Jackie on the trunk
James Thompson
Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
always was a mystery to me.
I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
I apologize if this is an old question but, I have read a lot of passionate
rhetoric regarding whether or not Kennedy's brain was blasted out the back
of his head. It seems to me that if Jackie climbed onto the trunk, to the
left and rear of the mortally wounded president, to retrieve a chunk of his
brain, it isn't likely to have come from a shot from behind unless there was
a strong wind that day.
Any civil thoughts?
JKT
Barb Junkkarinen
<ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote:
Hi James ... welcome aboard.
There was a breeze, but the entire right side of JFK's head was
virtually destroyed with blood and brain matter and fluid going in all
directions. As Robert Frazier of the FBI lab testified at the Shaw
trial, they found gore the entire length of the limo ... from the hood
ornament to the trunk lid, and all points in between.
Matter escaped from both the large opening on the right side of the
head we see open up on the Zfilm, but also from the large opening in
the right rear of the head .... and when the scalp was reflected at
autopsy, and other broken bone fell out or remained stuck to the
scalp, they could see that they had one huge stern to stem defect that
encompassed virtually the whole right side of his head. His head
basically exploded .. and all anatomic finding place the entry in the
rear of the head near the eop. I hold open the possibility of a nearly
simultaneous shot from the front side, but we have no anatomic
findings to support it. The explosive force of the shot from the rear
can account for all the damage to the head....including the nasty
gaping wound in the right rear of the head seen by Clint Hill in DP
and by the personnel at Parkland ... and the autopsy corroborated
defect right where they said they saw it.
You can see Frazier's testimony at this site ... which has the
testimonies and affidavits of most of the witnesses in this arena.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>
John Blubaugh
BINGO!!!!
JB
tomnln
"James Thompson" <ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote in message
news:498e71d1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
yeuhd
> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
> said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
> doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
> saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
Jackie Kennedy did have brain or skull matter in her hand at the hospital,
but that doesn't necessarily mean she retrieved it from the trunk lid of
the limousine. After all, she was cradling her husband's blown-open head
in her arms and on her lap all the way from Dealey Plaza to the hospital.
Jackie herself had no memory of climbing onto the back of the limousine.
She said that she saw pictures of herself doing that, and it was like it
was another person.
WhiskyJoe
Jackie had no memory as to why
she went out onto the trunk.
Clint Hill, the Secret Service
agent who ran up and climbed
onto the back of the limousine
said she was picking a piece
of skull. However, he was very
busy trying to catch up to the
limousine. And he is the only
witness to report this.
Strangely, the piece of skull
or brain that Jackie recovered
from the trunk is no where
visible in the Zapruder film.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
I have never heard which frame
most clearly shows this skull
or brain matter and exactly
where on the trunk it is.
If you check frame 313 in the
Zapruder film using the link
above, you will see the debris
going forward and upward.
There is also a series of
white dots, likely the
"Harper fragment" a large
piece of skull flying forward
and upward. It flew an estimated
100 feet. It looks like dots
because it was rotating and
showed up better when face
on as opposed to edge on.
And what shows most clearly in
Mr. Reitzes's website showing
frames 312 and 313:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
is a bloody spray going forward
and upward at frame 313.
The limousine was moving forward
at 9 mph, the limousine was
driving into a wind of an
estimated 15 mph, so the wind
relative to the limousine was
roughly 24 mph, going front
to back. This would push any
bloody spray backwards two
feet per Zapruder frame,
relative to the limousine.
There is blood scattered all
over the limousine, from the
very front to the very back
and the trailing motorcycles
drove through this bloody mist.
Very likely, Jackie just
momentarily panicked and
reacted by trying to get
out of there without
thinking.
Jackie did give to a nurse
a part of the brain at the
hospital, but she could have
got this from inside the
limousine. She never made
any statement where she
got it from. In general,
she never discussed the
details of what happened
very much.
**********
By the way, Zapruder is
interviewed that very day, in
the link below and around 1:55
described the wound being just
where you can observe it in the
Zapruder film, just where the
autopsy doctors reported it,
a large wound, roughly the size
of a closed fist, right side of
head, fairly high, extending
from near the forehead to over
the right ear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpicOfFajNE
Large wounds like this typically
are not caused by rifle bullets
to any part of the human body,
except the head, where a large
explosive wounds are commonly
observed. This is because rifle
bullets recreate a large cavity
in their wake. Most organic
tissue is not very compressible
so the area bulges outward
momentarily, as can be seen
in shots of ballistic gel. But
the brain is enclosed by the skull.
The bullet holes are too small
to exclude much brain matter.
So the pressure builds up until
the skull explodes from the inside.
**********
And above all else, if someone
insists that Jackie picked up
something off the trunk, they
should provide which Zapruder
frame it is most visible and
where on the trunk is it.
Anthony Marsh
> Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
> Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>
> When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
> the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
> was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
> always was a mystery to me.
>
> I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
> said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
> doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
> saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
>
> I apologize if this is an old question but, I have read a lot of passionate
> rhetoric regarding whether or not Kennedy's brain was blasted out the back
Very old and very wrong. Jackie's SS agent was trying to get onto the limo
to help and she was reaching out to him for help. She never picked up
anything from the trunk.
> of his head. It seems to me that if Jackie climbed onto the trunk, to the
> left and rear of the mortally wounded president, to retrieve a chunk of his
> brain, it isn't likely to have come from a shot from behind unless there was
> a strong wind that day.
>
No. A piece of skull or brain tissue could be blown out of the top of the
head and drop back onto the trunk. Debris everywhere does not tell us
where the shot came from.
But I would argue that the lack of President Kennedy's blood spatters on
the windshield does tend to suggest that the head shot did not come from
behind.
> Any civil thoughts?
>
> JKT
>
>
>
bigdog
The reason for Jackie climbing out on the trunk is unclear because she
said later she didn't even remember doing it. If she doesn't know why she
did it, I don't think anyone else can be sure. I believe Clint Hill stated
she was trying to retrieve a piece of skull. Whether it was skull or brain
on the trunk, this does not indicate a shot from the front. Most of the
brain and blood went forward. The Connally's where showered with it. JBC
said there were pieces of brain the size of his thumb where they were
sitting. The Z-film shows most of the exiting material going forward and
upward in Z313.
An Australian TV show recently did a reenactment of the head shot from
several possible locations including the grassy knoll. They used artifical
skulls for their demonstration. The head shot from the rear produced a
wound virtually identical to that suffered by JFK. The dispersion of
matter was also virtually identical to what we see in Z313, forward and
upward. There was even one small piece of the skull which landed on the
trunk.
yeuhd
> Jackie had no memory as to why
> she went out onto the trunk.
>
> Clint Hill, the Secret Service
> agent who ran up and climbed
> onto the back of the limousine
> said she was picking a piece
> of skull. However, he was very
> busy trying to catch up to the
> limousine. And he is the only
> witness to report this.
He did not state that with any certainty:
Mr. HILL: Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to
me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car,
the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the
car.
. . . .
Mr. SPECTER. When, in relationship to the second shot, did Mrs.
Kennedy move out of the rear seat?
Mr. HILL. Just after it.
Mr. SPECTER. You say that it appeared that she was reaching as if
something was coming over to the rear portion of the car, back in the
area where you were coming to?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there anything back there that you observed, that she
might have been reaching for?
Mr. HILL. I thought I saw something come off the back, too, but I
cannot say that there was.
John McAdams
I'm afraid, James, that this "rear opening" is a pet theory of
conspiracists that flatly contradicts the medical evidence.
Get the HSAA material (it's online) and you can see intact skull where
Barb thinks there is a hole.
>and when the scalp was reflected at
>autopsy, and other broken bone fell out or remained stuck to the
>scalp, they could see that they had one huge stern to stem defect that
>encompassed virtually the whole right side of his head. His head
>basically exploded .. and all anatomic finding place the entry in the
>rear of the head near the eop. I hold open the possibility of a nearly
>simultaneous shot from the front side, but we have no anatomic
>findings to support it. The explosive force of the shot from the rear
>can account for all the damage to the head....including the nasty
>gaping wound in the right rear of the head seen by Clint Hill in DP
>and by the personnel at Parkland ... and the autopsy corroborated
>defect right where they said they saw it.
>
Clint Hill said the wound was "above the ear."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
>You can see Frazier's testimony at this site ... which has the
>testimonies and affidavits of most of the witnesses in this arena.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote:
>Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
>Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>
>When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
>the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
>was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
>always was a mystery to me.
>
>I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
>where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
>of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot.
The problem is that the best copies of the Z-film don't show any brain
matter on the trunk of the limo.
I think she simply panicked and tried to get out the back of the limo,
and then thought better of it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddf5cd03-bf85-410a...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Clint Hill said she was reaching for something coming off the trunk.
tomnln
http://www.veoh.com/collection/JFKfiles/watch/e1270125MCG2Wnb#
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a65a901-ad26-4d60...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 9:33 pm, WhiskyJoe <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Jackie had no memory as to why
> she went out onto the trunk.
>
> Clint Hill, the Secret Service
> agent who ran up and climbed
> onto the back of the limousine
> said she was picking a piece
> of skull. However, he was very
> busy trying to catch up to the
> limousine. And he is the only
> witness to report this.
He did not state that with any certainty:
Mr. HILL: Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to
me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car,
the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the
car.
.. . . .
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:ptdvo4teon2g5lu23...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie
jumped onto the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I
wondered if it was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just
didn't know and it always was a mystery to me." <<<
In my opinion, Jackie was merely trying to get away from the scene of
horror in that back seat.
The bloody head of her husband was about to fall into her lap. She
panicked. She was stunned. She was petrified. And those are all
reasonable and logical immediate reactions on her part.
Good Lord, I'd have probably done the exact same thing if a bloody
body was falling toward me -- I'd have gotten away from it the best I
could.
That might seem callous, unfeeling, and uncaring to some. But it's a human
reaction that I'm betting 9.9 out of 10 people would have had if they'd
been in the back seat of that limousine instead of Jackie -- GET AWAY FROM
THE HORROR.
After she regained her composure and had time to think a little clearer,
Jackie did indeed hold that same bloody head in her lap. But at the time
the shooting occurred, human nature took over (IMO). And if I had been in
that back seat in the seconds immediately after Zapruder Frame 313, I
think I probably would have made tracks for the trunk too. After all,
where else COULD she have "escaped" to in that stretch limousine? She
couldn't have used the doors of the car to get out (the Connallys and the
jump seats blocked the rear doors):
About the only place she could have gone to get away from the falling,
bloody body at the critical moment just after the fatal shot was the
trunk of the vehicle.
But to think (as some people do) that Jackie Kennedy had it in her
mind, in those frantic and confusing and horrifying moments just after
her husband had his head blown off, to go and get a piece of his head
on the trunk lid is, in my opinion, just simply crazy.
Try to put yourself in the same situation and mindset -- Do you
actually think that you'd want to get a grisly hunk of brain tissue on
the trunk?
In two words -- What for? It's just silly.
There's no proof that Jackie retrieved any brain tissue on the trunk of
the car. She very likely obtained the piece of JFK's head that she gave to
Dr. Jenkins while she was cradling the President's head in her hands on
the drive to Parkland (as she was trying to "hold his hair on and his
skull on" [from Jackie's WC testimony]).
JACQUELINE KENNEDY'S TESTIMONY -- A MISSED OPPORTUNITY?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e1d9ff409489d9b
Andrew Mason
>
>
>>>>"When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie
>
> jumped onto the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I
About as silly as climbing onto the trunk and exposing one's entire body
to the "horror" that her husband had just gone through. Or about as
silly as believing that 47 witnesses to the 1......2..3 shot pattern
were imagining that pattern.
We can debate what it was that Jackie was attempting to do there. But
the bottom line is that it was an irrational act. All reasons for an
irrational act fail to make sense so you can't dismiss any plausible
explanation on the basis that it doesn't make sense.
Fortunately, SA Clint Hill did an admirable job in protecting Jackie,
which was his function. I believe he received a commendation for that,
at a ceremony at the White House which Jackie attended.
Andrew Mason
John Canal
>Clint Hill said the wound was "above the ear."
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
[...]
>.John
I see that the DVD was available for purchase in 2004...but do you happen to
know "when" the NG actually filmed Hill describing the location of the BOH
wound?
I don't know myself, but I'd be willing to bet that it was well "AFTER" Hill had
seen, to the point of ad nauseam, the BOH photo [F3]--you know the one that
shows an intact rear scalp and surely intimidates witnesses into thinking they
were hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound on 11-22-63--the one they
undoubtedly [as an innocent oversight, of course] don't tell the witnesses who
they're showing it to that it wasn't taken when the body was first received, but
much later in the autopsy--yup, that photo.
He said over and over in "early" testimony and statements that he saw (in DP and
at PH and Bethesda) a "right rear wound"--does "right-rear" sound like "above
the ear" to you. Of course it does....FWIW, it doesn't to me. <g> But,
regardless of what it sounds like to you, the early testimony trumps, in
evidentiary value, some video shot in the new millennium.....if that testimony
conflicts with the video.
John Canal
yeuhd
> Good Lord, I'd have probably done the exact same thing if a bloody
> body was falling toward me -- I'd have gotten away from it the best I
> could.
>
> That might seem callous, unfeeling, and uncaring to some. But it's a human
> reaction that I'm betting 9.9 out of 10 people would have had if they'd
> been in the back seat of that limousine instead of Jackie -- GET AWAY FROM
> THE HORROR.
I strongly disagree. I think very few people would do that if it were
their spouse's wounded body. Not just rationally, but instinctively
too. Mrs. Kennedy was not fleeing from her husband's wound. She saw
that her husband and Governor Connally were shot, and feared that the
passenger compartment of the car was the target of gunfire that would
hit her too.
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Feb 2009 12:09:40 -0500, "James Thompson"
> <ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
>> Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>>
>> When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
>> the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
>> was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
>> always was a mystery to me.
>>
>> I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
>> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
>> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot.
>
> The problem is that the best copies of the Z-film don't show any brain
> matter on the trunk of the limo.
>
So what? Some people think it shows a skull fragment going onto the
trunk. It doesn't have enough resolution to show brain matter anywhere.
> I think she simply panicked and tried to get out the back of the limo,
> and then thought better of it.
>
Ridiculous. She would have been run over by the SS car and killed.
She was reaching out for help.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> Jackie had no memory as to why
> she went out onto the trunk.
>
> Clint Hill, the Secret Service
> agent who ran up and climbed
> onto the back of the limousine
> said she was picking a piece
> of skull. However, he was very
> busy trying to catch up to the
> limousine. And he is the only
> witness to report this.
>
> Strangely, the piece of skull
> or brain that Jackie recovered
> from the trunk is no where
> visible in the Zapruder film.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> I have never heard which frame
> most clearly shows this skull
> or brain matter and exactly
> where on the trunk it is.
>
Because you have not read the conspiracy literature, especially Randy
Robertson's paper.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie
> jumped onto the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I
> didn't know and it always was a mystery to me."<<<
>
>
> In my opinion, Jackie was merely trying to get away from the scene of
> horror in that back seat.
>
> The bloody head of her husband was about to fall into her lap. She
> panicked. She was stunned. She was petrified. And those are all
> reasonable and logical immediate reactions on her part.
>
> Good Lord, I'd have probably done the exact same thing if a bloody
> body was falling toward me -- I'd have gotten away from it the best I
> could.
>
> That might seem callous, unfeeling, and uncaring to some. But it's a human
> reaction that I'm betting 9.9 out of 10 people would have had if they'd
> been in the back seat of that limousine instead of Jackie -- GET AWAY FROM
> THE HORROR.
>
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Instead of ducking down as the
Connallys did you think Jackie popped up to make herself an easy target
for the assassins and even started moving TOWARDS the shooter in the
TSBD so that he couldn't miss. Yeah we see soldiers in trenches do that
all the time.
> After she regained her composure and had time to think a little clearer,
> Jackie did indeed hold that same bloody head in her lap. But at the time
> the shooting occurred, human nature took over (IMO). And if I had been in
> that back seat in the seconds immediately after Zapruder Frame 313, I
> think I probably would have made tracks for the trunk too. After all,
What are you going to do when you get out on the trunk? Stand up and say
here I am, shoot at me? Or crouch behind the spare tire? Or try to get
into the trunk for protection? Or jump off the back of the limo as it
speeds up in order to get run over and killed by the SS car?
Anthony Marsh
> [...]
>
>> Clint Hill said the wound was "above the ear."
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
>
> [...]
>
>> .John
>
> I see that the DVD was available for purchase in 2004...but do you happen to
> know "when" the NG actually filmed Hill describing the location of the BOH
> wound?
>
> I don't know myself, but I'd be willing to bet that it was well "AFTER" Hill had
> seen, to the point of ad nauseam, the BOH photo [F3]--you know the one that
> shows an intact rear scalp and surely intimidates witnesses into thinking they
> were hallucinating about seeing a BOH wound on 11-22-63--the one they
> undoubtedly [as an innocent oversight, of course] don't tell the witnesses who
> they're showing it to that it wasn't taken when the body was first received, but
> much later in the autopsy--yup, that photo.
>
We can't be sure what books Hill had read. Are you suggesting that he
read Best Evidence and believed that Lifton's orientation of the photo
shows a massive wound in the back of the head?
Why do you assume he saw the autopsy photos ad nauseum?
jbarge
>
> About the only place she could have gone to get away from the falling,
> bloody body at the critical moment just after the fatal shot was the
> trunk of the vehicle.
>
> But to think (as some people do) that Jackie Kennedy had it in her
> mind, in those frantic and confusing and horrifying moments just after
> her husband had his head blown off, to go and get a piece of his head
> on the trunk lid is, in my opinion, just simply crazy.
>
> Try to put yourself in the same situation and mindset -- Do you
> actually think that you'd want to get a grisly hunk of brain tissue on
> the trunk?
>
> In two words -- What for? It's just silly.
>
> There's no proof that Jackie retrieved any brain tissue on the trunk of
> the car. She very likely obtained the piece of JFK's head that she gave to
> Dr. Jenkins while she was cradling the President's head in her hands on
> the drive to Parkland (as she was trying to "hold his hair on and his
> skull on" [from Jackie's WC testimony]).
>
> JACQUELINE KENNEDY'S TESTIMONY -- A MISSED OPPORTUNITY?:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e1d9ff409489d9b
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Probably one of the saddest aspects of this whole nighttmare....just
below John Jr's salute.
But I must interject that I can imagine Jackie in shock and thinking
in a numb way, "Oh...I need to get that piece of his head...and put it
back...."
I'm not saying that's what happened - but irrational occurences
(assassination) lead to irrational thoughts that lead to irrational
actions.
Coondog
> On 2/8/2009 12:09 PM, James Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
> > Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>
> > When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
> > the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
> > was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
> > always was a mystery to me.
>
> > I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
> > where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
> > of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
> > said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
> > doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
> > saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
>
> > I apologize if this is an old question but, I have read a lot of passionate
> > rhetoric regarding whether or not Kennedy's brain was blasted out the back
>
> Very old and very wrong. Jackie's SS agent was trying to get onto the limo
> to help and she was reaching out to him for help. She never picked up
> anything from the trunk.
I don’t remember seeing Jackie’s outstretched hand to assist Hill and
you didn't see it either. And again I wonder why you must always
invent your own historical facts to make the Kennedys more heroic than
they were in reality.
What I do see is a terrified person attempting to get out of the line
of fire. This is a rational and expected reaction that needs no made
up apology or defense. So why do you do so?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
I don't see your point. I don't accept at face value your 47 witnesses
to a 1......2..3 shot pattern, but surely you know that many other
witnesses reported the evenly spaced shots or the 1...2......3 shot
pattern. So, I can likewise ask with mock incredulity if you think all
those other witnesses were just imagining those other patterns. And I
could probably puff up the numbers to get it higher than yours.
David Von Pein
>>> "We can debate what it was that Jackie was attempting to do there. But
the bottom line is that it was an irrational act." <<<
Nonsense. It was a perfectly rational act.
Would you have just sat there and let a bloody body fall into your lap
(even if it was your own spouse's body)? Very unlikely.
marki...@yahoo.com
> It seems to me that if Jackie climbed onto the trunk, to the
> left and rear of the mortally wounded president, to retrieve a chunk of his
> brain, it isn't likely to have come from a shot from behind unless there was
> a strong wind that day.
She likely experienced the basic human instinct of "fight or flight".
Careful examination of the Z film doesn't support the conclusion that she
retrieved any skull or brain matter from the trunk. An old and incorrect
interpretation is that we can see a chunk of skull sliding backwards on
the trunk, but actually the shiny and convex nature of the trunk lid
merely reflects a white object in the grass on the south side of Elm. If
she was experiencing the flight instinct, it's up to personal
interpretation as to why she fled in the direction over the trunk. She saw
Clint Hill climbing onto the trunk, and then climbed back into the seat on
her own. My interpretation is that she was fleeing from perceived danger
that she thought was in front of her.
