Why can you as much of her glove as you see?

Can you elaborate? I've no idea what the point of this post is.

I think others will see my point.

Wim

Well I'm sorry but it escapes me too !!

Wim likes to be mysterious, lest he be wrong. Tell us, Wim...what are we all missing
that you see?

Jack

Wim-

Could you please tell us what the handwritten note says?

I can't read it or blow the picture up to a legible degree.

Thanks.

I thought it was obvious. You should not see that whole glove if part of JFK's head weren't missing. That is not the contour of a normal intact head. It has a crater in it.

I like to be mysterious? Well, at least not as mysterious as "badgeman", disappearing Mrs Franzen and a moonlanding that allegedly never happened.


Wim

OK... I thought that was what you were getting at, but the image is too indistinct to tell.
It is more interesting that is where Jackie is looking...at the back of his head.

Jack

Well, the image is a lot more distinct than "badgeman". Besides, there is the laws of physics. You should not see an object that is covered with another object. The fact that you see as much of Jackie's glove, means that the normal curve of JFK's back skull is absent (because of a gaping wound that all the doctors saw).

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/doctors.htm

Wim

Christopher,

I`ll give it my best.....


Brad,the drawing below is an exact copy in regard to location & dimensions of the drawing I made for Josiah Thompson in 1966.Best wishes Robert McClelland.

This should be easier to see....

Dated Jan. 24th 1994......Dr.McClelland

B.....

In the Nix film, when Kennedy gets the shot, you see her hand tap on, then lift, from Pres. Kennedy's head, as she gets up to crawl onto the trunk of the limo. I think only one glove was caked with blood and the other not too much. I think we're seeing the cleaner one. IMO.

Kathy C

Small gif made from frames taken from JFK THE MOVIE.

This video by the logical Bob Harris should interest everyone following this thread. It's very convincing.
Bob Harris Head Shots Analysis


Duncan MacRae

Very interesting, but I disagree with Robert Harris on two points.

1) The second headshot from the knoll did not occur half a second later but a split second later, almost simultaneously. within one Zapruder frame, thus within 1/18 second. The shot from the rear was not an explosive bullet, the shot from the front was. The forward headsnap is caused by the bullet from behind, which strikes first. This forward headsnap is not visible to the naked eye at normal speed. It can only be detected by comparing frame 312 and 313. The head snaps forward about 2-3 inches. This is caused by the bullet from the behind. What we see being blown out of the right temple at frame 313 is debris from the IMPACT from the grassy knoll bullet, which strikes a fraction later than the back bullet. Many people don't know this, but that is how debris behaves when a bullet strikes something. It leaves a cone of debris in the opposite direction of the bullet, much like a stone hitting the water. This same bullet then explodes inside the skull after penetrating the temple bone, causing the major blowout in the back of the head, as well as the temple flap of skull where it entered.




2) The autopsy photo of the back of the head IS a forgery. There is no way that the damage done to the back of the head , described by all the doctors and actually visible in the Zapruder film could look like that just by folding back a bone flap with skin and hair on it. Besides, there was still much bone missing (think of the large Harper fragment for example). This photo does not show any holes in the head. It looks like Kennedy has received no wound there whatsoever. In addition, an honest autopsy would show the wounds as they actually were and appeared to the eye, NOT to cover-up (literally) how they looked like. Examining and photographing the wounds as they are, is what an autopsy is all about. The wounds in this photo are no way near to what they actually looked like.

Wim


PS: Duncan, you're good with drawing lines in photographs. Can you draw the countours of JFK's head in the two photos I posted to start this topic? That would make it really clear.

The contour of his head is quite difficult to make out at the flap, so I have just contoured what I can see of his head using Jackie's coat colouring as the divider..



Duncan

Harris makes several mistakes. One that comes to mind is the notion that at Z323, Jackie had her hand on JFK's head and removed it like she had touched something hot. Jackie's hand wasn't on JFK's head. Harris should have cross referenced this moment with films taken from other angles. This is often a mistake made by people.
Click to view attachment



Does the evidence really support the above claim ... I do not believe that it does. The cranial fluid is released upon impact and occurs in the top portion of a head that is tilted forward. The head is rocked forward as the shoulders are shoved backward. No rearward back spatter is captured on any assassination film, thus I do not believe that JFK's was hit in the back of the head with a second bullet.
Click to view attachment

It is true that when a bullet strikes - the debris upon impact will leave a wider cone of matter than it does upon exiting. Below is the debris seen closer to impact on the Nix film.
Click to view attachment


I believe the reason why Jackie's white glove is seen is because she reached around JFK's head and placed her hand over the avulsion.
Click to view attachment

Bill Miller

Does the evidence really support the above claim ... I do not believe that it does. The cranial fluid is released upon impact and occurs in the top portion of a head that is tilted forward. The head is rocked forward as the shoulders are shoved backward. No rearward back spatter is captured on any assassination film, thus I do not believe that JFK's was hit in the back of the head with a second bullet.
Click to view attachment

Bill Miller

Nicely presented analysis right or wrong. Just to clear things up before continuing. Do you believe that there was only one shot from the front which struck Kennedy's head?

Duncan MacRae

Costella Combined Edit Frames (updated 2006)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/?

?

B......

Studying the FAKED Zapruder film regarding the head wound is an exercise in futility.

Jack

The Zapruder film is NOT faked in any way. And certainly not the parts of the headshots. I know I am talking against a wall with you. I say this to the rest of us here.

Bill,

I do not exactly which part of my claim you disagree with. Can you elaborate?

Wim

Thanks Duncan, that is very helpful.

Bill, just post make a GIF with the subsequent images, you can see that you are in error thinking that Jackie places her hand on the defect. The two frames that I posted, you see the back of her hand. Not a position to put your hand on top of is head. Her gloved hand is BEHIND JFK's head.

Wim

Here's the rest of the frames:

Three gifs of the frames at different speeds. She appears to be pushing his head as a support for herself to lever herself on to the trunk.
This can be seen best in the slowest version.




Duncan MacRae

Duncan you should inlude frame 342 and 343

Wim

No problem





Duncan

You got that right ... I do not believe that two bullets hit JFK in the head. There are several reasons for my believing this to be the case and its all supported by the photographic record and blood spatter science.

To start with, there must be upon impact a spattering of debris from the missile smashing into the brain. In talking with a blood spatter expert like Sherry Gutierrez, it was discovered that an already weakened skull would cause an equal, if not a larger spatter than the original bullet caused between Z312 and Z313. There is no second spattering of debris from impact seen on any of the films following the initial head shot.

It should also be noted that the head shot came between the exposure of two frames taken less than 1/18th of a second apart. You'd have a better chance of not buying a lottery ticket and winning the jackpot before two shooters could fire from two different locations and distances from the target and have both missiles hit at the same exact moment within less than 1/18th of a second in time.

The Orville Nix film shows the debris coming from the President's head even closer to the moment of impact than the Zapruder film does. The Nix film shows a wide pattern coming from the top of the head as its tilted forward, and a smaller pattern shooting from the right rrear of the head which obviously escaped through the avulsion of the bones. This means that two missiles would had to have hit the head in less than 1/36th of a second or in 1/2 of a Zapruder film frame exposure for the Nix camera appears to be exposing frames between Zapruder's camera doing the same. This debris pattern on both films is supported by the many examples that Gutierrez used to show the effects of a bullet passing through various objects. When a bullet enters the object ... it causes a slower/wider debris back-spatter pattern, while the missile leaving the object will carry with its momentum a more faster/narrow debris pattern and this is what I see on two assassination films taken opposite of one another.

Having pointed these things out, one must then address the President's forward movement of the head and rearward movement of the shoulders within one Zapruder film frame exposure. Theoretically ... two missiles hitting a target from opposite directions should bring about an equal and opposite reaction, thus for the most part canceling each other out. But the Zapruder film shows the head rocking forward while the shoulders are being driven rearward simultaneously. What are the rules of the transfer of momentum ... What should happen if one takes a blow to the back of the head is the the head and shoulders both would be driven forward. A simple test while sitting in your chair and having someone push your head forward from behind will demonstrate this. There can only be one cause for the head and the shoulders to be driven in opposite directions at the same time and that is by one missile striking the top of an already tilted skull and shedding its energy down the trunk of the body. This observation I made was taken to experts by then 20 year veteran Al Carrier and substantiated. A simple demonstration of someone sitting like JFK and having someone push the top of their head downward will cause the head to rock forward at the same instant the shoulders move rearward. I believe this to be the case and the only option that allows the rules of the transfer of energy, blood spatter science, and the shaping of JFK's skull to come together in harmony. (see below) While when any of the evidence is singled out and the rest ignored, then several variations of of possible impacts to the head can be speculated about, but only one scenario works for all in my view.

Bill Miller

Click to view attachment

If it helps.

chris

Bill, then please explain to us what caused the forward headsnap, other than the impact from a bullet in the head from behind?



Wim

Wim, do you not read these responses ....

"There can only be one cause for the head and the shoulders to be driven in opposite directions at the same time and that is by one missile striking the top of an already tilted skull and shedding its energy down the trunk of the body. This observation I made was taken to experts by then 20 year veteran Al Carrier and substantiated. A simple demonstration of someone sitting like JFK and having someone push the top of their head downward will cause the head to rock forward at the same instant the shoulders move rearward. I believe this to be the case and the only option that allows the rules of the transfer of energy, blood spatter science, and the shaping of JFK's skull to come together in harmony. (see below) While when any of the evidence is singled out and the rest ignored, then several variations of of possible impacts to the head can be speculated about, but only one scenario works for all in my view."

And Duncan is right in saying Jackie put her hand right onto the back of her husband's head. If you have doubts still, then look at the other two films by Nix and Muchmore.
Click to view attachment

Bill Miller

Bill, I am sorry, but this is an erroneous assumption. We all agree that the force of the front bullet drove the head back and to the left. Such a bullet cannot first tilt the head forward and then decide to drive it backwards. That is against the law of physics and kinetics. Besides, the head IS ALREADY tilted forward when the front bullet strikes the temple. That forward tilt/snap is caused by a bullet from behind, striking the head a fraction earlier (within 1 Zapruder frame). That JFK's shoulders seem to go in the opposite direction (backwards) is logical, as you would get an opposite force at the base of the neck, the pivot point where the head is fixed to the body, thus the shoulders. Think of a stick that's hanging vertically in the air on a rope. If you hit the top of the stick, which direction is the bottom of the stick going to go? The opposite direction, right?

Likewise, if you stick a pole in the lawn vertically and then push it down horizontally at the the top, the bottom of the pole will damage your lawn in the opposite direction of where you are pushing the top of the stick. That's because the pole is applying its reactional force in that direction.


Wim

Wim, I will humor you only for a few moments before moving on because I personally don't believe you are interested in knowing this or you would have presented it to some experts on your own before wanting to debate something that you probably know little about. And while I understand your 'stick' example, it hardly applies to a small head sitting atop a large trunk separated by a pivot point. Had you tested the physics by doing as I requested, then you could have not wasted yours or my time with the stick nonsense.

To start with, the Zapruder frames (Z312 and Z313) catches only one single moment in time. Let me say this again ... ONE SINGLE MOMENT IN TIME! You cannot have the head moving forward from one bullet and the body moving backwards from a second bullet if both bullets hit JFK in the head. You can have something hit JFK in the rear of the head and rock it forward while something slams into him from the front and below the neck which drives his trunk rearward at the same instant, but that isn't the evidence, nor is it the scenario that you just presented.

Instead we are presented with a single moment in time which shows two different parts of the body moving in opposite directions at the same moment. This means that a single action caused this to happen and that is why I presented this and sought his opinion. Al then took it to some experts that he knew and asked them to consider this evidence and see if it was correct. I posted the results and Carriers presentation of it should still be in the Lancer archives. I'm just the messenger, Wim ... I'm not here to make you like what you are hearing ... just offering what I discovered and was able to substantiate. I will also add that I just didn't wait for Al Carrier to get back with me, I presented this single frame observation to some medical personnel who specialized in the neck and back. These were doctors who was treating me at the time. In simple terms - their opinions were that the head sits atop of the spine and the shock wave of the bullet slamming into the top of JFK's head on a downward angle would send a shock-wave down the trunk which would rock the head forward and push the shoulders rearward within the same instance. The information Carrier posted said the same, but in a more technical way.

Bill Miller

Bill, I have nothing to add and I am convinced of what I pointed out. I believe the evidence in Zapruder is very supportive of what I say. It is not that I don't like to hear what you believe, it's just that I find your reasoning not convincing. I would like to add that according to experts (like Mantik and Robertson) the medical evidence also points to two (simultaneous) head shots (front and back) and in my analysis the Zapruder film supports this decisively. You reject the shot from the back, that's your prerogative.

I don't have to accept your viewpoint and you don't have to accept mine.

