Let's Play "21 Questions" .... An LN Response To 21 CT Inquiries
David Von Pein
same "quiz" was posted at the Simkin JFK Forum recently too). Simkin
Forum members are encouraged to copy-&-paste this post into the
associated thread there at the Simkin Forum too.
(If someone should decide to post this at Simkin's Forum, please copy
the text via the "Show Original" option provided here at Google Groups,
to preserve the full weblinks/URLs. Much obliged.).........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
have been, even though no testimony exists?
Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
"conspiracy" oriented?
No, of course there's no proof of this. And this # 1 question here only
illustrates a rabid CT-Kook's desire to paint everything as "hinky" and
"shady" and "hidden" in some manner...despite any proof to back up such
notions.
Why did the WC call S.M. Holland...or Jean Hill...or various other
witnesses whose testimony didn't aid the "LN" scenario? Many witnesses
weren't called that could have been called, sure; but 552 people did
testify (or were interviewed). Why some CTers think Chaney's testimony
would have suddenly changed all the physical evidence in the case, or
would have somehow nullified the perfectly-logical SBT is a crazy CT
notion indeed.
Jackie Kennedy could (and should) have been questioned in a more
in-depth manner by the Commission, IMO. But she wasn't -- which was no
doubt out of deference to the grieving widow's feelings. The WC didn't
want to upset Jackie any more than was absolutely necessary. Although I
think she should at least have been asked, in a tactful manner, where
the wounds on JFK were located (seeing as how Jackie was certainly the
very best eyewitness to Mr. Kennedy's head wounds, as she was literally
holding his head during the ride to the hospital).
But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a hole
in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations. But it's
something we'll just have to live with and accept. The same applies to
James Chaney and his lack of any official WC testimony.
I will say, however, that Chaney's "unofficial" comments made to ABC-TV
on 11/22/63 certainly do nothing at all (overall) to harm the
SBT/LHO/LN case. Chaney told ABC that he heard "three shots", and that
these shots all came from "over my right shoulder", which is
information that perfectly aligns with three Oswald shots coming from
the Book Depository.
Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
(or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and
"coverup-related".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
DVP: See answer to # 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?" <<<
DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did the
firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing" please.
(And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
regarding this matter? Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are perceived
to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical
non-conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more
so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?" <<<
DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
"intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they wanted".
Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion picture.
.... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a scary
"Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have three
shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're willing to
say!"
~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued up.)
:-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?" <<<
DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
calm the CTers in this regard?
Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
"conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
leap-of-faith judgment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
scan stuff notwithstanding).
Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
this "proven"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
the neck/back wounds.
Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them." <<<
DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
"disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would undo
what the other pictures and X-rays depict? Seems like a curious notion
if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a series of
moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the CT course
(of course).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you provide it?" <<<
DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository Building
itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22. The main
FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President wasn't
officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the Feds took
control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they have done so?
And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that was "turned over"
to the FBI in Washington.
The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe that
a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately following the
shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to make?
IMO...no, it is not.
And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it." <<<
DVP: This is pure crap...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak. No other reason.
Because if there IS a "chain" (and there is...for every single piece of
evidence in this case, including Tippit's murder), then Oswald is
guilty as sin, and even CT-Kooks must realize this is true.
Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399 "looked like the
same bullet" he found at Parkland on 11/22/63. Why this isn't good
enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
good enough for those guys.)
Tomlinson stated that CE399 "looked like" the same stretcher bullet
that he found...period. And common sense alone tells any reasonable
person that CE399 HAD to have been inside John Connally on 11/22. Any
other explanation pales by comparison, and is laughable in every way.
More on that here.....
Vince Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks re. "chain of
evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs. inadmissible in a
court of law):
"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
struck down President Kennedy. .... There may have been fifty people
firing at President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they all
missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?" <<<
DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he attempts
to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the focus of
attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
major importance, please let us know why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to government investigators?" <<<
DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
"released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical testimony...why??" <<<
DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump
sometimes-unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't
"new" in the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
And if you want to bring up stuff that has "never before been heard
of", then we could go into several items on the pro-CT table that had
never before been seen in any case in history prior to the JFK murder
--- e.g.: the "Let's Frame A Lone Patsy By Shooting The One Slow-Moving
Target With Multiple Guns And Then Expect To Have All Of The Unwanted
Evidence To Magically Disappear Immediately" theory.
