Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Jackie do it?


Guest Mark Valenti
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is there even a remote possibility that this could explain why it looks like JFK was hit from the front?

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

Mark, I don't see any evidence of Jackie causing JFK's reaction to being hit. It appears that Jackie turns her head away towards the the front of the car/her right arm following in a forward direction, while JFK is rifled backwards.

post-1084-1150485289_thumb.gif

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

The jet effect theory was disproved by no less an authority than the U.S. Army (testimony and films presented by Larry Sturdivan, HSCA Volume 1), so you are correct.

There is no other explanation but that the head shot came from the front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

The jet effect theory was disproved by no less an authority than the U.S. Army (testimony and films presented by Larry Sturdivan, HSCA Volume 1), so you are correct.

There is no other explanation but that the head shot came from the front.

My research has indicated that the head shot was fired from behind. A bullet impacting between Kennedy's right ear and the top of his head from behind and creating a tangential wound aka gutter wound aka slap wound would cause the exact reaction of Kennedy seen in the film, AND cause bullet fragments to hit the front windshield AND leave human skin on the bullet nose AND create the beveling apparent on the Harper fragment. This is discussed in more detail in The New Views on the Same Scene section of my presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My research has indicated that the head shot was fired from behind. A bullet impacting between Kennedy's right ear and the top of his head from behind and creating a tangential wound aka gutter wound aka slap wound would cause the exact reaction of Kennedy seen in the film, AND cause bullet fragments to hit the front windshield AND leave human skin on the bullet nose AND create the beveling apparent on the Harper fragment. This is discussed in more detail in The New Views on the Same Scene section of my presentation.

How does Sherry Gutierrez's blood spatter analysis play out in your theory ... do you disagree with her observations and how blood spatter works?

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the thing -- she does turn her head away but her right hand can't really be seen --

I wouldn't want to hang a "solution" on so fragile a thread, but it still seems possible that she is pulling him backward.

See the Muchmore and Nix films for a different view.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mark Valenti' date='Jun 16 2006, 08:06 PM' post='65630']

I'd like to hear some opinions about this scenario, please:

JFK is hit in the throat

Jackie, confused, moves closer to him

Realizing something is wrong, her hand grips his arm

She leans her head near his

JFK is suddenly shot in the head

Jackie involuntarily recoils

Her hand pulls JFK back and to the left

JFK, mortally wounded and wearing a stiff corset that prevents him from bending over, is easily pulled by her

Jackie, not yet coherent, moves toward the trunk, allowing JFK to fall even further to the left

Is there even a remote possibility that this could explain why it looks like JFK was hit from the front?

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

Believe it or not in 1975 Dan Rather actually proposed this utter nonsence in a CBS documentary on the JFK assassination.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mark Valenti' date='Jun 17 2006, 06:06 PM' post='65706']

Dawn,

It would be great if you would do more than offer an insult and actually offer a reason. If you look at the film clip, it still looks plausible that she is pulling him backward. Why do you think this is impossible?

Mark,

I have looked at this film more times than I could ever begin to count. If you cannot SEE that the backward motion is a direct response to being hit by a bullet than there is little I can do or say.

I take it you are unaware that Dan Rather has made a career of lying about this case? I was not trying to insult YOU but I have no lost love for Dan. Or Peter Jennings and his little 40th anniversary "the magic bullet- really WAS- magic" piece of disinformation trash. I had really liked and admired Jennings til I saw that.

Dawn

ps Are you by any chance related to Jack Valenti?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, I believe that just because one has seen the Zapruder film more times than they can count doesn't mean much unless you first know how high they are capable of counting in the first place, but look at the Muchmore film and note how Jackie's hand is positioned and you will find the answer you were originally seeking.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a remote possibility that this could explain why it looks like JFK was hit from the front?

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

Mark, I don't see any evidence of Jackie causing JFK's reaction to being hit. It appears that Jackie turns her head away towards the the front of the car/her right arm following in a forward direction, while JFK is rifled backwards.

post-1084-1150485289_thumb.gif

Bill

This ""appears"" to be as 2 images in 3 parts. Image 1, then image 1 + 2, then image 2.

Image 1 shows no injury. Image 2 shows a star shaped injury, but JFK's head is already back (although blurred). The star shape does not move so can only come from one image, which must be the second image, when his head is already back.

ST

Edited by Steven Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even a remote possibility that this could explain why it looks like JFK was hit from the front?

