JACKIE ON THE TRUNK- NIX VS ZAPRUDER

[Lawrence Schnapf]

you can see something slithering across the trunk of the car. moreover, look closely at her left hand (white glove). it is pressing on JFK's head where the explosive wound was observed as if she is trying to keep his head together. 

[Richard Price]

8 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

as if she is trying to keep his head together.

Lawrence, if I am not mistaken, Jackie made a statement to someone, possibly Manchester, stating exactly what you bring up here.  I believe the statement was about the ride to Parkland and that she spent her time trying to "hold his head on" or words to that effect.

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

you can see something slithering across the trunk of the car. moreover, look closely at her left hand (white glove). it is pressing on JFK's head where the explosive wound was observed as if she is trying to keep his head together. 

This might help in viewing what you are talking about.

This is a bit gruesome.  Jackie is holding the back of his head not the side or front.  The large gaping wound with a significant portion of the skull flapping and hanging by the skin attaching to it is not being held.  It is if she doesn't see it or consider pushing that flapping skull piece back in place.

As I said earlier she is holding the back of the head where the occipital head wound seen by the Parkland Doctors is located and not the alleged wound to the side that is so visibly noticeable.  It appears she is holding that area to keep any more brain or matter from coming out.  People do crazy things under stress.  This is where she probably got the notion she could retrieve some of the skull or brain matter on the trunk for the Doctors to replace.

I visited Dealey Plaza in 2015 and Robert Groden and crew were working on the Grassy Knoll.  We had a nice discussion and I bought his DVDs and material.  However, the conversation ended abruptly with Groden and his crew when I mentioned I could probably paint the skull wound better.  They were highly insulted.

I have never believed that a quarter or half of Kennedy's head is missing and hanging off to the side as shown in this z frame 335.  That kind of wound comes after the assassination as described by others.  

Edited September 14, 2021 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

Jackie made a statement to someone, possibly Manchester, stating exactly what you bring up here.  I believe the statement was about the ride to Parkland and that she spent her time trying to "hold his head on" or words to that effect.

That is correct, and supports the notion that because she was pressing down on the right side of JFK's head during the trip to Parkland, the wound near the right ear that is clearly seen in the Zapruder film was not seen by the doctors in trauma room 1.

[Richard Price]

46 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

hat is correct, and supports the notion that because she was pressing down on the right side of JFK's head during the trip to Parkland, the wound near the right ear that is clearly seen in the Zapruder film was not seen by the doctors in trauma room 1.

I would not support that notion.  I think it obvious that tampering has been done to the Zapruder film and the frame posted by John B. is one of the more blatant.  I am not a doctor, surgeon or medically trained person, but if this "flap" were real, you couldn't hide it from me no matter what else I was concentrating on.  This wound would have been quite gory and IMPOSSIBLE to not be noticed no matter how much you "pressed" it down.  The actual wound IMO is by her right hand and is what is eliciting the anguished look on her face.  As far as the large wound by the ear goes, Jackie also made the statement (paraphrased here) "from the front, there was nothing" when describing the wounds.  I think almost anyone would admit if you were looking head on at someone, you see around their heads to the ear area, therefore negating what she said.  Being as close a witness as anyone could be, I don't think she would have said "from the front, there was nothing".

PS:  I think she also made another statement about holding the BACK of his head on, not the side.

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Richard Price said:

I would not support that notion.  I think it obvious that tampering has been done to the Zapruder film and the frame posted by John B. is one of the more blatant.  I am not a doctor, surgeon or medically trained person, but if this "flap" were real, you couldn't hide it from me no matter what else I was concentrating on.  This wound would have been quite gory and IMPOSSIBLE to not be noticed no matter how much you "pressed" it down.  The actual wound IMO is by her right hand and is what is eliciting the anguished look on her face.  As far as the large wound by the ear goes, Jackie also made the statement (paraphrased here) "from the front, there was nothing" when describing the wounds.  I think almost anyone would admit if you were looking head on at someone, you see around their heads to the ear area, therefore negating what she said.  Being as close a witness as anyone could be, I don't think she would have said "from the front, there was nothing".

PS:  I think she also made another statement about holding the BACK of his head on, not the side.

Richard,

That was an excellent comment.  I couldn't agree more.  As far as the comment "from the front, there was nothing", I have always taken that as in the front there was no wound.  Jackie said some peculiar things in her testimony some of which was hidden for some time.  I believe she was still under considerable stress when she made that statement.  I take it as there was no wound in the front and that's what we see in the autopsy photos except for the triangular cut area hiding a forehead wound in the hairline in the frontal bone not temple.

From Z 335 until the end of the film the only area I see Jackie holding is the back of the head.

Edited September 14, 2021 by John Butler

[Chris Davidson]

On 9/10/2021 at 7:03 AM, Chris Davidson said:

"Easy Like Sunday Morning"

Alteration Simplified:

[Chris Bristow]

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Alteration Simplified:

The top image from Life Mag is frame 347 and the bottom image is frame 346. Maybe Life put the wrong frame number?  You listed the bottom image as an MPI version but I have never seen any MPI versions that include the sprocket holes. I did notice that the register of the Life image is narrower that the bottom image. Maybe Life shrunk the width a bit to fit multiple images on the page.

 

[Chris Davidson]

MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"

I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.

So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.

The frame numbers are just a diversion.

There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.

But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

47 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"

I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.

So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.

The frame numbers are just a diversion.

There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.

But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.

 

 

 

 

Okay I went back to page one and looked at the composite you have. You hinted that there were things wrong but I did not see the flower disappear at the time. It is very interesting because it does really disappear. The saturation levels are very different but I don't think that would explain it, so it is very interesting.

You said it was a composite of two consecutive frames. So you're saying the MPI image has something added to it's left side for sprocket holes and at the top which reveals the legs of the couple standing back behind Bothun?

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

MPI frames are numbered at the end of the DVD "JFK-Image Of An Assassin"

I've already given an example of the Life frame(Easy Like Sunday Morning) from another source other than MPI and the flower is not there.

So, referring to the same frame content, two iterations that match each other and the Life magazine version that doesn't.

The frame numbers are just a diversion. 

There is a more egregious example of this involving another pair of frames, in due time because it coincides with the "Unveiling the Limo Stop" thread.

But rest assured, the 347 example is only a part of it.

 

 

 

 

Are you talking about a single flower or the bouquet of flowers?  If a single flower then the wind could be blowing it around in different frames.  The bumpiness of the ride could perhaps shift a flower around.  It was windy that day.  But, since the time is very short for a flower to appear and disappear in 18th of a second I have no answer.  Particularly with different versions of the film.

I'm struggling with trying to understand what you are saying?  Whether or not I understand it is not important.  I mentioned to another recently that the Z film is full of errors.  The technical ones I avoid not being a techie.  I simply work with content errors such as Phil Willis' extra long leg in Z 157.  

A bouquet of yellow roses was given to Nellie Conway.  They are visible from Z307 to about Z383.  More interesting to me is how Nellie and John got so low in the vehicle.  It's as if the floorboard was lowered.

I once tried to list all of the content errors I saw in the Z film, but I don't thing folks were interested.  

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

Anyway, back to the flash attachment.  It really looks like there is a flash attachment there.

 

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The top image from Life Mag is frame 347 and the bottom image is frame 346. Maybe Life put the wrong frame number?  You listed the bottom image as an MPI version but I have never seen any MPI versions that include the sprocket holes. I did notice that the register of the Life image is narrower that the bottom image. Maybe Life shrunk the width a bit to fit multiple images on the page.

 

Back to magic shadows. 

 

In Z345 Bothun's shadow is 10 degrees.  The man behind is 8 degrees.  The people at the tops shadow is 8 degrees.  And, the person diving for the ground to the left of Altgens is 12 degrees.  I used a simple method to arrive at the varying numbers of degrees.  Not very scientific, but I'm sure there is not that much of an error in computing the various shadow degrees.  This with the Dorman/Zapruder comparison on the SW corner raises a number of questions.

I am going to assume whoever put this film together would have done it at a place similar to Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.

I'm not saying this was done at Jaggers, etc.  But, it may have been done at a superior photo lab such as the Hawkeye Works.  We see in Jaggers, etc many machines with different operators.  Different operators may have done their bit to a frame, lets say insert Bothun (the Altgens copy) that was passed on to them from a different work station and once they had done their work passed it on.  Errors could creep in when different folks inserted their character and then painted in the shadow. 

David Healey is the master here and he can straighten out my speculative thinking in no time. 

 

[Chris Bristow]

57 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Back to magic shadows. 

 

In Z345 Bothun's shadow is 10 degrees.  The man behind is 8 degrees.  The people at the tops shadow is 8 degrees.  And, the person diving for the ground to the left of Altgens is 12 degrees.  I used a simple method to arrive at the varying numbers of degrees.  Not very scientific, but I'm sure there is not that much of an error in computing the various shadow degrees.  This with the Dorman/Zapruder comparison on the SW corner raises a number of questions.

I am going to assume whoever put this film together would have done it at a place similar to Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.

I'm not saying this was done at Jaggers, etc.  But, it may have been done at a superior photo lab such as the Hawkeye Works.  We see in Jaggers, etc many machines with different operators.  Different operators may have done their bit to a frame, lets say insert Bothun (the Altgens copy) that was passed on to them from a different work station and once they had done their work passed it on.  Errors could creep in when different folks inserted their character and then painted in the shadow. 

David Healey is the master here and he can straighten out my speculative thinking in no time. 

 

It looks like your measurements are correct. As a person walks they lean a bit forward as they put weight on the front foot. Even a person standing still can shift weight from the heels to the ball of the foot. I write off small differences due to that effect.
What is certain is that Observing shadows in the plaza from different angles absolutely changes the shadow angle.  In Z 405 the shadows from the lampposts  point downward to the right side of the frame. At frame 221 the shadow of the tree is pointing to the left and is almost horizontal. This is because Z is panning and changing his camera angle to the Sun. He does not move to a different location, he simply changes the direction the camera is pointing.
If your going to consider the possibility that the shadows are an incorrect alteration of the film, you first have to calculate what differences you should see due to perspective and subtract that from the perceived anomaly. That is not a vague estimation of distortion. We know the height and angles very well so we can determine exactly what distortion we should see. If you subtract the real world distortion and there is still some anomaly left, then you have a hypothesis to work with.  But so far the natural differences in camera height and angle to the subject, and to the Sun, provide a accurate explanation for  the different shadow angles in Z and Dorman.

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Okay I went back to page one and looked at the composite you have. You hinted that there were things wrong but I did not see the flower disappear at the time. It is very interesting because it does really disappear. The saturation levels are very different but I don't think that would explain it, so it is very interesting.

You said it was a composite of two consecutive frames. So you're saying the MPI image has something added to it's left side for sprocket holes and at the top which reveals the legs of the couple standing back behind Bothun?

Besides the same frame with/without the flower:  

The Life frame should have a small part of the lower sprocket hole showing even with the crop used, unless they manually filled it in.

Just compare it to the layered matching frame(without the flower)beneath it, in the gif previously provided.

The crop at the top of Bothun's head in Life is going to eliminate the couple's legs so no determination on that aspect.

My use of the phrase "composite of two consecutive frames" doesn't exclude the removal of frames in between.

It's just a description of what I'm showing at the present time.