And then there's the theory that has two killers being needed to murder
J.D. Tippit on 10th Street (even though it's a point-blank killing,
requiring just one gunman)...with all of the evidence surrounding this
murder expected to also fall neatly into the "It Was Oswald" pile.
Plus: There's the famous theory that has these silly plotters planting
the wrong rifle on the 6th Floor (they must have forgotten that their
Patsy didn't own a Mauser I guess).
And the smile-inducing "Umbrella Man Shoots JFK With A Poisoned
Projectile While Standing Out In Plain Sight For All To See And Film"
hunk of nonsense.
And lots more to be found here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?" <<<
DVP: This is CT-Kookshit and nothing more. The Altgens photo and the
Z-Film are certainly genuine articles....so this silly question is a
moot one. This CTer obviously is purporting that the Z-Film is fake in
some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or contamination
or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there simply is nothing
else for the defense TO argue.
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to Lee
Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak case
with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact. The limo
never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
"overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered. But Nix proves
without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
supposedly "faked" too?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and Jenkins
were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning JFK's head
wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at the National
Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
"BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something
that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
"exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called
exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a
massive BOH exit wound.
Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
photos and X-rays.
Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period.
That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One
Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President
Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of
the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: The autopsy report does no such thing. The autopsy "Summary" is
perfectly consistent with the photos and the X-rays (and the SBT as
well). In fact, the autopsy report itself is really the genesis to the
SBT, with the writing of these words:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body."
Re. the BOH question specifically, we find this in the autopsy Summary:
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two wounds
of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced extensive
fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior saggital sinus,
and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
The author of Question 21 is no doubt, though, referring to this
passage in the AR (which also does not contradict the autopsy photo of
JFK's head; the CTer who poses the inquiry needs to look up the word
"somewhat"):
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVP Post-Script:
In the final analysis, no matter how hard a CTer tries, that
conspiracist cannot debunk this statement made by my main man, Vincent
T. Bugliosi, in 1986:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
The hard physical evidence in total (coupled with a ten-mile-high pile
of circumstantial evidence, including Oswald's own actions before and
after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63) does NOT lead to multiple gunmen in Dealey
Plaza.
No matter what spin a conspiracy theorist wants to utilize regarding
this physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, fragments, shells, prints,
fibers, and eyewitnesses who saw Oswald kill two men on Nov. 22), the
physical evidence will still remain on the table in the JFK and Tippit
murder cases. And it's evidence that points directly at one man -- Lee
Harvey Oswald. And it's evidence that undeniably points to only
Oswald's weaponry being used to murder John Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
And anyone saying differently is only fooling themselves into believing
that many, many police officers, FBI agents, and SS agents would have
all possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame an innocent man for two
1963 first-degree murders.
And even if we were to accept the absurd notion that all of those DPD
officers would want to frame a man named Oswald for JFK's killing, and
possibly (per many CTers) the death of Officer Tippit as well (all the
while not giving a damn that the real killer/killers of their fellow
police officer was getting away scot-free with the murder of J.D.
Tippit), the amount of "real" (non-Oswald-implicating) evidence that
would have needed to be magically turned into "All Oswald" evidence in
very short order (times two murders) on 11/22 is pretty hefty.
And it defies logic to think that this could have been so perfectly
orchestrated on the spur of the moment by any number of "Let's Frame
Oswald" operatives...operatives from multiple law-enforcement agencies
as well.
It's just plain nonsense to think that such a massive switcheroo of
evidence could have been performed so perfectly -- from the bullets, to
the bullet shells, to the guns, to the witnesses who fingered only
Oswald (and they can't ALL be Government shills, can they?), to somehow
"controlling" the actions of a very guilty-acting "Patsy" named Oswald
just after 12:30 PM on 11/22, and right on down to Oswald's many lies
that he told to the nation on Live TV after his arrest.
Larry Sturdivan possibly said it best in his book when he wrote this
excellent passage in that publication......
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L. Sturdivan;
Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
Vince Bugliosi, too, knows that the CTers are full of nothing but empty
theories and piecemeal guesswork. And he'll be exposing the many
conspiracy theories for what they all are (i.e., unsupportable
conjecture-based tripe with no basis in solid fact) in his book "Final
Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK" (probably coming in
mid-2007)......
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=31246
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a conspiracy
theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep it secret.
More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI, the Warren
Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come up with one
piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}. Just theories
and motives." -- Vincent Bugliosi
If I were a CTer (heaven help me), I'd listen intently to ex-prosecutor
Bugliosi when he says......
"I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince the
average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK. .... My conclusion
is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone. .... Very
few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more romantic
to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise. Many of the
conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual palate at first
glance, but they do violence to all notions of common sense." -- V.
Bugliosi
Even a rabid CTer should realize that Vince B. does not make bold
assertions like the ones above without thinking things through
beforehand. And the following quote only solidifies VB's proof-positive
LN stance even more......
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- V.
Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me to close with a mini 1-question quiz of my own for CTers to
ponder......
Can anyone tell me why in the world ANY sane person (who wants to
succeed with their covert plan) would deliberately concoct a "1-Patsy"
assassination plot that involves multiple gunmen located in various
locations throughout Dealey Plaza in Dallas, all aiming at the same
target at pretty much the very same time?
How could any reasonable person planning such a crackpot plot think for
a single second that such a plan could have a prayer of succeeding?
Were these conspirators ALL high on some type of "Miracles Are
Possible" drugs?
And yet many CTers (including the likes of Oliver Stone and the late
"Conspiracy Kook Extraordinaire" Jim Garrison) actually believe(d) that
such a Multi-Gun, One-Patsy plot was planned ahead of time in 1963, and
was somehow pulled off successfully to boot. Go figure out that
mindset. I sure haven't been able to.
Some additional LN common sense:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8b5fe5e258b39f17
Spiffy_one
> These are the 21 questions posted by Ben Holmes in another thread (this
> same "quiz" was posted at the Simkin JFK Forum recently too). Simkin
> Forum members are encouraged to copy-&-paste this post into the
> associated thread there at the Simkin Forum too.
>
> (If someone should decide to post this at Simkin's Forum, please copy
> the text via the "Show Original" option provided here at Google Groups,
> to preserve the full weblinks/URLs. Much obliged.).........
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
> question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
> have been, even though no testimony exists?
Here is what CT's KNOW FOR CERTAIN: The victim and the date!
Nice job Mr. Von Pein. I believe that just about covers it!!! :-)
John Canal
>>>>the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?"
>>>><<<
>
>
>DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
>"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
>
>Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and Jenkins
>were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning JFK's head
>wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at the National
>Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
>tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
>these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
The BOH photos undoubtedly faithfully show the back of his head as it
appeared when the photos were taken. That said, however, the evidence is
compelling that there indeed was a right-rear gaping wound...perhaps most
reliably described by Clint Hill who was only a few feet from JFK after
the head shot. And, no, I'm not saying a shot from the front caused that
wound. It's instead evident that the bullet that entered near the EOP
caused the readilly noticeable (on the lateral film) large transverse
fracture emaniating from near the EOP and extending around to JFK's
right......and the bullet's upward deflection (remember its nose was
smashed, meaning it would have probably been a ballistics miracle if it
had traversed his head on a straight-through path) caused the piece of
bone, with that fracture being its lower margin, to move out of position.
Note that P. Seaton has also proposed this "right-rear-bone
piece-out-of-position" scenario. Going on, we also are sure that piece
remained attached to his head by the scalp. Yes, I know, no such defect is
apparent on the Z-film...but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. I suspect
by the time Hill had climbed onto the back of the limo the aforemented
bone piece at had moved allowing, as you say, blood and gore to exude out
the opening.
It's important to also note that at least 10 eyewitnesses, including two
neurosurgeons, stated they saw cerebellum tissue. That pretty much locates
the opening where I proposed it was.
Now, as far as the BOH photos go, Boswell surely "smoothed" the rear scalp
with the attached right-rear bone piece back into position before the BOH
photos were taken. And I know it's years after the fact testimony, but
Boswell did finally say (to the ARRB) that he replaced rear bone before
the photos and x-rays.
I keep open the possibility that Boswell did this consciously wanting the
medical evidence to comport better with a lone gunman firing from above
and behind scenario....but it may well have been a spontaneous act...I
just don't know, but I'd like to give Boswell the benefit of the doubt.
As far as the 6.5 mm thing being an innocent old artifact, I suggest you
read Mantik's article in Assassination Science. Yes, it's a CT book, but
he did make several trips to the NA and did rather carefully document what
he saw on the original photos and x-rays....and a lot of what he recorded
is worth reading...even for us LNs.
Cheers,
John Canal
Gerry Simone (O)
the autopsy report describe the entrance at the BOH as being on the right
and above the EOP when the photo shows, in the opinion of the HSCA, what
looks like an entrance hole higher up at the cowlick? [the WC boh entrance
wound drawing shows clearly a different position for that entrance hole than
what the HSCA says or what looks like a hole on the autopsy photo].
You sound so convinced that it could not be a conspiracy yet the vast
majority of the public believe so and that's without a grand conspiracy or
implicating federal law enforcement officials or the intelligence community
(I believe there was a cover-up for a variety of reasons involving law
enforcers and intelligence agencies as well as an investigation created by
the new President more interested in political expediency than a whole
search for the truth).
I don't think Bugliosi will not 'save' us CTers no matter what he says (what
can we hear from him that we don't already know?). However, I will keep an
open mind and buy his book as I have with Gerald Posner and even Mark
Fuhrman (I will post on that later).
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160971901.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> As for your 21st question, there seems to be another difference. How can
> the autopsy report describe the entrance at the BOH as being on the right
> and above the EOP when the photo shows, in the opinion of the HSCA, what
> looks like an entrance hole higher up at the cowlick? [the WC boh entrance
> wound drawing shows clearly a different position for that entrance hole than
> what the HSCA says or what looks like a hole on the autopsy photo].
>
Because they did not document the wound and only guessed later than the
dab of fat tissue we can see near the EOP was brain tissue oozing out of
the entrance wound.
> You sound so convinced that it could not be a conspiracy yet the vast
> majority of the public believe so and that's without a grand conspiracy or
> implicating federal law enforcement officials or the intelligence community
About half the public thinks the CIA was behind it.
Gerry Simone (O)
and to the right of it, or along the hairline at the base of the neck, if I
recall correctly.
I've heard that it was fat tissue but is that the HSCA's conclusion?
How the hell do they know that it's fat tissue - educated guess (Wecht still
questions what that is in his book Cause of Death)?
How on earth can the WC make such a huge mistake if we are to believe that
it should be at the cowlick and not otherwise? [Incidentally, that cowlick
'wound' is not as discernible in all autopsy photos].
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ieudnRr_GOZuzqjY...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> That 'dab of fat tissue' looks like it's just below the EOP and not above
> and to the right of it, or along the hairline at the base of the neck, if I
> recall correctly.
>
Looks like? It is the only thing in that area. How in the world would
The Three Stooges know where the EOP is?
> I've heard that it was fat tissue but is that the HSCA's conclusion?
>
No. Artwohl and others who have seen the original color autopsy photos.
> How the hell do they know that it's fat tissue - educated guess (Wecht still
> questions what that is in his book Cause of Death)?
>
> How on earth can the WC make such a huge mistake if we are to believe that
> it should be at the cowlick and not otherwise? [Incidentally, that cowlick
> 'wound' is not as discernible in all autopsy photos].
>
We should expect nothing less from a body designed to be dishonest.
WhiskyJoe
David
A very good post David, explaining these so called mysteries.
> But one look at the Nix Film proves
> the limousine did not fully stop.
> It's very hard to see the
> "slowdown" on the Z-Film,
> because the whole film
> frame (left-to-right) is
> taken up by the limousine itself,
> with Zapruder panning with his
> camera and keeping the limousine
> centered.
Actually, it's also clear in the Zapruder film that the limousine never
stops. One does not have posts embedded in the ground from which to judge
the speed of the limousine, throughout the film, but one does have
something that is good enough. Always in the background, are people who
are standing still. It is most unlikely, that as Mary Moorman studied
herself for taking a picture, her feet were actually sliding at 9 mph to
the northeast, giving the illusion that the limousine was moving 9 mph to
the southwest. I do not know of any frame of the Zapruder film that does
not have an object and/or a person who provides an adequate marker of a
location, providing an easy way to judge the speed of the limousine at any
point in time.
As it turns out, for every "x" inches the limousine moves between frames,
the limousine is moving at about "x" mph, once one factors in
trigonometry. If the limousine is moving at 90 degrees to the right and
appears to move past a stationary point by 10 inches (as measured on the
limousine) then the limousine was moving at 10 / sin(90) or 10 mph. If the
limousine is moving at a 60 degree angle to the right and appears to move
10 inches, it actually moved 10 / sin(60) or 11.5 mph.
This also shows how silly the notion is that the Zapruder film was
modified by removing certain critical frames, resulting in "impossible"
turn of the heads of the driver or others. If a single frame is removed,
it's just not the turning of heads, but everything that is happening will
appear to do so at double speed. The limousine will appear, just between
the two bracketing frame, to momentarily double it's speed, then
immediately resume it's previous speed. No where, in the Zapruder film,
does the limousine appear to momentarily double it's speed.
Anthony Marsh
> David
>
> A very good post David, explaining these so called mysteries.
>
>
>
>> But one look at the Nix Film proves
>> the limousine did not fully stop.
>> It's very hard to see the
>> "slowdown" on the Z-Film,
>> because the whole film
>> frame (left-to-right) is
>> taken up by the limousine itself,
>> with Zapruder panning with his
>> camera and keeping the limousine
>> centered.
>
> Actually, it's also clear in the Zapruder film that the limousine never
> stops. One does not have posts embedded in the ground from which to judge
> the speed of the limousine, throughout the film, but one does have
> something that is good enough. Always in the background, are people who
> are standing still. It is most unlikely, that as Mary Moorman studied
> herself for taking a picture, her feet were actually sliding at 9 mph to
> the northeast, giving the illusion that the limousine was moving 9 mph to
> the southwest. I do not know of any frame of the Zapruder film that does
> not have an object and/or a person who provides an adequate marker of a
> location, providing an easy way to judge the speed of the limousine at any
> point in time.
>
You start with a good idea, but drift into irrelevancies. When did Mary
Moorman study the Zapruder film? The argument of the alterationist is that
such a stop is not detectable in the Zapruder film specifically because
those frames are removed from the original film. There are lots of
arguments to refute such a silly notion, but I don't see how your argument
would.
WhiskyJoe
Reply to Anthony
> You start with a good idea, but drift into irrelevancies.
>> It is most unlikely, that as
>> Mary Moorman studied herself
>> for taking a picture, her feet
>> were actually sliding at 9 mph
>> to the northeast, giving the
>> illusion that the limousine
>> was moving 9 mph to the southwest.
> When did Mary Moorman study the Zapruder film?
OK. This is my only irrelevancy. I misspelled "steadied" as "studied".
She steadied herself, planted her feet, while taking the picture.
> The argument of the alterationist
> is that such a stop is not
> detectable in the Zapruder film
> specifically because those frames
> are removed from the original film.
> There are lots of arguments to
> refute such a silly notion, but
> I don't see how your argument
> would.
It would be true that one could remove frames and one could never tell,
from the motion of the limousine alone, that frames were removed, if
limousines could quickly make large changes to their speed and typically
do so in real life. But in the real world, limousines have a lot of
inertia. Except in special cases, like they run into thick brick walls or
are hit by trains, huge accelerations or decelerations are simply not
possible.
Now, let's say the original film looked like this, where, for example, on
the fourth line, "f004" stands for frame 4 and "movement 9.6 inches"
stands for the movement of the limousine between that frame and the next
one, that is the movement between frame f004 and f005, which was 9.6
inches, which means the speed was also about 9.6 mph.
f001 movement 10.0 inches
f002 movement 10.0 inches
f003 movement 9.8 inches
f004 movement 9.6 inches
f005 movement 9.4 inches
. . .
f(i) movement 10.0 - (i-2)*0.2 mph
. . .
f050 movement 0.4 inches
f051 movement 0.2 inches
f052 movement 0.0 inches
f053 movement 0.0 inches
. . .
So from frame 2 through 52, the limousine slowed to a stop. This was a
pretty moderate stop, a deceleration of 0.2 mph per frame or about 3.6 mph
per second. I would guess the limousine was capable of slowing down or
speeding up by about 10 mph per second, or about 0.5 mph per frame, which
is about 1/2 of a G of acceleration.
Could some frames be removed to make it appear the limousine did not stop
at all? Could one remove some frames from 2 to 52, to disguise the
slowdown from 10 mph to 0 mph. Could all the frames after frame 52 which
show the limousine stopped by removed. Could some of the frames be removed
after the limousine started to speed up again, making it appear the
limousine always maintained a steady speed of 10 mph?
A simple minded analysis would say, yes, of course. During frames 2
through 52, the limousine slowed from 10 mph to 0 mph. The average speed
during this time was 5 mph. If we removed half the frames, the average
speed will be 10 mph, and nothing will seem amiss.
But what happens if we remove a frame, let's say frame 8. Instead of
having:
f006 movement 9.2 inches
f007 movement 9.0 inches
f008 movement 8.8 inches
f009 movement 8.6 inches
we will have:
f006 movement 9.2 inches
f007 movement 17.8 inches
f009 movement 8.6 inches
Between frames 7 and 9, the limousine accelerated (17.8-9.2) or 8.6 mph,
during 1/18th of a second, an acceleration of about 154 mph per second,
roughly producing a G force of around 7 G's. And between frames 9 and 10,
it decelerated by a slightly larger amount. This is simply impossible. The
engine and the brakes are not nearly powerful enough to do this.
So the problem is, if frame 8 is left in, the apparent speed is 8.8 mph.
If it is removed, the apparent speed is 17.8 mph. What can one do to make
the apparent speed 10 mph? One needs to remove about 1/9th of the frame.
And for later frames, one needs to remove a greater and greater fraction
of the frame.
The problem is, one cannot remove a fraction of a frame. One either
removes the whole frame or not at all.
So, sure, one can remove half the frames between 002 and 052, resulting in
an apparent average speed of 10 mph, disguising the fact that the
limousine stopped, but the limousine will have all kinds of micro-bursts
of sudden, impossible, accelerations and decelerations, where it appears
to be going a steady speed, more or less, suddenly doubles it's speed
between two consecutive frames, and then just as suddenly goes back to
it's old speed.
Because the Zapruder film does not contain any micro-bursts of sudden,
impossible doubling of the speed of the limousine, we can be quite certain
that no frames were removed from the film.
Challenge for Anthony or anyone:
If you feel differently, than show me, in the example I provided, which
frames could be removed to disguise the fact that the limousine slowed to
a stop, without causing any micro-bursts of acceleration. Or, you can draw
up a different chart and show which frames can be removed.
You will not be able to successfully do so.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Reply to Anthony
>
>> You start with a good idea, but drift into irrelevancies.
>
>
>
>
>>> It is most unlikely, that as
>>> Mary Moorman studied herself
>>> for taking a picture, her feet
>>> were actually sliding at 9 mph
>>> to the northeast, giving the
>>> illusion that the limousine
>>> was moving 9 mph to the southwest.
>
>> When did Mary Moorman study the Zapruder film?
>
> OK. This is my only irrelevancy. I misspelled "steadied" as "studied".
> She steadied herself, planted her feet, while taking the picture.
