JFK Dissonance

A few commenters are claiming JFK’s head was thrown forwards between frames 313 and 314.  This is complete BS. When aligned properly, frame 314 shows JFK’s head started its violent backwards movement.  People are confusing movement of the vehicle with movement of his head.

In frame 314, you can see that the front right quadrant of his skull is gone.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to JFK Dissonance

  1. Gary Seymour says:

    911 was an inside job, jfk was killed by a man in a sewer, and obama was born in Kenya. Anything else?

  2. Gary Seymour says:

    Okay, cool, let’s talk about facts, and about those two frames of the Zapruder film. They show the right temple of JFK being blown away. They do NOT show his head being thrown backwards. In what fucking world are you living in? Frame 313 shows his head exploding. Frame 314 shows Jackie reaching up to his head. If you look at the surrounding car frame, his head did not lurch backwards as you claim. It simply shows that he was devastated by a bullet.

    The earth is not flat, and NASA actually landed humans on the surface of the moon.

    • tonyheller says:

      The following frames after show his head being thrown violently backwards. This blog post is about frames 313 and 314.

      The only scientist to have walked on the moon (Dr. Harrison Schmitt} is a prominent climate skeptic. and 49 of the Apollo program’s finest wrote a letter to the NASA administrator asking him to end NASA’s embarrassing junk climate science.

      Have you ever considered using your brain, Gary? You appear to be incapable of rational thinking.You parrot the brainless stupidity of the left.

  3. Gary Seymour says:

    Nah, brains are over-rated. I use my heart. Have you heard of them?

    • tonyheller says:

      Make energy expensive and unavailable for poor people, in order to appease your superstitions is pretty heartless.

    • TimA says:

      Your brain isn’t over-rated….no worries. Do you have two hearts? Is that your problem?

      • gator69 says:

        Ms Seymour suffers from leftitus. It is a debilitating condition wherin one allows one’s emotions to rule over reason. Instead of thinking, these poor souls “feel” their way through life, mistaking passion for logic. For the artist this is not a large issue, but for those who seek careers in any other field it cripples their ability to perform basic functions necessary for success, and this is how we end up with farces like CAGW.

  4. Gary Seymour says:

    Scientists that ignore engineers are idiots. Engineers who ignore scientists are also less than their potential.

    • tonyheller says:

      I’m a scientist and an engineer, and I have spent ten years paying meticulous attention to, and documenting science fraud. Quite the opposite of “ignoring scientists” What alarmists hate is that I pay attention to scientists.

      • Gary Seymour says:

        Okay, you don’t ‘ignore science’, you simply chose which science that you wish to believe.

        According to your posts on this website, you conflate the New York Times articles about what scientists believed in 1970 with what the media exaggerates today. The media is not the scientific consensus. There was no scientific consensus in 1970 that there was a coming ‘ice age’. Climate science was in its infancy. But you make it out to be some kind of refutation of current acknowledgement.

        Look at the publications, please. The scientists didn’t change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ in order to fool people. ‘Climate change’ terminology has been used from the get-go. Please don’t twist what scientists have said by quoting old media. There are plenty of studies that show that while climate science has evolved as it has matured, it did NOT become a cabal of grant hungry money mongerers, it is mostly humble scientists (albeit a few grandstanders) who are paid little and contribute much.

        • tonyheller says:

          I look at data, and the data almost invariably is the opposite of what climate experts claim. Climate change is the biggest fraud in science history.

          • Gary Seymour says:

            I’ll grant you that there have been upheavals in science. Aristotle, Galileo, Einstein, Plank, and Wegener .

            But you think that you are capable? Well, I congratulate you. But big claims merit even bigger proof. And now it is your turn to show your stuff. Clips from 1918 Australian newspapers don’t cut it.

          • tonyheller says:

            Ignoring history because it is old, is just about as dumb as it gets.

        • Latitude says:

          ” you simply chose which science that you wish to believe.”

          Which “science” would you choose to believe Gary?

          Not only are climate scientists contradicting each other, even when they agree on what happened….they have different explanations on what caused it.

          Doesn’t that tell you no one knows what they are talking about?

  5. Bjh says:

    “[C]limate science was in its infancy”. Sigh. Are you trying to imply that it’s now mature, and reputable?
    “There was no scientific consensus in 1970” – are you trying to imply that there is today? Sorry, that canard has been exploded.
    Where are your facts? Your editorializing is mildly entertaining, but ultimately worthless. Unless you can debunk Tony’s posts, why comment?

    • Gary Seymour says:

      Of course I can’t comment. Unless you can debunk that your mother is an alien, you can’t reply either. Can you debunk scurrilous accusations? It is on you to defend your mother? Or, maybe, you are just defending ‘Steve Goddard’ because you like his BS?

  6. Gary Seymour says:

    Ignoring science because it is new, is just about as dumb as it gets.

    • tonyheller says:

      I have more than 50,000 blog posts paying attention to the junk science which forms your religion. That is what upsets you.

  7. Gary Seymour says:

    I know that you people are not flat earth society. But think about it. You claim to know more about science than the scientists that worked so hard to get their degrees. They say one thing, but they are paid to say something else? The American government is corrupting them? Okay, even if that is so, why would every single scientific organisation in the world agree with them? Is it collusion? Did China really start this hoax to ruin the American economy? I hope that there are genuine skeptics out there. The ones that say I must think about this. I must wonder why there is opposition to the consensus. It may be just people that think that it is okay to smoke. It is okay that innocents might suffer. It is okay that we bash scientists for giving us their opinion.

    • Anon says:

      Gary, fine, lets discount everything Tony has blogged. You still have these to explain:

      How Government Twists Climate Statistics

      Former Obama Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.


      In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’


      An now we get this, EVERY climate model runs hot, exactly what skeptics have been saying for years – and lo and behold it buys the climate change industry 20 more years to make false predictions:

      Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again


      After seeing the filth that came out in Wikileaks in October of 2016 I have no doubt that if the Democrats are capable of all that they would have no compunction about corrupting the climate record if the price was right.

      So now lets add back in the work that Tony has been doing to what I just cited above and the case is overwhelming.

      This is what Trump and Pruitt are responding, not some irrational non-scientific belief.

      You guys can trot out all the labels you like: that they are racists or scientific illiterates, 97% consensus, etc…. but the American people are just not buying it anymore.

    • Texas Sharp-shooter says:

      The guy who ran the IPCC was a sexual abuser with a degree in mechanical engineering who clawed his way to the top in an organization that thinks a Sudanese warlord should have a seat on a human rights panel. Oh THAT scientific organization.

      Hey Gary, what has happened to the hockey stick graph, the icon the got the whole hot mess rolling. It is crap. Not one scientist filed an amicus brief supporting Mann in his lawsuit against Mark Steyn. Zip, zero nada.

      As the Perfesser says, “I’ll start worrying about my Carbon footprint when the people who claim it’s a crisis stop flying their private airplanes to exotic locations for climate conferences.” Something like that.

      Oh!No!Mr. Bill, glaciers are retreating! Hm… What’s under the glaciers? Trees, Roman sandles, everything that was going on there before the glaciers covered them.

      You living in the dark and cold, sold your car, grow your own arugula, do ya? Carbon footprint? That is just human beings living. You want to reduce that watch your eliminationist rhetoric unless your willing to vote with your feet.

      If I have bitter tone it’s because you slang Tony. What have you done to compare with his remarkable output. Show some freaking respect.

    • gator69 says:

      scientific organisation

      There’s an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Who organizes science? Or are you referring to science “clubs”, like the club that Dr Kenji joined?

      Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address.


      Now that’s some dogged research!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Gary is a coward to not defend a fellow scientist Kenji against smear by climate science commenters in the UK’s preeminent climate science daily:

        The Grauniad
        Once, men abused slaves. Now we abuse fossil fuels.

        by Jean-François Mouhot

        4 Feb 2012 18:32
        This is a satire, right? You people really got me going for a moment.
        Teratornis -> KenjiWatts
        4 Feb 2012 23:58

        This is a satire, right? You people really got me going for a moment.

        Did your great-great-great grandfather say the same thing when someone compared his slave ownership to earlier barbaric practices such as cat burning? Slave owners routinely scoffed at meddling abolitionists who called their practice evil; eventually they started America’s bloodiest war by firing on Fort Sumter.
        Slavery and fossil fuel burning are both forms of theft.
        1. The slave owner robs slaves of their labor.
        2. The fossil fuel burner does not pay the external costs generated by his addition of durable greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
        When slavery was abolished, most of the former slaves continued to work much as they did before. The main change was that they got paid for their work, and they were free to quit and look for other work. There is nothing immoral about sending people out in fields to pick cotton, as long as they freely choose to work for the wage you offer them.
        Similarly, there is nothing immoral about dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere if you adequately compensate everyone you are harming. This is difficult to do because (a) many of your victims have not been born yet, (b) there is great uncertainty about just how much harm you are inflicting, and (c) the harm will be a function of the total amount of greenhouse gas humans dump into the atmosphere. In the event that man-made climate change renders much of the Earth uninhabitable by humans, reducing the carrying capacity and causing a large-scale population die-back, it will be hard to assign a monetary value to that loss.
        Even at lower levels of warming, say 2 degrees C, we could lose most of the world’s coral reefs among other unique ecosystems. What’s the value of wiping out, say, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef? I don’t know that money really captures that.
        Gary is a coward to not defend a fellow scientist against attacks and ad hominem smear by climate science commenters in the UK’s preeminent climate science daily:
        5 February 2012 8:01AM
        Response to Teratornis, 5 February 2012 7:44AM
        This comment was removed by a moderator because it
        didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may
        also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
        6 February 2012 6:29AM
        Try second time. More simple. Mouhot make funny
        analogy. Kenji not think science good. Kenji laugh.
        Commenter say Kenji ancestors defend slavery. Kenji
        call lie. Guardian keep commenter, remove Kenji. Nuts.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Errata: the following comment of mine was erroneously attached at the end of the documented attack by climate scientist Teratornis on Kenji:

          “Gary is a coward to not defend a fellow scientist Kenji against smear by climate science commenters in the UK’s preeminent climate science daily:”

    • richard says:

      The architect of global warming, Maurice Strong, ended up in China wanted for fraud.

      Al Gore set up carbon credits with Ken Lay who ended up in prison for Fraud.

      Just a big bunch of fraudsters. The whole global warming movement.

    • Orca impersonator, search “Echo satellite” and the NASA site history.nasa.gov/SP-4306/ch6.htm relates the 28 October 1959 failure of an Echo mylar balloon to deploy. The thing popped. Nasa engineers lied to the gullible press the following day, saying everything had gone as planned.
      MORAL: do not expect honesty from those who spend money taken from others by threat of deadly force. Tony carries on a proud tradition established by other real scientists, Petr Beckmann among them. Government parasites have been lying since before you could add and subtract.

    • Squidly says:

      News Flash for you Gary, there are many here like myself that have been “scientists” their entire lives and possess several degrees. Personally, I have been a computer “scientist” and computer software researcher for more than 35 years! .. Like Tony, I have paid my dues in both academia and applicable engineering and science.

      And yes, in many cases, myself and other here actually do know more about the subject matter than many of the so-called “scientists” claiming to be the subject matter experts.

      One validation of this becomes apparent through prior discussions I have had with Gavin Schmidt and NASA’s Model-E project. What I learned from Gavin about that project was absolutely breathtaking. Gavin wouldn’t know computer software development if it slapped him across the face, and yet, for years he was the acting manager of that project. I have studied the code for that project in great detail and have been astounded at the garbage contained within it. The Model-E project takes top billing for the absolutely worst written software project I have ever seen, and I have analyzed and reviewed millions of lines of code from hundreds of software engineers over my career.

      NASA GISS hasn’t even the first clue how to design/engineer/write software, and Model-E is a perfect example of it. In short, one of the most widely touted climate models on the planet, is 100%, unadulterated garbage from top to bottom! … provably so! .. and yet NASA GISS still uses it as one of their premium products in attempt to drive political and social policy.

      It has become ever apparent to me that you are in fact an absolute moron without a clue what you continue to comment about. I personally find it comical to watch.

  8. Gary Seymour says:

    I thank Tony for the opportunity to speak my peace.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS

      • The Other Brad says:

        Hell, there are people claiming the film has been altered and frames are missing. Some say his head was painted to not show an exit wound in the rear. Hell, there are folks showing something from the driver which they say proves he shot JFK from the front with a hand gun. You are basing your conclusions on a reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction of an 8MM film taken in 1963. Other people’s analysis is BS using the same film you use and it is BS because you don’t like their conclusions? C’mon Tony. Prove their analysis is wrong.

        Showing some guys shooting watermelons with altered bullets proves nothing. The truth is if someone did shoot him from the front from the area of the grassy knoll his head would have exploded. The big hole in the front of his head is an exit wound. You have zero proof otherwise.

        I live in Dallas and drive through Dealey Plaza on occasion. There is a poor dumb bastard that sits in the location on the side walk where the shot from the Grassy Knoll would have been taken from. He sits there with poster boards and such. He has ZERO proof, only a belief.

        Similar to the belief that Man Made CO2 is causing every climate calamity and is causing run away global warming. It’s just not true.

        • I work at courts there and have taken dozens of measurements and photos of Dealey Plaza. Grassy knoll is dumbspeak for bridge abutment, one at each end of the railroad overpass. There are all manner of purveyors of souvenirs and I’ve bought several. All attention is deliberately focussed on the wrong side of the plaza. Even the 3D model in the 6th Floor museum elides the South abutment, which is the best hide for a sniper.

  9. richard verney says:

    I have never looked at this, in any detail, since it is all too depressing, and I am rather squeamish. When I was young, I wanted to be a surgeon, but I just could not face doing biology (in my day, school kids did proper dissections and I always chickened out so I knew there was no chance I could become a surgeon).

    But surely there can be no doubt as to the direction as to where the bullet came from. Surely there is both an entry point and an exit point which would have been found by the autopsy. Whilst I am not an expert on ballistics, my understanding (and I am aware that this depends somewhat on the bullet/bullet casing), the exit wound is usually bigger than the entry wound. If that is the case, one would not be surprised to see a large part of the right front quadrant blown away, if the bullet entered from the opposite behind quadrant.

    What are you saying about the exit wound. If there was no exit wound, was the bullet recovered from the remaining part of the brain within the skull?

    In a nut shell, what are the underlying facts that you rely on?

  10. richard says:

    What do ballistics say on a head shot .

    “you can see that the front right quadrant of his skull is gone”

    I would assume that the bullet enters leaving a smaller wound and the exit would take away the skull so blood spray would be more on exit-

    “Ballistic Dummy Head Shot”

  11. The Other Brad says:

    You truly lose me with the incendiary round. By no means could the bright spot be the sun reflecting off of his brain matter or fluid around the brain. Good Grief. You have ZERO proof of your theory. Only conjecture based on a film taken in 1963. And the film you are using is a reproduction of a reproduction.

    When you come into possession of the original film, much like the temp data, and analyze it you have nothing but a belief in what you want to see. Even if you come into possession of it, it still proves nothing for an incendiary round.

    “If you want to come to a reasonable conclusion about a topic, you have to clear your head of what you want to believe…”

    On temperature data and the fraud of CAGW I’m with you. On this, I’m incredulous.

    • If enlisted as a second assassin to shoot at Kennedy while Oswald the patsy shot at Connally, I would have chosen ammo imitating what Oswald was using, nothing containing phosphorous or magnesium. I agree the bright spot is odd but am not sold on it being a lit bullet. I am sold on the shot coming from up front, and recognized that the second I finally saw the film. I also collect books on the subject and there are many odd things about the crime. My hypothesis is that Oswald may have thought he was acting alone on his grudge against Connally, but JFK’s wounds are front to back, nearly level. Connally was shot from high up, and Mrs Connally’s account makes sense, as does Tony’s appraisal of the kinetics.

  12. Bob Hoye says:

    Hi Tony

    Why did Jackie crawl onto the rear deck of the car?

    • Tom O says:

      When I first saw the film, I thought she was trying to get out of the car. But I have since read that she retrieved part of his skull. All I know is that entrance wounds are normally small, exit wounds are normally large. I also understand that Connolly is riding in the front seat of the limo and a bullet hit him in the leg, presumably the same bullet that was to have passed through Kennedy’s head.

      My only question regarding stabilizing the frames is this – since there really is no way that I can see to judge, how do you know which “motion” to extract from the film?

  13. czechlist says:

    I have learned from the main stream media that all conspiracy theories are ridiculous and those who believe them are nuts –
    unless they are vast and right wing and proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton

  14. richard says:

    You need to watch the opening of the documentary of Underfire: The Untold Story of Pfc. Tony Vaccaro

    He explains how people fall when shot or hit by mortar – and no they do not fly backwards.

    • tonyheller says:

      It depends entirely on the type of ammo. Soft ammo is designed to transfer momentum to the body. FMJ ammo is designed to pass through without much transfer of momentum.
      Stop spamming this topic or I will block you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *