I'll take a pound of whatever Mytton is smoking. Must be good stuff!
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
I'll take a pound of whatever Mytton is smoking.
Must be good stuff!
Are YOU part of the coverup?
"And as for Kennedy's shoulder look at where Kennedy's body is in relation to the top of the back seat just before the Limo disappears behind the bush."
Ok, we can see where JFK was AS Jackie was climbing out onto the trunk lid, and it seems likely that, after Jackie vacated the rear seat, JFK would have just kept slumping to the left, until he was lying completely across the rear seat.
When Jackie returned to the rear seat, we have to assume she had nowhere to sit, as JFK was lying in her seat. Jackie seems to have gotten herself seated prior to going under the TUP, with Clint Hill clinging to the rear bumper the entire time she did so.
Do you believe Jackie moved JFK's limp body all by herself? Exactly where do you believe she moved him to?
In the two GIF's posted on this thread, which frames from the Zapruder film were used?
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
"The man to Jackie?s right, still sitting up, is Connally, not Kennedy."
If Connally is to Jackie's right, he would be in the rear seat of the limo.
How and when did Connally get into the rear seat, and how did he get to the right side of the limo, considering that Nellie Connally testified to pulling Connally to the left side of the limo, and not allowing him to sit up when he attempted to do so?
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
If Connally is to Jackie's right, he would be in the rear seat of the limo.
How and when did Connally get into the rear seat, and how did he get to the right side of the limo, considering that Nellie Connally testified to pulling Connally to the left side of the limo, and not allowing him to sit up when he attempted to do so?
"And as for Kennedy's shoulder look at where Kennedy's body is in relation to the top of the back seat just before the Limo disappears behind the bush."
Ok, we can see where JFK was AS Jackie was climbing out onto the trunk lid, and it seems likely that, after Jackie vacated the rear seat, JFK would have just kept slumping to the left, until he was lying completely across the rear seat.
Sorry, Joe but, as usual, your complete ignorance of anything mechanical is showing through.
The limo was only 78 inches wide. My GMC pickup is just a couple of inches short of being that wide and, judging from photos of the limo, its rear seat started a lot further in from the side of the limo than the rear seat of my pickup does, and the rear seat of my pickup is only 4.5 feet wide. If JFK was 1.5 feet across the hips, and his butt was not right up against the side of the limo, that leaves him less than 3 feet of rear seat to fall onto.
Not much room for Jackie when she got back into the limo.
What did she do with JFK so she could sit down??
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
(http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/kennedy_assassination-P.jpeg)
From this picture:
** JFK was pretty far to the left, right up against the side of the door.
** Clearly, if JFK slumps to his left, he won?t cover the entire seat.
It would be possible for Jackie to get back in the seat, while perhaps lifting his head and hold his head in her lap.
Since the man to her right appears to be sitting not next to here but beyond her, that man has to be Connally. And JFK is laying down with his head in her lap. And that is the position they maintained until they got to the hospital.
It is unreasonable that Jackie would lift her husband up so he was sitting upright.
Why would she do that?
You're not answering my questions, Bill.
Sorry, Joe but, as usual, your complete ignorance of anything mechanical is showing through.
The limo was only 78 inches wide. My GMC pickup is just a couple of inches short of being that wide and, judging from photos of the limo, its rear seat started a lot further in from the side of the limo than the rear seat of my pickup does, and the rear seat of my pickup is only 4.5 feet wide. If JFK was 1.5 feet across the hips, and his butt was not right up against the side of the limo, that leaves him less than 3 feet of rear seat to fall onto.
Not much room for Jackie when she got back into the limo.
What did she do with JFK so she could sit down??
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
JFK could have easily rotated on his left butt cheek and wound up lying completely on his side on the rear seat.
Explain to us how you think the back brace could have prevented him from falling on his side.
By examining a single frame(Z456) certain "photo experts" claim that Kennedy was sitting up at Z456 but by examining two consecutive frames centered on Connally we can determine that Jackie is on a completely different relative lateral plane to Connally, Jackie is clearly sitting behind Connally as one would expect.
(https://s17.postimg.org/6yvl03qb3/z456forprudhomme.gif)
JohnM
"And as for Kennedy's shoulder look at where Kennedy's body is in relation to the top of the back seat just before the Limo disappears behind the bush."
Ok, we can see where JFK was AS Jackie was climbing out onto the trunk lid, and it seems likely that, after Jackie vacated the rear seat, JFK would have just kept slumping to the left, until he was lying completely across the rear seat.
When Jackie returned to the rear seat, we have to assume she had nowhere to sit, as JFK was lying in her seat. Jackie seems to have gotten herself seated prior to going under the TUP, with Clint Hill clinging to the rear bumper the entire time she did so.
Do you believe Jackie moved JFK's limp body all by herself? Exactly where do you believe she moved him to?
In the two GIF's posted on this thread, which frames from the Zapruder film were used?
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
I was the first to discover this back in 2003 and wrote an article for John McAdams' website, after doing a cursory examination of the MPI Zapruder DVD. My article is available online at: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/looking.htm
The person sitting up is John Connally. I also pointed this out to Dale Myers who didn't know about it while he was working on his second animation which was shown on ABC-TV. People will argue that its President Kennedy all they want, but facts are facts. It's Connally.
"The man to Jackie?s right, still sitting up, is Connally, not Kennedy."
If Connally is to Jackie's right, he would be in the rear seat of the limo.
How and when did Connally get into the rear seat, and how did he get to the right side of the limo, considering that Nellie Connally testified to pulling Connally to the left side of the limo, and not allowing him to sit up when he attempted to do so?
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
How and when did Connally get into the rear seat,
And you have some means of proving this theory of yours, of course? Or is this just another biased and bigoted opinion from a biased and bigoted fool?
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup."
Are YOU part of the coverup?
You are also one of the few commentators who dismisses Jackie picking up a piece of skull or brain from the trunk of the car. After fifty years, even Pro LN articles and TV shows report this false factoid. The most widely believed false factoid of this assassination, in my opinion.
Steve
Your analysis from 2003 still looks good today.
You are also one of the few commentators who dismisses Jackie picking up a piece of skull or brain from the trunk of the car. After fifty years, even Pro LN articles and TV shows report this false factoid. The most widely believed false factoid of this assassination, in my opinion.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/clint-hill-trunk.gif)
Steve
Your analysis from 2003 still looks good today.
You are also one of the few commentators who dismisses Jackie picking up a piece of skull or brain from the trunk of the car. After fifty years, even Pro LN articles and TV shows report this false factoid. The most widely believed false factoid of this assassination, in my opinion.
Clint Hill: I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, ?They?ve shot his head off;? then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out.
But the Zapruder film shows nothing on the trunk of the limousine. We can see the individual fingers of Jackie?s white gloved fingers, but no visible piece of skull, no visible piece of brain, on the trunk. Nor does it show Jackie even pantomiming the picking up of something.
The Zapruder film trumps an eyewitness?s memory. Jackie did not pick something up off the trunk.
Hi Joe, Thank you. I appreciate your compliment and comments.
I have, for some time, been trying to make one of the GIF's of Mrs. Kennedy's actions from the moment she begins to rise from the seat and actions while her upper body is on the trunk lid. I am unsuccessful at it. One critic argues that she did "grab" a piece of brain that landed on the trunk lid. I find this impossible to believe because as she pulls her right hand back after tumbling onto the trunk lid and landing on her left elbow/forearm, she pushes herself back up with the same hand the people claim she has head matter in. It just doesn't add up. Then there's the Altgens 7 photograph which shows her right hand flat against the surface of the trunk lid. Had she retrieved a piece of brain with that hand, certainly she would have her hand cupping what she "grabbed", not smashing it against the trunk lid. http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/11/20/secret-service-
agentstillwondersifonesecondwouldhavesavedjfk/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.adapt.990.high.clint_hill_112013.13
84978571433.jpg
Still, die-hard doubters refuse to accept the fact that she didn't "retrieve" anything. Then there are the words of Clint Hill. He said different things regarding the actions of Mrs. Kennedy. He told the WC that he "thought" he saw something "come off the back..." If he thought he saw something come off the back, then what he saw and what others are saying Mrs. Kennedy did are two different things. They say "she retrieved" he said "she reached" , the film shows differently. It's all in what we see in the film the moment her gloved hand meets the slick surface of the trunk lid. Her hand slides out from in front of her, she lands hard on her left elbow, she pulls her right hand back towards her and lifts herself back up, turns around to look behind her, and the rest is pretty clear.
That's right, Steve. Mrs. Kennedy begins to get up and onto the trunk before she even looks back at it.
Clint Hill: I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, ?They?ve shot his head off;? then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out.
But the Zapruder film shows nothing on the trunk of the limousine. We can see the individual fingers of Jackie?s white gloved fingers, but no visible piece of skull, no visible piece of brain, on the trunk. Nor does it show Jackie even pantomiming the picking up of something.
The Zapruder film trumps an eyewitness?s memory. Jackie did not pick something up off the trunk.
Clint Hill: I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, ?They?ve shot his head off;? then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out.
But the Zapruder film shows nothing on the trunk of the limousine. We can see the individual fingers of Jackie?s white gloved fingers, but no visible piece of skull, no visible piece of brain, on the trunk. Nor does it show Jackie even pantomiming the picking up of something.
The Zapruder film trumps an eyewitness?s memory. Jackie did not pick something up off the trunk.
A better point for all to consider however is that the truth about what happened on the trunk may not even be relevant. High velocity missiles shot debris everywhere.
What makes you think that your interpretation of what's visible in the Zapruder film trumps anything? That's some arrogance.
What makes you think that your interpretation of what's visible in the Zapruder film trumps anything? That's some arrogance.
My mistake. I shouldn?t believe what my eyes see. I should believe what CTers tell me to believe.
I am simply not going to believe there was a piece of skull or brain on the trunk without it showing on film. I do not buy the concept of invisible bone or brain matter, which was visible to Jackie.
Questions:
Which Zapruder frame most clearly shows this material?
Can you provide me a link to a photograph from a Zapruder frame that most clearly shows this material?
Sigh.....did you even read what Dillon just wrote above?
Believe what you like, but don't pretend that what you think you see or don't see settles the matter. Walt thinks he sees a rifle sticking out of the window in the Powell photo.
Her sole focus is on the damage to the top of her husband's shattered head.
Looking at this wound, she may have witnessed (as she claimed to) wound debris detaching and flying off in a direction she felt sufficiently justified to be the rear that she attempted to retrieve it.
Nonsense. She's getting out of there in shock. Watch how she shoves his head forward, then pushes it away from her as she rises from the seat.
I respectfully disagree. She's getting out of there in shock. Watch how she shoves his head forward, then pushes it away from her as she rises from the seat.
That was one of the early theories but it hasn?t stood the test of time. I?m not one for subjective photographic interpretation, so I?ll keep my hat out of the ring as for specifics as I don?t see the issue as being especially relevant. If the debris flew backwards but only so far as the trunk, that?s no smoking gun for conspiracy.
I don't see how her reaching for head matter would tell you anything about conspiracy one way or the other.
Well, I think that what conspiracy theorists think ( at least what I thought) was that if a piece of head matter landed on the trunk, it was because the shot from the front(that I once believed in) drove the skull backwards onto the trunk, following the bullet trajectory.
I was the first to discover this back in 2003 and wrote an article for John McAdams' website, after doing a cursory examination of the MPI Zapruder DVD. My article is available online at: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/looking.htm
The person sitting up is John Connally. I also pointed this out to Dale Myers who didn't know about it while he was working on his second animation which was shown on ABC-TV. People will argue that its President Kennedy all they want, but facts are facts. It's Connally.
As far as Jacquie's reaction, she is trying to leave the scene. After six seconds and no protection, what would you do? The next bullet might accidentally hit you!! Nothing unreasonable about reaching that conclusion!
Yes, because jumping out of a moving limo, especially in an area where bullets are flying, is a good way to save your own life.
She was in shock, John. When a person is in the type of shock she was in, they don't know what they're doing. Clint Hill said that she wasn't even aware that he was "there" when he ran to the limousine to push her back. Don't any of you see how she treated her husbands head once she realized a large portion of it was gone as she stands up, screaming" My God, they've shot Jack!"? She pushes his head forward, then, as she is starting to turn to stand up, she shoves his head away from her.
She was in shock, John.
Exactly this is where starts and stops, Jackie was in shock. Right in front of her face from inches away she just saw her husband's head explode, in that instant she has no idea of what's happening, for all she knew maybe the threat was in the Limo, who knows?
But what is reasonably clear is that in a hi res digital copy of Zapruder, Jackie's hand slides and doesn't appear to grab anything.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/clint-hill-trunk.gif)
Myers C.A.D.-cartoons are a total joke.
Myers deliberately-deceitful lie's were simply and totally exposed by Martin Hinrichs, long ago, as Myers C.A.D.-lies about the 6'0" JFK being Myers-bigger than the 6'2" Connally in the Myers/WC-swallower's to (fail to) try and force swallowing their impossible "magic-bullet theory"
(http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif)
http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif (http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif)(http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif)
http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif (http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif)
Myers C.A.D.-cartoons are a total joke.
Myers deliberately-deceitful lie's were simply and totally exposed by Martin Hinrichs, long ago, as Myers C.A.D.-lies about the 6'0" JFK being Myers-bigger than the 6'2" Connally in the Myers/WC-swallower's to (fail to) try and force swallowing their impossible "magic-bullet theory"
(http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif)
http://i.imgur.com/PilOn44.gif
(http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif)
http://i.imgur.com/IbZFPSs.gif
Kennedy and Connally were essential the same size when seated; most of the height difference was in the leg length.
The camera angle in the 3D clip was such that the bottoms of Kennedy and Connally appear to be nearly at the same level, but Connally's seat was lower and more inboard than Kennedys. This would be better seen in a profile-view with minimal perspective. This view instead has a lot of perspective. Kennedy simply appears larger because he's closer in space to the camera than Connally.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-REwWiilVtZk/TvQIeSnsZBI/AAAAAAAABSw/zKHQx8HPSrU/s1600/JFK-In-Limousine-At-Love-Field-11-22-63--002.png)
Here's a photo with a similar (though not the exact same) camera-view as the Myers 3D clip. One can see that Connally "appears" smaller than Kennedy. The Myers 3D clip is much more closer to the figures in the car than any photographer was on the day of the assassination (with the possible exception of a few pictures taken by Dillard at Love Field). Therefore the difference in the size of the figures is more pronounced in the 3D clip.
Photos taken from the opposite side that have some perspective (the camera is near the limousine) make Connally "appear" larger than Kennedy.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/JFKslideshow_0301met001.JPG)
A film frame taken from the right side and to the front of the rollbar shows the two men roughly equal in size. This is because the angle results in Kennedy and Connally being equidistant from the camera (ie: Connally's jumpseat -- being more inboard than where Kennedy was seated -- is now closer in space to the camera, which brings Connally into the same plane as Kennedy, thus making them the same size to the camera).
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aWAAqnv7XAQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
The camera angle in the 3D clip was such that the bottoms of Kennedy and Connally appear to be nearly at the same level, but Connally's seat was lower and more inboard than Kennedys. This would be better seen in a profile-view with minimal perspective. This view instead has a lot of perspective. Kennedy simply appears larger because he's closer in space to the camera than Connally.
That qoute makes it clear that he was not sure of what she was doing. His opinion at that time actually should be considered less then anyone's opinion who has studied the Z-film. So typical of someone like John to try and use a totally unreliable statement to try and debunk an obvious conclusion that is formed by what someone can see for themselves on video.
He was there. The opinion of someone "studying" a film is nothing more than that. Especially a grainy low-res film taken from a distance.
He was there.
The opinion of someone "studying" a film is nothing more than that.
Especially a grainy low-res film taken from a distance.
So was Brennan.
How come you don't preach the same to the millions of CKs who say the Zapruder film shows shots from the Grassy Knoll?
By definition all film is made up of film grain and Zapruder used a telephoto lens so what point are you trying to make?
You mean the guy who failed to identify Oswald in a lineup?
I do. And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate...
That people on both sides see what they expect to see in the film and then tack on the word "clearly" as if that means anything.
You mean the guy who failed to identify Oswald in a lineup?
I do. And I've told you a million times not to exaggerate...
That people on both sides see what they expect to see in the film and then tack on the word "clearly" as if that means anything.
What?, an unfair lineup?, no wonder Brennan was hesitant.
Brennan's testimony under oath can only be an honest recollection.
Isn't it about 60% of the US population believe in a JFK conspiracy which makes a number of about 200,000,000 and it's safe to say that a fair percentage formed this opinion based on the "back and to the left" in Zapruder, so my original point is hardly an exaggeration.
For a start my original post that you responded to said "reasonably clearly" and secondly there is a lot of misinterpretation in Zapruder but when you use the Zapruder film in addition to the physical evidence then everything becomes clear.
"Hesitant". LOL.
Brennan saw Oswald on television before he even went to the lineup where he didn't make a positive ID. That alone invalidated it.
Brennan's testimony under oath can only be anhonest recollectionembellishment.
There, I fixed it for you.
The shooter was crouched behind boxes and hidden by bricks at the time Brennan saw him "taking aim" with a rifle, and yet he somehow estimated his height, weight, age, and clothing. Incorrectly, I might add, if it was Oswald.
And by "safe to say", you mean wild-ass guess. Clearly.
Physical evidence of what, though?
"Hesitant". LOL.
Brennan's testimony under oath can only be anhonest recollectionembellishment.
There, I fixed it for you.
And by "safe to say", you mean wild-ass guess. Clearly.
So Brennan who says stuff that you don't like is an embellisher, just like McDonald at the Texas Theater who was also an embellisher, do you a see a pattern? LOL!
I looked up then at the Texas Book Depository Building. What I saw made my ?blood run cold.?
Poised in the corner window of the sixth floor was the same young man I had noticed several times before the motorcade arrived. There was one difference?this time he held a rifle in his hands, pointing toward the Presidential car. He steadied the rifle against the cornice and while he moved quickly, he didn?t seem to be in any kind of panic. All of this happened in the matter of a second or two. Then came the sickening sound of a second shot and I looked quickly back to the presidential car which had moved only a few feet, still not apparently aware that it was the assassin?s target.
I saw Governor John Connally reacting to being wounded and the instinctive response of his wife to try and help him. I remember thinking, ?Oh my God! He?s going to kill them, he?s going to kill them all!? The immensity and horror of what I was witnessing almost overwhelmed me. I wanted to cry, I wanted to scream, but I couldn?t utter a sound. I could only watch the whole monstrous drama unfold.
Just then a woman close to me screamed in full realization of what was happening. She uttered something like, ?Oh, my God!? But even as she did my eyes darted back to that solitary figure who was changing history. He was aiming again and I wanted to pray, to beg God to somehow make him miss his target. There wasn?t time to pray, not even time to think about what I was seeing but the sight became so fixed in my mind that I?ll never forget it for as long as I live. There was nothing I could do. It was a hopeless, sinking feeling. I would have gladly given my life in that moment to be able to save the President, but no one could move fast enough to shield him with his own body. Then another shot rang out.
All of this took only a few seconds. I didn?t realize at that moment that I was the only person who was actually watching the man firing the rifle. Simultaneous with the third shot, I swung my eyes back to the Presidential car which had moved on down to my left on Elm, and I saw a sight that made my whole being sink in despair. A spray of red came from around the President?s head. I knew the bullet had struck its intended target. Later, I would learn that the whole scene had taken less than ten seconds. In retrospect, it seemed like several minutes.
By the time the third shot had been fired, there was sheer pandemonium. Everyone was fully aware that the noise they were hearing was shots, not backfire. This was really happening. It was like a nightmare, only I couldn?t wake up from it. No one had to tell me what was ahead. The moment I saw the effects of the third shot, I knew that the assassin had been successful. No person could have survived that kind of wound.
Mass confusion and hysteria set in and I must admit, I was feeling it too. People were screaming. Men and women dressed in their fine suits and dresses, fell to the ground, getting them dirty, but hopefully getting out of the line of fire. At that moment, no one but me seemed to know where the shots had come from. By now uniformed policemen and plain clothes police, who I assumed were Secret Service or F.B.I. Agents came running from every direction. I jumped from the wall to try to get out of the line of fire. I never saw so many guns in my life. Most of the police were running towards the triple underpass which perhaps was a hundred feet or so ahead of the motorcade. Some were running towards an area to the right, slightly raised, which has come to be called the ?Grassy Knoll.? Much speculation has been raised about whether there was another gunman there who was trying to catch the President in a cross-fire. Having witnessed the whole scene, I can say with certainty there was only one gunman present that day and all shots were fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It is easy to understand why many thought the shots were coming from the area of the underpass as the buildings and open area combine to produce an ?echo? effect.
Even as I hit the ground, my first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor. ?Was he going to fire again?? I wondered. By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President?s car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn?t appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do. He seemed pleased that no one had realized where the shots were coming from. Then he did something that puzzled me. Very slowly and deliberately he set the rifle on its butt and just stayed there for a moment to savor what he had done, like a hunter who has ?bagged his buck.? Then, with no sense of haste, he simply moved slowly away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision.
Besides the back and to the left in the Zapruder film which when shown on National TV directly led to the formation of the HSCA, please tell me what else is a major factor in the general population's 200,000,000 conspiracy believers that leads to a conspiracy?
So Brennan who says stuff that you don't like is an embellisher, just like McDonald at the Texas Theater who was also an embellisher, do you a see a pattern? LOL!
JohnM
It has nothing to do with what I like. Brennan is demonstrably an embellisher:
So is McDonald.
- He said Oswald yelled out ?Well, it?s all over now? as he stood up (or was it "this is it")?
- He took sole credit for ordering Adrian Hamby and the others out of the library and determining it was a false alarm
- He took credit for handcuffing Oswald in the Texas Theater
- He claimed to be the one who informed Fritz that Oswald was in custody
He used to hand out these out for godsake:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CUw%2BuJ7RL.jpg)
I have no idea. But I wouldn't just make up an answer and claim that it was "safe to say".
It has nothing to do with what I like.
Brennan is demonstrably an embellisher:
So is McDonald.
- He said Oswald yelled out ?Well, it?s all over now? as he stood up (or was it "this is it")?
I have no idea.
But I wouldn't just make up an answer and claim that it was "safe to say".
Says the guy who takes selfies at Oswald's grave, WOW!
Is that from Brennan's book, who wrote the book and when was it published?
Yeah a real first class Embellisher. WTF?
You can say that again, blind Bambi.
Hardly, even if less than 5% of the population formed their opinion of conspiracy based on the "back and to the left" then my original analysis of millions holds true but from living in the real world, you know the one outside your window, we both know that the figure is a lot more than 5%.
I never took selfies at Oswald's grave. How long do you think my arms are? Even longer than you think Buell Frazier's arms are? And what does that have to do with anything?
Brennan's name is on the cover. Are you getting ready to make an argument that something has to be published as soon as it's written?
You have a point. I was being kind. I should have just said "liar".
It's called intellectual honesty. If you don't know something, don't just make up an answer.
Pulling random statistics out of your azz is hardly a compelling argument. And you don't having the slightest clue what "we both know".
And what does that have to do with anything?
Brennan's name is on the cover.
Are you getting ready to make an argument that something has to be published as soon as it's written?
It's called intellectual honesty.
Pulling random statistics out of your azz is hardly a compelling argument.
I certainly believe Brennan is talking out his arse as are all the other 'I saw the shooter' witnesses. I believe they all would have had something important to say had they not embellished their stories. No way Brennan saw as much as he says or as clear as he says. I believe he saw something though. Shame he ruined it all by launching into Shakespeare mode.
Everything, practically every one of your posts revolves around Oswald's innocence, it's embarrassing!
Btw I'm sure you posted a different photo of you at a different time at Oswald's grave site on the last Forum, did you?
Was the book published after Brennan's death?
You wouldn't know "intellectual honesty" is it came up and bit you on the Arse.
No, I pulled facts from the real World, facts that arch enemies Bugliosi and Jim DiEugenio both agreed on, that the back and to the left in Zapruder being shown on TV was a milestone event and as Jim states enthusiastically ?The effect of this public showing of the Zapruder film was, in a word, electrifying. The day after, the Kennedy assassination was topic number one in bars and barber shops across America."
Says the guy who takes selfies at Oswald's grave, WOW!
JohnM
I never took selfies at Oswald's grave. How long do you think my arms are? Even longer than you think Buell Frazier's arms are? And what does that have to do with anything?
Wrong. I have never once claimed that Oswald was innocent. Just pointed out the many ways in which your position is faulty.
Yeah, you're "sure" about a lot of things...
Yes. So?
Says the guy who makes up statistics.
Who ever said it wan't a milestone event? Now you're just rambling...
Wrong. I have never once claimed that Oswald was innocent.
Just pointed out the many ways in which your position is faulty.
Yeah, you're "sure" about a lot of things...
Says the guy who makes up statistics.
Who ever said it wan't a milestone event?
After this forum had restarted he just about accused Colin Crow of hacking the old forum....
"he just about"
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Truly Pathetic! pfffft!
JohnM
Btw what ever happened to you reporting me?
Good, you're on the path to salvation.
But none of that leads to Oswald's innocence, right?
And describe in your own words why it was a milestone event?
Seeing as it is a new Forum, I gave you a break, but please don't push me again.
JohnM
Unlike you, I don't just believe stuff for no good reason. All it takes is evidence, Mytton.
Guilty until proven innocent? Is that how it works in Australia?
It was the first time that the public was able to see the complete Z film in motion. What does that have to do with your made up statistics about "millions of CKs who say the Zapruder film shows shots from the Grassy Knoll"?
Unlike you, I don't just believe stuff for no good reason.
All it takes is evidence, Mytton.
Guilty until proven innocent?
Is that how it works in Australia?
It was the first time that the public was able to see the complete Z film in motion. What does that have to do with your made up statistics about "millions of CKs who say the Zapruder film shows shots from the Grassy Knoll"?
Already pleading for clemency?
I will push you every time you misrepresent facts or make completely false accusations.
Already pleading for clemency?
I will push you every time you misrepresent facts or make completely false accusations.
Yeah and our side has a mountain of evidence
whereas your side has zero evidence of a conspiracy, go figure.
I go where the evidence takes me.
No, we have one of the best legal sytems in the World.
You've tried every avenue but still you fail, the video and the comments that accompany the first showing of Zapruder clearly show which part of the film had the most impact, which was only thoroughly endorsed by both Jim and Vincent and only reinforce how out of touch you really are.
"how does that prove that Oswald did it?"
"an inability to prove Oswald innocent means anything?"
Every post from you ends up being steered towards Oswald, have you ever looked into why you are absolutely besotted with this man, it's absolutely creepy!
JohnM
Every post from you ends up being steered towards Oswald, have you ever looked into why you are absolutely besotted with this man, it's absolutely creepy!
Because you're besotted with the idea that he killed the president. Stop baselessly accusing him of a crime and I'll stop pointing out why your "evidence" is lacking.
Because you're besotted with the idea that he killed the president.
Stop baselessly accusing him of a crime and I'll stop pointing out why your "evidence" is lacking.
It's hard to ignore the existing evidence pointing at Oswald no matter how flimsy or tainted, and accept the non existence of evidence pointing at anyone else, especially CIA, FBI, Cubans, Mafia, Texas oilmen, SA Greer or Jackie Kennedy.
I accept that a good defence team today would smash a lot of that evidence and I accept Oswald would have fried in 1963 based on the same evidence. What happens in a court does not determine whether a person committed a crime or not though. It only determines whether they should be convicted or not.
Flimsy or not the evidence leads me to Oswald. The only question left is was anyone else involved. Sometimes ya got to try to think rationally and sensibly. Who would shoot JFK from the front and try to frame a shooter from behind? Who would then fake an autopsy in front of so many witnesses or allow so many people into the trauma room at Parkland? Who in a professional capacity would even consider shooting at a moving target in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses if they didn't want caught and the plan exposed? Who the hell would use a Carcano???
The whole thing is tainted by so many charlatans and nutters with theories like Lee and Harvey and even two Roberts and Marguerites. It's insanity. Seems to me conspiracy theorists need to start looking for a conspiracy, not the shooter. If someone smothered Kennedy with a pillow in his sleep, or poisoned his food and faked a quiet private autopsy the whole thing would have been over 50 years ago.
Thank you. You are the voice of reason. Over the years of the computer age, every nut with a conspiracy theory has come out of the woodwork with outrageous conspiracy theories. People like Leroy Blevins who is constantly posting nothing but gibberish on his YouTube channel, and people are loony enough to suck it up. Same with others on YouTube. Now, we are also dealing with nutcases claiming a "Mandela Effect" involved . That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire. The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air. During the 60's, 70's and 80's, it was David Lifton who came up with the most ludicrous conspiracy theories of them all. He believed that there were gunmen in the trees lining the knoll, along with a camouflaged "grassy knoll", where gunmen were shooting from the hill itself and that Governor Connally was shot from the front. Now, all these years later, people are claiming that Bill Greer shot JFK, Jackie shot JFK, Connally shot JFK, that the whole assassination was "staged", that the Zapruder film is "fake", that certain films and photographs were altered and the list goes. We have people going to Oswald's grave, standing over it and singing songs to him. I never knew such a bunch of foolish people who would support a man who was a violent tempered, wife abusing, irresponsible dad who slapped his mother, pulled a knife on his sister-in-law, admitted that he was a marxist, defected to Russia, told his brother that he hated America, tried to commit suicide, and on and on. If this doesn't paint a picture of a very disturbed, rotten, hateful man, nothing does. But they support him. Much like the Charles Manson sympathizers.
This is a JFK assassination Forum and it seems that you're not interested in who assassinated JFK, how bizarre!
It's hard to ignore the existing evidence pointing at Oswald no matter how flimsy or tainted, and accept the non existence of evidence pointing at anyone else, especially CIA, FBI, Cubans, Mafia, Texas oilmen, SA Greer or Jackie Kennedy.
Thank you. You are the voice of reason. Over the years of the computer age, every nut with a conspiracy theory has come out of the woodwork with outrageous conspiracy theories.
I never knew such a bunch of foolish people who would support a man who was a violent tempered, wife abusing, irresponsible dad who slapped his mother, pulled a knife on his sister-in-law, admitted that he was a marxist, defected to Russia, told his brother that he hated America, tried to commit suicide, and on and on. If this doesn't paint a picture of a very disturbed, rotten, hateful man, nothing does. But they support him. Much like the Charles Manson sympathizers.
That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire. The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air.
It's got ya worried doesn't it?.... The timid folk who were afraid to speak out and state that the government was lying are finding their voice.
The tables are now turning and those who you've been calling "kooks" are becoming the the sane .....
That there were only 4 people within the limousine, not six and it's catching on like wildfire. The millennials are hard at work pulling things out of thin air.
It's got ya worried doesn't it?.... The timid folk who were afraid to speak out and state that the government was lying are finding their voice.
The tables are now turning and those who you've been calling "kooks" are becoming the the sane .....
It's got ya worried doesn't it?
It's hard to ignore that what little evidence there is pointing at Oswald is flimsy and tainted.
It's hard to ignore what evidence there is of Oswald pointing guns at cops
It's hard to ignore the existing evidence pointing at Oswald no matter how flimsy or tainted, and accept the non existence of evidence pointing at anyone else, especially CIA, FBI, Cubans, Mafia, Texas oilmen, SA Greer or Jackie Kennedy.
I accept that a good defence team today would smash a lot of that evidence and I accept Oswald would have fried in 1963 based on the same evidence. What happens in a court does not determine whether a person committed a crime or not though. It only determines whether they should be convicted or not.
Flimsy or not the evidence leads me to Oswald. The only question left is was anyone else involved. Sometimes ya got to try to think rationally and sensibly. Who would shoot JFK from the front and try to frame a shooter from behind? Who would then fake an autopsy in front of so many witnesses or allow so many people into the trauma room at Parkland? Who in a professional capacity would even consider shooting at a moving target in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses if they didn't want caught and the plan exposed? Who the hell would use a Carcano???
The whole thing is tainted by so many charlatans and nutters with theories like Lee and Harvey and even two Roberts and Marguerites. It's insanity. Seems to me conspiracy theorists need to start looking for a conspiracy, not the shooter.
It so cute that you keep trying to participate.
It's so cute seeing you kneeling at the gravesite of the two-time killer Oswald.
Any clown can accuse somebody of murder. Especially clowns who think “another Frazier” threatened Buell Frazier.
“another Frazier” threatened Buell Frazier."
> Say something important.
Here, let me offer up a dose of reality:
Oswald killed Tippit and probably shot Kennedy.
What’s cute is that a guy who can’t keep names straight, and doesn’t know or understand any of the evidence thinks that repeating the same claim over and over again means a damn thing.
A few names to note:The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it. Deny deny deny. It was all a coverup, the witnesses are part of the conspiracy, the evidence was planted or stolen...on and on and on.
Lee Harvey Oswald (aka a nobody): Killer of J.D. Tippit
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka a somebody): Probably shot by Lee Harvey Oswald
Alek Hidell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of armament procurement for Lee Harvey Oswald
Oswald Harvey Lee (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of safe-house procurement for Lee Harvey Oswald
Dirty Harvey (aka Lee Harvey Oswald): In charge of killing poor dumb cops
The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it. Deny deny deny. It was all a coverup, the witnesses are part of the conspiracy, the evidence was planted or stolen...on and on and on.
You cannot reason with conspiracy fanatics. Whatever evidence you produce will simply be said to be evidence of the conspiracy.
The assassination has been investigated, off and on, for more than half a century. The government had investigations, news organizations conducted investigations, reporters interviewed the witnesses at the scene, historians like Caro have done extensive work on the key figures, other reporters like Hersh and Weiner did investigations. This is the most studied event in American history.
And the totality of it all of it leads to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK. Did he have help? There's no evidence for it. Maybe he did. But we'll never find out today.
So the conspiracy response to all of this is to simply deny it all. Like Trump and his supporters, they just deny that investigations show that the election wasn't stolen. It is literally impossible to reason with such a mindset.
Nobody needed help or even a motive to do what Oswald probably didMost likely. He retrieved his rifle the day before the assassination, he had to hitch a ride from a friend to get to the "scene", he left nearly all of his money to Marina, he had no means of transportation, he's out walking around in broad daylight after the assassination......
Justdodid it for the hell of it, and buggered off
Just sayin' ;)
And right NOW we have some of Trump's supporters/thugs storming the Capitol. What an embarrassment. A bunch of disgraces to the country. Just disgusting.
Trump is the biggest thug in historyI can think of dozens of people in history who were far bigger thugs, did far more horrible things than this idiot Trump.
Last night Chris Cuomo (CNN) said 'thunka-thunka'
John Berman asks what that means
Cuomo responds 'that's the sound of the tires as Trump throws Pence under the bus'
In CT Wonderland, nothing is knowable, nothing is provable, and nothing is believable.
Sounds just like a certain (unmentionable hereabouts, as per forum rules) irreligious, dogmatic belief system.
The Oswald defenders make the same arguments that the Trump supporters do about the alleged stolen election. You present evidence and they deny it.
You cannot reason with conspiracy fanatics. Whatever evidence you produce will simply be said to be evidence of the conspiracy.
The assassination has been investigated, off and on, for more than half a century. The government had investigations, news organizations conducted investigations, reporters interviewed the witnesses at the scene, historians like Caro have done extensive work on the key figures, other reporters like Hersh and Weiner did investigations. This is the most studied event in American history.
And the totality of it all of it leads to the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK.
Like Trump and his supporters, they just deny that investigations show that the election wasn't stolen.
It is literally impossible to reason with such a mindset.
Nobody needed help or even a motive to do what Oswald probably did
Justdodid it for the hell of it, and buggered off
Just sayin' ;)
Most likely. He retrieved his rifle the day before the assassination,
He left the building shortly after the shooting. There is no evidence at all that he showed any interest in what happened. Is JFK dead? Did they catch the shooters? There is no evidence he had any concern about this.
This is where his defenders say, "Lots of people didn't care about the shooting." Right, Oswald was just like "lots of other people." Nothing distinguished him from them.
We're going around in circles. The evidence is known. One can accept it or reject it.
Says the guy who knows nothing, has proven nothing, and just believes.
Yet another thing you pontificate about that you have no understanding of.
That's all you ever do -- just say things.
You have it exactly backwards. The Trump cult claims that their "stolen election" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.
Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.
You cannot reason with WC fanatics. Whenever you show them the problems with their "evidence" and the fallacies in their arguments, they ignore it and just continue to parrot the same old unsupported claims.
Yep, there is no shortage of investigations. And assumptions. And conjectures. And opinions.
No, it leads people who already believe the conclusion that Oswald shot JFK to reassert their belief over and over again.
Another thing that WC fanatics never understand is that the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that their claim is true, not on anyone else to demonstrate that it didn't happen that way. Election "fraud" claimants cannot demonstrate that any election-changing fraud occurred. "Oswald did it" claimants cannot demonstrate that Oswald did it.
It's impossible to reason when you are not actually employing reason.
'Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.'No she lied. Or was coached. Brennan lied. McDonald lied. Calloway lied. Scoggins lied. On and on and on...they all lied.
Markham already did that
And here, like the Trump defenders, one wishes away the evidence. Close your eyes, cover your ears and deny.
Oswald talked to no one around the building, no co-workers, about what happened. All said they never saw him after lunch. Not a one said he stopped to talk to them.
There is no evidence he talked to anyone on the bus about the shooting. There is no evidence he talked to Whatley, thebuscab driver, about what happened just outside the building where he worked. There is no evidence he talked to Roberts when he went to his rooming house.
But like the Trump supporters who deny he's a liar a fraud, you'll deny all of this. Trump cultists are like Oswald cultists. Their guy can't do anything wrong at all.
Cults of personalities are wrong and dangerous. But a cult of defenders for Trump? And one for the pathetic Oswald? Really, this is what you spend your life doing online?
Trump supporters demanded an investigation; they got one, multiple ones. Oswald supporters wanted an investigation; they got one, multiple ones. In both cases the supporters reject the findings. Everyone lied or is a liar. They're all corrupt. They all are in on it.
They simply cannot accept facts. End of story.
:'(
AW, poor misunderstood Johnny; and on two fronts no less.
What you think you know and understand is soaked in biased opinion
Where did I say I could prove anything here
I believe I saw you kneeling at the killer's grave
That's all anybody needs to know about Oswald-lovers
'Likewise, the WC cult claims that their "Oswald did it" conclusion is correct but are unable to provide evidence beyond allegations.'
Markham already did that
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I said "beyond allegations". Besides:
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.
Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.
Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Mr. BALL. No one of the four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.
Mr. BALL. No one of all four?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Was there a number two man in there?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two is the one I picked.
Says the guy who can do nothing to prove that someone is "the killer" but declares him to be one anyway. I can call you "the child molester" too. That doesn't make it a fact.
#2
Therefore she meant before 11/22/63
You can? You already did.
Dec 2019
as if you know what she meant.
BS:
#2 = She meant Oswald
I have the screen shots
You know what you said
Your mindreading skills aren't any better than your investigative skills, your memory, your logic skills, or your sense of humor.
Pretty sure #2 was Oswald
Sure you do, Bill. I'm sure you're misrepresenting that as much as you're misrepresenting what Markham "meant".
So what?
Dec 2019
Iacoletti
"Not surprised that you have an interest in choir boys though"
Tell us what I could misrepresent about that
So cool.
There's nothing "cool" about you spouting off what you're "pretty sure" about.
No, cool that Markham nailed Oswald as #2
Markham didn't "nail" anything.
She "picked" who the police wanted her to "pick" with their unfair, biased lineup. So what?
She "picked" who the police wanted her to "pick"She told numerous people that Oswald was the shooter. She lucked out too because numerous other witnesses who saw Oswald at the scene next to the police car or walking away with a revolver in his hand also later identified Oswald as the man they saw. She sure got lucky.
>Prove that. She testified that no one told her to do anything
She f'n near fainted when she recognized the little prick. The others in the lineup didn't faze her. Get stand-ins as close as you want to Oswald... it's the look in his eyes that shook her, like on the street.
That's not a screen shot. Nor can I find any post of mine that says that. Nor does it even say what you accused me of calling you. Triple fail.
That's not a screen shot. Nor can I find any post of mine that says that. Nor does it even say what you accused me of calling you. Triple fail.
For what it's worth Gerda on YouTube, who has made some interesting videos but hasn't posted on her channel in 7 years, made a video about this:
Personally I've always thought it was JBC sitting up or whatever it is he's doing. It makes no sense for Jackie or Hill to have pushed Kennedy up that high when his head was split open by the shots.
She "picked" who the police wanted her to "pick"
> Prove that. Nothing in her testimony reveals that little gem.
She f'n near fainted when she recognized the little prick.
But I have a time-stamped document proving your charges.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Nowhere in any of those screenshots (which are mostly your words) do I ever call you a child molester.
The lineup was unfair and biased. Markham didn't have to be aware of that in order to make it so.
No, she specifically said that she didn't recognize anyone in the lineup.
Totally thought it was Connally at first but Gerda's work suggests to me that Jackie is pushing JFK's body up. Maybe some kind of shock/trauma thing.
Sorry Dan that's not Kennedy. Jackie's crouching and looking downward, most probably holding Kennedy's hair on (like she said she did). There's no pink arms on the figure propping it up like you think she's doing. Her pink hat is in front of that body which means she's in the back seat and Connolly is in the background further away from her. There's also no flap of scalp on the head of that figure as well.
The more interesting thing, of course, is why Connolly is sitting up? He'd just had his lung collapsed and other painful injuries. Earlier in the Z film, you can see him falling toward back first to his wife. So for some reason he sat up momentarily - perhaps because of shock or panic?
One of the WC's own counsels, Ball, called Markham an "utter screwball." Very highly dubious and leading testimony from her. Of course you know this, Bill, will turn a blind eye to it all. Or, being biased yourself, you'll say some other kind of whack-o-mole reply to it. If Oswald had had his day in court, Markham would have been laughed out of court by his counsel.
One of the WC's own counsels, Ball, called Markham an "utter screwball." Very highly dubious and leading testimony from her. Of course you know this, Bill, will turn a blind eye to it all. Or, being biased yourself, you'll say some other kind of whack-o-mole reply to it. If Oswald had had his day in court, Markham would have been laughed out of court by his counsel.
Why would you say this
(https://i.postimg.cc/4Ndg3M8F/catholics-cath-think.png)
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Her unusual way of understanding and responding to questions wore on Ball.
He wasn’t getting the answers he wanted. Hence he resorted to “Was there a number two man in there?”.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.
Maybe your endless vapid remarks don’t mean a damn thing.
I’ve never been to your grave, Chapman.
Have you ever said anything relevant or interesting in your life?
Sorry John but Chapman is a BIG prick.
Sorry John but Chapman is a BIG prick.
Not nearly as big as he thinks he is.
Very clear GIF showing Connally rising (Credit: Gerda)That's a remarkable GIF. The clarity is amazing.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/m2bgd4lway9c.gif)
It appears to me that the damage was done to the " TOP " of the skull, which extended across to the right side, just above the ear.Yes, which is why some of the material blew/exploded upwards and forward. The Connallys said that brain matter and blood landed on them. Greer and Kellerman said the same thing. And blood/brain matter landed on the front of the limo, on the hood. If the shot exited the back of the head how did all of that material land in front of JFK?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE2_HI_Crop.jpg)
That's a remarkable GIF. The clarity is amazing.
I simply do not understand how people can view this and still think the bullet striking JFK's head exited from the rear/back of it. Unless you believe the film was altered; in which case I do understand. The eyewitnesses who said the wound was in the back/rear of the head - including highly trained physicians - were simply wrong. Look at that horrible wound on JFK's head.
You know that no bullet can throw a body around like that, let alone a head. The Oswald bullet pushed the head about 2.5" forward which means the kick of the rifle would have been about that much. The equal/opposite reaction Newton thing.I think so too. So it's doubly true.
I said that so it must be true.
;)
I think so too. So it's doubly true.
Josiah Thompson has a new book out - or soon to be released - that says the 2.5" movement is an illusion and didn't actually happen.
I wonder how he's going to pull that one off. The small head movement forward is in full view, and would have snapped back about the same distance if not aided by other physiological factors.From the Amazon site for his book: "The sudden two-inch forward movement of the president’s head in the Zapruder film just before his head explodes is revealed to be an optical illusion caused by the movement of Zapruder’s camera. This leaves without further challenge clear evidence that this shot came from a specific location to the right front of the limousine."
From the Amazon site for his book: "The sudden two-inch forward movement of the president’s head in the Zapruder film just before his head explodes is revealed to be an optical illusion caused by the movement of Zapruder’s camera. This leaves without further challenge clear evidence that this shot came from a specific location to the right front of the limousine."
I don't know how one can claim that it "leaves without further challenge clear evidence that this shot came from a specific location to the right front of the limousine." Thompson argues a second shot then immediately followed this one; one from the right front, another from behind.
Book is here: https://www.amazon.com/Last-Second-Dallas-Josiah-Thompson/dp/0700630082/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=josiah+thompson&qid=1610900991&s=books&sr=1-1
Just read the Amazon previewIf Zapruder's camera motion/movement caused the "apparent but not actual" movement of JFK's head then why didn't Jackie and JC also show this "optical illusion"? Shouldn't everything in the frame move, or appear to move, as well?
Maybe Josiah missed this:
https://archive.org/details/JFKAssassinationForwardHeadMovement
If Zapruder's camera motion/movement caused the "apparent but not actual" movement of JFK's head then why didn't Jackie and JC also show this "optical illusion"? Shouldn't everything in the frame move, or appear to move, as well?
Thompson's a smart man so these questions are probably addressed.
It's clear from this clip that the first movement of JFK's head is forward at the moment of impact:
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJF858sd/Head-Shot-close.gif) (https://postimages.org/)