+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? (/thread-5374.html)
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Bernice Moore - 28-01-2011
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Bernice Moore Wrote:this NIX gif below, hopefully working here as it shows a fragment being shot out the back of jfk's head..
Bernice - many thanks for posting this gif. Unfortunately, as per my post #21 in this thread, it is appearing on DPF as a .jpg file.
For it to function as an animated gif, I'm pretty sure the file would have to end with .gif
Please can you check your master version and see if it does end with the file extention .gif
If so, please send it to Magda or I, and we will try uploading the .gif file to see if there's a problem with the way DPF software is reading it.
hi Jan, thanks, yes it they are in the gif format...b..ps i just posted a second on in that first post, and neither took, so i will send to magda in a bit, as i have her email address..thanks..b
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Jack White - 28-01-2011
Since the film is a forgery, why rely on it for the nature of any wounds?
Jack
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Bernice Moore - 28-01-2011
Jack White Wrote:Since the film is a forgery, why rely on it for the nature of any wounds?
Jack
i agree jack, but within the two small nix gifs, in the first it shows the plug as some call it being exploaded out the back of his head and it being followed within, the second shows a spray, out the back same area, of matter, also i think i see the spray being extended towards the front, such as mrs connally and others mentioned, the brain matter .falling on them...best b
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - James H. Fetzer - 28-01-2011
Bernice,
I would certainly like to see them. Do you or Jack think I have missed something with Albert Doyle? I really do not understand where he is coming from. And of course some of the frames of the Zapruder have forensic value, such as frame 374. Let me know when those gifs are available. Thanks.
Jim
Bernice Moore Wrote:Jack White Wrote:Since the film is a forgery, why rely on it for the nature of any wounds?
Jack
i agree jack, but within the two small nix gifs, in the first it shows the plug as some call it being exploaded out the back of his head and it being followed within, the second shows a spray, out the back same area, of matter, also i think i see the spray being extended towards the front, such as mrs connally and others mentioned, the brain matter .falling on them...best b
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Albert Doyle - 28-01-2011
James H. Fetzer Wrote:But they are not well-founded and cannot qualify as rational.
You are suggesting a frangible bullet caused the skull flap wound but the blood fog was hand-painted in.
The problem with this is Zapruder clearly shows some skull pieces flying-off from the top of the head in a slightly forward direction. The point of origin of these pieces is clearly well to the rear of the alleged temple entry shot. I'm pretty certain it is not physically possible for a shockwave originating forward of the place of origin of the skull pieces to send them flying backwards towards the point of origin of the shockwave. Not to mention a weakened occipital area weakening the force and backing of such an event. Indeed, if the triangular piece seen flying-out of the top of the head in Zapruder 313-14-15 is the Harper fragment, could it have been ejected with such force if the rear of the skull was already cracked-open by the rear shot? The distance of the Harper fragment from Kennedy's head is a forensic indicator of the pressure that influenced it. Would it have flown that far with an already cracked-open head, and would it have gone contrary to the radial force originating at the point of the exploding bullet? And, if the frangible bullet showed force enough to blast-open the skull flap, would it have only plopped-out the rear plug? You would think it would have shot it out seeing how it would have been one of the routes of least resistance. Also, I think it violates known exploding bullet behavior for the bullet to blast-open Kennedy's skull flap and not have any shrapnel fragments follow the route. If indeed an exploding bullet caused the skull flap wound it would have been accompanied by some shrapnel bits that would not have left the skull flap intact. It most likely would have blown this area away. It conflicts with known exploding bullet behavior for this bullet to not send some shredding fragments upwards in the direction of the flap it blew open. Therefore it is highly unlikely any exploding bullet caused the skull flap wound.
.
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - James H. Fetzer - 28-01-2011
Albert, as John Costella explains in his tutorial on the faking of the film, which I
infer you have still not viewed, the blood spray dissipates too quickly to be real.
The Parkland physicians reported cerebral as well as cerebellar tissue extruding
from the wound (at the right rear of the head). It could not have been extruding
from the skull flap. The bullet entered at the right temple and created the shock
waves that broke open the skull flap and blew his brains out the back of his head
with such force that Officer Hargis, riding to the left rear, thought that he himself
had been shot. There was brain matter all over the trunk of the limo, upon which
Jackie crawled out to retrieve a chunk of JKF's skull and brains. If the skull flap
had been blown open before the frangible bullet, then his brains would have been
blown out that opening. But that did not happen. They were blown out the back
of his skull, which had already been weakened by a shot that hit around the EOP.
I don't know what more to explain to you, Albert. The film has been redone and
I have offered many links to articles that explain it, which you apparently are not
willing to read. Your theory of the trajectories does not comport with the medical
and other evidence, including, especially, the reports from the Parkland physicians.
I appreciate your speculations, but you seem to be trading in JFK fiction, not fact.
Albert Doyle Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:But they are not well-founded and cannot qualify as rational.
You are suggesting a frangible bullet caused the skull flap wound but the blood fog was hand-painted in.
The problem with this is Zapruder clearly shows some skull pieces flying-off from the top of the head in a slightly forward direction. The point of origin of these pieces is clearly well to the rear of the alleged temple entry shot. I'm pretty certain it is not physically possible for a shockwave originating forward of the place of origin of the skull pieces to send them flying backwards towards the point of origin of the shockwave. Not to mention a weakened occipital area weakening the force and backing of such an event. Indeed, if the triangular piece seen flying-out of the top of the head in Zapruder 313-14-15 is the Harper fragment, could it have been ejected with such force if the rear of the skull was already cracked-open by the rear shot? The distance of the Harper fragment from Kennedy's head is a forensic indicator of the pressure that influenced it. Would it have flown that far with an already cracked-open head, and would it have gone contrary to the radial force originating at the point of the exploding bullet? And, if the frangible bullet showed force enough to blast-open the skull flap, would it have only plopped-out the rear plug? You would think it would have shot it out seeing how it would have been one of the routes of least resistance. Also, I think it violates known exploding bullet behavior for the bullet to blast-open Kennedy's skull flap and not have any shrapnel fragments follow the route. If indeed an exploding bullet caused the skull flap wound it would have been accompanied by some shrapnel bits that would not have left the skull flap intact. It most likely would have blown this area away. It conflicts with known exploding bullet behavior for this bullet to not send some shredding fragments upwards in the direction of the flap it blew open. Therefore it is highly unlikely any exploding bullet caused the skull flap wound.
.
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Albert Doyle - 28-01-2011
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Albert, as John Costella explains in his tutorial on the faking of the film, which I
infer you have still not viewed, the blood spray dissipates too quickly to be real.
With all due respect, I don't think you're answering my points.
You can't have an event that blows the skull flap open without an accompanying blood burst event.
The skull pieces seen flying in the whitish jet are real because we have evidence of them being found later in the direction they were seen flying in. This forensically corroborates an explosive event.
You are suggesting a frangible bullet exploded underneath the skull flap and pushed it open. However exploding bullet behavior makes it highly unlikely that a full 180 degree hemisphere above the point of explosion would not experience some significant fragment shrapnel that would blast through the skull above it. This would create fragmenting damage where the skull was blown to bits instead of the clean flap that was later closed back over and not noticed at Parkland. It would be more likely that a back to front-traveling bullet shot from behind would pass underneath the skull and not damage it as was seen. In short, the clean, undamaged parietal part of hair seen at Parkland does not match the damage from and exploding bullet to the temple in my opinion.
.
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Jack White - 28-01-2011
The Zapruder film is fake, and cannot be trusted as evidence
for what it shows.
Jack
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - James H. Fetzer - 28-01-2011
OK. We're talking about the medical evidence, not the Zapruder film. You think
that the skull flap had to have been blow open by the back of the head shot and
not by the frangible bullet. We know the bullet was frangible from the metallic
particles found in the lateral cranial X-ray. But if the skull flap had been blown
open BEFORE the frangile bullet exploded, it would have blown cerebral tissue
out of the side of his head, which would not have included cerebellar. But that,
I take it, did not happen. I know the Newmans saw what was exposed when the
skull flap was blown open, but surely if brains had been blown out of it, it would
not have closed back up so neatly. Tell me more about the hair at Parkland. I
am not sure I have heard that described before. What is your source about that?
Albert Doyle Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Albert, as John Costella explains in his tutorial on the faking of the film, which I
infer you have still not viewed, the blood spray dissipates too quickly to be real.
With all due respect, I don't think you're answering my points.
You can't have an event that blows the skull flap open without an accompanying blood burst event.
The skull pieces seen flying in the whitish jet are real because we have evidence of them being found later in the direction they were seen flying in. This forensically corroborates an explosive event.
You are suggesting a frangible bullet exploded underneath the skull flap and pushed it open. However exploding bullet behavior makes it highly unlikely that a full 180 degree hemisphere above the point of explosion would not experience some significant fragment shrapnel that would blast through the skull above it. This would create fragmenting damage where the skull was blown to bits instead of the clean flap that was later closed back over and not noticed at Parkland. It would be more likely that a back to front-traveling bullet shot from behind would pass underneath the skull and not damage it as was seen. In short, the clean, undamaged parietal part of hair seen at Parkland does not match the damage from and exploding bullet to the temple in my opinion.
Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film? - Jan Klimkowski - 29-01-2011
Bernice et al - thank you for your patience regarding the gifs.
Magda and I have identified that the vBulletin software had a strangely low default maximum filesize for gifs, and as a result your files were being changed to jpgs on upload. We've now increased that allowable filesize, and your gifs can be seen below.
You and other members should also now be able to upload gifs directly to DPF yourselves.