When Was JFK Hit?

[Dan O'meara]

How does one "completely discredit" a professional photographic panel's analysis of the same film that everyone is still looking at today? John Orr doesn't seem to think it's been "completely discredited." Or are you in John C mode, whereby anything that doesn't fit your preferred narrative has been "completely discredited"?

It's incredibly easy to "completely discredit" a professional photographic panels analysis.
You simply look at the evidence yourself. It's called research.
Rather than just swallow down every lie you are spoon-fed, it would serve you better to actually look for yourself.
The HSCA panel stated that JFK's "head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife" by z207. This is the main part of their argument for a reaction before JFK passes behind the Stemmons sign.
It is easily disprovable:

Look at the hairline of JFK in the following frames:



In the top pic (z207, just before he passes behind Stemmons sign) the parting in his hair on the left side of his head is clearly visible.
In the second pic (z225, first full frame of JFK emerging from behind Stemmons) his parting is not so visible but the sweep of his hair up to it is.
In the bottom pic (z230, JFK facing straight ahead) the part of his forehead revealed by the sweep of his hairline up to the parting is no longer visible.
Far from turning to his left, JFK is still looking to his right as he passes behind the Stemmons sign (z207).
There is no head-snap to the left and, therefore, no reason to suspect JFK is reacting to anything.

Here is the photographic evidence disproving the HSCA's assertions.
Will you accept what you see with your own eyes?

I'm disappointed. I would have assumed you had memorized CE 1381 by now.

Gloria Calvery: "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot."

Karan Hicks: "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion."

Karen Westbrook: "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion."

Carol Reed: ""At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the curb of Elm Street about mid-way between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the Elm Street Railroad overpass. I was with Mrs . Karen Hicks ... Miss Karen Westbrook ... and Mrs. Gloria Calvary ... at the time the President was shot."

Feeling enlightened, Grasshopper? I didn't think so.

I knew exactly who you were referring to which is why I made the point.
I knew they stated "almost directly in front".
ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FROINT.
Not - RIGHT IN FRONT, as you misremembered.
ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT can, in no way, be thought of as RIGHT IN FRONT.
They are two completely different things. Two completely different positions.
Your truly sad attempt to pass them off as the same thing is yet another example of the dumbness that plagues your every post.

Are you feeling enlightened?
Are you beginning to see how wrong you constantly are?

[Zeon Mason]

I see Jackie turning her head quickly to look at JFK at that Z190 frame and that’s JFK with hand fully up and his head turned sharply. It’s this point where Harold Norman describes as hearing the shot WHEN he saw JFKs hand up so IDK for sure if he’s just been hit there. You would think some % of momentum transfer of the bullet would cause some instantaneous movement forward from Z190-Z207 but I’m really not seeing anything to indicate that. I think Andrew suggested because it’s such a short path thru the neck and throat of JFK and no bone struck that the bullet was in and out so quickly that there was no momentum transfer enough to move the mass of the body. Don’t know for certain because nobody’s done a really good experiment with total body replicas including the arms and legs and hands.

[Andrew Mason]

It's incredibly easy to "completely discredit" a professional photographic panels analysis.
You simply look at the evidence yourself. It's called research.
Rather than just swallow down every lie you are spoon-fed, it would serve you better to actually look for yourself.
The HSCA panel stated that JFK's "head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife" by z207. This is the main part of their argument for a reaction before JFK passes behind the Stemmons sign.
…

Here is the photographic evidence disproving the HSCA's assertions.
Will you accept what you see with your own eyes?

What is the difference between z224 and z225 that convinces you that JFK is not reacting in z224 but is in z225?
What evidence is telling you that his contorted face in z225 is not part of his reaction?
 
As far as the position of the car as described by the withesses, you need to look at all the evidence. Almost directly in front suggests the car had not yet passed by where she was standing.  But you don’t need to guess. Look at other witnesses. At z225 the VP security car is well past the turn. JFK is no longer in Linda Willis’ sightline to the Stemmons sign.  The limo is well past the west edge of the TSBD (Greer said it was just passing the west edge).  And it is more than a second after Phil Willis’ photo taken at z202 which he said was just after the first shot.

