If a bullet didn't go through JFK, then exactly how did Connally get hit?

[Allan Fritzke]

Allan, I'm not an "Oswald Did It" nut, but I'm not convinced that Willis shows the umbrella behind the sign.

Thanks for the help!    Jerry has enlightened me. Thanks!

I am still eagerly waiting to hear why you think Willis isn't showing the umbrella behind the sign.  Where do you come up with that?  Open your eyes man!  Zapruder is taken the picture from the pillar above and behind.   His camera shows the umbrella halfway up the sign and on the other side - you need glasses!




If you look at the blowup, that bush halfway up the sign looks like the remnants of the real umbrella position, but the sign looks clean where it should have come across.   That position looks like where you would expect to see the umbrella coming across at that level.  The lack of the Cuban on the other side of the "umbrella holder" is glaringly missing from the photograph.  It looks like if you combine the "2 umbrella half moons" present in the photograph, you could actually make a full umbrella again!   There also is a fuzzy area just below the sign post that looks suspicious.   If anything I would guess that the man in the black suit with the hat could possibly be the real umbrella man and man pictured holding the umbrella in his picture is the Cuban?   Things are so modified on the Willis photograph that it is pure speculation on my part.   It needs to match the Zapruder Film frames and it clearly doesn't.

When I see Jerry Organ's post about Willis, it makes a lot of sense. He is trying to capitalize on the event and was selling slides.  He might have been a bit of a photograph expert as well or had someone helping him.  Someone who wanted to show this man well away from the bullet that struck JFK in the neck!

[John Iacoletti]

I am still eagerly waiting to hear why you think Willis isn't showing the umbrella behind the sign.  Where do you come up with that?

Why do you think it is behind the sign in Willis?

[Allan Fritzke]

Why do you think it is behind the sign in Willis?

I actually asked you why you think it is in the front!  That is rhetorical logic your using - don't BS me.  Already I laid out the reasons for my argument.  You just want to throw it back again in my face in a circular argument?   Break the circle and come out with a meaningful argument.
Okay if you need it repeated, I will tell you again and then wait, maybe you will tell me how Zapruder took the picture from below his level from a gutter!    Look at the position of Zapruder's camera from the pillar up above him.     Compare what we see in his camera - an umbrella half way up the sign and at front with what you see in Willis' photograph.    Zapruder is above him in an elevated position - repeated again!  It is a matter of elevation unless the grassy knoll and Zapruder's perch is below the umbrella man!  I don't think it could be called a knoll then!  Where is the Cuban?

 

[John Iacoletti]

I actually asked you why you think it is in the front!  That is rhetorical logic your using - don't BS me.

I said I'm not convinced.  And you've presented nothing to change that.  You just declared that the umbrella is behind the sign in Willis.  You didn't present any reason for thinking so.  And it has nothing to do with Zapruder's level.  Incidentally, Willis 5 doesn't correspond with Z225.



 

[John Mytton]

If you look at the blowup, that bush halfway up the sign looks like the remnants of the real umbrella position, but the sign looks clean where it should have come across. 

I think the bush halfway up the sign is just a bush. In the following gif we see the same bush photographed from further down Elm street so the perspective is a little out but you get the general idea.



JohnM

[Howard Gee]

Oh my, the sinister Umbrella Man, AGAIN !

We haven't dealt with the Umbrella Man lunacy for a while.

Yippee.

[Allan Fritzke]

I think the bush halfway up the sign is just a bush. In the following gif we see the same bush photographed from further down Elm street so the perspective is a little out but you get the general idea.



JohnM

Maybe that is the photo were the bush was transplanted from lol!   You can't take a photo in one spot and then find the exact spot in a photo taken much further down and transpose it so perfectly as you have just done.  You are absolutely right but certainly that part of the bush can't be seen to be exactly the same from 2 different vantage points at the same point.   Amazing that you can find an almost identical bush and transpose it like that - the camera position is from a way different vantage point but the two look identical.  We just need to have a hedge that repeats itself over a hundred feet! Thank you!!