Back-and-to-the-left? Well yeah, but...

erosoplier · Post by **erosoplier** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:46 am

Was just watching Bill Hicks talking about JFK. One thing which increasingly bothers me* is the old back-and-to-the-left story, which Hicks propogates in that particular clip. If you slow down, stabilise, and magnify the zapruder film (*warning - disturbing images*), it seems patently obvious that Kennedy was shot from the back and the left, and that his head moved in that direction - back and to the left - only because it was still attached to his body after the bullet hit. It was a rebound movement. His head went forward and to the right first, before it went back and left.

It's obvious, isn't it?

It actually gives me hope for the future, that something like this can still be so open to debate, because the truth has been kept from the public for such a long time - through a lack of access to the best information, as much as anything else - but today anybody who cares to can access the information themselves, and see for themselves, and this trend could reasonably be expected to increase. So there is a lot of room for movement out there.

And there are many other rallying points of interest to do with the JFK story which, likewise, only seem likely to gradually gain people's attention.

*Thanks to a thread which FourthBase started.

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:53 am

I don't think there's any way in hell that the Z-film is in remotely original and pristine unaltered condition. And that tells me just about everything I need to know. But it's always interesting to talk about...

justdrew · Post by **justdrew** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:01 am

looks like it came from up-front-right to me, striking at a relatively shallow angle. disgusting, I don't think I'll look at that again for awhile. thankfully I think it's the only snuff film I've ever had the misfortune to see, except maybe the unedited Bud Dwyer once.

smiths · Post by **smiths** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:10 am

i really dont see how you get that from that film,

it appears to me that the impact comes from the front and somewhere off to his right,

and as hicks says, his head moves back and to the left

erosoplier · Post by **erosoplier** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:24 am

Interestings!

[Also: Heck, I just looked at the date. I didn't actually mean to post this on this particular day.]

About the originality of it. I don't know, but it could be that they never doctored it because even if they could doctor it, they didn't foresee its widespread distribution, so they didn't doctor it. Because if they did doctor it, what we see doesn't match the official story, or, arguably, even the [alternative] official conspiracy theory [ie the Stone movie].

Nordic · Post by **Nordic** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:25 am

smiths wrote:i really dont see how you get that from that film,

it appears to me that the impact comes from the front and somewhere off to his right,

and as hicks says, his head moves back and to the left

Totally agree.

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:33 am

erosoplier wrote:...what we see doesn't match the official story, or, arguably, even the official conspiracy theory.

The Z-film matches the OCT well enough that it's been used effectively to document Oswald's guilt since the first time frame blowups were shown in Life magazine on November 29, 1963, and has happily continued to serve that purpose ever after, amen. It's a highly flawed and flexible Rosetta stone, which can, apparently, accomodate almost any interpretation.

Has anyone ever seen a frame by frame camparison of all existing (four?) copies?

Nordic · Post by **Nordic** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:35 am

barracuda wrote:
erosoplier wrote:...what we see doesn't match the official story, or, arguably, even the official conspiracy theory.
The Z-film matches the OCT well enough that it's been used effectively to document Oswald's guilt since the first time frame blowups were shown in Life magazine on November 29, 1963, and has happily continued to serve that purpose ever after, amen. It's a highly flawed and flexible Rosetta stone, which can, apparently, accomodate almost any interpretation.

Well, if you've ever shot anything with a rifle, you don't have any doubt as to the direction of the bullet.

To people who haven't, well, I can't speak for them ...

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:38 am

I've shot rifles, but I can't tell if the the order of the frames in the film as it exists is in any way original or if the frames have or have not been retouched. The film is not the lynchpin of the conspiracy case to be made in the JFK shooting.

erosoplier · Post by **erosoplier** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:38 am

And also: if you punch one of those "punching clown" contraptions, it moves away from the direction the punch came in, does it not?

And because it has a heavy base it stops moving away and eventually comes back in the opposite direction to which it initially travelled.

That's what I (and FourthBase, I think) think is happening with the movement of Kennedy's head.

If you shoot a melon with a gun, does the melon and the debris usually move towards the shooter, or away from the shooter?

*

Also, if anyone feels it appropriate, out of respect for JFK, I'm happy to delay posting on this thread for a day.

Nordic · Post by **Nordic** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:40 am

Little hole where the bullet goes in. BIG hole where the bullet comes out.

Kind of like the skyscrapers when the 9/11 planes flew into them. Basic ballistics.

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:41 am

Out of repect for who? Fegettaboutit. If you wanna respect JFK, examing his murder is a fine way to do that, as long as you keep in mind that the whole thing is a trap.

Nordic · Post by **Nordic** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:50 am

Nordic wrote:Little hole where the bullet goes in. BIG hole where the bullet comes out.

Kind of like the skyscrapers when the 9/11 planes flew into them. Basic ballistics.

Lots and lots of witnesses who said the back of his head was missing:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=2349

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 125x253883

I think it's important that the 30 witnesses that reported the back of his head were missing were the Dr's and nurses who examined him first.

If the back of his head was blown out, the bullet came from the front. There's just not getting around that, and that's what the film clearly shows as well.

erosoplier · Post by **erosoplier** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:00 am

That's how I feel, barracuda.

Nordic wrote:Little hole where the bullet goes in. BIG hole where the bullet comes out.

Kind of like the skyscrapers when the 9/11 planes flew into them. Basic ballistics.

Well the big hole seems to be on the right of his head, and the debris seems to spill to his front...

I think that bullet may have entered at the crown of his head, and been travelling, roughly, toward the Governor.

If the back of his head was blown out, the bullet came from the front. There's just not getting around that, and that's what the film clearly shows as well.

(I'm no expert but...) Once a bullet hits something like a skull - a skull has many plates with joining seams, and such - it's not a straighforward matter that the exact opposite side will be ejected. It may end up being the area to one side adjacent is removed. It may not be symmetrical.

barracuda · Post by **barracuda** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:03 am

Frames 319 through 330 show the back of his head pretty clearly, and it looks rather well intact to me. But I'd take the eyewitnesses over the film anyday, which is anything but unequivocal.