Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Taken from the Groden DVD. Shows relative heights of the two men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Taken from the Groden DVD. Shows relative heights of the two men. Yep! That "bunch" just will not go away will it! Now, if there were only some way in which one could reasonably determine if the shirt also had a "bunch", or perhaps even a "fold" in it?????? P.S. Based on the known calculations, the top of JFK's head was approximately 1 and 1/2 inches higher than was the top of JBC's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Taken from the Groden DVD. Shows relative heights of the two men. Yep! That "bunch" just will not go away will it! Now, if there were only some way in which one could reasonably determine if the shirt also had a "bunch", or perhaps even a "fold" in it?????? P.S. Based on the known calculations, the top of JFK's head was approximately 1 and 1/2 inches higher than was the top of JBC's head. The "bunch" is a moot issue and wide open for debate as to how the coat was positioned when JFK took the bullet in the back. In fact, didn't the President stop twice to shake hands with people along the motorcade route? The autopsy photo shows the location where the bullet entered the back ... I hope no one is going to say JFK's back muscles bunched up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 It would seem to me that the bunch question remains relevant only to those who continue to fantasize that the back wound was up around the base of JFK's neck, where the Rydberg drawing and, more recently, Dale Myers's animation erroneously put it. Does anyone here buy the Rydberg and Myers location of the wound? If so, why was an autopsy photo faked not only to hide a wound in the back of JFK's head (understandable), but to lower the back wound (incomprehensible)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Interesting. It's a bit unusual to see one where Kennedy is sitting up like that. Yet the coat still seems to be 'bunched'. I think that's because of two things. His righ arm is raised and his head is back from its normal position, both 'movements' working against each other. Also this is an interesting photo because it seems that Nellies window is down. When was this photo (film frame) taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Interesting. It's a bit unusual to see one where Kennedy is sitting up like that. Yet the coat still seems to be 'bunched'. I think that's because of two things. His righ arm is raised and his head is back from its normal position, both 'movements' working against each other.Also this is an interesting photo because it seems that Nellies window is down. When was this photo (film frame) taken? It's from Groden's "Case for Conspiracy" and it's in the early part where he shows the whole motorcade. I don't know which street they're on, I'll go back and see if I can determine from a wider shot if there is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Interesting. It's a bit unusual to see one where Kennedy is sitting up like that. Yet the coat still seems to be 'bunched'. I think that's because of two things. His righ arm is raised and his head is back from its normal position, both 'movements' working against each other.Also this is an interesting photo because it seems that Nellies window is down. When was this photo (film frame) taken? It's from Groden's "Case for Conspiracy" and it's in the early part where he shows the whole motorcade. I don't know which street they're on, I'll go back and see if I can determine from a wider shot if there is one. I may be wrong, but I believe this segment of film is from a sequence as the limo is just leaving Love Field. Regardless, the position of the two individuals, JFK and JBC, at this particular "slice" in time has absolutely nothing to do with what transpired along Elm Street, but in particular the wounding of John Connally. FWIW Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 It was taken at Love Field. Note the hand on the limo behind Jackie (probably Clint Hill's). The same image of the hand is seen in this video, which includes the Rybka incident: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) It would seem to me that the bunch question remains relevant only to those who continue to fantasize that the back wound was up around the base of JFK's neck, where the Rydberg drawing and, more recently, Dale Myers's animation erroneously put it. Does anyone here buy the Rydberg and Myers location of the wound? If so, why was an autopsy photo faked not only to hide a wound in the back of JFK's head (understandable), but to lower the back wound (incomprehensible)? I think they played fast and loose with the back wound autopsy photo, but didn't alter the location. By this I am saying that they tilted the head back and took the photo at a slight angle so to make the wound look closer to the base of the neck than it really was. Anyone with an once of sense should have known to get an accurate view of the wound in relation to the neck and head would have been to be looking straight forward at both with the body in a straight alignment. Edited January 22, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 In this one it appears there is no bunch????? They did not need a bunching, to move anything.... B.. 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