I'm asking because if this is not plausible then, at least to me, there is no other explanation (jet effect aside) but that the head shot came from the front.

Thanks

Mark, I don't see any evidence of Jackie causing JFK's reaction to being hit. It appears that Jackie turns her head away towards the the front of the car/her right arm following in a forward direction, while JFK is rifled backwards.

post-1084-1150485289_thumb.gif

Bill

This ""appears"" to be as 2 images in 3 parts. Image 1, then image 1 + 2, then image 2.

Image 1 shows no injury. Image 2 shows a star shaped injury, but JFK's head is already back (although blurred). The star shape does not move so can only come from one image, which must be the second image, when his head is already back.

ST

And since the head "wound" is in the side of his head as seen in the Zapruder film, doesn't this CONFIRM that the Zapruder film was modified? The medical staff at Parkland and at the autopsy both describe the wound to the BACK of JFK's head, not the side.

IF you accept this premise as a fact (and there should be little question that this is true), that the major head wound was to the back of his head, doesn't this alone narrow it down to WHO could be behind the coverup and WHY?

Bill_C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since the head "wound" is in the side of his head as seen in the Zapruder film, doesn't this CONFIRM that the Zapruder film was modified? The medical staff at Parkland and at the autopsy both describe the wound to the BACK of JFK's head, not the side.

IF you accept this premise as a fact (and there should be little question that this is true), that the major head wound was to the back of his head, doesn't this alone narrow it down to WHO could be behind the coverup and WHY?

Bill_C

I think the difference is that the Dallas doctors confirmed a wound seen in the back of the head and on the front of the neck, but had not seen the wound on the top of the head because the bone plate had gotten held into place by Jackie on the way to Parkland and had sealed up by a lot of dried blood on the top of JFK's head. Baxter, However does mention seeing the wound as he referred to it as a 'bone plate'.

Bill[/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since the head "wound" is in the side of his head as seen in the Zapruder film, doesn't this CONFIRM that the Zapruder film was modified? The medical staff at Parkland and at the autopsy both describe the wound to the BACK of JFK's head, not the side.

IF you accept this premise as a fact (and there should be little question that this is true), that the major head wound was to the back of his head, doesn't this alone narrow it down to WHO could be behind the coverup and WHY?

Bill_C

I think the difference is that the Dallas doctors confirmed a wound seen in the back of the head and on the front of the neck, but had not seen the wound on the top of the head because the bone plate had gotten held into place by Jackie on the way to Parkland and had sealed up by a lot of dried blood on the top of JFK's head. Baxter, However does mention seeing the wound as he referred to it as a 'bone plate'.

Bill[/b]

Hi Bill,

Isn't it unlikely that JFK's blood could dry enough to act as a paste during the very short period of time it took for JFK to get to Parkland where he obtained immediate medical attention ??

Isn't it more likely that these highly trained professionals saw exactly what they reported having seen/not seen?

Second guessing men and women who, on average, spend a combined 10 years, first learning and then getting on the job training to become Doctors, is really quite a leap of faith isn't it?

No offense, but, I think I will side with the professionals who were actually there on this one..

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,

Isn't it unlikely that JFK's blood could dry enough to act as a paste during the very short period of time it took for JFK to get to Parkland where he obtained immediate medical attention ??

Isn't it more likely that these highly trained professionals saw exactly what they reported having seen/not seen?

Second guessing men and women who, on average, spend a combined 10 years, first learning and then getting on the job training to become Doctors, is really quite a leap of faith isn't it?

No offense, but, I think I will side with the professionals who were actually there on this one..

Chuck

Chuck, blood starts to clot and becomes sticky within minutes. Jackie said she held her husbands head on all the way to the hospital. This is all it would have taken for the bone plate to have started to set up, not to mention the extra drying that would have taken place from the windy ride at high speed in an open car. Besides, Dr. Baxter mentions that at some point that he and Clark did see the bone plate laying on its side, so some of the professionals eventually got around to finding it at Parkland.

Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area ....

Bill

This ""appears"" to be as 2 images in 3 parts. Image 1, then image 1 + 2, then image 2.

Image 1 shows no injury. Image 2 shows a star shaped injury, but JFK's head is already back (although blurred). The star shape does not move so can only come from one image, which must be the second image, when his head is already back.

ST

Correct! I removed some of the blurred frames and created a dissolving image from Z312 and Z317 if I remember correctly. It's purpose was to track the path JFK's body took from point A to point B.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
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...