Ed O'Hagan Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) My Webpage In the above clip, John and Nellie Connally are depicted being propelled violently forward. There are only two explanations possible for that happening : (1) the limousine was suddenly braked, or (2) something crashed violently into the back of their seats. If (1) occurred then Jackie and JFK should have been depicted likewise being thrown violently forward and into the backs of the Connallys' seats They are not so depicted, therefore, either the footage has been 'doctored', or the limousine did not brake and so (2) must have occurred. If (2) occurred, then the only explanation that could be posssible is that JFK was thrown violently forward into the back of the Connallys' seats by the force of the head shot.... and again that should be depicted... which it is not, nor do subsequent frames depict JFK lying on the floor behind the Connallys. Therefore, if (2) actually occurred then the footage was 'doctored' to obscure that aspect. If there are no other possible explanations, then by concomitant variation one can conclude that 'doctoring' was employed to obscure the fact that JFK (as a result of either (1) or (2)) had been propelled forward, and that the imparted force of his body hitting the back of the seat(s) then caused the Connally's likewise to be thrown violently forward. As stated at http://home.cogeco.ca/~eohagan/ , the fatal head shot could only have been fired from the post-office building on Commerce St. It (or the braking of the limousine ) carried JFK from being slouched down in Jackie's arms and lap, diagonally and head first into the rear of John Connally's partially occupied seat...since at that time most of Connally's body weight was similarly slouched down to his left and resting in his wife's , Nellie's, lap and arms. N.B. Notice that following the head shot there is not a single frame where the area being John Connally's jump seat is even minimally discernible. The reason being ....JFK came to rest face up, and with his back resting on Connally's seat, which had been folded forward over Connally's legs by the impacting weight of JFK's upper body . JFK's feet and legs ended up on the rear seat... and it is this which explains why Jackie climbed onto it. What she was doing was stepping over JFK's legs and feet to get to the right side of the rear compartment, in order to be able to lean forward and downwards to attend to JFK. It would have been impossible for her to get to him directly from where she was sitting at the time of the head shot, because she was boxed in both by her husband's feet and legs, and also by the jump seat immediatley in front of her. As already described, at the time of the fatal head shot JFK's upper body was resting in Jackie's lap and arms and below the level of the top of the rear seat, thereby making it impossible for the shot to have been fired from anywhere directly behind the limousine.... TSBD , Daltex and County Records buildings included. However, since the WC (which did its patriotic best by choosing the lesser of two evils.... paradoxically, truth being the greater ) was compelled to conceal the fact of a conspiracy, and accordingly tagged LHO as being the LN shooter; and so it became necessary that the Zapruder film had to be 'shaped' to support their 'conclusion'... or can anyone seriously believe that the film would ever have seen the light of day for any other reason. It really defies comprehension that there are those in the CT community, who on the one hand can accuse the WC of a cover-up while at one and the same time they are busy pushing the case for the integrity of the Z. film. There is a well known saying in philosophy that 'the affirmation of the one is not necessarily the negation of the other'. To their shame, among professed CTers those are the very same individuals who arrogantly persist in 'downing' anyone who dares to report seeing anything at all which goes against their conviction that the Zapruder footage is the pristine 'proof of the pudding', so to speak. The anomaly of the front to back motion of JFK's head was a very clever 'apparent oversight' . The HSCA added to it by begrudingly admitting to a possible '4th shot' from the GK . The combined result has ever since been to keep the CT community endlessley mounting and tenaciously bestriding a variety of mythical 'hobby-horses', and no less riding round in circles on an 'intellectual carousel' which conveys them from the GK to the TSBD and back again. The fact of the matter was that shots were fired from both locations, but none was aimed at JFK... Bizarre? Off the wall! No , not at all, if one really understands how a bogus assassination was turned into the real thing halfway down Elm St. If anyone wishes to examine it closely, Zapruder frame # 456 is well worth a second look. However, not being able to interpret what is being depicted in that particular frame, does not qualify anyone to assume that I, or anyone else for that matter, may be similarly as visually so impaired...But doubtless some of the same people who avoided responding to the question I posed in a previous thread, which inquired as to how it was possible to know that the Zapruder footage is the 'real deal', will be immmediately up and on the attack. That