Wim

You've been humoring me for 6+ years now. And I know you know nothing of film/photo composition. Despite your kneeling at Robert Groden's feet... Carry on!

David Healy - President
Wild Bill's Fan Club

Maybe you did not understand. I am saying that the first bullet (from behind) snaps the head forward, and the bullet from the front then blows the head backwards. I am further saying that the shoulders move back as a result of the first bullet from behind, namely by the force that the head applies on the pivot point of the forward tilt movement. That pivot point is where the head is fixed to the body = the shoulder area. The stick example was to illustrate this. To call that "nonsense" is most likely an indication that you did not understand? Let me put it this way: If you have a ballpoint lying on the table and you push the tip downwards, the base of the pen comes off the table, right? (= the opposite direction of your push.) That is because the tip and base connected, like a head is connected with a body. A similar phenomenon applies to JFK's head (the tip) moving forward and his shoulders (the base) moving backward. Is it clearer with this example?

Wim

I agree ... and is that the Mantik that thought Moorman was standing in the street and couldn't see that her camera was above the cycles windshields??? He may know medicine, but he didn't consider what I told you that was presented to other experts. I think an expert can make a wrong determination based on limited data ... it would be most interesting to see if you'd deliver the points to him that you were given and then see what he said.

And I agree, you do not have to see what I do - think like I do - address the questions like I do.

Bill Miller

And I am telling you that only one of the two things you claim to be happening can be caught within one film frame. I am also saying that you can easily test the transfer of energy by tilting your head forward and having someone hit you from behind. If you do this you will find that your head and shoulders BOTH move forward.

Bill Miller

David, I thought you weren't allowed to post here anymore until you have been declared sane again.
http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page...ON+HEALY?t=anon

Bill Miller

In the Nix portion there appear to be two separate impacts. One looks like it strikes the base of the rear skull and there is a small spray of red fluid ejected backwards. The other looks like it came from the front and the result of that strike is very obvious.

Bill,

A single moment in time is not shared by two consecutive frames from one film. One moment per frame is all you get.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't give a damn what any "expert" says about any event.

We all come stock from the factory with our own unique set of BS detectors which give us the ability to figure things out for ourselves.

Here's my own view of the BS which has been spread about so liberally regarding the JFK assassination...

If I were to listen to the "experts" regarding their view of what happened to JFK, I would have never become interested in trying to find out for myself what happened.

We have already been told what to believe and being told what to believe or what to think just rubs me the wrong way.

I like to think for myself. I'm sure you like to think for yourself as well.

Your opinions are valid for you, my opinions are valid for me and everyone else is entitled to their opinion as well.

I look forward to the day when you will accept that your opinion means no more and no less than anyone else's opinion.

I like to think that anyone who drops by to read our discussions here will have the sense to understand that no opinions voiced here are facts.

There are very few facts available regarding the events surrounding JFK's assassination.

I believe this is the main reason why, after 45 years, we still search doggedly for more information.

Well said Chuck.

You are 100% correct with your view on "experts" something I have been telling Bill Miller for years.
Re: the word "moment"...You can expect any reply from him to include a paste from Dictionary.com

Duncan MacRae

Duncan, I see no reason for you to insult Chuck by agreeing with him. I think that Chuck says it all when he wrote "Also, for what it's worth, I don't give a damn what any "expert" says about any event." Personally I do believe Chuck. I believe that if such a scenario came about where you or Chuck had a crime committed against your person, you'd both be anxiously awaiting for the experts to find out who did it so they could be punished.

If Chuck is saying that no expert can solve the JFK assassination as far as who shot and from where, then his point makes a lot of sense. But experts can be beneficial in testing theories. It was experts who got man to the moon and back ... so they serve their purpose. Without them then we may have had some boob hurling through space headed for the sun.

There has to be a reason for JFK's head`rocking forward in 1/18th of a second before going back the other way. I think that any reasonably intelligent person would not believe that JFK had such strength and muscle control that he could stop the momentum of a bullet slamming into his skull and reverse it on his own within 1/18th of a second.

I think that a reasonably intelligent person would not believe that a second bullet slammed into JFK's skull, thus driving it back the other way or else a second frame showing the impact spattering of debris would have been seen.

However, the sudden and immediate shock-wave of a bullets impact, according to the experts, would account for what is seen on the Zapruder film. It doesn't mean that it did ... it just means that it is a reasonable observation that stands above the rest.

Bill Miller