JFK Assassination 101
David Von Pein
VIA A DISCUSSION AT YOUTUBE.COM:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your message and questions. I'll try to answer them as best I
can (and you can find answers, in more depth, to every single question you
posed at my main JFK blog, at http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com):
>>> "O.K. SBT. .... Please explain the following: You say part of the
proof is that both people respond at the same time to being hit. Wouldn't
physics, let alone common sense, suggest that they should respond at
different times and they could not possibly be both hit at the same time?"
<<<
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems to me as if
you're saying this: Since we can see the two victims reacting at the same
time, this must mean they were hit by two separate bullets instead of just
one.
Anyway, if you look at the various SBT clips I have provided (including
the one below), you can easily see that those two men (Kennedy & Connally)
are definitely reacting at the same time just after Frame 224 of the
Zapruder home movie:
Most people apparently never take the time to focus on the movements of
the two victims, IN UNISON, just after Z224. Normally, the researchers
seem to want to focus on only one victim at a time. I guess it is kind of
difficult to focus on TWO things at once (i.e., the two victims), but it
can be done by focusing your attention between the two men. I have found
this better enables me to see what's happening with both victims at once.
>>> "Further, you also say that Connally only reacts when his wrist is hit
(being broken into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be somehow
superhuman, because using your own theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry
wound in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib being hit, he DOESN'T
react to his lung being lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to to the
bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are being very very selective
with what you are promoting as fact." <<<
Not at all, Paul. If you have seen all of my articles that I posted at my
"Single-Bullet Theory" blog location (here: http://Single-Bullet-Theory.
blogspot.com), you would have seen where I discuss all of John Connally's
reactions in some detail. Pay particular attention to the Z224-Z225 clip
below (for the initial INVOLUNTARY reactions on the part of Governor
Connally):
>>> "I totally agree with your argument regarding the high-powered weapon
to be used to assassinate a chief of state. So this begs the question: why
would Oswald buy one of the most unreliable rifles ever made? Surely he
would have some knowledge of rifles after being in the Marines." <<<
Don't fall into that trap, Paul. Oswald's rifle was not the best rifle in
the world, that's true. But it hardly was a total piece of crap either. In
fact, the FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier said that Oswald's Carcano
was a good choice for an assassination weapon.
Here's what Frazier told the Warren Commission on that subject in 1964 (at
3 H 413):
MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139
[Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle], and the ammunition it employs, and
based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have
been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the
assassination?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I would."
MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain that?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a
good choice if it would shoot accurately."
MR. EISENBERG -- "And did you find this shot accurately?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
3 H 413:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0211a.htm
I'll also add this additional fact here:
Oswald didn't have a whole lot of money when he purchased his rifle in
March 1963. So he certainly couldn't afford a very expensive weapon.
So, he bought a second-hand war surplus rifle from a mail-order house.
>>> "Further, why wouldn't he [Oswald] at the very least buy a rifle with
a clip, so he can fire off possibly more shots and in quicker succession?"
<<<
Oswald's rifle did have a clip, Paul. The clip is part of the evidence
now at the National Archives. It is Commission Exhibit No. 575 (seen
below):
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/af/Photo_naraevid_CE575-3.jpg
>>> "Your point [is a] fair claim [when I asked Paul:] "Where are all the
other bullets"? Let me ask you exactly the same question. Where are the
other 2 bullets you say Oswald fired? If it is unrealistic to have not
found any [of] the CT's bullets, then it is fair for the Lone Assassin
purveyors to produce the other 2." <<<
Only one of Oswald's three bullets was not found, Paul. And that was the
bullet from his first shot, which missed the whole limousine and everybody
in it. That bullet (IMO) is the one that resulted in the slight injury to
James Tague, who was standing by the Triple Underpass on Main Street.
But Oswald's two bullets that made contact with the two victims were found
and recovered and are in evidence -- CE399 and the two large fragments
from the head shot that were found in the front seat of the limousine
(CE567 and CE569).
Most conspiracy theorists think that CE399 (the "stretcher bullet") didn't
hit either victim on November 22, 1963. I, however, vehemently disagree
with such a conclusion. And I think I make a good case for CE399 being a
legitimate bullet connected with the wounding of both JFK and Connally in
the articles linked below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/afb30246ab698396
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
>>> "Connally [is] still holding onto his hat. How is this possible if his
wrist is virtually shattered?" <<<
Governor Connally held that hat ALL THE WAY to the hospital, Paul.
So we know for a fact that Connally definitely COULD have still held his
hat after his right wrist was broken. Have a look at what Nellie Connally
said about the "hat" in the article that follows:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt
>>> "The biggest problem of the SBT is that you and other "kooks" (using
your word) cannot explain how a bullet that has made as much damage as
this one is left virtually intact. Forget theories, forget physics, just
use common sense. This is simply impossible, even the WC couldn't
replicate this with all their experts." <<<
But the Warren Commission really never TRIED to replicate the damage of
Bullet CE399. The WC did various tests with Oswald's ammunition, that's
true enough. But they never did the ULTIMATE "SBT" TEST, which would be to
shoot a Carcano bullet like CE399 through TWO mock victims in order to
simulate ALL of the conditions of the real CE399.
Instead, the Warren Commission shot bullets SEPARATELY into goat ribcages
and human wrist bones. So, naturally, those bullets were bound to be more
damaged than CE399. That's common sense too, Paul.
It wasn't until 2004 that we finally got a good realistic simulation of
CE399, when the Discovery Channel tried to duplicate the path of the
so-called "magic bullet" by firing a Carcano missile through two simulated
torsos. And that test bullet took a path that generally mimicked the path
of the real CE399, and the test bullet emerged in ONE UNFRAGMENTED PIECE.
Here's that test bullet:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK
-RELATED%20PHOTOS/118TestBulletFromTVDocumentaryBeyon.jpg?t=1274389043
The above-linked test bullet isn't quite as undeformed as CE399, I don't
deny that fact. But one possible reason for the extra flattening of that
test bullet could be the fact that the test bullet actually struck and
broke one additional rib in the mock-up of Governor Connally. The test
resulted in two broken ribs in the "Connally" torso; while the real John
Connally only suffered one broken rib on 11/22/63.
Plus: In 1992, ballistics expert Dr. Martin Fackler fired a Carcano bullet
like Oswald's directly into a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle
velocity of 1,100 feet-per-second (which was probably even a little faster
than Oswald's bullet was traveling when it hit Connally's wrist on
11/22/63), and Fackler's bullet ended up in perfect condition. It was
totally undeformed.
Here is what Dr. Fackler's test bullet looked like after striking a
human wrist at 1100fps:
>>> "Cheers, Paul .... P.S. Whilst we are on different sides of the fence, I will say you have given me food for thought though. :-)" <<<
Thank you, Paul.
I hope you'll read some more of my Internet articles concerning the way
President Kennedy died. I think if you do, you might just discover that
the people who have spent the last several decades promoting a conspiracy
in the JFK murder case are the ones you should really distrust and
disbelieve, instead of the Warren Commission.
Best regards to you,
David Von Pein
Anthony Marsh
>
> VIA A DISCUSSION AT YOUTUBE.COM:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your message and questions. I'll try to answer them as best I
> can (and you can find answers, in more depth, to every single question you
> posed at my main JFK blog, at http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com):
>
>>>> "O.K. SBT. .... Please explain the following: You say part of the
> proof is that both people respond at the same time to being hit. Wouldn't
> physics, let alone common sense, suggest that they should respond at
> different times and they could not possibly be both hit at the same time?"
> <<<
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems to me as if
> you're saying this: Since we can see the two victims reacting at the same
> time, this must mean they were hit by two separate bullets instead of just
> one.
>
> Anyway, if you look at the various SBT clips I have provided (including
> are definitely reacting at the same time just after Frame 224 of the
> Zapruder home movie:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion.gif?t=1274386011
>
> Most people apparently never take the time to focus on the movements of
> the two victims, IN UNISON, just after Z224. Normally, the researchers
> seem to want to focus on only one victim at a time. I guess it is kind of
> difficult to focus on TWO things at once (i.e., the two victims), but it
> can be done by focusing your attention between the two men. I have found
> this better enables me to see what's happening with both victims at once.
>
>
>>>> "Further, you also say that Connally only reacts when his wrist is hit
> (being broken into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be somehow
> superhuman, because using your own theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry
> wound in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib being hit, he DOESN'T
> react to his lung being lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to to the
> bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are being very very selective
> with what you are promoting as fact."<<<
>
> Not at all, Paul. If you have seen all of my articles that I posted at my
PERJURY. In his shooting tests Frazier could not hit the point of aim
with Oswald's rifle. He couldn't zero it in. He couldn't adjust the
scope. It was damaged and defective. The rifle shot high and to the
right at closer distances.
> 3 H 413:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0211a.htm
>
>
> I'll also add this additional fact here:
>
> Oswald didn't have a whole lot of money when he purchased his rifle in
> March 1963. So he certainly couldn't afford a very expensive weapon.
> So, he bought a second-hand war surplus rifle from a mail-order house.
>
>
>>>> "Further, why wouldn't he [Oswald] at the very least buy a rifle with
> a clip, so he can fire off possibly more shots and in quicker succession?"
> <<<
>
> Oswald's rifle did have a clip, Paul. The clip is part of the evidence
> now at the National Archives. It is Commission Exhibit No. 575 (seen
> below):
>
The clip was NOT included with the rifle from Klein's. It must be
purchased separately and usually included with boxes of SMI ammo. But
Oswald bought the more modern WCC ammo which does not come with a clip.
No one knows where Oswald got the clip.
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/af/Photo_naraevid_CE575-3.jpg
>
>
>>>> "Your point [is a] fair claim [when I asked Paul:] "Where are all the
> other bullets"? Let me ask you exactly the same question. Where are the
> other 2 bullets you say Oswald fired? If it is unrealistic to have not
> found any [of] the CT's bullets, then it is fair for the Lone Assassin
> purveyors to produce the other 2."<<<
>
> Only one of Oswald's three bullets was not found, Paul. And that was the
> bullet from his first shot, which missed the whole limousine and everybody
> in it. That bullet (IMO) is the one that resulted in the slight injury to
> James Tague, who was standing by the Triple Underpass on Main Street.
>
Are you one of those wacky conspiracy guys?
Show me the other two bullets? We have CE 399 and then a couple of large
fragments, not a complete bullet. You are making up crap again.
> But Oswald's two bullets that made contact with the two victims were found
> and recovered and are in evidence -- CE399 and the two large fragments
> from the head shot that were found in the front seat of the limousine
> (CE567 and CE569).
>
You can't prove that those two large fragments came from the same bullet.
No, it didn't. Show me their wrist simulation.
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK=
> -RELATED%20PHOTOS/118TestBulletFromTVDocumentaryBeyon.jpg?t=1274389043
>
> The above-linked test bullet isn't quite as undeformed as CE399, I don't
> deny that fact. But one possible reason for the extra flattening of that
> test bullet could be the fact that the test bullet actually struck and
> broke one additional rib in the mock-up of Governor Connally. The test
> resulted in two broken ribs in the "Connally" torso; while the real John
> Connally only suffered one broken rib on 11/22/63.
>
> Plus: In 1992, ballistics expert Dr. Martin Fackler fired a Carcano bullet
> like Oswald's directly into a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle
> velocity of 1,100 feet-per-second (which was probably even a little faster
> than Oswald's bullet was traveling when it hit Connally's wrist on
> 11/22/63), and Fackler's bullet ended up in perfect condition. It was
> totally undeformed.
>
Ok, but that is a perpendicular hit. There is no reason to assume the
angle was 90 degrees.
> Here is what Dr. Fackler's test bullet looked like after striking a
> human wrist at 1100fps:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/FacklerSBTTestBullet.jpg?t=1274389273
>
>
>>>> "Cheers, Paul .... P.S. Whilst we are on different sides of the fence, I will say you have given me food for thought though. :-)"<<<
>
> Thank you, Paul.
>
> I hope you'll read some more of my Internet articles concerning the way
> President Kennedy died. I think if you do, you might just discover that
> the people who have spent the last several decades promoting a conspiracy
> in the JFK murder case are the ones you should really distrust and
> disbelieve, instead of the Warren Commission.
>
You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political agenda.
Herbert Blenner
> VIA A DISCUSSION AT YOUTUBE.COM:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your message and questions. I'll try to answer them as best I
> can (and you can find answers, in more depth, to every single question you
>
> >>> "O.K. SBT. .... Please explain the following: You say part of the
>
> proof is that both people respond at the same time to being hit. Wouldn't
> physics, let alone common sense, suggest that they should respond at
> different times and they could not possibly be both hit at the same time?"
> <<<
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. It seems to me as if
> you're saying this: Since we can see the two victims reacting at the same
> time, this must mean they were hit by two separate bullets instead of just
> one.
>
> Anyway, if you look at the various SBT clips I have provided (including
> the one below), you can easily see that those two men (Kennedy & Connally)
> are definitely reacting at the same time just after Frame 224 of the
> Zapruder home movie:
>
>
> Most people apparently never take the time to focus on the movements of
> the two victims, IN UNISON, just after Z224. Normally, the researchers
> seem to want to focus on only one victim at a time. I guess it is kind of
> difficult to focus on TWO things at once (i.e., the two victims), but it
> can be done by focusing your attention between the two men. I have found
> this better enables me to see what's happening with both victims at once.
>
> >>> "Further, you also say that Connally only reacts when his wrist is hit
>
> (being broken into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be somehow
> superhuman, because using your own theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry
> wound in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib being hit, he DOESN'T
> react to his lung being lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to to the
> bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are being very very selective
> with what you are promoting as fact." <<<
>
> Not at all, Paul. If you have seen all of my articles that I posted at my
> "Single-Bullet Theory" blog location (here:http://Single-Bullet-Theory.
> blogspot.com), you would have seen where I discuss all of John Connally's
> reactions in some detail. Pay particular attention to the Z224-Z225 clip
> below (for the initial INVOLUNTARY reactions on the part of Governor
> Connally):
>
>
> >>> "I totally agree with your argument regarding the high-powered weapon
>
> to be used to assassinate a chief of state. So this begs the question: why
> would Oswald buy one of the most unreliable rifles ever made? Surely he
> would have some knowledge of rifles after being in the Marines." <<<
>
> Don't fall into that trap, Paul. Oswald's rifle was not the best rifle in
> the world, that's true. But it hardly was a total piece of crap either. In
> fact, the FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier said that Oswald's Carcano
> was a good choice for an assassination weapon.
>
> Here's what Frazier told the Warren Commission on that subject in 1964 (at
> 3 H 413):
>
> MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Now, based upon the characteristics of Exhibit 139
> [Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle], and the ammunition it employs, and
> based upon your experience with the weapon, would you consider it to have
> been a good choice for the commission of a crime such as the
> assassination?"
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I would."
>
> MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain that?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes. Any rifle, regardless of its caliber, would be a
> good choice if it would shoot accurately."
>
> MR. EISENBERG -- "And did you find this shot accurately?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
>
> -RELATED%20PHOTOS/118TestBulletFromTVDocumentaryBeyon.jpg?t=1274389043
>
> The above-linked test bullet isn't quite as undeformed as CE399, I don't
> deny that fact. But one possible reason for the extra flattening of that
> test bullet could be the fact that the test bullet actually struck and
> broke one additional rib in the mock-up of Governor Connally. The test
> resulted in two broken ribs in the "Connally" torso; while the real John
> Connally only suffered one broken rib on 11/22/63.
>
> Plus: In 1992, ballistics expert Dr. Martin Fackler fired a Carcano bullet
> like Oswald's directly into a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle
> velocity of 1,100 feet-per-second (which was probably even a little faster
> than Oswald's bullet was traveling when it hit Connally's wrist on
> 11/22/63), and Fackler's bullet ended up in perfect condition. It was
> totally undeformed.
>
> Here is what Dr. Fackler's test bullet looked like after striking a
> human wrist at 1100fps:
>
>
> >>> "Cheers, Paul .... P.S. Whilst we are on different sides of the fence,
I will say you have given me food for thought though. :-)" <<<
>
> Thank you, Paul.
>
> I hope you'll read some more of my Internet articles concerning the way
> President Kennedy died. I think if you do, you might just discover that
> the people who have spent the last several decades promoting a conspiracy
> in the JFK murder case are the ones you should really distrust and
> disbelieve, instead of the Warren Commission.
>
> Best regards to you,
> David Von Pein
Both major versions of the single bullet theory had a common defect. The
WC attributed the longitudinal wounds of entry on the backs of President
Kennedy and Governor Connally to the same bullet that the HSCA deemed
responsible for the transverse wounds of entry of the backs of the same
victims. In short, the WC and the HSCA ignored the known relationships
between the visible characteristics of a wound and the direction of the
entering or exiting bullet.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "The clip was NOT included with the rifle from Klein's." <<<
I never said it was.
Try getting something right for a change, Marsh.
>>> "You are misrepresenting historical facts to push a political agenda."
<<<
You're a very silly person, Anthony. I've never cared about politics.
Never will.
WhiskyJoe
An excellent website on the technical aspects
of the assassination is at:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
and the following section connects the Zapruder
film with the SBT quite well:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
It should be noted, the various people think
the bullet struck JFK and Connally at Zapruder
frame 224 (z224) but others think it was z223,
z222, z221 or z220. This is a very minor
disagreement, covering about 0.2 seconds,
a small fraction of time. For the last couple
of decades, very few people who believe in the
Single Bullet Theory (SBT) believe the bullet
struck before z220 or after z224. I believe
you can see a clear reaction from Connally as
soon as the interval z222-z223 when his left
shoulder starts to jerk upwards.
**************************************************
> "O.K. SBT. .... Please explain the following:
> You say part of the proof is that both people
> respond at the same time to being hit.
> Wouldn't physics, let alone common sense,
> suggest that they should respond at different
> times and they could not possibly be both hit
> at the same time?"
I assume what Paul means is that if the SBT is
true, JFK should be hit before Connally.
Yes, this is true. But the muzzle velocity of
the bullet was around 2150 fps (feet per second).
Even after exiting JFK's neck, the speed would
have been roughly 1830 fps, according to Larry
Sturdivan in the book 'The JFK Myths'. So within
two milliseconds (ms), Connally would have been
hit. Since each Zapruder frame is separated by
55 ms, for all practical purposes, both would
be hit at the same time.
**************************************************
> "Further, you also say that Connally only
> reacts when his wrist is hit (being broken
> into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be
> somehow superhuman, because using your own
> theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry wound
> in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib
> being hit, he DOESN'T react to his lung being
> lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to the
> bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are
> being very very selective with what you are
> promoting as fact." <<<
It is CTers who say Connally doesn't react until
a half second or later. LNers agree that Connally
does react immediately. His torso jerks immediate,
starting by z222-z223, his coat moves at z223-z224
and his right wrist starts to fly upwards by
z225-z226 at the latest.
Again, please carefully study:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
It's worth a half hour to read through the
various pages and carefully look at the
Zapruder frame intervals.
**************************************************
> "I totally agree with your argument regarding
> the high-powered weapon to be used to
> assassinate a chief of state. So this begs
> the question: why would Oswald buy one of
> the most unreliable rifles ever made?
> Surely he would have some knowledge of
> rifles after being in the Marines."
The Carcano rifles were quite good. There were
many different varieties of Carcano rifles,
but all were good. Italy used these rifles in
World War I and II as there standard infantry
weapon. If they were deficient, her allies,
Britain, France and America in World War I,
Germany in World War II, could easily have
provided Italy with good rifles. This, of
course was not done since it was unnecessary.
The Western Allies took the trouble to provide
Italy with good airplanes in World War I,
which Italy was deficient in, so it's not a
case that the Western Allies were not
interested in helping each other out when
necessary.
Carcano rifles were not just used extensively
in World War I and II. They were used
successfully by big game hunters to hunt
Elephants. And believe me, no one would use
a worthless piece of crap to wound an Elephant
and expect to survive very long. And Carcano
rifles have been used successfully in shooting
contests against other rifles.
Yes, it's possible a panicked amateur could jam
a Carcano while trying to fire as fast as
possible. Rifles need tight tolerances for
accuracy and the trade off is they can jam.
In contract, a AK-47 is built with loose
tolerances and does not jam easily, but is
inaccurate at longer ranges. Russian troops
in the 1980's armed with AK-47s found themselves
at a disadvantage at the typical long ranges
fought in Afghanistan against guerrillas using
World War I era bolt action rifles.
And certainly the Carcano is reliable with it's
first shot which is all an expert should need at
under 100 yards.
And don't be fooled by the cheap price in
the 1960's. Price is controlled by supply
and demand. If space aliens were to drop
upon us a billion Mercedes Benz automobiles,
the cost of new Mercedes Benz automobiles,
and automobiles in general, would plummet.
With millions of unused World War II rifles
on the market, of course the price was low,
a fraction of the cost it took to manufacture
them.
**************************************************
As an aside, no one knows for certain how well
the scope was adjusted. It was removed to check
for fingerprints. It is a really a guess whether
it was mounted properly or not. Likely it was not.
But the iron sights worked fine. The scope did
not interfere with the iron sights. And given:
* the scope probably was not mounted properly
* the range was under 100 yards for all three
shots, meaning there was little need for the
scope
* the three shots were fired fairly rapidly,
three shots in under 9 seconds and the second
shot with 0.8 seconds of JFK clearing the tree,
difficult to do with even a good scope but easy
with the iron sights
strongly indicate that the iron sights were used.
So talk of how bad the scope was is irrelevant.
Why anyone would only talk about the scope,
without being honest enough to admit that
the iron sights could be used, is beyond me.
claviger
Because Anthony has a political agenda he assumes everyone else has a
political agenda.
John Blubaugh
Ha!
JB
John Blubaugh
The fact is that everyone DOES have a political agenda. Some of us
admit other deny it even to themselves.
JB
Anthony Marsh
>
> An excellent website on the technical aspects
> of the assassination is at:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
>
> and the following section connects the Zapruder
> film with the SBT quite well:
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/SBT-eng.htm#sommet
>
> It should be noted, the various people think
> the bullet struck JFK and Connally at Zapruder
> frame 224 (z224) but others think it was z223,
> z222, z221 or z220. This is a very minor
> disagreement, covering about 0.2 seconds,
> a small fraction of time. For the last couple
> of decades, very few people who believe in the
> Single Bullet Theory (SBT) believe the bullet
> struck before z220 or after z224. I believe
> you can see a clear reaction from Connally as
> soon as the interval z222-z223 when his left
> shoulder starts to jerk upwards.
>
If it's such a fact then why can't you guys get together and just agree
on one frame?
> **************************************************
>
>> "O.K. SBT. .... Please explain the following:
>> You say part of the proof is that both people
>> respond at the same time to being hit.
>> Wouldn't physics, let alone common sense,
>> suggest that they should respond at different
>> times and they could not possibly be both hit
>> at the same time?"
>
> I assume what Paul means is that if the SBT is
> true, JFK should be hit before Connally.
> Yes, this is true. But the muzzle velocity of
> the bullet was around 2150 fps (feet per second).
> Even after exiting JFK's neck, the speed would
> have been roughly 1830 fps, according to Larry
That's a loss of 320 fps. Where did you get that number?
You pulled it out of your ass? The WC said 129 fps. Why is it that all
the WC defenders have not even bothered to read the damn report?
> Sturdivan in the book 'The JFK Myths'. So within
Which shows why Sturdivan is not reliable.
> two milliseconds (ms), Connally would have been
> hit. Since each Zapruder frame is separated by
> 55 ms, for all practical purposes, both would
> be hit at the same time.
>
> **************************************************
>
>> "Further, you also say that Connally only
>> reacts when his wrist is hit (being broken
>> into at least 7 pieces). This guy must be
>> somehow superhuman, because using your own
>> theory, he DOESN'T react to the entry wound
>> in his back, he DOESN'T react to his 5th rib
>> being hit, he DOESN'T react to his lung being
>> lacerated, and finally he DOESN'T react to the
>> bullet exiting his body! Sounds like you are
>> being very very selective with what you are
>> promoting as fact."<<<
>
> It is CTers who say Connally doesn't react until
> a half second or later. LNers agree that Connally
> does react immediately. His torso jerks immediate,
> starting by z222-z223, his coat moves at z223-z224
> and his right wrist starts to fly upwards by
> z225-z226 at the latest.
