The SBT In Action
David Von Pein
volumes (in favor of one bullet having struck both President Kennedy and
Governor Connally just an instant earlier)......
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously -- with
JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and
Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his right
wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399.
Question.....
If what we're seeing there in Z225-Z226 ISN'T two men "reacting" to a
single bullet hitting them both at the same time....then what IS causing
the SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT ARMS OF BOTH VICTIMS IN THE
LIMOUSINE BETWEEN Z225 AND Z226?
Like it or not, Abraham Zapruder's home movie (plus lots of other
evidence) shows the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. Now, and forever.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
===============================
OTHER Z-FILM CLIPS SHOWING THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
===============================
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of any
separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
Andrew Mason
> The following toggling Zapruder Film clip of frames #225 and #226 speaks
> volumes (in favor of one bullet having struck both President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally just an instant earlier)......
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously -- with
> JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and
> Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his right
> wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399.
>
> Question.....
>
> If what we're seeing there in Z225-Z226 ISN'T two men "reacting" to a
> single bullet hitting them both at the same time....then what IS causing
> the SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT ARMS OF BOTH VICTIMS IN THE
> LIMOUSINE BETWEEN Z225 AND Z226?
Perhaps it is what JBC said he was reacting to... the sound of the first
shot and the realization that an assassination was taking place, and
that he was preparing to turn back toward JFK, which is what he does in
the ensuing 40 frames.
>
> Like it or not, Abraham Zapruder's home movie (plus lots of other
> evidence) shows the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. Now, and forever.
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318&mesg_id=28318&listing_type=search
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
Then how is it that the witnesses heard the last two shots closer
together and saw JFK reacting on the first shot?
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/shot_pattern_excerpt.pdf
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
Unless that evidence is bogus, then you cannot say the SBT occurred, no
matter how good you think your powers of interpreting the Zfilm are.
That evidence and the SBT cannot both be correct.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> The following toggling Zapruder Film clip of frames #225 and #226 speaks
> volumes (in favor of one bullet having struck both President Kennedy and
> Governor Connally just an instant earlier)......
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously -- with
> JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and
> Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his right
> wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399.
>
> Question.....
>
> If what we're seeing there in Z225-Z226 ISN'T two men "reacting" to a
> single bullet hitting them both at the same time....then what IS causing
> the SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT ARMS OF BOTH VICTIMS IN THE
> LIMOUSINE BETWEEN Z225 AND Z226?
>
> Like it or not, Abraham Zapruder's home movie (plus lots of other
> evidence) shows the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. Now, and forever.
>
Thank God that we now have the Zapruder film. Before we could see it for
ourselves, you guys used to get away with your little fiction called the
Single Bullet Theory. When we could see the Zapruder film for ourselves,
it proved that the SBT is wrong.
Just like the autopsy photos. You guys used to claim that the wound was
in the neck above the top of the shoulders. Then Fox leaked the autopsy
photos and we could see for ourselves that the entrance wound is in the
back below the top of the shoulders.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > The following toggling Zapruder Film clip of frames #225 and #226 speaks
> > volumes (in favor of one bullet having struck both President Kennedy and
> > Governor Connally just an instant earlier)......
>
> >http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> > The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously -- with
> > JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and
> > Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his right
> > wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399.
>
> > Question.....
>
> > If what we're seeing there in Z225-Z226 ISN'T two men "reacting" to a
> > single bullet hitting them both at the same time....then what IS causing
> > the SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT ARMS OF BOTH VICTIMS IN THE
> > LIMOUSINE BETWEEN Z225 AND Z226?
>
> Perhaps it is what JBC said he was reacting to... the sound of the first
> shot and the realization that an assassination was taking place, and
> that he was preparing to turn back toward JFK, which is what he does in
> the ensuing 40 frames.
>
>
>
> > Like it or not, Abraham Zapruder's home movie (plus lots of other
> > evidence) shows the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. Now, and forever.
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
>
> Then how is it that the witnesses heard the last two shots closer
>
> Unless that evidence is bogus, then you cannot say the SBT occurred, no
> matter how good you think your powers of interpreting the Zfilm are.
> That evidence and the SBT cannot both be correct.
>
> Andrew Mason
***Looking through the windshield in the Jeffries film, Connally is
turned to his right, and JFK's head can be seen to the right of
Connally. While the two are not sitting precisely in the position
they wer in when JFK was struck in the back by a bullet, it does give
an indication that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat, could have
struck Connally in the right side of the back, if fired from the SN.
***Ron Judge
David Von Pein
And JBC just HAPPENS to jerk his right arm upward, then down,
incredibly fast as a result of only HEARING the first shot....is that
your contention? (And that's the very same arm/wrist that was injured
by a bullet, of course.)
You're placing way too much emphasis on the "pattern" of the shots via
earwitnesses, IMO. Plus: There are many witnesses who disagree with
that "last 2 shots closer together" pattern.
Here's a list I compiled of more than half-a-dozen witnesses (located
in various parts of Dealey Plaza, from the east end to the west) who
think the shots were "Evenly Spaced":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4b5aac8c04368a9d
Plus: Are you seriously contending that JBC wasn't shot until many,
many Z-Frames after Z224? That, IMO, is just simply crazy, given the Z-
Film signs of external stimulus on JBC well prior to Z240. There's too
much there in that regard right AT Z224 to dismiss them (as LNers Mark
Fuhrman and Jim Moore both have done in their books).
As Dale Myers pointed out in the 2004 "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
program....there is no other major sign of a bullet strike to JBC
after Z224. But at Z224-Z229 or so, we have several things occurring
to JBC's body -- open mouth, grimace, flinches both shoulders, right
shoulder drops at precisely Z224, and that tell-tale mysterious hat
flip too...not to mention the lapel bulge/flip also at exactly Z224.
And there's the simultaneous nature of BOTH mens' arm movements at
Z225-226. HOW can this be looked upon as anything BUT the probability
of both men being hit at that point....given the known fact that both
men WERE wounded during this shooting...and wounded within a very
short timeframe (even by most CT accounts of the event)?
Even Connally himself admitted in 1967 that the SBT was certainly
"possible".....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
Anthony Marsh
While we assume that the shots were not fired when the Jeffries film was
shot, it does show a relative positioning of the two men which makes the
WC SBT unlikely because it shows that Connally was not seated far enough
to Kennedy's left to allow the bullet exiting Kennedy's throat to strike
Connally on his right armpit.
David Von Pein
==================================================
As can be seen in CE903 (below), the SBT trajectory works just fine. And
the pointer/rod is just where the autopsy (back) photo shows it to be,
with the exit wound exactly at the "tie knot", just exactly where JFK
sustained damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT.
Without a doubt.
Also: When CTers attempt to use the "opposite angle" photo to CE903, which
shows Specter holding the rod a little above where he is holding it in
CE903 itself....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
....the CTers who claim that something is "fishy" or "misleading" are
doing so without ever having determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO IS,
and for what exact purpose it was taken, etc.*
* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's unfair to
say that it depicts the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, because it is NOT
an official Warren Commission exhibit like CE903.
Let's listen to the testimony of the man who took the photo we see in
CE903 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).....
ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer
was?"
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
background of that photograph?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor
at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."
MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by
President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the position of
the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area
around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from
the signboard."
MR. SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at
an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be
positioned?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
MR. SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the
stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance
wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or
button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance
hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the
stand-in for Governor Connally."
MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at
the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?"
MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
--------------------------------
More on the significance of CE903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
And....
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of any
separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi
Andrew Mason
Two problems. The angles of the string to the car and to the line from the
SN are not specified.
Even if the trajectory were possible, JBC's right armpit has to be left of
JFK's neck and it sure does not appear to be the case from the photo.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> More on the significance of CE903:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
>
> And....
>
> "Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
> the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of any
> separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi
He can say this. But it isn't true. John Connally certainly provides
evidence that he was hit on the second shot and Nellie along with at least
15 others said JFK reacted immediately after the first shot by moving left
and bringing his hands to his neck.
Andrew Mason
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
>
> >> Unless that evidence is bogus, then you cannot say the SBT occurred, no
> >> matter how good you think your powers of interpreting the Zfilm are.
> >> That evidence and the SBT cannot both be correct.
>
> >> Andrew Mason
>
> > ***Looking through the windshield in the Jeffries film, Connally is
> > turned to his right, and JFK's head can be seen to the right of
> > Connally. While the two are not sitting precisely in the position
> > they wer in when JFK was struck in the back by a bullet, it does give
> > an indication that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat, could have
> > struck Connally in the right side of the back, if fired from the SN.
>
> > ***Ron Judge
>
> While we assume that the shots were not fired when the Jeffries film was
> shot, it does show a relative positioning of the two men which makes the
> WC SBT unlikely because it shows that Connally was not seated far enough
> to Kennedy's left to allow the bullet exiting Kennedy's throat to strike
>
> - Show quoted text -
***Kennedy appears over Connally's right shoulder, which indicates a
bullet fired from the 6th floor would have struck Connally in the right
side of the back.
The limo as seen in the Muchmore film, turnng onto Houston, from main,
demonstrates the same thing, as JFK can be seen over Connally's right
shoulder on the approximate opposite angle of where a shot shot from the
6th floor would have come from. The Jeffries and Muchmore films indicate
that Connally's big frame would have been in the path of a bullet fired
through JFK from the SN.
***Ron Judge
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I do not find the SBT to be fiction or wrong as per what i can view in
the Zapruder film. Simultaneous reflexive reactions consistent with the
victims gunshot wounds.
The WR never said that JFK was shot in the neck. There was a drawing that
erroneously showed an entrance higher than the actual entrance, showing it
to be in the neck, but all one had to do was read the autopsy report in
the WR and place a ruler where the autopsy indicated and it would become
obvious that the wound was below the neck. The body wound was certainly
not the equivalent of over 5 inches below the collar of the jacket, if it
had laid flat on his back.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
No, Jerry Ford rewrote that section to change the back to the neck. It
says neck now.
> erroneously showed an entrance higher than the actual entrance, showing it
> to be in the neck, but all one had to do was read the autopsy report in
> the WR and place a ruler where the autopsy indicated and it would become
> obvious that the wound was below the neck. The body wound was certainly
> not the equivalent of over 5 inches below the collar of the jacket, if it
> had laid flat on his back.
>
The WC staff discussed this and realized that the back wound was lower
than the throat wound and knew they had a problem.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Sure, if the path were perfectly straight through Kennedy. You can't
assume that. The back wound and the throat wound do not line up for a
perfectly straight line path at a downward angle of 25 degrees.
> ***Ron Judge
>
>
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***Jerry ford was not the commission, but a single member. A memo that
surfaced many years after the WR indicated that he wanted the report to
state the neck. The WR was written in 1964 and states on page 87 that,
"During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was
observed near the base of of the back of President Kennedy's neck,
slightly to the right of his spine..." Near the base, also includes the
very upper back.
The WR also states that the autopsy report identified the wound as being
"approximately 5 1/2 inches from the tip of the right shoulder joint and
approximately the same distance below the tip of the mastoid process..."
5 1/2 inches below the tip of the mastoid process would place the wound in
the back. The autopsy photo of the back, also shows the wound to be in
the back. Allegedly, Warren was the only commission member who saw the
autopsy photos, thus if true, Ford would not have had anything to base an
opinion that the bullet struck the neck, other than possibly the erroneous
drawing, assuming that was created prior to Ford's opinion.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
No it doesn't. That's why different parts of the body are given
different names.
> The WR also states that the autopsy report identified the wound as being
> "approximately 5 1/2 inches from the tip of the right shoulder joint and
> approximately the same distance below the tip of the mastoid process..."
>
> 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the mastoid process would place the wound in
> the back. The autopsy photo of the back, also shows the wound to be in
> the back. Allegedly, Warren was the only commission member who saw the
> autopsy photos, thus if true, Ford would not have had anything to base an
> opinion that the bullet struck the neck, other than possibly the erroneous
> drawing, assuming that was created prior to Ford's opinion.
>
Show to me and prove what drawing was created before Ford wrote this and
prove that he saw it.
Early on the WC knew it had a problem.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx0127.pdf
Rankin:
WC have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of
where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the
shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place
where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt
in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone
at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren
Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet
entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even
referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below
the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
Picture, not drawing. And what if Ford secretly had seen the original
autopsy pictures?
> ***Ron Judge
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 12:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>> ***Jerry ford was not the commission, but a single member. A memo that
>> surfaced many years after the WR indicated that he wanted the report to
>> state the neck. The WR was written in 1964 and states on page 87 that,
>> "During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was
>> observed near the base of of the back of President Kennedy's neck,
>> slightly to the right of his spine..." Near the base, also includes the
>> very upper back.
>>
>
>No it doesn't. That's why different parts of the body are given
>different names.
>
You guys have, for 40 years, been pushing a purely sematic quibble.
It was a C7/T1.
>> The WR also states that the autopsy report identified the wound as being
>> "approximately 5 1/2 inches from the tip of the right shoulder joint and
>> approximately the same distance below the tip of the mastoid process..."
>>
>> 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the mastoid process would place the wound in
>> the back. The autopsy photo of the back, also shows the wound to be in
>> the back. Allegedly, Warren was the only commission member who saw the
>> autopsy photos, thus if true, Ford would not have had anything to base an
>> opinion that the bullet struck the neck, other than possibly the erroneous
>> drawing, assuming that was created prior to Ford's opinion.
>>
>
>Show to me and prove what drawing was created before Ford wrote this and
>prove that he saw it.
>
Wasn't the drawing introduced during Warren Commission testimony?
Humes, if memory serves?
>
>Early on the WC knew it had a problem.
>
>
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx0127.pdf
>Rankin:
>
>WC have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
>out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
>from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of
>where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the
>shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place
>where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt
>in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone
>at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
>
>* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren
>Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet
>entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even
>referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below
>the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
>
>Picture, not drawing. And what if Ford secretly had seen the original
>autopsy pictures?
>
What do you mean "picture, not drawing?"
Ever heard the phrase "draw me a picture?"
Do artists paint "pictures?"
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:460fd416$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
No autopsy photo "shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the
shirt in front," because the clothes weren't at the autopsy.
Rankin was very likely looking at these two photos from
the FBI's Supplemental Report of January 13:
"the picture of where the bullet entered the back....":
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/jacket.jpg
and "...the neckband of the shirt in front..."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg
The FBI's report implied that the hole near the neckband was caused
by a fragment from the head shot. Lifton discussed this in Best Evidence.
(Check the index under "Rankin.")
Jean
>
>> ***Ron Judge
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 1 Apr 2007 23:33:10 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> r2bz...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> On Mar 28, 12:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> ***Jerry ford was not the commission, but a single member. A memo that
>>> surfaced many years after the WR indicated that he wanted the report to
>>> state the neck. The WR was written in 1964 and states on page 87 that,
>>> "During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was
>>> observed near the base of of the back of President Kennedy's neck,
>>> slightly to the right of his spine..." Near the base, also includes the
>>> very upper back.
>>>
>> No it doesn't. That's why different parts of the body are given
>> different names.
>>
>
> You guys have, for 40 years, been pushing a purely sematic quibble.
>
Of course it is semantics. Semantics deals with the meaning of words.
> It was a C7/T1.
>
>
Or T1/C7. Now can you answer the question that no one else can?
Is T1 above the top of the shoulders or below the top of the shoulders?
>>> The WR also states that the autopsy report identified the wound as being
>>> "approximately 5 1/2 inches from the tip of the right shoulder joint and
>>> approximately the same distance below the tip of the mastoid process..."
>>>
>>> 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the mastoid process would place the wound in
>>> the back. The autopsy photo of the back, also shows the wound to be in
>>> the back. Allegedly, Warren was the only commission member who saw the
>>> autopsy photos, thus if true, Ford would not have had anything to base an
>>> opinion that the bullet struck the neck, other than possibly the erroneous
>>> drawing, assuming that was created prior to Ford's opinion.
>>>
>> Show to me and prove what drawing was created before Ford wrote this and
>> prove that he saw it.
>>
>
> Wasn't the drawing introduced during Warren Commission testimony?
> Humes, if memory serves?
>
>
Interesting. Rydberg drew CE 385 in March of 1964. But I am not sure who
else saw it BEFORE it was introduced into evidence. Good point.
Humes testified on March 16th. Could Rankin or anyone else have
discussed it before his testimony?
We know Specter had seen it because he was the lawyer who introduced it
into evidence.
Mr. Specter.
Dr. Humes, before you identify what that represents let me place
Commission Exhibit No. 385 on it so it may be identified.
(The drawing was marked Commission Exhibit No. 385 for identification.)
Commander Humes.
When appraised of the necessity for our appearance before this
Commission, we did not know whether or not the photographs which we had
made would be available to the Commission. So to assist in making our
testimony more understandable to the Commission members, we decided to
have made drawings, schematic drawings, of the situation as we saw it,
as we recorded it and as we recall it. These drawings were made under my
supervision and that of Dr. Boswell by Mr. Rydberg, whose initials are
H. A. He is a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator
in our command at Naval Medical School.
>> Early on the WC knew it had a problem.
>>
>>
>> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx0127.pdf
>> Rankin:
>>
>> WC have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
>> out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
>> from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of
>> where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the
>> shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place
>> where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt
>> in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone
>> at all, that particular bullet, and go through.
>>
>> * In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren
>> Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet
>> entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even
>> referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below
>> the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
>>
>> Picture, not drawing. And what if Ford secretly had seen the original
>> autopsy pictures?
>>
>
> What do you mean "picture, not drawing?"
>
Photograph.
Did Rankin mean the autopsy photograph or the face sheet drawing?
Anthony Marsh
So you are thinking that Rankin was ONLY looking at the photographs of
the clothing?
Jean Davison
Did I say that? So do you still surmise there were "original
autopsy photos" that showed a bullet hole "below the shoulder blade"?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Well, since you refuse to state what your solution is, I have to guess
that's what you mean. I never said "below the shoulder blade." Where did
you get a quote like that?
I am trying to get to the bottom of what Rankin saw and what he meant.
Jean Davison
No, I didn't. My "solution" is that Rankin was looking at the FBI
photos of the clothes. What's your solution? "Original autopsy photos"?
> I have to guess that's what you mean. I never said "below the shoulder
> blade." Where did you get a quote like that?
Golly gee, where *did* I get a quote like that? Scroll up to your
earlier post, please.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Someone else said "below the shoulder blade." Not I. You started your
attack with "so do you STILL surmise" and finished it off with "below the
shoulder blade" as if that is my position. But I have never said that. You
misrepresented my position and falsely quoted, attributing someone else's
words to me.
Jean Davison
In your post of April 1 in this thread the following appears:
QUOTE:
>>>
Early on the WC knew it had a problem. [....]
* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren
Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet
entered Kennedy's back BELOW the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even
referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below
the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).
Picture, not drawing. And what if Ford secretly had seen the original
autopsy pictures?
>>>>
UNQUOTE
If you didn't write that, who did?
And I notice that you still haven't answered my question, Tony.
What do you think Rankin was looking at? "Original autopsy pictures"?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Boy, that's a tough one to answer. I guess maybe if you'd have been on
the InterNet for about 35 years you'd have figured out a way to answer
tough questions like that. Such as typing the quote into Google which
pops up the Web site.
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id177.htm
When in doubt always suspect Mike Griffith who has written a ton of
stuff about the SBT. But again the issue is reading comprehension. Most
people can figure out that the paragraph is quoting what RANKIN said. It
is not my theory. It is HIS. I can quote him and make fun of him, but
that does not mean it is MY theory.
We know what Rankin meant to say, even if his medical terminology is a
little off. He is entitled to his opinion based on a layman looking at
the evidence. What I want to know is exactly WHICH evidence he was
looking at to form HIS opinion. For example, if he is only looking at
the autopsy face sheet, a lot of laypeople would make the mistake of
thinking that the entrance wound was at T3. I seriously doubt that he
saw the photos Chad uploaded a few days ago. And I seriously doubt that
he was basing it on the Rydberg drawing. I think he saw a photograph.
The other issue is that you WC defenders have a habit of misrepresenting
what I have said when you run out of facts.
> And I notice that you still haven't answered my question, Tony.
> What do you think Rankin was looking at? "Original autopsy pictures"?
> Jean
>
>
Could be, when they were shown to Warren. But it might also be the
photographs of the clothing, as his language seems to be more focused on
showing there the wounds were on the clothing, sans being able to
introduce the autopsy photographs.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> RE. THE SBT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT #903:
>
> ==================================================
>
> As can be seen in CE903 (below), the SBT trajectory works just fine. And
> the pointer/rod is just where the autopsy (back) photo shows it to be,
> with the exit wound exactly at the "tie knot", just exactly where JFK
> sustained damage from the flight of a bullet. .....
>
As can be seen in CE 903 the WC's SBT is impossible.
However CE 903 does show how a second bullet can go over Kennedy's right
shoulder and hit Connally.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT.
> Without a doubt.
>
You figured that out all by yourself? Or did Specter tell you that?
> Also: When CTers attempt to use the "opposite angle" photo to CE903, which
> shows Specter holding the rod a little above where he is holding it in
> CE903 itself....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
>
> ....the CTers who claim that something is "fishy" or "misleading" are
> doing so without ever having determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO IS,
> and for what exact purpose it was taken, etc.*
>
I fail to see your point. The only difference is that the second photo
was taken from the opposite side. Same alignment, same men, same
clothes, same rod, same Specter.
> * = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's unfair to
> say that it depicts the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, because it is NOT
> an official Warren Commission exhibit like CE903.
>
The second photo is also an official WC document, isn't it? They just
chose to publish CE 903. CE 903 does not even depict the WC's SBT
trajectory precisely, unless you think the bullet missed Kennedy and
went over his right shoulder as the rod does.
> Let's listen to the testimony of the man who took the photo we see in
> CE903 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).....
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
> Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer
> was?"
>
> LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the
> background of that photograph?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor
> at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
> Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by
> President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the position of
> the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area
> around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from
> the signboard."
>
NB: AROUND frame 225.
> MR. SPECTER -- "Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at
> an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be
> positioned?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the
> stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance
Lie.
> wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or
> button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance
> hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the
> stand-in for Governor Connally."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
> position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at
> the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?"
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
>
Lie.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
>
NB: He admitted that the mockup was flawed because they did not use the
original limousine.
David Von Pein
>>> "The second photo is also an official WC document, isn't it?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN NOW UTTERS BACK:
I haven't the foggiest. Have you?
Anyway, it's obviously NOT meant to represent the "official WC SBT
trajectory". CE903 performs that task...and very, very nicely.
>>> "I fail to see your point. The only difference is that the second
photo was taken from the opposite side. Same alignment, same men, same
clothes, same rod, same Specter." <<<
It's not the same "alignment" at all. Why you think it is the same is a
mystery I cannot resolve. The reverse-angle picture has the bullet
entering higher (and, of course, exiting higher) on the JFK stand-in. The
bullet is exiting at CHIN level; not the "tie knot" (which is precisely
where CE903 shows the actual JFK exit wound in the throat)....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>>> "CE 903 does not even depict the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, unless
you think the bullet missed Kennedy and went over his right shoulder as
the rod does." <<<
And you would have preferred the JFK stand-in be sacrificed in order to
gain such precision, huh?
<chuckles warmly>
If we move the rod/pointer just a tad to Specter's left in CE903 (instead
of keeping the rod in the "over-the-shoulder" position we find the pointer
in)....where would a bullet wound be located, Tony?
Would such a positioning of Specter's metal rod place that bullet wound
"over the shoulder"? Or would it place the wound IN THE CENTER OF THE
STAND-IN'S UPPER BACK (just where JFK was struck)? .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
CE903 is PERFECT for the Single-Bullet Theory. Perfect in every way. (The
sacrificing, via impaling, of the man substituting for John F. Kennedy on
May 24, 1964, notwithstanding.)
tomnln
From the other side it shows the trajectory missing the back wound bt 12
to 14 inches.
THAT's why you see no difference.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XqKdnd5jVdotC4Pb...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
>
> From the other side it shows the trajectory missing the back wound bt
> 12 to 14 inches.
>
No quite.
But the rod is in exactly the same location.
CE 903 disproves the SBT all on its own. The other photo just makes it
easier to see that.
Anthony Marsh
> TONY MARSH UTTERED:
>
>>>> "The second photo is also an official WC document, isn't it?" <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW UTTERS BACK:
>
> I haven't the foggiest. Have you?
>
Yes. I know from personal first-hand experience that Robert Groden did
not sneak into that garage and take the second photo.
> Anyway, it's obviously NOT meant to represent the "official WC SBT
> trajectory". CE903 performs that task...and very, very nicely.
>
It is exactly the same as CE 903 just take from the opposite side. It is
not intended to duplicate the WC's SBT. It is intended to deceive.
>
>>>> "I fail to see your point. The only difference is that the second
> photo was taken from the opposite side. Same alignment, same men, same
> clothes, same rod, same Specter." <<<
>
> It's not the same "alignment" at all. Why you think it is the same is a
> mystery I cannot resolve. The reverse-angle picture has the bullet
> entering higher (and, of course, exiting higher) on the JFK stand-in. The
> bullet is exiting at CHIN level; not the "tie knot" (which is precisely
> where CE903 shows the actual JFK exit wound in the throat)....
>
Wrong. The rod is in exactly the same position. Above the right shoulder.
Kennedy was hit below the top of the shoulder and everyone at the WC knew
that. They discussed it and knew they had a problem. Hence the lies.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
>>>> "CE 903 does not even depict the WC's SBT trajectory precisely, unless
> you think the bullet missed Kennedy and went over his right shoulder as
> the rod does." <<<
>
>
> And you would have preferred the JFK stand-in be sacrificed in order to
> gain such precision, huh?
>
Huh? I never said any such thing.
> <chuckles warmly>
>
> If we move the rod/pointer just a tad to Specter's left in CE903 (instead
> of keeping the rod in the "over-the-shoulder" position we find the pointer
> in)....where would a bullet wound be located, Tony?
>
Nope.
> Would such a positioning of Specter's metal rod place that bullet wound
> "over the shoulder"? Or would it place the wound IN THE CENTER OF THE
> STAND-IN'S UPPER BACK (just where JFK was struck)? .....
>
In fact many WC defenders lied and depicted the wound as being above the
top of the shoulders.
BTW, Kennedy's wound was NOT in the center of the upper back.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> CE903 is PERFECT for the Single-Bullet Theory. Perfect in every way. (The
> sacrificing, via impaling, of the man substituting for John F. Kennedy on
> May 24, 1964, notwithstanding.)
>
The perfect lie.
I never said anything about impaling anyone.
>
David Von Pein
You must be blind then....because there's no way that pointer is in
the same position as in CE903. Why you think it is shall remain a
mystery evidently. ~shrug~
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0055b.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
>>> "It is not intended to duplicate the WC's SBT. It is intended to deceive." <<<
Who the hell knows WHAT it's meant to convey? You certainly don't. Nor
do I. It's not an official WC exhibit; CE903 is. And Shaneyfelt
testified with respect to 903, not the "too high on the neck"
alternate version.
So, the point is really moot all the way around. (Except to CTers who
want a conspiracy, of course.)
>>> "Wrong. The rod is in exactly the same position." <<<
Bullshit. Get some new glasses. The "CT" brand you've got now aren't
working properly.
>>> "BTW, Kennedy's wound was NOT in the center of the upper back." <<<
Yes, it was. Pretty darn close to the center of the back at any rate.
Just a tad to the right of dead-center to be exact. (Get those new
glasses asap. Your eyesight is getting even worse now it would
appear.) .....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg