Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Presidential Back Brace
72 views
Skip to first unread message
Saintly Oswald
Oct 11, 2012, 4:09:00 PM10/11/12
to
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NwYedFWiAg&feature=plcp
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NwYedFWiAg&feature=plcp
Saintly Oswald
Oct 11, 2012, 10:45:00 PM10/11/12
to
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-YinoYF6S0TY/UHcWX1U08-I/AAAAAAAAASk/-3Gc_h0EhbI/s539/Evi-0008c.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wRd-UtClby0/UHcWZy1IZkI/AAAAAAAAASs/p3ZwplhZMt4/s647/Evi-0008d.jpg
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.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wRd-UtClby0/UHcWZy1IZkI/AAAAAAAAASs/p3ZwplhZMt4/s647/Evi-0008d.jpg
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.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 5:06:56 PM10/12/12
to
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.
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.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 12, 2012, 9:08:36 PM10/12/12
to
day. Powder burns? Why is there absolutely no blood on it?
Saintly Oswald
Oct 12, 2012, 9:11:13 PM10/12/12
to
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.
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.
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 10:40:27 AM10/13/12
to
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?
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:49:18 PM10/13/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:10:34 PM10/15/12
to
In article <eccdb1be-d45c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>,
> 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.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@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.
> 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.
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.
"noticed" these things. Even the majority of your own fellow CTs
disagree with you.
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:10:44 PM10/15/12
to
In article <77256a71-19ca-4095...@googlegroups.com>,
bottle, and thought the Triple Underpass runs east-west as recently as
two days ago. Talk about someone who doesn't know things...
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@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
> 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,
bottle, and thought the Triple Underpass runs east-west as recently as
two days ago. Talk about someone who doesn't know things...
John Reagor King
Oct 15, 2012, 10:10:57 PM10/15/12
to
In article <c3efbb1a-dcdf-47ae...@googlegroups.com>,
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?
> How am I doing?
Poorly.
Saintly Oswald <fatol...@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
> 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.
wrongly either.
> It seems your official source is your
> copyrighted theory.
imagination only?
> How am I doing?
Poorly.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 16, 2012, 4:13:39 PM10/16/12
to
ignorant of the facts.
0 new messages