>
>
I would certainly hope so, but what does that fact have to do with anything?
>
>
>> The argument of the alterationist
>> is that such a stop is not
>> detectable in the Zapruder film
>> specifically because those frames
>> are removed from the original film.
>> There are lots of arguments to
>> refute such a silly notion, but
>> I don't see how your argument
>> would.
>
> It would be true that one could remove frames and one could never tell,
> from the motion of the limousine alone, that frames were removed, if
That is not true. You can not removed frames and have it go unnoticed.
> limousines could quickly make large changes to their speed and typically
> do so in real life. But in the real world, limousines have a lot of
The Zapruder film itself shows large changes in the limo speed.
The limo can not stop in one Zapruder frame.
And then be going 12 MPH in the next.
> Could some frames be removed to make it appear the limousine did not stop
> at all? Could one remove some frames from 2 to 52, to disguise the
No.
> slowdown from 10 mph to 0 mph. Could all the frames after frame 52 which
> show the limousine stopped by removed. Could some of the frames be removed
> after the limousine started to speed up again, making it appear the
> limousine always maintained a steady speed of 10 mph?
>
No, other real world events give us clues that would rule that out. Like
Clint Hill almost not being able to climb onto the back of the limo as
it sped up and being able to catch up to it on foot. Also remember the
SS car following it only 5 feet behind.
>
>
> A simple minded analysis would say, yes, of course. During frames 2
> through 52, the limousine slowed from 10 mph to 0 mph. The average speed
> during this time was 5 mph. If we removed half the frames, the average
> speed will be 10 mph, and nothing will seem amiss.
>
> But what happens if we remove a frame, let's say frame 8. Instead of
> having:
>
> f006 movement 9.2 inches
> f007 movement 9.0 inches
> f008 movement 8.8 inches
> f009 movement 8.6 inches
>
> we will have:
>
> f006 movement 9.2 inches
> f007 movement 17.8 inches
> f009 movement 8.6 inches
>
> Between frames 7 and 9, the limousine accelerated (17.8-9.2) or 8.6 mph,
> during 1/18th of a second, an acceleration of about 154 mph per second,
> roughly producing a G force of around 7 G's. And between frames 9 and 10,
> it decelerated by a slightly larger amount. This is simply impossible. The
> engine and the brakes are not nearly powerful enough to do this.
>
Of course your math is right, but that is not what the alterationist are
proposing. There would be a range of frames cut out.
> So the problem is, if frame 8 is left in, the apparent speed is 8.8 mph.
> If it is removed, the apparent speed is 17.8 mph. What can one do to make
> the apparent speed 10 mph? One needs to remove about 1/9th of the frame.
> And for later frames, one needs to remove a greater and greater fraction
> of the frame.
>
> The problem is, one cannot remove a fraction of a frame. One either
> removes the whole frame or not at all.
>
> So, sure, one can remove half the frames between 002 and 052, resulting in
> an apparent average speed of 10 mph, disguising the fact that the
> limousine stopped, but the limousine will have all kinds of micro-bursts
> of sudden, impossible, accelerations and decelerations, where it appears
> to be going a steady speed, more or less, suddenly doubles it's speed
> between two consecutive frames, and then just as suddenly goes back to
> it's old speed.
>
Yes, but the alterationists ignore common sense like that.
> Because the Zapruder film does not contain any micro-bursts of sudden,
> impossible doubling of the speed of the limousine, we can be quite certain
> that no frames were removed from the film.
>
I would not rest a conclusion on that. The alterationists are proposing
that the top photographic experts at the CIA put a lot of thought into
their work to make it look realistic.
>
>
> Challenge for Anthony or anyone:
>
> If you feel differently, than show me, in the example I provided, which
> frames could be removed to disguise the fact that the limousine slowed to
> a stop, without causing any micro-bursts of acceleration. Or, you can draw
> up a different chart and show which frames can be removed.
>
> You will not be able to successfully do so.
>
>
Not differently, but obviously the alterationists are not going to
debate the math.
playiso...@email.com
what about Finck's testimony at the Shaw trial?
A