JFK murder reexamined

[Chrawnus]

OK Here you go. Proof!!! This is a photo of JFK threatening to turn Soviet Premier Khrushchev into a Catholic and brandishing a hypo with the Catholic vaccine at him while Jack Chick watches from the background, gloating.

Attachment 72021

Wouldn't a Catholic vaccine make him immune to Catholicism?



Silly pirate, get your facts straight. It was obviously a shot of Catholic virus, not vaccine.

[Sparko]

Wouldn't a Catholic vaccine make him immune to Catholicism?



Silly pirate, get your facts straight. It was obviously a shot of Catholic virus, not vaccine.

You moron! they called it a Catholic Vaccine to fool Protestants and Atheists into taking it, thinking they would be protected from the Pope.

[Chrawnus]

You moron! they called it a Catholic Vaccine to fool Protestants and Atheists into taking it, thinking they would be protected from the Pope.

u so dum. u dah one ho call it catholic vaccine:

OK Here you go. Proof!!! This is a photo of JFK threatening to turn Soviet Premier Khrushchev into a Catholic and brandishing a hypo with the Catholic vaccine at him while Jack Chick watches from the background, gloating.

Attachment 72021

see? stoopid pierat. u fell for thier lie n no u call it vaccien too

[Sparko]

You are the dumberer dum dum. You would have fell for the "vaccine" if you were alive back then.

[Chrawnus]

You are the dumberer dum dum. You would have fell for the "vaccine" if you were alive back then.

But I wasn't so I didn't.

[Augustine2004]

OK, You dummies pushed it up to page 10. 1637 views. Hard to know how to adjust for all those scoffing posts.


More assumptions that may be wrong . . .

Mr. GOLDSMITH. . . . From which of these trajectories, Mr. Canning, did you have the best photographic evidence available to assist you?
Mr. CANNING. The head wound case had perhaps the most unequivocal photographic evidence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Would you summarize now what evidence was available?
Mr. CANNING. The key evidence for this case was a motion picture frame taken from the Zapruder film, Frame No. 312, and there were two additional motion pictures taken at that time, one by Nix and another by Muchmore, which aided in the interpretation of those movies.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. In what way was this photographic evidence better than the photographic evidence that was available for the other shot?
Mr. CANNING. In large measure simply because we knew the time at which the President's fatal wound occurred very precisely. In addition the head provides a rigid reference system, while the rest of the body's relatively flexible structure is capable of movement and distortions.

Perhaps in reality the head wounds were caused by two bullets. First a bullet from the rear hit the rear of Kennedy's head near the midline nearer the top than to the bottom. A moment later a second frangible bullet hit the right temple from the front. In previous posts we've seen testimony by at least a few witnesses, including Jackie Kennedy herself, that ejecta (blood, gore, brain tissue) went out of the rear of Kennedy's head to the left and rear. I don't recall her exact words, but her actions can be taken to be some sort of testimony. For example, a doctor testified that she gave him something and said, those are my husband's brains. The reason she climbed out of the car seat shortly after Kennedy got that right temple shot appears to be that she was trying to retrieve some brain matter. Perhaps it was to help Clint Hill get onto the car?? But I don't think so, she didn't know about him until she was already well out of the seat, yes? I know, it seems goofy, gathering brain tissue, but how else to explain what she was doing?

Obviously now Canning's analysis must be taken with much more than a grain of salt, if the two-bullet theory discussed just above cannot be discredited or shown to be extremely improbable (at least, shown to be much less likely). However, perhaps we will learn something by continuing our study of the Canning testimony.

For the purpose of determining trajectories of the bullets, precise measurements of the skull wounds are necessary. See the diagrams on page 159. Notice one spot is labeled 'outshoot.' Actually the alternative theory, discussed above, has that it is really the inshoot of the second head bullet. Unfortunately, if the theory is correct, we just don't have enough data to determine the trajectories of the two bullets far beyond the obvious observations that the first bullet came in from the rear and the second from the front. Sure, the slope and direction can be approximated, but wide error bounds would be necessary.

Canning explained that the measurements were made from X-ray and other photographs 'made during the autopsy.' But there were two post-mortem examinations. I think Canning was referring to the autopsy made in Washington D.C., what might be called the second one. Since we are trying to assess the probability that there was a government conspiracy, we need evidence of fakery of those X-ray and other photographs. Indeed, we have arguments alleging fakery, such as detailed in the book James Fetzer, ed. Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1998..

On page 158 Canning speaks of a premortem X-ray. That's very interesting. Did he mean postmortem? But then why didn't people correct the mistake? Or was that a transcription error? Actually, I read somewhere that in the Parkland hospital, Kennedy still had a pulse. They had enough time for an X-ray before he died? His death wasn't called until around 1PM, about an half-hour after the shootings.

JFK Exhibit F-134 (enlargement of zapruder312) on page 160 is terrible. The Costella edit version is much better.

Canning's reference to the blue region between Jackie's face and JFK's face is puzzling. I examined the Costella edit version of z312. I zoomed in until the image became pixelated. No blue anything.

On page 168 Canning says, 'relative precision.' I do not know what he means by that. I understand that 'precision' and 'error bounds' are different concepts. Roughly speaking, 'precision' indicates how many digits in a given measurement is trustworthy. For example, pi = 3 is much less precise than pi = 3.14, even though we are reasonably sure all those digits given are accurate. On the other hand, the latter measurement has a much tighter error bound (something like plus or minus 0.005) than the former measurement (something like plus or minus 0.5).

I see now that I made a mistake. For one thing, I relied too much on my memory. Look at the photograph here http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...photos?image=4
Clearly the wound in the throat was some distance above the area between the 2 clavicles. Before, my memory was that it was between the clavicles.

Now on to the back and throat wounds. Both the Warren Commission report and the HSCA report take the latter wound to be an exit wound, or in the HSCA terminology, an outshoot. Reminder: Eyewitness testimony including Perry's is that it is in fact an inshoot. The back wound, according to many reports cited by people like Fetzer, should be lower by about more than 5" than indicated in JFK Exhibit F-376, page 170.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How was the location of the wounds quantified?
Mr. CANNING. It was determined from photographs that were taken during the autopsy and by measurements and notes that were taken at that time.

That is of course like hearsay. He was not a principal witness to the examination of the body and measurements made on it.

Of course the WC report and the HSCA one place the back wound in time before the throat wound. But if one shot caused the back wound and [/i]another[/i] the throat wound, what is the real chronology? First the back then the throat--or vice versa?

A color version and somewhat less muddled version of the Willis photograph that was made JFK Exhibit F-155 (shown on page 175) is here
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm search for 'Phillip Willis'

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Assuming that the back neck shot occurred at frame 190, what would be the time differential between the time . . .

Why 190? I can see no obvious indication of any effect of the back shot, such as JFK's pitching forward relative to the limo, in the frames z190-209. I do see hints of some distress starting with frame z201, which is is about 11/18 seconds after frame z190. I still feel puzzlement why Goldsmith made that assumption, though. The Willis photo, mentioned just above, shows no sign of the hit by the back shot, either. JFK's head is turned sharply to the right, though, as if he is hearing gun noise.

I tried to identify the photographer who took the Willis photograph mentioned just above in the Zapruder film. I couldn't, because the guy that might be in the right position does not seem to have a camera. In Z137, the guy is obviously taking a picture, but in Z202, he doesn't seem to be doing anything but just stand and observe???

To be continued.

[Sparko]

ah. so Augustine has no defense against my conspiracy theory. That means it is true.

[pancreasman]

ah. so Augustine has no defense against my conspiracy theory. That means it is true.

The fact that this thread has 8 gazillion views also shows conclusively that your theory must be true.

[Sparko]

The fact that this thread has 8 gazillion views also shows conclusively that your theory must be true.

besides, Elvis is the one who told me about it, and he heard it directly from Abraham Lincoln himself. And Elvis doesn't lie. Just ask him yourself.

[Augustine2004]

OK Here you go. Proof!!! This is a photo of JFK threatening to turn Soviet Premier Khrushchev into a Catholic and brandishing a hypo with the Catholic vaccine at him while Jack Chick watches from the background, gloating.

Attachment 72021

Reasons to think that is a fake:

JFK died 1963. At that time Chick would be 39 years old. Ought he not look younger than shown?

The syringe or whatever that thing is looks fake. Photoshopped. For one thing, it's far larger than most vaccine syringes.

How could Chick be behind the couch like that, unless it was elevated?

The shadow on Chick does not seem to have the same light source or sources as that on Khrushchev.

I'm quite certain that the public appearance of the photo in this thread is the first ever.

[Sparko]

Reasons to think that is a fake:

JFK died 1963. At that time Chick would be 39 years old. Ought he not look younger than shown?

The syringe or whatever that thing is looks fake. Photoshopped. For one thing, it's far larger than most vaccine syringes.

How could Chick be behind the couch like that, unless it was elevated?

The shadow on Chick does not seem to have the same light source or sources as that on Khrushchev.

I'm quite certain that the public appearance of the photo in this thread is the first ever.

since when has a fake photo ever deterred you from believing your conspiracies? In fact, judging by your past reactions to fake photos and claiming that fake videos prove that JFKs murder was a conspiracy, this should convince you that my theory is true.

[Augustine2004]

Mr. CANNING. Largely from this picture and from the subsequent study of the Zapruder pictures, I concluded that he was hunched forward somewhere between 11 and 18 degrees forward of vertical, in the upper torso, and that his shoulders were either facing turned slightly to the right of . . .

That is not clear. 'To take a posture such as to form a hump in one's back?' I don't think that is what is meant. Lean forward, yeah, but it's not clear from the photographs at all, at least to me. Also, to lean that much, it must be partly from the pelvis, not from mid-torso, right? If anything, JFK was behind the vertical, I think. He had a back brace, which would have made leaning forward quite difficult. Indeed, he might have escaped death had he been able to lean forward considerably.

Look at JFK Exhibit F-142 (page 177). Note the inset showing a representation of JFK's body. It does show some lean. Perhaps the inset shows what Canning meant.

. . . method to which you referred earlier?

Mr. CANNING. It was determined by precisely the same method sighting over the shoulder of the Secret Service agent to the photographer Zapruder.

Actually, there was a woman beside Betzner shown in z186. You can see her bare lower legs. Yet the Betzner photo shows a man?? The man seems to be wearing a suit with a white shirt. But the woman is wearing a dark dress (both torso and legs) with an open white collar; definitely not a man's wear.

Mr. CANNING. . . . the Presidential limousine.

One item in the large picture [Betzner #3] which I did not mention is, a man in the foreground; his shoulder and arm are obscuring everything to the left . That is what the dark object is . So we do not see Governor Connally in this picture. But the photograph puts a very Governor Connally in this picture . But the photograph puts a very stringent limit on how far to the right in the automobile the Governor can be sitting; that is, it says that the Governor must be sitting to the left of the line of sight past the man in the foreground.

Well, boo. The woman is positioned so that she couldn't block the view of Connally! Look at the Zapruder pics for yourself.

I think I will post now. Those of you who have the Zapruder frames, please check my observations.

[Augustine2004]

Is anyone having problems posting anything?

[Augustine2004]

I see that I ruined the copy to the last 'box' in my previous next-to-last post. Here's the correct copy:

Mr. CANNING. . . .the Presidential limousine.

One item in the large picture which I did not mention is, a man in the foreground; his shoulder and arm are obscuring everything to the left. That is what the dark object is. So we do not see Governor Connally in this picture. But the photograph puts a very stringent limit on how far to the right in the automobile the Governor can be sitting; that is, it says that the Governor must be sitting to the left of the line of sight past the man in the foreground.

My apologies!

[Sparko]

Is anyone having problems posting anything?

nope. must be a conspiracy by the government to keep you from posting the "truth"