Nix film corroborates Custer
Herbert Blenner
An X-ray technician at Bethesda described JFK's head as a hard-boiled
egg with an extremely broken shell. I quote the ARRB deposition of
Jerrol Custer.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Custer_10-28-97/html/Custer_0007b.htm
A: So, I had to build the head up. But when I built the head up -The
head was so unstable due to the - the fractures. The fractures were
extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and
just rolled it in her hand. And that's exactly what the head was like.
Q: So, when you say that it's like that, you mean the pieces of the
shell are analogous to the pieces of the skull; is that right?
A: Right. And every time we picked the head up, you could feel it.
This part of the head would come out; this part of the head would be
in. And was just - The only thing that held the head together was the
skin. And even that was loose.
End of quotation.
A stabilized version of the head shot sequence of the Nix film shows
the head changing shape like a sack of jelly.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/sackofjelly.gif
This sequence shows the hat of Mrs. Kennedy holding nearly constant
shape. So the far larger changes in the shape of Kennedy's head are
not distortions introduced during filming or copying the frames.
claviger
> An X-ray technician at Bethesda described JFK's head as a hard-boiled
> egg with an extremely broken shell. I quote the ARRB deposition of
> Jerrol Custer.
>
>
> A: So, I had to build the head up. But when I built the head up -The
> head was so unstable due to the - the fractures. The fractures were
> extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and
> just rolled it in her hand. And that's exactly what the head was like.
> Q: So, when you say that it's like that, you mean the pieces of the
> shell are analogous to the pieces of the skull; is that right?
> A: Right. And every time we picked the head up, you could feel it.
> This part of the head would come out; this part of the head would be
> in. And was just - The only thing that held the head together was the
> skin. And even that was loose.
>
> End of quotation.
>
> A stabilized version of the head shot sequence of the Nix film shows
> the head changing shape like a sack of jelly.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/sackofjelly.gif
>
> This sequence shows the hat of Mrs. Kennedy holding nearly constant
> shape. So the far larger changes in the shape of Kennedy's head are
> not distortions introduced during filming or copying the frames.
This film confirms the President's head dipped forward and went
straight back, not back and to the left.
cdddraftsman
> An X-ray technician at Bethesda described JFK's head as a hard-boiled
> egg with an extremely broken shell. I quote the ARRB deposition of
> Jerrol Custer.
>
>
> A: So, I had to build the head up. But when I built the head up -The
> head was so unstable due to the - the fractures. The fractures were
> extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hard-boiled egg, and
> just rolled it in her hand. And that's exactly what the head was like.
> Q: So, when you say that it's like that, you mean the pieces of the
> shell are analogous to the pieces of the skull; is that right?
> A: Right. And every time we picked the head up, you could feel it.
> This part of the head would come out; this part of the head would be
> in. And was just - The only thing that held the head together was the
> skin. And even that was loose.
>
> End of quotation.
>
> A stabilized version of the head shot sequence of the Nix film shows
> the head changing shape like a sack of jelly.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/sackofjelly.gif
>
> This sequence shows the hat of Mrs. Kennedy holding nearly constant
> shape. So the far larger changes in the shape of Kennedy's head are
> not distortions introduced during filming or copying the frames.
Question : Just curious on why you would quote Custer when Humes stated
that those same "scalloped" fractures "taxed verbal description" in his
autopsy report ?
Dr. Lattimer has a good example of what is described by some as
'contre-coup' of the skull ; the changing of it's shape due to it's
elastic properties , when struck by sledge-hammer like forces that bullets
impart when striking the dense 'bones of the head' . The description is
quite disturbing as to the fracturing of the orbits of the eye's were
blood then gorges , a real mess in Lincoln's case anyway .
Just a friendly reminder :
Don't get that backwards I didn't call anyone 'bone headed' . Not today
anyway , tomnln hasn't posted in yet has he ? :-)
tl
Kennedy and Lincoln
Pages 43-46 Fig. 22
tl
Herbert Blenner
The Zapruder film shows President Kennedy's torso rotating backward
and twisting leftward while the head showed little independent
motion.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/backandtotheleft.gif
Basically the head went along for a ride on the torso. So why do you
expect the Nix film that shows only the upper portion of the head to
display a motion of the torso?
Herbert
claviger
It does look like the torso has a twist in the Z-film but the Nix film
shows no movement toward Jackie. The torso is pushed backward into the
seat cushion. If you believe a shot came from the knoll please provide
the angle relative to the Limousine and angle of declination for the
trajectory. Marsh says the acoustic evidence places the shot 9' west
from the corner of the wooden fence.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bullshit. Back and to the left no matter how you many times you try to
sell this crap.
JB
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
And no witness testimony supports a spasmodic, contorted movement such
as the back and to the left of Zapruder. One film has to be faked,
and if Nix is real, then the Z film is altered.
