Photon – July 6
Burkley never mentions an entrance wound in the throat. He doesn’t mention ANY wound in the throat.
Therefore, if you accept that Burkley’s Death certificate is complete, infallible truth you must accept that JFK was hit by only 2 shots from behind.
So Willy, there was no throat wound, if we are to believe your only source for the T3 comment.No trach was done. Everybody in Parkland that was convinced that the throat wound was one of entrance was hallucinating-because Burkley never mentioned the wound’s existence.
He never mentioned a wound that was the sole injury that merited surgical intervention and was thought to be the source of JFK’s moribund presentation.
For what it’s worth, it seems that this could have been Connally’s left foot. He certainly was in distress, had a complete brain and, remember, the back of the jump seat in which he was initially positioned had a low rise.
When did JFK die? Since I first saw the Zapruder film I’ve assumed instantly. Can some portion of a man still function with up to half his brain gone? Is he not “brain dead”? How do you define such with half a brain? Could he have turned in partial reaction to Jackie sitting back down and cradling his head and thrown his foot over the side of the limo in the process involuntarily?
Is there an unbiased neurologist available willing to comment?
Without knowing for certain, my understanding is that he remained alive (if you want to call it that) for a while after the head shot, but only in the most technical sense that he was still breathing and his heart was still pumping, however weakly. But once that shot exploded his head, he was for all intents and purposes dead. Lincoln remained alive for quite a few hours after Booth shot him, but there was never any question that he’d been fatally wounded. RFK actually (very briefly)remained conscious and spoke after being shot in the head. He survived more than 24 hours — again, there was no hope he’d pull through.
They definitely don’t match the shoe shown in the Cobham photo.
Heels are too thin.
Here is a better photo of her Pappagallo shoes.
https://p2.liveauctioneers.com/301/47158/21572503_1_l.jpg
Here is the only photo I could find of Jackie’s shoes on 22/11/63, taken at Love Field.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3b/95/dd/3b95ddecc300df60c819e230bc767c52.jpg
Could these be the same shoes?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/jackie-kennedy-personally-worn-pappagallo-shoes-w-heels/201098812047?hash=item2ed26c5a8f
Wow! Fast work finding Corham Artificial Flowers, Tom! You must have set some kind of record there.
Does that really look like a lady’s shoe to you, though? Look at the wide, flat heel. There must be a photo of her at Love Field that day showing what kind of shoes she was wearing. Of course, if it’s not Jackie’s foot then it has to be JFK’s foot, and I have NO clue how a limp comatose body can end up with its left foot sticking out of the car, even if he wasn’t pushed upright like I think he was.
Ronnie, we can all see him lying on his left side as Jackie climbed out onto the trunk. This would place his left leg underneath him. I have to say that, even if I didn’t spot the stills as they were about to go under the TUP, I am still baffled as to how that foot got up in the air.
Could that possibly be Clint Hill’s foot? I know he was hovering over the Kennedy’s and almost sprawled cross wise above the back seat.
Entry 117, lower right corner of page, describes it as Hill’s foot…(MF.org link from researcher Robert Howard, 21 Oct., 2011 .)
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4854#relPageId=24
….awkward perch, if it was indeed a still active shooter in the vicinity, scenario.
Awkward indeed. It looks like Hill would have needed knee surgery afterwards. I guess it’s just as possible as JFK flopping around with half his brain gone.
I thought I had read most of this years ago but don’t remember Nellie Connally saying it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us. They were down per the picture with JFK’s foot hanging out of the limo but only Clint Hill sticking up.
When was JFK’s foot first observed to be hanging out of the limo?
I can’t answer that. The only picture I can find is the one I posted earlier in the thread.
It looks like they are still moving at that point. I’ve googled “Corham Dallas” with no results but a Coram medical company on Oak Lawn – in business 30 years. So I don’t know where they were at when it was taken or when his foot was first stuck out of the limo.
A troubling point for me is I thought I remembered a color picture taken at Parkland just as they arrived with the ER entrance in the background. I’m probably mistaken.
Another troubling point you mentioned on the edu forum today is that it’s his left foot. I had not noticed this. That either foot is hanging over the side is incredible. How did it get there? Nobody lifted it there. A dying spasm is the only explanation that comes to mind for me. But the left foot? He had to be laying on at least his back if not right side or stomach.
I expect the shoe you are reacting to belonged to Mrs. Kennedy. She swung her body from the trunk area, back into the seating area, already occupied by her
slumping spouse, and then there is her reaction to the presence of agent Hill to consider. I think she was hovering over JFK while attempting to redistribute her weight and stabalize herself in the limo, which accelerated as Hill and she headed forward.
Wish I could zoom in. It looks more like a man’s shoe to me, with pants leg sicking up over the edge.
I think the entire debate about JFK sitting up next to Jackie is absurd in the extreme.
A waste of time … stoooopid!
But I do agree with Ronnie that the shoe looks like a mans shoe. And it’s not Hill’s shoe, unless he has legs like a goat.
\\][//
I’ve reconsidered sticking my foot in my mouth speculating earlier, but would like to refine my “take” and do it again. Bob’s picture and this one got me to thinking about what went on in the time frame from “climbing” onto the trunk until they went under the underpass.
I need to re watch the latter portions of the Z film, I never really paid much attention to them.
It was mentioned today on that site across the pond something about Jackie not climbing completely out on to the trunk. That her left leg stayed on the seat, still supporting JFK while she retrieved the piece of his skull/scalp.
If so I can see her holding his body up with hers as she sat back down. We are talking a few seconds here. But I can’t figure his head being up going under the underpass considering the shape it was in at the time.
Maybe Zapruder captured JFK’s Ghost too.
Click on a frame number below to view the corresponding frame of the film,
or click here to download all 486 frames in a single ZIP file (119 MB).
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
\\][//
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z390.jpg
JFK is down, looks like on the floorboard to me.
\\][//
When I hit the zoom on the link to frame 390 I see JFK’s shoulder sticking up and part of his head behind Jackie’s rear. I don’t think he was on the floor board but on the seat on his left side.
But I do get your earlier other point Willy and had already considered it myself. An erect JFK going under the overpass nor his foot hanging out have anything to do with an investigation of his Murder or in turn say the release of the files of Joannides and company.
They are relevant at least to me though in terms of the historical context of the assassination. I’ll try to finish my comment later. Need to go mow a bit now before dark.
BTW, the assassinationresearch link is frustrating to me. The zoom feature is fantastic. But when I click on a given frame there is no “back”. I have to close the window. Go back into facts, and find the link again before I can view another frame. Probably my technical ignorance. The orientation to the left side of the frame is disorienting to me. I guess it might be to focus on JFK and the back of the limo.
Just 2-3 years ago I found a link, if memory serves, where you could click through the z-film frame by, it showed the whole frame, witnesses etc. in better light. No zoom but the bigger picture.
But I can’t find that link now.
Am I loosing my mind already or going nutts? (jmac, photon and jean’s opinion on the last sentence don’t count).
Both versions would be useful for comparison. Can anyone help me here, if I’m not beyond help.
RE: my post at 8:36. While not relevant to how or why JFK died Bob’s picture(s) makes me wonder deeper about what happened in the limo after he was shot. Morbid curiosity or historically important (to understanding, accepting?)?
As I alluded to in an earlier post, the foot, if one concludes it is JFK’s, represents to me at least, finality.
The pink cloud, back and to the left as well as witness reactions in the z-film, etc. are shocking/of shock. They shot him? They killed him?
The foot hanging over the side to me is he’s dead.
Those who wished him so were successful.
We all suffer from the loss of the possibility of a better world today as a result. Off my soap box.
The attaching of individual film frames from the Zapruder film got me curious about looking at the individual Nix film frames and I have a question.
Anyone have any idea which of the Zapruder frames is the closest match to the attached Nix frame 90?
I’m not able to match it up so maybe some of you who are more familiar with the frames have matched them up before and know which frames from one film correspond to the other.
Hopefully I will be attaching frame 90 of the Nix film correctly.
http://hdblenner.com/films/nix/jpg/Nix1-Seq090.jpg
“Anyone have any idea which of the Zapruder frames is the closest match to the attached Nix frame 90?”~Antonio D’Antonio
I would go with:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z396.jpg
Keep in mind the perspective from Nix’s POV to Zapruder’s POV and the different angles the shots were taken from.
\\][//
\\][//
As you said Willy, even with keeping in mind the different POVs and angles of the shots, it seems to me that Jackie’s body from the waist up and her right forearm are just about parallel with the trunk in the Nix frame and her body from the waist up on the Zapruder frame is more at a 45 degree angle with her arm from her shoulder down not parallel with the trunk but at a downward angle to her hand supporting her body.
I’m not seeing anything in the Z film frames that has her right forearm that close to the trunk and practically parallel with it.
Even the Z frames from 375 to the point where Hill touches her at 388, where the upper part of her body is closer and just about parallel with the trunk, it still shows her right forearm at an angle from her shoulder down and not parallel with the trunk.
Could POV and shot angle alone cause that much of a difference with the angle of her forearm as seen in the Nix frame?
Ronnie Wayne
July 19, 2016 at 9:08 pm
The second link, to frame 456, is the only one clear enough and not too dark to me to suggest anything. In it I see the pink Leslie referenced earlier and what looks like shoulders and a head. They appear to be behind the roof rail behind the drivers seat. Which, if so, would eliminate Greer.
But I’m not an expert photo analyst.
Nor have these photos been blown up, enhanced or evaluated by such persons thus far to my knowledge.
They might be useful in the future with modern technology.
——————————————————
I’m really hoping some experts will take an interest in these stills, and prove once and for all if I’m right or wrong. So far, no one has taken the bait.
The possibility of this being John Connally seems remote, if you read Nellie Connally’s testimony.
“Then I don’t know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was–he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, “Oh, no, no, no.” Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.”
I never again—-
Mr. DULLES. To the right was into your arms more or less?
Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he turned away from me. I was pretending that I was him. I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot. My concern was for him, and I remember that he turned to the right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over to pull him toward me. X was trying to get him down and me down. The jump seats were not very roomy, so that there were reports that he slid into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my lap, which he did not.
I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn’t look back any more. The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.”
As well, it is clearly visible by frame z352 that the Connally’s are down and staying down for the trip to Parkland.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z352.jpg
“Oh to be on Sugar Mountain, with the barkers and the colored balloons…” ~Neal Young
\\][//
Willy Whitten
July 20, 2016 at 9:59 am
“Oh to be on Sugar Mountain, with the barkers and the colored balloons…” ~Neal Young”
I’m not familiar with that one Willy and I like Neil Young. Perhaps you are referring to Neil Young instead of “Neal”; Neil with an “I”.
Yes Bill, Willy meant Neil.
I’ve listened to Sugar Mountain for 30 plus years from time to time.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=neil+young+sugar+mountain&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=fc37439378f84e188a86e445b1bc0b8a&pq=neil+young+sugar+mountain&sc=8-25&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&ghc=1&cvid=fc37439378f84e188a86e445b1bc0b8a
I’m just thankful I’m a one finger typist and only need my left hand to operate the “shift” key. 🙂
Ronnie Wayne
July 15, 2016 at 5:42 pm
First, thanks to Bob for posting these, I’ve never seen them either. Second, Leslie the image is about as clear to me as prayerman. I see the outline of the upper part of a torso and head but that’s about it. I don’t see how anyone can see the head injury in any of these four pictures. Just my twoc cents worth since Bob has not answered yet. Cheers.
—————————————————–
Sorry I haven’t answered anything for the last two days. I was in a bit of a situation with a horse and ended up getting medevacced by helicopter to the Mainland for emergency surgery on my thumb. Everything will be right as rain though with a few weeks healing time.
I don’t have the means to examine these stills from the Z film to see what the head wounds look like, but I wish some talented researcher would take a close look at them. There is no doubt this is JFK seen sitting upright in the back of the limo.
My real question is, even if Jackie did push him into an upright position, what is holding his head upright? The back brace only covered his lower back. Shouldn’t his head be flopped forward or backward or to either side?
To answer your question, Leslie, yes, a bullet could penetrate his throat making a small neat hole and not a lot of blood splatter. However, considering how many blood vessels transit that narrow area, I would expect that small wound to bleed profusely almost immediately.
Hope the thumb is going to be okay. I’m guessing a rope was involved.
LOL Bill! Damn, are you psychic or something? Yes, it was a rope! I was tying a horse (bout a 1700 lb. Quarter Horse/Percheron cross) to a post with a bowline so I could trim his feet. I had made the loop of the bowline and put the end of the rope through it. Without thinking, I tried to get the horse a bit closer to the post. He pulled back hard and my stupid thumb was somehow in the loop. Did a nasty number on my thumb. Two steel pins in it to keep it immobilized but the surgeon says they’ll come out in a few weeks and I should be good as new.
You must have spent some time around horses to have that kind of insightful perspective. 🙂
Thanks for the well wishing too! 🙂
Bob Prudhomme
July 17, 2016 at 10:03 pm
You must have spent some time around horses to have that kind of insightful perspective. ?
Yes sir. Some time with horses and a lot of time with Jackasses I fear!~~
LOL, Bill. And, as they say, the good Lord made far more horses’ a$$es than he did horses! 🙂
Bob, speedy recovery! Don’t thumbs define us as the human species?
The silhouette – that I assume we both speculate is positioned in the right rear seat of the limousine – doesn’t appear to have a massive head injury; agreed the injury could be obscured by the shadows but that’s a stretch imv. Therefore, have you considered the possibility that there is an optical illusion in play and that that we are seeing the image of the driver from an angle? The speculation is fed in part by the absurd consideration that Jackie Kennedy would “prop” her husband up in route to Parkland … and had she done so, why don’t we see the evidence of the massive head injury?
I hope your thumb heels quickly.
Thanks Leslie. It should, as the surgeon said it looked bad on the outside but, when they opened it up, there was not a lot of inside damage, outside of the broken distal phalanx bone which is nicely pinned.
I don’t know which disturbs me worse, the possibility that Jackie pushed her husband back up into a sitting position or the possibility that JFK is sitting erect and holding his head up at a time when he is undoubtedly dead or a whisker away from being dead. I would like to believe that we are seeing an optical illusion, and it is really a distorted image of the driver, William Greer, that we are seeing here. However, even with my limited analytical abilities, there seems to be no disputing that the figure is in the back seat with Jackie.
I have pointed these stills out on other forums and, to date, there has been very little interest shown, despite the possibility of an upright JFK with his head held erect at this point in the film may just be the most bizarre thing of this entire case.
“I have pointed these stills out on other forums and, to date, there has been very little interest shown, despite the possibility of an upright JFK with his head held erect at this point in the film may just be the most bizarre thing of this entire case”~Bob Prudhomme
Your lack of visual acuity may just be the most bizarre thing on this entire thread. You should simply bow out of trying to analyze photographs Bob.
Stick to killing Bambi and trees.
You might try avoiding horses as well.
\\][//
What or who do you think is sitting upright in the back seat of the limo beside Jackie in those stills, Willie?
I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of this. If, as you believe, the Z film is genuine, there has to be an explanation for this.
O already explained it Mr Prudhomme:
July 18, 2016 at 5:48 am
“Can you not see the person sitting upright in the back seat beside Jackie, right where JFK was sitting not long before this?”~Bob Prudhomme
You are obviously seeing Bill Greer, the limo driver in those shots Bob. The perspective is unclear because the whole frame is in a blur.
\\][//
That’s about what I expected from you, Willy.
Even a cursory glance at z456 clearly shows Greer behind the steering wheel and well ahead of the limo’s divider bar, and another person in the right side of the rear seat.
WTF are you talking about Prudhomme?
I am not saying Greer is in the back seat next to Jackie, you dolt!
Greer was driving the limo and Kellerman was in the right hand front seat of the JFK limo.
You are mistaking the image of Greer as sitting in the back seat, due to a small blurry picture and your absolutely dreadful lack of visual acuity.
You strike out every time you attempt to discuss matters of photography Bob – like the wankaroon blather about “prayerman”.
But this one is even more stupid than that.
\\][//
Such an angry little man you are, Willy.
I’m beginning to agree with Randy Lombard’s and Bill Clarke’s opinion about you.
“He’s as blind as he can be….Just sees what he wants to see…”
“Nowhere Man” by the Beatles
I know Willy won’t do this but, everyone else reading this, please look closely again at this still, Frame z456 of the Zapruder film.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z456.jpg
While Wil;y claims this frame is too “blurry” to make out anything, why not look at it and judge for yourself?
In this frame, I can make out the pink of Jackie’s suit and a man sitting erect to her left. I can also see the roof bar behind the front seat of the limo, and a man sitting ahead of the roof bar, who can only be the driver, William Greer. We cannot see Roy Kellerman in the front passenger seat, as he is behind a tree in this frame. Clint Hill is still on the rear bumper, and John and Nellie Connally are lying on the floor.
The man sitting upright beside Jackie can only be her husband, as both this man and the driver Greer can be seen in this frame.
“I know Willy won’t do this but, everyone else reading this, please look closely again at this still, Frame z456 of the Zapruder film.”
Bob, you are seeing Greer in the front seat.
Jackies pink hat is obviously in front of Greer from this angle.
What is it that you are proposing here Bob?
Beside your “angry little man” BS…
You know I don’t give a flying bat turd what Randy Lombard’s and Bill Clarke’s opinion of me is.
I am not angry Bob, I am just astonished at the nonsense you are posting here.
\\][//
Look under the driver’s side of the limo’s cross bar. Can you not see Greer’s head and back as he leans forward over the steering wheel?
The erect seated figure I am pointing out is clearly independent of the Greer figure, and clearly sitting in the back seat to the right of Jackie.
No one is proposing anything here, Willy. I am merely pointing out the inescapable fact that that can only be JFK’s figure, dead or otherwise, sitting erect on the right hand side of the back seat of the limo, and that while I can see Jackie pushing him into that position and perhaps keeping him there, for some bizarre reason, it baffles me how his head can be in such an upright position, and not flopped over.
“The erect seated figure I am pointing out is clearly independent of the Greer figure, and clearly sitting in the back seat to the right of Jackie.”~Bob Prudhomme
Sure Bob…whatever you say.
\\][//
The second link, to frame 456, is the only one clear enough and not too dark to me to suggest anything. In it I see the pink Leslie referenced earlier and what looks like shoulders and a head. They appear to be behind the roof rail behind the drivers seat. Which, if so, would eliminate Greer.
But I’m not an expert photo analyst.
Nor have these photos been blown up, enhanced or evaluated by such persons thus far to my knowledge.
They might be useful in the future with modern technology.
You are right Bob, despite being blurred, there is clearly someone sitting upright immediately to Jackie’s right.
It is pretty clear that Dr. Burkley was drawn into the Coverup.
Burkley was handled most strangely by the Warren Commission. He didn’t appear and answer questions on the record
.
This was Crime of the Century. This was Murder. These people were not fooling around.
What was there to fear if you believe the WC and Oswald was dead?
It seems as Burkley feared for his life with good reason.
http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-sprague-memo-dr-george-burkley
“I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Burkley’s granddaughter. She told me that every year until his death, Dr. Burkley received a “visit” by government agents, presumably Secret Service. The obvious implication was they were keeping him “quiet”.
DR October 2013
It also seems others were monitored as long as they were alive.
“Angleton began with a pleasant greeting and asked Slawson to please say hello for him to the President of USC, where Slawson taught law. That man had been CIA station chief in India, and Angleton knew him. Then Angleton got to the point; He said “Are you still loyal to us”? I asked Slawson what he thought Angleton meant by “us”. Slawson said “The CIA. Am I still loyal to the CIA”.
He told Angleton – Yes. It scared Slawson’s wife to death. Slawson said he was too cocky to think they would try and kill him, but he knew that if he had crossed them they would destroy his reputation and career”.
http://www.covertbookreport.com/my-interviews-with-david-slawson-of-the-warren-commission/
In the police lineups, only “Man # 2” had a bruise on his forehead and a black eye.
I wonder why anyone would pick “Man #2” out of the lineup?
Hohohohehehehahaha!!!
\\][//
Just curious Willy as what your inane comment has to do with the topic of the week? Are you trolling, doing satire, have low self esteem, other unaddressed issues or what? Because you just continue to confirm you’re not a serious researcher. Clown acts hinder not help the cause IMO.
“Clown acts hinder not help the cause IMO.”~Randy Lombard
What “cause” would that be Lombard?
Your cause is very apparent to me. You are stalking me on this site. You rarely have any input here but some spurious attack on me.
My comment, of course, has to do with how much of a set-up it was to show Oswald in the condition he was in for that police lineup. You DO realize that Oswald was “Man #2”?
Let us be clear Mr Lonbard, I haven’t the slightest interest in your opinions. Capisce?
\\][/
Oh Willie, I just love it when you attempt to use your new word for the day app. So jejune lol
Still waiting to hear how man #2 is applicable to the comment of the week….. As usual, you double down on your mistakes rather than admit errors. So scholarly and intellectually honest….
It’s funny how your Freudian slips are projected in your responses. I, and no doubt many others, would suggest that is you that stalks every commenter on this site. You constantly interrupt and divert substantive dialogues with inane inapplicable banalities, yet bring nothing to the table.
Your interjections, rarely, if ever, contribute anything other than thinly researched cut and paste tinfoil hat theories that have little basis in fact or reality. IMO You’re like one of those napping, nipping poodles, just a nuisance. And yet somehow you are narcissistically oblivious to just how often you broadcast to the world how little you know about “the cause.” Just so you know Willie, “the cause” is referring to the murder of JFK. Glad to help since you asked.
To be blunt, and truly no with no real animus or disrespect intended, but tough love can be brutal, I haven’t figured out if your some new sort of provocateur to interrupt and divert attention from sensitive issues, are mismanaging medication, just not that bright, or are what the kids today call “attention whores.”
In any event whatever your motivation, I have noticed that I have helped make you a better contributor, as I have to skip over less and less, of your comments, (your child like “\\][//” makes it easy to quickly identify which posts to just scroll past and is much appreciated) and I have noted that you appear to be using more actual citations than you used to, so I’m heartened to see that you have conducted some introspection thanks no doubt to my insightful helpful comments. You’re welcome. I’m cool like that bro!
Your free lesson for today: I respectfully suggest that you consider the following words of wisdom everytime time you feel the obsessive need to submit a comment on seemingly every post. Put it somewhere prominent so your don’t forget. Better yet memorize the following…
“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt” – Mark Twain
That’s the cue for your calliope music Willie…
“Oh Willie, I just love it when you attempt to use your new word for the day app. So jejune lol”~Randy Lombard
It is interesting that Lombard obviously had to look up the term “jejune” – showing how ignorant he is of the English language while playing the big hotshot smartass here.
\\][//
You know how it is Lombard: If*you*see*Kay, tell her that I love her.
That’s Willy with a ‘y’ numbnuts.
\\][//
Lol As I predicted, nothing but calliope music from you Willie….
I’m a little disappointed to see it took you two whole days to put together such “intelligent” sentences though….. Although I’m sorry you had to look up “calliope,” look at it this way, now you know a new word and hopefully will remember it forever! In the future I will try to use only words you don’t have to look up first. No need to thank me Willie, it’s just the Superhero in me…. 🙂
Willy Whitten
July 15, 2016 at 8:28 am
“My comment, of course, has to do with how much of a set-up it was to show Oswald in the condition he was in for that police lineup. You DO realize that Oswald was “Man #2”?”
You are absolutely correct Willy. The “line up” was slanted. They should have given the other line up subjects a black eye and a cut on the forehead too. Then it would have meant something.
You should consider taking down that photo.
“You should consider taking down that photo.”
Bill Clarke
What photo Bill? I considered a jpg of Oswald’s mug shot from 11/22/63, to show how beat up he looked and that he was just wearing a T-shirt. But I decided now too, as anyone should already be familiar with that.
\\][//
“You should consider taking down that photo.”
~Bill Clarke
If Mr Clarke is referring to my gravitar image, that is actually a life sized bronze bust of Hippocrates that I sculpted while in Thomasville. GA.
It was sold to a hospital in Atlanta for the tidy sum of $65,000,000.00
If you would like to order a copy I still have the molds from the foundry.
\\][//
Woe!!! And woops!!!
That was $65,000.00 — not in the millions.
Sorry about that! Lol
\\][//
I thought I read somewhere that Jackie’s pink suit was an American made copy of a Coco Chanel suit.
Whatever the case, she was a very attractive woman.
She was attractive Bob? Willy, Leslie, I don’t really care about the texture of her dress.
Burkley signed the Death certificate, not the autopsy report.
He was in the room when JFK died, and also at his autopsy.
He participated in neither his attempted saving or the autopsy. As an observer at Parkland it is doubtful he would have seen the small entrance wound Perry observed and then helped perform a Tracheotomy on.
That the Warren Omission ignored his presence at both locations is astounding if anyone still considers them an investigative body.
That the HSCA ignored his offer of information is just as dumbfounding.
He was present in both locations. His observations would have been invaluable in any true search for the truth.
But expecting him to notice the small wound in the throat in Dallas from a distance of several feet is unreasonable.
He could very well see JFK was dead from the head wound and signed the death certificate.
Ronnie, I agree that it might seem a frivolous discussion but “Clare” asserted there was no discernable blood when in fact (as shown in the second photograph embedded in the Daily Mail link) the front of Jacqueline Kennedy’s skirt was significantly stained and the texture of the skirt was not the reason those stains did not appear in certain other photographs, particularly the one linked to in TomS response to “Clare”. The trajectory of the discussion is critical to understanding why the fabric was significant – it did not obscure the bloodstains.
“Clare, you have commented one other time, as far as I’ve been able to determine, as elizabeth, and on this same “no discernible blood” observation:” — TomS.
“My comment here has to do with the assertion that there art (sic) no bloodstains on Jackie Kennedy’s upper dress in the photo above . . . I disagree. I think the contrast in this photo is blown out, and that is why it might APPEAR to some that there are no bloodstains. The dress she was wearing was a smooth solid pink, there was no mottling nor noticeable texture to the fabric”. – Willy Whitten
The pertinent question is whether or not the bloodstains are the result of President Kennedy falling into his wife’s lap after the final, fatal shot or were they the result of splattered blood from the initial impact of a bullet into his body?
Here is an even better question, Leslie. When Jackie climbed out onto the trunk lid, JFK must have fallen down on the bench. How did she get back underneath him when she came back into the car?
Before you answer, study these stills from the Z film closely and let me know what you see.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z453.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z456.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z461.jpg
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z462.jpg
Remember, John Connally was lying in Nellie’s lap at this point, and Clint Hill was still clinging to the rear bumper of the limo.
Bob, I’m not familiar with these stills. Can you position them on the motorcade route? Logically they appear to be close to Parkland. I’m not able to zoom in beyond the second generation so all I see are blurred images that my mind tells me include Jackie – all the pink in the photographs. I’m not sure what your point is.
It’s clear in the film loop embedded in a Robert Harris essay (http://jfkhistory.com/jackie.html) that Jackie sits back down in the seat where the president’s head has been hemorrhaging; I realize now that the photograph of Jackie approaching the limo after the assassination is a study in why there is no blood on the back of her skirt except for along the hem. Mea Culpa for confusing the question with the obvious stains on the front of her skirt. It’s clear in the Z film that Jackie sits back down in a pool of blood. I was addressing the bloodstains on the front of her skirt that happened when she was crawling on to the back of the trunk; the stains on the back hem appear to have occurred then as well.
I presume your understanding of Clare’s question was why there were no stains on Jackie’s right shoulder, arm, perhaps the right side of her face and in her hair if the president had suffered a frontal shot through the throat? In your opinion, would the vessels affected have produced a splatter of that force? We don’t see evidence of it in the infamous photo of she and Robert.
Bottom line, are you arguing then that the president was not shot through the throat from the front?
These stills are from the tail end of the Zapruder film; frames z453, z456, z461 and z462. We are looking at the limo just before it disappears from Zapruder’s view under the Triple Underpass. Nellie and John Connally are lying on the floor and Clint Hill is still riding on the rear bumper.
Can you not see the person sitting upright in the back seat beside Jackie, right where JFK was sitting not long before this?
Yes Bob, I saw the silhouette of someone sitting in the right rear seat. Do you see the blur of pink across the still? Why is that prominent when we should only be able to see Jackie’s auburn hair the navy trim of her suit and perhaps a tint of pink from that angle? Is she propping her husband up so he appears to be merely injured? Are the stills authentic? I thought Zapruder was so overwhelmed after witnessing the assassination that he stopped filming. To be honest, I’ve not trusted the Z film for years having studied the chain of possession and interviewing Dick Stolley personally, but that’s another conversation.
You haven’t responded to my question: are you of the view that if a bullet penetrated President Kennedy’s throat from the front that there would be obvious blood stains on Jackie’s face, hair, shoulder, arm? Would a clean shot through his throat create a splatter of that force? I’ve seen entry wounds on deer that show no signs of splatter but I accept it is predicated on the point of entry.
I don’t believe she was propping him up to make it appear he was only injured.
She had turned when the back of his head was blown out and she was sprayed from the pink cloud with blood and brain matter. In the course of this she saw a piece of his scalp/skull fly onto the trunk. She was naturally in shock at this point. At the same time JFK had been driven back and to the left bouncing off the back seat into her lap.
She, once again in shock, crawled onto the trunk to retrieve the piece of his scalp/skull. JFK would have fallen to the seat. When she sat back down/was forced back into the seat by SSA Clint Hill she was had to pick her husband up to do so. Thus we have this image. He then slipped down into her lap where she cuddled his head in her lap on the way to Parkland where she resisted letting go. The last part documented elsewhere. The picture of his foot hanging out of the limo has been disturbing to me since the first time I saw it. I don’t feel like looking for a link of it at the moment. It represents to me the end of the illusion of Democracy. Allen Dulles and the Council on Foreign Relations be Damned to Hell Forever. F–K the New World Order and what it represents and what it has become, in the last few weeks especially. Tom, feel free to delete the last sentence if need be in relation to the rest of the post. I still believe in U.S. sovereignty.
A quick search of of the Main Stream Media via msn reveals this.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jfk+foot+limo&qpvt=jfk+foot+limo&qpvt=jfk+foot+limo&qpvt=jfk+foot+limo&FORM=IGRE
“Can you not see the person sitting upright in the back seat beside Jackie, right where JFK was sitting not long before this?”~Bob Prudhomme
You are obviously seeing Bill Greer, the limo driver in those shots Bob. The perspective is unclear because the whole frame is in a blur.
\\][//
Here is the picture of his foot hanging out. And everyone else but Clint Hill down low in the seats. Both Nellie and Jackie cradling their injured/dead husbands in their laps.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jfk+foot+limo&view=detailv2&qpvt=jfk+foot+limo&id=4203E9DC83E5798B9FE27B27E35428CD203C5C65&selectedIndex=14&ccid=rTGS80o6&simid=607995562901899041&thid=OIP.Mad3192f34a3a572e490a0cf4403f42b6o0&ajaxhist=0
Bob, Do you see evidence of a massive head injury on the silhouette that appears to be someone sitting upright in the seat next to Jackie?
First, thanks to Bob for posting these, I’ve never seen them either. Second, Leslie the image is about as clear to me as prayerman. I see the outline of the upper part of a torso and head but that’s about it. I don’t see how anyone can see the head injury in any of these four pictures. Just my twoc cents worth since Bob has not answered yet. Cheers.
Leslie, somewhere in all this you mention seeing no blood splatter from the entrance wound in the throat in relation to seeing nothing such in the shooting of a deer. This is something I have observed multiple times myself.
Just curious.
Were you wearing a boucle hunting jacket at the time?
Very funny Ronnie. ActuallyI saw the clean shot after the fact, but it was obvious to me that given there was no blood around the entrance wound, my bouclé jack would have been spared had I been standing near the poor creature at the time it was taken down.
A photograph indicating blood stains on the front of Jackie’s suit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2510064/Why-Jackie-Kennedys-blood-stained-pink-suit-hidden-public-view-2103.html
Well, I have spoken with a family member of Dr. Burkley on several occasions. They told me that Dr. Burkley had a very important piece of evidence relating to his claim of conspiracy stolen from him as he traveled on a flight to Denver.
I related this in my interviews with David Slawson:
http://www.covertbookreport.com/my-interviews-with-david-slawson-of-the-warren-commission/
Recently submitting comments as “John,” in the past one comment was submitted accompanied by John’s email address by “JT” and prior to that,
four comments by “DR”. I am sharing these details only in the interest of transparency and John has the option to respond to my comment..
John, https://jfkfacts.org/jfk-facts-online-31-may-2016/#comment-879468
JT, https://jfkfacts.org/french-leader-charles-de-gaulle-thought-he-was-targetted-by-the-cia/#comment-810969
DR, https://jfkfacts.org/the-state-of-the-jfk-case-in-2014/#comment-237997
Tom S.,
The commentator posting as ‘John’ on this thread, posted a link to an article by, John Titus.
May we assume that this John is in fact John Titus for the time being?
\\][//
John, I see you have submitted a comment. I discourage the submission of comments of less than five words by not approving them to appear. This site does not impose on commentors a real name requirement but it does not seem useful to approve comments of submitters using multiple aliases without identifying to readers specific submitters who have engaged in such confusing submission of comments.
If you intend to explain in more than four words why you made your introduction on this site using the alias, “DR,” I would expect even Willy would be interested in reading your explanation.
I know of no alternative method I could implement that would level the playing field of those who have submitted prior comments consistently under one alias, vs. those submitting under multiple aliases. We are known to each other only by the alias accompanying our comments and the content of the comments.
https://jfkfacts.org/judge-who-curbed-nsa-ponders-my-jfk-records-case/#comment-212781
DR – 2013/12/19 at 2:02 pm
https://jfkfacts.org/kerry-calls-for-opening-jfk-files/#comment-150419
DR – 2013/11/16 at 2:01 pm
https://jfkfacts.org/sabatos-jfk-book-takes-aim-at-the-acoustics-evidence/#comment-121065
DR – 2013/10/18 at 12:06 pm
Well Tom S.;
I would be happy to clear this up.
When I commented here in the past I was running a mostly non-political website called “Dojo Rat”, hence the “DR”.
As with some wordpress and blogspot websites, my comments have sometimes been automatically signed in as “DR”. The comment thread you show above puts my comments in 2013.
After I rebuilt my website, covertbookreport.com, I have used my name, John Titus. I have also signed into JFK Facts as JT, my true initials.
When you questioned my veracity as to “John” today, I responded to Willy Whittens comment with my full name in two words – John Titus. I did this from a cell phone in a rural area with marginal reception and did not even know if the text went through.
I assume you are a moderator for this forum and respect your requests for procedure.
Hope this helps,
John Titus
More than four words
“Burkley never mentions an entrance wound in the throat. He doesn’t mention ANY wound in the throat.
Therefore, if you accept that Burkley’s Death certificate is complete, infallible truth you must accept that JFK was hit by only 2 shots from behind.
So Willy, there was no throat wound, if we are to believe your only source for the T3 comment.”~Photon
Photon should be well aware that the ‘death certificate’ certifies the cause of death. The cause of death for JFK was a massive head wound.
That Burkley mentioned the position of the back wound specifically, may very well be interpreted as his purposeful rebuttal of the official findings the autopsists placing the wound higher – in the neck.
Of course this argument by Photon is a non sequitur:
“you must accept that JFK was hit by only 2 shots from behind.”
\\][//
Regarding the throat “wound” there is no blood apparent in the Z film. JFK has hands at throat but they appear to be clean. Any thoughts?
Clare, you have commented one other time, as far as I’ve been able to determine, as elizabeth, and on this same “no discernible blood” observation.: https://jfkfacts.org/parkland-doctors-talk-about-jfks-last-moments/#comment-804647
Any thoughts?
http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php?s=a4bd86b524a2f502903e2a8af819c20d&p=238020&postcount=507
My comment here has to do with the assertion that there art no bloodstains on Jackie Kennedy’s upper dress in the photo above.
I disagree. I think the contrast in this photo is blown out, and that is why it might APPEAR to some that there are no bloodstains. The dress she was wearing was a smooth solid pink, there was no mottling nor noticeable texture to the fabric. If one looks carefully at the photo above, one should note that the dress appears to be mottled. I maintain that this is visual evidence of bloodstains that is blown out by the contrast in this photo.
\\][//
Willie Whitten, fyi the suit of was made of wool bouclé . . .
” bou·clé
bo͞oˈklā/
noun
yarn with a looped or curled ply, or fabric woven from this yarn.
I happen to know because my wedding trousseau included a suit influenced by Jacqueline Kennedy’s attire on November 22, 1963 but in a small town it was impossible to find as nubby a fabric as bouclé; later I owned several jackets of the fabric, and it is definitely highly textured.
(from wiki) Pink Chanel suit of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy “Made of wool bouclé, the double-breasted, strawberry pink and navy trim … “
The texture is evident in the photo on the wiki site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Chanel_suit_of_Jacqueline_Bouvier_Kennedy
“Willie Whitten, fyi the suit of was made of wool bouclé . . .”~leslie sharp
That’s Willy with a ‘y’ sweetheart!
But I gotta admit you are right about the texture of Jackie’s pink suit.
So now I suppose we can conjecture that Jackie had a special hovering but so she wouldn’t sit in a seat full of blood…?
Seriously, whatever the photo is supposed to prove is beyond me. What? The assassination was staged and never really happened?
Any ideas from the peanut gallery?
\\][//
Jackie’s dress wasn’t a Chanel original. It was a knock-off, believe it or not
Yes. This is the second time I mentioned the lack of blood. Something obviously was making him grasp at his throat, but what? It also seems that Jackie has her hand cupped under his mouth as if he would be spiriting-up something, plus her glove is not stained, yet, Other observers mentioned JFK’s cheeks are puffed out and his tie knot was “nicked.” To me, it does not seem like a full-fledged gun shot from either the front or back. Have there been other theories?
Hi Clare
I believe you are on the right track here. As you say, a bullet travelling through the neck should have disturbed all kinds of blood vessels, yet there appears to be no blood present on his shirt as he raises his fists to his throat. No proof has been offered yet that confirms JFK’s throat wound existed prior to z313. In fact, Nellie Connally specifically stated she saw no blood on the front of JFK’s shirt.
Here is a theory for you to contemplate. Let’s assume JFK was shot in the back to the right of his spinal mid line at about the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as many autopsy witnesses, plus his death certificate, maintain. Assuming the cartridge was not defective, this would put a bullet directly into the top of his right lung.
Common sense tells us a full metal jacket bullet would go right through JFK’s chest and out the front. Common sense also tells us that, should it have been a hollow point bullet, it might have stopped in his lung but would have been found at the autopsy, which, of course, it was not.
However, should the bullet have been a hollow point bullet with a core made from compressed metal powder (frangible bullet), it would have gone partly through his right lung and disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder, stopping at the point of disintegration. It would have severely damaged his right lung and broken several vital blood vessels. He would have had an “open pneumothorax” (sucking chest wound and collapsed lung) and this, plus the blood filling his lung cavity, would have placed him in respiratory distress. It is possible this wound by itself would have been fatal.
The raising of the fists to the throat could be an instinctive response to his sudden inability to breathe in a normal fashion; simlar to the sitting “tripod” position often seen in COPD and emphysema patients.
https://meded.ucsd.edu/clinicalimg/lungs_tripod.jpg
The difference between the COPD sufferer’s tripod position and JFK’s is that JFK’s condition was sudden and traumatic. Not knowing what had happened to him, he might naturally assume something bizarre to be wrong with his upper respiratory tract, and he may have been attempting to “cough up” the problem. With that in mind, look at this photo of a COPD sufferer:
https://americannursetoday.com/when-breathing-is-a-burden-how-to-help-patients-with-copd-2/
The “nick” on the tie knot does not line up with the “slit” seen at the top button of his shirt, and so neither defect resulted from a passing bullet.
Before the fatal shot, Mrs Kennedy’s reactions strongly suggest she was unaware her husband had been hit by gunfire. As seen in the Zapruder film, she appears uncertain as to the source of her husband’s distress.
How did Kellerman figure out JFK was shot, and Jackie miss it?
And your evidence for this?
Just reading it in a conspiracy book doesn’t count.
A lengthy discussion of the slit in the shirt and the nick in the tie, working from primary sources, appears in the comments attached to the topic “Jackie Kennedy didn’t believe the Single Bullet Theory”.
I looked at that. It just has you claiming that a bullet exiting the shirt where the Single Bullet did would have gone through the center of the tie.
But that’s a perfectly arbitrary assertion.
In the real world, JFK’s tie might have been displaced from the centerline a bit, and the bullet clearly had a right to left trajectory.
You can always get conspiracy evidence if you feel free to just make things up.
I’m sorry, but that is not an accurate assessment of the argument. The discussion exposes a well-trod lone nut factoid, supports a more sensible view as to the provenance of the slit(s), and utilizes photographic evidence to demonstrate the physical impossibility of the original factoid. A tie “displaced a bit” doesn’t come close to allowing for any of the damage to be caused by a passing bullet. Nothing has been made up, and as I recall the conversation, both yourself and Jean D dropped out when finally pressed to engage with the photos.
“Nothing has been made up, and as I recall the conversation, both yourself and Jean D dropped out when finally pressed to engage with the photos.”
I don’t think that’s what happened. Here’s the thread:
https://jfkfacts.org/jackie-kennedy-didnt-believe-the-single-bullet-theory-either/
We went over the same ground several times, Jeff. I did “engage the photos,” you just didn’t like my answer.
Your continued stubbornness over this lone nut factoid is amusing. I have posted again in that thread. Please engage the photos and explain your position, because what you propose is physically impossible.
You were puffing the silly notion that the throat wound was above the collar.
Talk about being “amused” over “factoids!”
“To me, it does not seem like a full-fledged gun shot from either the front or back. Have there been other theories?”~Clare
Yes, the flechette throat wound is one:
This is an interesting article on the possibility that a very rare and special secret weapon system, developed by the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was used to immobilize JFK, and thus ensure the success of “the turkey shoot” carried out in Dealey Plaza.
Consider also that until the day of the JFK assassination in 1963, there was no place that anybody outside of the very small CIA and Special Forces group (perhaps as many as twenty people) could get access to that flechette-launching weapon system or anything like it.
To arrive at a solution to a murder as enigmatic and convoluted as that of JFK, we must confront the existence of the netherworld of secret operations carried out by covert agencies within our own government: “We have to start thinking like the CIA, people. . . . Black is white, and white is black.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
\\][//
@Tom S
Tom, I have never seen those photographs before (Jackie/RFK and the seat of the limousine). I did not realise that photograph(s) were taken before the limousine was cleaned after the assassination.
Prior Cotw – https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-10/
I did not want to sit idly by while the comment above seemed to be overlooked amongst all of the other comments in what was one of the most active discussion threads in this post July 4th period, and during what was another episode of gun related tragedy in Dallas.