EVALUATING JFK's "ARM-RAISING"
David Von Pein
Take a close look at both of the following images from the Z-Film.
Now, if JFK has been shot before going behind the sign (and has
already begun to react to this missile striking him by moving his
right hand inward toward the location of the wound, as Bill Miller at
JFK-Lancer has suggested) -- then do you think it's a REASONABLE
assumption to think that JFK's right AND left hands/arms would be
located where we can see they ARE located after he emerges from behind
the sign at Z225?
IOW -- If shot at Z195, as has been purported here, can you (or
anyone) explain, logically, WHY Kennedy's arms and hands are as STILL
LOW AS THEY ARE at Z225 (30 Z-Frames later, or very close to TWO FULL
SECONDS after Bill says JFK has already started to react to being
hit)?
The LEFT arm especially is worth noting at Z225, IMO. Because he
hasn't even BEGUN to move it in the direction of his throat/mouth by
Z225. It's VERY low in relation to his mouth/throat.
And I contend that IF he had been already shot at Z195, those hands
WOULD NOT be as low as they are 30 frames later at Z225. (Esp. when
you can see how RAPIDLY he jacks up those arms AFTER Z225 -- his arms
fly COMPLETELY UP TO THEIR FINAL (HIGHEST) POINT in just the short
space of about 5 or 6 Z-Frames (or one-sixth the time it took JFK to
even START raising his left hand after being shot, per this CT
theory!). Not logical.
The extremely rapid rise of the arms from Z225 to about Z231 or so is
a big indicator that he's JUST BEEN SHOT (at Z223-Z224) -- and NOT
close to TWO SECONDS earlier at Z195. ......
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4465.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4468.gif
=================
DVP
April 2005 (Archived).....
David Von Pein
"And your past practice has been to avoid anything that might support
Kennedy being shot before Connally."
DVP SAID (IN APR. 2005):
Well, your "stops waving at Z195 and turns hand over" theory is FAR
from being definitive proof of a shot hitting JFK at this point.
If JFK was hit at Z195 (and is beginning to REACT, as you suggest,
Bill, at Z195), it is not logical to believe that his hands would be
where we see them at Z225. His REACTION would have been COMPLETE by
Z225, IMO, if he'd been hit at Z195 -- ESPECIALLY when you consider
the rapidity of the "arms rising" AFTER Z225 (just 5 or 6 frames to
COMPLETE the arm-raising).
Also, Bill -- I want you to chew on one of your own theories that
you've thrown in my face on occasion in the past (or a reasonable
facsimile at any rate) ----
You think that JFK's stopping his wave to the crowd at Z195 indicates
a bullet strike. But, akin to your argument to me about John
Connally's "first-shot right turn", HOW MANY TIMES during the lengthy
motorcade on 11/22 do you suppose JFK started, then stopped, waves to
the crowd? The answer is obviously a very high number.
You think my assessment of JBC's "first-shot right turn" is all wet
simply based on this very same "He must have done this a hundred times
during the motorcade" premise.
I can easily utilize this very same type of argument to support my
claim that the Z195 "wave stop" was just that -- he simply stopped
waving and brought his arm down. Period.
BTW -- There MIGHT be SOME degree of support to this notion that JFK
simply stopped waving voluntarily. The crowd was thinning along Elm at
about the time the Stemmons Sign comes into Zapruder's view. I don't
think it's totally unreasonable to think that JFK just stopped waving
on his own.
David Von Pein
"Any one point I have mentioned doesn't mean much when viewed as a
single piece of evidence. It is when those pieces of evidence are
viewed in conjuntioon with one another that they become separated from
other body movements seen throughout the parade."
D.V.P.:
Sounds very familiar to my "First-Shot Right Turn" Connally
assessment. (I.E.: The ONLY RIGHT TURN Connally can be seen making
after the Elm Street turn starts at Z164.)
Boy! A whole LOT of stuff supposedly occurred in that WHOPPING ONE
SECOND of time behind that Stemmons road sign, didn't it? (Per CTers
that is.) ......
Bill M. has JFK's initial reactions to a bullet striking at Z195
occurring while behind the sign; PLUS there's the John Connally
"glance" over his shoulder as well. All invisible from view; so
nothing can be proved one way or the other. How convenient.
But -- Although it IS possible both of the above-mentioned items
happened at that exact ONE-SECOND space in time on 11/22 -- I wonder
how PROBABLE it is to think that BOTH of these things occurred in that
very short timeframe (both JFK's proveable "reactions" to a bullet
strike AND John Connally's "quick glance" over the shoulder).
Odds anybody?
(God, those plotters were lucky. Even the Dallas Highway Dept. helped
them, by having that sign located in a perfect spot to hide one second
in history from view. There IS no end to the conspirators' luck.
None.)
eca...@tx.rr.com
David Von Pein
================================
>>> "Just where in the course of things do you think the "Arlen mob" thinks Jackie was referring to when she said JFK just had a "puzzled" expression like he might have a "slight headache"? That wouldn't be my thought if someone had their fists balled up under their chin and their elbows sticking straight out." <<<
That's not a bad "CT" thought (which could lead someone toward
thinking that Jackie was seeing her husband after he'd been shot but
BEFORE he raised his arms up).....UNTIL, that is, you read all of Mrs.
Jacqueline Kennedy's WC testimony in this "headache" regard. Let's
have a gander:
"And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of
quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his
left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece
of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking
he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember
seeing that. No blood or anything." -- Jackie Kennedy
~~~~~
Via the above comments made by Jackie Kennedy, it's not possible to
SEPARATE the "quizzical" reference from the "arm-raising"
timeline....because Mrs. Kennedy says she's seeing those things IN
TANDEM (i.e., Jackie's "quizzical look" and "his hand was up"
observations are happening at the very same time, per her
testimony). ....
"He had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up."
-- JBK
Of course, as with any witness testimony, Jackie's WC account of
events must be handled with the usual granules of salt....because a
portion of her testimony is certainly not spot-on (to-the-second)
accurate, and that is this portion of her testimony.....
"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his
skull and I remember it was flesh colored." -- JBK
Via the Zapruder Film, we can easily see that the above "just as I
turned and looked at him" timeline of Jackie seeing "a piece of his
skull" cannot be precisely accurate, because Mrs. Kennedy is certainly
looking at JFK several seconds before the head shot.
So, people will make of her testimony what they will. Jackie's words
can probably be turned into "conspiracy" in some manner by the rabid
CTers of the world (and, of course, some conspiracists have tried to
do just exactly that).
But when examining her very, very brief WC testimony transcript, a
reasonable person certainly cannot (objectively) come away from such a
reading exercise with the following mindset:
"Jackie Kennedy's WC words fully support a conspiracy, because she saw
President Kennedy positively reacting to being hit by a bullet
("quizzical look") well before JFK's arms ever begin to rise toward
his throat and mouth ("his hand was up")."
There is no way anyone can support the above type of argument, because
of what I mentioned earlier (i.e., Jackie said she saw those two
things occurring simultaneous to one another).
When reading Jackie's all-too-short testimony, I am always reminded of
a supreme opportunity that was missed by the Warren Commission. Jackie
should have been asked (in a tactful fashion):
"Mrs. Kennedy, do you think you could tell us, if you can recall,
where on the President's head you observed his wounds?"*
In retrospect, it's a shame that Mr. Rankin didn't ask that very
question I posed above. Because Mrs. Kennedy was undoubtedly one the
very best eyewitnesses (if not THE best) to JFK's head
wounds....seeing as how she was cradling his head in her lap during
the entire drive to Parkland Hospital....and also given this portion
of her finally-released-to-the-public testimony:
"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was
nothing....I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could
see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull
on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like
that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at
the top."
Those above comments were only revealed to the public after the outcry
over the fact that the originally-released document showing Mrs.
Kennedy's testimony had those passages regarding JFK's head wounds
deleted (adding only more fuel to the already-hot "It Must Be A
Conspiracy" fire).
More on that.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html
* = So, I suppose it is possible that J. Lee Rankin (who questioned
Mrs. Kennedy for the Warren Commission on June 5th, 1964) did, in
fact, ask Jackie the important "Where were the head wounds located?"
question. But it doesn't show up in the truncated transcript here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kennedy.htm
But if Mr. Rankin did not ask that question, it was, indeed, a key
opportunity missed, due to Jackie's (literally) hands-on observations
of JFK's wounds within seconds of the fatal shot striking the
President.
tomnln
(discription of wounds deleted)
The 1 witness closet to the victim.
The witness who actually held the victim's shattered head in her hands.
Her description of those wounds were DELETED.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175071456.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175069950.4...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> RE.: JACKIE KENNEDY'S TESTIMONY:
>
> ===================================================
> When I read Jackie all-too-short testimony, I am always reminded of a
aeffects
it doesn't show up, well..... what did she say, you're surely not
going to let what the CLOSEST witness to the murder had to say when
describing the head wound[s], are you?
David Von Pein
COMMISSION TESTIMONY.........
===========================================================
>>> "What did she {Jackie Kennedy} say {re. JFK's head wounds}?" <<<
Nothing that can possibly be used as ironclad "Proof Of Conspiracy",
that's for sure.
Mrs. Kennedy's previously-deleted testimony re. JFK's wounds:
"I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was
nothing....I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could
see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull
on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like
that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at
the top."
Jackie Kennedy's deleted (but now available) comments (above) don't
really add up to very much. But a small portion of that testimony
could easily lead to the notion that the "FRONT" part of JFK's head
was missing.....
"From the front there was nothing."
But, then too, to be fair, her very next words could possibly indicate
just the opposite.....
"But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold
his hair on, and his skull on."
What are we supposed to make of ALL of that? A rear (BOH) head wound?
Or a front/side ("from the front") head wound?
I have no idea. And neither does anybody else, given JUST those rather-
ambiguous and murky comments re. the location of the wounds -- because
she doesn't spell out exactly WHERE on the President's head the wounds
were.
So, her previously-deleted comments are pretty much worthless with
respect to definitively being able to say "THE WOUNDS WERE HERE AND
HERE".
As I mentioned previously, Mr. Rankin and the WC missed a huge
opportunity (or at the very least a POSSIBLE huge/golden opportunity)
to find out more information from the BEST HEAD-WOUND WITNESS OF THEM
ALL (Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy), when Rankin (evidently) never asked
Jackie this point-blank question:
"Where were the head wounds, Mrs. Kennedy? Front? Back? Side? Where?"
Too bad.
http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/jbkwc.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kennedy.htm
I do think, however, that Jackie's "trying to hold his hair on"
testimony could possibly (but not provably, of course) be a hint as to
why the Parkland personnel saw no "Front/Right/Parietal" exit wound.
It's possible that Jackie simply CLOSED UP the hinged "flap" we can
see on the right side of JFK's head here.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg
If that occurred, it's possible the large "parietal" (right side/
front) hole was not visible to the Parkland people when JFK was in the
ER there.
Food for thought anyhow.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/563bc0c7ceb11e51?hl=en&
===================================
More of my thoughts re. the "BOH" matter here:
tomnln
WC?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175148170.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...