Jackie Climbing Onto the Limo Trunk -- The Myths Continue

[mark foster]

Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.

The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.

That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.

Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.

Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

[Peter Fokes]

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?

Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.


What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?


Seems preposterous to me.


PF

[F***@aol.com]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

Have you ever been shot at?

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Post by F***@aol.com
Have you ever been shot at?
Bill Clarke

[Miss Rita]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Oh, we know you've never been shot at.

Rita, who has

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com
Have you ever been shot at?
Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Miss Rita

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Oh, we know you've never been shot at.

Dave, just look at the Zapruder film. Some people ducked. That is the
normal reaction.

Post by Miss Rita
Rita, who has

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com
Have you ever been shot at?
Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[yeuhd]

In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Loading Image...
Loading Image... (Brehm & son,
Babushka Lady)
Loading Image... (Jean Hill, Mary
Moorman)
Loading Image... (Ike Altgen at
right)

Then, one man on the south side of Elm St. is seen dropping to the
ground:
Loading Image...

But others nearby keep standing:
Loading Image... (Franzen family)
Loading Image...

[mark foster]

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.

So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[tomnln]

Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

Post by mark foster

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.
So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[Nathan Howland]

Hi everyone,

I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.

I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years. She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )

Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties, I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was......I
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
Google etc...including this :

Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday....so for about 10 mins we
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!! She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......

Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car. Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.

These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training. She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!) and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!? Guilt would have been a massive factor, and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.

I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly, free from direct involvement, long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation. However,
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation. In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.

Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )

Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

Post by mark foster

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.
So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[mark foster]

On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years. She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties, I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was......I
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday....so for about 10 mins we
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!! She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car. Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training. She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!) and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!? Guilt would have been a massive factor, and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly, free from direct involvement, long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation. However,
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation. In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

While I detect more than a trace of wine in your words, you are
essentially correct in all your conclusions.

If, in fact, Jackie was mouthing the word "Help" as she turned to
escape, and thus save her own skin, she was, of course, directing her
words to the one man who had always been her protector since she'd
been in the White Hou8se....Clint Hill.

That, I believe, is why she made the instinctive, unconscious, and
otherwise inexplicable decision to escape out the back of the
car...because that was in the general direction of Clint Hill.

And you're right. She clearly did not...and could not under the
circumstances...have had the presence of mind to be looking for and
lunging after a piece of skull while she knew her own survival was
still at risk.

Thanks for an informative and analytical post.

[mark foster]

On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years. She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties, I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was......I
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday....so for about 10 mins we
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!! She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car. Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training. She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!) and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!? Guilt would have been a massive factor, and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly, free from direct involvement, long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation. However,
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation. In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

I detect more than a trace of wine in your lengthy, rambling response,
but you are essentially correct in your conclusions.

If, in fact, Jackie was mouthing the word "Help" as she turned to
escape the limousine, she was, of course, directing her words to the
man who had been her protector since the day she'd entered the White
House....Clint Hill.

Clint Hill is the explanation for her instinctive and unconscious
decision to escape out of the back of the limousine in her effort to
save her own skin. She was simply moving herself in the general
direction of her protector...hoping he'd be there for her. And very
fortunately for her, he was.

You are of course correct that Jackie did not, nor could not under the
circumstances, have had the presence of mind to be looking for and
lunging after a piece of skull when she obviously realized her own
life was still very much at risk.

Thanks for an informative and analytical post. Such posts are rare on
this particular thread.

You made the truth sound obvious...and logical...even more so than I
was able to in my original post.

[k***@yahoo.com]

On Nov 3, 2:59 pm, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years. She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties, I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was......I
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday....so for about 10 mins we
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!! She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car. Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training. She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!) and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!? Guilt would have been a massive factor, and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly, free from direct involvement, long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation. However,
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation. In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

Thanks for the input. That was a very good description of what Jackie was
probably going through in those few seconds. What a terrible thing for her
to experience.

[Peter Fokes]

On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,

Welcome aboard, Nathan. Happy Belated Birthday.

Post by Nathan Howland
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.

In other words, you are going to express your opinion.
Fine. Present your evidence!

Post by Nathan Howland
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years.

Obviously an emotional occasion for you, and the presence of an
attractive woman set those ancient hormones alight! Perhaps not the
best environment for making judgements with a high degree of
"clarity", eh?

Post by Nathan Howland
She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )

Ah, we are much more sophisticated than you know. Hundreds of JFK
assassination enthusiasts (some call them buffs, both LNs and CTs)
know instantly where you are going. Proclaiming to know beyond refute
what was SAID by the occupants in the limo by reading their LIPS is
old hat around here. Experts and non-experts alike have tried their
hand at that game, and game it is because the best evidence has
nothing to do with lip reading from jerky, splotchy images on a short
strip of film

Post by Nathan Howland
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties,

A little imbibing of the spirits, no doubt!! Don't feel foolish. Such
spirits -- I am told -- often seem to make things clearer than they
are!

Post by Nathan Howland
I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was..

Did she look at your etchings too?


....I

Post by Nathan Howland
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday..

And just how attractive WAS she? hehe


..so for about 10 mins we

Post by Nathan Howland
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!!

You are not just sending this post as part of an excuse as to why you
were in a dark room with an attractive room for so long at your
birthday party, are you? Tell the truth now!

Post by Nathan Howland
She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......

Refilled your glasses? In other words, please take your wit and
wisdom with a grain of salt.

Post by Nathan Howland
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car.

But no one heard her say "Help", did they? The two of you felt you
knew what she had said in the grainy image but, of course, the two of
you really have no clue. Perhaps the wine made your EUREKA moment more
profound than it really was.

Post by Nathan Howland
Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.

Surely you jest? Nathan and the expert lip reader, satiated by a
lovely meal and enjoying a few after dinner drinks, assure each other
that Jackie-O is saying "help" despite the fact she is partially "OUT
OF VIEW"! Ok.

We've had even stranger theories presented here. Did anyone in the
limo hear her say "Help"?

Post by Nathan Howland
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.

But no one can be sure she said "Help", and using such an uncertain
assumption to deprive Jackie of her faculties at this traumatic moment
seems foolish indeed. The evidence actually reveals a consistency of
thought and action on Jackie's part, notwithstanding the fact such
actions and thought were surely buried deep in her subconscious mind
after the event; a natural protective measure and one of the mysteries
of the human mind.

Post by Nathan Howland
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training.

She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

Post by Nathan Howland
She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!)

Pure speculation and guesswork induced by a mutual agreement over a
few drinks after a lovely dinner! No doubt you were thinking about
yourself and your lady friend, no?

Post by Nathan Howland
and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!?

She did not recount a moment of "selfless behaviour." You are
fantasizing here.

Post by Nathan Howland
Guilt would have been a massive factor,

Nonsense. Not at the moment these events were transpiring.

Post by Nathan Howland
and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.

Trauma DID cause her to repress these memories, and there is no need
to doubt this fact at all.

Post by Nathan Howland
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly,

In the presence of an attractive woman, after a lovely meal and after
a few drinks ..... :-)

Post by Nathan Howland
free from direct involvement,

Indeed. However Clint Hill WAS directly involved.

Post by Nathan Howland
long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation.

Indeed. No one is immune to this process. But even so, such a process
does not HELP your argument when speculating about what Jackie might
have said in the limo. In other words, you are guessing, and your
whole theory is based on that guesswork.


However,

Post by Nathan Howland
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the selfless heroism of women giving
their lives to protect their children. Nothing in the Zapruder film
indicates Jackie was overwhelmed by animal instincts. Nothing.

Post by Nathan Howland
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation.

In your opinion. Of course, you have absolutely NO evidence to
buttress your opinion. Indeed the evidence we do have seems to soundly
negate your opinion. Excuse the split infinitive.

Post by Nathan Howland
In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.

"Received" ... spelling a pet peeve of some PHDs who visit these
environs, my friend. Of course, your idea is an aberrant outgrowth
of your flawed theory.

Post by Nathan Howland
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )

Who said she was thinking straight? Rational thought is a relative
term because such a determination must be set in context. Her context
surely involved helping her husband survive if she could. And her
words and actions reveal a consistency of thought and action to that
end -- be that THOUGHT and ACTION either rational or irrational at the
time.

Post by Nathan Howland
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

I'm afraid a dozen degrees will not save you. The best and the
brightest from Bertrand Russell to Gary Aguilar have tried their best
and come up short too ... so don't feel undermined.

I'm sure you are proficient in your chosen field.

I hope you keep in touch with the attractive woman and have many
opportunities to share the fruits of the Gods.

PF

Post by Nathan Howland

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

Post by mark foster

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.
So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[mark foster]

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

[tomnln]

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

WRONG mark;
She handed it to Dr. Jenkins at Partkland Hospital.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

It's not spin. It's what he believed rightly or wrongly that he saw.

Post by mark foster
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

[Peter Fokes]

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

Please provide a quote from Clint Hill to the effect he was engaging
in spin.

Place it here:

_______________________________________________

This dedicated SS agent has suffered enough from detractors who assume
he was lying.

The idea the photographic evidence would capture the escape of a piece
of bone from the limo is absurd. Can you please show us the Harper
fragment's flight from the limo?

Does Professor McAdams claim the Harper fragment can be seen ESCAPING
the limo?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

There is conflicting evidence as to the direction the fragment went
after being blown off the president's skull, but if -- as you claim --
a fragment flying off the skull should be visible as it leaves the
limo then PLEASE SHOW US the harper fragment escaping the limo.

Failing to do so, voids your argument that the photographic evidence
MUST show a piece of skull escaping from the limo.

Post by mark foster
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

No it hasn't!!!

That assumption is known as a FACTOID.

Now, show us the piece of skull escaping from the limo.

Failing to do so, VOIDS your argument.

PF

[mark foster]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

Please provide a quote from Clint Hill to the effect he was engaging
in spin.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Peter Fokes
This dedicated SS agent has suffered enough from detractors who assume
he was lying.
The idea the photographic evidence would capture the escape of a piece
of bone from the limo is absurd. Can you please show us the Harper
fragment's flight from the limo?
Does Professor McAdams claim the Harper fragment can be seen ESCAPING
the limo?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

Oh, to hell with Professor McAdams. How do we know Clint Hill was
"spinning"?? BECAUSE JACKIE CONTINUED LOOKING DIRECTLY AT JFK'S HEAD WHEN
SHE BEGAN CLIMBING OUT OF THE LIMOUSINE!!!!! SHE WASN'T LOOKING BEHIND
HIS HEAD OR ANYWHERE ELSE BUT DIRECTLY AT HIM AS SHE BEGAN HER ESCAPE
ATTEMPT!!!!!

Post by Peter Fokes
There is conflicting evidence as to the direction the fragment went
after being blown off the president's skull, but if -- as you claim --
a fragment flying off the skull should be visible as it leaves the
limo then PLEASE SHOW US the harper fragment escaping the limo.
Failing to do so, voids your argument that the photographic evidence
MUST show a piece of skull escaping from the limo.

Post by mark foster
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

No it hasn't!!!
That assumption is known as a FACTOID.
Now, show us the piece of skull escaping from the limo.
Failing to do so, VOIDS your argument.
PF

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

Please provide a quote from Clint Hill to the effect he was engaging
in spin.
__________________________

He is not claiming that Hill admitted it was spin.
He is offering his opinion that Hill was engaging in spin.
I disagree.

_____________________

Post by Peter Fokes
This dedicated SS agent has suffered enough from detractors who assume
he was lying.

And had a mental breakdown because he blamed himself for not reacting
faster.

Post by Peter Fokes
The idea the photographic evidence would capture the escape of a piece
of bone from the limo is absurd. Can you please show us the Harper
fragment's flight from the limo?

Not quite. Depends on how fast it was going. And some think you can
infer the escape of skull fragments in Z-313.

Post by Peter Fokes
Does Professor McAdams claim the Harper fragment can be seen ESCAPING
the limo?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
There is conflicting evidence as to the direction the fragment went
after being blown off the president's skull, but if -- as you claim --
a fragment flying off the skull should be visible as it leaves the
limo then PLEASE SHOW US the harper fragment escaping the limo.
Failing to do so, voids your argument that the photographic evidence
MUST show a piece of skull escaping from the limo.

Randy Robertson claims that he can see the skull fragment on the trunk.

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

No it hasn't!!!
That assumption is known as a FACTOID.
Now, show us the piece of skull escaping from the limo.
Failing to do so, VOIDS your argument.

Not entirely. There is a subtle difference between what someone thinks
she sees and what is actually there.

Post by Peter Fokes
PF

[Peter Fokes]

On 6 Nov 2007 22:14:58 -0500, Anthony Marsh

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"
She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly by other posters, Clint Hill was
engaging in what we politely refer to as "spin" when he described a
non-existent (according to the photographic evidence) piece of skull as
the object of Jackie's attention.

Please provide a quote from Clint Hill to the effect he was engaging
in spin.
__________________________

He is not claiming that Hill admitted it was spin.

Nathan writes that other posters have pointed out that "Clint Hill was
engaging in ... spin ..."

I did not say Nathan was claiming Hill "admitted" it was spin.

I did ask Nathan to PROVE Hill was engaging in spin.

Post by Anthony Marsh
He is offering his opinion that Hill was engaging in spin.
I disagree.

Yes.

Post by Anthony Marsh
_____________________

Post by Peter Fokes
This dedicated SS agent has suffered enough from detractors who assume
he was lying.

And had a mental breakdown because he blamed himself for not reacting
faster.

Yes.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes
The idea the photographic evidence would capture the escape of a piece
of bone from the limo is absurd. Can you please show us the Harper
fragment's flight from the limo?

Not quite. Depends on how fast it was going. And some think you can
infer the escape of skull fragments in Z-313.

Infer is different than capture such an image.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes
Does Professor McAdams claim the Harper fragment can be seen ESCAPING
the limo?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
There is conflicting evidence as to the direction the fragment went
after being blown off the president's skull, but if -- as you claim --
a fragment flying off the skull should be visible as it leaves the
limo then PLEASE SHOW US the harper fragment escaping the limo.
Failing to do so, voids your argument that the photographic evidence
MUST show a piece of skull escaping from the limo.

Randy Robertson claims that he can see the skull fragment on the trunk.

Claims? Does he have proof?

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
It's been demonstrated conclusively that there was no piece of skull that
prompted Jackie's actions or movements!!

No it hasn't!!!
That assumption is known as a FACTOID.
Now, show us the piece of skull escaping from the limo.
Failing to do so, VOIDS your argument.

Not entirely. There is a subtle difference between what someone thinks
she sees and what is actually there.

Jackie has made no argument. She is dead.

I am referring to Mark's claim.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes
PF

PF

[Nathan Howland]

Ok...well I thought I'd joined a group of adults capable of subjective
discussion, without snide kindergarten comment.

Congratulations Mr Fokes..and thank you for that fine analysis. Full of
the right kind of assistance, insight into the subject matter at hand,
with really helpful productive comment. I am obviously not worthy of your
illustrious company.

Though this medium of communication lends itself open to misinterpretation
regards intonation, I see your best construct to something you dont agree
with is 'patronisation' at best, or damn right rude and arrogant at
worse!? (That's an educated 'opinion' based on the evidence here by the
way, but I am sure you have had even stranger theories presented here
before, so you can take my wit and wisdom on it with your usual grain of
salt, huh!?)

Sorry....I humbly apologise to everyone for trying to contribute
positively in my last post! Didn't mean for it to be such an insult.

Please advise. Do I take it this newsgroup is obviously not a place where
new people can be nurtured into the subject matter with any kind of
respect or support? Regardless, I thank most of you for your time and
comments in the last few days .

(sigh!)...How boringly predictable of you Peter....maybe you're suffering
from etchings envy!? See...now you've got me lowering myself to your
standards....see how it starts!?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Nathan Howland
Ok...well I thought I'd joined a group of adults capable of subjective
discussion, without snide kindergarten comment.
Congratulations Mr Fokes..and thank you for that fine analysis. Full of
the right kind of assistance, insight into the subject matter at hand,
with really helpful productive comment. I am obviously not worthy of your
illustrious company.
Though this medium of communication lends itself open to misinterpretation
regards intonation, I see your best construct to something you dont agree
with is 'patronisation' at best, or damn right rude and arrogant at
worse!? (That's an educated 'opinion' based on the evidence here by the
way, but I am sure you have had even stranger theories presented here
before, so you can take my wit and wisdom on it with your usual grain of
salt, huh!?)
Sorry....I humbly apologise to everyone for trying to contribute
positively in my last post! Didn't mean for it to be such an insult.
Please advise. Do I take it this newsgroup is obviously not a place where
new people can be nurtured into the subject matter with any kind of
respect or support? Regardless, I thank most of you for your time and
comments in the last few days .

This newsgroup has seen hundreds of people waltz in with ridiculous
theories who expect to be taken seriously.

Post by Nathan Howland
(sigh!)...How boringly predictable of you Peter....maybe you're suffering
from etchings envy!? See...now you've got me lowering myself to your
standards....see how it starts!?

[Nathan Howland]

Ok..Anthony...show me the better resolution film proving that she doesn't
say anything.

If you're right, I will happily hold my hands up say I was wrong.

It's that easy.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Nathan Howland
Ok...well I thought I'd joined a group of adults capable of subjective
discussion, without snide kindergarten comment.
Congratulations Mr Fokes..and thank you for that fine analysis. Full of
the right kind of assistance, insight into the subject matter at hand,
with really helpful productive comment. I am obviously not worthy of your
illustrious company.
Though this medium of communication lends itself open to misinterpretation
regards intonation, I see your best construct to something you dont agree
with is 'patronisation' at best, or damn right rude and arrogant at
worse!? (That's an educated 'opinion' based on the evidence here by the
way, but I am sure you have had even stranger theories presented here
before, so you can take my wit and wisdom on it with your usual grain of
salt, huh!?)
Sorry....I humbly apologise to everyone for trying to contribute
positively in my last post! Didn't mean for it to be such an insult.
Please advise. Do I take it this newsgroup is obviously not a place where
new people can be nurtured into the subject matter with any kind of
respect or support? Regardless, I thank most of you for your time and
comments in the last few days .

This newsgroup has seen hundreds of people waltz in with ridiculous
theories who expect to be taken seriously.

Post by Nathan Howland
(sigh!)...How boringly predictable of you Peter....maybe you're suffering
from etchings envy!? See...now you've got me lowering myself to your
standards....see how it starts!?

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Nathan Howland
Ok..Anthony...show me the better resolution film proving that she doesn't
say anything.

Go out and buy Images of An Assassination. Use pause or freeze frame.

Post by Nathan Howland
If you're right, I will happily hold my hands up say I was wrong.

Never.

Post by Nathan Howland
It's that easy.

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Nathan Howland
Ok...well I thought I'd joined a group of adults capable of subjective
discussion, without snide kindergarten comment.
Congratulations Mr Fokes..and thank you for that fine analysis. Full of
the right kind of assistance, insight into the subject matter at hand,
with really helpful productive comment. I am obviously not worthy of your
illustrious company.
Though this medium of communication lends itself open to misinterpretation
regards intonation, I see your best construct to something you dont agree
with is 'patronisation' at best, or damn right rude and arrogant at
worse!? (That's an educated 'opinion' based on the evidence here by the
way, but I am sure you have had even stranger theories presented here
before, so you can take my wit and wisdom on it with your usual grain of
salt, huh!?)
Sorry....I humbly apologise to everyone for trying to contribute
positively in my last post! Didn't mean for it to be such an insult.
Please advise. Do I take it this newsgroup is obviously not a place where
new people can be nurtured into the subject matter with any kind of
respect or support? Regardless, I thank most of you for your time and
comments in the last few days .

This newsgroup has seen hundreds of people waltz in with ridiculous
theories who expect to be taken seriously.

Post by Nathan Howland
(sigh!)...How boringly predictable of you Peter....maybe you're suffering
from etchings envy!? See...now you've got me lowering myself to your
standards....see how it starts!?

[Peter Fokes]

On 4 Nov 2007 22:09:28 -0500, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Ok...well I thought I'd joined a group of adults capable of subjective
discussion, without snide kindergarten comment.

Excuse me?

I welcomed you aboard our newsgroup and asked you to provide some
evidence rather than speculation. Surely you were discussing the topic
in a light-hearted tone as evidenced by the discussion of an
attractive woman, a delightful supper, and the after dinner discussion
with drink in hand of a spotty few seconds of SILENT film.

Methinks you are too sensitive. My retort was light-hearted and mild
compared to some of the usual fair here. There were no snide
kindergarten comments from me, but it appears you are headed down that
track. Hope not.

Post by Nathan Howland
Congratulations PF..and thank you for that fine analysis.

You are welcome. It was a solid analysis, and so far nothing has
undermined it.

Post by Nathan Howland
Full of
the right kind of assistance, insight into the subject matter at hand,
with really helpful productive comment. I am obviously not worthy of your
illustrious company.

Silly. Your irony doesn't become you.

Post by Nathan Howland
Though this medium of communication lends itself open to misinterpretation
regards intonation, I see your best construct to something you dont agree
with is 'patronisation' at best, or damn right rude and arrogant at
worse!?

Nonsense. I think you are too touchy. Believe me, as co-moderator of
the newsgroup I self-censor my comments to ensure they are suitable.
Indeed your speculative discussion of lip reading was in the same
tone I used. We certainly did not provide academic treatises with
footnotes and sonorous seriousity.


(That's an educated 'opinion' based on the evidence here by the

Post by Nathan Howland
way, but I am sure you have had even stranger theories presented here
before, so you can take my wit and wisdom on it with your usual grain of
salt, huh!?)

Precisely. Very strange indeed. Your theory is by no means the
strangest!!

Post by Nathan Howland
Sorry....I humbly apologise to everyone for trying to contribute
positively in my last post! Didn't mean for it to be such an insult.

Someone was insulted? Not me. But I haven't read all the replies to
your well-written and light-hearted response to this thread.

Post by Nathan Howland
Please advise. Do I take it this newsgroup is obviously not a place where
new people can be nurtured into the subject matter with any kind of
respect or support? Regardless, I thank most of you for your time and
comments in the last few days .

IF you are averse to mild criticism (and my missive was indeed mild
compared to the slings and arrows that regularly appear here) then
perhaps it is not for you. Plenty of the most knowledgeable folks on
the subject of the assassination do post here quite frequently.

Post by Nathan Howland
(sigh!)...How boringly predictable of you Peter..

Oh, so you are not NEW to the newsgroup?

To characterize a post by someone you do not know, and apparently have
not read before destroys your credibility and makes your comment
another bit of proof your commentary on my post is simply a projection
of your own method rather than an accurate review of mine.



..maybe you're suffering

Post by Nathan Howland
from etchings envy!? See...now you've got me lowering myself to your
standards....see how it starts!?

I suppose if you are a man without a sense of humour, you might view
those who would call your theory "foolish" of a lower order than
yourself who ironically had no reluctance to call other individuals'
theories "foolish".

Back to the playroom, Nathan?