[Dan O'meara]

What is the difference between z224 and z225 that convinces you that JFK is not reacting in z224 but is in z225?
What evidence is telling you that his contorted face in z225 is not part of his reaction?
 
As far as the position of the car as described by the withesses, you need to look at all the evidence. Almost directly in front suggests the car had not yet passed by where she was standing.  But you don’t need to guess. Look at other witnesses. At z225 the VP security car is well past the turn. JFK is no longer in Linda Willis’ sightline to the Stemmons sign.  The limo is well past the west edge of the TSBD (Greer said it was just passing the west edge).  And it is more than a second after Phil Willis’ photo taken at z202 which he said was just after the first shot.

What is the difference between z224 and z225 that convinces you that JFK is not reacting in z224 but is in z225?

You've already asked this and it's already been answered just a few posts ago. Are you having a senior moment?

you need to look at all the evidence

I have looked at all the evidence regarding this issue.
I created a thread to do it - "The First Shot".
You must remember it. It's the thread where your silly theory died a thousand times over.

[Lance Payette]

It's incredibly easy to "completely discredit" a professional photographic panels analysis.
You simply look at the evidence yourself. It's called research.

Yep, kinda what I thought: "John C mode," as it shall henceforth be known. "I decide what the evidence shows."

I knew exactly who you were referring to which is why I made the point.
I knew they stated "almost directly in front".
ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FROINT.
Not - RIGHT IN FRONT, as you misremembered.
ALMOST DIRECTLY IN FRONT can, in no way, be thought of as RIGHT IN FRONT.
They are two completely different things. Two completely different positions.
Your truly sad attempt to pass them off as the same thing is yet another example of the dumbness that plagues your every post.

Is English your second language? "Right in front" and "almost directly in front" are "two completely different things?" I somehow missed that nuance in my 50+ years of writing and editing professionally. We are talking about a vehicle passing women on a curb a few feet away, and you insist "right in front" and "almost directly in front" are two "completely different things." Ho-kay ...

My "truly sad attempt" to "pass them off" is yet another example of "the dumbness" that "plagues" my every post? If you operate at this level of anger over an internet discussion, it's a wonder you haven't popped a vein or two - or perhaps you have? Do your wife and dog stay out of the room while you are spewing spittle over the keyboard lest you vent your fury on them? Jesus.

Dr. Payette, having dealt with umpteen fellow lawyers trying to wiggle out of a faux pas, would hazard a guess that you were caught with your pants down (figuratively speaking, or maybe not) and have seized upon the massive difference between "right in front" and "almost directly in front" in a bizarre and comical effort to save face because you simply can't stand to be wrong. Put your pants back on - no one really cares.

[John Corbett]

What is the difference between z224 and z225 that convinces you that JFK is not reacting in z224 but is in z225?
What evidence is telling you that his contorted face in z225 is not part of his reaction?
 
As far as the position of the car as described by the withesses, you need to look at all the evidence. Almost directly in front suggests the car had not yet passed by where she was standing.  But you don’t need to guess. Look at other witnesses. At z225 the VP security car is well past the turn. JFK is no longer in Linda Willis’ sightline to the Stemmons sign.  The limo is well past the west edge of the TSBD (Greer said it was just passing the west edge).  And it is more than a second after Phil Willis’ photo taken at z202 which he said was just after the first shot.

David Von Pein pointed out to me that extreme enlargements at Z225 show an agape facial expression from JFK that is consistent with a reaction to being shot. Of course we can't compare it to Z224 because JFK's face is not visisble then. Between Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically, possibly a reflex action or possibly driven down by the force of the bullet. The upward arm movement by both men begins at Z226.

[Andrew Mason]

David Von Pein pointed out to me that extreme enlargements at Z225 show an agape facial expression from JFK that is consistent with a reaction to being shot. Of course we can't compare it to Z224 because JFK's face is not visisble then. Between Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically, possibly a reflex action or possibly driven down by the force of the bullet. The upward arm movement by both men begins at Z226.

Hence my question to Dan, which he seems to want to avoid, which was: how do you know he is not already reacting in z224?  He sees a material difference between z224 and z225 but a slight change between z224 and z225 doesn’t tell that he is not already reacting at z224. And the facial expression in z225 could not have been materially different in z224.