Creative Speculation

I haven't "ignored" any of that; I can tell you precisely what's wrong with every claim in your post, without even doing any further research. I don't feel much like revisiting for the umpteenth time most of what you claim -- if you're really interested in what's wrong with it, then you'll need to look beyond the conspiracy hucksters you got it from, as I have -- but I will comment on this:

> Even Josiah Thompson has confirmed that the '2-inch' forward head movement HE discovered is actually a horizontal lens stretching due to movement, and that the head does indeed travel backwards and backwards only

I'll comment on that because it's fairly new bullshit, and because whether or not Thompson was the first person to notice that forward snap is irrelevant, since many others have. I independently noticed it when someone posted a link to a good quality version of the Zapruder film, and then after looking around the web, I found that many other people had not only noticed it but had quantitatively analyzed it with great accuracy. Thompson's recent claim that it's really just a motion blur is abject nonsense, proving nothing except Thompson's complete incompetence as a photo analyst, but conspiracy buffs gleefully accept what he says without giving it any real thought.



Frame 313 is blurred by camera motion, but that doesn't mean that you can assume that any "horizontal elongation" which Thompson talks about is a result of that motion. The forward snap cannot be explained by the camera motion for a simple reason that Thompson completely missed, but which was already taken into account in the gif above. Notice that the white lines at Connally's head, Jackie's hat and left arm, and the door handle are all set to be on the right side of those motion blurs, such that all the blur of those objects in 313 is toward the left of those same objects in 312. Since movement of the camera will affect everything in the frame in the same way, no motion blur caused by camera motion can be towards the right of where an object is in frame 312; ALL the camera motion blur is towards the left. Therefore, the forward snap of JFK's head CANNOT be explained by camera motion blur, because that would imply that the light area behind the head has a blur streak toward the right of where it is in 312, which is completely impossible. Furthermore, the PROOF is that if Thompson were correct, then we would see exactly the same "illusion" of a forward snap of Connally's head, but we don't. We can clearly see the leftward motion blur of the back of Connally's head, as expected. Thompson was right the first time years ago: The head absolutely DID snap forward immediately after the hit, and the REAL laws of physics absolutely say that the hit must have came from behind. If you're going to insist on believing a conspiracy theory, then it needs to incorporate these irrefutable facts or people who understand what I'm saying here will not take you seriously. If there was a "grassy knoll" shooter, then he missed.