Respectfully,
~Mark
yeuhd
> > I think she simply panicked and tried to get out the back of the limo,
> > and then thought better of it.
>
> Ridiculous. She would have been run over by the SS car and killed.
Because the Secret Service followup car, moving about 15 mph at that
point, had no brakes, and could not possibly have stopped in time.
Andrew Mason
Well the numbers do not show that. There were only 6 who gave evidence to
the Warren Commission. There were 47 who gave the 1.......2...3 pattern. 9
said the shots were about equal (10 if you count Hudson who changed his
evidence between Nov 26/63 and his testimony in May/64). Even the WC
commented on it in their report. John McCloy commented on it being
something like 5:1. Now you can believe that the minority of 6 out of 62
were correct and the others were wrong. But you will be wrong about
999,999,999 times out of 1,000,000,000.
So, I can likewise ask with mock incredulity if you think all
> those other witnesses were just imagining those other patterns.
The answer has to be that some were imagining the wrong shot pattern.
That is a given. But this is quite normal. In any group of witnesses,
there will always be those who are not accurate. Their recollections
will be distributed over a wide range of available possibilities.
But if there is a statistically significant convergence of INDEPENDENT
witnesses on one particular observation, there is a reason driving that
convergence. As the number of witnesses increases, the chance of that
convergence happening by chance (ie. without a reason) becomes
infinitessimally small.
For example, if most of the witnesses as to the number of shots were
independent, the convergence of the evidence on three shots means that
there could only have been 3 audible shots. There is almost no possibility
that such a strong convergence can happen by chance: see this chart:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_Chart_no_shots.pdf
You can see from that chart that there are many wrong witnesses but a huge
convergence on the right answer. There is no possible way that these
witnesses would all independently heard some number other than 3 distinct
shots and all recall that they heard 3. If they had difficulty, they would
be all over the range of possibilities. The same thing with the shot
pattern evidence: See this chart:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFK_Chart_shots_pattern.pdf
And I
> could probably puff up the numbers to get it higher than yours.
It is not a matter of puffing up numbers. I gave you all of their
statements. You can read them. There were at least 47 witnesses who heard
the last two shots closer together (and many more who described the shots
in a way that suggests this pattern eg. a shot and then two more shots in
rapid succession). There were no more than 10 witnesses who thought the
shots were about equally spaced and only 6 who thought the first two shots
were closer together. If you think that significance happened by chance
you don't understand statistical significance. The only possible way those
witnesses could converge on the wrong pattern is if they were not
independent.
Andrew Mason
Robert Harris
"James Thompson" <ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote:
> Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
> Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>
> When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
> the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
> was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
> always was a mystery to me.
>
> I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
> said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
> doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
> saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
Well, of course.
Both of the Connally's confirmed that Jackie said she was holding her
husband's brains in her hand, immediately after she returned to her seat.
Mrs. Connally recalled her saying that even before Kellerman instructed
Greer to hurry and get out of their. Governor Connally reported hearing
Jackie say that, before he passed out, which he did, before the limo was
even out of DP.
And Dr. Jenkins said she handed that brain tissue to him, at Parkland.
And finally, no sane person can look at Jackie in the Zfilm and Nix, and
fail to see her grab for the brain tissue, exactly as Clint Hill said she
did.
I recently posted about that and included a couple of links which I
believe, will make that quite clear.
http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.html
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Instead of ducking down as the
Connallys did you think Jackie popped up to make herself an easy target
for the assassins and even started moving TOWARDS the shooter in the TSBD
so that he couldn't miss." <<<
She was simply trying to get out of the way of the falling bloody body.
That couldn't be more obvious.
David Von Pein
>>> "I strongly disagree. I think very few people would do that if it were
their spouse's wounded body. Not just rationally, but instinctively too.
Mrs. Kennedy was not fleeing from her husband's wound." <<<
So, if it had been you in that back seat instead of Jackie....and a bloody
body was about to fall into your lap (spouse or otherwise)....you would
have just sat there and caught the bloody body, instead of doing the
REFLEXIVE and instinctive thing that 99% of all people probably would have
done, which would be to remove yourself from the immediate area of the
falling bloody body?
You must be made of cast-iron, Yeuhd. I salute your strong innards.
>>> "She saw that her husband and Governor Connally were shot, and feared
that the passenger compartment of the car was the target of gunfire that
would hit her too." <<<
So she decided to make herself a bigger and more-exposed target by
climbing out onto the trunk of the vehicle? That's seems kind of odd.
BTW, regardless of what Tony Marsh thinks I might have alluded to in my
last post on this matter, I never once said or suggested that I thought
Jackie went to the trunk to remove herself from the LINE OF FIRE. She went
to the trunk for another reason--to remove herself from the carnage in
that back seat.
Obligatory ---> IMO.
claviger
> In article <498e71d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Robert,
It looks like she is trying to reach Agent Hill and help him get on
the Limousine. That would be another instinctive reaction.
Coondog
>
> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Instead of ducking down as the
> Connallys did you think Jackie popped up to make herself an easy target
> for the assassins and even started moving TOWARDS the shooter in the
> TSBD so that he couldn't miss. Yeah we see soldiers in trenches do that
> all the time.
With all due respect General you hardly qualify to explain to us about
soldiers in combat. Your analogy of soldiers in trenches clearly
shows your lack of knowledge of the matter.
First, a soldier in a trench is protected by the trench. What we that
speak the language call cover and if he keeps his head down no
Mannlicher/Carcano can harm him. Jackie had no cover as evidenced by
the rounds hitting all around her. So much for your analogy.
As for you knowing what a soldier will do under fire it is clear that
you have never kept a watchful eye on the new guy. You never know how
he will react.
How do you think you would react under fire? Be honest now.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "I strongly disagree. I think very few people would do that if it were
> their spouse's wounded body. Not just rationally, but instinctively too.
> Mrs. Kennedy was not fleeing from her husband's wound."<<<
>
>
> So, if it had been you in that back seat instead of Jackie....and a bloody
> body was about to fall into your lap (spouse or otherwise)....you would
> have just sat there and caught the bloody body, instead of doing the
> REFLEXIVE and instinctive thing that 99% of all people probably would have
> done, which would be to remove yourself from the immediate area of the
> falling bloody body?
>
Oh please! Not every person is a bloody coward. Look at some real life
examples of other assassinations and see if any wife jumped out of the
car. No matter how horrible the situation, the wife or close friend
tries to stay and help.
Andrew Mason
>
>
>>>>"We can debate what it was that Jackie was attempting to do there. But
>
> the bottom line is that it was an irrational act." <<<
>
>
> Nonsense. It was a perfectly rational act.
When I say it was irrational, I mean that it was not based on reason. It
was a spontaneous reaction which Clint Hill persuaded her very quickly
to undo.
>
> Would you have just sat there and let a bloody body fall into your lap
> (even if it was your own spouse's body)? Very unlikely.
I am not Jackie. I have no idea how I would have reacted. But if I was
able to maintain a rational thought process, I certainly would not have
climbed onto the trunk of the speeding limo.
Andrew Mason
>
Anthony Marsh
> In article<498e71d1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "James Thompson"<ja...@jamiethompson.net> wrote:
>
>> Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
>> Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>>
>> When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
>> the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
>> was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
>> always was a mystery to me.
>>
>> I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
>> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
>> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
>> said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
>> doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
>> saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
>
> Well, of course.
>
> Both of the Connally's confirmed that Jackie said she was holding her
> husband's brains in her hand, immediately after she returned to her seat.
>
No, they didn't.
> Mrs. Connally recalled her saying that even before Kellerman instructed
> Greer to hurry and get out of their. Governor Connally reported hearing
> Jackie say that, before he passed out, which he did, before the limo was
> even out of DP.
>
> And Dr. Jenkins said she handed that brain tissue to him, at Parkland.
>
> And finally, no sane person can look at Jackie in the Zfilm and Nix, and
> fail to see her grab for the brain tissue, exactly as Clint Hill said she
> did.
>
The Zapruder film shows that Jackie did not pick up anything from the
trunk. Her hand rested flat on the surface, fingers extended.
Anthony Marsh
I don't see the point of your sarcasm. The SS car was only about 5 feet
behind the limo and traveling at the same speed, about 10-15 MPH. Of
course they had brakes, but Clint Hill was almost run over and killed
and Jackie would have been.
yeuhd
> >>> "I strongly disagree. I think very few people would do that if it were
>
> their spouse's wounded body. Not just rationally, but instinctively too.
> Mrs. Kennedy was not fleeing from her husband's wound." <<<
>
> So, if it had been you in that back seat instead of Jackie....and a bloody
> body was about to fall into your lap (spouse or otherwise)....you would
> have just sat there and caught the bloody body
Absolutely. And so would 99% of all spouses. We obviously disagree.
> So she decided to make herself a bigger and more-exposed target by
> climbing out onto the trunk of the vehicle? That's seems kind of odd.
She was avoiding the unknown line of fire from whoever was shooting at her
husband and Governor Connally. She had no reason to think that she herself
was a target, and that the gunfire would follow her out of the limousine.
yeuhd
Five feet, you say? Take a look at the Nix film:
http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567022.html
That little nub on the far right side of the screen is the front
bumper of the Secret Service followup car (you can back up the film if
you don't believe me). By the time Agent Hill made contact with Mrs.
Kennedy and stopped her progress, the followup car was more like 15-20
feet behind the limousine:
http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567030.html
http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567040.html
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 8, 6:44 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2009 12:09 PM, James Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello CTs and LNs. I've been enjoying reading your posts, for the most part.
>>> Y'all can be pretty brutal to each other.
>>> When I first saw the Zfilm many years ago I wondered why Jackie jumped onto
>>> the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it
>>> was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it
>>> always was a mystery to me.
>>> I think it was in Crenshaw's book, which I read when it first came out,
>>> where he said Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the limo to retrieve a chunk
>>> of Kennedy's brain that landed there after the head shot. As I recall, he
>>> said that she carried it into Parkland Hospital and handed it to the
>>> doctors. I remember Connelly quoting her in that History Channel show
>>> saying, "My god, I have his brains in my hands."
