Wednesday, December 7, 2016

We should also ask how Oswald's thumb got so big because it wasn't. Also, how did his thumb reach so far up the index finger because it couldn't go that far. And how come Oswald only had 4 fingers (including his thumb) when I have 5. Then, you should visually trace around his thumb, and then do the same on me. What is going on with the shape of his? It's downright freaky!



It's time for a song: STUFF GOT IN THE WAY. It's about the famed Bob Jackson photo of the Oswald shooting. You see, it doesn't show any trauma or disruption or disturbance of Oswald or his clothing, and the reason is that stuff got in the way: hands, arms, sleeves, etc. So, here's the song, sung to the tune of SMOKE GETS IN YOUR EYES by Jerome Kern and Otto Harbach, and with due apologies to them.
They (pause) asked me how I say
This photo's OK
But, I was not dismayed
All that I could say
Is that stuff got in the way


In this BBC program, FIRST PERSON, you see Bob Jackson watching the video of the Oswald shooting while he recollects what happened.



If you look closely at the monitor, that was before the shooting when Oswald was being led out by Leavelle and Graves. Jackson says that he "was all set up, with my camera pre-focused, and then somebody stepped out from my right, quickly, two steps, real fast."

Then, they give you a close-up view, and you see what he sees up-close, and it's nothing like the Jackson photo.


So, Oswald is cringing there from being shot. So, that is already after the shot, but it's not the Jackson photo. It's very blurry but it's because they made it that way. You can't blame me, and you can't blame Youtube. Blame the BBC. 

Then, what happens is that the film scrambles. You see it rifling, in which you can't really make out anything. It's just noise. And then suddenly it freezes on a Jackson-like image. 



That kinda/sorta looks like the Jackson photo, but it is NOT identical to it. 


Have you seen those magazine puzzles in which they show you the same image twice and ask you to find the differences? Well, you can do that here.

The first thing to realize is that the black and white image does not occur within the footage. It is a still image that the film jumps to and settles on after the scramble. But secondly, it is not identical to the Jackson photo. It is similar to it, but not identical to it. The hand is broader, giving it 5 fingers instead of 4, which is all the Jackson photo has. The thumb is overlapping less, but it is still anatomically impossible since the anatomical thumb does not rise nearly that high versus the other fingers. The thumb is way down compared to the other fingers. And, Oswald's thumb was certainly not as big as that, and few thumbs are; we're talking huge. Note also the different treatment of Leavelle's freaky forearm for the hand-in-the-pants stunt. The folds and wrinkles in his jacket are different. And notice that in the black and white photo, Oswald's hand rises higher, reaching his shirt collar, plus his hand overlaps Leavelle's jacket. 



Those are a lot of differences, which Bob Jackson is seeing as well as I am, yet, nothing registers with him??? No alarm bells go off??? What, is he stupid?????

Then, they settle on the Jackson photo with Blackie Harrison's arm coming over, which you don't see anywhere else. 



I have to wonder: has Bob Jackson ever looked at his own photo? Really looked at it? Examined its content? It's many, many freakeries? 



I guess not. Bob Jackson has been an instrument, a pawn, of the Fascist State. He was richly rewarded for it, I'm sure. But, is he oblivious to his own exploitation, choosing instead just to revel in the fame and fortune? 


The Jackson photo IS a monstrosity. It's purpose is to present the Oswald shooting devoid of any trauma or disruption- of him or his clothing- and with built-in explanations for the lack thereof, as well as the complete absence of blood. And the explanation is: "the area of trauma instantly got covered up by stuff: hands, arms, sleeves, etc. Stuff got in the way." They should write a song about it, Stuff Got In The Way, like Smoke Got In My Eyes

They (pause) asked me how I say
This photo's OK
But, I was not dismayed
All that I could say
Is that stuff got in the way

With due apologies to Jerome Kern and Otto Harbach 





Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Oswald looked in the direction of Bookhout.


Not Leavelle, not Graves, but Oswald. It's amazing, isn't it, that police detectives assigned to guard and protect a man wouldn't scan the area from which an attack could come?

Then, Oswald turned his head back and waited for the attack to come, but notice that the other detective against the wall seemed to be eyeing Bookhout right before the attack.




He's looking at Bookhout. But, of course, he does nothing. He has no intention of intervening. Then look what he does.




Now, he's looking straight ahead. Bookhout is on the move, rushing toward Oswald, but this guy doesn't want to look at it.

Here Oswald has been shot. We heard the blast, and we see Oswald starting to cringe. So, this was a split-second after the shot. 




But, do you know what else was a split-second after the shot? The Jackson photo. But, it's terribly different. In it, there is Detective Blackie Harrison's gorilla arm coming over, and Leavelle is positioned differently. And, Oswald has slapped his left arm against his chest. 



So, in the film, do we EVER see Oswald slap his left arm against his chest? No, we do not. For one thing, Bookhout gets in the way, and he has his back to the camera obscuring Oswald. 



So, do you want to say that the Jackson photo happened then? You would, wouldn't you. But, let's look at the last frame of Oswald before he goes out of view.



Oswald is going forward and down. He's sinking. And, you'd think he would continue sinking and collapse right there. But, he doesn't. he veers back. He goes up on his toes. Way up on his tippy-toes. And then finally, goes down, straight down, like the freight elevator at the TSBD. But, that is all to come. But, what I want to know is: whose hand is that? It certainly is not the Shooter's. It can only be Oswald's. Right? But yet, it can't be Oswald's because it's a right hand, and Oswald's right hand was cuffed to Leavelle's left hand. So, whose right hand is that? And why is it so weird. It only has three fingers. 



That is NOT an anatomical human hand. What I think we're seeing here is crude art. Someone tried to create the impression of a hand.

So, after that, Bookhout's back acts like a curtain, and by the time Oswald comes back into view, he is veering back and going up on his toes.



So, what would cause Oswald to start collapsing, to start going down, and then to suddenly veer back and go up on his toes instead? I know. Maybe it was a Thorburn reaction, as per the Idiot Dr. Lattimer.  Yeah, that's the ticket. Oswald was just having a gigantic reflex. And notice that through it all, Fritz hasn't even turned around or, for that matter, flinched.

But, the hand. What is that hand?



It's more bull shit is what it is. More JFK assassination bull shit. And there is so much JFK assassination bull shit, I don't know that we are ever going to uncover it all.   

Here's a gem. Gotta love it. Arch lone-nutter Dale Myers takes on arch lone-nutter Max Holland over his ridiculous "bounce-off-the traffic-light" theory of what happened to the first bullet and how it wound up at the bottom of Dealey Plaza. 

Myers quotes a real scientist (which Holland is not) forensic scientist Luke Haag: 


“Sorry gentlemen,” Haag wrote in summation to his latest rebuttal, “[your first shot ricochet theory] is ballistically absurd. But I will make you this offer.

If you will provide the proper WCC 6.5x52mm Carcano ammunition and come to Arizona, I will duplicate all of my testing on this subject of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet striking/grazing a steel pole of your choosing at no cost to you with a properly configured M91/38 Carcano rifle. These tests would include using the proper standoff distance, Doppler radar tracking of the bullets, downrange witness panels for documenting the post-impact flight of the bullet or bullet fragments followed by laser measurements of the deflection angles. You are most welcome to photograph and videotape this testing which will take 1 to 2 days to complete.” (emphasis in original)

It is an offer Holland shouldn’t refuse.


I couldn't agree more, Dale. But note that your defense of the Single Bullet Theory is just as ridiculous as Holland's theory of what happened to the first shot. 

Here is Dale's article, which makes mincemeat of the pompous clown, Max Holland:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2016/11/hollands-magic-bullet.html


Let's imagine that someone was standing next to Toni Glover. If it's a relatively short person, and she's on that tall pedestal, then she is going to tower over him. Right?

So, I used someone whom I believe was about 5'6", James Bookhout, and if you continue to cling to the false claim that he was Jack Ruby, that would make him 5'8". But, his feet were apart, and his right knee was bent, which was lowering him. Toni Glover, with her arms overhead and her probably being up on her toes was surely going to tower over him if she were up on that pedestal. I can't put him above her in the picture because as I explained yesterday, in a photograph, being above can represent depth. Notice how the sidewalk looks like it's going uphill, though of course it wasn't. So, I put him behind her. But, I had to make him small enough so that she would tower over him because we are assuming, for the moment, that she was up on the pedestal.



So, look how small I had to make him. He's too small; much too small. The shooter was short but stocky. He was described as stocky by a witness. Let's try it again, this time being concerned only about the accuracy of his size. 



OK, so I made him larger, and I think I was conservative about it. If anything, he should be larger yet. But notice that Toni isn't towering over him, but she would be if she were up on the pedestal and he was standing next to her.  This demonstrates very well that she was not up on the pedestal. With her being on the pedestal and reaching, stretching up like that with her arms, she should be towering over the people in front, but she's not. She and her mother were standing on the grass. 
  
In this Dorman frame, Toni and her mother would be towering over the people in front of them if they were lofted up on that pedestal. It is a tall pedestal. As you look at this, imagine someone was standing on the green grass next to the Glovers. How would they look any different from them?