Olaf Koenders pointed me to a better YouTube video, which I slowed down below. It shows an incendiary round striking the upper right side of JFK’s skull, knocking his head backwards, and burning for the rest of the sequence below. Note the streaks of the flame in frames 319 and 320, showing how rapidly his head was being pushed backwards by a shot which had to have come from the front, the opposite direction of Oswald’s location.
Had the bullet exited the front of his skull as claimed by the Warren Commission, the incendiary material would have also exited.
Obama just banned incendiary ammunition from public lands, because it was causing a lot of fires.
Prove it was incendiary from a different source other than a 50 year old digitized piece of 8mm video. Unless you handed the round to the shooter or took the shot yourself, this is all speculation and bullshit.
You are a classic emperor’s new clothes case.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Real Science
Not sure what you are referencing. I could not find anything on Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Real Science.
At the sake of sounding repetitive and possibly be relegated to spam, unless you handed the shooter the bullet or took the shot yourself or have physical, specific, evidence of an incendiary device used to blow his head off, you are full of shit. You need more than a 50 year old digitized video that can be manipulated by anyone. What other specific physical evidence are you in possession of that proves it was an incendiary device?
I like your work on CAGW but not this crap. You appear to be the emperor in this case.
The imagery is quite clear that there is a flame near his right ear for about 30 consecutive frames. Official bullshit explanations mean nothing to me, in case you haven’t noticed.
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Real Science
Here’s your shooter, mercury is very shiny:
Mercury filled bullets. Radium in the water. Oliver Stone filming in the prison. Yea, that’s right, I was the second shooter. Proof of an indendiary round that blew Kennedy’s head off.
The film shows the incendiary round. I’m not interested in bullshit.
The film shows jack shit. It shows the top of JFK’s head being blown open. I’m not interested in conjecture and opinion.
You are only interested in your own conjecture and opinion. You are an all-knowing god, like James Hansen or Michael Mann.
Were there scorch marks on his forehead in the autopsy photos?
If he was leaning down, how could a bullet hit him near the top
of his head and come out the back unless Conley was the gunman?
This has some good photos and sketches from autopsy and various
reviews/commissions over the years.
The imagery is very clear. What is your agenda?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Real Science
I have no agenda. It just looks like he is looking down when the bullet hits so based on the autopsy photos, it does not seem to match the exit hole in the back of his head (IF the bullet came in the front).
There seems to be an equally bright glare spot, similar size and shape as well on the lower left of the video which is the rounded edge of the seat which looks very similar to the white spot near his head. The large pinkish area could be a spray of blood-mist. The picture of his ear. etc looks like blood very similar to that in his hair. I see no clear evidence of scorch marks.
I don’t see evidence of anything including proof that a bullet even was there.
I’m in the pay of big-CIA.
Could the hair near the right ear have survived 30 frames of incendiary ammunition? The photos show no singed hair. I don’t buy the official explanation, but if the autopsy photo is accurate, where is the singed hair?
My agenda, as yours, is truth. Just looking for a logical explanation.
Right ear appears burned. Neck might be burned. Incendiary rounds burn out in a second or two.
I see white skull bone in the autopsy photo. Perhaps the same white bone is being mistaken for flames? The “flames” do not appear to be any brighter than the white gloves that the first lady is wearing. Small format grainy film just doesn’t provide enough detail. Rapid movement and any dye aging in the film can explain why colors are off and appear to be something other than it is.
I admire your work at pointing out the errors, lies and lack of proof from the alarmists that are profiting from claiming CO2 is going to ruin the planet. I believe your work would be even more beneficial if you provided more links to the data you use.
It is your blog and you are free to say and believe anything that you want, but your fight (and ours) against the alarmists gets damaged when people hesitate to use your posts in the global warming fight due to posts like this that seem more like something taken on faith (like global warming) than on science. A well researched and well documented study and re-enactment using ballistic gel showed that it was possible to fire three rounds in the amount of time and get the same head movement and damage from rear shots.
Until someone performs a like study using two rear fired shots and one forward shot and gets results that match the rear fired study, the autopsy results and the head and body motion shown in the film I have to say case closed.
I do forensic image processing for a living.
There is a bright light emanating out of the right side of his head which is almost certainly from an incendiary bullet, similar to ones which I have fired many times.
In your expert opinion, then, given the low latitude of Kodachrome II reversal film, can we distinguish between an overexposed bone fragment and an incendiary device? Is it at least conceivable that the imagery is consistent with both possibilities?
Is it possible to do a spectral analysis to determine the temperature of the light? It does look like his hair is on fire.
I’ve measured the color. In several of the frames, that spot is more than twice as bright as any other location in the frame.
It’s the sunlight reflection on the skull flap, with motion blur from movement. 8mm is very small and grainy.
The documentary reenactment I mentioned before proved what happened from the book depository window. http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/discovery-presents/videos/jfk-inside-the-target-car-jfks-final-hours.htm
The bright spot moved relative to the skull through the first few frames it appeared in. In some frames it was orange, in some frames it is white, and in some of the frames was much brighter than any other object in the scene. It is clearly emitting light. It is definitely not a reflection off a piece of bone. It is too low, too small and too bright to be what you think it is.
It looks like a typical incendiary detonation. I used to shoot them frequently before they were banned two weeks ago.
Mayb the orange spot is the spray of bloody mist in the sun as
it shoots from the cracks in his skull?
Funny that all I see is blur across the whole picture. These pictures are usually not worth the film it came on.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Surplus 6.5 Italian ammo has a muzzle velocity of 2000 FPS, 8mm movie cameras film @ 18 frames per second. I agree that at 60-80 yards the slug has slowed (some). But even after hitting JFK’s head, fragmenting, and exiting it wouldn’t hang around in mid-air for 30 frames (or almost 2 seconds) scouting out a new target. Maybe we should contact Oliver Stone and tell him that we just found out what happened to the Hindenburg and Amelia Earhart. The two hales of the fatal JFK bullet took them out. Stone can make up something the warming alarmist will believe like a time machine conspiracy story to cover for the time difference. With the smarts of the warmest crowd it won’t be hard to fool them. And Steven gets to play the part of Oswald in Stone’s new made for dummies movie. Just having fun y’all.