Ford's Editing Backed 'Single Bullet' Theory

[Jerry Organ]

Sure, John, sure. You didn't even look at the neck link I posted. And here's a photo from your heroes.



That's NOT the neck, John. It's not. You're being very clever by posting that cutaway 3D photo that shows the spinal column because any dumbass would think that because the column is in the neck that makes the lower portion part of the neck. And it's not.

And it was not a mistake in the final report. They got it right the first time UNTIL old Gerry penciled in "...of neck."

But you go right on ahead and remain unbiased in your ANALysis.

Doesn't the jacket have to be bunched and the trajectory slope made sleeper? That's a cartoon for idiots.

[John Mytton]

Sure, John, sure. You didn't even look at the neck link I posted. And here's a photo from your heroes.



That's NOT the neck, John. It's not. You're being very clever by posting that cutaway 3D photo that shows the spinal column because any dumbass would think that because the column is in the neck that makes the lower portion part of the neck. And it's not.

And it was not a mistake in the final report. They got it right the first time UNTIL old Gerry penciled in "...of neck."

But you go right on ahead and remain unbiased in your ANALysis.

Calm down Michael, your post is unnecessarily offensive.

Here's JFK, show me where you think his neck is?



JohnM

[John Mytton]

Doesn't the jacket have to be bunched and the trajectory slope made sleeper? That's a cartoon for idiots.

Doesn't the jacket have to be bunched

 

That's a cartoon for idiots.

Exactly, that's precisely the audience that gobbles up such illogical absurdities.

JohnM

[Jerry Organ]

Exactly, that's precisely the audience that gobbles up such illogical absurdities.

JohnM

The Croft photo shows Kennedy's collar higher up at the back of the neck relative to level of the left ear than the 1964 re-enactment photo.

Generic example of change in neck posture while sitting; not mean to duplicate JFK's posture

In some photos of the motorcade, his head seems lower relative to his shoulders. Could be a natural way the neck goes when it relaxes.

Would be nice to have a new Select Committee evaluate these issues through expert consultation and outside reports.

[John Iacoletti]

Bunch?  What bunch?

[Michael Walton]

Sure, John, sure. Sure, Bill, sure.

Here's my all-time favorite photo about this whole sordid deal. Here's your heroes again. Not us wacky and fun-loving conspiracy theorists but, you know, officialdom:



See the two markers on the stand-in? Do you know why they have TWO markers? It's very simple, Bill and John (and Jerry). First, they know what the medical evidence is. So now, after some lawyer tells them, "Well, we know your boss wants no questions about this. The playboy is gone and we can do all manner of fudging (and xxxing around with) the evidence. It's just gotta be one shooter from right up thar."

So they know the medical history. A hole in the throat (hence the sticker on the stand-in's back of the neck) and the lower sticker. Even G-Men know where the back of the neck and the back are located for crissake! And, you know, the EXACT SAME HOLES we see in the autopsy photos. So they put the stickers there to somehow - SOME WAY - try to figure it out during this reenactment.

Only they can't. It's not possible. The bullet's traveling downward, yet the stickers are going UPWARD. Duh, much?

So hence, the final report is honest ("back") until old Gerry pencils in "back of neck."

As John I says above, there was no bunch. But even if there was, it doesn't change anything. All you gotta do is look at the autopsy photo of the back. Even if the jacket had a hole way down the bottom due to bunching (but ALAS it doesn't) the back wound in the photo shows they got it right in the above photo like they got it right with the stickers.

Now if you guys want to let your Kennedy bias kick in again and go all like, "BUT BUT BUT what about this...or that...or this..." - then you go right ahead. And I'm sure you will. But all the bias in the world is not going to change what's obvious in these photos as well as the autopsy.

'Night John Boy. 'Night Mary Ellen.

[Jerry Organ]

Sure, John, sure. Sure, Bill, sure.

Here's my all-time favorite photo about this whole sordid deal. Here's your heroes again. Not us wacky and fun-loving conspiracy theorists but, you know, officialdom:



See the two markers on the stand-in? Do you know why they have TWO markers? It's very simple, Bill and John (and Jerry). First, they know what the medical evidence is. So now, after some lawyer tells them, "Well, we know your boss wants no questions about this. The playboy is gone and we can do all manner of fudging (and xxxing around with) the evidence. It's just gotta be one shooter from right up thar."

So they know the medical history. A hole in the throat (hence the sticker on the stand-in's back of the neck) and the lower sticker. Even G-Men know where the back of the neck and the back are located for crissake! And, you know, the EXACT SAME HOLES we see in the autopsy photos. So they put the stickers there to somehow - SOME WAY - try to figure it out during this reenactment.

Altgens on Houston

Unlike you, the re-enactment investigators were aware of and incorporated into their findings that Connally was seated much lower than Kennedy.

Only they can't. It's not possible. The bullet's traveling downward, yet the stickers are going UPWARD. Duh, much?

So hence, the final report is honest ("back") until old Gerry pencils in "back of neck."

Better to have left "below the shoulder" as if that's not debatable? The shoulder muscle mass is centered away from the midline.

As John I says above, there was no bunch. But even if there was, it doesn't change anything. All you gotta do is look at the autopsy photo of the back. Even if the jacket had a hole way down the bottom due to bunching (but ALAS it doesn't) the back wound in the photo shows they got it right in the above photo like they got it right with the stickers.

Now if you guys want to let your Kennedy bias kick in again and go all like, "BUT BUT BUT what about this...or that...or this..." - then you go right ahead. And I'm sure you will. But all the bias in the world is not going to change what's obvious in these photos as well as the autopsy.

'Night John Boy. 'Night Mary Ellen.

The Willis photo crop doesn't have sufficient resolution to show the bunch other than as part of the jacket shape. The photo is blurred and backlit, and the area with Kennedy is tiny compared to the overall photo.

The Altgens photo of Kennedy on Houston shows the bunch more clearly (ie: there's no shadow on the back from the jacket collar). Similar to the smaller bunch that obscures the jacket collar shadow on the Kennedy surrogate in the re-enactment photo you posted.



As long as it shows the back wound a few inches above the right scapula, the bullet will pass through the fleshy part of the neck.

I figure a lot of CTs--if they've been at this for awhile--accept the Kennedy neck transit.

[John Iacoletti]

The Altgens photo of Kennedy on Houston shows the bunch more clearly (ie: there's no shadow on the back from the jacket collar).

What bunch?