(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z322.jpg) | (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z329.jpg) |
Look at your frames that you have provided. Where do you see Connally and Kellerman - so obscured that you can't see them in a position that would block the frontal assault on the President which occurred? Obviously Connally's head is already below "shot line" and Kellerman's head is "blobbed" in over on Greer's door panel with Greer grimacing nicely! Look at even the pictures you are providing - look at Nellie's flowers and look at Connally's head position! One frame Connally head is not there and the next is - magic!!! Tell me exactly where you see them and I will tell you they are below seat level!!!!! You are not providing closeups of z-322 or z-329 - you have provided a zoom of z-321 and what's the other one? You are not comparing apples to apples here my friend. Do these frames even exist within your album? ihttps://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=5 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=6&page=5) z-322 is not done in a closeup for obvious reasons I am guessing!!!!! Please correct me if I am wrong. I stand to be corrected.
Your evidence has not been presented adequately to persuade my logic!
I am not only basing it on the obvious triangular pattern of the light reflection across a "flat black" surface on the original frames, but I am also basing it on the composite of the frames below. Look also closely in the frame you provided. The hand raised and the head moved in the back position at z-321 - clearly a reactionary pose to what was coming at him from the front. This is Not a rearward reaction to a "brain blowout" 8 frames earlier, 1/2 a second earlier. Look again, Jacqueline's non-reaction until after z-331 when Jacqueline wants to leave the car and the red blob is painted in once more on the original frames!!! Huge discrepancy - the frames are showing exactly what I am proving, Jacqueline did not see the z-313 head plume (6 feet high) blowout as it never occurred!!!!
Show me a blowup from your "blowups on z-331 and see how it compares to Costella's frames listed on the internet. Compare one to the other and tell me how they edited out the red blob on the President's head. While your at it, show blow ups of the z-322 and z-329 so that we can compare the "glass shard" reflection.
Post blowups which have a frame number on them so we can compare the two so we know that we are looking at the same frames. You have not posted frame z-322 nor have you posted a blowup to compare to z-329 - they are not there!!
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg)
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z321.jpg)
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z331.jpg (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z331.jpg)
Look at the re-occurring red blob reappearing on the President's head at z-331! As I said, they done some serious editing in these frames to provide evidence that Connally and Kellerman were in fact in positions to make a frontal assault not possible. If it wasn't glass shatter that caused the light reflection, what was it - a finely polished black suit jacket or Greer's suit jacket? You don't catch glimmers of light for no reason or for translocation of shiny surfaces elsewhere in the car!! It doesn't add up - glass shards do make nice evidence however!!! That is absurd to think you are going to get a reflection off a black suit jacket - this is not a polished painted suit jacket surface lol! It doesn't reflect light!
Never mind you see the assassin roll into the picture mere frames later.
Top that off with lacking photographs from non-existent newsman in front of him, never providing a photograph. Films misdeveloped obviously! Moorman's polaroid is all you get -lol!! Drink the kool-aid if you like!!
Moorman's polaroid is all you get -lol!! Drink the kool-aid if you like!!
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_20150407-073813.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_20150407-073905.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_20150407-074018.jpg) |
Additionally, look at Nellie Connally's testimony and how according to her, there was a wound the size of a baseball in her husband's mid chest. Now compare that to his testimony 5 days later from the hospital bed pointing to his shoulder as his biggest "pain" spot. Compare this to his provided suit jacket on the internet - obviously this lady has never seen his scars!!!!!! (He was told to make sure you indicate the shots come from behind!) She was married to him - I guess she was never intimate enough to know the difference between a frontal chest shot and a "side shot" as evidenced by his suit jacket and the misevidence she gives. Where is the truth or is it neither because she forget her story and never saw either?? I bet you never seen him in public again showing his war wound in a swin suit - lol! I know they disallowed removing anything from Connally's body during an autopsy when he died - that was off limits! They could have dissected his body even with a mere x-ray if it was allowed to even determine that there were no fragments left in his thigh which someone had sought to gather. I have seen this in a newspaper - autopsy denied! Obviously if you could take pictures of his body and not find scars, there is a problem in the whole story and it unravels!
Again, if you look at his testimony closer, he was standing on the grassy knoll - not on the island.
I pointed this out clearly in my video as HE stated it when asked in the "History Channel" interview. It is not much different than the original Jean Hill testimony which you John have vehemently denied as false!! This, I pointed out to you last year (December) before all threads were deleted!! She had clearly stated that they were on the same side as the President - can't dispute those remarks in the original interview done before the FBI talked to her!!
You have no logical explanation as to why the assassin ended up rolling in the grass and why the camera man in front of him stays absolutely rigid.
Obviously the assassin was running from the front of the car and his momentum was carrying him in that direction
- it was not a mere duck - it was a rollover!!!!![/b] That "pox-faced" imposter introduced to youtube in 2014 that you claim is Malcom Summers was an imposter! Quote your original Nova proof of 1998 to start adding some credibility behind your argument!!
Look at the 2 pictures and you can't tell me they are the same people!
Look at the evidence - obviously you are not suggesting a logical sequence like I am. No one knows the identity of the rolling assassin and you would be a fool to suggest that it was Malcom Summers after watching his interview!! Obviously this testimony was ignored just as Jean Hill's original testimony was! Pretty Sad!!
In order to discredit this statement, a look alike actor (my conjecture) was hired to run across the street saying it was actually him - this was posted on Youtube in 2014 on its own. I had also noticed that the imposter's 41 second clip is always at the top of the list on a Google search. You can't miss it! I wonder how that ordering is set up that it always come up first? John Iacolleti pointed out that this clip comes from a Nova Film of 1988. Thanks for that. I still maintain that his the original man's neck is shorter, his adam's apple is way bigger and the birthmarks on the LHS of the picture are missing on the actor. They only gave a very brief glimpse of this man in that clip and not great frames to compare.. I don't see these 2 people as being the same - the testimonies don't match. Sorry. I studied both clips - not the same people in my opinion nor saying the same thing as they contradict.