I don't know much about back braces, but I gather JFK was wearing one. I think the WC even has a picture of it, nice and clean and neatly folded. Very thorough people, those commissioners. But, I've been studying Jackie in the Zapruder film, and after Connally shoots her husband, she doesn't yell at the Gov. and doesn't look into her hubby's face. No, she looks lower than that, to JFK's lower abdomen, and she seems to be fiddling around with something. I think it must be the back brace. It has straps that come around the front, and perhaps she was trying to loosen them so that Jack would be more comfortable. Yes, that must be it. That's what a good wife would do, loosen them straps. The Nix film also shows this, from the other side. Only, from there you can't see what she's doing in front of JFK. But, she seems to be adjusting the brace in the back, too. Very thoughtful! And so calm and cool, considering the circumstances. She would have made a fine nurse, Jackie! Yes, indeed.
That's a couple pictures of the brace. It looks to me as if there is damage on it. I don't recall reading about that. It doesn't take much imagination to see bullet damage and powder burns, but I'm sure the FBI would have seen that, so it's probably nothing.
In my initial study of this photo, I have assumed that the damaged part of the brace is the top. But now, I'm not so sure. If it represents a gunshot, it would make for a strange trajectory that way, a shot originating, essentially, between JFK's legs. If, on the other hand, the damage is on the bottom, it would imply the contrary, that is, a shot aimed at something between the presidential legs. I hesitate to speculate on this matter, and prefer to ask the learned panel for their imput, that is, if any one of them knows which end is up.
> That's a couple pictures of the brace. It looks to me as if there is
> damage on it. I don't recall reading about that. It doesn't take much
> imagination to see bullet damage and powder burns, but I'm sure the FBI
> would have seen that, so it's probably nothing.
No official source cited to prove that was the back brace he wore that day. Powder burns? Why is there absolutely no blood on it?
Another issue of the back brace has presented itself. My picture is identified as the back of the brace. Again, I don't know, but that's what it says somewhere. Front? Back? Top? Bottom? I'm sure nobody here knows anything, but I thought I'd mention it. I have to admit, also, that although the damage looks like a powder burn of sorts, I can't make out how a gunshot would do that without soiling the material underneath the ripped material. It's a peculiar thing. Nobody here cares about it, so I'll just study it for a while. You go ahead and bicker. Don't mind me.
> > That's a couple pictures of the brace. It looks to me as if there is
> > damage on it. I don't recall reading about that. It doesn't take much
> > imagination to see bullet damage and powder burns, but I'm sure the FBI
> > would have seen that, so it's probably nothing.
> No official source cited to prove that was the back brace he wore that
> day. Powder burns? Why is there absolutely no blood on it?
It may not be the brace he wore that day. I don't know. The Warren Commission seemed to think it was. Maybe another of JFK's back braces had powder burns on it. Maybe the FBI shot C399 through it. Also, no official source was ever cited to prove that Haygood did not wear gloves, but that doesn't seem to bother you. It seems your official source is your copyrighted theory. How am I doing?
>>> That's a couple pictures of the brace. It looks to me as if there is
>>> damage on it. I don't recall reading about that. It doesn't take much
>>> imagination to see bullet damage and powder burns, but I'm sure the FBI
>>> would have seen that, so it's probably nothing.
>> No official source cited to prove that was the back brace he wore that
>> day. Powder burns? Why is there absolutely no blood on it?
> It may not be the brace he wore that day. I don't know. The Warren
> Commission seemed to think it was. Maybe another of JFK's back braces had
> powder burns on it. Maybe the FBI shot C399 through it. Also, no official
> source was ever cited to prove that Haygood did not wear gloves, but that
> doesn't seem to bother you. It seems your official source is your
> copyrighted theory. How am I doing?
I don't rely on official sources. I do my own research.
In article <eccdb1be-d45c-43aa-a0a1-2641014609cf@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know much about back braces, but I gather JFK was wearing one. I > think the WC even has a picture of it, nice and clean and neatly folded. > Very thorough people, those commissioners. But, I've been studying Jackie > in the Zapruder film, and after Connally shoots her husband,
After he shoots her husband in your imagination, you mean.
> she doesn't > yell at the Gov.
Quite obviously because he didn't shoot her husband.
> and doesn't look into her hubby's face. No, she looks > lower than that, to JFK's lower abdomen, and she seems to be fiddling > around with something.
And never notices any wounding down there.
> I think it must be the back brace. It has straps > that come around the front, and perhaps she was trying to loosen them so > that Jack would be more comfortable. Yes, that must be it.
Oh yes, it just *must* be. Because you think so and literally no other reason.
> That's what a > good wife would do, loosen them straps. The Nix film also shows this, from > the other side. Only, from there you can't see what she's doing in front > of JFK. But, she seems to be adjusting the brace in the back, too.
You are literally the first person in this newsgroup who has ever, ah, "noticed" these things. Even the majority of your own fellow CTs disagree with you.
In article <77256a71-19ca-4095-b4cc-19da05fc93eb@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another issue of the back brace has presented itself. My picture is > identified as the back of the brace. Again, I don't know, but that's what > it says somewhere. Front? Back? Top? Bottom? I'm sure nobody here knows > anything,
Ugh. This from the person who thought Connally was holding a soda bottle, and thought the Triple Underpass runs east-west as recently as two days ago. Talk about someone who doesn't know things...
In article <c3efbb1a-dcdf-47ae-8992-588ee421fdb2@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may not be the brace he wore that day. I don't know. The Warren > Commission seemed to think it was. Maybe another of JFK's back braces had > powder burns on it. Maybe the FBI shot C399 through it. Also, no official > source was ever cited to prove that Haygood did not wear gloves, but that > doesn't seem to bother you.
It doesn't seem to bother you that you have Dealey Plaza oriented wrongly either.
> It seems your official source is your > copyrighted theory.
Just like your sole source for many of your claims is your own imagination only?
> In article <77256a71-19ca-4095-b4cc-19da05fc93eb@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Another issue of the back brace has presented itself. My picture is
>> identified as the back of the brace. Again, I don't know, but that's what
>> it says somewhere. Front? Back? Top? Bottom? I'm sure nobody here knows
>> anything,
> Ugh. This from the person who thought Connally was holding a soda
> bottle, and thought the Triple Underpass runs east-west as recently as
> two days ago. Talk about someone who doesn't know things...
According to the new rules you are not allowed to point out that he is ignorant of the facts.
