12-08-2013, 07:25 PM
If what we see is NOT what occurred... how valid are Sherry's conclusions?
It is a proven fact that a number of frames were removed between 302-304 and from 312-318...
207-212 as well... another critical moment in the film...
132-133.. the entire turn sequence removed
156-158.. yet another SHOT removed... (look at Hickey)
If the blood splatter was REAL instead of painted in and/or removed entirely... I am not sure if anything changes about the source of "A" shot being the South Knoll or South end of the overpass...
Below is an illustration of Sherry's conclusion on the direction and angle of JFK's head at the time of a/the headshot... Z313 supposedly.
A south shot needs to deal with the windshield, the occupants and the distance...
Witnesses tell us of a horrible wound over the LEFT eye...
Altgens tells us of seeing exit debris from the LEFT side
Brain and bone is blown BACKWARD from North to South...
There were bullet marks yet no debris seen to fly or move South to North in the direction of the Newmans.
Burkely hints of proof about more than one shooter... the BRAIN is the only thing that conclusively tell such a thing... channels in two or more directions... microscopic tell-tale signs of direction...
Item #9, the brain slides et al... goes the way of the windshield scrappings and Kleins microfilm... Gone in the Wind....
Add back the original scene and I BELIEVE the back of the head is removed via a shot from the right front that went in small... and came out large... the major fragments Humes removed in the presence of many
may have been from a bullet that fragments, mushrooms, explodes and leaves a trail of mist and particles... NOT a FMJ. There was not enough bullet left (in the limo of in his head) to account for a full bullet.
and finally - Robinson did NOT see a bullet wound in the back...
Robinson:
I saw the body turned over, it was turned over and examined on its side, rolled from each side. I saw nothing down below where the doctors had been working on the head.
Purdy:
Did you see anything between the head wounds and the. . . on the back that could have been a wound?
Robinson:
No.
.....
It might have done that, there was - . . b[B]ut the back itself, there was no wound there, no.[/B]
So... was JFK shot from behind, at all??
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5042[/ATTACH]
It is a proven fact that a number of frames were removed between 302-304 and from 312-318...
207-212 as well... another critical moment in the film...
132-133.. the entire turn sequence removed
156-158.. yet another SHOT removed... (look at Hickey)
If the blood splatter was REAL instead of painted in and/or removed entirely... I am not sure if anything changes about the source of "A" shot being the South Knoll or South end of the overpass...
Below is an illustration of Sherry's conclusion on the direction and angle of JFK's head at the time of a/the headshot... Z313 supposedly.
A south shot needs to deal with the windshield, the occupants and the distance...
Witnesses tell us of a horrible wound over the LEFT eye...
Altgens tells us of seeing exit debris from the LEFT side
Brain and bone is blown BACKWARD from North to South...
There were bullet marks yet no debris seen to fly or move South to North in the direction of the Newmans.
Burkely hints of proof about more than one shooter... the BRAIN is the only thing that conclusively tell such a thing... channels in two or more directions... microscopic tell-tale signs of direction...
Item #9, the brain slides et al... goes the way of the windshield scrappings and Kleins microfilm... Gone in the Wind....
Add back the original scene and I BELIEVE the back of the head is removed via a shot from the right front that went in small... and came out large... the major fragments Humes removed in the presence of many
may have been from a bullet that fragments, mushrooms, explodes and leaves a trail of mist and particles... NOT a FMJ. There was not enough bullet left (in the limo of in his head) to account for a full bullet.
and finally - Robinson did NOT see a bullet wound in the back...
Robinson:
I saw the body turned over, it was turned over and examined on its side, rolled from each side. I saw nothing down below where the doctors had been working on the head.
Purdy:
Did you see anything between the head wounds and the. . . on the back that could have been a wound?
Robinson:
No.
.....
It might have done that, there was - . . b[B]ut the back itself, there was no wound there, no.[/B]
So... was JFK shot from behind, at all??
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5042[/ATTACH]
Phil Dragoo Wrote:At 89 above Rob Caprio responds to Albert Doyle:
Originally Posted by Albert DoyleI'd tend to believe the shots were based on the best vantage points for a covert kill.
Response from Rob Caprio
I agree with this statement, but what position gave the shooter a straight on head shot?
Phil's footnote:
Sherry Fiester, Enemy of the Truth, posits JFK's head turned beyond profile in relation to Zapruder's position at Z-312
When this rotation is positioned in the limousine on Elm at that point
a vector of the possible trajectory aligning a right temple entry (seen by Thom Robinson and others, probably Malcolm Perry included)
to an avulsive wound of two to three inches diameter in the right occipitoparietal (seen by eighty-one per Groden's count)
the South Knoll is indicated
I suggest this was surveyed and selected and used by a highly-skilled sniper with the very best weapon, scope and silencer/suppressor
that this shooter made the throat shot at Z-225 per the analysis of Anthony DeFiore posted on this section of the forum
and subsequently the aforementioned temple entry
Two devastating wounds, the latter a coup de grace
I view the selection of a public setting with the target the focus of a local throng and a national press to be intentional and
in keeping with what Charles describes as his and George Michael Evica's conclusion that it was "a dramatic construct"
Its thematic thrust is to kill hope and repress the spirit, stoke the fires of war, abase the sensitivities
That it is a brazen lie continually ground into our human face with the Orwellian boot of totalitarianism is part of the intention
As for the myriad "theories"--all that is by way of the fog machine to obscure the naked power exercised
Certainly O'Brien explained much of this to Winston Smith in 1949/1984
In sum, controlling history to amass power
O'Brien cites the superiority of Big Brother and the Inner Party as eschewing the various ideologies of other totalitarian systems
And again, Charles and George Michael Evica, L. Fletcher Prouty, Peter Dale Scott and others view a cabal above national, religious, partisan differences
This is the splintering frame thread, and the wound track in the martyred president ought to be viewed as a gateway to enlightenment
I wouldn't presume for worlds to discuss the nature of this,
other than to suggest, as we've been advised,
the Zen which can be named
is not the true Zen
the true Zen
would
fall through a hole in Country Joe's flag
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5040[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter