Forward head snap puts a whole new perspective on things
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:29 am
I once believed that the forward movement by JFK's head was an illusion caused by the "shifting" of his skull (that is, the simultaneous occurances of the removal of the rear skull area and the "flap" opening up toward the front gives the appearance of a "shift" to the front).
However, now I see an enhanced version on this site of the purported head snap, and I can clearly see now that the head does indeed completely move forward, and forward by a significant distance. It's not just an inch or so.
With that newfound knowledge and understanding, I am forced to believe that JFK was hit from behind. I have to believe that for that is what I see.
This is significant to me, for now I must try to reconcile that a shot from the front is now just a theory, for his head wound is caused by a shot from the rear.
And furthermore, this facilitates the idea that the shot from the front isn't needed, for the shot from the rear is enough; JFK is killed with the shot from the rear.
And if the kill shot is from behind, how can we reconcile the "need" for the shot from the front? The head is already exploding from a shot from behind, so why do I "need" to rationally have a shot come from the front?
I had always thought that we needed to have a shot from the front to prove he had been hit, for he moves to the rear, front to back, right? The physics of the kill seem to demand that a shot come from the front so as to move JFK backward.
But now I know he is hit from the rear. So why do I "need" the frontal shot? Just so that I can reconcile the backward movement?
I'm confused.
Help me, here. Why do we need to have a shooter on the knoll if we can hit him -- like they did -- with a shot from the rear? Why expose a man in an open area -- ie, the knoll area -- when our apparent markman can hit him from the rear?
I had always thought that the rear shots were diversions for the markman's activity from the front. The rear shots were not intended to score "hits". Yet, here we have the rear shot being the kill shot. So if they were that good, if they knew that they could hit him from the rear, why am I to believe that something was occuring on the knoll?
JFK was killed from behind. That is apparent -- unless the video was doctored -- in the video seen on this site.
The Warren Report lives. I hate to admit to that. But JFK was, like they claim, killed by shot from behind.
Now I have to somehow reconcile the belief that there was a shot from the front, for a shot from the front is not needed to complete the picture here.
JFK is dead without the shot from the front.
However, now I see an enhanced version on this site of the purported head snap, and I can clearly see now that the head does indeed completely move forward, and forward by a significant distance. It's not just an inch or so.
With that newfound knowledge and understanding, I am forced to believe that JFK was hit from behind. I have to believe that for that is what I see.
This is significant to me, for now I must try to reconcile that a shot from the front is now just a theory, for his head wound is caused by a shot from the rear.
And furthermore, this facilitates the idea that the shot from the front isn't needed, for the shot from the rear is enough; JFK is killed with the shot from the rear.
And if the kill shot is from behind, how can we reconcile the "need" for the shot from the front? The head is already exploding from a shot from behind, so why do I "need" to rationally have a shot come from the front?
I had always thought that we needed to have a shot from the front to prove he had been hit, for he moves to the rear, front to back, right? The physics of the kill seem to demand that a shot come from the front so as to move JFK backward.
But now I know he is hit from the rear. So why do I "need" the frontal shot? Just so that I can reconcile the backward movement?
I'm confused.
Help me, here. Why do we need to have a shooter on the knoll if we can hit him -- like they did -- with a shot from the rear? Why expose a man in an open area -- ie, the knoll area -- when our apparent markman can hit him from the rear?
I had always thought that the rear shots were diversions for the markman's activity from the front. The rear shots were not intended to score "hits". Yet, here we have the rear shot being the kill shot. So if they were that good, if they knew that they could hit him from the rear, why am I to believe that something was occuring on the knoll?
JFK was killed from behind. That is apparent -- unless the video was doctored -- in the video seen on this site.
The Warren Report lives. I hate to admit to that. But JFK was, like they claim, killed by shot from behind.
Now I have to somehow reconcile the belief that there was a shot from the front, for a shot from the front is not needed to complete the picture here.
JFK is dead without the shot from the front.