Jump to content
The Education Forum

New JFK Dallas film surfaces in Dallas


Recommended Posts

Some long-harbored questions regarding the back brace:

Are the braces depicted in the photo above those worn on 11/22/63?

If so, have they been laundered?

If no laundering, why no blood?

Did the brace ride high enough to cover the 3rd thoracic vertebra?

If so, might a round entering at that position have had its velocity radically slowed by brace materials, thus accounting for the shallow wound?

And a related query:

The blood patterns on the rear of the shirt and the rear of the suit jacket are quite different, with the former showing far greater spread and, one assumes, saturation.

Could this difference be attributed to limitations of photo reproductions? Had the jacket been laundered but the shirt kept in "original" condition?

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket.

Snagged from:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't

we see it in every photo of the jacket?

Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture.

It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so.

It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these

fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric.

And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument

for it!

All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained

credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me.

Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state:

"Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket."

In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against.

Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen.

Myra, I was making an observation about your comment.

I'm not attributing anything to you one way or the other.

It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on

the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the

photos and films, not just a couple?

Yeah, I know Cliff. Thanks.

Hey, I'm esp interested in the timing of the film release since I think it's possible that it wasn't just discovered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some long-harbored questions regarding the back brace:

Are the braces depicted in the photo above those worn on 11/22/63?

Supposedly. They have an exhibit number and are posted on Lancer's medical evidence page.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/

If so, have they been laundered?

If no laundering, why no blood?

Uh... damn good question. I never noticed that before.

Did the brace ride high enough to cover the 3rd thoracic vertebra?

If so, might a round entering at that position have had its velocity radically slowed by brace materials, thus accounting for the shallow wound?

Hm, interesting thought. So I google to see the supposed components of the brace:

"Kennedy often wore a back brace and on the day he was shot, he was wearing a brace that consisted of a canvas brace with metal stays, together with an Ace bandage with extra padding."

http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/book177114613.html

It's possible that the bullet hit a metal section and slowed it as you speculate. Of course they wouldn't show that in an exhibit photo 'cause that'd prove the back wound.

And a related query:

The blood patterns on the rear of the shirt and the rear of the suit jacket are quite different, with the former showing far greater spread and, one assumes, saturation.

Could this difference be attributed to limitations of photo reproductions? Had the jacket been laundered but the shirt kept in "original" condition?

I'm 99% sure the President's clothing was laundered by the secret service men who were too hungover to protect the living president but suddenly alert and busy cleaning up evidence after the murder. Gov Connelly's suit was cleaned...

I'll look for some confirmation about the shirt/suit scrubbing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti
It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on

the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the

photos and films, not just a couple?

Same reason the jacket moves into different positions - he shifts, the jacket shifts. He lifts his arm, the jacket shifts. He pivots, the jacket shifts. The brace, wrapped motionless around his body, might affect the jacket when he was in certain positions but not in others. That seems simple enough.

Cliff, you've been thinking about this "bunching" issue for at least five years that I can tell via Google -- are there *any* clear photos of JFK, taken from behind, that show the coat *not* bunching or riding up?

I'm not talking about Love Field photos, when he first sat down. I mean, up close and easy to see photos of JFK in the motorcade itself that show his jacket smooth on his upper back.

Hang on - I found one. It's not on 11-22 but he's in the car and I don't see any bunching or riding up in this photo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on

the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the

photos and films, not just a couple?

Same reason the jacket moves into different positions - he shifts, the jacket shifts. He lifts his arm, the jacket shifts. He pivots, the jacket shifts. The brace, wrapped motionless around his body, might affect the jacket when he was in certain positions but not in others. That seems simple enough.

Mark, take a look at your own clothing when you move.

If you move a little, your clothing moves a little.

If you move a lot, your clothing moves a lot.

Bunch Theory is predicated on the notion that JFK's clothing moved a

lot when he only moved a little.

The back brace was wrapped around his waist, not his shoulders.

Cliff, you've been thinking about this "bunching" issue for at least five years that I can tell via Google -- are there *any* clear photos of JFK, taken from behind, that show the coat *not* bunching or riding up?

I'm not talking about Love Field photos, when he first sat down. I mean, up close and easy to see photos of JFK in the motorcade itself that show his jacket smooth on his upper back.

James Richards posted one earlier in this thread.

I'd contend the Altgens #5 photo I've posted twice now shows a smooth jacket.

The jacket collar rode up over the top of the shirt collar -- and then the jacket

collar dropped.

I guess I'm going to have to break down and develope a site where these photos

are compared.

I thought it was an obvious point, but I guess I thought wrong...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mark Valenti
I guess I'm going to have to break down and develope a site where these photos

are compared.

I thought it was an obvious point, but I guess I thought wrong...

As this has been a particular specialty of yours for at least five years, you probably have a lot of insight into the matter that would benefit everyone. I for one would appreciate seeing a presentation of your theory if you have any desire to create one.

Mark

Link to post
Share on other sites

Myra, I'm sure the "release" of this footage is designed to bring the Sixth Floor Museum some attention. Well orchestrated, Gary. I really can't believe the coverage it's getting. Now if we could only drum up some interest in new research, that tells us something, as opposed to new film footage, that tells us what we already know--that if the collar was bunch up when Kennedy was shot, it was not enough to indicate the bullet entered at the base of the neck. It was on the back, too low to align neatly with a shot from the sniper's nest hitting no bone and exiting the throat. This was demonstrated best by the HSCA forensic pathology panel, which held that Kennedy must have been doubled over when hit.

As the Zapruder film never showed him to be doubled over BEFORE he was shot, however, the HSCA trajectory analyst, Thomas Canning was forced to tell some big fat lies to save the SBT.

1) First, he moved the wound to a more convenient location, lifting it by a centimeter.

2) He decided that the Croft photo showed Kennedy to be leaning forward and theorized Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot. This made the the vertical trajectory for the SBT close enough.

3) He also decided that the Betzner photo showed Connally to be sitting almost in the middle of the car. This placed Kennedy directly behind Connally's right shoulder, which is WEIRD because Connally said he looked over his right shoulder to see Kennedy but could not see him, and turned to his left to get a better look. The Connally location used by Canning has Jackie Kennedy over Connally's left shoulder. This lie made the horizontal trajectory almost work.

4) To get the head wounds to align, using the non-existent entry in the cowlick, Canning had to go even further. He had to theorize Kennedy was barely leaning forward when struck at frame 313.

If you decode the trajectory report, it states clearly that Kennedy was leaning forward, was hit in the back, sat up a little in his seat, and was struck in the back of the head. EVERYONE who has ever seen the Zapruder knows this is a big fat lie and yet no one in the media has ever mentioned this obvious lie to the American public. Too busy gushing about how marvelous Jackie looks blah blah blah and how those darn CTs are always looking for stuff to obsess about.

Gary, in your next interview, maybe you can mention to a reporter that the HSCA trajectory analysis was an obvious fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The blood patterns on the rear of the shirt and the rear of the suit jacket are quite different, with the former showing far greater spread and, one assumes, saturation.

Could this difference be attributed to limitations of photo reproductions? Had the jacket been laundered but the shirt kept in "original" condition?

I'm 99% sure the President's clothing was laundered by the secret service men who were too hungover to protect the living president but suddenly alert and busy cleaning up evidence after the murder. Gov Connelly's suit was cleaned...

I'll look for some confirmation about the shirt/suit scrubbing.

When we view photos of the shirt and jacket as held in the National Archives, we note the latter to be heavily stained, but the former relatively lightly impacted. Again, this disparity may be attributable to limitations related to photo reproduction.

Or perhaps the jacket was laundered (a polite way of saying rendered moot in terms of evidentiary value) and the shirt left alone?

And while technically the shirt stain does not fit the definition of blood "splatter," it surely must invite analysis of blood flow from the head and/or back wounds.

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a passing thought on my part, but I've always questioned why the clothes would be laundered at all? Did they think that they were going to be worn again??

More of an observation than a question. I think we know the answer.

JWK

Edited by J. William King
Link to post
Share on other sites

Myra, I generally agree with your speculation about the timing of all this, along with the nudge-nudge references to those pesky conspiracy theorists (and GHWB's similar comments at Ford's funeral) and wouldn't be surprised if this and the Bug's book is part of a collective effort. Whether you buy the allegations or not (I do, others here and elsewhere don't), the attention given to 9/11 conspiracy theories recently has raised the general awareness of US covert activity, coups and the whole deep politics/secret team thug agenda higher than it's been for a long while, especially amongst younger people. I noticed last year's November anniversary received a lot less media attention than usual, as far as I could tell. The cracks are appearing and the guilty are squirming, hence the latest big lone nut propaganda push.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Myra, I generally agree with your speculation about the timing of all this, along with the nudge-nudge references to those pesky conspiracy theorists (and GHWB's similar comments at Ford's funeral) and wouldn't be surprised if this and the Bug's book is part of a collective effort. Whether you buy the allegations or not (I do, others here and elsewhere don't), the attention given to 9/11 conspiracy theories recently has raised the general awareness of US covert activity, coups and the whole deep politics/secret team thug agenda higher than it's been for a long while, especially amongst younger people. I noticed last year's November anniversary received a lot less media attention than usual, as far as I could tell. The cracks are appearing and the guilty are squirming, hence the latest big lone nut propaganda push.

Oh yeah. Real real good observation Anthony. And I'll add that the public witnessed multiple stolen elections on/after 2000, then the Reichstag burned... uh I mean the WTC burned miraculously putting PNAC plans into motion.

One of the biggest differences between their murder of President Kennedy and their murder of the thousands in NY though is that we now have the internet to discuss the increasingly obvious. (Tho' they've already started attacking the internet... "tubes.")

And those who are aware of some history know that there are strong connections between 1963 and the present, including:

-A Bush on both ends (and more in-between),

-The CIA's plan for a fake "terrorism" incident to blame on a country to justify invading. Blocked by a great president in '63.

implemented under a puppet-"president" in 2001.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Day Everyone.... The KENNEDY's and NELLIE look so happy....

Thank You, Mr. GEORGE JEFFERIES, Mr. WAYNE GRAHAM, & your Loved Ones for bringing your film forward into The Light

:{ )-]

&, of course, Thanks to everyone at the "SFM" for bringing it public & preserving it.

....Now.... if Mr. GARY MACK could also, Please, publicly share a digital copy of his UPI/Dallas FBI file copy of the MOORMAN #5 polaroid....

:{ )-]

I also noticed that at the very end of the JEFFERIES motorcade segment you can see another camera--possibly a 35mm SLR-- in the hands of someone standing very close/right next to Mr. JEFFERIES !

Are there any other persons seen with cameras on the north side of Main Street?

I found the following large bytes, cropped frame, capture in an Australian article about the JEFFERIES film....

Can someone do a side-by-side comparison of the above film frame (rotated 90 degrees) with the 11-22-63 evening Bethesda autopsy photo captured of the president's left profile that is cropped from below his neck wound, to the top of his head?

After a few viewings of the JEFFERIES film, imho, President KENNEDY's suit jacket's rear, upper bunch (i.e. "upper puffed outward") looks approximately the same heigth (maybe even a bit lower, and a bit flatter across its upper bunch in JEFFERIES) as when the bunch was soon also seen in the ROBERT EARL CROFT photo, captured concurrent with Zf-160

Has the JEFFERIES film segment showing DP on 11-23-63 been shown publicly?

Best Regards in Research. Honored to be yours in the pursuit of The Truth,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll"

Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc

4 Principles

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

TEAMWORK.gif

DHS3elevatedYELLOW.gif

"We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more."

---- President JOHN F. KENNEDY, Presidential inaugural address to the world

Edited by Don Roberdeau
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is truly amazing how we have the "bunched up" theory to explain the inconvenient location of bullet holes, the "magic bullet" theory to explain the total lack of damage on a missile that supposedly caused 7 wounds and the "neuromuscular jet effect" to explain the head shot's violation of the laws of physics. Yet the conspiracy theorists are the "wackos."

JFK was one of the most immaculately dressed politicians of modern times. His expensive clothes were personally tailored to fit his frame perfectly. It's an insult to the intelligence to think that he'd wear something in public that fit so poorly it could ride up 5-6 inches from his waving motion to the crowd. I guess that Dr. Boswell's mind was "bunched up" when he placed the back wound in the exact same spot as the holes in JFK's clothes on his original autopsy face sheet and Dr. Burkley's mind was also "bunched up" when he described the rear back wound as being in the exact same spot. That was some "bunching up!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
It has also been said to pull the researchers away from their studies.

This pretense of so called "new evidence" which has also been used in the past as a ploy...

and will be again no doubt......

The brace..without the wrappings..

B

Wow Bernice! That is a fantastic photo. Thank you!

Do you know what year it was taken?

He looks young, but not as skeletal as he was when very young, pre-addison's diagnosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...