Addressing Griffith's Zapruder Fakery. Jackie & Hill on Trunk

[Joe Elliott]

I'm new here so apologies if this has been covered a million times. This thread was the best reference to Jackie on the back of the car that I could find.

What is the consensus on why exactly Jackie was climbing aft on top of the trunk of the limo as the car accelerated away?

Jackie Kennedy recovered a piece of JFKs skull from the rear trunk that apparently flew in the opposite direction of the rest of the ejected mass of brain matter that went forward towards the windshield.

This is not the consensus view as to why Jackie was climbing on top of the trunk of the limousine. For the simple reason that no fragment of the skull, nor brain matter, is visible on the trunk of the limousine in any of the frames of the Zapruder film. Go ahead and ask people which frame of the Zapruder film best shows the skull or brain matter on the trunk and show you a frame with a circle around this object. You will get no response.

Jackie did not remember climbing out on the trunk of the limousine. The best guess that this was an understandable panic reaction to the massive wound to her husband's head. Within a couple of seconds she did the reasonable thing and when back into the limousine.

[Joe Elliott]

The original post on this thread by John Mytton, with the assist from the excellent graphics of Jerry Organ convincingly refutes the weak arguments of Michael Griffith that the Zapruder film must be fake. So much so that Michael Griffith has not even attempted a response, even through he has posted to this forum as recently as May 22, 2024.

[John Mytton]

Bump.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

I already answered all of your and Organ's arguments. You are simply ignoring what the photographic evidence shows. Organ has discredited himself innumerable times in this forum and has proved he is simply not to be taken seriously.

I might add that Milicent Cranor, one of the most careful, studious researchers around, likewise argues that the Zapruder and Nix frames proves the Zapruder film has been altered.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/

Here's my article on evidence of alteration:

Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view

[Royell Storing]

 It's obvious why the NIX Film is being trotted out to buttress the dubious Zapruder Film. The Original NIX Film has been missing for decades. On top of that, Nobody can explain the White Shirt Man running Up-The-Steps on the Nix Film. And a White Shirt Man being in this same area was detailed in the Lee Bowers WC Testimony. One assassination film with issues being trotted out to support another assassination film with issues. 2 peas inna pod. 

[John Mytton]

I already answered all of your and Organ's arguments. You are simply ignoring what the photographic evidence shows. Organ has discredited himself innumerable times in this forum and has proved he is simply not to be taken seriously.

I might add that Milicent Cranor, one of the most careful, studious researchers around, likewise argues that the Zapruder and Nix frames proves the Zapruder film has been altered.

https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-assassination-film-proof-of-tampering/

Here's my article on evidence of alteration:

Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view

I already answered all of your and Organ's arguments.

You're joking, right? Your understanding of perspective is childlike and the following graphic absolutely demolishes your Hill and Jackie on the trunk garbage.



The following graphic is from the grossly misinformed mind of Michael T. Griffith.

You are simply ignoring what the photographic evidence shows.

By using techniques you simply can't comprehend like computer 3D modelling and advanced film stabilization, all your worthless observations like your insane Brehm's son theory and as shown above by your Jackie and Hill on the Trunk conjecture have been thoroughly destroyed.

I might add that Milicent Cranor, one of the most careful, studious researchers around, likewise argues that the Zapruder and Nix frames proves the Zapruder film has been altered.

Wow, "careful and studious" that's some powerful credentials she's got there, too bad they are totally inadequate for this discussion. Much like yourself she has no understanding of perspective and her claim that film frames were removed to achieve the Hill and Jackie positions are another embarrassment, as explained to you on numerous occasions, even one removed frame from a panning shot would be immediately obvious and to laughably suggest multiple removed frames, shows a complete lack of understanding of basic cinematography 101.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Again, I answered you and Organ on this issue. Your whole argument boils down to claiming that the difference in camera angles explains the serious and readily apparent conflict between Jackie's position in relation Hill in Z375/380 and her position in the corresponding Nix frame. IOW, you're saying this serious conflict is really just a remarkable optical illusion caused by the difference in the camera angles. And I say that this argument is invalid, that the camera angles are not different enough to explain the obvious conflict between Z375/380 and the Nix frame.