CJ
John Blubaugh
>
Wrong, back and to the left just as millions have observed.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Here's the angle.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
I don't suppose you own a protractor? I just bought one for 5 cents. You
can't afford 5 cents for research?
Herbert Blenner
A leftward twisting of the torso does not change the distances between the
long axis of the body and surrounding objects. At most some portions of
the torso may move closer to a surrounding object while other portions of
the torso move farther from the same object.
Likewise the backward motion of the torso was a rotation about an axis
through the hips. Portions of the torso moved toward the back of the rear
seat at differing tangential speeds. However, all portions of the torso
rotated with same angular speed.
> If you believe a shot came from the knoll please provide
> the angle relative to the Limousine and angle of declination for the
> trajectory. Marsh says the acoustic evidence places the shot 9' west
> from the corner of the wooden fence.
The calculations of the trajectory angles require a topological map, not a
belief in a shot from the knoll.
Applying the principle of inertia settles the issue of a frontal shot. In
short, a head shot would drive the head as far as permitted by its
attachment to the torso. Afterwards the torso with the head in this
extreme position would move with common and greatly reduced angular
speeds.
The "back and to the left" motion shows the torso rotating backward with
the head far from its most backward position permitted by its attachment.
This observation along disproves a front head shot as the cause of the
motion.
Herbert
Squinty Magoo
The problem is, Nix was filming from "back and to the left" of JFK's
position at Z313. If JFK moved toward the camera, it would appear
there was no movement. Just like the only shooting star you have to
fear is the one that doesn't appear to move.
Squinty Magoo
Herbert Blenner
Without doubt the appearance of the top of Kennedy's head as a sack of
jelly on the Nix film and the structural integrity of the same top seen on
the Zapruder film prove these movies are not a true pair.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/sackofjelly.gif
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/backandtotheleft.gif
Herbert
claviger
JB,
If you believe there was a shot from the right front then please
answer these questions. One CT claims the "acoustic evidence" proves
the GKS was behind the wooden fence 9' west of the corner. Was the
sniper male or female? What kind of weapon did he/she use? Tell us
about the angle of trajectory and the angle of declination. How did
the sniper make his/her getaway? If it was the phony SS agent with
fake ID where did he hide the weapon?
Keep in mind there were witnesses surrounding this area. The witnesses
on the RR overpass were elevated and could see down into the parking
lot. The same is true of Lee Bowers and Marilyn Sitzman. Spectators
standing in the area of the front entrance to the TSBD could look down
the Elm Street extension and see behind the pergola. People rushed to
the GK from all directions. No person was seen behind the wooden fence
or the pergola when shots were fired.
One CT thinks a bullet hit the President in the forehead. Others say
the right temple. Where do you think the bullet struck the President?
Now here is the problem. At the time the President is struck in the
head he is leaning forward and to his left. There is no dispute about
this position as we can clearly see in the Z-film. The bullet
trajectory is coming from the front right side of the Limousine, which
means if it continues in that direction it must exit over left side of
the car. If a bullet blew out a big hole in back of the skull that
means the bullet exit was over the trunk and since the follow-up car
was no more than six feet behind the Limousine the bullet should hit
the grill of the SS car. Also you need to explain how a bullet fired
from the elevated GK could make a left turn inside the head and exit
the back of the skull.
If you can answer all these questions then you have a viable theory to
work with. The head shot must have at least four elements: a sniper, a
weapon, a bullet, a trajectory. The wound analysis is also important.
For instance, the Z-film shows brain ejecta coming out of the head to
the front of the Limousine, not toward the trunk. Wouldn't that defy
the laws of physics if the shot came from the right front?
claviger
You need to converse with mimusremedian who has done a lot of research
on this head wound and the shape of the skull.
Anthony Marsh
Neither does the Nix film show the jets of debris that the Zapruder film
does. So what? Different cameras, different angles.
Anthony Marsh
Almost true, but the odds that a shooting star would be moving directly at
a specific individual are impossibly remote. Even in the science fiction
movies when the aliens shoot meteorites at their enemy they can not hit an
individual. Maybe a city, not a specific house.
> Squinty Magoo
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Silly argument. If the Zapruder film is fake then all other films and
photos have to be faked to match it.
> CJ
>
John Blubaugh
I am not a researcher and I don't have to prove anything to you. The
battle has been over ever since the Z-film was released. But to help you
out, the shooter was discovered and HE used phoney SS credentials to
escape but you know all of that already.
JB
Herbert Blenner
Zapruder was higher than Kennedy's head. This perspective gave him a
full view of the right side of the head and included a portion of the
left side near the top. By contrast, Nix was lower than the head and
filmed the left side minus a small portion of the top. So the Zapruder
film shows structural integrity of a portion of the head that appears
as a sack of jelly on the Nix film.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/sackofjelly.gif
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen_files/backandtotheleft.gif
Herbert
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
claviger
> I am not a researcher...
You are dealing with several researchers on this forum so it would
help you to argue more effectively about this case if you did more
research.