>
zit is CTers who point out that Connally said he was hit at about Z-230.
It is LNers who call him a liar. They think Connally was the first
conspiracy kook. But Connally always said that Oswald was the only shooter.
It's possible and it happened in real life that the top marksmen doing
the CBS tests jammed the rifle about 1/3 of the time.
> possible. Rifles need tight tolerances for
> accuracy and the trade off is they can jam.
> In contract, a AK-47 is built with loose
> tolerances and does not jam easily, but is
> inaccurate at longer ranges. Russian troops
And the Mannlicher-Carcano was inaccurate at shorter ranges.
> in the 1980's armed with AK-47s found themselves
> at a disadvantage at the typical long ranges
> fought in Afghanistan against guerrillas using
> World War I era bolt action rifles.
>
> And certainly the Carcano is reliable with it's
> first shot which is all an expert should need at
> under 100 yards.
>
Then why do you think the first shot missed?
> And don't be fooled by the cheap price in
> the 1960's. Price is controlled by supply
> and demand. If space aliens were to drop
> upon us a billion Mercedes Benz automobiles,
> the cost of new Mercedes Benz automobiles,
> and automobiles in general, would plummet.
Ridiculous analogy. The Mannlicher-Carcano was a piece of junk. War
surplus sells cheap.
> With millions of unused World War II rifles
> on the market, of course the price was low,
> a fraction of the cost it took to manufacture
> them.
>
> **************************************************
>
> As an aside, no one knows for certain how well
> the scope was adjusted. It was removed to check
> for fingerprints. It is a really a guess whether
> it was mounted properly or not. Likely it was not.
It was damaged. We don't know if it was damaged before the shooting or
after.
> But the iron sights worked fine. The scope did
> not interfere with the iron sights. And given:
>
> * the scope probably was not mounted properly
>
> * the range was under 100 yards for all three
> shots, meaning there was little need for the
> scope
>
> * the three shots were fired fairly rapidly,
> three shots in under 9 seconds and the second
> shot with 0.8 seconds of JFK clearing the tree,
> difficult to do with even a good scope but easy
> with the iron sights
>
> strongly indicate that the iron sights were used.
>
If so the shots at such a close distance would be high.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "The clip was NOT included with the rifle from Klein's."<<<
>
> I never said it was.
>
Yes, you did. You said the rifle came with a clip. It did not. It had to
be bought separately. No one knows where Oswald got it.
David Von Pein
FOLLOW-UP TO THREAD-STARTER:
>>>"My original point one is this: let's say that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet. It is physically impossible for them both to react at the same time to their wounds, as Connally would have been hit AFTER Kennedy. It takes time for a bullet to traverse Kennedy's body, then exit, then enter Connally's body. Therefore, they CANNOT react at the same time if they were hit by the same bullet. Simple logic. .... You are saying the shots the WC fired into a single carcass "naturally" will come out more damaged than a bullet that travels through many bones and tissues. This statement completely defies any and all logic. Please explain how an object hitting multiple targets doing multiple damage gets damaged LESS than an object hitting one target."<<<
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2163522a2edd78dd
Paul [from YouTube.com],
I tried to be helpful and friendly, Paul [via the post linked above].
But it's obvious that you are beyond help. And, quite frankly, after
reading your last reply, it sounds like you are deliberately trying to
be as stupid as possible when it comes to the evidence connected to
this case.
Like all JFK conspiracy theorists, you cannot evaluate evidence
properly. That fact is obvious by the fact that you think there would
be a noticeable difference in Kennedy's and Connally's reactions when
the same bullet (moving at a velocity of about 1900 fps) strikes them.
In such a situation, of course, the two victims would essentially be
reacting AT THE SAME TIME. But you want to split hairs and say they
would have to react separately, even though a bullet traveling at
almost 2000 fps has just struck them. That, Paul, is just plain silly
on your part.
And if you can't see my point regarding the Warren Commission only
firing bullets individually into goat ribs and cadaver wrists, without
the benefit of those bullets being slowed down by having passed
through TWO bodies first, then I can't help you see the obvious.
You can go back to bed now. Jim Fetzer's feet are getting cold.
David Von Pein
>>> "Yes, you did. You said the rifle came with a clip." <<<
Nope. I never said the rifle "came" with a clip. Here's what I said
(which Anthony Marsh decided to interpret incorrectly, as usual):
"Oswald's rifle did have a clip. The clip is part of the
evidence now at the National Archives. It is Commission Exhibit No.
575." -- DVP; 05/20/10
The quote shown above is perfectly accurate -- i.e., Oswald's rifle
"did have a clip" accompanying it in the TSBD when the rifle was found
by the police on November 22, 1963.
The assumption on the part of the person my quote was being aimed at
(Paul) was that he seemed to believe that there was NO CLIP at all
being utilized by Oswald when Oswald was shooting President Kennedy
with Rifle C2766 from the Book Depository.
It was that particular false assumption that I was correcting when I
said to Paul: "Oswald's rifle did have a clip."
bigdog
Tony prefers to make up arguments for other people so he has something
to refute. He can't refute the things they actually say.
David Von Pein
ANOTHER ADDENDUM:
Paul,
I responded IN FULL to every point you made in my lengthy and very
reasoned first reply to you yesterday. And every single point you make is
discussed at great length at my websites as well.
You need to understand bullet velocities to fully understand CE399 and its
post-shooting condition. Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert, wrote a
book ("THE JFK MYTHS") discussing in great detail all of the ins & outs of
the velocity topic. It's the key to understanding why CE399 looks like it
does now.
In short, JFK's body and JBC's torso slowed that bullet to below 1400fps,
which is the speed below which NO MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM if
the bullet is tumbling, as CE399 certainly was.
Therefore, since that bullet was travelling at a speed LESS than 1400fps
when it struck Connally's wrist, then NO FURTHER DAMAGE would be expected
to that bullet.
Simple logic. And even simpler velocity data.
John Blubaugh
Tony has arguments you cannot refute because you cannot come close to
matching his knowledge of the case. The fact that you can't refute him
says much more about you than it does about Tony.
JB
claviger
The fact is many people have no political agenda. I wish they did. We live
a ambiguous ambivalent political culture. Especially "independents" who
can never make their mind up about anything. The problem is this
wishy-washy segment of the population is who decide the elections. Is it
any wonder why our government is so screwed up?! Americans want their cake
and eat it too. The "cake" is the Golden Goose, the US economy. They want
it healthy so we all have jobs but at the same time tax it till it bleeds.
So Americans need to make a choice, nurture the Golden Goose with free
enterprise or bake it socialist style and invite everybody to the final
barbeque.
Anthony Marsh
>
> ANOTHER ADDENDUM:
>
> Paul,
>
> I responded IN FULL to every point you made in my lengthy and very
> reasoned first reply to you yesterday. And every single point you make is
> discussed at great length at my websites as well.
>
> You need to understand bullet velocities to fully understand CE399 and its
No, YOU need to understand bullet velocities. Sturdivan lied about the
characteristics of the WCC ammo. He used the wrong figure to calculate the
loss of velocity and ignored the tests done for the WC which showed the
loss of velocity going through JFK was only about 129 fps. It would help
if you'd actually read the WCR some day.
> post-shooting condition. Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert, wrote a
> book ("THE JFK MYTHS") discussing in great detail all of the ins& outs of
> the velocity topic. It's the key to understanding why CE399 looks like it
> does now.
>
And he lied. That's why you like him so much.
> In short, JFK's body and JBC's torso slowed that bullet to below 1400fps,
> which is the speed below which NO BULLET CAN DEFORM if the bullet is
> tumbling, as CE399 certainly was.
>
NO BULLET. Wrong again. Each bullet is different. The WCC bullet has an
exceptionally thick jacket which means it can resist deformation as even
higher velocities. In fact Nichols fired at WCC bullet into 47 inches of
Ponderosa Pine at full velocity and it came out totally undeformed.
> Therefore, since that bullet was travelling at a speed LESS than 1400fps
> when it struck Connally's wrist, then NO FURTHER DAMAGE would be expected
> to that bullet.
>
> Simple logic. And even simpler velocity data.
>
False logic based on false premises and lies. Perfect for the WC defenders.
Anthony Marsh
>
> ANOTHER ADDENDUM:
>
> Paul,
>
> I responded IN FULL to every point you made in my lengthy and very
> reasoned first reply to you yesterday. And every single point you make is
> discussed at great length at my websites as well.
>
> You need to understand bullet velocities to fully understand CE399 and its
> book ("THE JFK MYTHS") discussing in great detail all of the ins& outs of
> the velocity topic. It's the key to understanding why CE399 looks like it
> does now.
>
> which is the speed below which NO BULLET CAN DEFORM if the bullet is
> tumbling, as CE399 certainly was.
>
There is no evidence that the bullet which hit Connally's back was
tumbling. Stop perpetuating myths.
Anthony Marsh
>
> ANOTHER ADDENDUM:
>
> Paul,
>
> I responded IN FULL to every point you made in my lengthy and very
> reasoned first reply to you yesterday. And every single point you make is
> discussed at great length at my websites as well.
>
> You need to understand bullet velocities to fully understand CE399 and its
> post-shooting condition. Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert, wrote a
> the velocity topic. It's the key to understanding why CE399 looks like it
> does now.
>
> In short, JFK's body and JBC's torso slowed that bullet to below 1400fps,
> which is the speed below which NO MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM if
> the bullet is tumbling, as CE399 certainly was.
>
No Mannlicher-Carcano bullet? You've tested all the other brands,
including but not limited to the SMI, Norma, Peters? I think what you
mean is Oswald's bullets, the WCC.
> Therefore, since that bullet was travelling at a speed LESS than 1400fps
> when it struck Connally's wrist, then NO FURTHER DAMAGE would be expected
> to that bullet.
>
Maybe. Not proven.
Sturdivan lied about the numbers to get it lower than 1400 fps.
You admire that.
> Simple logic. And even simpler velocity data.
>
Wrong tables.
John Blubaugh
>
If they are independent, that is a political agenda too. Your other
comments are far too simplistic. There are non socialist governments in
industrial countries that provide health care for their citizens. you can
also do some pretty serious baking by waging war in two countries at the
same time. Stay home and fix our infrastructure instead of blowing up
other countries and then replacing their infrastructure. Make jobs by
repairing roads, bridges, sewers, levies and the like.
JB
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I quit responding to Marsh months ago because I got fed up with the
way he would claim people had said things which they clearly did not.
I simply refuse to have a dialogue with someone who cannot make his
arguments honestly. I have inadvertently responded to a few of his
posts because I failed to take note of who had posted them and assumed
they had been made by others. Other than those few occassions, I
simply refuse to even try to engage Marsh in any discussion. There is
nothing Marsh has claimed that cannot be refuted. He imagines things
that simply are untrue and he thinks his suspiscions are a suitable
substitute for evidence. He believes he is far more qualified in
numerous fields than people who are recognized experts in those fields
and he expects the rest of us to think that his unqualifed opinions
should carry more weight than people who are recognized as leading
experts in those various field. It is hardly necessary to refute any
of Marsh's claims. They refute themselves.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is no evidence that the bullet which hit Connally's back was tumbling." <<<
Only the elongated wound on Connally's back, which you'll ignore or
misrepresent, of course.
Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC
BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first.
Marsh, as usual, will pretend that Dr. Lattimer's tests were flawed in
some manner.
>>> "Stop perpetuating myths." <<<
Pot. Kettle.
claviger
> > > The fact is that everyone DOES have a political agenda. Some of us
> > > admit other deny it even to themselves.
>
> > The fact is many people have no political agenda. I wish they did. We live
> > a ambiguous ambivalent political culture. Especially "independents" who
> > can never make their mind up about anything. The problem is this
> > wishy-washy segment of the population is who decide the elections. Is it
> > any wonder why our government is so screwed up?! Americans want their cake
> > and eat it too. The "cake" is the Golden Goose, the US economy. They want
> > it healthy so we all have jobs but at the same time tax it till it bleeds.
> > So Americans need to make a choice, nurture the Golden Goose with free
> > enterprise or bake it socialist style and invite everybody to the final
> > barbeque.- Hide quoted text -
> If they are independent, that is a political agenda too.
A very confused agenda to be sure. Then there are those too apathetic to
vote. Is there an agenda to that attitude?
> Your other comments are far too simplistic.
So you think you are the only one on this message board who can make
comments that are far too simplistic? Now you have some competition.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery!
> There are non socialist governments in
> industrial countries that provide health care for their citizens. you can
> also do some pretty serious baking by waging war in two countries at the
> same time. Stay home and fix our infrastructure instead of blowing up
> other countries and then replacing their infrastructure. Make jobs by
> repairing roads, bridges, sewers, levies and the like.
Spain brags about their universal health care. No problema! However, they
don't have 12-14 million illegal aliens getting free health care. Neither
does Mexico, because their immigration laws are the toughest in the
Western Hemisphere. I know a doctor in Mexico who is part of the Federal
Health care program. He makes house calls to deliver babies. How's that
for cost control!
claviger
> The fact is that everyone DOES have a political agenda. Some of us
> admit other deny it even to themselves.
How exactly does that affect this debate? Please explain.
Coondog
God, I have to agree with Marsh! I’ve said this before but no one seems
to care. Bullets can do strange things when they hit flesh and blood and
bone. You might expect it but you won’t get uniform results (bullet
defragmentation and/or deformity) firing the same make, weight and
designed bullets. Buy a new box, shoot all 20 rounds and you can get
tendencies but you can’t get absolutes. To claim NO bullet will deform
traveling under 1400fps and tumbling is absurd.
> > Therefore, since that bullet was travelling at a speed LESS than 1400fps
> > when it struck Connally's wrist, then NO FURTHER DAMAGE would be expected
> > to that bullet.
>
> > Simple logic. And even simpler velocity data.
>
> False logic based on false premises and lies. Perfect for the WC defenders.
I don’t know about the lies part but lord have mercy I have to agree
with Marsh again.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Could have been “buck fever” but even the best miss sometime. I’m
guessing the first miss was due to a crappy rifle. A bad barrel, sloppy
tolerances including the bolt and bolt interface, poor sights and sloppy
or no sighting in are as detrimental to the first shot accuracy as they
are to the remaining shots. The only advantage of the first shot is that
you won’t have a miss-feed when loading the chamber.
Bill Clarke
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can find an expert to support just about any position you want.
Look at trials. The state has experts and the defense has experts that
refute them. Just being an expert does not believe someone is
absolutely correct in everything they propose. Much of it is theory
and it isn't possible to prove all of them.
On the other hand, you do exactly what you accuse Tony of doing. You
reject expert testimony and opinion all of the time when it does not
suit your cause or casts doubt on the WCR. What is the big difference?
If you had a debate with Marsh, you would get your head handed to you
and you would make a complete fool of yourself because you do not have
his command of the facts and data. You have the WCR only and a good
high school debater would destroy you over that. The reason you don't
answer Tony is because you know you are in way over your head.
JB
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "There is no evidence that the bullet which hit Connally's back was tumbling." <<<
>
> Only the elongated wound on Connally's back, which you'll ignore or
> misrepresent, of course.
Elongation of a wound is not evidence of a strike by a tumbling or a
bullet with yaw.
>
> Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC
> BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first.
Lattimer's tests show that a bullet with yaw of about 90 degree makes
an elongated hole whose shape resembles a rectangular with rounded
corners.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/tumbling.jpg
By contrast, Doctor Shaw reported the shape of the elongated wound on
Governor Connally's back as elliptical and Doctor Gregory described
the central portion of this wound as rounded.
>
> Marsh, as usual, will pretend that Dr. Lattimer's tests were flawed in
> some manner.
Without doubt, Von Pein is pretending that elongation as opposed to
shape is the discriminant of a yawed from a tangential strike by a
bullet.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "There is no evidence that the bullet which hit Connally's back was
tumbling."<<<
>
> Only the elongated wound on Connally's back, which you'll ignore or
> misrepresent, of course.
>
More WC myths. The back wound was only elongated to 15 mm, the same as
what you think is the Kennedy head entrance wound. So tell us what caused
the head shot bullet to start tumbling and cause THAT elongated wound?
What did it go through first?
The fact is that you are ignorant of the fact that a bullet wound can be
elongated for other reasons.
> Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC
> BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first.
>
Irrelevant. You have no proof that it was tumbling.
You are using circular reasoning.
> Marsh, as usual, will pretend that Dr. Lattimer's tests were flawed in
> some manner.
>
Flawed? Some of his tests were outright dishonest.
>
>
>>>> "Stop perpetuating myths."<<<
>
> Pot. Kettle.
>
Tell me what myths you think I am perpetuating. Don't pick out some myth
from a conspiracy book and then falsely claim that I believe it.
John Blubaugh
That is easy. Almost everything here is a battle between the right and
the left.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
That hurts doesn't it. Oh, well, it could have been worse, you could
have agreed with me ;-)
JB
David Von Pein
>>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
is absurd." <<<
So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
believe his data is totally wrong.
BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
i.e., going "sideways"]".
But that revision is still inaccurate, I will admit. (Yes, Marsh was
correct again. Yikes!)
I should have said: "NO MC/WCC bullet can deform..." [per Sturdivan's
data].
I'll admit, I've always thought Larry Sturdivan's numbers were a bit odd
too, particularly his data about CE399 striking Connally's wrist at only
500fps. Seems mighty slow to me. But, then too, I'm not a "ballistics
expert". Larry M. Sturdivan is.
And the words that appear on page 246 of Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
Myths", are worth the price I paid for the book all by themselves.
David Von Pein
I'm wondering if the reason that Oswald's first shot missed was simply due
to the fact that it's quite possible that his rifle hadn't been fired for
a lengthy period of time prior to 11/22/63?
Perhaps this inactivity caused the first shot fired from that gun on
November 22nd to behave strangely, or result in a partial misfire. Which
could also be a possible explanation for why the first shot sounded
"different" than the other shots to many witnesses.
I'm certainly no expert on guns, but does the above explanation sound
plausible to anyone out there who IS a gun buff?
Has anyone out there ever experienced a misfire or a wildly-askew
first shot when firing your rifle following an extended period of
inactivity?
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ab4cb89f3e2a36e7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e759bcf136db1496
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>> "Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first." <<<
HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
>>> "Elongation of a wound is not evidence of a strike by a tumbling or a bullet with yaw. Lattimer's tests show that a bullet with yaw of about 90 degree makes an elongated hole whose shape resembles a rectangular with rounded corners." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS [QUOTING DR. JOHN LATTIMER]:
"An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by
our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of
Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end
over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the
center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black
margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck
the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen
to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106
on Page 265 of "Kennedy & Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or
tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target
UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as
Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." --
Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)
---------------
"Based on the experiments we have done, if the bullet had struck
Governor Connally's back as its first point of impact without
previously passing through President Kennedy, it SURELY would have
shattered Connally's femur and probably would have traversed his leg
completely, in addition to his thorax and wrist. It also would have
made a small punctate wound of entrance on his back rather than the
elongated one it did leave." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 290 of "Kennedy
And Lincoln" (c.1980)
---------------
David Von Pein
>>> "The back wound [on Connally] was only elongated to 15 mm, the same as what you think is the Kennedy head entrance wound. So tell us what caused the head shot bullet to start tumbling and cause THAT elongated wound? What did it go through first?" <<<
The bullet that struck the back of JFK's head was certainly not
tumbling when it hit his head, and the entry wound in Kennedy's head
certainly doesn't look "elongated" to me.
Plus: Here's something I hadn't thought about at all before today --
When looking at the autopsy photo linked below, the "15 millimeter"
measurement that appears in the autopsy report for one of the
dimensions of the head entry wound doesn't appear to be even close to
being accurate.
The HSCA, however, also measured the "red spot" wound to be 15x6
millimeters. But it doesn't look anywhere near that large (the 15 mm.
dimension, that is), in either width or height. It looks to be roughly
6 mm. x 6 mm.:
~shrug~
Coondog
Now I don’t want a transfer to Marsh’s unit but he has some points
here I think. A bullet will yaw or tumble (they aren’t the same) if
it is under stabilized (goes too slow) or if it is over stabilized
(goes to fast) and this includes the MC ammo. I have beefed up some
22-.250 hand loads that tumbled so much (over stabilization) that I
had some go through the paper target that to the naked eye were
completely elongated.
A bullet, usually a fast moving light weight bullet, will often tumble
when it hits a target. A good example of this is the M-16 round. I
hardly think the M/C round is a good candidate for tumbling with its
slow speed and weighty bullet. But, I say again, all bets are off
when a bullet begins its interior ballistics. You don’t know what it
is going to do until it does it.
Bill Clarke
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
>
> is absurd." <<<
>
> So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
> figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
>
> Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
> believe his data is totally wrong.
Sturdivan attributed deformation to force instead of stress. This
conceptual error renders his data worthless.
>
> BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
> that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
> MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
> i.e., going "sideways"]".
You still have it wrong; tumbling does not mean going sideways.
>
> But that revision is still inaccurate, I will admit. (Yes, Marsh was
> correct again. Yikes!)
>
> I should have said: "NO MC/WCC bullet can deform..." [per Sturdivan's
> data].
A punch that stamps manufacturer name and other information on the
cartridge case strikes with a speed far less than 1400 fps though the
yield strength of the cartridge is comparable with the strength of
the jacketed bullet.
>
> I'll admit, I've always thought Larry Sturdivan's numbers were a bit odd
> too, particularly his data about CE399 striking Connally's wrist at only
> 500fps. Seems mighty slow to me. But, then too, I'm not a "ballistics
> expert". Larry M. Sturdivan is.
Nutternition of a ballistics expert: Someone who does know a stress
from a force, a velocity from a speed or one angle from another.
>
> And the words that appear on page 246 of Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
> Myths", are worth the price I paid for the book all by themselves.
>
> http://Amazon.com/review/R6EGCI0WHHGAD
People are what they read.
Herbert
Coondog
> >>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
>
> is absurd." <<<
>
> So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
> figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
>
> Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
> believe his data is totally wrong.
>
> BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
> that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
> MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
> i.e., going "sideways"]".
I’m not sure what he did but I’m sure a .22 Long Rifle bullet sailing
along at 1,200 or 1,300 fps will deform when it hits something solid.
So I knew the “No bullet” was wrong. Now to modify it or restricting
it by using the M/C bullet might give him some lee way here but I
wonder how much? And I believe common sense tells us that a tumbling
(end over end) or unstabilized bullet is more susceptible to coming
apart than a bullet spiraling through like it is supposed to.
> But that revision is still inaccurate, I will admit. (Yes, Marsh was
> correct again. Yikes!)
I feel your pain.
> I should have said: "NO MC/WCC bullet can deform..." [per Sturdivan's
> data].
>
> I'll admit, I've always thought Larry Sturdivan's numbers were a bit odd
> too, particularly his data about CE399 striking Connally's wrist at only
> 500fps. Seems mighty slow to me. But, then too, I'm not a "ballistics
> expert". Larry M. Sturdivan is.
>
> And the words that appear on page 246 of Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
> Myths", are worth the price I paid for the book all by themselves.
>
> http://Amazon.com/review/R6EGCI0WHHGAD
I’m pass due for a trip to Amazon, I might buy it just to see what he
has to say here.
Bill Clarke
claviger
Scientific Method and Left people don't?
David Von Pein
>>> "You still have it wrong; tumbling does not mean going sideways." <<<
Addendum:
Sturdivan does specify the word "sideways" (not "tumbling") on Pg. 118
of "The JFK Myths", with respect to the velocity of WCC/MC bullets and
whether or not they will deform at certain speeds. He says that below
1400fps a "Sideways" WCC/MC bullet will definitely not suffer any
deformation.
As far as only partially-yawed WCC/MC bullets go--beats me. Sturdivan
doesn't give that data on p.118. I assume he means yawing or tumbling
bullets in general. But maybe he does strictly mean only "sideways",
not partially tipped.
Anyway, we all know CE399 struck both JFK & JBC. Any other solution
belongs in the funny papers -- especially the scenario that has
somebody planting a bullet (any bullet) on a stretcher (any stretcher)
at Parkland.
bigdog
If this was a battle between the left and right, you and Buglioi would
be on the same side. Politically, he is one of yours.
bigdog
My own belief is that the first shot, despite being the shortest, was
by far the most difficult. Look at all the things that were working
against him. He almost certainly had plenty of lead time to assess the
situation and decide when to take the first shot. I am not a proponent
of the idea that the first shot was taken on Houston St. before
Zapruder resumed filming. That leaves Oswald with a very short window
of opportunity to take a shot before his target was obscured by the
trees. He would have had to have tracked his target and taken the shot
as the limo was rounding a 110 degree turn or immediately there after.
