First, let me thank you again for your kind words, and commend you for
But as I'm sure you expected, I must take issue with your claim that the
> I think Robert could well be right about this, (sans the "second shot.")My sincerest hope is that having confirmed that I am at least partially
> In looking at Groden's rotoscope I think you can make a case for it in the
> The area in question seems to correspond to the lateral X-ray.
> It's quite possible I should think, with JFK being thrown backward
> But NO second shot.
> Good work Bob
> John F.
right about this, you might respect my analysis enough to consider the
evidence which convinced me that this the result of a gunshot. First, I
would direct you to this image:
Notice that by frame 317, the explosion has completely subsided.
Also, please notice the hair toward the front of the head at which I point
The image to the left is of frame 337. Notice that the hair we saw at 317,
The point of all this is, that whatever the force was that caused that
Since the explosion seems to have dissipated by 317, I don't see how that
I considered that the momentum of JFK's head moving "back and to the left"
By my calculation, the head was moving then, at a velocity of less than 4
Perhaps you can suggest a better alternative, but I cannot think of any
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.