is the only way they know of 'proving' the authenticity of what turns out via computer assisted inspection to be nothing more than a contrived attempt at framing the truth. I am 100% convinced that the Zapruder film has been 'doctored' both 'fore and aft' to support the WC's claim that Oswald was the sole LN assassin. I am also 100% convinced that the WC at the time were unfortunately compelled to choose between bad and worse. The bad was the assassination of a president, worse was the assassination of the presidency. Paradoxically, therefore, I can argue the CT case for conspiracy and yet exculpate the WC for the cover-up. The only difference I see between my position and the position of the CT defenders of the Zapruder film , is that while they may have been made privy as to why the WC did what it had to do, I at least came to the conclusion honesty and under my own steam. Rightly or wrongly I can tell it as I see it, while the best that they can do is to disrupt and disinform, thereby ensuring that the entire enterprise is constantly being kept running in circles and getting nowhere close to understanding what was really happening in Dealey Plaza that awful day In Dallas, when the life of John F. Kennedy was so mercilessly extinguished. All the information that we are going to get in the foreseeable future, is already in, So, what is called for is a new paridigm based on what is already known; A resynthesis, if you will, that while not providing new information per se , will go a long way in creating a new awareness. And to those who keep insisting on 'proof' of all they see and read , and 'downing' anyone who happens not to square with their perception of things, isn't it about time they grew a up, or at the very least made some kind of an attempt to culivate a modicum of intellectual modesty and courtesy towards others. If we are anything at all, we are detectives exploring possibilities, and most certainly not lawyers or self-righteous hard -heads who think they are the infallible equivalent of lawyers in a court of law. Proof, indeed ! If such existed the case would long ago have been closed. Notice that I have not attached any of my so-called 'blurry pictures',. However, if anyone wants to have a look at my rendition of what shows up in Z.# 456, then drop me an e-mail, and since time and effort have been invested, I'll be more than pleased to respond. Otherwise ' I ain't gonna !' . I went to a lot of trouble in the past to bring things to the attention of others via visual attachments, but subsequently was to discover that considerably less that 1% of those who read the posts even bothered to download the attached files for purposes of inspecting the pictures more closely. That's was not very encouraging, and it certainly was very far removed from according recognition to those who might consider themselves 'researchers'.,, Being able to replicate techiques, reproduce/fail to reproduce outcomes/data/ conclusions are all part of the validation/verification processes. If one wishes to be regarded as a researcher then behaving like one is essential. Having prejudiced opinions and a big mouth are poor substitutes for convincing others that one knows what she/he is talking about... and that applies to all of us, myself included. My webpage can be visted at My Webpage <http://home.cogeco.ca/~eohagan/> Edited November 11, 2006 by Ed O'Hagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) Ed...you may be onto something...an image BEFORE ALTERATION. It looks better in color! Jack Edited November 11, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Keep up the good work Ed. There are those who say that in the 'other' version of the film there is a marked difference between what can only be a shot to the rear, followed momentarily by a shot from the front. No one seems to want to consider that the Harper fragment would have had to have been 'planted' overnight - however, if there is an indication of an entry point on it, perhaps this also is why the head may have been smashed to pieces between Dallas and Bethseda. And even a Dr. agreed with me that it was possible that the blow-out in the rear could have been the result of the 'path of weakest resistance,' it having already been penetrated prior to the front temple shot. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) Ed, I happen to believe that the Zfilm CLEARLY shows that the Limousine braked sharply just at the moment of the headshot (312 313), sliding Kennedy forward on the seat. However as this coincided with the shot from the front left and his head snapped towards zapruder it looks like his head dips forward. It doesn't, it actually ceases its forward motion, and different head-planes are presented to the camera. If you take the trouble to look closely at this clip you'll see what I mean. (clip) I've used a means of aligning the frames that is logical but radical. I've explained it in detail in 'headshot movements' and found no-one who could understand it, or was prepared to discuss it to the end. Nevertheless: Look at the top of the seat back. See the blur. This is the moment of sharp braking. Look at Jackies arm and it's separating from the rear seat. She continues forward as the Limousine brakes. Look at Connally. He starts his roll forward and a frame or two later not shown in this clip strikes the rear of the drivers seat. It's the combination of the Limo braking, Kennedy's body moving forward, and his head snapping rear-right as the bullet strikes that gives the illusions that are seen when the frames are aligned conventionally. Edited November 11, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 Ed...you may be onto something...an image BEFORE ALTERATION.It looks better in color! Jack Jack, Well done! Your colored rendition is certainly an improvement. Notice the tilt of Jackie's hat is being switched from one side to the other. Very definitely a 'kindergarten ' job of 'doctoring'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Robin - sorry to seem like a moron here - these are in order? Consecutively? You have access to much better frames than I do - seems clear that we are missing frames. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Body movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Sorry I don't have attribution for this brief clip -- in close-up they look like they're reacting to a braking car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) Sorry I don't have attribution for this brief clip -- in close-up they look like they're reacting to a braking car. They are. It is. A thought about martial arts is helpful. Take Wing Chun Kuen for example which is an extreme close up art. A rapid movement of a hand is accompanied with a slower movement of the elbow, or shoulder. If you maintainan awareness of the movements of these peripheral bodyparts you can know something about the fast moving parts. A hand snapping directly towards your face will only have a perspective distortion too fast to pick. Meanwhile, there is a clearly discernible shift in the elbow position. Training and experience then enables anticipation and response. ref: the clip I posted Look at Kennedys upper right arm. At the same time as the vehicle decelerates rapidly, Kernnedy's upper right arm, his shoulder, moves back. It should move forward. It doesn't. The head striking the trapezoid muscle on the shoulder will do this. The headsnap itself is too fast. The result of it isn't. Edited November 11, 2006 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 Body movements. Jack, Precisely ! Jackie appears to be moving voluntarily, and is not responding in any way to the braking effect, which in the case of the Connallys carries them so violently forward. And how does what John Connally told the WC square with how he is depicted following the head shot? " So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133) Seems to me that who ever 'doctored' the footage put Connally sitting upright at the time when he was actually lying with his head in Nellie' slap. Another faux pas no less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed O'Hagan Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share Posted November 11, 2006 Sorry I don't have attribution for this brief clip -- in close-up they look like they're reacting to a braking car. Mark, I agree. However, since in your clip we can see that even the driver , Greer, is being clearly propelled forward together with the other three people, how then would it be possible for JFK and Jackie to have remained seated on the rear seat, given their lack of unpreparednesss for both the impact of the head shot and the almost immediate effects of what was quite obviously rapid braking? Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Robin - sorry to seem like a moron here - these are in order? Consecutively? You have access to much better frames than I do - seems clear that we are missing frames. - lee Hi Lee. The first three frames should be consecutive, they are DVD grabs from JFK the movie. If there were any BLURRY FRAMES in the sequence, i do not grab those, as they are useless for posting to the forum. I usually try and grab only the sharpest frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Body movements. Jack, Precisely ! Jackie appears to be moving voluntarily, and is not responding in any way to the braking effect, which in the case of the Connallys carries them so violently forward. And how does what John Connally told the WC square with how he is depicted following the head shot? " So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him."(W.C.R.vol. IV, H-132-133) Seems to me that who ever 'doctored' the footage put Connally sitting upright at the time when he was actually lying with his head in Nellie' slap. Another faux pas no less! Ed...good catch that Connally said his head was in Nellie's lap at time of head shot! Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Sorry I don't have attribution for this brief clip -- in close-up they look like they're reacting to a braking car. Look at Kennedys upper right arm. At the same time as the vehicle decelerates rapidly, Kernnedy's upper right arm, his shoulder, moves back. It should move forward. It doesn't. The head striking the trapezoid muscle on the shoulder will do this. The headsnap itself is too fast. The result of it isn't. Good point John Dolva..........Kennedy is flapping back and to his right while the Connallys are obviously being thrown forward.......another anomaly........... 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