Bill Miller Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I am puzzled by a couple of things in Croft.Jack The image of the woman on the left appears to have a jacket draped over her arm. The other photo shows two purses or handbags side by side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Does anyone know of the existence of photographs of Robert Croft besides the image of him in the Zapruder film? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Pat, I have recently reviewed all the eyewitness evidence I could find. I don't recall reading the statements of any black witnesses along Elm. In front of the TSBD, yes. Along Elm, no. I don't believe any of the witnesses in the Croft photo were identified or interviewed. I agree. I believe that it would be arich field of research to go through the archives (if there are any) of the Dallas Post Tribune, a black oreiented newspaper in Dallas. In 1950, the name was changed to the Star Post. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I am puzzled by a couple of things in Croft.Jack __________________ Jack, This is speculation, guesswork, etc. but the white shirt clad woman in the left photo appears to be carrying a coat (we saw many coats being worn there; some took them off in the warmth of the Noon hour) while the photo section on the right (the one with JFK) seems to show the woman on the left carrying a handbag on her left arm; her companion on the right seems to have a handbag as well but also appears to be transferring a coat from one arm to another. We'll probably never know, as more than a few DP witnesses have contradicted their own movements and appearances over the years. What do you think? Regards, JG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Today, 08:35 AM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2006, 07:03 AM) QUOTE Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat. To me it seemed more like something sharp might be protruding out of his neck, rather than his coat being bunched up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Today, 08:35 AM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 8 2006, 07:03 AM) QUOTE Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat. To me it seemed more like something sharp might be protruding out of his neck, rather than his coat being bunched up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Kutzer Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 the "senior" gentleman directly "above" JFK has something in his right hand?....and under his left arm, a box or some rectangular object. sound recording? probably not, however.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat. Since the posterior upper back entrance wound was virtually lateral to the anterior neck wound (exit wound), this would represent an almost completely flat trajectory for any projectile entering in the back and exiting in the front neck. Considerably less likely that any projectile passing through the neck of JFK on this virtually flat trajectory would have struck JBC in the right shoulder below the level of the scapula and the clavicle. Hardly likely for an entrance wound which was determined to have been within the realm of 45-degrees to 60-degrees downward into the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 (edited) Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 01:28 PM QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Aug 7 2006, 08:18 AM) Why is there a bulge in the back of Kennedy's neck? The position of the coat does not look natural. Antti, there is no huge bulge on the back of Kennedy's neck. That's an LN myth. The coat you see is Kennedy's right shoulder. Take a look at Zapruder frame 161 and you'll see what I mean. Thanks Pat, didn't know it was a LN myth, just at a quick glance it didn't seem quite right... A number of people have used the Croft photo to "demonstrate" that Kennedy's jacket "bunched up" a number of inches when he raised his right arm. While the back of the jacket was undoubtedly lifted an inch or two as a result of Kennedy's elbow being on the side of the car, it was not lifted enough to bring the holes in the clothes in line with a trajectory connecting the sniper's nest and the wound in Kennedy's throat. The back of the jacket was "undoubtedly" elevated an inch or two? That's not what the motorcade photos show, Pat. Quite the opposite -- the jacket dropped between an inch to an inch and a half between Main St. and the Elm St. killing zone. The photo on the left below is JFK on Main St. Note his posture, head turned to the right, right hand up and waving -- just like in the Betzner #3 photo at Z186. (below) Compare the Main St. photo to the photo on the right, taken that morning in Fort Worth, and note the 1/2" exposed shirt collar visible in the Fort Worth photo. (hit enlarge) http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/tkoap.jpg Here's JFK at Z186: (hit enlarge) http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg Note the same exposed shirt collar at Z186 as in Forth Worth. Note the vertical/diagonal fold in JFK's jacket at Z186 and compare that to the diagonal fold in his jacket on Main St. Same posture, similar jacket fold, although the Elm St. fold was more vertical. It shouldn't be necessary to point out that a vertical fabric fold proves the fabric was bunched SIDEWAYS. Conclusion: JFK's jacket dropped at least an inch between Main St. and the killing zone. Pat, your's and John Hunt's "two-inch Croft bunch" concoction is intellectually indefensible, to be polite. Edited August 10, 2006 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 (edited) Conclusion: JFK's jacket dropped at least an inch between Main St. and the killing zone.Pat, your's and John Hunt's "two-inch Croft bunch" concoction is intellectually indefensible, to be polite. Cliff, the right shoulder tiip of the jacket in the motorcade photo is clearly elevated. In Z-161 we see this same elevation. Hunt made a mistake and believed the clothing sticking out from the back in the Croft photo stuck straight out. He felt this meant the jacket was "bunched up" enough to support the SBT. The color Croft makes clear, however, that the clothing appearing to stick straight out is the shoulder tip, seen at an angle. In my presentation, which I know you've visited (You actually gave me a good tip once), I make clear my belief that there is not enough bunching visible in the photos to support the SBT. The wound in the autopsy photo--which does not support the SBT, no matter how much smoke is blown by the HSCA and those on alt.assassination.JFK--IS in line with the holes on the clothes, if you accept that there was a