PF

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mark foster
On 3 Nov 2007 15:59:09 -0400, "Nathan Howland"

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,

Welcome aboard, Nathan. Happy Belated Birthday.

Post by Nathan Howland
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.

In other words, you are going to express your opinion.
Fine. Present your evidence!

Post by Nathan Howland
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years.

Obviously an emotional occasion for you, and the presence of an
attractive woman set those ancient hormones alight! Perhaps not the
best environment for making judgements with a high degree of
"clarity", eh?

Post by Nathan Howland
She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )

Ah, we are much more sophisticated than you know. Hundreds of JFK
assassination enthusiasts (some call them buffs, both LNs and CTs)
know instantly where you are going. Proclaiming to know beyond refute
what was SAID by the occupants in the limo by reading their LIPS is
old hat around here. Experts and non-experts alike have tried their
hand at that game, and game it is because the best evidence has
nothing to do with lip reading from jerky, splotchy images on a short
strip of film

Post by Nathan Howland
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties,

A little imbibing of the spirits, no doubt!! Don't feel foolish. Such
spirits -- I am told -- often seem to make things clearer than they
are!

Post by Nathan Howland
I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was..

Did she look at your etchings too?
....I

Post by Nathan Howland
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday..

And just how attractive WAS she? hehe
..so for about 10 mins we

Post by Nathan Howland
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!!

You are not just sending this post as part of an excuse as to why you
were in a dark room with an attractive room for so long at your
birthday party, are you? Tell the truth now!

Post by Nathan Howland
She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......

Refilled your glasses? In other words, please take your wit and
wisdom with a grain of salt.

Post by Nathan Howland
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car.

But no one heard her say "Help", did they? The two of you felt you
knew what she had said in the grainy image but, of course, the two of
you really have no clue. Perhaps the wine made your EUREKA moment more
profound than it really was.

Post by Nathan Howland
Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.

Surely you jest? Nathan and the expert lip reader, satiated by a
lovely meal and enjoying a few after dinner drinks, assure each other
that Jackie-O is saying "help" despite the fact she is partially "OUT
OF VIEW"! Ok.
We've had even stranger theories presented here. Did anyone in the
limo hear her say "Help"?

Post by Nathan Howland
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.

But no one can be sure she said "Help", and using such an uncertain
assumption to deprive Jackie of her faculties at this traumatic moment
seems foolish indeed. The evidence actually reveals a consistency of
thought and action on Jackie's part, notwithstanding the fact such
actions and thought were surely buried deep in her subconscious mind
after the event; a natural protective measure and one of the mysteries
of the human mind.

Post by Nathan Howland
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training.

She was an expert horsewoman. One should not underestimate Jackie's
self-control. However, self-control is not the issue. Her instinctive

And as I remember it she also did some skeet shooting with her husband.

Post by mark foster
reaction surely included doing what she could to help her husband
survive. Such measures would be instinctive. Such as holding his
shattered head together in her lap or even prior to that, reaching for
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off and fell onto
the street. Clint Hill was there. He said nothing about Jackie yelling
Help when she turned in his direction. He thought she was stretched
out on the trunk trying to retrieve a bit of her husband's head that
had been blown off and then fell onto the street. Clint Hill also
thought he saw such an object. He had no need to read lips. He was
there.

Post by Nathan Howland
She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!)

Pure speculation and guesswork induced by a mutual agreement over a
few drinks after a lovely dinner! No doubt you were thinking about
yourself and your lady friend, no?

Post by Nathan Howland
and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!?

She did not recount a moment of "selfless behaviour." You are
fantasizing here.

Post by Nathan Howland
Guilt would have been a massive factor,

Nonsense. Not at the moment these events were transpiring.

Post by Nathan Howland
and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.

Trauma DID cause her to repress these memories, and there is no need
to doubt this fact at all.

Post by Nathan Howland
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly,

In the presence of an attractive woman, after a lovely meal and after
a few drinks ..... :-)

Post by Nathan Howland
free from direct involvement,

Indeed. However Clint Hill WAS directly involved.

Post by Nathan Howland
long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation.

Indeed. No one is immune to this process. But even so, such a process
does not HELP your argument when speculating about what Jackie might
have said in the limo. In other words, you are guessing, and your
whole theory is based on that guesswork.
However,

Post by Nathan Howland
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the selfless heroism of women giving
their lives to protect their children. Nothing in the Zapruder film
indicates Jackie was overwhelmed by animal instincts. Nothing.

Post by Nathan Howland
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation.

In your opinion. Of course, you have absolutely NO evidence to
buttress your opinion. Indeed the evidence we do have seems to soundly
negate your opinion. Excuse the split infinitive.

Post by Nathan Howland
In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.

"Received" ... spelling a pet peeve of some PHDs who visit these
environs, my friend. Of course, your idea is an aberrant outgrowth
of your flawed theory.

Post by Nathan Howland
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )

Who said she was thinking straight? Rational thought is a relative
term because such a determination must be set in context. Her context
surely involved helping her husband survive if she could. And her
words and actions reveal a consistency of thought and action to that
end -- be that THOUGHT and ACTION either rational or irrational at the
time.

Post by Nathan Howland
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

I'm afraid a dozen degrees will not save you. The best and the
brightest from Bertrand Russell to Gary Aguilar have tried their best
and come up short too ... so don't feel undermined.
I'm sure you are proficient in your chosen field.
I hope you keep in touch with the attractive woman and have many
opportunities to share the fruits of the Gods.
PF

Post by Nathan Howland

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

Post by mark foster

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.
So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Nathan Howland
Hi everyone,
I think this 'conversation' as it is, needs some clarity.
I've just had my birthday party. I became an attractive, dashing, 51 years
young (who am I trying to kid!?), but during my party full of great friends,
I had a wonderful lady arrive that I had not seen in near 3 years. She has
worked all her life with mutes and those with severe speach defects, and can
'sign', reads lips, and has a list of qualifications that would put most of
us to shame!..."What's this to do with the damn thread!?"..I hear you yell!
: )
Well, after the meal and everyone doing what people do in various rooms in a
house during parties, I asked her to look at something with me whilst in my
study. We had gone there to look at the view at the back of the new
house...but she saw my JFK books and asked how my 'silly hobby' was......I
showed her a few of the new 'theories' doing the rounds on Youtube and
http://youtu.be/r51wZTaJ3AU

So, you decided to find the worst possible quality video of the Zapruder
film you could dig up for her to view? Sounds like a Morningstar moment.

Post by Nathan Howland
Not the sort of thing one would normally show an atractive woman at a
birthday party, but she knows my interest, and asked how it was going, and
the idea suddenly dawned on me. Maybe it was the wine, or just my brain
making an appearance because it was my birthday....so for about 10 mins we
ran the end of this back and forward just to be sure....But Steph' had got
it by the second take!! She was very focused and quite adament. The other
viewings were merely to make sure, have something going on whilst we
refilled said glasses, and also involved other 'throw away' comments on our
feelings about that dreadful day back in Dallas.....So ok!......
Immediately after the head shot.....Jackie is saying, and by her expression
is either screaming/yelling out loud : " Oh my god!!" and "Help" or.."Help
me..!" as she frantically scrambles out the back of the car. Though the
"Help" flows out almost uninterupted right at the end, she turns her head so
the final full annunciation of what was entirely said is slightly out of
view....but the word 'help' is certain.

Pure nonsense. I doubt all of your story.
Jackie didn't say anything during the Zapruder film when we can see her.

Post by Nathan Howland
These are not comments consistant with anyone who is calmly in control of
their faculties in any way, shape or form, or to be thinking in the
slightest about retrieving anything from the boot of the car or otherwise.
This is, understandably, sheer panic and fear born from the terror instilled
in her by seeing her husbands head having been opened up in front of her
eyes only moments before. She would have been hit with a huge and sudden
unslaught by her adrenals. Heart would have jumped 2-5 points in just over a
second. It is impossible for her to keep still even if she wants to. It
would take monumental self control through hours of training. She is
thinking about herself (quite rightly as it must have seemed apparent that
her husband wasn't going to make it!) and her own safety! It is survival
reflex and that alone would be reason enough for her not to 'recount' this
moment of 'less than selfless behaviour' to the WC in case anyone latched
upon it after publication!? Guilt would have been a massive factor, and I am
not totally discounting the fact that trauma may well have caused a
'blockage' to the event, so she might well not have been able to recall it,
as she claimed....though this doubtful given other behaviour later on.
I think there is a propensity for people who scrutinise these types of
events so repeatidly, free from direct involvement, long after the vent, to
get completely desensitised to the shock, and the 'freshness' at hand (the
people you are looking at are reliving it in real time over and over as you
watch, as if it is the first time). It dehumanises the situation. However,
the animal instinct for self-preservation cannot be underestimated, and is
quite often an overwhelming response that has effected some of the best of
us, in far less critical circumstances than the events of that shooting.
Some people will jump at the word 'Boo!' remember. What Jackie saw terrified
her into a reflex of self-preservation. In her own way, ironically, she was
going through as much of a head trauma as her husband had just recieved.
Just my humble educated diagnosis...for those who foolishly think this woman
was thinking straight, or capable of rational thought for at least 30mins
after the event. Just a heads up! : )
Nathan Howland (PhD, FRCPC)...I put those there in advance of the "How are
you qualified to comment" type retorts that seem quite prevalent with those
wishing to cop-out on open mature discussion, like many in this news group.

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

Post by mark foster

Post by yeuhd
In the Zapruder film, people keep waving, applauding, and taking
pictures until the fatal head shot.

Yeah, well...Jean Hill saw the President and Jackie looking at a
little dog between them on the seat of the limousine...just two
seconds before the fatal head shot.
So she claimed later that same day. She really did.

[mark foster]

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

No, it's my humble admission that there really was a piece of skull --
the size of a small dog -- that actually LOOKED LIKE a little dog.

Jackie was holding it in advance of the fatal head shot so she could
later say she'd retrieved it from the limo trunk.

[tomnln]

Then, it's your admission that you don't wanna address Official Records.

Post by mark foster

Post by tomnln
Is this your Denial that there was indeed something looking like a little
dog?

No, it's my humble admission that there really was a piece of skull --
the size of a small dog -- that actually LOOKED LIKE a little dog.
Jackie was holding it in advance of the fatal head shot so she could
later say she'd retrieved it from the limo trunk.

[mark foster]

Post by tomnln
Then, it's your admission that you don't wanna address Official Records.

"Official Records" told us there was "probably a conspiracy" to kill
JFK due to alleged sound waves on a dictabelt recording.

So much for Official Records.

[tomnln]

Post by mark foster

Post by tomnln
Then, it's your admission that you don't wanna address Official Records.

"Official Records" told us there was "probably a conspiracy" to kill
JFK due to alleged sound waves on a dictabelt recording.
So much for Official Records.

Tell us what OTHER "Official records" you wanna Discard?

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by Miss Rita

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Oh, we know you've never been shot at.
Rita, who has

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com
Have you ever been shot at?
Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[F***@aol.com]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Then may I ask, Anthony, just what the hell the "normal reaction" of
someone being shot at is?

And to back up your opinion, please list the people you have seen
reacting to being shot at.

Thank you. Don't forget the list.

Bill Clarke

[Peter Fokes]

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Then may I ask, Anthony, just what the hell the "normal reaction" of
someone being shot at is?
And to back up your opinion, please list the people you have seen
reacting to being shot at.
Thank you. Don't forget the list.
Bill Clarke

Look. Clint Hill was there.

He has told us what transpired in those terrible moments.

He almost slipped off the limo.

He observed Jackie stretching out over the trunk of the car "to grab
part of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen
into the street."

Your GUESS that she was attempting to flee is an OPINION with NO PROOF
provided.

To make it seem your argument has some merit, you ask me if I have
been shot at! I was not in the limo. I was not trying to climb up
onto the limo.

Jackie held the President's head together in her lap, PERHAPS hoping,
praying that just maybe it would HELP her husband LIVE, yet she knew
he was dead. They have killed my husband, she said.

And yet to a few people, the idea that she was instinctively trying to
retrieve a piece of her husband's head is a threat. Why?

God knows.

Perhaps they fear such an action gives some bit of credence to the
idea of a shot from the front. Of course, if she did do exactly as
CLINT HILL said she did, it does not mean there WAS a shot from the
front.

The idea she was FLEEING a moving vehicle by climbing onto the trunk
and into the pathway of OTHER ONCOMING CARS is absurd ... and it is
absurd whether or not anyone has ever taken a POT SHOT AT ME.


PF

[burgundy]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Then may I ask, Anthony, just what the hell the "normal reaction" of
someone being shot at is?
And to back up your opinion, please list the people you have seen
reacting to being shot at.
Thank you. Don't forget the list.
Bill Clarke

Look. Clint Hill was there.
He has told us what transpired in those terrible moments.
He almost slipped off the limo.
He observed Jackie stretching out over the trunk of the car "to grab
part of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen
into the street."
Your GUESS that she was attempting to flee is an OPINION with NO PROOF
provided.
To make it seem your argument has some merit, you ask me if I have
been shot at! I was not in the limo. I was not trying to climb up
onto the limo.
Jackie held the President's head together in her lap, PERHAPS hoping,
praying that just maybe it would HELP her husband LIVE, yet she knew
he was dead. They have killed my husband, she said.
And yet to a few people, the idea that she was instinctively trying to
retrieve a piece of her husband's head is a threat. Why?
God knows.
Perhaps they fear such an action gives some bit of credence to the
idea of a shot from the front. Of course, if she did do exactly as
CLINT HILL said she did, it does not mean there WAS a shot from the
front.
The idea she was FLEEING a moving vehicle by climbing onto the trunk
and into the pathway of OTHER ONCOMING CARS is absurd ... and it is
absurd whether or not anyone has ever taken a POT SHOT AT ME.
PF
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So to end this NO, we are not going to buy your interpretation of the
Zapruder film versus Hill's sworn testimony. Drop it.

[F***@aol.com]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Then may I ask, Anthony, just what the hell the "normal reaction" of
someone being shot at is?
And to back up your opinion, please list the people you have seen
reacting to being shot at.
Thank you. Don't forget the list.
Bill Clarke

Look. Clint Hill was there.
He has told us what transpired in those terrible moments.
He almost slipped off the limo.
He observed Jackie stretching out over the trunk of the car "to grab
part of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen
into the street."
Your GUESS that she was attempting to flee is an OPINION with NO PROOF
provided.
To make it seem your argument has some merit, you ask me if I have
been shot at! I was not in the limo. I was not trying to climb up
onto the limo.
Jackie held the President's head together in her lap, PERHAPS hoping,
praying that just maybe it would HELP her husband LIVE, yet she knew
he was dead. They have killed my husband, she said.
And yet to a few people, the idea that she was instinctively trying to
retrieve a piece of her husband's head is a threat. Why?
God knows.
Perhaps they fear such an action gives some bit of credence to the
idea of a shot from the front. Of course, if she did do exactly as
CLINT HILL said she did, it does not mean there WAS a shot from the
front.
The idea she was FLEEING a moving vehicle by climbing onto the trunk
and into the pathway of OTHER ONCOMING CARS is absurd

People can do some adsurb things when they are shot at. I saw a man
stand up and give them the finger one day. Told them to "come get
some". How adsurb is that!

Post by Peter Fokes
... and it is absurd whether or not anyone has ever taken a POT SHOT AT ME.

Yes, that probably was an adsurb thought on my part. Of course you
have never been shot at since if you had been you would know getting
the hell out of Dodge is a normal reaction.

I don't know why she was on the back of the car, didn't mean to imply
that I did. I do have my opinion however.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by F***@aol.com

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

May I ask why this getting the hell out of Dodge theory is so
preposterous to you? It seems the normal reaction to me.

No, it is not the normal reaction.

Then may I ask, Anthony, just what the hell the "normal reaction" of
someone being shot at is?

To duck.

Post by F***@aol.com
And to back up your opinion, please list the people you have seen
reacting to being shot at.

More nonsense. Just look at the Zapruder film.

Post by F***@aol.com
Thank you. Don't forget the list.
Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.

I think so. He was HER assigned agent. He almost fell off and would have
been killed by the SS car.

Post by Peter Fokes
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

[tomnln]

WRONG AGAIN MARSH;

PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.

I think so. He was HER assigned agent. He almost fell off and would have
been killed by the SS car.

Post by Peter Fokes
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by tomnln
WRONG AGAIN MARSH;
PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Clint Hill says that she tried to grab a piece of his head, but it had
fallen into the street. Does that make it absolute proof that she could
NOT have grabbed it because it had already fallen into the street?

Post by tomnln

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.

I think so. He was HER assigned agent. He almost fell off and would
have been killed by the SS car.

Post by Peter Fokes
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?
Seems preposterous to me.
PF

[mark foster]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

Can you prove she was trying to save her own skin?
Maybe she was trying to help Clint Hill.

Makes no sense based on the photographic evidence. She wasn't even
looking in his direction when she first began the series of movements
that ended with her on the trunk of the limo.

Post by Peter Fokes
What proof can you provide us that she was abandoning her mortally
wounded husband and trying to save her own skin?

Because there is absolutely no evidence she was trying to do anything
other than get away from the vicinity of the shooter's target....i.e.,
JFK's head.

Post by Peter Fokes
Seems preposterous to me.

It would....if you ignore the evidence.

[burgundy]

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Secret Service agent Clint Hill recalls Mrs. Kennedy shouting,
"They've shot his head off." (2 Warren Commission Hearings 141). He
further testified she had risen out of her seat and was reaching "to
her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown
out." (18 WCH 742).

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by burgundy

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Secret Service agent Clint Hill recalls Mrs. Kennedy shouting,
"They've shot his head off." (2 Warren Commission Hearings 141). He
further testified she had risen out of her seat and was reaching "to
her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown
out." (18 WCH 742).

Sure, she may have seen something. It did not stay on the trunk long
enough for her to grab it.

[mark foster]

Post by burgundy

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Secret Service agent Clint Hill recalls Mrs. Kennedy shouting,
"They've shot his head off." (2 Warren Commission Hearings 141). He
further testified she had risen out of her seat and was reaching "to
her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown
out." (18 WCH 742).

Clint Hill was extremely loyal to Jackie. It is unthinkable he would say
anything that would reflect badly on her image after the assassination.
Hill is probably the original source of this myth.

Again, look at the Zapruder film!! She began her escape attempt BEFORE
she even looked in the direction of the car trunk...so she could not have
seen anything flying back there before she began the series of movements
that ended with her on the car trunk.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

I remember a story on TV a few years ago where survivors of a plane
crash were interviewed. There were a few people several rows back of
the emergency doors who climbed over the seats (and people) in front
of them to get out when the cabin was on fire. The theme of show was
how survival instincts in some people are much stronger than others. A
few of the people also said they didn't remember the few seconds in
the cabin after the crash, they just remembered right before the crash
and then being outside the plane.

[tomnln]

PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.
I remember a story on TV a few years ago where survivors of a plane
crash were interviewed. There were a few people several rows back of
the emergency doors who climbed over the seats (and people) in front
of them to get out when the cabin was on fire. The theme of show was
how survival instincts in some people are much stronger than others. A
few of the people also said they didn't remember the few seconds in
the cabin after the crash, they just remembered right before the crash
and then being outside the plane.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

No, she was not trying to jump off the back of the car. She would have
been run over and killed by the SS car.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I remember a story on TV a few years ago where survivors of a plane
crash were interviewed. There were a few people several rows back of
the emergency doors who climbed over the seats (and people) in front
of them to get out when the cabin was on fire. The theme of show was
how survival instincts in some people are much stronger than others. A
few of the people also said they didn't remember the few seconds in
the cabin after the crash, they just remembered right before the crash
and then being outside the plane.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

No, she was not trying to jump off the back of the car. She would have
been run over and killed by the SS car.

There's a chance she didn't even register the fact that she was in a
car in the second or two after the head shot. We are seeing her
actions on silent film and are insulated from the sound of the shot
and the sound of JFK's head exploding that she experienced. At that
moment Jackie may have just went blank and tried to get away. However,
it was a short moment for her since she got back down into the seat as
the car sped away.

Nothing against Jackie at all. It was a terrible event to go through,
especially with the victim being her spouse.

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

No, she was not trying to jump off the back of the car. She would have
been run over and killed by the SS car.

There's a chance she didn't even register the fact that she was in a
car in the second or two after the head shot. We are seeing her
actions on silent film and are insulated from the sound of the shot
and the sound of JFK's head exploding that she experienced. At that
moment Jackie may have just went blank and tried to get away. However,
it was a short moment for her since she got back down into the seat as
the car sped away.
Nothing against Jackie at all. It was a terrible event to go through,
especially with the victim being her spouse.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

No, she was not trying to jump off the back of the car. She would have
been run over and killed by the SS car.

There's a chance she didn't even register the fact that she was in a
car in the second or two after the head shot. We are seeing her
actions on silent film and are insulated from the sound of the shot
and the sound of JFK's head exploding that she experienced. At that
moment Jackie may have just went blank and tried to get away. However,
it was a short moment for her since she got back down into the seat as
the car sped away.

There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Nothing against Jackie at all. It was a terrible event to go through,
especially with the victim being her spouse.

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Anthony Marsh
There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

The immediate shock of seeing a spouse's head blown away can lead a
person to do something, that in hindsight, we can consider illogical.
Of course Jackie was better off staying in the car but at that moment
she probably wasn't thinking about the following SS car or anything
else.

There's video of people jumping off the WTC to avoid being burned
alive. Now, depending on their state of mind, they probably knew they
weren't going to survive a fall of 115 stories, but they chose what
they felt was the best of a bad situation. It's not a great comparison
to what happened in Dealy Plaza but it is similar to what actions
someone will take when presented with a terrible situation - stay in
the car where there's already been two or three shots (burned alive)
or try to escape to avoid any other bullets (fall 115 stories).

We also should figure in what Jackie said later on about this all
being a blur. It may have been just survival instinct taking over the
brain and her body movements following along. She did get back into
the car seat so it was a short blur. It is interesting, though, in the
Zapruder film where she starts the climb onto the trunk while still
looking at JFK.

[Peter Fokes]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh
There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

The immediate shock of seeing a spouse's head blown away can lead a
person to do something, that in hindsight, we can consider illogical.

It could. No evidence it DID in this case. None at all.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Of course Jackie was better off staying in the car but at that moment
she probably wasn't thinking about the following SS car or anything
else.

Of course, you have NO IDEA what she was thinking.

You have no idea IF she was trying to retrieve a piece of her
husband's head as CLINT HILL says. Or if she was trying to help CLINT
HILL onto the vehicle because perhaps he could HELP her.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There's video of people jumping off the WTC to avoid being burned
alive.

And the relevance? ZERO.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Now, depending on their state of mind, they probably knew they
weren't going to survive a fall of 115 stories, but they chose what
they felt was the best of a bad situation.

And the relevance? ZERO.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
It's not a great comparison
to what happened in Dealy Plaza

Correct. It is a terrible comparison without any merit whatsoever.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
but it is similar to what actions
someone will take when presented with a terrible situation

No it isn't.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
- stay in
the car where there's already been two or three shots (burned alive)
or try to escape to avoid any other bullets (fall 115 stories).

Ridiculous. Jackie deliberately stretched out on the trunk of the car
to retrieve a bit of her husband's head, according to a witness who
was a FEW FEET AWAY. The idea she would LEAVE her injured husband in
the limo and jump off while it sped away is ABSURD and PREPOSTEROUS.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
We also should figure in what Jackie said later on about this all
being a blur.

She held her husband's head together in her lap.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
It may have been just survival instinct taking over the
brain and her body movements following along.

Helping her husband survive? Doing what she could to retrieve a piece
of his shattered skull? Help CLINT HILL into the limo. And CLINT HILL,
the first on the scene, a few feet from Jackie said she was trying to
retrieve a piece of her husband's head that fell onto the street.

Why are you trying to REWRITE history?


She did get back into

Post by k***@yahoo.com
the car seat so it was a short blur. It is interesting, though, in the
Zapruder film where she starts the climb onto the trunk while still
looking at JFK.

And we know why.

CLINT HILL told us.

PF

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh
There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

The immediate shock of seeing a spouse's head blown away can lead a
person to do something, that in hindsight, we can consider illogical.

It could. No evidence it DID in this case. None at all.

I agree there's no evidence. I also think there can never be solid
evidence of Jackie trying to get away except for her admitting it.
Since that can no longer happen I'm just posting my opinion on the
newsgroup concerning what the Zapruder and Bronson films show. In my
opinion I think Jackie (for a moment or two) tried to get away. I know
Clint Hill says otherwise but I kind of see that as what we call
"spin" nowadays. The way Jackie starts for the trunk while still
looking at JFK makes it easier for me to believe she was getting away
instead of trying to reach for part of his head.

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Of course Jackie was better off staying in the car but at that moment
she probably wasn't thinking about the following SS car or anything
else.

Of course, you have NO IDEA what she was thinking.

You're right, I don't. That's why I used the word "probably" since I'm
just offering an opinion.

Post by Peter Fokes
You have no idea IF she was trying to retrieve a piece of her
husband's head as CLINT HILL says. Or if she was trying to help CLINT
HILL onto the vehicle because perhaps he could HELP her.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
There's video of people jumping off the WTC to avoid being burned
alive.

And the relevance? ZERO.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
Now, depending on their state of mind, they probably knew they
weren't going to survive a fall of 115 stories, but they chose what
they felt was the best of a bad situation.

And the relevance? ZERO.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
It's not a great comparison
to what happened in Dealy Plaza

Correct. It is a terrible comparison without any merit whatsoever.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
but it is similar to what actions
someone will take when presented with a terrible situation

No it isn't.

I just have to disagree with you on this. I see some similarity in the
WTC situation and Dealy Plaza one (just a little). I wish I could have
provided a better one but that's the only one that came to mind.

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by k***@yahoo.com
- stay in
the car where there's already been two or three shots (burned alive)
or try to escape to avoid any other bullets (fall 115 stories).

Ridiculous. Jackie deliberately stretched out on the trunk of the car
to retrieve a bit of her husband's head, according to a witness who
was a FEW FEET AWAY. The idea she would LEAVE her injured husband in
the limo and jump off while it sped away is ABSURD and PREPOSTEROUS.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
We also should figure in what Jackie said later on about this all
being a blur.

She held her husband's head together in her lap.

Post by k***@yahoo.com
It may have been just survival instinct taking over the
brain and her body movements following along.

Helping her husband survive? Doing what she could to retrieve a piece
of his shattered skull? Help CLINT HILL into the limo. And CLINT HILL,
the first on the scene, a few feet from Jackie said she was trying to
retrieve a piece of her husband's head that fell onto the street.

No, I meant only when she was on the trunk. Not what happened after
that.

Post by Peter Fokes
Why are you trying to REWRITE history?

I'm not, it was an opinion. We have one side that believes she was
attempting to retrieve part of her husband's head. The other side
believes she was attempting a get away. My post had comments on why
I'm with the "get away" side.

Post by Peter Fokes
She did get back into

Post by k***@yahoo.com
the car seat so it was a short blur. It is interesting, though, in the
Zapruder film where she starts the climb onto the trunk while still
looking at JFK.

And we know why.
CLINT HILL told us.
PF

[yeuhd]

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree there's no evidence. I also think there can never be solid
evidence of Jackie trying to get away except for her admitting it.
Since that can no longer happen

I don't have a copy at hand of William Manchester's book "Death of a
President". But since it was commissioned by Mrs. Kennedy, and ultimately
published with her approval (yes, I know all about what happened between
those two points), I assume that it represents her recollections of what
happened in those moments. Did she recall in 1966-67 what she couldn't
remember in 1964?

[tomnln]

Here's the Problem with your "Assunptions">>>

PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by yeuhd

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree there's no evidence. I also think there can never be solid
evidence of Jackie trying to get away except for her admitting it.
Since that can no longer happen

I don't have a copy at hand of William Manchester's book "Death of a
President". But since it was commissioned by Mrs. Kennedy, and ultimately
published with her approval (yes, I know all about what happened between
those two points), I assume that it represents her recollections of what
happened in those moments. Did she recall in 1966-67 what she couldn't
remember in 1964?

[mark foster]

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh
There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

The immediate shock of seeing a spouse's head blown away can lead a
person to do something, that in hindsight, we can consider illogical.
Of course Jackie was better off staying in the car but at that moment
she probably wasn't thinking about the following SS car or anything
else.
There's video of people jumping off the WTC to avoid being burned
alive. Now, depending on their state of mind, they probably knew they
weren't going to survive a fall of 115 stories, but they chose what
they felt was the best of a bad situation. It's not a great comparison
to what happened in Dealy Plaza but it is similar to what actions
someone will take when presented with a terrible situation - stay in
the car where there's already been two or three shots (burned alive)
or try to escape to avoid any other bullets (fall 115 stories).
We also should figure in what Jackie said later on about this all
being a blur. It may have been just survival instinct taking over the
brain and her body movements following along. She did get back into
the car seat so it was a short blur. It is interesting, though, in the
Zapruder film where she starts the climb onto the trunk while still
looking at JFK.

Very well said. Thanks.

[mark foster]

On 1 Nov 2007 23:32:10 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by k***@yahoo.com

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by k***@yahoo.com
I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show
Jackie trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her
image, though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may
have been telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything
after the head shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her
mind as survival instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back
down to the seat and I don't know if it was because she got a hold of
herself or if Clint Hill was yelling for her to get down.

No, she was not trying to jump off the back of the car. She would have
been run over and killed by the SS car.

There's a chance she didn't even register the fact that she was in a
car in the second or two after the head shot. We are seeing her
actions on silent film and are insulated from the sound of the shot
and the sound of JFK's head exploding that she experienced. At that
moment Jackie may have just went blank and tried to get away. However,
it was a short moment for her since she got back down into the seat as
the car sped away.

There's nowhere for her to get away to. She would have been run over and
killed by the SS car. You believe that horses intentionally run back
into the barn on fire to commit suicide?

I honestly hope you're not comparing Jackie Kennedy to a horse.

[curtjester1]

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

Just Ctrl and F and type Jackie in.

CJ

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

[burgundy]

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf
Just Ctrl and F and type Jackie in.
CJ

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes this seems a minor isue to pursue.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Well the escape theory is a MOOT point, but she did not retrieve
anything from the trunk. She later picked up some brains hoping the
doctors could put it back in the skull. "Here, will this help?"

Post by curtjester1
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf
Just Ctrl and F and type Jackie in.
CJ

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

[tomnln]

WRONG AGAIN MARSH;

PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Well the escape theory is a MOOT point, but she did not retrieve
anything from the trunk. She later picked up some brains hoping the
doctors could put it back in the skull. "Here, will this help?"

Post by curtjester1
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf
Just Ctrl and F and type Jackie in.
CJ

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

[mark foster]

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.

There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.

[tomnln]

WRONG

PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins.

Post by mark foster

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.
There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by tomnln
WRONG
PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb
Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins.

Jackie handed him brains, not skull.

Post by tomnln

Post by mark foster

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.
There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.

[mark foster]

Post by tomnln
WRONG
PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb
Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins.

Whatever it was she handed to Dr. Jenkins, there is absolutely no
evidence -- NONE -- that she retrieved it from on the trunk of the
limousine. In fact, as I have demonstrated, all available evidence
indicates she did NOT retrieve it from the top of the car trunk.

Comprende??

And Clint Hill was fiercely loyal to Jackie. As I've said before, he
was probably the original source of the myth that Jackie picked up a
piece of her husband's head from the trunk of the limo.

And if you would only watch the Zapruder film, for God's sake, you
would see with your own eyes that her attempt to escape from the line
of fire begins before she even looks away from her husband's head. She
does not see a backward-moving piece of flying skull, nor does she
even look in that direction. Nor is there even a piece of skull on
the trunk to look at, let alone retrieve.

Try actually looking at the Zapruder film. There is absolutely no
visual evidence to back up your claim.

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by mark foster

Post by tomnln
WRONG
PIECE OF JFK's HEAD ON THE TRUNK by Clint hill Below.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb
Jackie handed it to Dr. Jenkins.

Whatever it was she handed to Dr. Jenkins, there is absolutely no
evidence -- NONE -- that she retrieved it from on the trunk of the
limousine. In fact, as I have demonstrated, all available evidence
indicates she did NOT retrieve it from the top of the car trunk.
Comprende??
And Clint Hill was fiercely loyal to Jackie. As I've said before, he
was probably the original source of the myth that Jackie picked up a
piece of her husband's head from the trunk of the limo.
And if you would only watch the Zapruder film, for God's sake, you
would see with your own eyes that her attempt to escape from the line
of fire begins before she even looks away from her husband's head. She
does not see a backward-moving piece of flying skull, nor does she
even look in that direction. Nor is there even a piece of skull on
the trunk to look at, let alone retrieve.
Try actually looking at the Zapruder film. There is absolutely no
visual evidence to back up your claim.

[curtjester1]

Post by mark foster

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.

Whoops, I meant moot. After reviewing the film just posted in the
thread it does look like she is grabbing something, and not making a
move to leave. Of course it's obscured by people and the angle of the
trunk is not very good being too flat. What you are attempting to do
is say that it didn't come from the trunk which by reason of 'can't
support' = 'must be true' which is flying in the face with what is
apparent. I am sure Clint Hill would have something to say during the
interview on the tape, but I didn't have any earphones to get at it.
Anyway, like most of the posters here it's not the hugest of things
except that it would be one more possible piece of skull that was
found in back of the shot which could lead to theorizing a frontal
shot would have caused the direction of the skull to go.

CJ

Post by mark foster
There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Peter Fokes]

CLINT HILL

<quote on>


When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.

<quote off>

PF

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.

Whoops, I meant moot. After reviewing the film just posted in the
thread it does look like she is grabbing something, and not making a
move to leave. Of course it's obscured by people and the angle of the
trunk is not very good being too flat. What you are attempting to do
is say that it didn't come from the trunk which by reason of 'can't
support' = 'must be true' which is flying in the face with what is
apparent. I am sure Clint Hill would have something to say during the
interview on the tape, but I didn't have any earphones to get at it.
Anyway, like most of the posters here it's not the hugest of things
except that it would be one more possible piece of skull that was
found in back of the shot which could lead to theorizing a frontal
shot would have caused the direction of the skull to go.
CJ

Post by mark foster
There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[mark foster]

Post by Peter Fokes
CLINT HILL
<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.

Fine. Please tell us which frames of the Zapruder film show this
piece of the President's head flying backward and coming to a complete
stop on the limo trunk.

We await your reply.

[Peter Fokes]

Post by mark foster

Post by Peter Fokes
CLINT HILL
<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.

Fine.

Good.

Post by mark foster
Please tell us which frames of the Zapruder film show this
piece of the President's head flying backward and coming to a complete
stop on the limo trunk.

Who said this piece of skull came to a complete stop on the trunk of
the limo?

What makes you believe the Zapruder film shows every particle of skull
and brain matter that was blown from JFK's head?

Post by mark foster
We await your reply.

Rhetoric is no substitute for evidence. You have none.

We do.

PF

[mark foster]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster

Post by Peter Fokes
CLINT HILL
<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.

Fine.

Good.

Post by mark foster
Please tell us which frames of the Zapruder film show this
piece of the President's head flying backward and coming to a complete
stop on the limo trunk.

Who said this piece of skull came to a complete stop on the trunk of
the limo?
What makes you believe the Zapruder film shows every particle of skull
and brain matter that was blown from JFK's head?

Post by mark foster
We await your reply.

Rhetoric is no substitute for evidence. You have none.

You completely missed the whole point of my posts. It went right over
your head.

I am not the one who is claiming that Jackie was reaching for a piece
of her husband's head. YOU ARE. The burden of proof is on YOU, not
me.

My only point has been that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR
CLAIMS. NONE. You certainly have not presented any, if any exists.

I have effectively used the Zapruder film to demonstrate that you have
absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support your claim.

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by Peter Fokes
CLINT HILL
<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.
<quote off>
PF

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster

Post by curtjester1

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

First she didn't try to escape the car when he already was not doing
well prior. Are you trying to expect us to believe that she decided
spontaneously after JFK was collapsed onto her that she would now try
to escape? Did the limo slow down enough for her to do this? Do you
think her hands on the trunk were there for her to make a physical
vaulting move? Anyway it becomes mute when she arrives at Parkland
with a piece of his skull with brain tissue attached doesn't it?

Ummm....how does it become "mute"? I've already shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that what she clutched in her hand when she
entered Parkland was obtained from the top of the trunk or that it had
anything to do with her climbing onto the trunk.

Whoops, I meant moot. After reviewing the film just posted in the
thread it does look like she is grabbing something, and not making a
move to leave. Of course it's obscured by people and the angle of the
trunk is not very good being too flat. What you are attempting to do
is say that it didn't come from the trunk which by reason of 'can't
support' = 'must be true' which is flying in the face with what is
apparent. I am sure Clint Hill would have something to say during the
interview on the tape, but I didn't have any earphones to get at it.
Anyway, like most of the posters here it's not the hugest of things
except that it would be one more possible piece of skull that was
found in back of the shot which could lead to theorizing a frontal
shot would have caused the direction of the skull to go.
CJ

Post by mark foster
There is simply no photographic evidence to support your claim.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[k***@yahoo.com]

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

I agree that the Zapruder and Bronson films of the head shot show Jackie
trying to initially get away. I don't consider it a mark on her image,
though, since human survival instinct is very powerful. She may have been
telling the truth to the WC about not remembering anything after the head
shot. Those few seconds could have been a blur in her mind as survival
instinct kicked in. The film does show her drop back down to the seat and
I don't know if it was because she got a hold of herself or if Clint Hill
was yelling for her to get down.

I remember a story on TV a few years ago where survivors of a plane crash
were interviewed. There were a few people several rows back of the
emergency doors who climbed over the seats (and people) in front of them
to get out when the cabin was on fire. The theme of show was how survival
instincts in some people are much stronger than others. A few of the
people also said they didn't remember the few seconds in the cabin after
the crash, they just remembered right before the crash and then being
outside the plane.

[s***@comcast.net]

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident. I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial. When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

[mark foster]

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.

Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.

Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

[s***@comcast.net]

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.

I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.

When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.
I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

[mark foster]

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.
I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

We are still waiting for some substantive visual evidence that
Jackie's climbing out onto the limo trunk was anything other than an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire.

You haven't presented any thus far, but I'm a patient man.

[Peter Fokes]

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.
I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

We are still waiting

You mean "You" are waiting.

We are waiting for some substantive evidence that Jackie was making an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire. You haven't presented
any so far. Indeed Jackie stretched back onto the trunk of the limo
and INTO the line of fire. CLINT HILL, a SS agent a mere few feet from
Jackie at the time, has told US that Jackie was attempting to retrieve
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off by the shot and
then fell into the street. You call Clint a liar or a story teller.
Clint Hill did not need to rely on a grainy, jerky and splotchy film
with dirt specks, etc. He was THERE at the time the event occurred.

Post by mark foster
for some substantive visual evidence that

Big problem for you: your only visual evidence is the PICTURE IN YOUR
HEAD, a product of your own imagining. Somehow or other you have
convinced yourself you can SEE what was IN Jackie's mind. Of course,
that is absurd.

Post by mark foster
Jackie's climbing out onto the limo trunk was anything other than an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire.

There is no evidence ... not a scrap ... that Jackie was trying to
escape the limo INTO THE LINE OF FIRE.

As a matter of fact, the closest person to Jackie says she was
stretching out on the trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband's head
that had been blown off by the shot and then fell into the street.
And did a piece of skull fall out of the limo. YES.

Post by mark foster
You haven't presented any thus far, but I'm a patient man.

Good for you but of absolutely no relevance to this issue.

PF

[mark foster]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.
I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

We are still waiting

You mean "You" are waiting.
We are waiting for some substantive evidence that Jackie was making an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire. You haven't presented
any so far. Indeed Jackie stretched back onto the trunk of the limo
and INTO the line of fire. CLINT HILL, a SS agent a mere few feet from
Jackie at the time, has told US that Jackie was attempting to retrieve
a piece of her husband's head that had been blown off by the shot and
then fell into the street. You call Clint a liar or a story teller.
Clint Hill did not need to rely on a grainy, jerky and splotchy film
with dirt specks, etc. He was THERE at the time the event occurred.

Post by mark foster
for some substantive visual evidence that

Big problem for you: your only visual evidence is the PICTURE IN YOUR
HEAD, a product of your own imagining. Somehow or other you have
convinced yourself you can SEE what was IN Jackie's mind. Of course,
that is absurd.

Post by mark foster
Jackie's climbing out onto the limo trunk was anything other than an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire.

There is no evidence ... not a scrap ... that Jackie was trying to
escape the limo INTO THE LINE OF FIRE.
As a matter of fact, the closest person to Jackie says she was
stretching out on the trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband's head
that had been blown off by the shot and then fell into the street.
And did a piece of skull fall out of the limo. YES.

As others have already pointed out, Clint Hill was engaging in what we
politely refer to as "spin" when he insisted Jackie was reaching for a
piece of her husband's head. If you've read any biographies of Jackie,
which apparently you have not, you would know that Clint Hill was indeed
fiercely loyal to Jackie and remained a very devoted friend of hers long
after she left the White House.

We wouldn't expect him to assign anything other than a "noble motive" to
Jackie's attempt to save her own skin. He was, in other words, a biased
witness.

By the way, we're still waiting for you to cite the Zapruder film frame
numbers that show a piece of JFK's head flying straight backward and
coming to a stop on the limo trunk. If you've never watched the Zapruder
film, it's available at various websites for free.

You might want to check it out before you express such certainty that
there was a piece of skull on the limo trunk....Clint Hill's spin
notwithstanding.

[s***@comcast.net]

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

We are still waiting for some substantive visual evidence that
Jackie's climbing out onto the limo trunk was anything other than an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We" are still waiting for that? Really? How many of you
exactly are waiting for this? While everyone is patiently waiting,
maybe you can humor me: post some evidence of your non-negotiable
conclusion that she was trying to escape. Be sure to include a
citation where Jackie explained her actions. Helpful hint: your
evidence will have no merit if it is also just your opinion.

Post by mark foster
You haven't presented any thus far, but I'm a patient man.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's actually very little you've presented which accords with
reality. Your zeal to deny anyone else the opinion that she was
trying to pick up brain matter clearly comes from a fantasy that
people only do that in order to mythologize Jackie, which is
irrational to say the least.

But since you're being so very patient with me--and really, I
appreciate that--can you explain one other thing for me? You know
those two motorcycle cops to the left rear of the limo? Well, you
never disagreed with their testimony that they were sprayed in the
face with JFK's brain matter, so I suppose you believe them.

The only problem is, when I watch the Zapruder film, I can't SEE
anything hitting them. Now according to you, all flying brain & bone
has to be visible in the Z-film. You've discounted Hill's testimony
about a piece on the trunk since you can't see it, but so far you
haven't discounted the cops' testimony. Care to explain the
discrepancy?

[tomnln]

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're talking about my post, which you could have easily replied to
instead of starting this thread, but hey, OK, whatever.

I gave you credit for your observation. What else do you want from
me??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uh...twenty bucks? Super Bowl tickets?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
First and foremost, the entire question of Jackie on the trunk has no
bearing on the assassination and always was a trivial incident.

I agree. But why do people still perpetuate myths about it 44 years
later??

Post by s***@comcast.net
I don't
believe she was trying to escape. If you and the other poster want to
believe that, and you apparently do, then have at it. It makes no
difference.

But you offer no evidence whatsoever that her climbing onto the trunk was
anything other than an attempt to save her own skin. There IS no evidence
that it was anything else. If you know of some evidence, please share it
with us.

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may come as a surprise to you, but when you use the same
*subjective* process I did--interpreting Jackie's movements, defining what
she saw as if you actually know, etc.--from the Zfilm, you should
understand that yours is not going to outweigh mine or pretty much anyone
else's.

Sounds like you see in the Zapruder film what you want to see....not what
is there. I'm trying to find in the Zapruder film whatever it is that
supports your claim...but there's nothing there to support it. Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have no evidence to support your claim that Jackie was trying
to escape. None, zero, a goose egg. You have an opinion based on what
you see, yet you don't seem to understand that your opinion is subjective.
"Escaping" is not the only possible reason she went out on the trunk.
Why can't you understand that? Let me borrow your method of discussion
for a second: "ESCAPING" IS NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SHE WENT OUT ON
THE TRUNK.
I understand that my interpretation of the film is subjective, and
that I could be wrong about it, but you are unable to do the same. Why,
Mark? Why?

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
For what it's worth, what I said occurred in the film does occur.
Her right hand goes behind JFK's head at the headshot, just before she
crawls out to the trunk. I interpret that as a reflexive movement. I
invite you to "disprove" it with your subjective analysis.

Disprove what?? I'm not following you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was talking about her right hand going behind his head just before
she goes out on the trunk. But why should I bother? You have already
*precisely* defined every thought she had and reason for every action she
took. You did it with no evidence, but hey, you still did it.

Post by mark foster

Post by s***@comcast.net
If you need evidence that any part of JFK's skull or brain matter
went in that direction, you need only to read the testimony of the two
motorcycle policemen who were back there and were sprayed with the stuff.

I freely acknowledged in my previous post that skull and brain matter flew
out everywhere. Read what I wrote!! But there is still no evidence that
her climbing onto the trunk had anything whatsoever do with any attempt to
retrieve a piece of skull. NONE!!

Post by s***@comcast.net
The "piece" she retrieved would have to have been small enough not to
show up on the film. If memory serves, Jackie testified that she had no
memory of going out on the trunk anyway, but she did later hand some of
the matter to one of the Parkland doctors.

Read what I wrote!! I freely acknowledged that she may have clutched a
piece of skull when she entered Parkland. But I've shown there is no
evidence whatsoever that she obtained it from the trunk of the limo...or
that her climbing out on the trunk had anything to do with a supposed
attempt to retrieve a piece of skull. There is simply no evidence for
such a claim!!

Post by s***@comcast.net

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, it's sort of odd that you would exert so much energy on
something this trivial.

Is it really so trivial that 44 years after the fact, people are still
trying to pass off myths as fact???

Post by s***@comcast.net
When I watch the film, Jackie either
retrieving something, or even *trying* to retrieve something from the
trunk is what makes the most sense to me, because
1) her reaction with her right hand before crawling out
2) the fact that brain and skull matter went in that direction
3) the fact that she had some in her hands at Parkland

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT WHAT SHE HELD HER IN HER HAND
WHEN SHE WALKED INTO PARKLAND WAS RETRIEVED FROM THE TRUNK OF THE
LIMO...NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS EVEN A PIECE OF
JFK'S SKULL ON THE TRUNK OF THE LIMO. NONE!!!!! IF YOU KNOW OF SOME
EVIDENCE, PLEASE SHARE IT WITH US!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's review.
1) There is not only one possible reason for her going out on the
trunk.
2) Just crawling out to the trunk itself is not enough evidence that
she was trying to escape
3) I have acknowledged my reading of it is subjective
4) I have also said maybe she reached for something and didn't get it
in time
5) You agree that some "matter" went that way, which provides
physical evidence for my opinion, while all you have done is read
Jackie's mind based on her physical movements.
6) I openly acknowledge that she could've gotten "matter" from inside
the car or elsewhere
7) Someone posted an interview with Hill on this thread in which he
said there something on the trunk for her to reach, yet you continue
to discount the possibility that that's what she was doing.
8) YOU LIKE TO SHOUT.

Post by mark foster
What "makes the most sense" to you clearly has nothing to do with the
available evidence on this issue.

Post by s***@comcast.net
It has no bearing on my favorable opinion of her and never has. If
you're truly tired of silly myths surrounding the case, I find it odd that
you didn't address anything else the original poster discussed, like
"Badgeman" or "stunt doubles" in the autopsy pictures, which impact
directly on whether there could've been a conspiracy or not. Unlike
Jackie on the trunk, which is meaningless.

"Badgeman" and "stunt doubles" are from Fantasyland...and are unworthy of
serious debate.
Assigning noble motives to Jackie's attempt to escape the assassin's line
of fire only perpetuates the mythology surrounding the assassination.
And God knows there's been enough mythology about the assassination over
the past 44 years.
Isn't it time to expose it for what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really pretty rude and galling to have you tell me that my
reading of Jackie in the Z-film is based on my desire to assign her a
"noble motive" in the assassination. As if that ridiculous thought ever
occurred to me. I couldn't care less about how Jackie was viewed by the
public after the assassination. She automatically became an idolized
"damsel in distress" anyway, long before any Z-film stills came out, so
your claim is illogical to boot.
When you extend your non-negotiable clairvoyance to me, and how I
arrived at my (admittedly subjective) opinion, you completely discredit
yourself.

We are still waiting for some substantive visual evidence that
Jackie's climbing out onto the limo trunk was anything other than an
instinctive attempt to escape the line of fire.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by mark foster
You haven't presented any thus far, but I'm a patient man.

Apparently NOT an Observant man.

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter Fokes]

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk.

CLINT HILL SAID:

<quote on>

When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.

<quote off>

Post by mark foster
First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve.

Because IT FELL OFF INTO THE STREET BEFORE SHE COULD RECOVER IT.

Post by mark foster
If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim.

CLINT HILL was THERE. He could SEE for himself. Trying to LIMIT the
evidence to the Zapruder film is absurd.

Post by mark foster
Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

So what?

Whether she DID or DID NOT have anything is her hand does not answer
the question: WAS SHE TRYING TO RETRIEVE PART OF HER HUSBAND'S SKULL?

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head.

Time is relative, my friend. Time seems to SLOW DOWN for people in
some circumstances. For JACKIE, the TIME between seeing a piece of
skull detach itself from her husband's head and her movement toward
the trunk might have seemed like an ETERNITY. Quit FORCING your
opinion on her actions.

Post by mark foster
There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....

CLINT HILL's testimony is evidence.

He observed Jackie "on top of the trunk attempting to grab part of the
President's head that had been blown off and that had fallen into the
street."

He was there. You weren't.

Post by mark foster
nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

So now accuse CLINT HILL of fabricating a story.

CLINT HILL said the piece of skull FELL OFF THE TRUNK.

That is evidence.

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later,

And that FACT backs up CLINT HILL who was THERE.


and she may

Post by mark foster
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....

CLINT HILL SAID:


"Mrs Kennedy was out on the top of the trunk attempting to grab part
of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen into
the street."

Post by mark foster
or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.

The piece of SKULL according to CLINT HILL, FELL off the trunk.

He was there.

Post by mark foster
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people.

CLINT HILL is NOT "some people". He was the person within FEET of MRS.
KENNEDY as she stretched out on the trunk. He observed her actions
close-up and in person in REAL TIME.


It was

Post by mark foster
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

What gall you have .... the heroic actions of CLINT HILL are derided
by your speculative musings. He was there. He observed her actions.
He almost slipped off the car and could have been injured or killed.
And MRs. Kennedy DID observe him climbing up on the limo. Maybe she
instinctively was trying to ASSIST him and at the same time doing
exactly what CLINT HILL, closest person to her at the time, said she
was doing: "attempting to grab part of the President's head that had
been blown off..."

Post by mark foster
Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.

Did you ever think that maybe she was placing the flowers somewhere
other than on her husband's HEAD as he lay in her lap?

Post by mark foster
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out.

HUH!

What utter nonsense!

Where was she looking .... AT THE MOON?

Post by mark foster
When that failed to pass the laugh test,

Your LAUGH TEST is a joke.

Post by mark foster
they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.

THEY?????

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

Oh, so now JACKIOE HERSELF was "conveniently" LYING about the most
traumatic moment of her life?

And she was LYING about not remembering much about that moment?

You ideas are beyond belief, buster.

Post by mark foster
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Ask YOURSELF, PLEASE.


PF

[s***@comcast.net]

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk.

<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.
<quote off>

Post by mark foster
First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve.

Because IT FELL OFF INTO THE STREET BEFORE SHE COULD RECOVER IT.

Post by mark foster
If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim.

CLINT HILL was THERE. He could SEE for himself. Trying to LIMIT the
evidence to the Zapruder film is absurd.

Post by mark foster
Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

So what?
Whether she DID or DID NOT have anything is her hand does not answer
the question: WAS SHE TRYING TO RETRIEVE PART OF HER HUSBAND'S SKULL?

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head.

Time is relative, my friend. Time seems to SLOW DOWN for people in
some circumstances. For JACKIE, the TIME between seeing a piece of
skull detach itself from her husband's head and her movement toward
the trunk might have seemed like an ETERNITY. Quit FORCING your
opinion on her actions.

Post by mark foster
There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....

CLINT HILL's testimony is evidence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to butt in here, Peter. But speaking of evidence, I just
wanted to add how absurd it is for a person who has done nothing but
invent a reason in his mind for why Jackie went to the trunk to ALSO
claim that his position has the most evidence behind it.

Especially when there is first hand testimony from Agent Hill
that she was trying to pick up a piece of brain and/or bone from the
trunk. If in the face of that, he replies with another request for
evidence then . . . well, I'll know it's time to move on.

What seems clear is that his baseless position is fueled not
from evidence, but from an equally baseless belief that only people
seeking to mythologize Jackie would ever think she was trying to pick
up a piece of her husband's body from the trunk. So first you get
told that's what you believe, because he wants you to believe that,
then he dispels it for you.

Post by Peter Fokes
He observed Jackie "on top of the trunk attempting to grab part of the
President's head that had been blown off and that had fallen into the
street."
He was there. You weren't.

Post by mark foster
nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

So now accuse CLINT HILL of fabricating a story.
CLINT HILL said the piece of skull FELL OFF THE TRUNK.
That is evidence.

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later,

And that FACT backs up CLINT HILL who was THERE.
and she may

Post by mark foster
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....

"Mrs Kennedy was out on the top of the trunk attempting to grab part
of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen into
the street."

Post by mark foster
or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.

The piece of SKULL according to CLINT HILL, FELL off the trunk.
He was there.

Post by mark foster
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people.

CLINT HILL is NOT "some people". He was the person within FEET of MRS.
KENNEDY as she stretched out on the trunk. He observed her actions
close-up and in person in REAL TIME.
It was

Post by mark foster
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

What gall you have .... the heroic actions of CLINT HILL are derided
by your speculative musings. He was there. He observed her actions.
He almost slipped off the car and could have been injured or killed.
And MRs. Kennedy DID observe him climbing up on the limo. Maybe she
instinctively was trying to ASSIST him and at the same time doing
exactly what CLINT HILL, closest person to her at the time, said she
was doing: "attempting to grab part of the President's head that had
been blown off..."

Post by mark foster
Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.

Did you ever think that maybe she was placing the flowers somewhere
other than on her husband's HEAD as he lay in her lap?

Post by mark foster
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out.

HUH!
What utter nonsense!
Where was she looking .... AT THE MOON?

Post by mark foster
When that failed to pass the laugh test,

Your LAUGH TEST is a joke.

Post by mark foster
they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.

THEY?????

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

Oh, so now JACKIOE HERSELF was "conveniently" LYING about the most
traumatic moment of her life?
And she was LYING about not remembering much about that moment?
You ideas are beyond belief, buster.

Post by mark foster
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Ask YOURSELF, PLEASE.
PF

[tomnln]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/e1270125MCG2Wnb

Post by Peter Fokes

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk.

<quote on>
When I slipped when I first tried to get up on the Presidential car,
it took me 4 or 5 steps more to get up there, and IN THAT TIME MRS.
KENNEDY WAS OUT ON TOP OF THE TRUNK ATTEMPTING TO GRAB PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HEAD that had been blown off that had fallen into the
street.
<quote off>

Post by mark foster
First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve.

Because IT FELL OFF INTO THE STREET BEFORE SHE COULD RECOVER IT.

Post by mark foster
If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim.

CLINT HILL was THERE. He could SEE for himself. Trying to LIMIT the
evidence to the Zapruder film is absurd.

Post by mark foster
Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.

So what?
Whether she DID or DID NOT have anything is her hand does not answer
the question: WAS SHE TRYING TO RETRIEVE PART OF HER HUSBAND'S SKULL?

Post by mark foster
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head.

Time is relative, my friend. Time seems to SLOW DOWN for people in
some circumstances. For JACKIE, the TIME between seeing a piece of
skull detach itself from her husband's head and her movement toward
the trunk might have seemed like an ETERNITY. Quit FORCING your
opinion on her actions.

Post by mark foster
There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....

CLINT HILL's testimony is evidence.
He observed Jackie "on top of the trunk attempting to grab part of the
President's head that had been blown off and that had fallen into the
street."
He was there. You weren't.

Post by mark foster
nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.

So now accuse CLINT HILL of fabricating a story.
CLINT HILL said the piece of skull FELL OFF THE TRUNK.
That is evidence.

Post by mark foster
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later,

And that FACT backs up CLINT HILL who was THERE.
and she may

Post by mark foster
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....

"Mrs Kennedy was out on the top of the trunk attempting to grab part
of the President's head that had been blown off that had fallen into
the street."

Post by mark foster
or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.

The piece of SKULL according to CLINT HILL, FELL off the trunk.
He was there.

Post by mark foster
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people.

CLINT HILL is NOT "some people". He was the person within FEET of MRS.
KENNEDY as she stretched out on the trunk. He observed her actions
close-up and in person in REAL TIME.
It was

Post by mark foster
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could.

What gall you have .... the heroic actions of CLINT HILL are derided
by your speculative musings. He was there. He observed her actions.
He almost slipped off the car and could have been injured or killed.
And MRs. Kennedy DID observe him climbing up on the limo. Maybe she
instinctively was trying to ASSIST him and at the same time doing
exactly what CLINT HILL, closest person to her at the time, said she
was doing: "attempting to grab part of the President's head that had
been blown off..."

Post by mark foster
Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.

Did you ever think that maybe she was placing the flowers somewhere
other than on her husband's HEAD as he lay in her lap?

Post by mark foster
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out.

HUH!
What utter nonsense!
Where was she looking .... AT THE MOON?

Post by mark foster
When that failed to pass the laugh test,

Your LAUGH TEST is a joke.

Post by mark foster
they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.

THEY?????

Post by mark foster
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.

Oh, so now JACKIOE HERSELF was "conveniently" LYING about the most
traumatic moment of her life?
And she was LYING about not remembering much about that moment?
You ideas are beyond belief, buster.

Post by mark foster
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

Ask YOURSELF, PLEASE.
PF

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

Are you sure you wandered into the right newsgroup, troll? She said that
she was trying to get help. Clint Hill was trying to get onto the limo. If
he had fallen he would have been run over and killed by the SS car. If
Jackie had jumped off the back of the limo SHE would have been run over
and killed.

[Bill Clarke]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

Her actions here were certainly normal of any sane person. She need not
defend her actions. The only problem is with the fools that have to lie
about it as Mark has pointed out.

[bigdog]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

[Jason Burke]

Post by bigdog

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Ol' Ralph should be jumping on this in 3, 2, 1,.. with his ability to
discern everyone's thoughts and all.

Oh wait! He has to find the blurriest, worst resolution picture first.

So it might take a day or two.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.

Well, sometimes we have to because the retention rate does not allow us
to reply at the time.

Post by bigdog
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <b811b043-5c0c-466f-a57e-***@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

Post by bigdog

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

=20
I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you=

=20

her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the peopl=

e=20

who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the=20
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something=

=20

was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Could be Big Dog but many people lose their reasoning power under gun
fire. I doubt all these things you mention went through her mind at the
time.

[bigdog]

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

Post by bigdog

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

=20
I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you=

=20

her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the peopl=

e=20

who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the=20
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something=

=20

was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Could be Big Dog but many people lose their reasoning power under gun
fire. I doubt all these things you mention went through her mind at the
time.

This is why I don't think it makes any sense to assume what her intentions
were in climbing onto the trunk. Clint Hill said she was reaching for a
piece of JFK's head. That seems as reasonable an explanation as anything
else.

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by bigdog

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

Post by bigdog

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

=20
I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you=

=20

her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the peopl=

e=20

who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the=20
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something=

=20

was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Could be Big Dog but many people lose their reasoning power under gun
fire. I doubt all these things you mention went through her mind at the
time.

This is why I don't think it makes any sense to assume what her intentions
were in climbing onto the trunk. Clint Hill said she was reaching for a

We don't ASSuME. We KNOW, because she told us.

Post by bigdog
piece of JFK's head. That seems as reasonable an explanation as anything
else.

[mainframetech]

Post by bigdog

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

Post by bigdog

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

=20
I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you=

=20

her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the peopl=

e=20

who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the=20
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something=

=20

was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Could be Big Dog but many people lose their reasoning power under gun
fire. I doubt all these things you mention went through her mind at the
time.

This is why I don't think it makes any sense to assume what her intentions
were in climbing onto the trunk. Clint Hill said she was reaching for a
piece of JFK's head. That seems as reasonable an explanation as anything
else.

See my post above. The Jackie question is solved. She was reaching
for a piece of his brains, and later gave it to a doctor in Parkland.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <7dc68f52-825d-41e0-8370-***@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

Post by mainframetech

Post by bigdog

Post by Bill Clarke
says...

Post by bigdog

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
=20
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
=20
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
=20
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
=20
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
=20
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
=20
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot. =20
=20
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

=20
I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you=

=20

her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the peopl=

e=20

who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the=20
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something=

=20

was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

I'm always amused when somebody resurrects one of these ancient threads.
Having said that I've never bought the argument that Jackie was trying to
flee the scene. If self preservation was her intent, it seems to me her
reaction would probably be to hunker down as low as she could get. What
sense would it make to try to jump out of a moving vehicle, especially
climbing out the back with another large vehicle tailgating right behind.

Could be Big Dog but many people lose their reasoning power under gun
fire. I doubt all these things you mention went through her mind at the
time.

This is why I don't think it makes any sense to assume what her intentions
were in climbing onto the trunk. Clint Hill said she was reaching for a
piece of JFK's head. That seems as reasonable an explanation as anything
else.

See my post above. The Jackie question is solved. She was reaching
for a piece of his brains, and later gave it to a doctor in Parkland.
Chris

Horse Apples.

[mainframetech]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

The following is from the testimony of Nellie Connally:

"Then, I heard a third shot and felt matter cover us and she said, "They
have killed my husband, I have his brains in my hand"."

She was speaking of Jackie, who had just gone back on the trunk and
picked up something. Now we move on to John Connally:

Mr. DODD. OK. You did not immediately go unconscious?
Mr. CONNALLY. No, I did not. I knew exactly what was happening in the car
and I didn't testify to a moment ago but I should because I remember precisely
what my wife remembers. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say "they have killed my
husband," and then she said, in just an incredulous voice, I have got his
brains in my hand."

Next, we have Dr. Marion Jenkins of Parkland:

"As doctors prepared to call the time of death , Mrs. Kennedy slowly
walked over to Dr. Jenkins. She looked at him and silently, extended her
arms, her hands still cupped. He asked quietly, “Yes, Mrs.
Kennedy?” And with that, he held out his hand and in it, she
placed a small, two-inch portion of the president’s brain that
she’d been holding since the shooting, almost two hours earlier."

From: https://lauriekendrick.wordpress.com/category/the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy/


And then we have the testimony of Bobby Hargis, motorcycle cop who was
pacing the limousine from behind and to the left:

Mr. STERN. Were you a part of the motorcade on November 22nd?
Mr. HARGIS. Yes: I was.
Mr. STERN. In what position?
Mr. HARGIS. I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential limousine.
Mr. STERN. At what part of the President’s car?
Mr. HARGIS. Well-
Mr. STERN. Front, or rear?
Mr. HARGIS. Oh. Rear.
Mr. STERN. Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. HARGIS. Right."
.
.
.
"Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally in connection with the
shot you have just described?
Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
Mr. STERN. Yes.

Mr. HARGIS. Yes: when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car
the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his
head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a
bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, “Get
going,” or “get going,“

From: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hargis.pdf


So I think you can accept the information about Jackie now.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Post by mainframetech

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?

I wonder if there are any other parents/mothers out there? I can tell you
her first thought was her children. She needed to get away from the people
who were murdering her husband and put herself at the mercy of the
bystanders, or someone. She knew instantly he was gone and that something
was terribly wrong. She had to survive to protect her kids.

"Then, I heard a third shot and felt matter cover us and she said, "They
have killed my husband, I have his brains in my hand"."
She was speaking of Jackie, who had just gone back on the trunk and
Mr. DODD. OK. You did not immediately go unconscious?
Mr. CONNALLY. No, I did not. I knew exactly what was happening in the car
and I didn't testify to a moment ago but I should because I remember precisely
what my wife remembers. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say "they have killed my
husband," and then she said, in just an incredulous voice, I have got his
brains in my hand."
"As doctors prepared to call the time of death , Mrs. Kennedy slowly
walked over to Dr. Jenkins. She looked at him and silently, extended her
arms, her hands still cupped. He asked quietly, “Yes, Mrs.
Kennedy?” And with that, he held out his hand and in it, she
placed a small, two-inch portion of the president’s brain that
she’d been holding since the shooting, almost two hours earlier."
From: https://lauriekendrick.wordpress.com/category/the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy/
And then we have the testimony of Bobby Hargis, motorcycle cop who was
Mr. STERN. Were you a part of the motorcade on November 22nd?
Mr. HARGIS. Yes: I was.
Mr. STERN. In what position?
Mr. HARGIS. I was at the left-hand side of the Presidential limousine.
Mr. STERN. At what part of the President’s car?
Mr. HARGIS. Well-
Mr. STERN. Front, or rear?
Mr. HARGIS. Oh. Rear.
Mr. STERN. Riding next to Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. HARGIS. Right."
.
.
.
"Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally in connection with the
shot you have just described?
Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
Mr. STERN. Yes.
Mr. HARGIS. Yes: when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car
the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his
head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a
bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the
Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, “Get
going,” or “get going,“
From: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hargis.pdf
So I think you can accept the information about Jackie now.

Irrelevant. It does not say that she got anything off the trunk.
There was plenty of debris in the back seat.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

[r***@gmail.com]

This easy... Clint Hill is a good soldier trying to protect Jackie... (I
would have done the same thing). If you look closely, there was nothing
to grab... She was trying to escape the carnage... Wouldn't you do the
same thing?

Ahr

Post by mark foster
Reading a previous post on another thread about Jackie's actions
immediately after the fatal head shot, I can't help but respond to the
myths that to this day are still being perpetuated.
The Zapruder film provides absolutely NO evidence that she was trying
to retrieve anything from the limo trunk. First of all, there was
nothing on the trunk to retrieve. If anyone thinks there was, then
show us the Zapruder frames that support your claim. Secondly, as
someone else pointed out, her hands remained flat on the trunk, and
there's no indication whatsoever that she had anything in her hand
when she got back in the car.
If you look closely at Jackie in Zapruder's head shot frames, you will
notice she is looking directly at JFK and reacts with horror to the
effect of the head shot. She then INSTANTLY moves into escape mode
while still looking at her husband's head. There is no indication
whatsoever that she is looking at...or even noticed...a piece of her
husband's head flying backward....nor is there any evidence a piece of
his head even flew directly backward and then suddenly stopped on the
trunk for no discernible reason despite the force of the head
explosion.
True, a piece of his skull was found in the street later, and she may
even have been clutching a piece of his skull when she entered
Parkland, but there is absolutely no evidence it was retrieved from
the trunk of the limo or that it had anything to do with her climbing
out on the trunk the way she did....or that there was even a piece of
his skull on the trunk. His head literally exploded when he was hit.
Pieces of skull and brain matter were flying everywhere.
That whole story of her trying to retrieve a piece of his head is
exactly that....a STORY....now treated as fact by some people. It was
made up out of deference to her image as First Lady, for the sole
purpose of explaining her instantaneous and unseemly abandonment of
her dying husband in order to save her own skin by getting out of the
line of fire any way she could. Hell, Nellie Connelly tried to escape
being shot by placing a bouquet of yellow roses on her back and
shoulders as she crouched down, if you can imagine such an incredibly
silly thing.
Shortly after the assassination, people were saying that Jackie
climbed out on the trunk to help Clint Hill get into the limo, even
though she wasn't even looking in that direction when she started to
climb out. When that failed to pass the laugh test, they started
suggesting she was trying to retrieve a piece of her husband's
head...for what purpose or to what end, no one would say.
Jackie herself conveniently avoided explaining her behavior to the WC
by claiming she couldn't remember a thing after the head shot.
There is already too much mythology still connected to the
assassination 44 years after the event. Isn't it time to finally stop
perpetuating these stories?