>>> I apologize if this is an old question but, I have read a lot of passionate
>>> rhetoric regarding whether or not Kennedy's brain was blasted out the back
>
>> Very old and very wrong. Jackie's SS agent was trying to get onto the limo
>> to help and she was reaching out to him for help. She never picked up
>> anything from the trunk.
>
> I don’t remember seeing Jackie’s outstretched hand to assist Hill and
> you didn't see it either. And again I wonder why you must always
> invent your own historical facts to make the Kennedys more heroic than
> they were in reality.
>
I remember seeing Clint Hill motioning to reassure her and tell her to get
back into the seat as her hand approached his.
> What I do see is a terrified person attempting to get out of the line
> of fire. This is a rational and expected reaction that needs no made
> up apology or defense. So why do you do so?
>
No, you don't. She did not react in terror immediately and jump out of
the limo. And what did Nellie Connally do? Pull her husband into her
lap. Not jump up and out of the limo.
Not everyone is a coward.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Well, she did say that she was trying to hold his head together and
apparently was the person who put the open flap in the right temple back
into place. When she gave the brains to the doctor at the hospital she
said, "Here, will this help?" Hoping against all hope.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 9, 2:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Instead of ducking down as the
>> Connallys did you think Jackie popped up to make herself an easy target
>> for the assassins and even started moving TOWARDS the shooter in the
>> TSBD so that he couldn't miss. Yeah we see soldiers in trenches do that
>> all the time.
>
> With all due respect General you hardly qualify to explain to us about
> soldiers in combat. Your analogy of soldiers in trenches clearly
> shows your lack of knowledge of the matter.
>
> First, a soldier in a trench is protected by the trench. What we that
> speak the language call cover and if he keeps his head down no
> Mannlicher/Carcano can harm him. Jackie had no cover as evidenced by
> the rounds hitting all around her. So much for your analogy.
>
Jackie had cover if she wanted to simply duck down as the Connallys did.
The grassy knoll shooter did not have a clear shot at anyone lying down.
> As for you knowing what a soldier will do under fire it is clear that
> you have never kept a watchful eye on the new guy. You never know how
> he will react.
>
Yeah, like you the expert knows of cases where the new guy stands up and
says, "Here I am, shoot at me"?
> How do you think you would react under fire? Be honest now.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
We know that you were never in the line of fire fixing tanks inside the
shop.
yeuhd
> Jackie had cover if she wanted to simply duck down as the Connallys did.
> The grassy knoll shooter did not have a clear shot at anyone lying down.
You're assuming:
a) There was a grassy knoll shooter
b) Mrs. Kennedy knew where the shots were coming from
c) Mrs. Kennedy knew the sightline from behind the fence on the grassy
knoll
It's fun to speculate, isn't it?
David Von Pein
>>> "Not every person is a bloody coward. Look at some real life examples of other assassinations and see if any wife jumped out of the car. No matter how horrible the situation, the wife or close friend tries to stay and help." <<<
So Jackie's a coward now, eh?
Interesting approach.
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "So, if it had been you in that back seat instead of Jackie....and a bloody body was about to fall into your lap (spouse or otherwise)....you would have just sat there and caught the bloody body?" <<<
YEUHD SAID:
>>> "Absolutely. And so would 99% of all spouses." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Incredible.
So are you in the "Jackie Was A Coward" camp on this issue?
>>> "We obviously disagree." <<<
Obviously.
>>> "She was avoiding the unknown line of fire from whoever was shooting at her husband and Governor Connally." <<<
But mostly: she was trying to get out of the way of JFK's bloody body,
which was falling toward her at that exact moment.
YMMV. And does.
Coondog
> On 2/10/2009 1:57 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 2:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Instead of ducking down as the
> >> Connallys did you think Jackie popped up to make herself an easy target
> >> for the assassins and even started moving TOWARDS the shooter in the
> >> TSBD so that he couldn't miss. Yeah we see soldiers in trenches do that
> >> all the time.
>
> > With all due respect General you hardly qualify to explain to us about
> > soldiers in combat. Your analogy of soldiers in trenches clearly
> > shows your lack of knowledge of the matter.
>
> > First, a soldier in a trench is protected by the trench. What we that
> > speak the language call cover and if he keeps his head down no
> > Mannlicher/Carcano can harm him. Jackie had no cover as evidenced by
> > the rounds hitting all around her. So much for your analogy.
>
> Jackie had cover if she wanted to simply duck down as the Connallys did.
> The grassy knoll shooter did not have a clear shot at anyone lying down.
Ah yes, the grassy knoll! I forgot about that one. What the heck was
I thinking!
> > As for you knowing what a soldier will do under fire it is clear that
> > you have never kept a watchful eye on the new guy. You never know how
> > he will react.
>
> Yeah, like you the expert knows of cases where the new guy stands up and
> says, "Here I am, shoot at me"?
You miss the point, as usual. My point Marsh is that you cannot
predict what a person will do the first time they are shot at. With
proper training and leadership most men cope with it and perform their
duty. They shoot back! Jackie had neither the training nor a weapon
to shoot back with so for you to analyze her behavior as rational or
non-rational has no bearing. Civilians being shot at usually aren’t
the most rational of folks.
> > How do you think you would react under fire? Be honest now.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> We know that you were never in the line of fire fixing tanks inside the
> shop.- Hide quoted text -
I’ve never fixed a tank in a shop and I never saw a tank shop in
Vietnam. Did you? I notice you fail to tell me how you would react
to taking fire. I find that rather amusing.
Bill Clarke
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with you, Tony. I see nothing in the footage to make one question
her courage in a horrific situation. Doing anything while in a state of
shock does not indicate cowardice either. That is just the Kennedy haters
talking.
JB
yeuhd
> So are you in the "Jackie Was A Coward" camp on this issue?
It is *not* cowardly to flee from gunfire to save one's life.
It *would* be cowardly to flee in disgust from the bloodied body of one's
spouse.
I do not believe the Mrs. Kennedy was fleeing in some instinctual disgust
at her husband's wounded body. I believe she thought she would get caught
inadvertently in the gunfire aimed at Kennedy and Connally.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, they are. And again my point is that you have not looked at what
other civilians have done in the same situation.
Anthony Marsh
Typical that you would twist my words. I am the one arguing that she was
not a coward. You WC defenders are the ones arguing that she was a coward.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 10, 11:35 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jackie had cover if she wanted to simply duck down as the Connallys did.
>> The grassy knoll shooter did not have a clear shot at anyone lying down.
>
> You're assuming:
>
No, I am not. I never assume. I research.
> a) There was a grassy knoll shooter
> b) Mrs. Kennedy knew where the shots were coming from
No, she did not.
> c) Mrs. Kennedy knew the sightline from behind the fence on the grassy
> knoll
>
No, she did not.
Coondog
It is unfortunate that these people insist on making this a, “Jackie
was a coward” or, “Jackie was a hero thing. I believe it to be a
carryover of the camp you either believe John Kennedy walked on water
or you are labeled a Kennedy “hater”. There is of course a lot of
room between these two extremes and I think Jackie’s actions that day
also fall into this area. She was neither hero nor coward, simply a
person reacting to a terrible situation. No apology required.
It would be interesting to know how some of the posters here would
react to a man’s head being blown up sitting next to them.
Bill Clarke
amand...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
While the Kennedys, specifically Jack and Jackie, have their share of
flaws, one can only admire their ultimate "grace under pressure". I've
always been struck by JFK obvious attempt to maintain self- control - I
know the paralysis theories, etc. But I think he had a bucket of guts
myself.
David Von Pein
>>> "It is *not* cowardly to flee from gunfire to save one's life." <<<
So instead of cowering down in her seat or in front of her seat on the
floor, she decides to crawl to the trunk, where her whole body would
be exposed to the gunfire she was attempting to flee from?
Crazy.
>>> "It *would* be cowardly to flee in disgust from the bloodied body of one's spouse." <<<
Bullshit. It would be perfectly natural and reasonable and reflexive
and instinctive to want to get away from such a bloody mess AT THAT
EXACT MOMENT WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING.
yeuhd
> It would be interesting to know how some of the posters here would
> react to a man’s head being blown up sitting next to them.
Speaking of extremes, "head being blown up" is a bit of an
exaggeration biasing the question, don't you think? They didn't pull a
headless body out of the car. It was a fist-sized hole on the right
half of the head.
If it happened to my spouse, and (important point) *if I did not think
my presence sitting next to the targeted victim would put my own life
in danger*, of course I would stay holding my spouse, as I think 99%
of all spouses would.
yeuhd
> So instead of cowering down in her seat or in front of her seat on the
> floor, she decides to crawl to the trunk, where her whole body would
> be exposed to the gunfire she was attempting to flee from?
If she believes that her husband and/or Governor Connally are the
targets of the gunfire, then the more distance she places between
herself and the targets, the less likely she will be caught
inadvertently in that gunfire. Cowering down in her seat will not
remove herself from being an inadvertent, collateral victim if the
gunman is firing from above, will it? A small error in aim, or a
ricocheting bullet, and she could be shot too. The more distance she
makes from the targets, the less chance she will be a collateral
victim.
To put it another way, if you were on a target practice range, and you
were blindfolded as to the gunman, would you rather cower one foot
away from the target and hope for the best, or get yourself the hell
away from the target?
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I certainly think John Kennedy was a man of courage. I also think he
was by far the best one of the Kennedy boys.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
No. That is what cowards do. And you are alleging that Jackie did that
ONLY because you are a professional Kennedy hater. Shame on you.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are alleging that Jackie did that [i.e., REMOVE HERSELF FROM THE
BACK SEAT OF THE LIMOUSINE IN ORDER TO GET AWAY FROM THE BLOODY BODY OF
HER HUSBAND, WHICH WAS ABOUT TO FALL INTO HER LAP] ONLY because you are
a professional Kennedy hater. Shame on you." <<<
Yeah, that must be why I spend countless hours editing and converting
various Kennedy-related films and TV programs and uploading them to
YouTube, Box.net, Blogger.com, etc. (including many programs showing JFK
while he was still living and breathing, and not just films relating to
his death).
I do all that because I'm "a professional Kennedy hater", right Tony?
Geesh. What an imagination you've got.
REPLAY:
>>> "You are a professional Kennedy hater." <<<
Nothing could be further from the truth than the above quote uttered by
Anthony Marsh.
What in the world could possibly have given you (or anyone) the idea that
I am a "Kennedy hater", Tony? What have I ever said (ever!) that could
give somebody that impression--even remotely so?
The answer to that last question (of course) is --- Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Tony Marsh is making stuff up again.