small amount of bunching of the clothing, as confirmed by the Croft photo. While you once single-mindedly (AND CORRECTLY) sought to show that the holes on the clothing demonstrated that the SBT was unlikely, you have now embarked on an effort to use the clothing holes and motorcade photos to show that the autopsy photos of the back wound are fake. I'm sorry I can't support that. After studying the autopsy photos for years I am firmly of the belief the autopsy photos and x-rays indicate conspiracy. I am also 100% convinced that only through the acceptance of these photos by the CT community will this issue come to any kind of resolve. Edited August 11, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 I wrote: Conclusion: JFK's jacket dropped at least an inch between Main St. and the killing zone. Pat, your's and John Hunt's "two-inch Croft bunch" concoction is intellectually indefensible, to be polite. Pat Speer ignored my argument to proffer his conclusions: > Cliff, the right shoulder tip of the jacket in the motorcade photo is clearly elevated. So? JFK shot was shot less than 2" right of midline, not in the shoulder tip. JFK was shot after he changed his posture around Z175 -- Croft was taken at Z161. How does Croft trump Betzner, taken after JFK changed his posture? > In Z-161 we see this same elevation. Please share your methodology for determining the amount of upward displacement seen in the Croft photo. Please explain why Croft is more relevent than Betzner, even though JFK changed his posture after Croft. > Hunt made a mistake and believed the clothing sticking out from the back in the Croft > photo stuck straight out. No, John Hunt claimed that Croft shows 2.25" of upwardly displaced jacket and shirt fabric. That's a whopping 4.5" of clothing fabric elevated entirely above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck -- but obviously below the bottom of the jacket collar, at the base of JFK's neck, a flat-out physical impossiblity. It's right here in his essay. http://tinyurl.com/qyumk John Hunt claims that the following photo shows a "distinctly arched shape" at the right base of JFK's neck. An "arch" is a convex curve. As anyone with two eyes in their head can see, the curvature at the right base of JFK's neck in this photo was concave... The contention that there was a distinctly convex curvature to the right base of JFK's neck in the above photo is the height of intellectual dishonesty. > He felt this meant the jacket was "bunched up" enough to support the SBT. The > color Croft makes clear, however, that the clothing appearing to stick straight out is > the shoulder tip, seen at an angle. In my presentation, which I know you've visited > (You actually gave me a good tip once), I make clear my belief that there is not > enough bunching visible in the photos to support the SBT. Please share your methodology for making the determination that there was ANY elevation of fabric more than 1/8 of an inch in Betzner #3. Pat, if you elevate fabric even a small fraction of an inch it creates a HORIZONTAL fold. Betzner shows a VERTICAL fold. Why do you ignore this? > The wound in the autopsy photo HSCA dismissed the Fox 5 as "difficult or impossible" to use to accurately locate the back wound. And yet you claim Fox 5 as the definitive evidence in the case...Intellectually indefensible, Pat, which is why you recite your conclusions but never cite a single fact to support them. All you enter into evidence is your own subjective analysis of an improperly produced autopsy photo of poor quality and highly suspect authenticity. Not much of an argument. > --which does not support the SBT, no matter how much smoke is blown by the > HSCA and those on alt.assassination.JFK--IS in line with the holes on the clothes, > if you accept that there was a small amount of bunching of the clothing, as confirmed > by the Croft photo. And are you saying JFK was shot in the back at Z161? Or, was JFK shot AFTER he turned his head to the right and started to wave his right hand -- circa Z175? If you acknowledge that JFK changed his posture after Croft, then Betzner and its' vertical/diagonal fold trumps Croft and its' over-hyped "bunch," doesn't it? And by the way, if you should actually bring yourself to research clothing movement, you will find that the 1+" fabric movement is defined by clothing designers as a "gross" fabric fold -- less than an inch is considered a "normal" fabric fold. "Gross" and "normal" are terms of art in clothing design, fyi. > While you once single-mindedly (AND CORRECTLY) sought to show that the holes > on the clothing demonstrated that the SBT was unlikely, you have now embarked > on an effort to use the clothing holes and motorcade photos to show tha the > autopsy photos of the back wound are fake. Are you saying it is *impossible* to fake an autopsy photo? And what an autopsy photo it is! Shows an intact back of the head, an abrasion collar consistent with a bullet that entered on an upward trajectory (truly absurd), and a back wound where no one described it, not even in the autopsy report. You have no chain of possession for that photo; other autopsy photos contradict it (see below); you have no one who will claim to have taken that photo; the HSCA concluded it likely prima facie inadmissable in court. That's a nice piece of evidence you hitch your wagon to, Pat. > I'm sorry I can't support that. Don't apologize for supporting it, apologize for reciting your conclusions without citing a single fact to back them up. You posit a mythical 1+" clothing bunch in Betzner #3, a fabric fold that by definition is 1/2" on the upside, the exact same amount of visible shirt fabric seen in that photo. And yet there is no visible horizontal fold at all in Betzner #3, much less one the same size as the exposed shirt collar -- quite the contrary, Betzner #3 shows a fold more vertical. > After studying the autopsy photos for years I am firmly of the belief the autopsy > photos and x-rays indicate conspiracy. I am also 100% convinced that only through > the acceptance of these photos by the CT community will this issue come to any kind of resolve. This photo shows a massive wound in the back of the head... How can Fox 5 (above), with its intact back of the head, be authentic if the above with its massive back head wound is authentic? Pat, you expect the CT community to embrace one photo -- Fox 5 -- that was singled out by the HSCA (for crissakes!) as obviously deficient as scientific evidence? What indefensible nonsense. I think the CT community needs to read BREACH OF TRUST and grasp how the murder of JFK was covered-up. 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