Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Your involvement is irrelevant. The world doesn't rewind simply because you're new to the topic.

Read the thread.
Click to expand...

A variation of the fringe reset mind set - 'you weren't speaking to me so you have to say all the information again because all the information is invalid because I asked for.' A fringe reset of the second tier.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
It was a skull fragment:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8UUkcagNE4

It appears to fly backward, but what is really happening is that it flew straight up and the limousine passed underneath it.
Click to expand...


Nonsense and nonsense. You are looking at the reflection on the limo trunk of the piece of whatever seen on the grass (look at where the other end of that arrow is pointing). It's most likely just a piece of paper.

Josiah Thompson tried to float this nonsense from the other end of Dealey Plaza in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS back in 1967 using the NIX film (it contained a reflection of the pedestal to the right of Zapruder).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyaZvUeDJew

Thompson spoke of "a white mass" moving backward over the trunk. You can see that in the above at approximately 30 seconds into the film. But look at the film at approximately the 20 second mark... you see the same "white mass" moving backward over the hood of the limousine -- and that's before the head shot!

The problem with these images of "skull fragments" in both the Zapruder and Nix is they appear throughout the sequence as the limousine moves down Elm Street as the highly-polished trunk reflects whatever is opposite the trunk.

Here's a frame capture showing the reflection on the hood of the pedestal across the street.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/NixFrame.jpg

That's why the clip cited starts when it does. Start it earlier and you see reflections on the trunk throughout the film that destroys the argument for a piece of skull on the trunk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w6zveedj0o

No skull fragment was found in the street. One skull fragment was found on the grass south (that is, forward and to the left ) of the limo at the time of the head shot.

You can see that skull fragment in the Zapruder film at frame 313 (the head shot) as it makes a number of revolutions moving away from the head at approximately the one o'clock position (that is, forward of the head). That fragment came from the top of the head.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bone_frags.htm

Hank
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Thanks. I had never heard of the First Lady picking parts off the trunk before.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

The only claims of that are by conspiracy theorists citing hearsay (from decades later) and reflections off the trunk.

Jackie Kennedy herself never said any such thing.

You have to understand the argument here -- conspiracists are trying to argue for a shot from the right front that left a large exit in the back of the head. If they had photographic evidence of a piece of skull on the trunk, they believe their argument for this massive exit wound in the back of the head becomes stronger.

All they have is a reflection off the trunk of a piece of paper on the grass.

Hank
 
Last edited:
I maintain that Jackie was simply fleeing from what she perceived as danger, without any conscious thought or intention other than the "flight" part of "Fight or Flight."
 
BStrong said:
I maintain that Jackie was simply fleeing from what she perceived as danger, without any conscious thought or intention other than the "flight" part of "Fight or Flight."
Click to expand...

She was shocked, panicked and her very human 'flee' instinct cut in.
 
Hans said:
A variation of the fringe reset mind set - 'you weren't speaking to me so you have to say all the information again because all the information is invalid because I asked for.' A fringe reset of the second tier.
Click to expand...

Especially egregious when his principal argument is how much important information is allegedly held in secret. If you won't even read what's literally a few mouse clicks away, the criticism falls pretty flat.
 
JayUtah said:
Especially egregious when his principal argument is how much important information is allegedly held in secret. If you won't even read what's literally a few mouse clicks away, the criticism falls pretty flat.
Click to expand...

Yep everything is 'secret' to man who will not even attempt to study a subject!
 
HSienzant said:
Sigh.

The only claims of that are by conspiracy theorists citing hearsay (from decades later) and reflections off the trunk.

Jackie Kennedy herself never said any such thing.

You have to understand the argument here -- conspiracists are trying to argue for a shot from the right front that left a large exit in the back of the head. If they had photographic evidence of a piece of skull on the trunk, they believe their argument for this massive exit wound in the back of the head becomes stronger.

All they have is a reflection off the trunk of a piece of paper on the grass.

Hank
Click to expand...

Thanks. Honestly, I can't study the film in detail, as I find it too disturbing.

That the CT argument is flawed and stupid was a given for me, so I was surprised to learn a new fact about "ejecta" in this thread. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I'm sorry, but is eye rolling a correct response to somebody seemingly reacting in shock to the murder of their husband?
Click to expand...

Or anything of consequence? Jango, you jumped into this thread with your standard insinuation and have subsequently dropped a lot more insinuation into it. You have evaded all questions and bristled when people suggest you read at least a portion of the preceding thread before participating.

Do you have any sort of constructive argument here, or are you just noise?
 
JayUtah said:
Or anything of consequence? Jango, you jumped into this thread with your standard insinuation and have subsequently dropped a lot more insinuation into it. You have evaded all questions and bristled when people suggest you read at least a portion of the preceding thread before participating.

Do you have any sort of constructive argument here, or are you just noise?
Click to expand...

"She was shocked, panicked and her very human 'flee' instinct cut in."

Why are you not calling Hans out on the above?
 
Jango - as I mentioned before, would you please share your full theory of the events of the day of JFK's assassination?
 
Jango said:
It is more comforting to believe she was reacting that way instead of doing what she did: trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head.
Click to expand...

It's also in complete conformance with my first hand experience with untrained individuals reacting to high stress situations.
 
carlitos said:
Jango - as I mentioned before, would you please share your full theory of the events of the day of JFK's assassination?
Click to expand...

No, you do not need my theory, you actually need your own.

Why? Because you've already admitted that you did not know that Mrs. Kennedy was trying to retrieve ejecta from her husband's head. You have also admitted to shying away from the available evidence in this case.

The implications are clear: you need to evaluate the evidence.

Until you do so, knowing anyone's theory of the event is a waste of time.
 
BStrong said:
It's also in complete conformance with my first hand experience with untrained individuals reacting to high stress situations.
Click to expand...

Great. The (obvious) problem being is that she was going after the ejecta from her husband's head. Address the evidence, not your anecdotal life experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom