunched-up jacket argument. Because if they don't buy that, then it should be obvious that the bullet hit the back around T3, well below the neck.

I think some jackets might bunch up some. (Though not four inches.) But a shirt certainly wouldn't.

Regardless, the videos and stills don't indicate substantial bunching up.

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
×
×
  • Create New...