Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 6 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said: 1. Visor or Vizor. Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. 2. I admit that the damage to the visor could be as the missile traveled toward the chrome trim, or after it had bounced off the chrome trim. However... 3. It was a fragment (nose or tail), not a "slug," per the Charles Taylor memo. 4. "Up" puts the visor damage that much closer to the chrome strip. I accept "up." They probably had to lower the visor in the process of putting on the bubble top. 5. You are a "genius" who "know(s) more than every one else on this forum put together"? Proof required. The 2 halves of the copper jacket of Oswald's first shot (which ricocheted off the signal arm) did not make the dent in the chrome trim. The hollowpoint slug of Hickey's 2nd-last shot made the dent. There would have been some (lots of) backward lead splatter, which could have damaged the vizors etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 7 hours ago, Sean Coleman said: A better pic, don’t think the visor is damaged? It would be nice to know what the dented trim strip is made of - these days it’s chrome plated tin, very cheap, light and malleable. I would’ve thought a vehicle of that calibre made at that time would have stainless steel trim? Which is very hard and would need to take one hell of a belt to leave such damage. I like your thinking. Yes, a thin loose chromed stainless steel trim over a rectangular steel tube would stop a hollow point from an AR15. Just. Re the white dot(s). I fry my carnivore meals outside on my balcony (while being watched by the kangaroos). The kangas have a right to be nervous, i used to fry kanga bangers, but nowadays i stick to lamb or pork mince (kanga bangers are expensive)(& all sausages have added starch & seed oil). Anyhow, i am messy & my table & balcony is peppered with cold/dry fat -- very white, Brain might too be white. I will have to google. When a person is shot in the head and his or her cerebellum splatters against a bedroom wall, the brains are very hard to clean off the surface. Popcorn ceilings are the worst—matter gets stuck inside the crevices. Brains are composed of 12 percent fat (essentially, they’re cholesterol), which hardens when it dries. The brains I’m cleaning have been here just a few hours, so I can only imagine the difficulty of the task if the substance had been lingering for weeks. “You have to rehydrate it,” David O’Brien explains to me and his other attentive pupils, who are dressed in matching white blood-borne pathogen jumpsuits. “Applying a high-grade industrial disinfectant kills numerous viruses and pathogens, as well as rehydrates it for easy removal.” Edited March 28 by Marjan Rynkiewicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 7 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said: ............Remember that i a genius know more than every one else on this forum put together. 5. You are a "genius" who "know(s) more than every one else on this forum put together"? Proof required. No i aint a genius. A snail can think faster than me. But i make up for that by putting in hours days weeks. It took me say 2 years to figure out what happened in Dealey Plaza. All of the members here combined have put in say 2000 years, & still havent figured it out. And, for the past year or so they have had the benefit of my 2 years, & they still dont get it. Finding the truth is usually difficult. But, when the truth is pointed out & explained, & members still dont understand or believe, then that suggests stupidity (or worse). I am getting smarter (but older). I used to be a quasi-raw-vegan (stupid). But i refused to eat sugar (smart). Then i refused to eat fruit (smart). Then i refused to eat bread biscuits cake (smart). Then i started to eat meat (smart). Then i refused to eat veggies (smart). But i still drink wine (stupid). A genius would have adopted the carnivore diet years ago. Edited March 28 by Marjan Rynkiewicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Toussay Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 ...The hit in the visor can actually be seen clearly in the Moorman picture.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 52 minutes ago, Christian Toussay said: The hit in the visor can actually be seen clearly in the Moorman picture.... Given that the chrome damage happened with the first shot, as I contend, this makes sense. Good eye, both Steven and Christian, for your observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) On 4/4/2024 at 2:17 AM, Christian Toussay said: ...The hit in the visor can actually be seen clearly in the Moorman picture.... The left vizor aint vizible in my copy of the Moorman polaroid?? I double checked & i could not find any copy of the Moorman polaroid that showed any part of the left vizor. U kan see the right vizor only, very blurry. The right vizor has a few white dots which might be bits of jfk. But, the Moorman polaroid has 100s of white dots all over the pix, which must be i guess found on all such polaroids in that era. Edited April 4 by Marjan Rynkiewicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) On 3/27/2024 at 4:27 AM, Sean Coleman said: Interesting, although it seems the visor was mostly in an upright position In the bottom photo, there's that pesky, easy to see bullet hole size and shape indentation into the upper inner-side windshield steel/chrome frame ... just an inch above and two inches to the right of the middle of the visor hanger piece and just behind the left edge of the right-side visor. The speculative claim that this bullet hole shaped windshield frame indentation was caused years earlier by some body repair shop in New York City when forcing on the mechanically operated hard top is ridiculous. Edited April 4 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 On 4/4/2024 at 3:12 AM, Denise Hazelwood said: Given that the chrome damage happened with the first shot, as I contend, this makes sense. Good eye, both Steven and Christian, for your observations. The left vizor aint vizible in my copy of the Moorman polaroid?? I double checked & i could not find any copy of the Moorman polaroid that showed any part of the left vizor. U kan see (one side of) the right vizor only, & this (photo) is very blurry. The right vizor has a few white dots (on the face facing jfk during the shots) & these dots might be bits of jfk. But, the Moorman polaroid has 100s of white dots all over the pix, i guess that such white dots are found on all such polaroids in that era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denise Hazelwood Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 11 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said: The left vizor aint vizible in my copy of the Moorman polaroid?? I double checked & i could not find any copy of the Moorman polaroid that showed any part of the left vizor. U kan see (one side of) the right vizor only, & this (photo) is very blurry. The right vizor has a few white dots (on the face facing jfk during the shots) & these dots might be bits of jfk. But, the Moorman polaroid has 100s of white dots all over the pix, i guess that such white dots are found on all such polaroids in that era. You are correct. I stand corrected. Only the passenger side visor is visible in the Moorman photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Toussay Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 On 4/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said: The left vizor aint vizible in my copy of the Moorman polaroid?? I double checked & i could not find any copy of the Moorman polaroid that showed any part of the left vizor. U kan see the right vizor only, very blurry. The right vizor has a few white dots which might be bits of jfk. But, the Moorman polaroid has 100s of white dots all over the pix, which must be i guess found on all such polaroids in that era. ....My mistake. I posted an incomplete statement. This was meant to be a question, along the following line: - can the object over Kellerman's face be part of the sun visor, jerked by the shot that hit the chrome shield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, Christian Toussay said: ....My mistake. I posted an incomplete statement. This was meant to be a question, along the following line: - can the object over Kellerman's face be part of the sun visor, jerked by the shot that hit the chrome shield? I had a look at Moorman & at Z312 -- i think u are referring to Kellerman's left arm/hand which is shielding Kellerman's eyes from the Sun. Edited April 11 by Marjan Rynkiewicz 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