Connally's lapel flip at Z224.
The exiting slug missed the lapel by a mile. And in any case it was at Z218 plus or minus a frame or two.
What caused the lapel to flip?
Did the slug exit a bit side-on? In which case it shook the whole coat. And that shaking caused the lapel to stand up at Z218 -- which Zapruder didnt show koz it woz black on black. And then a gust flipped the lapel further so that Zapruder did show it.
What have i missed?
I'm confused by your over analyzing. I think the lapel flips up for just one frame at z224 as part of the sbt.I am ok with the the sbt (the magic bullet).
I am ok with the the sbt (the magic bullet).
I think that what u are saying is that the magic bullet is at Z224.
That duznt work!!!!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-94Smfj5-wQ4/UolSwlgbXNI/AAAAAAAAw1w/2t04L3GlQPY/s535/110.+Z223-Z224+Toggling+Clip.gif)
(https://www.jfk-online.com/225-226-Full.gif)
JohnM
The bullet most like struck JFK and Connally at z222.I found that the jiggles/blurring do not tell us whether Z218 (my estimate) or Z222 (your estimate) are the magic bullet.
The bullet does not have to strike the lapel to move the lapel. Put on a mans dress coat or sports coat, make a strong tap (pushing outward) one side of the coat, several inches below the lapel, and the whole side of the coat will bulge forward, including the lapel. If the tap is strong enough, I imagine the lapel could flip.
As an aside, Im not certain the lapel flipped upward. The detail in the Zapruder film is not strong enough to say, in my laymans opinion. But surely the coat moved suddenly, as can most clearly be seen in frame z224.
Support for the hit at z222, and not a later hit on Connally in the z230s, is:
* The sudden blurring of the Soon to be hit Connally at z223, not seen in the unwounded occupants of the limousine, only him, as if he was suddenly wounded.
* The sudden movement of the Soon to be hit right side of Connallys coat, reaching a maximum at z224.
* The sudden jerking up of JFK elbows upwards starting at z226, a pose we would hold, more or less, until the head shot at z312.
* The sudden jerking up of Connallys Soon to be hit right wrist, also starting at z226, causing his right hand to suddenly rise 6 inches in the next few frames.
* The sudden movement of the camera at z227-z228, causing blurring of the whole frame, 5 to 6 frames after z222, and similar to the similar camera movement at z318, 6 frames after z312.
The support for a shot at z222 is overwhelming. There are too many coincidences if this theory is false.
How can anyone not see this is the moment both men are shot through?JFK is not vizible at Z222. JFK has already reacted by lifting his hand at Z223.
Connally's lapel flip at Z224.You missed reading all the evidence. If you had, you would have realized that JFK is reacting to being struck on the first shot. And JBC is reacting to it as well. If JBC has been struck it was not in the right armpit.JBC said he reacted to the first shot by turning around to check on JFK, which is what he does beginning a few frames later.
The exiting slug missed the lapel by a mile. And in any case it was at Z218 plus or minus a frame or two.
What caused the lapel to flip?
Did the slug exit a bit side-on? In which case it shook the whole coat. And that shaking caused the lapel to stand up at Z218 -- which Zapruder didnt show koz it woz black on black. And then a gust flipped the lapel further so that Zapruder did show it.
What have i missed?
You missed reading all the evidence. If you had, you would have realized that JFK is reacting to being struck on the first shot. And JBC is reacting to it as well. If JBC has been struck it was not in the right armpit.JBC said he reacted to the first shot by turning around to check on JFK, which is what he does beginning a few frames later.The lapel flip was cleared up in reply#7 as per below. Tests showed that the lapel could flip even tho the slug missed the actual lapel. And the flip/tests suggested a hit at Z222, but i still prefer my Z218. Anyhow, this was Oswalds shot-2, the magic bullet. Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted off the signal arm & the slug put a hole in the floor of the limo. And Oswald didnt fire a shot-3.
The zfilm does not have enough resolution for anyone to see what is happening with the jacket, but it does not look at all like a lapel flip to me. In z224 the jacket looks very much like it did in z222.
You missed reading all the evidence. If you had, you would have realized that JFK is reacting to being struck on the first shot. And JBC is reacting to it as well. If JBC has been struck it was not in the right armpit.JBC said he reacted to the first shot by turning around to check on JFK, which is what he does beginning a few frames later.
The zfilm does not have enough resolution for anyone to see what is happening with the jacket, but it does not look at all like a lapel flip to me. In z224 the jacket looks very much like it did in z222.
A close up of the movement of the jacket.It is not a matter of "logic". It is a matter of evidence. The evidence is that JFK and JBC are reacting at the same time although it does appear that JFK began reacting before he appears from behind the sign. But the evidence is also that JFK reacted to being hit on the first shot while JBC reacted to hearing it and fearing an assassination was unfolding. The evidence also is that the last two shots were close together with the second shot sounding after the mid point between 1 and 3.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv5xdwTQ/lapel-close-gif.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Considering the unbelievably short space of time these two frames represent (55 milliseconds - almost twice as quick as the blink of an eye) it is a really significant movement.
The unbelievably rapid movement of the jacket is caused by a bullet passing through JBC's torso and exiting his chest.
We know for a fact the bullet passed through the right side of the jacket, the same side of the jacket being 'blown out' in the frames above.
Wind would not cause such a rapid movement and we can see in the bottom right hand corner of the frames below the flag on the front of the limo is limp, demonstrating there was no significant wind blowing on that side of the limo at that moment.
The only logical explanation of the jacket's rapid movement is the gunshot that passes through both men.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-94Smfj5-wQ4/UolSwlgbXNI/AAAAAAAAw1w/2t04L3GlQPY/s535/110.+Z223-Z224+Toggling+Clip.gif)
It is not a matter of "logic". It is a matter of evidence. The evidence is that JFK and JBC are reacting at the same time although it does appear that JFK began reacting before he appears from behind the sign. But the evidence is also that JFK reacted to being hit on the first shot while JBC reacted to hearing it and fearing an assassination was unfolding. The evidence also is that the last two shots were close together with the second shot sounding after the mid point between 1 and 3.
As far as the supposed lapel flip is concerned, how do you explain the similar appearance of the jacket in z222 and z224? On what basis can you eliminate movement of the right arm across his front as the cause of the jacket movement? His right arm is certainly moving there.
"It is not a matter of "logic". It is a matter of evidence."It is a matter of looking at all the evidence. Logic is based on premises. Premises have to be based on ALL the evidence. Not just one piece of evidence and someone's interpretation of it that does not fit the rest of the evidence. That is all I am saying. Your premises do not fit the evidence.
I like the way you've separated "logic" and "evidence", it is something represented in a lot of your arguments.
Because you will not relinquish your debunked shot at z271 you cannot have a shot passing through JBC at this point. The movement of his jacket is unbelievably rapid and significant. The radical difference between the two jacket positions occurs in 55 milliseconds - this is the point - any explanation must take into account the profound rapidity of the jacket which is why 'the wind' explanation fails.The arm most certainly is moving. From z222 to z223 it drops to the right and then moves continuously across his body. From z222 to z223, the amount of jacket covering the shirt decreases, from z223 to z224 it increases. At z222 we see the hand, at z223 it disappears below the top of the door, in z224 we still don't see it, in z225 we see the hand again and in z226 we can see the hat (blurry but confirmed as the hat in z230):
So how can you explain this movement:
"On what basis can you eliminate movement of the right arm across his front as the cause of the jacket movement? His right arm is certainly moving there."
JBC's right arm is not moving across his front at this moment, that is something you've invented in a desperate attempt to explain the incredibly rapid movement of JBC's jacket.
The frame below is z223:
It is a matter of looking at all the evidence. Logic is based on premises. Premises have to be based on ALL the evidence. Not just one piece of evidence and someone's interpretation of it that does not fit the rest of the evidence. That is all I am saying. Your premises do not fit the evidence.
The arm most certainly is moving. From z222 to z223 it drops to the right and then moves continuously across his body. From z222 to z223, the amount of jacket covering the shirt decreases, from z223 to z224 it increases. At z222 we see the hand, at z223 it disappears below the top of the door, in z224 we still don't see it, in z225 we see the hand again and in z226 we can see the hat (blurry but confirmed as the hat in z230):
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Jacket_movement_z222_z231.gif)
If a bullet made the jacket move from z223 to z224, how do you explain the change from z222 to z223?
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Jacket_movement_z222_z223.gif)
It appears that the jacket lapel is covering more of his shirt in z222 than in z223 and this appears to occur at the same time as his right hand drops from view. So if the jacket can move from covering the shirt to exposing the shirt in one frame due to the movement of the hand, logic would tell you that that it could do the reverse in one frame due to the movement of the hand.
The usual unbelievable nonsense.It is not difficult. The arm moves down from z222 to z223. From z223 to z225 it moves across his body. We can't see it in z224 but we can infer that it must be moving across his front because we can see this movement in the succeeding frames. All I am saying is that the movement of the jacket is perfectly consistent with the arm moving across his front before z224. It is not difficult.
You are saying the movement of JBC's jacket in z224 is caused by JBC's arm moving across the front of his body.
I point out that his arm isn't moving across the front of him at this moment.
You disagree and, as usual, completely contradict yourself to try and win a point:
" At z222 we see the hand, at z223 it disappears below the top of the door, in z224 we still don't see it,"
So, as you correctly point out, JBC's hand disappears below the top of the door from z222 to z223. This happens in 55 milliseconds (half the blink of an eye), and is the moment JBC's wrist is hit by the bullet.
You then go on to state that his hand is still below the top of the door in z224, the same frame as the so-called 'lapel flip'.
In on breath you say the 'lapel flip' is caused by his arm is moving across his front at this point then in the next you state his hand is still below the top of the door at this point!!
You will literally say anything to keep your debunked theory alive in your mind.Well, I could make the same comment about your approach, perhaps - saying anything to keep the z224 bullet theory alive. But I won't.
The 'lapel flip' cannot be caused by his hand moving across his front as his hand is still below the top of the door at this point.His hand can't be moving just because we can't see it? And you think I am being unreasonable?
So what causes it if not the fragments of bone and tissue debris blowing out of the exit wound in his chest?The fragments of bone and tissue blowing out of the exit wound? What evidence is there of that? I am not aware of any bone fragments from the rib going anywhere except into the lower lobe of the right lung.
I have been looking at the Groden copy and it is clearer for viewing the lapel. In frame 222 the lapel looks like it has already flipped over most of the way, but in 223 it is back to normal. Then in 224 it is flipped again. Is it possible that the lapel is flipping due to Connally's wrist or hat rubbing against the lapel?Exactly my point.
In frame 222 we see his right sleeve cuff coming up into view. Then in 223 the arm drops back down below the door and the lapel returns to normal for one frame. (The glint of sunlight off his right shirt cuff is barley visible just above the door near the bottom of the lapel.)
His wrist is higher in 222 with lapel partially flipped.
his wrist drops in 223 and the lapel is not flipped.
His wrist rises back up in 224 and the lapel is flipped again. The right cuff is identifiable in frames 229/230, if you flip back and forth you see the cuff move down with his hat.)
In frame 238 thru 239 it looks like his other lapel has flipped over. This happens as he drags his right arm and hat back to the right which may be catching the left lapel and flipping it over. Or maybe his left arm is dragging across his lapel as he tries to turn to the right. The left arm naturally drags across the chest if you try and twist your torso to the right in a seated position.
In 238 and 239 the left lapel looks like it is flipped. Regardless of whether it is flipped or it is an anomaly due to lighting or something. how do we know the right lapel flip in 224 is due to a bullet if we see the same phenomena in frame 238 and 239?
I have been looking at the Groden copy and it is clearer for viewing the lapel. In frame 222 the lapel looks like it has already flipped over most of the way, but in 223 it is back to normal. Then in 224 it is flipped again. Is it possible that the lapel is flipping due to Connally's wrist or hat rubbing against the lapel?
In frame 222 we see his right sleeve cuff coming up into view. Then in 223 the arm drops back down below the door and the lapel returns to normal for one frame. (The glint of sunlight off his right shirt cuff is barley visible just above the door near the bottom of the lapel.)
His wrist is higher in 222 with lapel partially flipped.
his wrist drops in 223 and the lapel is not flipped.
His wrist rises back up in 224 and the lapel is flipped again. The right cuff is identifiable in frames 229/230, if you flip back and forth you see the cuff move down with his hat.)
In frame 238 thru 239 it looks like his other lapel has flipped over. This happens as he drags his right arm and hat back to the right which may be catching the left lapel and flipping it over. Or maybe his left arm is dragging across his lapel as he tries to turn to the right. The left arm naturally drags across the chest if you try and twist your torso to the right in a seated position.
In 238 and 239 the left lapel looks like it is flipped. Regardless of whether it is flipped or it is an anomaly due to lighting or something. how do we know the right lapel flip in 224 is due to a bullet if we see the same phenomena in frame 238 and 239?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKPTxdD/zapruder-sbf.gif)
JohnM
There is no point saying this to those who have already made their mind up over this issue... but for those who haven't...I can see that JFK is reacting to being shot through the neck. I can see that JBC is also reacting. But I can't tell for sure that JBC has been shot. The reason I can't tell is:
Look at the above Z-Film clip, in the very first frame notice how composed JBC looks, then look at how both men are suddenly flailing around.
Ask yourself this - does it look as though both men been shot through at the same time or not?
LATER EDIT:Saying something is clear does not make it so. It is anything but clear that JBC's arm is not moving. It doesn't have to be visible to Zapruder!! What kind of an analysis is that based on? I could just as easily say the forearm/wrist is not aligned with the exit wound from the chest because we can't see it.
On the issue of JBC's arm movement causing the so-called 'lapel flip'.
It is clear from the clip above that his arm does not come up again until after the 'lapel flip', negating any notion that this arm movement is the cause of the 'lapel flip' (the 'lapel flip' is actually the whole right side of JBC's jacket being blown out as a result of the shot passing through him. It is this blowing out of the right hand side of the jacket that causes the lapel flip)
I can see that JFK is reacting to being shot through the neck. I can see that JBC is also reacting. But I can't tell for sure that JBC has been shot. The reason I can't tell is:
1. the evidence says that this was the first shot
2. JBC said he was not hit in the back on the first shot.
3. Nellie said JBC was not hit in the back on the first shot but JFK was.
4. JBC said he reacted immediately to the first shot by doing exactly what we see him doing after z223: turning around to try to look at JFK. Nowhere else do we see any attempt whatsoever to look at JFK, let alone when he is showing concern over hearing a rifle shot.
5. JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot.
6. The evidence is overwhelming that the second shot was followed in close succession by the third shot that struck JFK in the head. Greer, Altgens, Gayle Newman, Powers, Hickey all corroborate this. So the second shot striking JBC in the back occurred after the midpoint between the first and third, which is some time after z256.
Now you say I am stuck on a "theory" because I am unable to see reason? That's the reason. I am just following the evidence. Your "you see he is hit in the back at z224" is not reason. It is a complete and abject failure to follow the evidence.
Saying something is clear does not make it so.I agree. But if something is clear then it's clear.
It is anything but clear that JBC's arm is not moving.
It doesn't have to be visible to Zapruder!! What kind of an analysis is that based on? I could just as easily say the forearm/wrist is not aligned with the exit wound from the chest because we can't see it.
The forearm/hand/wrist moved down from z222 to z223 and the jacket moved (the jacket may simply have opened if he took his arm off of it, so we cannot tell that the jacket moved because it was dragged by the arm). From z223 to z224 the jacket moved back similar to a position it was in in z222. From z224 we can see the forearm was moving. What we can't see is whether the forearm was moving before z224.
Now you agree that the forearm was moving from z222 to z223 and from z224 to z231, but you can tell it was stopped from z223 to z224? How on earth can you determine that from the zfilm when you cannot see the forearm at all between z223 and z224? And you are supposedly the "reasonable" one and I am not!!
The Zapruder footage is, by far, the best, strongest evidence we have of what happened at this moment. I put the Z-Film before witness statements. You do not. As you have so amply demonstrated time after time, if witness statements are contradicted by what we see in the Z-Film you go with the witness statements. I do not.They are not contradicted by the zfilm. They are contradicted by what you think is happening in the zfilm. There is a big difference.
I agree. But if something is clear then it's clear.It is far from clear. We cannot see any definitive, unequivocal evidence that JBC is hit in the torso there. It is just not there. And the evidence says it is not there.
And here we have the craziness.I have obviously misunderstood your position. So if the arm is in constant motion from z222, why can the arm not be moving across his front prior to z224? Just because YOU cannot see that it is moving across his front? All we can tell is that the wrist dropped below the car door from Zapruder's point of view from z222 to z223 and that it was moving across his body from right to left from z224 to z231. You conclude from that that the arm was not moving across his body from right to left before z224!! You can see that?
Who said JBC's arm isn't moving? Are you implying I've said that?
Provide the quote please.
JBC's arm is in constant motion during the clip.
Wow!Your "logic" escapes me. You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left! Yet we see it moving from right to left in z224-231. Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur? Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it? Simple question....
For anyone interested there is a detailed analysis of these frames in "The First Shot" thread.
As far as Andrew's rant is concerned -
In z222 (not shown in the clip below) the white cuff of JBC's sleeve can be seen just above the top of the door.
In z223 (the first frame of the clip below) the cuff has disappeared below the top of the door frame - this is the bullet strike.
In z224, JBC's forearm is still below the top of the door.
And this is the problem Andrew is struggling with because it is in this same frame that the 'lapel flip' occurs, while JBC's forearm is still below the top of the door..
As the clip rolls on we see JBC's hand and forearm emerge from beneath the top of the door.
The problem for Andrew's latest doomed theory is that he imagines the 'lapel flip' is caused by JBC's arm moving across the front of his jacket. As can be seen in the clip below, the 'lapel flip' occurs before JBC's hand emerges from beneath the top of the door frame.
That is to say, it occurs before JBC's hand has moved across his jacket.
Your "logic" escapes me. You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left! Yet we see it moving from right to left in z224-231. Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur? Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it? Simple question....
Nobody, at any point has disputed whether JBC's hand is moving left to right.I don't understand the difference between you saying: "We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame. When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred."
It hasn't been brought up at any time.
You've introduced it, as you often do, to argue a point that never existed.
"You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"
That's an untruth (I know I've got to be careful using the word 'lie' with you).
Nowhere have I said anything even remotely like that.
"Why does the motion have to be seen by Zapruder in order for it to occur?"
Do you have any idea how crazy you're coming across? In the post you are responding to I've said his hand was in constant motion. Can't you remember? It was the post you were responding to.
"Why can it not be moving when we cannot see it?"
WTF are you talking about? Even for you this off the charts.
It has been your contention that the 'lapel flip' is caused by JBC's hand moving across the front of his jacket.
We can see the front of his jacket in the Z-Film.
We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame.
When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
HONESTLY, WHAT IS IT YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH?
I don't understand the difference between you saying: "We can see that the lapel flip occurs while his hand is still down below the top of the door frame. When his hand comes into view and moves across the front of his jacket the lapel flip has already occurred."
AND me saying: "You are saying that his hand must emerge from beneath the top of the door before it can be moving from right to left!"
Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224).
If so, how is that ruled out as a possible cause of the jacket movement?
If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket? Just because we can't see it?
"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224)."
:D :D :D Quality
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKPTxdD/zapruder-sbf.gif)
Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
A lot of SBF critics had already made up there minds up decades ago when they only had poor copies of Zapruder's hand held film footage to analyse and when really clear stabilized footage of the same event comes along where the precise movements of all the Limo occupants can be closely studied, well, the critics don't want to admit wasting so much time endorsing their long held beliefs and essentially force themselves stay the course. Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKPTxdD/zapruder-sbf.gif)
JohnM
"Personally I can't imagine how anyone looking at the stabilized Zapruder footage can't see Connally's violent simultaneous reaction and can come to any other conclusion other than both men being hit at the same time?"
Same here John.
When I first came to this subject (just over a year ago) and started to study the Z-Film, the simultaneous reactions of both men were so obvious I was shocked to find out how many people questioned it.
It took me quite a while to realise what you're pointing out - if somebody has already made up their mind they refuse to see what's right in front of them. The 'debate' I'm having with Andrew is a classic example of it. On the plus side, the interaction with Andrew (particularly on "The First Shot" thread) has forced me to question every detail about this aspect of the assassination and test any theory I'm putting forward.
I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.
JohnM
Jerry had mentioned it and it is apparent in some of the tactics he uses in debate.
But he's in a position I hope never to be in, where you invest so much time in a particular theory that you can't let it go.
I've had complete 180 degree turns on a couple of the big issues involving this case because the arguments/evidence left me no choice. It's something I believe I will always be prepared to do.
I've mentioned the importance of a narrative in recent posts and as a CTer by default I'm satisfied with my understanding of the basics but now I've got to come up with "the big picture", the big Conspiracy. It's the only way I can construct my own narrative concerning this case.
I feel at this point, it would be easier to be an LNer.
I believe Mason is an actual Lawyer but even after debating him many times re the SBF he never let on and I only found out about his legal background much later, in other words he didn't force down my throat that he's a Lawyer and he's knows better yada yada yada and let his presentation stand on it's own, so for that alone he deserves much kudos. In the past I have debated a few "Lawyers" and when backed into a corner out comes the classic "Get out of Jail free card" but their lack of knowledge about all things legal is a dead giveaway. Thankfully we haven't seen one for a while but Roger Collins does come to mind, what a goose.
JohnM
Like many other LNers who initially only knew the basics, I started out as a CT, and one example I can remember is furiously arguing the back and to the Left motion but as I did more research and started applying real world scientific principles I eventually changed my original emotional response and stuck with more considered forensic analysis.
JohnM
Can you not answer a simple question? Why are you avoiding answering?
"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224)."
:D :D :D Quality
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpKPTxdD/zapruder-sbf.gif)
Look closely at JBC's arm movement and tell me what you really see.
Can you not answer a simple question? Why are you avoiding answering?
What we see is not the issue. We can't see the arm between z223 and z225.
The issue is whether the jacket movement has no other explanation than a bullet strike. (I am not convinced the a bullet strike is even a possible explanation, but that is a separate matter. I don't want to argue Lattimer's theory). . We seem to agree that arm movement could cause jacket movement. So I am not sure why you think it can be eliminated as a possibility. And you just avoid answering and accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
What was the question?"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were (or could be) moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224).
Jerry had mentioned it and it is apparent in some of the tactics he uses in debate.I assume that you realize that I can read this. So I feel compelled to respond.
But he's in a position I hope never to be in, where you invest so much time in a particular theory that you can't let it go.
I've had complete 180 degree turns on a couple of the big issues involving this case because the arguments/evidence left me no choice. It's something I believe I will always be prepared to do.
I've mentioned the importance of a narrative in recent posts and as a CTer by default I'm satisfied with my understanding of the basics but now I've got to come up with "the big picture", the big Conspiracy. It's the only way I can construct my own narrative concerning this case.Don't get bogged down in the details of the shots. That will not tell you who was shooting. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was involved and there is absolutely no evidence that anyone else was involved. It does not take much to put the dots together and conclude - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Oswald had his finger on the trigger. For me, the shots just absolutely confirm that one person (Oswald) fired all three shots.
I feel at this point, it would be easier to be an LNer.
"Are you agreeing with me that his hand/arm were (or could be) moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the "lapel flip" occurred? (ie between z223 and z224).
And depending on the answer to that question I had a follow-up question:
If so, how is that ruled out as a possible cause of the jacket movement?
OR
If not, how can you tell it is not moving across the front of his jacket?
I would have thought that a string of laughing emojis might have indicated to you how ridiculous I find this question.Oh, like this statement in Post #27:
No Andrew, I am not agreeing with you that his hand/arm were moving across the front of his jacket from right to left when the 'lapel flip' occurred.
No.
It is absolutely clear from my previous posts that I am not agreeing with this.
Once again:Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward. He could have moved it outward from his torso a bit causing the jacket to just fall open but putting the hand just out of sight but at the same height.
In z222 we see JBC's cuff just above the top of the door frame.
In z223 his cuff (and hand) have moved down below the top of the frame of the door (bullet strike)
His hand is moving downwards in z223.
How can I rule out that his hand isn't moving across the front of his jacket between z223 and z224?Well, first of all, the jacket moved as much from z222 to z223, which would have been between 30 and 80 ms (ie. the maximum time being from the beginning of z222 to the end of exposure of z223, which is 55 ms + exposure time of 25 ms. the minimum time from the end of z222 to the beginning of z223, which is 55 ms. less the 25 ms exposure time, or 30 ms.) How did that happen?
Time and time again I have emphasized the incredibly small amount of time between each frame - 55 milliseconds.
The average time for the human eye to blink is around 100 milliseconds. The time between each frame is almost half this.
Half the time it takes to blink.
To try to prop up your doomed theory you are asking how I can rule out JBC's hand from moving downwards, to moving across the front of his jacket, causing the 'lapel flip', in half the time it takes to blink?Again, how do you know is it impossible? Have you tried it?
To spell it out in a way that even you will understand -
IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A MOVEMENT IN SUCH AN INCREDIBLY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME!
How can I rule it out?
Because you are describing a physical impossibility.
Oh, like this statement in Post #27:
"And here we have the craziness.
Who said JBC's arm isn't moving? Are you implying I've said that?
Provide the quote please.
JBC's arm is in constant motion during the clip."
So, so am I correct in inferring that you are saying that his arm is possibly moving but not moving from right to left prior to z224 when the jacket moves?
If so, my question would have been: how can you tell this from the zfilm when you cannot see his hand? But now I see that you are just arguing that an arm cannot move a jacket in 55 ms.
Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward. He could have moved it outward from his torso a bit causing the jacket to just fall open but putting the hand just out of sight but at the same height.
Well, first of all, the jacket moved as much from z222 to z223, which would have been between 30 and 80 ms (ie. the maximum time being from the beginning of z222 to the end of exposure of z223, which is 55 ms + exposure time of 25 ms. the minimum time from the end of z222 to the beginning of z223, which is 55 ms. less the 25 ms exposure time, or 30 ms.) How did that happen?
Second, if you are saying that a jacket cannot move 2 inches in 55 ms you are saying that a human cannot move their hand/jacket at a speed of 37 inches per second or about 3 feet per second? If so, what are you basing that on?
Again, how do you know is it impossible? Have you tried it?
As usual, you are incorrect.No. Here is how it went:
You said that I said his arm wasn't moving.
Another of your desperate ploys to misrepresent what I was saying.Like a 45 degree angle is downward but not completely downward. I guess that is crazy to you for some reason.
I asked you to provide the quote where I said his arm wasn't moving.
But you couldn't.
Because you'd made it up (an 'untruth')
Again, another one of your desperate ploys.
Provide the quote where I state an arm cannot move a jacket in 55ms
You can't.
Because I've never said that.
Just another of your 'untruths'.
Sad, really.
"Not necessarily downward and, in any case, not completely downward"
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D Quality
I wish you could hear how crazy you sound.
Their "hand/jacket"??I had understood you to say that the observed jacket motion from z223 to z224 could not be caused by the motion of hand or arm. That is 55 ms. That is the issue under discussion.
WTF
Where did I say a jacket couldn't move 2 inches in 55ms?
Oh that's right, I didn't. It's just another of your lies...sorry, I meant "untruths"
Where did I say a human couldn't move their hand jacket ( :D) about 3 feet per second?
Oh, that's right, I didn't.Are you trying to be cute? The question is: on what basis can you say a hand or arm motion could not have caused the jacket to move as seen in the zfilm?
I honestly don't know how fast a hand jacket can move >:(
Yes, and it can't be done.First of all, the time between the end of the exposure of z222 to the end of exposure of z224 is 110 ms. The time between the beginning of the exposure of z222 to the end of exposure of z224 is 135 ms (exposure time being 1/40th of a second or 25 ms.).
Can you do it?
If so, post a video of you moving your hand jacket downward but not completely downward more like outward so it's looks a bit downward and then across the front of your hand jacket in 55 ms.
I don't think it can be done ;D
The lapel flip was caused by the strong breeze that was blowing in Dealey Plaza during the motorcade. It has nothing to do with Connally's chest exit wound. In fact, the lapel flip is nowhere near Connally's chest exit wound. The bullet that exited Connally's chest created a small hole in Connally's coat, so it was not tumbling or traveling sideways.
"The lapel flip was caused by the strong breeze"
I can't wait for Steve Galbraith to come to your defense for that one. :D
"The lapel flip was caused by the strong breeze"Using the Jerry Organ school of reasoning it's clear that Mr. Griffith is wrong because Ben Carson said something about Covid. Also Fox News. And Trump.
I can't wait for Steve Galbraith to come to your defense for that one. :D
The lapel flip was caused by the strong breeze that was blowing in Dealey Plaza during the motorcade. It has nothing to do with Connally's chest exit wound. In fact, the lapel flip is nowhere near Connally's chest exit wound. The bullet that exited Connally's chest created a small hole in Connally's coat, so it was not tumbling or traveling sideways.Me myself i too used to think that a backdraft must have caused the lapel flip until i heard of the Lattimer tests.
Uh, yeah: Gusts of wind will cause lapels to flip up. You do know that the spot of the lapel flip is nowhere near Connally's chest exit wound, right? And you know that Connally, after studying high-quality enlargements of the Z film, insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z232 and that the impact occurred at around Z234, a split second before his right shoulder is pushed violently downward and forward, right?Oswald's shot-1 was at about pseudo Z113 it ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm lead splatter hit JFK on the head the remnant slug put a hole in the floorpan of the limo.
And if the Z224 lapel flip was caused by a bullet, and if this was the magical SBT hit, pray tell what bullet hit JFK at Z188-190 when, barely half a second later, as even the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) noted, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze? Starting a Z200, JFK's right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; he starts to move his hands toward his throat; and his head moves rapidly from right to left toward Jackie? Significantly, as the PEP also noted, there is also a strong blur episode at Z189-197.
Oswald's shot-1 was at about pseudo Z113 it ricocheted offa the overhead signal arm lead splatter hit JFK on the head the remnant slug put a hole in the floorpan of the limo.
Oswald's shot-2 was at about Z218 the magic bullet.
Hickey's shot-1-2-3-4 (an accidental autoburst of his AR15) were at about Z298 to Z313 wounding Tague -- & putting a dent in the chrome trim above the windshield -- & blowing JFK's head half off -- & cracking the windshield.
There were no other shots in Dealey Plaza.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
One of the central assertions of the conspirati is that it would be
impossible for a single bullet to make as many wounds, hit as much
bone, and emerge as unscathed as CE399, the "magic bullet," is alleged
to have done. Harold Weisberg stated this view for the umpteenth time in
a letter to the Washington Post, January 11, 1992:
It [is] a physical impossibility for this magic bullet [CE399]
to have the imagined career indispensable to the lone-assassin
"solution"...there is nothing like this career in science or
mythology.
In "Conspiracy" (pp. 69-70), Anthony Summers repeats the assertion using
dissident pathologist Cyril Wecht for support:
Above all, [Cyril Wecht] refuses to believe that a bullet could
emerge almost intact after causing as much bone damage as was done
to the Governor. To demonstrate this, Wecht points to the condition
of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition after firing into cotton wadding,
a goat carcass--which sustained a broken rib--and through the wrist
of a corpse. All the test bullets are visibly more damaged than the
bullet alleged to have caused the wounds to the President and the
Governor. Wecht deplores the fact that the Assassinations
Committee did not try to reproduce the "magic bullet" by performing
similar tests and has challenged his colleagues to produce even
*one* bullet that had emerged similarly undamaged.
Wecht's challenge has now been met by Dr. Lattimer. It has been proven
that a single bullet could make all the wounds and break all the bone
and emerge as relatively unscathed as CE399. Therefore, the long-held
assertion of the conspirati must now be completely discarded as evidence
of conspiracy. Lattimer's experiment is described in the following article:
[Excerpted from "Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical
Evidence of the Lapel Bulge of the Jacket Worn by Governor Connally
When Bullet 399 Went Through Him" by John K. Lattimer, M.D., et al,
in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, May 1994. The
article describes an experiment which supplies the most complete
verification of the Single Bullet Theory yet performed.]
The most important new piece of physical evidence in the
analysis of the shooting of President Kennedy and Governor
Connally has been the reaffirmation of the precise moment when
bullet 399 [the so-called Magic Bullet] passed through the
body of Governor Connally. This is graphically demonstrated
in frame 224 of the Zapruder movie by the sudden forward
bulge of the right lapel of the suit jacket of Governor
Connally. This was clearly demonstrated by enhancement of
the motion picture in the laboratories of Failure Analysis
Inc., by Jeffrey Lotz in 1992.
...
Even running the Zapruder movie at an ordinary "slow motion,"
rate, one does not appreciate the sudden forward "bulge" of
the lapel. It is necessary to run the movie very slowly,
"freezing" each frame for a moment, before the flap of the
lapel and the bulging of the jacket become obvious. Photo
enhancement makes it easier to see, once you know when and
where it occurs. Having established this fact, it then becomes
apparent that the right arms of both men react immediately and
simultaneously to the stimulus of the bullet having passed
through them. The arms of Kennedy start an upward jerk into
Thorburn's reflex position and the right hand of Connally,
containing his big white Stetson hat, begins to snap up into
view as his biceps contract and he jerks his painful forearm
up into the view of Zapruder's camera.
...
REENACTMENT OF THE WOUNDING OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY (FRAME 224). As
with any study of small photographs (movie frames), it is desirable
to try to verify the findings by duplicating the situation as
closely as possible, using the exact same type of rifle,
cartridges, clothing, necks, ribs and radiuses, as at Dallas. In an
attempt to verify and study this phenomenon further, a duplication
of President Kennedy's size 16 neck and of Governor Connally's
chest and jacket were tested to see exactly what would happen. A
size 16 neck simulation was created, using fresh pork muscle, with
the bone removed and the skin still in place. A rack was prepared
to hold a rib cage at a distance of 24 inches from the Kennedy
neck. A white dress shirt and tropical worsted jacket were placed
over the rib cage on a special rack. A necktie was tied in place to
simulate the clothing Governor Connally wore at the time of the
shooting in Dallas. An array of radiuses (arm bones), encased in
simulated forearms, was arranged in front of the right lapel of
Governor Connally and a bullet trap was mounted beyond this array.
Bullets of the Western Cartridge Company 6.5 millimeter ammunition
of the same lots used by Lee Harvey Oswald were fired from a
Carcano carbine exactly like the one used by Oswald. We knew from
our previous experiments [as described in Lattimer's book "Kennedy
and Lincoln"] that our test bullets would almost certainly "tumble"
and would strike our "Governor Connally back" at about the point
where he was actually struck. Our test bullet also struck a rib
(just as in Governor Connally), removing 4.5 centimeters of the rib
and exited in the area that would have been under his right nipple.
The flying fragments of rib, marrow and soft tissue, accompanying
the exiting, tumbling bullet, caused a large ragged hole in the
shirt and the jacket lining and plastered them with fragments of
rib and soft tissue, just as in the Governor's instance. The bullet
exited under the right lapel, still tumbling, making a 3 centimeter
transverse bullet wound in the cloth. It then struck one of the
forearms arrayed in front of the jacket. The bullet was captured in
a bullet trap beyond this point. A videotape of the motion of the
jacket was obtained, along with frames from a rapid-firing 35
millimeter camera. These revealed that the jacket bulged out about
6 inches and then snapped back. The lapel flipped over against the
neck area. The forward motion of the bulging jacket was completed
in 3/30th of a second, whereupon the backward snap began on our
static model. This was completed by 16/30th of a second from the
shot. After this, the jacket and lapel were again back in normal
position. While the rib and soft tissue fragments caused a large
ragged wound in the shirt, just as described in Governor Connally's
shirt, the exit hole of the bullet in the front of the jacket was
elongated to a length of 3 centimeters (almost exactly the length
of the tumbling bullet). The large shirt wound and the bulge of the
jacket were more related to the hail of fragments of rib and soft
tissue. The bullet then struck one of the radiuses mounted in front
of the jacket. The bullet from this experiment was flattened on one
side and bent from hitting the rib and radius while traveling
sideways, just as bullet 399 was flattened and bent for the same
reasons (399 is definitely not "pristine"). Lead extruded from the
rear of our bullet as with bullet 399. The radius was fractured and
tiny fragments of lead were left adherent to the periosteum,
exactly as in Governor Connally. One of the most dependable
features of this Kennedy and Connally mockup was the characteristic
manner in which these Carcano bullets turned sideways (tumbled)
after exiting the neck of Kennedy.
THE BULLET MUST TRAVERSE THE NECK OF JOHN F. KENNEDY FIRST OR NO
JACKET BULGE OCCURS. In an effort to determine what would happen if
the bullet did *not* go through the neck of Kennedy first, but hit
Connally primarily, we fired a bullet through our Connally jacket
and thorax preparation without running it through the model of
Kennedy's neck first, so it did not tumble. The jacket did *not*
bulge out and the lapel did *not* turn over. The shirt collar
flipped briefly. With the bullet going straight ahead, wounds to
the rib, shirt and jacket were punctate and the rib fragments
were not enough to bulge out the front of the jacket. This made
it seem even more likely that bullet 399 had gone through the
neck of President Kennedy first, turned sideways and caused the
very obvious jacket and lapel distortions, which we have
recorded herein and which occur in frame 224. If the bullet did
*not* go through the neck of Kennedy first, the jacket bulge and
lapel flap did *not* occur.
SUMMARY
By duplicating the wound to the neck of President Kennedy, which
caused bullet 399 to turn sideways, and having it *then* hit a
Connally-type rib cage with shirt and jacket, we reproduced the
right-sided bulge of the jacket worn by Connally, with lapel
eversion, which is so significant in frame 224. The extensive
damage to his shirtfront was from the hail of rib fragments and
soft tissue, exactly as described with his own shirt. Our tumbling
bullet then went on to fracture a radius and be recovered intact
except that it was somewhat flattened and bent and had lead
extruded from the rear, as did bullet 399. Fragments of this lead
were scraped off on the ragged bone-ends of some of our fractured
radiuses, just as with Governor Connally's radius. It is believed
that this duplication of the jacket and lapel bulge of Governor
Connally, which occurred dependably, when we reproduced the
circumstances at Dallas, confirmed this very important detail in
this technical demonstration of the findings in the shooting of
President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
The bulge and the lapel eversion of the jacket worn by Governor
Connally, starting in Zapruder frame 224, does indeed establish,
beyond any shadow of a doubt, the exact moment when bullet 399 went
through him. The right arms of both men were seen to react
simultaneously, immediately thereafter. It also permits us to
establish that there was plenty of time (three and one-half
seconds) between the first two shots (frames 160 to 224) and even
more time (five seconds) between the last two shots (frames 224 to
313), for Oswald to reload, reacquire the target (the head of
President Kennedy) plus two full seconds to lock onto it. If the
bullet does not traverse the neck of President Kennedy, it does not
cause Governor Connally's jacket and lapel to bulge. The lapel
bulge is a very important bit of actual physical evidence in
establishing the fact that one bullet hit both men and that Oswald
had plenty of time to hit the President, first in the neck and then
in the head. These experiments confirm the mechanism of the lapel
bulge and the behavior of the bullet.
Using the Jerry Organ school of reasoning it's clear that Mr. Griffith is wrong because Ben Carson said something about Covid. Also Fox News. And Trump.
Folks, be advised that Lattimer's claims about his SBT reenactment are bogus and were exposed as such years ago, as I have discussed in other threads. A picture of one of Lattimer's test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).Lattimer said that some of his 1994 slugs had nose damage from the metal walls of his bullet trap.
An AAT wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Wecht, which included animal bones inside a large gelatin block, proved that merely striking the wrist bone would have caused substantial deformity in the bullet.
We now know, thanks to the ARRB materials and other sources, that the back wound had no exit point. This was absolutely, categorically established at the autopsy, and that's one reason that Humes had to burn the first two drafts of the autopsy report.
Also, as several doctors have established with overlays on x-rays, using technology that was unavailable in the 1960s, there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through part of the spine.
I might that Dr. Jones and Dr. Crenshaw independently confirmed Dr. Carrico's account that the throat wound was above the tie knot, which means, among other things, that the slits in JFK's shirt were made by the nurses as they hurried cut away JFK's clothing. This is why the slits are irregular, have no fabric missing from them, and contained no metallic traces when the FBI lab tested them. This is also why there is no hole through the tie knot (but only a small nick on the left side of the knot, and the nick is not on the edge of the knot).
Lattimer said that some of his 1994 slugs had nose damage from the metal walls of his bullet trap. There have been other test re-enactments of the SBT that show little damage to the slug.
JFK's spine was indeed badly injured -- jfk (had he survived the magic bullet) would have been a quadriplegic. Here are 4 pages from Mortal Error -- by Meninger -- re Donahue's investigation.
The problem, as I have demonstrated in Figure 11, is that CT scans were not available in 1963or this fantasized trajectory would have been dead on arrival.
If this trajectory is valid, the bullet would either have struck a vertebral body (as it does in figure 11), or if traveling between vertebral bodies (e.g., at a higher or lower level), it would have punctured the lung, which did not occur. The trajectory of the Magic Bullet is also very unlikely in the vertical planethe throat wound is far too superior [high/above] to represent an exit for the back wound (which is near T1or possibly even lower). In particular, the throat wound lay just above the necktie, which is far above T1. Also recall that the bullet, presumably from a Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was traveling downward. (JFK Assassination Paradoxes, p. 10)
Folks, be advised that Lattimer's claims about his SBT reenactment are bogus and were exposed as such years ago, as I have discussed in other threads. A picture of one of Lattimer's test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).
An AAT wound ballistics test directed by Dr. Wecht, which included animal bones inside a large gelatin block, proved that merely striking the wrist bone would have caused substantial deformity in the bullet.
We now know, thanks to the ARRB materials and other sources, that the back wound had no exit point. This was absolutely, categorically established at the autopsy, and that's one reason that Humes had to burn the first two drafts of the autopsy report.
Also, as several doctors have established with overlays on x-rays, using technology that was unavailable in the 1960s, there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through part of the spine.
I might that Dr. Jones and Dr. Crenshaw independently confirmed Dr. Carrico's account that the throat wound was above the tie knot, which means, among other things, that the slits in JFK's shirt were made by the nurses as they hurried cut away JFK's clothing. This is why the slits are irregular, have no fabric missing from them, and contained no metallic traces when the FBI lab tested them.
| (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg) | (https://library.uta.edu/jfk/collection/jfk-08-05-display-10005069.jpg) |
This is also why there is no hole through the tie knot (but only a small nick on the left side of the knot, and the nick is not on the edge of the knot).
| (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RZwyFeFP3mI/UoqSlfP-yVI/AAAAAAAADjg/WW67IRz_w9g/s1600/JFK+TIE+BULHOLE.jpg) | (http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/JFK-Love-Field-TIE-NICK-COMPARE-ANIM.gif) Robert Prudhomme CT Version | (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YMUTss087d8/WP3j6pAg0wI/AAAAAAABLts/G6D2_4H_C-oNRflzA5Q4_RMRDm4urLbIgCLcB/s530/JFK-And-His-Necktie.jpg) David Von Pein Version |
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_cKSUbL_Hg4/WzrpWJome-I/AAAAAAABPQU/Gvlor7yf6pURHds6eBq3kfEjyZjFooj6ACLcBGAs/s530/JFK-Shirt.png) Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt; compare with nick site in Prudhomme and Von Pein Versions | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/11371.jpg) In the motorcade, was the tie knot slightly off to the left? | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1H6KILBVsxDlbnX0Z-mpaIY35iPPv-Np8) |
Wecht probably just had bullets fired that arrived at the impact site nose-on and at full-velocity. Those will disintegrate and mushroom.
But the SBT has the bullet that caused Connally's wounds slow-downed and tumbling.
The slowing-down and tumbling (along with more as the bullet went through the "Connally" torso) resulted in a bullet that, having struck two hard tissue obstructions, was similar to CE399.
The initial belief at autopsy that the back wound had no exit (though it bothered the pathologists at the time) didn't come out of the ARRB hearings. It was recorded in the 1963 Silbert-O'Neill Report, made by two FBI agents present at the autopsy. Humes revised the Autopsy Report over the weekend after a phone conservation with Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital.
The bullet can easily pass from the back wound to the neck outshoot without striking bone. The missile channel will cause a great deal of pressure; in this case, there was bruising across the top of the right lung. The T1 transverse process had a non-displaced fracture, possibly caused by the passing of the bullet.
A neck wound above the shirt collar wouldn't match the wound location shown in the autopsy photo.
In the motorcade, was the tie knot slightly off to the left?
One, I repeat the point that ARRB materials prove that the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively established that the back wound had no exit point during the autopsy. Several recent books discuss this historic evidence, and I've presented some of it in this forum. We now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a buillet exiting the throat.Wesley Fisk & Dr Alex Krstik & Chris Leigh & David King of Adelaide based "Anatomical Surrogate Technology" looked into the magic bullet in 2004. I can't find a paper or report. Their slug had similar damage to CE399 & Lattimer's slug. There are 3 youtube footages. The main footage is .
Two, Lattimer's claim that some of his test bullets were damaged by his bullet trap is unbelievable and suspicious.
Three, why did Lattimer throw away the bullets that he claimed penetrated all three simulation objects? This smells to high heaven of fraud.
Four, no valid SBT simulations have produced bullets that look like CE 399 after doing the required amount of damage. The WC's own extensive wound ballistics tests failed to do so, as we know from the man who conducted those tests, Dr. Joseph Dolce. The ATT partial SBT simulation did not even produce such a bullet--the bullet went through two objects (gelatin and animal bone) and emerged much more deformed than CE 399.
I take it you are rather new to the JFK case. Most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the idea that JFK's spine was damaged, because this would render impossible their silly neuromuscular-reaction theory for explaining JFK's fierce backward motion after the head shot.
I actually agree that JFK's spine was damaged, but it was not nearly as damaged as it would have been if a bullet had gone from the back wound to the throat wound. Some of the autopsy x-rays do indeed show fragments in the neck and damage to the spine; this damage was caused by the projectile that entered the throat and by the bullet (or fragment) that penetrated about 2 inches into the back. Again, if a bullet had gone from the back wound to the throat wound, even if you assume an entry point at T1, the damage to the spine would have been far more extensive.
If CT scans had been available in the 1960s, CE 399's alleged trajectory would have been recognized as impossible. Dr. Mantik explains the problem in his new book:
To get the full impact of Dr. Mantik's point, one needs to view the CT scans that he provides.
The initial belief at autopsy that the back wound had no exit (though it bothered the pathologists at the time) didn't come out of the ARRB hearings. It was recorded in the 1963 Silbert-O'Neill Report, made by two FBI agents present at the autopsy. Humes revised the Autopsy Report over the weekend after a phone conservation with Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital.
there was bruising across the top of the right lung
This is a perfect example of the stunt that you pull in this forum over and over again. Now, just a few days ago, you and I discussed the myth that Humes only learned of the throat wound on the morning after the autopsy. I presented you with evidence that debunks this myth. I cited the fact that we know from the ARRB materials that the throat wound was probed. I cited the fact that a good friend of Humes's, Jim Snyder of CBS's DC bureau, confidentially informed CBS producer Robert Richter that Humes told him that he was aware of the throat wound during the autopsy (we learned this when Richter's 1/10/67 internal memo to CBS producer Les Midgley later surfaced).
I cited the fact that we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat (you keep ignoring the fact that there were two drafts, not just one).
And I cited the fact that James Jenkins, one of the medical technicians at the autopsy, witnessed the probing of the back wound and could see that the wound did not enter the lining of the chest cavity, that he could see the end of the probe pushing against the chest cavity's lining.
Yet, here you are, in a different thread, once again repeating the myth that Humes knew nothing about the throat wound during the autopsy, and you're doing this while saying nothing about the contrary evidence that I myself presented to you just a few days ago.
I should add that I did not even present all the evidence that debunks the myth. Here is some additional evidence that refutes it:
* Amazingly, and perhaps in a back-handed effort to reveal that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy, Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that after the back wound was probed following the removal of the chest organs, the probing revealed that the wound track exited the throat wound, that the probe actually came out from the throat wound!
Now, of course, his claim about the throat wound being identified as the exit wound via probing was contradicted by several autopsy witnesses, not to mention that it contradicts the story that Boswell, Finck, and Humes told for years about when they learned of the throat wound.
Autopsy photographer John Stringer (who was also the director of medical photography at the Naval Medical School in 1963) specifically said that the probe did not come out through the neck, and Sibert and O'Neill emphatically said that at the end of the autopsy the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit and that the bullet found in Dallas had worked its way out of the back wound during cardiac massage.
When asked about the Sibert and O'Neill report, Boswell falsely claimed that Sibert and O'Neill weren't in the autopsy room when the back wound was probed after the chest organs were removed. Actually, Sibert and O'Neill saw the initial probing and saw the probing that was done with the chest organs removed, and they remained at the autopsy until the body was prepared for burial. Sibert left the autopsy room for short periods, but O'Neill remained in the room "through the time that the autopsy was completed," and he saw the autopsy doctors remove their gloves and call for the morticians to prepare the body for burial.
* Stringer told the ARRB that a probe was inserted into the throat wound, and he added that he believed the body was propped up so the torso was in a vertical position when the probe was put into the throat wound.
* Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, told the HSCA that Humes was aware of the throat wound during the autopsy.
* Dr. George Burkley, JFK's personal physician, knew about the throat wound because he was in the ER at Parkland Hospital helping the Parkland doctors treat JFK. He supplied the Parkland doctors with hydrocortisone because of JFK's adrenal condition: "Burkley produced three 100-mg vials of Solu-Cortef from his bag, murmuring, 'Either intravenously or intramuscularly'" (William Manchester, The Death of a President, Harper & Row, New York: 1967, p. 184). Burkley arrived in the ER before Dr. Perry arrived, and Dr. Perry was the one who did the tracheostomy over the throat wound, so Burkley surely saw the throat wound, just as did the other doctors and nurses who were in the room before Dr. Perry arrived. And, of course, Dr. Burkley was also at the autopsy and spoke with the autopsy doctors during the autopsy.
* Nurse Audrey Bell, the Supervising Nurse of Operations and Recovery at Parkland Hospital, revealed in 1997 that Dr. Perry complained to her on the morning after the autopsy that he had gotten almost no sleep the night before because unnamed persons at Bethesda Naval Hospital had been pressuring him on the telephone all night long to change his opinion about the throat wound, and to describe it as an exit wound rather than an entrance wound.
* Dr. Perry and other Parkland doctors held a televised press conference barely an hour after JFK died, about six hours before the autopsy began, and Dr. Perry stated three times during the press conference that JFK's throat wound was an entrance wound.
The story that the autopsy doctors didn't know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy was invented to explain Humes's destruction of the first two versions of the autopsy report. A story had to be concocted that would at least appear to excuse Humes's highly unusual and illegal action of destroying autopsy drafts. Again, we now know that the first two drafts said nothing about a bullet exiting JFK's throat.
By the way, Dr. Robert Canada, a high-ranking Navy medical officer at the autopsy, said that the back wound was at around the level of T3 and that the bullet "did not exit." At the time of the autopsy, Dr. Canada was a Navy captain and was the director of the Naval Medical School at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Dr. Canada also said that there was a large "avulsed" (blown out) wound in "the right rear of the president's head." Dr. Canada shared this information in a 1968 interview with Dr. Michael Kurtz, a historian at Southeastern Louisiana University. Dr. Canada asked that Dr. Kurtz not publish his comments until 25 years after his death, and Dr. Kurtz honored that request.
To be specific, Humes claimed he saw bruising on top of the pleural dome, which is above the top of the right lung. However, no autopsy photos show this damage, even though Humes repeatedly claimed that photos were taken of it. Furthermore, Jenkins said he saw no bruising on the top of the pleural dome but that he did see bruising at the of the right lung's middle lobe.
According to Dr. Lattimer, out of approximately 20 attempts, four bullets struck all three objects. A photograph of one of the test bullets appears in Dr. Lattimer's paper reporting the results of his experiments (Journal of American College of Surgeons, May 1994). It was split at the nose in several places and was significantly more deformed than Commission Exhibit 399. I asked Dr. Lattimer if I could examine and photograph this bullet and the other three bullets as well, and he told me that he had thrown them all away. (Filmed interview of Dr. Lattimer, May 20, 1997) (Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42)
You're citing two layers of hearsay by non-medical people of a "conversation" not recorded?
Isn't CBS part of the Mass Media Coverup? What x-ray with a probe did the three pathologists describe in their 1967 "Military Review" or in sworn testimony?
Why does Humes seem to probe the whole neck transit, then say he doesn't want to use it to authenticate the SBT?
Is there some law that pathologists can only write a set number of drafts?
ou wrote:
"And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound
enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract
was "not into the chest cavity.""
Not the same as the probe pushing against the cavity lining.
Since you're citing Jenkins, he said the autopsy doctors had no knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy.
The Silbert-O'Neill Report also says as much.
What Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing:
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet
A: Yes.
Q:that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: What kind of probe did you use?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
A: A non-metallic probe.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
...
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
...
Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
...
Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
was unsuccessful?
Humes to the ARRB:
A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
...
... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path
A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
...
Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
inserted into the post thorax?
A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
Boswell to the ARRB:
Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
...
... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was
if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
coat had beenwas up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
way I know this best is my memory of the fact thatsee, we probed this hole
which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
we opened the chest and we got atthe lung extends up under the clavicle
and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
And so if I can move this up to hereit's shown better on the front, actually.
The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura [lining of the chest cavity] . . . . You could actually see where it was making an indentation . . . where it was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity. . . . No way that could have exited in the front.
I found a copy of Lattimer's 1994 report re tests re Connally's lapel bulge flap flip at Z224.Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lattimer%20John%20Dr/Item%2006.pdf
Lattimer's tests show that the flip goes from say 20% at his Frame-06 to say 90% at Frame-07.
His frames are 30 fps. The Zapruder frames are 18.3 fps.
I said that reactions show that Oswald's shot-2 was at i reckoned Z218. However, the Zapruder footage shows that the lapel flip happened (ie attained 100% flip or nearly) between Z223 & Z224.
Therefore i need to change my estimate for Oswald's shot-2 being at Z218, it was at Z219, or a fraction later than Z219.
At Z219 & Z220 Connally was hidden by the road signage hence the Zapruder footage missed showing the cloud of debris that caused the bulge & the flip.
Lattimer said that his tests confirmed that the shot was at Z224.
NNOOOOOOOOO.
His sequence clearly shows that his lapel flip happened at his Frame-07 (ie just before Frame-07), not at his Frame-00.
His first photo is Frame-minus-01 if u like it merely shows his "Connally" test dummy etc before the shot.
His first frame of his shot sequence is what i call Frame-00 it shows that the shot & the debris cloud have already happened. What i call Frame-07 is the 8th frame of his shot sequence.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52543820000/in/dateposted-public/
https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/latimer-4-Copy-2.jpg
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/lattimer-4-2.jpg)
Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying the hole is not that big and that it was "far bigger than a wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed this was a possibility. . . . Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. ( p. 8 )
DR. BOSWELL indicated that "we had gotten ourselves in dutch [in trouble] with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service." DR. BOSWELL indicated that one of the agents (he wasn't sure if FBI or Secret Service) was on the phone most of the time. (He seemed to be implying they were on the phone that was in the main autopsy room.) (p. 4)
Dr. BOSWELL was asked why the back wound was probed if the autopsy doctors knew the bullet had exited out the anterior neck (as Dr. BOSWELL stated earlier in the interview).
Dr. BOSWELL said that Dr. BURKLEY didn't mention the fact that a tracheotomy had been performed. He said that Dr. BURKLEY was very upset and this might have explained his failure to mention this important fact. Dr. BOSWELL said (without indicating that he was being inconsistent with his previous statement), the doctors felt the anterior neck damage was caused by a tracheotomy wound and in the later courses of the autopsy thought it may have included the exit wound of a bullet. (pp. 11-12; again, all parenthetical comments are Purdy's)
Dr. BOSWELL is a little vague as to when the doctors felt that a bullet may have fallen out the neck wound, but seemed to indicate it occurred around the time they learned the bullet had been discovered in Parkland. . . . (p. 12)
I have been told, by a man who is a personal friend of Dr. Humes, that he says one of the x-rays shows a wire left in the bullet path through the neck. If this is indeed true, publication of same would forever resolve the discussion about back versus neck wound and generally settle the dust about the autopsy.
According to BOSWELL, HUMES probed the neck wound [the back wound] with his little finger (indicating a point on the little finger which did not go past the first knuckle, less than one inch). He said HUMES also probed it with a metal probe. (p. 6)
Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AXW-bE6isPQ/UolNvHneNSI/AAAAAAAAw1I/wwG51z8e7zY/s1600/Z-Film+Clip+(SBT+In+Motion)(2).gif) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) |
You're citing two layers of hearsay by non-medical people of a "conversation" not recorded?bump
(https://images2.imgbox.com/0e/8c/tco7yMJB_o.jpg)
Isn't CBS part of the Mass Media Coverup? What x-ray with a probe did the three pathologists describe in their 1967 "Military Review" or in sworn testimony? Why does Humes seem to probe the whole neck transit, then say he doesn't want to use it to authenticate the SBT?
Is there some law that pathologists can only write a set number of drafts?
You wrote:
"And we also now know that Jenkins told the HSCA that the back-wound
enabled Humes "to reach the end of the wound" and that the wound tract
was "not into the chest cavity.""
Not the same as the probe pushing against the cavity lining.
Since you're citing Jenkins, he said the autopsy doctors had no knowledge of the throat wound during the autopsy. The Silbert-O'Neill Report also says as much.
What Finck told the ARRB about the extent of the probing:
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy,
did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet
A: Yes.
Q:that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: What kind of probe did you use?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is there a standard type of probe that is used in autopsies?
A: A non-metallic probe.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the
entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that
would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the
place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful.
...
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes
inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
...
Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November
22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what
had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?
A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the
following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the
front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware
of that exit wound in the front of the neck.
...
Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into
the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic
cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing
was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing
was unsuccessful?
_____
Humes to the ARRB:
A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high
in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the
exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew
in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than
we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate
and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper
lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's
obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
...
... it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell
you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the
point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in
this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't
be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature.
It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path
A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive
efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no.
...
Q. Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe
inserted into the post thorax?
A. No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such.
_____
Boswell to the ARRB:
Q. Previously in the deposition, you've made reference to there being a
probe to help track the direction of the neck wound. Do you recall that?
A. Mm-hmm.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the
dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt
end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you
would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long,
blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that
you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
...
... When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was
if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the
coat had beenwas up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched
up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this
would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the
way I know this best is my memory of the fact thatsee, we probed this hole
which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such
a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had
closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when
we opened the chest and we got atthe lung extends up under the clavicle
and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through
into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura.
And so if I can move this up to hereit's shown better on the front, actually.
The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and
out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back
through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
Again, the Knott Lab Laser testing recently concluded that the SBT was IMPOSSIBLE. ALL of this discussion is Now Immaterial. FOLLOW THE SCIENCE. No SBT = Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy CASE CLOSED !!!Nope. Your BS meter is definitely sick. I suggest the carnivore diet.
Nope. Your BS meter is definitely sick. I suggest the carnivore diet.
The Knott Lab put a lot of work into modelling the location of jfk & of Connally, but in the end stuffed it all up.
Blind Freddie can see that they have JFK leaning back in his seat.
If they had him leaning forward just a little, as per all of the pix & footages, then their SBT would work, as per other analysts.
The shot happens at Z218, ie while jfk is behind the large Stemmons sign, ie halfway along the sign.
Allso, Lattimer showed that the bulging jacket & the lapel flip-eversion cannot happen unless the slug has firstly passed throo JFK & is tumbling while passing throo Connally.
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE = SBT.
I'll stick with the KNOTT LAB SCIENCE, vs your laughable "Magic 8 Ball" conjecture. SBT = DOA
The lapel flip is a red herring created by Gerald Posner. It is a meaningless event, if not a bogus one. David Wimp makes a strong case that the lapel flip is an optical illusion caused by reflected light: http://joliraja.com/LapelFlip/LapelFlapTD.htm (http://joliraja.com/LapelFlip/LapelFlapTD.htm).
If we assume the lapel flip is real, we should first and foremost recognize that it is nowhere near Connally's exit wound. The hole in Connally's jacket is nearly 1 foot from the lapel flip.
The lapel flip occurs in just 1/18th/second. Really? Since when can lapels flip up and down with such amazing speed?
If Connally's lapel ever did flip up and down, it would have done so because of the strong breeze that was intermittently gusting in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. But, again, how can a lapel flip up and down with such incredible speed? And even if it somehow managed to do so, the flip occurs nearly 12 inches from Connally's exit wound.
I found a copy of Lattimer's 1994 report re tests re Connally's lapel bulge flap flip at Z224.Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lattimer%20John%20Dr/Item%2006.pdf
Lattimer's tests show that the flip goes from say 20% at his Frame-06 to say 90% at Frame-07.
His frames are 30 fps. The Zapruder frames are 18.3 fps.
I said that reactions show that Oswald's shot-2 was at i reckoned Z218. However, the Zapruder footage shows that the lapel flip happened (ie attained 100% flip or nearly) between Z223 & Z224.
Therefore i need to change my estimate for Oswald's shot-2 being at Z218, it was at Z219, or a fraction later than Z219.
At Z219 & Z220 Connally was hidden by the road signage hence the Zapruder footage missed showing the cloud of debris that caused the bulge & the flip.
Lattimer said that his tests confirmed that the shot was at Z224.
NNOOOOOOOOO.
His sequence clearly shows that his lapel flip happened at his Frame-07 (ie just before Frame-07), not at his Frame-00.
His first photo is Frame-minus-01 if u like it merely shows his "Connally" test dummy etc before the shot.
His first frame of his shot sequence is what i call Frame-00 it shows that the shot & the debris cloud have already happened. What i call Frame-07 is the 8th frame of his shot sequence.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52543820000/in/dateposted-public/
https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/latimer-4-Copy-2.jpg
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvCw3MrK/lattimer-4-2.jpg)
I made a giff of Lattimer's 18 frames (1994 test).bump
The tie is out of there.
Lattimer's slug takes a big chunk out of the lapel (as can be seen). He didnt tell us that.
The 1994 exit outshoot is not in the correct place, it is too high & too close to center.
And, the silly 1994 lapel (the 1994 lapel is very long) & the silly 1994 jacket are unlike the (shortish) 1963 lapel & jacket, hence the 1994 tie escapes, & the 1994 lapel loozes a chunk (missing chunk is vizible in the photos).
So, koz of the (missing) chunk, Lattimer's 1994 lapel would (i think) have flipped more violently than the 1963 lapel (see lapel flip in Z224), & (i think) it would have flipped earlier than the 1963 lapel.
Which means that my estimate of Z218 for Oswald's shot-2 is looking better & better (ie rather than Lattimer's Z220).
Lattimer actually said that his test showed that the shot was at Z224, even tho as can be seen his 1994 test timings clearly tell us that the shot must have been at Z220, & (as i said) the 1994 flip would have been seen later if Lattimer's 1994 slug had missed the lapel (we know that the 1963 slug missed the lapel), which means that the shot at the supposed Z220 would in fact have been say Z219 (or even at my Z218).
I estimated that Oswald's shot-2 was at Z218, which is when JFK was hidden by the traffic sign, in fact Z218 is when JFK was halfway along the sign (ie at the midpoint of his disappearance).
My estimate of Z218 was based on the typical human reaction time that would give the JFK & Connally reactions seen in Zapruder frame Z224.
So, JFK's & Connally's 1963 reaction times were similar to the reaction time for Connally's 1963 jacket flap-flip (flap-flip happened at Z224) -- 6 Zapruder frames is 0.30 sec (Latimer said 1/3rd of a sec).
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs46PdWP/ezgif-4-3ddceefcb4.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dt6G1qbc/JBC-at-Love-Field-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.96.html
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
I made a giff of Lattimer's 18 frames (1994 test).The shot through the jacket/torso model made by Lattimer looks nothing like what is seen in any of the Zapruder frames. There is no sign of any movement over several frames as shown in the Latimer film. In the Zfilm the complete change occurs between one frame (z223-224):
The tie is out of there.
Lattimer's slug takes a big chunk out of the lapel (as can be seen). He didnt tell us that.
The 1994 exit outshoot is not in the correct place, it is too high & too close to center.
And, the silly 1994 lapel (the 1994 lapel is very long) & the silly 1994 jacket are unlike the (shortish) 1963 lapel & jacket, hence the 1994 tie escapes, & the 1994 lapel loozes a chunk (missing chunk is vizible in the photos).
So, koz of the (missing) chunk, Lattimer's 1994 lapel would (i think) have flipped more violently than the 1963 lapel (see lapel flip in Z224), & (i think) it would have flipped earlier than the 1963 lapel.
Which means that my estimate of Z218 for Oswald's shot-2 is looking better & better (ie rather than Lattimer's Z220).
Lattimer actually said that his test showed that the shot was at Z224, even tho as can be seen his 1994 test timings clearly tell us that the shot must have been at Z220, & (as i said) the 1994 flip would have been seen later if Lattimer's 1994 slug had missed the lapel (we know that the 1963 slug missed the lapel), which means that the shot at the supposed Z220 would in fact have been say Z219 (or even at my Z218).
I estimated that Oswald's shot-2 was at Z218, which is when JFK was hidden by the traffic sign, in fact Z218 is when JFK was halfway along the sign (ie at the midpoint of his disappearance).
My estimate of Z218 was based on the typical human reaction time that would give the JFK & Connally reactions seen in Zapruder frame Z224.
So, JFK's & Connally's 1963 reaction times were similar to the reaction time for Connally's 1963 jacket flap-flip (flap-flip happened at Z224) -- 6 Zapruder frames is 0.30 sec (Latimer said 1/3rd of a sec).
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs46PdWP/ezgif-4-3ddceefcb4.gif)
The shot through the jacket/torso model made by Lattimer looks nothing like what is seen in any of the Zapruder frames. There is no sign of any movement over several frames as shown in the Lattimer film. In the Zfilm the complete change occurs between one frame (z223-224):Yes, there is a small movement of the lapel outwards in Z222, i hadnt noticed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1Hv2sfV/flip2.gif)
Since, as you point out, the bullet passed through the right chest pocket:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx9CV4kz/JBC-jacket-inside.jpg)
the only way to lift the lapel would be to move the whole right side of the jacket outward until the lapel flips. But if the shot was before z222 how can we explain the fact that the jacket moves in the opposite direction from z222-223:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMpXyqxf/flip1.gif)
The theory of Lattimer was that the jacket would move because of the blast of blood and tissue that we see in Latimer's film exploding from the chest. Not only do we not see a similar effect in the zfilm but there is no evidence of such an explosion of blood and tissue on the clothing.
Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).In the above analysis we can see that the max lapel flip happens at frame07 2 frames after the jacket bulge starts to diminish at frame05.
Its difficult to see what is what in Lattimer's 1994 frames (pix) its partly guesswork.
The flap on the jacket on the 1994 dummy was much longer than the 1963 jacket, so i have divided the 1994 flap into the lower flap & the upper flap.
In the 1963 Zapruder frames the 1963 flap is in effect the upper flap in the 1994 frames.
I assumed that the 1963 slug hit Connally at Z220.0. This accords with the max flip at Lattimer 07 (1994) happening at the same time as the flip in Z224 (1963).
We dont see any debris cloud in the 1963 Zapruder frames the exit outshoot on the 1963 jacket is hidden below the level of the 1963 limo door.
Frame Time s Bulge % Lower/Upper [Flap Flip %] Debris Cloud % Zapruder Frame Connally 1963 Flap.
. 00 . 0.0000 . 000 .. 010 . 000 .. 075 . Z220.0 . . hidden by sign..
. 01 . 0.0333 . 040 ...010 . 000 .. 100 ... Z220.6 .. hidden by sign..
. 02 . 0.0667 . 070 .. 060 . 010 . 050 . Z221.2 half hidden by sign..
. 03 . 0.1000 . 100 .. 100 . 010 . 040 . Z221.8 half hidden by sign..
. 04 . 0.1333 . 100 .... 100 . 010 . 030 . Z222.4 . .... no flip [edit 1dec2023][Andrew Mason has pointed out that there is a small flip or bulge in Z222].
. 05 . 0.1667 . 090 . . 100 . 020 ... 010 . Z223.0 . .... no flip ..
. 06 . 0.2000 . 080 .... 100 . 050 . 005 .. Z223.7 . .... no flip ..
. 07 . 0.2333 . 070 .. 100 . 100 . . 000 .. Z224.3 .. flipped ..
. 08 . 0.2667 . 060 .. 100 . 100 . . 000 .. Z224.9 .. flipped ..
. 09 . 0.3000 . 050 ... 100 . 100 .. 000 . . . Z225.4 .. flipped ..
. 10 . 0.3333 . 040 ... 100 . 080 .. 000 . . Z225.9 .. flipped ..
. 11 . 0.3667 . 030 . 100 . 050 .. 000 . ... Z226.8 .. flipped ..
. 12 . 0.4000 . 020 . 100 . 030 . 000 . ... Z227.3 ... .. blurred frame ..
. 13 . 0.4333 . 020 ... 080 . 020 ... 000 . .. Z227.9 ... .. blurred frame..
. 14 . 0.4667 . 010 ... 050 . 010 ... 000 . . Z228.4 .. hidden ..
. 15 . 0.5000 . 010 ... 030 . 005 . .. 000 . . . Z229.2 .. hidden ..
. 16 . 0.5333 . 000 . 020 . 000 . . . 000 . . Z229.8 .. hidden ..
. 17 . 0.5667 . 000 ... 010 . 000 .. . 000 . . Z2230.3 .. hidden ..
. . . 0.6000 . . ... ... . ... .. . ..... . . Z231.0 .. hidden ..
The shot through the jacket/torso model made by Lattimer looks nothing like what is seen in any of the Zapruder frames.
C'mon Andrew, are you sure they're "nothing alike"?
I see the top part of Connally's jacket move forward and create the same shape as seen in Lattimer's recreation and then the after effects are obscured by Connally's raised arm.
Consider Connally's positioning as to where the camera is and also Connally was seated which makes the bottom of the jacket compress into your lap and thus applies differing forces to the jacket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC1jyvGK/zapruder-sbf.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs46PdWP/ezgif-4-3ddceefcb4.gif)
JohnM
Very good observation, John. The jacket pluck 223ff is consistent with the Lattimer experiment.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xv6hObo_xcI/YDBXp3WOKZI/AAAAAAAA3u8/9Yl2zkkcPPYxoPNRSzXm-46GAu-b_SYqwCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/Flag_of_Australia.gif)
On the right, the flag bulge pulls material from the right edge, maybe like how Connally's jacket edge supposedly moves between Z222 and Z223. Pretty sure Mason could afford a Carcano and perform an experiment, rather than nitpicking at Lattimer's.
Andrew also charges there's no blood visible "exploding from the chest". But at that resolution would blood be apparent against a dark surface?
Yes, there is a small movement of the lapel outwards in Z222, i hadnt noticed.While you are thinking about it it you might ask yourself how does the jacket bulge out but not the shirt or the tie? The tie does not move at all.
And, yes, the lapel seems to have moved back inwards in Z223 (& then we have the full blown flip outwards in Z224).
I dont know how the upper lapel could flip out then in then out in the space of 3 frames.
However, my posting detailing the timings in Lattimer's 18 frames duz show the upper lapel & lower lapel doing different things. I will have to think about it.
In 1963 the outshoot was below the level of the side of the limo, hence the cloud of steam & debris could not be seen in Zapruder.
U are correct that the lapel flips between Z223 & Z224.
But u cant say that that is different to Lattimer. We cant see what the lapel duz after Z226 (frame too blurry)(lapel hidden by arm/hand).
I think that Lattimer did not tell us anything about how much debris was found inside shirt & inside jacket in 1994.
And i dont know how much debris was found in 1963.
C'mon Andrew, are you sure they're "nothing alike"?A few of the differences:
I see the top part of Connally's jacket move forward and create the same shape as seen in Lattimer's recreation and then the after effects are obscured by Connally's raised arm.
Consider Connally's positioning as to where the camera is and also Connally was seated which makes the bottom of the jacket compress into your lap and thus applies differing forces to the jacket.How does the jacket bulge but not the shirt? If the shirt bulged, the tie would have to move. It doesn't.
In addition look at the right side of Connally's white shirt collar and how the jacket when hit rises and momentarily hides the white part, just like Lattimers recreation.
A few of the differences:
1. There is no blast of bodily tissue that we see in Lattimer's film. It was that blast of stuff of whatever Lattimer was using for a body that caused the jacket in Lattimer's film to fly out. He could not get it to bulge out without it.
2. There is no movement of any underlying shirt. If the shirt moved, the tie would have to move. There is no movement of the tie at all.
3. The bulge in Lattimer took several frames to develop. That is because the jacket can't move as fast as the bullet or exploding tissue. In the Zfilm the change occurs over one frame. That is consistent with the arm and torso motion that is beginning there and continues in subsequent frames.
4. In Lattimer's demo there is no motion of the torso or arm occurring at the same time as the jacket motion. There is in the zfilm.
5. In Lattimer's case, the bullet exited under the lapel. In Connally's case, it exited through the jacket pocket, not the lapel.
How does the jacket bulge but not the shirt? If the shirt bulged, the tie would have to move. It doesn't.
And how do you explain the difference between z222 and z223?
(https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/1994.003.0009.0004_cropped4.jpg) Connally's jacket in front had more loose material than the tucked-in shirt and tie-with-clip. But nice try. | (https://c7.alamy.com/comp/EK3MXK/texas-governor-john-connally-showing-where-bullet-hit-his-wrist-during-EK3MXK.jpg) It's a later picture, but it looks like the Guv wore his belt high. |
While you are thinking about it it you might ask yourself how does the jacket bulge out but not the shirt or the tie? The tie does not move at all.In my giff of Lattimer's 1994 bulge & flip the tie appears to be short, shorter than the lapel even.
Here is the shirt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/ydDCG4qr/JBC-Shirt-front.jpg)
Not that much blood there and there would be a less hitting the jacket. Lattimer proved that the bullet itself cannot cause the jacket to bulge.
Nice try Jerry. But since the tie is clipped to the shirt it should move with the shirt. Neither shirt nor tie budges at all. The jacket moves independently of the underlying shirt - just like the jacket opened a bit from z222-223.
Connally's jacket in front had more loose material than
the tucked-in shirt and tie-with-clip. But nice try.
It's a later picture, but it looks like
the Guv wore his belt high.
Here are my latest estimates (done today) off Lattimer's 18 frames (actually 18 photos)(it was not a film)(camera took 30 pix/sec)(Lattimer's test dunn in 1994).In the above analysis we can see that the max lapel flip happens at frame07 2 frames after the jacket bulge starts to diminish at frame05.
Its difficult to see what is what in Lattimer's 1994 frames (pix) its partly guesswork.
The flap on the jacket on the 1994 dummy was much longer than the 1963 jacket, so i have divided the 1994 flap into the lower flap & the upper flap.
In the 1963 Zapruder frames the 1963 flap is in effect the upper flap in the 1994 frames.
I assumed that the 1963 slug hit Connally at Z220.0. This accords with the max flip at Lattimer 07 (1994) happening at the same time as the flip in Z224 (1963).
We dont see any debris cloud in the 1963 Zapruder frames the exit outshoot on the 1963 jacket is hidden below the level of the 1963 limo door.
Frame Time s Bulge % Lower/Upper [Flap Flip %] Debris Cloud % Zapruder Frame Connally 1963 Flap.
. 00 . 0.0000 . 000 .. 010 . 000 .. 075 . Z220.0 . . hidden by sign..
. 01 . 0.0333 . 040 ...010 . 000 .. 100 ... Z220.6 .. hidden by sign..
. 02 . 0.0667 . 070 .. 060 . 010 . 050 . Z221.2 half hidden by sign..
. 03 . 0.1000 . 100 .. 100 . 010 . 040 . Z221.8 half hidden by sign..
. 04 . 0.1333 . 100 .... 100 . 010 . 030 . Z222.4 . .... no flip [edit 1dec2023][Andrew Mason has pointed out that there is a small flip or bulge in Z222].
. 05 . 0.1667 . 090 . . 100 . 020 ... 010 . Z223.0 . .... no flip ..
. 06 . 0.2000 . 080 .... 100 . 050 . 005 .. Z223.7 . .... no flip ..
. 07 . 0.2333 . 070 .. 100 . 100 . . 000 .. Z224.3 .. flipped ..
. 08 . 0.2667 . 060 .. 100 . 100 . . 000 .. Z224.9 .. flipped ..
. 09 . 0.3000 . 050 ... 100 . 100 .. 000 . . . Z225.4 .. flipped ..
. 10 . 0.3333 . 040 ... 100 . 080 .. 000 . . Z225.9 .. flipped ..
. 11 . 0.3667 . 030 . 100 . 050 .. 000 . ... Z226.8 .. flipped ..
. 12 . 0.4000 . 020 . 100 . 030 . 000 . ... Z227.3 ... .. blurred frame ..
. 13 . 0.4333 . 020 ... 080 . 020 ... 000 . .. Z227.9 ... .. blurred frame..
. 14 . 0.4667 . 010 ... 050 . 010 ... 000 . . Z228.4 .. hidden ..
. 15 . 0.5000 . 010 ... 030 . 005 . .. 000 . . . Z229.2 .. hidden ..
. 16 . 0.5333 . 000 . 020 . 000 . . . 000 . . Z229.8 .. hidden ..
. 17 . 0.5667 . 000 ... 010 . 000 .. . 000 . . Z2230.3 .. hidden ..
. . . 0.6000 . . ... ... . ... .. . ..... . . Z231.0 .. hidden ..