> ...and I don't have to prove anything to you.
Well, yes you do when you make assertions. It's part of standard
debate protocol to support you contentions with facts when questioned.
Happens all the time on this discussion board. Solving this mystery is
both a scientific and intellectual challenge, not a political contest.
Guided by the discipline of formal logic it's not impossible for
conservatives and liberals to end up at the same conclusion.
> The battle has been over ever since the Z-film was released.
I quite agree. The film shows the head moving forward before jerking
backward, confirming a shot from behind. It also shows the devastating
head wound exploding from the top side of the skull, not the back. The
film proves that some observers in ER got it wrong.
> But to help you out, the shooter was discovered and HE used
> phoney SS credentials to escape but you know all of that already.
That is one theory but more likely a case of mistaken identity. You
can read more about it in these discussions:
secret service in dealey plaza
Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza
Hiding of the rifle....how much time?
Testing Bullet Fragments
Anthony Marsh
> JB,
>
>> I am not a researcher...
> You are dealing with several researchers on this forum so it would
> help you to argue more effectively about this case if you did more
> research.
>
>> ...and I don't have to prove anything to you.
> Well, yes you do when you make assertions. It's part of standard
> debate protocol to support you contentions with facts when questioned.
Not for WC defenders. Only for conspiracy believers.
John Blubaugh
None of these things matter to me. You cannot explain the back and to the
left reaction to a shot from the right front. You have to have the MC
broken down in a bag that was folded too small to hold it and there is no
trace of it (oil or marks on the paper) to indicate it was ever there.
So, until you have a logical answer to these two things, you have no case
and the rest of it doesn't matter. The rest of the world feels the same
way. You are into every aspect of the case except for these simple things.
You will never win the argument this way.
JB
Bud
And misinterpreted.
> JB
Sandy McCroskey
That is all too obvious. Wow, and I didn't think understatement was
your style.
> You cannot explain the back and to the
> left reaction to a shot from the right front.
It has been explained (over and over) why you think you see a back-and-
to-the-left reaction, and why close examination of the film reveals no
such thing.
It is, of course, begging the question to assume that this fictional
movement is the reaction to an equally fictional "shot from the right
front."
> You have to have the MC
> broken down in a bag that was folded too small to hold it and there is no
> trace of it (oil or marks on the paper) to indicate it was ever there.
>
> So, until you have a logical answer to these two things, you have no case
> and the rest of it doesn't matter. The rest of the world feels the same
> way. You are into every aspect of the case except for these simple things.
> You will never win the argument this way.
>
> JB
It's interesting that you seem to assume that I haven't looked at
those "simple things" or else, clearly, you think I would be convinced
by your argument. (Well, I have and I'm not.) But I'm afraid this is
just a rhetorical ploy, and that you don't really think that I'd be
convinced by any argument.. no more than you can be.
After all, according to what you've written in a recently closed off-
topic thread, you think what anyone believes about JFK's assassination
depends on their ideological allegiance: "Peter, every post made here
is political. This is simply a left versus right battle. The truth
only matters to one of those sides. I'll leave you to guess which
one."
Yet I am a leftist, and I am convinced Oswald was guilty, and that he
had no help.
Sure, I'm often the odd man out, but in this particularity I have lots
of company, and some very well-known LNs among them. Vince Bugliosi,
though a supporter of the death penalty, would also have to be placed
on the left/liberal side of the aisle. Gerald Posner's Wikipedia entry
says he "was a strong supporter of Al Gore for the 2000 presidential
election."
Yes, I know, .John is a right-winger and some other LNs who post here
are, too. So what?
Ideology can only obfuscate the issue. The real world is full of
"senseless" acts of violence, contingencies over which no one has any
control, seemingly meaningful coincidences that are nevertheless
*only* that and many other such factors that are routinely not taken
into account by those who expect reality to conform to their
ideological preconceptions. But ideological interpretations are *by
definition* incomplete, unless you believe that there is nothing in
reality but our own paltry, all-too-human "ideas" (rather than
recognizing that our ideas are merely tools that enable us to get a
grasp on part of reality for a time and must be constantly updated and
modified in accordance with new information).
/sandy
Herbert Blenner
You can shout one plus one equals three until the cows jump over the
moon but you cannot make "back and to the left" become a mechanical
reaction to a head shot.
Herbert
>
> JB- Hide quoted text -
claviger
JB,
> None of these things matter to me.
Why not? Do you ever watch the various CSI programs on TV where
forensic experts try to solve crimes by using scientific methodology
and logic?
> You cannot explain the back and to the left reaction to a shot from
> the right front.
True. I cannot explain that movement, especially when the bullet
entered the back of the skull and exited the top of the head. I'm not
sure if anybody knows exactly why from a scientific standpoint because
it's not possible to perform an experiment on another live human
being. What I do know is police officers and army veterans tell me
human beings don't react to being shot as portrayed by Hollywood. I
have seen film of real shootouts where a person being shot several
times with handguns simply drops to the ground. One police officer
told me in his 20 year career he saw as many people fall forward as
fall backward. I asked him why and he said nobody knows for sure. My
guess is it depends on several factors, including type of bullet,
angle, velocity, and distance. It also depends on where the bullet
interacts with the anatomy.
In this case, the victim is shot twice by the same weapon but has two
opposite reactions. The first wound through the upper back and out the
throat doesn't move the body at all. The only indication something
happened is the victim raises his hands and arms. The fact the
projectile punctured muscle and flesh, and nicked a spinal bone before
exiting the body explains why all the velocity was not delivered to
the torso enough to cause a more violent physical reaction. The
projectile remains intact, but not undamaged.
The second wound impacts hard bone and disintegrates as it continues
through the brain cavity which is full of soft tissue of high liquid
content. The smaller fragments spread out along the bullet path while
the larger pieces tumble on through with enough velocity to cause a
large exit wound. As we might guess bullets act differently depending
on what they collide with. In soft tissue a FMJ projectile can
maintain the aerodynamic shape but can fail when contacting a much
harder object. With the head shot the FMJ bullet did fail and as it
disintegrated acted in the same way as a "frangible bullet", or a
miniature shotgun blast.
Thanks to Oliver Stone we know the first movement of the head is
forward and down for a split second. This would be consistent with a
dynamic force striking a hard object, thus delivering enough energy to
move the object it in the same direction as the trajectory. What is
more difficult to explain is the secondary reaction of the "back and
to the left movement". One explanation is another shot from the
opposite direction a split second later overcoming the first dynamic
force. The problem is no corroborating forensic evidence of this shot
from wound analysis or witness testimony.
If not another bullet, then there must be a combination of physical
reasons, starting with the fact the head is attached to the body by
the neck. A force pushing the head forward would stretch the neck
muscles which eventually react and pull back to a natural position
with a strong reflex action when the head literally erupts. Add to
this other physical reactions such a neuromuscular shock, hydrostatic
shock, antipodal shock, and hydrodynamic fluid evacuation.
The pathology examination found a hole in the back of the skull
measuring 15x6 mm. This was obviously an entrance wound of a
projectile. Evidence of a pathway was noticed on the X-ray of the
brain littered with tiny fragments in the direction of the massive
exit wound. There was no evidence of another projectile in the
opposite direction.
So what are the logical conclusions from this information? It is
unlikely a shot came from the GK. Was LHO the only shooter? Possibly
not, but that scenario does not include conspiracy. Assuming LHO was
the only triggerman does not prove 100% no conspiracy. You read my
thoughts about that on The Mystery Man thread. It could be a
conspiracy of two.
> You have to have the MC broken down in a bag that was folded too
> small to hold it and there is no trace of it (oil or marks on the paper)
> to indicate it was ever there.
So the alternative is to believe Oswald is a complete weirdo who hand
makes paper bags 3' long to carry his lunch in or take his favorite
curtain rods to work??
> So, until you have a logical answer to these two things, you have no case
> and the rest of it doesn't matter. The rest of the world feels the same
> way. You are into every aspect of the case except for these simple things.
> You will never win the argument this way.
Common sense must play a part. How many people have you known who
custom make a paper bag for lunch? How many make a bag to disguise
curtain rods??
John Blubaugh
> > > It does look like the torso has a twist in the Z-film but the Nix film
> > > shows no movement toward Jackie. The torso is pushed backward into the
> > > seat cushion. If you believe a shot came from the knoll please provide
> > > the angle relative to the Limousine and angle of declination for the
> > > trajectory. Marsh says the acoustic evidence places the shot 9' west
> > > from the corner of the wooden fence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Wrong, back and to the left just as millions have observed.
>
> And misinterpreted.
>
>
Yes, misinterpreted by LNs to try and defend the blessed WCR. No cigar
for the LNs here. You lose as you have been losing since the Z-film
was released and showed that violent back and to the left movement
that at least one of you even denies happened.
JB
Bud
How do we lose? Ruby dispensed speedy justice upon JFK`s killer, and
Oswald was killed for his crimes. You don`t think Holocaust denial
changes the reality of the Holocaust, do you?
> JB
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe that is a point of controversy. I think there is the
'Adjusted Version' which is deemed more correct from where he was
actually standing.
In that he was more more straight-across from the GK area instead of
in back and in head-align-movement angle that you ascribe.
CJ
curtjester1
That has been alluded to for other arguments, but isn't necessaritly true
for just this comparison. The point is, if one shows a marked,
identifiable, difference, then at least one has to be faked. I still
contend that witnesses would have easily seen and would have had a concise
recalling of such a rapid movement of JFK's head that the Z film shows.
It's not so much the direction but the rapid back, and rapid rebound
forward, that I am sure would have been what would have been recalled by
the witnesses even from afar off. It just wasn't a point of any
recollection that was part of the overall testimonies.
CJ
curtjester1
Would this be more of the uncorrected angle shot, Herbert?
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/orvillenixfilm.gif
CJ
Sandy McCroskey
"...would have had a concise recalling..."
CJ, do you know what "concise" means?
Look it up!
/sm
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oswald was killed to keep him quiet, not for his crimes.
JB
Caeruleo
<4f7c33f4-79f7-4b36...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oswald was killed to keep him quiet, not for his crimes.
Unconfirmed speculation, once again stated as fact, not opinion.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is this 'concise' enough??!!
con·cise (kn-ss)
adj.
Expressing much in few words; clear and succinct.
IOW, the witnesses would have said his head bounced around like a jack
in the box going boing boing.
Any more clear succinctity needed?
CJ
John Blubaugh
> In article
> <4f7c33f4-79f7-4b36-8f5d-eb967ff19...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
You are correct, that is my opinion. But he wasn't killed for his
crimes as the Bighound suggests. Why do you think he was killed?
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Well, maybe now that you have looked it up you will use it correctly in
the future, rather than as a synonym for "precise." Or maybe you now need
to look up "succinct."
"Concise" is properly applied to verbal expression. IOW, "...witnesses
would...have had a concise recalling," is gobbledygook.
/sandy
Bud
Had Oswald not killed Kennedy he might be alive today. but I will
grant you that Ruby`s shot does seem to have shut him up.
> JB
Caeruleo
<4a363e11-8d49-4aca...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 4:26?pm, Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4f7c33f4-79f7-4b36-8f5d-eb967ff19...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 26, 5:38?pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 21, 1:55 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > It does look like the torso has a twist in the Z-film but the
> > > > > > > > Nix
> > > > > > > > film
> > > > > > > > shows no movement toward Jackie. The torso is pushed backward
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > seat cushion. If you believe a shot came from the knoll please
> > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > the angle relative to the Limousine and angle of declination
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > trajectory. Marsh says the acoustic evidence places the shot 9'
> > > > > > > > west
> > > > > > > > from the corner of the wooden fence.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > > Wrong, back and to the left just as millions have observed.
> >
> > > > > > ? And misinterpreted.
> >
> > > > > Yes, misinterpreted by LNs to try and defend the blessed WCR. No
> > > > > cigar
> > > > > for the LNs here. You lose as you have been losing since the Z-film
> > > > > was released and showed that violent back and to the left movement
> > > > > that at least one of you even denies happened.
> >
> > > > ? How do we lose? Ruby dispensed speedy justice upon JFK`s killer, and
> > > > Oswald was killed for his crimes. ?You don`t think Holocaust denial
> > > > changes the reality of the Holocaust, do you?
> >
> > > Oswald was killed to keep him quiet, not for his crimes.
> >
> > Unconfirmed speculation, once again stated as fact, not opinion.
> >
>
> You are correct, that is my opinion. But he wasn't killed for his
> crimes as the Bighound suggests. Why do you think he was killed?
Probably because Ozzie wanted to do Something Big, that would draw More
Attention to him than anything he had previously done, including going to
live in the Soviet Union, the latter of which, when he came back to Texas,
received disappointingly meager press.
Note carefully that I began the sentence with the word "probably," not
"because."
John Blubaugh
> > You are correct, that is my opinion. But he wasn't killed for his
> > crimes as the Bighound suggests. Why do you think he was killed?
>
> Probably because Ozzie wanted to do Something Big, that would draw More
> Attention to him than anything he had previously done, including going to
> live in the Soviet Union, the latter of which, when he came back to Texas,
> received disappointingly meager press.
>
> Note carefully that I began the sentence with the word "probably," not
>
> - Show quoted text -
If Oswald wanted to get credit for something big, why didn't he just take
the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
just doesn't seem credible to me.
JB
claviger
The title of this discussion should be "Nix film corroborates Bigdog". As
we can see the torso of the President goes straight back past Jackie. He
was already leaning to his left before the shot. If he was thrown back and
to the left he should have bumped into Jackie, but he didn't.
bigdog
Why would you think that someone who has committed a senseless act
would act sensibly?
yeuhd
> the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
> was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
> just doesn't seem credible to me.
Why did Timothy McVeigh plead not guilty to the Oklahoma City bombing, and
then openly admit he did it only after he was tried and convicted?
Why did he race out of Oklahoma City after he set the bomb, instead of
turning himself in to police?
Why when he was arrested fleeing on the highway shortly afterwards was he
wearing a T-shirt showing a tree with a picture of three blood droplets
and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 30, 12:08 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If Oswald wanted to get credit for something big, why didn't he just take
>> the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
>> was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
>> just doesn't seem credible to me.
>
> Why did Timothy McVeigh plead not guilty to the Oklahoma City bombing, and
> then openly admit he did it only after he was tried and convicted?
>
Guilty people sometimes plead not quilty to take their chances at trial.
> Why did he race out of Oklahoma City after he set the bomb, instead of
> turning himself in to police?
>
Did he race? Was he pulled over for speeding? How did he switch from a van
to a getaway car? Maybe an accomplice drove the car there for him or
picked him up after he parked the car. Either was suggests conspiracy.
> Why when he was arrested fleeing on the highway shortly afterwards was he
> wearing a T-shirt showing a tree with a picture of three blood droplets
> and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
> from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
>
I like your thinking. So forget evidence we should just convict people on
the basis of what clothes they wear. That's why you think the line-up with
Oswald wearing only his T-shirt while everyone else was dressed in regular
shirts is ok. After all, only someone wearing a T-shirt only would
assassinate the President.
Anthony Marsh
As a matter of philosophy are all murders senseless acts? Does that
include the CIA murders? Does that prove that the CIA is legally insane?
John Blubaugh
> > the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
> > was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
> > just doesn't seem credible to me.
>
> > JB
>
> The title of this discussion should be "Nix film corroborates Bigdog". As
> we can see the torso of the President goes straight back past Jackie. He
> was already leaning to his left before the shot. If he was thrown back and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now what does that have to do with Oswald claiming credit for doing
something big? If you are saying that you cannot see the back and to the
left reaction then you and the hound dog are the only people in the world
who do not see it.
jB
John Blubaugh
One case has nothing to do with the other. Perhaps LHO would have
eventually said that he did it. Or, perhaps he was silenced to make sure
that he didn't say anything. What seems illogical to you and I may have
seemed perfectly logical to McVeigh and Oswald.
JB
yeuhd
> On 1/30/2010 3:05 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 12:08 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If Oswald wanted to get credit for something big, why didn't he just take
> >> the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
> >> was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
> >> just doesn't seem credible to me.
>
> > Why did Timothy McVeigh plead not guilty to the Oklahoma City bombing, and
> > then openly admit he did it only after he was tried and convicted?
>
> Guilty people sometimes plead not quilty to take their chances at trial.
>
> > Why did he race out of Oklahoma City after he set the bomb, instead of
> > turning himself in to police?
>
> Did he race? Was he pulled over for speeding? How did he switch from a van
> to a getaway car? Maybe an accomplice drove the car there for him or
> picked him up after he parked the car. Either was suggests conspiracy.
You apparently are unfamiliar with the details. Three days before the
bombing, McVeigh parked his car in a parking lot about six blocks from
the federal building, leaving a "Please do not tow" sign under the
windshield with a note about a dead battery. His accomplice Terry
Nichols drove him back to Kansas. On the day of the bombing, McVeigh
drove the van into Oklahoma CIty, parked it in front of the federal
building and detonated the fuse. About a dozen witnesses saw McVeigh
walk away from the van, and he was three blocks away when it exploded.
He continued walking to the parking lot and drove away in his car, out
of Oklahoma City and north on I-35. He was arrested on the interstate
90 minutes after the explosion.
"Either suggests conspiracy"? You also seem to be unfamiliar with the
fact that McVeigh and Nichols were convicted of conspiracy to detonate
a weapon of mass destruction.
> > Why when he was arrested fleeing on the highway shortly afterwards was he
> > wearing a T-shirt showing a tree with a picture of three blood droplets
> > and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
> > from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
>
> I like your thinking. So forget evidence we should just convict people on
> the basis of what clothes they wear.
Who made that claim? Only you. Please quote where I said we should
forget evidence and just convict people on the basis of what clothes
they wear. (P.S. McVeigh's T-shirt WAS submitted in evidence at his
trial.)
> That's why you think the line-up with
> Oswald wearing only his T-shirt while everyone else was dressed in regular
> shirts is ok. After all, only someone wearing a T-shirt only would
> assassinate the President.
Who made that claim? Only you. I claim the opposite, that Oswald's T-
shirt was irrelevant.
claviger
I do not see it in the Nix film. We know Jackie turned toward the
President and was holding him arm with both hands. He was leaning
forward and to the left, toward Jackie and she was leaning toward him.
When he is shot in the skull, his head dips down then his torso goes
straight back into the seat cushion. His head was only inches away
from Jackie. If he did go "back and to the left" why didn't he fall
into Jackie? But he didn't. He went past her into the seat cushion
before finally collapsing toward Jackie. That is clear as can be in
the Nix film, which is verification Bigdog is exactly right.
Some people mistakenly believe there was a shot from the GK. One of
those believers claims the bullet trajectory was at an angle of 45º
and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
the GK.
bigdog
So it seems illogical to you that Oswald would do something to make
himself famous but then deny doing it afterward. But that might have
seemed perfectly logical to Oswald.
bigdog
Up until now, you were claiming I was the only person in the world who
denied JFK moved back and to the left. Now you are claiming there are
only two of us. Could it possibly be you have overlooked others?
Herbert Blenner
You are as confused as bigdog.
JFK did not move in straight paths. Instead the backward motion was a
rotation about the hips and the leftward motion was a twist about the long
axis of the torso.
>
> Some people mistakenly believe there was a shot from the GK. One of
> those believers claims the bullet trajectory was at an angle of 45º
> and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
> driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
> The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
> the GK
The president's forward head nod is physical evidence of a well- centered
shot that acted on neither the left nor the right side of the head. This
filmed reaction conflicts with the findings of all the medical panels that
confined the primary wound track to the right side of the head.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
The Zapruder film shows that JFK reached his maximum twisted toward
his left as his backward rotation carried him pass Jackie.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Oh yeah? Who said 45 degrees? You keep making false charges.
> and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
> driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
> The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
> the GK.
>
I thought you were one of the WC defenders who said that a bullet can
not move the victim in any direction. And yet here you say a shot from
the right front must drive the President to the left. Are you guys
having a contest to see who can be the most hypocritical?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 30, 7:11 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2010 3:05 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 12:08 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> If Oswald wanted to get credit for something big, why didn't he just take
>>>> the credit for the assassination instead of screaming to the world that he
>>>> was a Patsy? Your argument, which has been made many times in the past,
>>>> just doesn't seem credible to me.
>>
>>> Why did Timothy McVeigh plead not guilty to the Oklahoma City bombing, and
>>> then openly admit he did it only after he was tried and convicted?
>>
>> Guilty people sometimes plead not quilty to take their chances at trial.
>>
>>> Why did he race out of Oklahoma City after he set the bomb, instead of
>>> turning himself in to police?
>>
>> Did he race? Was he pulled over for speeding? How did he switch from a van
>> to a getaway car? Maybe an accomplice drove the car there for him or
>> picked him up after he parked the car. Either was suggests conspiracy.
>
> You apparently are unfamiliar with the details. Three days before the
Apparently I am, which is why I asked those pointed questions.
It was a conspiracy so maybe he pleaded not guilty so that he would not
have to implicate his co-conspirator. According to your view Oswald
would not have that problem if he didn't have a co-conspirator. So that
is the difference between McVeigh and Oswald.
> bombing, McVeigh parked his car in a parking lot about six blocks from
> the federal building, leaving a "Please do not tow" sign under the
> windshield with a note about a dead battery. His accomplice Terry
> Nichols drove him back to Kansas. On the day of the bombing, McVeigh
> drove the van into Oklahoma CIty, parked it in front of the federal
> building and detonated the fuse. About a dozen witnesses saw McVeigh
> walk away from the van, and he was three blocks away when it exploded.
> He continued walking to the parking lot and drove away in his car, out
> of Oklahoma City and north on I-35. He was arrested on the interstate
> 90 minutes after the explosion.
>
So, was he speeding? Was he pulled over for speeding? If not then he was
not "racing" out of Oklahoma City.
> "Either suggests conspiracy"? You also seem to be unfamiliar with the
> fact that McVeigh and Nichols were convicted of conspiracy to detonate
> a weapon of mass destruction.
>
Which illustrates that one does not have to pull the trigger or light
the fuse to be guilty of conspiracy to murder.
>
>>> Why when he was arrested fleeing on the highway shortly afterwards was he
>>> wearing a T-shirt showing a tree with a picture of three blood droplets
>>> and the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
>>> from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
>>
>> I like your thinking. So forget evidence we should just convict people on
>> the basis of what clothes they wear.
>
> Who made that claim? Only you. Please quote where I said we should
> forget evidence and just convict people on the basis of what clothes
> they wear. (P.S. McVeigh's T-shirt WAS submitted in evidence at his
> trial.)
>
So, you agree that people should be convicted on the basis of their clothes.
>> That's why you think the line-up with
>> Oswald wearing only his T-shirt while everyone else was dressed in regular
>> shirts is ok. After all, only someone wearing a T-shirt only would
>> assassinate the President.
>
> Who made that claim? Only you. I claim the opposite, that Oswald's T-
> shirt was irrelevant.
>
>
Yet, you can't see that the line-up was biased.
John Blubaugh
> So it seems illogical to you that Oswald would do something to make
> himself famous but then deny doing it afterward. But that might have
>
What seems certain to me is that if you think something is logical, I
will look at that same event as being illogical.
jB
John Blubaugh
> Some people mistakenly believe there was a shot from the GK. One of
> those believers claims the bullet trajectory was at an angle of 45º
> and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
> driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
> The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can keep saying that every day for the rest of your life but the rest
of the world won't buy it. They believe in general that a shot came from
the right front and the Z-film shows a reaction that shows exactly that.
When the few fanatical LNs here depart the scene it will open the door for
future researchers to have the body exhumed and make a clear determination
of what happened. As long as you obstructionist WCR apologists are around
that will never happen.
jB
John Blubaugh
> Up until now, you were claiming I was the only person in the world who
> denied JFK moved back and to the left. Now you are claiming there are
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, probably, you LNs stick together in support of the WCR no matter how
many holes have been poked in it. However, you were all alone in this as
far as I know until another poster spoke up and supported you. I gave
credit for their being two people who look at the Z-film and can't see
what the rest of the world sees. If there are others here who agree with
you, let them speak up and support you. I will acknowledge with great
delight that there are that many people in the world who suffer from the
three monkey's syndrome.
JB
Herbert Blenner
The overwhelming majority believe that the Earth is round. But their
misconceptions cannot flatten our oblate sphere.
Herbert
bigdog
As if digging up JFK would satisfy the anybody but Oswald crowd.
They'll find out the same thing about JFK as when they dug up Zachary
Taylor. They'll find out that they're both still dead.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 31, 8:51 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Some people mistakenly believe there was a shot from the GK. One of
>>> and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
>>> driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
>>> The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
>>> the GK.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> You can keep saying that every day for the rest of your life but the rest
>> of the world won't buy it. They believe in general that a shot came from
>> the right front and the Z-film shows a reaction that shows exactly that.
>> When the few fanatical LNs here depart the scene it will open the door for
>> future researchers to have the body exhumed and make a clear determination
>> of what happened. As long as you obstructionist WCR apologists are around
>> that will never happen.
>>
>> jB
>
> As if digging up JFK would satisfy the anybody but Oswald crowd.
> They'll find out the same thing about JFK as when they dug up Zachary
> Taylor. They'll find out that they're both still dead.
>
They dug up Frank Olson and found that the CIA had murdered him.
claviger
> Oh yeah? Who said 45 degrees? You keep making false charges.
I asked you what the trajectory angle would be from the position you
claim the acoustic evidence identified, 9' from the corner. You said
45º so I'm used that angle for the sake of discussion.
> > and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
> > driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
> > The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
> > the GK.
>
> I thought you were one of the WC defenders who said that a bullet can
> not move the victim in any direction. And yet here you say a shot from
> the right front must drive the President to the left. Are you guys
> having a contest to see who can be the most hypocritical?
I'm using JB logic, who contends the "back and to the left" movement
of the President is absolute proof of a shot from the GK. I don't see
you correcting him on that issue so I assume you must agree. If so
then a shot from a 45º angle to the head should have driven him right
into Jackie. Thanks to the Nix film posted here its clear that didn't
happen. The dynamic force vector had to be down the centerline of the
Limousine, not from a 45º angle. The wound pattern to the head
followed that centerline vector.
claviger
typo correction: You said 45º so I used that angle for the sake of
discussion.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> Oh yeah? Who said 45 degrees? You keep making false charges.
> I asked you what the trajectory angle would be from the position you
> claim the acoustic evidence identified, 9' from the corner. You said
>
No, I didn't say 45 degrees.
If you want to use 45 degrees that's fine with me as long as you use the
qualifier "arguendo" which means accept this estimate for the sake of
moving the argument along. I do that all the time and preface my sentence
with arguendo.
BTW, I uploaded a map showing the shooter location and the angle to JFK.
All you have to do is print that out and use a protractor to measure the
exact angle. I don't know if you have a computer program which will tell
you the exact angle just from the graphics file. Maybe Adobe?
>>> and hit the President in the right forehead. If true this should have
>>> driven the President right into Jackie, but that's not what we see.
>>> The President's physical reaction is proof the shot did not come from
>>> the GK.
>>
>> I thought you were one of the WC defenders who said that a bullet can
>> not move the victim in any direction. And yet here you say a shot from
>> the right front must drive the President to the left. Are you guys
>> having a contest to see who can be the most hypocritical?
> I'm using JB logic, who contends the "back and to the left" movement
> of the President is absolute proof of a shot from the GK. I don't see
> you correcting him on that issue so I assume you must agree. If so
Do you know what happens when you ASSuME? As Benny Hill once said, you
make an ASS out of U and ME.
It is impossible that you could have read every message I've written here.
Some wag claimed it was over 100,000 messages per year. But often I have
tried to explain that I do not think it was the IMPACT of a bullet which
knocked Kennedy back. I think it was the jet effect caused by the
explosive bullet which hit him in the forehead and explodes. That is my
own personal theory and no one else is allowed to have it unless he pays
me royalties. ;]>
> then a shot from a 45? angle to the head should have driven him right
> into Jackie. Thanks to the Nix film posted here its clear that didn't
Again, make it clear that this is not YOUR theory. You are saying that if
someone claims that a bullet from the front moved Kennedy back then a
bullet from the side should move him to the left. There are many people
who claim the entrance wound was in the right temple. Not I. I show the
entrance wound over the right eye. The forehead is not the temple. That's
why they are two separate words. Just like the back and the neck. They are
two different things so that is why they are given two different words.
> happen. The dynamic force vector had to be down the centerline of the
> Limousine, not from a 45? angle. The wound pattern to the head
> followed that centerline vector.
>
>
Can you diagram in classical physics what you think the dynamic force
vector would be?
At Z-313 JFK's head was very close to the midline of the limo.
>