ANOTHER QUESTION SURE TO DRAW INSULTS
Gil Jesus
brain that had been blown out.
Was that piece of brain blown toward the front of the limo or
rearward ?
bigdog
Most of the brain tissue was blown forward as the Connallys were
showered with this matter. There was a small amount of tissue that
ended up behind JFK but this was the result of the forward movement of
the limo.
Gil Jesus
That's not what I asked:
Was that piece of brain that Mrs. Kennedy retrieved blown toward the
Gil Jesus
> Most of the brain tissue was blown forward as the Connallys were
> showered with this matter. There was a small amount of tissue that
> ended up behind JFK but this was the result of the forward movement of
> the limo.
Direction: Blood and brain matter went in all directions: left front
over Mrs. Kennedy and the Connally�s; right rear over motorcycle
officer James Chaney; left rear over Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin.
(Hargis was struck so hard that he said, "I thought at first I had
been hit.")
Hargis and Martin: If we assume a "jet stream" of brain matter
propelled the President to the left rear of the limousine, then that
stream must have traveled to the right front of the limousine.
(Newton's third law of motion)
But Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin, riding to the left rear, were the
ones splattered with blood and brain matter.
(Hargis and Martin at the left rear, at the opposite side of the "jet
stream" moving to the right front.)
In addition, no film of the assassination depicts the Connally's
"showered with matter".
YoHarvey
Not insults; pity.
Chuck Schuyler
I see you're laying the groundwork for another pathetic attempt to
have your "shot must have come from the floorboards of the limo"
theory accepted by the Conspiracy Research Assassination Community,
Kennedy, President Of
The United States (CRACKPOT-US, for short) club. .
Can the old Connally shot JFK baloney you've *implied* be far behind?
Stay tuned...
David Von Pein
>>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out." <<<
This is pure speculation, of course.
Anyway, since we KNOW beyond all doubt that JFK's head was thrown
violently TO THE REAR (i.e., toward the trunk of the car) after his
head was initially pushed forward by Lee Oswald's MC bullet....then
why is it out of the realm of possibility for a loose piece of JFK's
shattered head to have ended up behind him, as a result of the rear
head snap?
I've never understood why more people haven't applied the logic that
exists within the above paragraph.
aeffects
> >>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out." <<<
>
> This is pure speculation, of course.
>
> Anyway, since we KNOW beyond all doubt that JFK's head was thrown
> violently TO THE REAR (i.e., toward the trunk of the car) after his
> head was initially pushed forward by Lee Oswald's MC bullet
a cite pointing to evidence to support your wild assumption....
....then
> why is it out of the realm of possibility for a loose piece of JFK's
> shattered head to have ended up behind him, as a result of the rear
> head snap?
>
> I've never understood why more people haven't applied the logic that
> exists within the above paragraph.
you DO need to get out more, troll! Logic is as logic does dipshit!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Apr 17, 5:29=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out.=
>" <<<
>>
>> This is pure speculation, of course.
>>
>> Anyway, since we KNOW beyond all doubt that JFK's head was thrown
>> violently TO THE REAR (i.e., toward the trunk of the car) after his
>> head was initially pushed forward by Lee Oswald's MC bullet
>
>a cite pointing to evidence to support your wild assumption....
Tis interesting that all eyewitnesses to the event, as well as at least one
eyewitness to the original film, state that JFK 'slumped forward' after that
shot.
A question that LNT'ers and trolls have never answered is why the contradiction
between the extant films and the eyewitnesses.
>> ....then
>> why is it out of the realm of possibility for a loose piece of JFK's
>> shattered head to have ended up behind him, as a result of the rear
>> head snap?
>>
>> I've never understood why more people haven't applied the logic that
>> exists within the above paragraph.
>
>you DO need to get out more, troll! Logic is as logic does dipshit!
DVP is a coward that can't address the evidence... much like his revered hero,
Vincent Bugliosi.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
tims...@gmail.com
> In article <679a465c-d26a-4802-bc00-05ebaef3e...@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Hi Ben,
Say, so you STILL believe in Z film alteration, eh? I guess you must,
since you refer to the *original* film in your post.
Perhaps you could clarify whether you still believe that the absence
from the Z film of a *lady in yellow pants*, visible in the Nix film,
is proof that the two films don't match and that, therefore, is
evidence that film alteration has taken place.
Does that still form a part of your thinking?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
a1e...@verizon.net
Hello, Tim.
Why do the apparent sizes of Jean Hill and Mary Ann Moorman relative
to the nearby limousine as seen on the Zapruder film
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/zc308.jpg
differ sharply from the view seen on the Nix film?
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/Nix1-Seq005.jpg
Herbert
> Hi Ben,
>
> Say, so you STILL believe in Z film alteration, eh? I guess you must,
> since you refer to the *original* film in your post.
>
> Perhaps you could clarify whether you still believe that the absence
> from the Z film of a *lady in yellow pants*, visible in the Nix film,
> is proof that the two films don't match and that, therefore, is
> evidence that film alteration has taken place.
>
> Does that still form a part of your thinking?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP is a coward that can't address the evidence... much like his revered hero, Vincent Bugliosi." <<<
Ben The Pussy must think it would have been totally impossible for the
violent REAR HEAD MOVEMENT of JFK's head to have thrown a piece of
skull/brain tissue BACKWARD onto the trunk.
~shrug~
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Herbert,
Well I can't say as they really do, given how little of the limo is in
the Z frame.
Differences in size would be explainable by the relative distance(s)
of the photographers from the people in the film, I imagine.
Zapruder is in an elevated position, and much closer to Moorman and
Hill, than Nix is. Nix is on flat ground and on the other side of Main
Street, much farther away from M & H when he is filming.
a1e...@verizon.net
On the Nix film, the apparent heights of Moorman and Hill are about
twice the diameter of a tire.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/Nix1-Seq005.jpg
Since the distance of Nix from the tire was approximately 173 ft and
the distance to Moorman was about 160, the correction factor becomes a
mere 173/160 = 1.08. Any way you figure things, Moorman and Hill
appear as midgets.
Herbert
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out." <<<
>
> This is pure speculation, of course.
>
Connally said that he heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "My God, I have his
brains in my hand".
Dr. Marion Jenkins said that Mrs. Kennedy was standing next to him in
the trauma room and nudged him with her elbow. When she got his
attention, she have him a piece of brain she had cupped in her hands,
There's nothing speculative about it.
Gil Jesus
>
> DVP is a coward that can't address the evidence... much like his revered hero,
> Vincent Bugliosi.
----------------------------------------------------
WORSE THAN THAT, VON PEIN IS A GODDAMMED LIAR.
To my post that:
> >>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out." <<<
Von Pein responded:
> This is pure speculation, of course.
Connally said that he heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "My God, I have his
brains in my hand".
Dr. Marion Jenkins said that Mrs. Kennedy was standing next to him in
the trauma room and nudged him with her elbow. When she got his
attention, she have him a piece of brain she had cupped in her hands,
There's nothing speculative about it.
I have them both saying it on video.
SO VON PEIN'S A GODDAMMED LIAR.
David Von Pein
>>> "Mrs. Kennedy retrieved a piece of his brain that had been blown out." <<<
Sure, Jackie gave Dr. Jenkins a piece of the President's head at
Parkland. But there's no proof that the piece of brain/skull that
Jackie gave to Jenkins was retrieved by Jackie off the trunk of the
limo.
She very likely got the brain tissue while attempting to "hold his
hair on" during the ride to the hospital. Why all CTers steadfastly
refuse to accept this alternate (and very logical) scenario is
anyone's guess.
So, the "JACKIE RETRIEVED BRAINS OFF THE TRUNK" theory is, indeed,
"speculative".
justm...@gmail.com
WOW.....would you just look at Mr. Spittle faced Christian using the
Lords name in vein??????
And on a Sunday no less. The gigs over spittle face, you can take that
bible you spew and toss it out with the rusty car parts all over your
yard. What a lying little hypocrite you are!
Little Gil the bigot just made God very proud of him ROFLMAO that hot
seat awaits you bigot.
Sam Brown
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03021ff8-71d0-4cf8...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
LOL, what a stupid bastard he is.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Herbert,
I think you'd have to come up with a better evaluation than that. An
opinion from a recognised expert in the field of questioned
photographics (or whatever the darn science is called) would be a
start. Trotting out junk like this only leads to bad places, like
Fetzer's *Assassination Science* potboiler, to quote one example. Or
Peter Gelblum slaughtering Robert Groden on the stand at the OJ
Simpson Civil Trial, to cite another. Oh, the carnage was LEGENDARY,
from what I hear! :-)
Seriously, you'd have to weigh up the type of camera used, the
distance from each camera to subject, etc etc. You know all that. Why
do I even have to tell you that?
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a224fbdd-904a-4642...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Not insults; pity.
GO FEED THE BOA
Thanks fer askin
a1e...@verizon.net
Knowledgeable people call that "darn science" geometric optics. They
recognize the correction factor of 1.08 as arising from the
fundamental relationship between the projected size of an object, its
distance from the lens, the size of the image on the film and the
focal length of the lens. This relationship is conveniently expressed
as an equality of two ratios.
projected size of object / object distance = image size / focal
length
The projected size of the object is the spatial size of the object
projected upon the plane of view.
These relationships form the basis for a scientific interpretation of
the filmed evidence.
Since you have described an application of the method as "trotting out
junk," I challenge you to support the charge. In plain English, Tim,
put up or shut up.
Herbert