He would have been firing almost straight down with his target moving
across his line of fire rather than down the line as it was for the
later shots. This would have maximized the relative movement of the
target to the line of fire, requiring Oswald to judge the amount of
lead. If Oswald took the shot before the limo had straightened out,
his target would have been moving in an arc rather than straight line,
further adding to the difficult. Lastly, firing at such a steep angle
through a window that was only slightly open, would likely have forced
Oswald to raise up out of the kneeling position to a crouch which
would probably have also rendered his rifle rest useless. A rifle rest
is a huge advantage in steadying a rifle.
I would also not characterize the shot as "wildly askew". It might
seem that way given that he missed the entire limo, but he wasn't
aiming at the limo. He was aiming at an occupant on the extreme right
side of that limo. His shot would have only had to miss a foot or so
right to miss the limo entirely. Had he missed by the same amount to
the left, his shot would have likely struck between the four
passengers.
To answer your last question, no, I have never experienced a wild
first shot due to an extended period of inactivity. I generally clean
the barrels of my guns after using them, but some oxidation can build
up within the barrel over time. I've never known that to be an issue
although I would not want to categorically state that it couldn't be.
It just hasn't been my experience. There are other issues with a first
shot that have more to do with the shooter than the firearm. When I am
target shooting, and I am firing repeating shots, quite often the
first one is the one furthest off target and I have known other
shooters who have had the same experience. For hunters, the term is
buck fever but I don't think that applies to target shooting. I would
describe it as the choke factor. When we have time to think about what
we are doing, there is a tendency to get in our own way. It's why some
golfers get the yips and basketball players who shoot well from the
field have a harder time with free throws. When shooting a basketball
from the floor, a player will shoot instinctively and in rythym but
when he is at the foul line, he has time to think about it which for
some is a hindrance rather than a help. Whether Oswald was affected in
this way is anybody's guess, but if there was a shot he was going to
choke on, it would likely be the first because that is the one he had
the most time to think about. After that, he knew his time was limited
to get off subsequent shots and would be more likely to revert to his
training.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 23, 8:18 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
>>
>> is absurd."<<<
>>
>> So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
>> figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
>>
>> Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
>> believe his data is totally wrong.
>>
>> BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
>> that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
>> MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
>> i.e., going "sideways"]".
>
> along at 1,200 or 1,300 fps will deform when it hits something solid.
Well, at least he was man enough to admit that HE was wrong and I was
right. But he still got the wording wrong by not specifying exactly
which type of bullet he means, the WCC ammo that Oswald bought. It has
an unusually thick jacket, almost 1 mm.
> it by using the M/C bullet might give him some lee way here but I
> wonder how much? And I believe common sense tells us that a tumbling
> (end over end) or unstabilized bullet is more susceptible to coming
> apart than a bullet spiraling through like it is supposed to.
>
>
>> But that revision is still inaccurate, I will admit. (Yes, Marsh was
>> correct again. Yikes!)
>
> I feel your pain.
>
>> I should have said: "NO MC/WCC bullet can deform..." [per Sturdivan's
>> data].
>>
>> I'll admit, I've always thought Larry Sturdivan's numbers were a bit odd
>> too, particularly his data about CE399 striking Connally's wrist at only
>> 500fps. Seems mighty slow to me. But, then too, I'm not a "ballistics
>> expert". Larry M. Sturdivan is.
>>
>> And the words that appear on page 246 of Sturdivan's book, "The JFK
>> Myths", are worth the price I paid for the book all by themselves.
>>
>> http://Amazon.com/review/R6EGCI0WHHGAD
>
> I�m pass due for a trip to Amazon, I might buy it just to see what he
> has to say here.
> Bill Clarke
>
Seems you missed all messages pointing our the many errors in the
Sturdivan book.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On May 23, 11:29 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "There is no evidence that the bullet which hit Connally's back was tumbling."<<<
>>
>> Only the elongated wound on Connally's back, which you'll ignore or
>> misrepresent, of course.
>>
>> Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC
>> BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first.
>>
>> Marsh, as usual, will pretend that Dr. Lattimer's tests were flawed in
>> some manner.
>
>
> here I think. A bullet will yaw or tumble (they aren�t the same) if
> it is under stabilized (goes too slow) or if it is over stabilized
> (goes to fast) and this includes the MC ammo. I have beefed up some
> 22-.250 hand loads that tumbled so much (over stabilization) that I
> had some go through the paper target that to the naked eye were
> completely elongated.
>
There is also a problem with some Mannlicher-Carcanos. They used
progressive gain twist which had a twist of 1 in 7.7 inches at the
muzzle. This was necessary to properly stabilize the very heavy and long
FMJ bullet. But to meet quota, the exporters sometime just took a long
barreled rifle and chopped off the end to make it short enough, thus
ruining the final tightening of the twist. This can produce unstable
bullets in flight, yawing.
> A bullet, usually a fast moving light weight bullet, will often tumble
> when it hits a target. A good example of this is the M-16 round. I
> hardly think the M/C round is a good candidate for tumbling with its
> slow speed and weighty bullet. But, I say again, all bets are off
> when a bullet begins its interior ballistics. You don�t know what it
> is going to do until it does it.
>
Yes, others have speculated about such a round, but the medical evidence
seems to point to the 160 grain M-C bullets.
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
> I'm wondering if the reason that Oswald's first shot missed was simply due
> to the fact that it's quite possible that his rifle hadn't been fired for
> a lengthy period of time prior to 11/22/63?
>
It should not cause such a wild miss that the bullet never hits anything
on our planet. But in fact quite often the first shot fired that day
will have a lower muzzle velocity than normal. Competitive shooters know
this and are allowed to fire a couple of "fouling shots" before
competing for score. Just for fun as Todd Vaughan was knowing what a
fouling shot is is important to understanding the 1978 acoustics tests.
> Perhaps this inactivity caused the first shot fired from that gun on
> November 22nd to behave strangely, or result in a partial misfire. Which
> could also be a possible explanation for why the first shot sounded
> "different" than the other shots to many witnesses.
>
Dr. Forest Chapman's theory is that a defective primer caused a partial
misfire. But that ammo is so reliable it is virtually imposssible.
> I'm certainly no expert on guns, but does the above explanation sound
> plausible to anyone out there who IS a gun buff?
>
> Has anyone out there ever experienced a misfire or a wildly-askew
> first shot when firing your rifle following an extended period of
> inactivity?
>
Yes, but usually you hit SOMETHING.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
> is absurd."<<<
>
> So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
> figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
>
MADE UP is the wrong phrasing. Try looked up the wrong table entry, fudged.
> Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
> believe his data is totally wrong.
>
How about slightly wrong.
> BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
> that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
> MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
> i.e., going "sideways"]".
>
> But that revision is still inaccurate, I will admit. (Yes, Marsh was
> correct again. Yikes!)
>
> I should have said: "NO MC/WCC bullet can deform..." [per Sturdivan's
> data].
>
> I'll admit, I've always thought Larry Sturdivan's numbers were a bit odd
> too, particularly his data about CE399 striking Connally's wrist at only
> 500fps. Seems mighty slow to me. But, then too, I'm not a "ballistics
> expert". Larry M. Sturdivan is.
>
He needs to fudge the beginning numbers which ruins the final numbers.
Jason Burke
No, John. Almost everything here is a battle between right and CT fantasy.
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "You still have it wrong; tumbling does not mean going sideways." <<<
>
> Addendum:
>
> Sturdivan does specify the word "sideways" (not "tumbling") on Pg. 118
> of "The JFK Myths", with respect to the velocity of WCC/MC bullets and
> whether or not they will deform at certain speeds. He says that below
> 1400fps a "Sideways" WCC/MC bullet will definitely not suffer any
> deformation.
In his HSCA testimony, Sturdivan said that 1400 fps was the
deformation threshold for a nose on strike upon bone and for a
sideways strike the limit was around 1000 fps.
>
> As far as only partially-yawed WCC/MC bullets go--beats me. Sturdivan
> doesn't give that data on p.118. I assume he means yawing or tumbling
> bullets in general. But maybe he does strictly mean only "sideways",
> not partially tipped.
A partially-yawed bullet refers to a state of being whereas yawing or
tumbling refers to states of changes.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ab4cb89f3e2a...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e759bcf136db...
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >>> "Lattimer's many tests with MC/WCC ammunition indicate that NO MC/WCC BULLET will tumble unless it hit something first." <<<
>
> HERBERT BLENNER SAID:
>
> >>> "Elongation of a wound is not evidence of a strike by a tumbling or a bullet with yaw. Lattimer's tests show that a bullet with yaw of about 90 degree makes an elongated hole whose shape resembles a rectangular with rounded corners." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS [QUOTING DR. JOHN LATTIMER]:
>
> "An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by
> our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of
> Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end
> over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the
> center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black
> margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck
> the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen
> to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106
> on Page 265 of "Kennedy & Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or
> tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target
> UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as
> Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." --
> Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)
>
Your quote of Dr. John Lattimer proves that he was selling a lie. A
bullet that strikes when "turned almost completely sidewards" makes a
rectangular hole with rounded corners as seen in the figure published
by Lattimer.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/tumbling.jpg
So David, are you going to tell us that the above graphic shows oval
holes in the targets?
Analysts recognize that an oval/elliptical hole arises from a
tangential strike by a bullet with negligible yaw angle. In fact they
calculate the entry or incidence angle of the bullet from the
dimensions of the ellipse.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Herbert
Coondog
If you oil down the bore, as you should, for a period of time you
should clean out this oil with solvent before firing the weapon.
If you fire with excess oil in the bore it will cause the first round
to hit outside the normal grouping of the rifle. While this can’t be
classified as wildly askew it can be enough to cause a miss or more
likely be one of the factors in a miss. In my experience we’re
talking 2 to 5 inches here. Not much but it doesn’t take much to
miss, especially a moving target. This first round burns off the oil
and old Betsy should then get down to business on the following
rounds.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "The back wound [on Connally] was only elongated to 15 mm, the same
as what you think is the Kennedy head entrance wound. So tell us what
caused the head shot bullet to start tumbling and cause THAT elongated
wound? What did it go through first?"<<<
>
>
> The bullet that struck the back of JFK's head was certainly not
> tumbling when it hit his head, and the entry wound in Kennedy's head
> certainly doesn't look "elongated" to me.
>
More nonsense. You can't even see any entrance wound in the back of the
head. And it was "officially" measured at 15 mm long. That is elongated.
Are you saying that the autopsy doctors lied?
> Plus: Here's something I hadn't thought about at all before today --
> When looking at the autopsy photo linked below, the "15 millimeter"
> measurement that appears in the autopsy report for one of the
> dimensions of the head entry wound doesn't appear to be even close to
> being accurate.
>
So, are you saying that the autopsy doctors were liars or incompetent,
or both? Be careful, you're turning into a Tony.
> The HSCA, however, also measured the "red spot" wound to be 15x6
> millimeters. But it doesn't look anywhere near that large (the 15 mm.
> dimension, that is), in either width or height. It looks to be roughly
> 6 mm. x 6 mm.:
>
Wonderful, so now you've found 2 wounds on the back of his head, the
autopsy doctors wound and your wound.
John Blubaugh
In your deluded dreams. The case has already been declared to be a
conspiracy so who is living in a fantasy world? The only questions
left are who were the conspirators and who controlled them.
JB
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bfa...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "The back wound [on Connally] was only elongated to 15 mm, the same as what you think is the Kennedy head entrance wound. So tell us what caused the head shot bullet to start tumbling and cause THAT elongated wound? What did it go through first?" <<<
>
> The bullet that struck the back of JFK's head was certainly not
> tumbling when it hit his head, and the entry wound in Kennedy's head
> certainly doesn't look "elongated" to me.
>
> Plus: Here's something I hadn't thought about at all before today --
> When looking at the autopsy photo linked below, the "15 millimeter"
> measurement that appears in the autopsy report for one of the
> dimensions of the head entry wound doesn't appear to be even close to
> being accurate.
>
> The HSCA, however, also measured the "red spot" wound to be 15x6
> millimeters. But it doesn't look anywhere near that large (the 15 mm.
> dimension, that is), in either width or height. It looks to be roughly
> 6 mm. x 6 mm.:
David, you are a fountain of misinformation.
The FPP of the HSCA measured the "red spot" as 9 mm by 15-20 mm. They
reported the autopsy measurements of 6 mm by 15 mm but did not
distinguish the bullet hole from the surrounding abrasion.
I wonder whether Lattimer or a failing memory is your source?
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> ~shrug~
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "You still have it wrong; tumbling does not mean going sideways."<<<
>
> Addendum:
>
> Sturdivan does specify the word "sideways" (not "tumbling") on Pg. 118
> of "The JFK Myths", with respect to the velocity of WCC/MC bullets and
> whether or not they will deform at certain speeds. He says that below
> 1400fps a "Sideways" WCC/MC bullet will definitely not suffer any
> deformation.
>
Not 100% correct, but close enough for a WC defender.
Another problem is assuming how the bullet will hit bone. All the test
struck the bones head on at a perpendicular angle. But in the case of
the rib, ribs are usually curved rather than straight in that area of
the body and we can't be sure how the bullet hit, at what angle.
Most tests struck the wrist head on at a perpendicular angle. The amount
of deformation may differ if it hits the wrist at an angle.
> As far as only partially-yawed WCC/MC bullets go--beats me. Sturdivan
> doesn't give that data on p.118. I assume he means yawing or tumbling
> bullets in general. But maybe he does strictly mean only "sideways",
> not partially tipped.
>
> Anyway, we all know CE399 struck both JFK& JBC. Any other solution
No, we don't. Neither did the WC and the FBI until the SBT was dreamed up.
David Von Pein
>>> "It should not cause such a wild miss that the bullet never hits
anything on our planet." <<<
It did hit something, Tony -- the oak tree (probably), and then the
ground.
Why are you implying that I said that Oswald was aiming at the moon?
claviger
Declared? OK, can you declare some details on how this conspiracy worked?
Coondog
> On 5/24/2010 10:28 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 8:18 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "To claim NO bullet will deform traveling under 1400fps and tumbling
>
> >> is absurd."<<<
>
> >> So you're saying ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan just MADE UP the
> >> figures in his book re: WCC/MC ammunition?
>
> >> Yes, I suppose that is POSSIBLE, but I'm not quite sure why I should
> >> believe his data is totally wrong.
>
> >> BTW, I was wrong when I said "NO BULLET CAN DEFORM" earlier. I deleted
> >> that post (in case no one noticed), and revised the post to read "NO
> >> MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET CAN DEFORM [below 1400fps if it's tumbling,
> >> i.e., going "sideways"]".
>
> > along at 1,200 or 1,300 fps will deform when it hits something solid.
>
> Well, at least he was man enough to admit that HE was wrong and I was
> right.
This must be your finest hour!
Bill Clarke
Jason Burke
Declared to be a conspiracy by, uh, you. Let me guess, you're going on the
discredited acoustical evidence this time.
Shall I just look it up on Google? That seems to be your response to
everything these days, now that you've given up repeating 'back and to the
left' over a thousand times.
Anthony Marsh
Oh, so you dreamed up a new theory just for me. Thanks, I'm flattered.
Now prove it. Show me the mark where the bullet hit the tree. Show me
where the bullet hit the ground. Dig up that bullet and show it to me.
Otherwise you are just making up crap as usual.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oh, so you dreamed up a new theory just for me. Thanks." <<<
No prob. Although why on this Earth you think the "Bullet Hit The Oak
Tree" theory is "new" is beyond me.
You must be in your usual "I Need To Argue With Somebody For No Reason
At All" Marsh Mode, eh?
>>> "Show me the mark where the bullet hit the tree." <<<
Can't. It's just a theory.
>>> "Show me where the bullet hit the ground." <<<
The last time I checked into it, a curbstone was ON THE "GROUND".
But Tony is now going to pretend that there wasn't a fresh bullet mark
on the Main St. curb with traces of lead on that same curb.
Right, Tony?
Herbert Blenner
> On May 24, 10:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Has anyone seen David?
> >http://Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -