S.B.T. COMMON SENSE
David Von Pein
S.B.T. COMMON SENSE...........
============================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c9d1a99e08a23f0
>>> "But Specter is showing us that the bullet actually is missing the president's back completely." <<<
So, I guess you expected Specter to SKEWER the Kennedy stand-in for
the sake of the photograph? Is that it?
Obviously (and why I even have to explain this to anyone is beyond all
belief), if the pointer that Specter is holding is moved just a little
toward the JFK stand-in's back (which is where the real JFK was hit by
a bullet that most certainly went clean through him), the 17-degree
downward angle is still correct and the SBT is still fully intact.
But, since Arlen Specter decided to be a nice guy and not shoot the
stand-in in the back with a real bullet and possibly kill the poor
man, some allowances had to be made to APPROXIMATE the RIGHT-to-LEFT
horizontal trajectory (just slightly) for the CE903 photograph.
But the HEIGHT of that pointer Specter is holding is just perfect for
the SBT to work, because it is at the height of the JFK back wound.
Denying that fact only makes CTers look foolish.
Plus: Consider the fact that the CE903 photo was taken without Mr.
Specter having the benefit of seeing the autopsy photos of JFK at all.
Shouldn't that be telling the "GERALD FORD MOVED THE WOUND" crowd
something important here? If not....why not?
CE903 = Utter SBT Perfection (even without Specter skewering a man for
the benefit of the photograph):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Now...tell me that pointer isn't precisely the proper height to match
the wound in this picture:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>>> "When the Australian research team's marksman fired the shot we could all see where the bullet went in JFK's back and out the front of JFK's chest, nowhere near the wound location on the front of JFK's neck. Proving empirically there is no basis for the Single Bullet Theory in fact." <<<
As if every single nuance of the SBT and CE399 (which was a bullet
fired by Oswald through a LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING, not a dummy
torso) could be mimicked to the Nth degree. Get real. And grow some
CS&L.
The Australian test in Oct. 2004 is a good and reasonably-accurate
example of the inner workings of the SBT....e.g., the test bullet took
a generally-similar path to 399, did about the same damage in the two
"victims" while taking this path (hitting ALL the major pieces of the
torsos that WERE, indeed, affected by the real 399 bullet in '63! A
very important point here!), tumbled into the JBC back (just like
399), and emerged INTACT, just like 399. The test bullet was a bit
more damaged...but it ended up COMPLETELY WHOLE AND UNFRAGMENTED.
I want to know the odds of THREE separate shots (and guns) being able
to do what many CTers said the 3 guns did in '63 to JFK & JBC....and
yet (41 years later) have a team of researchers Down Under being able
to come ANYWHERE NEAR the same holes in the TWO bodies with just a
SINGLE BULLET -- and have that bullet emerge completely intact (like
399 did).
You couldn't calculate the odds here. It's so unlikely and utterly
improbable that three guns could have mimicked even a HALFWAY DECENT
SBT, I think I can safely use the word "impossible" to describe that
ridiculous multi-bullet CT version of the event, without fear of
embarrassment.
"BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
>>> "Yours is one of the most serious cases of brainwash I've ever encountered on this NG." <<<
I've been brainwashed by the truth...and by common sense re. the SBT.
That's the only "brainwashing" that I've encountered re. this case.
You, OTOH, are a different story. You must believe, being an anti-
SBTer, that a bullet either went through Kennedy and then disappeared
into thin air (which, as Vince B. said recently, is the true "magic
bullet" in this case; "The conspiracy theorists have the ONLY magic
bullet in this case"--VB)....or....
You must believe in something far more fanciful than 60 SBTs
combined--
i.e., the theory that THREE bullets replace the SBT/399 bullet in this
case. And then all of those bullets magically disappeared as well (if
399 is a "plant"...which virtually all CTers believe). Right or wrong?
Either option above is a conclusion that is many times sillier than is
the wholly-logical SBT.
But, naturally, you'll stick to your anti-SBT guns and refuse to use
any common sense when evaluating the SUM TOTAL of evidence in the
case....correct?
You'd rather isolate and speculate.
I, however, would prefer to evaluate the logical SUM TOTAL of the
evidence (with that sum total including what's NOT on the table
too...i.e., NO OTHER BULLETS IN EVIDENCE EXCEPT 399 with respect to
the SBT wounds).
And while evaluating this totality of evidence (and missing evidence),
I always ask myself: Is it truly logical and believable to think that
up to THREE separate--and vanishing!-- bullets (from three different
guns as well, given the close timing here) did this damage that the WC
says was done by CE399?
Can you guess what my answer to that last question always is?
David Von Pein
May 2007
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Dale Myers is not a scientist. He is a computer animator, a cartoonist." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Yeah, yeah. The "cartoonist" argument (yet again). Conspiracy
theorists always have to resort to that. Meh.
Fact is, Mr. Myers' work was LOCKED IN to the Z-Film itself. It's KEY
FRAMED to that film...and that film is a timeclock of the
assassination.
>>> "And of course you are part of the 10% ruling elite who disagree with 90% of the unwashed masses." <<<
Another myth that's been endlessly repeated by conspiracists around
here. The % of the "unwashed masses" (i.e., CTers) isn't nearly that
high, and never was AFAIK. (BTW, here's some Camay. I have plenty.)
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "Define well inboard. Myers tries to argue 6 inches to the left. It is actually just a tad over 5 inches." <<<
As if Tony knows EXACTLY (to the square inch) where John Connally's
butt was resting on that jump seat when JBC was turning to his right
at the precise moment the bullet struck him at Z224.
How do you know this, Tony? I certainly don't know that detailed data
either (since I wasn't in the limo focusing a camera on Connally's
posterior and his torso at Z224).
But Mr. Zapruder WAS filming Mr. Connally. And while some things are
always going to remain in the "unknowable" category (like the exact
relative positions of JFK to JBC throughout the assassination
timeline), Dale Myers has bridged that "unknowable", at least to a
goodly extent, via the synchronizing of his computer animation with
the Zapruder Film itself.
Myers has, in effect, created a 3D look at the assassination. It might
not be 100% to-the-inch perfection....but do you truly believe that
Myers has the victims' positions so far out-of-whack that Dale's model
is totally wrong and worthless?
If you do think that, you'd better examine Myers' model again (from
the few snippets made available by ABC-TV and Mr. Myers' DVD Preview
and website; since evidently we'll never, ever get a look at the
entire DVD, which Dale's been promising since 2003; but, that's
another story I guess).
Just like with the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation -- I want to
know the odds of Dale Myers (falsely now!) being able to come up with
a beautiful-looking animation computer model for a working SBT (with
the trajectory leading straight to the SN window in the TSBD)....and
yet have that Myers-proposed ONE-bullet shooting event actually being
carried out by two or three different guns/bullets?
As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it?
Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays
and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK
with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just
such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-
Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with
an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that
would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT
purported by the WC in 1964.
Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins
deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public
duping". Wouldn't you agree?
Herbert Blenner
> S.B.T. COMMON SENSE...........
>
> ============================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c9d1a99e08a23f0
>
> >>> "But Specter is showing us that the bullet actually is missing the president's back completely." <<<
>
> So, I guess you expected Specter to SKEWER the Kennedy stand-in for
> the sake of the photograph? Is that it?
>
> Obviously (and why I even have to explain this to anyone is beyond all
> belief), if the pointer that Specter is holding is moved just a little
> toward the JFK stand-in's back (which is where the real JFK was hit by
> a bullet that most certainly went clean through him), the 17-degree
> downward angle is still correct and the SBT is still fully intact.
The declination angle of the bullet that allegedly went through
President Kennedy was twenty degrees. They subtracted the three-degree
decline of Elm Street from this declination angle to compensate for
the stand-ins being on level ground. So the pointer with a declination
angle of seventeen degrees passed through the exit wound on the stand-
in for the President and the entrance wound on the stand-in for the
Governor.
Your failure to correct the mistaken explanation by the WC for
subtracting the three-degree angle from the declination angle of the
bullet does not speak well of your qualifications to mock critics of
the SBT. Instead your blind acceptance of the dumber things uttered by
the commission shows that acceptance of the SBT is based upon faith,
not knowledge.
Herbert
>
> But, since Arlen Specter decided to be a nice guy and not shoot the
> stand-in in the back with a real bullet and possibly kill the poor
> man, some allowances had to be made to APPROXIMATE the RIGHT-to-LEFT
> horizontal trajectory (just slightly) for the CE903 photograph.
>
> But the HEIGHT of that pointer Specter is holding is just perfect for
> the SBT to work, because it is at the height of the JFK back wound.
> Denying that fact only makes CTers look foolish.
>
> Plus: Consider the fact that the CE903 photo was taken without Mr.
> Specter having the benefit of seeing the autopsy photos of JFK at all.
> Shouldn't that be telling the "GERALD FORD MOVED THE WOUND" crowd
> something important here? If not....why not?
>
> CE903 = Utter SBT Perfection (even without Specter skewering a man for
> the benefit of the photograph):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
=====================================================================
Instead your blind acceptance of the dumber things uttered by
> the commission shows that acceptance of the SBT is based upon faith,
> not knowledge.
>
> Herbert
=====================================================================
Actually!
One would find that it is based more so on a complete ignorance of the
facts, which also equates to a lack of knowledge.
Tom Purvis
Walt
S.B.T. COMMON SENSE
Single Bullet Theory Common Sense ........An
Oxymoron .......presented by a moron.......
>
> ============================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c9d1a99e08a23f0
>
> >>> "But Specter is showing us that the bullet actually is missing the president's back completely." <<<
>
> So, I guess you expected Specter to SKEWER the Kennedy stand-in for
> the sake of the photograph? Is that it?
>
> Obviously (and why I even have to explain this to anyone is beyond all
> belief), if the pointer that Specter is holding is moved just a little
> toward the JFK stand-in's back (which is where the real JFK was hit by
> a bullet that most certainly went clean through him), the 17-degree
> downward angle is still correct and the SBT is still fully intact.
>
> But, since Arlen Specter decided to be a nice guy and not shoot the
> stand-in in the back with a real bullet and possibly kill the poor
> man, some allowances had to be made to APPROXIMATE the RIGHT-to-LEFT
> horizontal trajectory (just slightly) for the CE903 photograph.
>
> But the HEIGHT of that pointer Specter is holding is just perfect for
> the SBT to work, because it is at the height of the JFK back wound.
> Denying that fact only makes CTers look foolish.
>
> Plus: Consider the fact that the CE903 photo was taken without Mr.
> Specter having the benefit of seeing the autopsy photos of JFK at all.
> Shouldn't that be telling the "GERALD FORD MOVED THE WOUND" crowd
> something important here? If not....why not?
>
> CE903 = Utter SBT Perfection (even without Specter skewering a man for
> the benefit of the photograph):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
tomnln
ALL in her own words.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:ef5f2876-734e-43a3...@u65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
> WHO IS WALT?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> ALL in her own words.
You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
tomnln
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> WHO IS WALT?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> ALL in her own words.
You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
muc...@gmail.com
> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WHO IS WALT?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
>
> You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
> for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
>
> The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
How many *is* on your side, perv?
David Von Pein
>>> "The declination angle of the bullet that allegedly went through President Kennedy was twenty degrees." <<<
It's only approximately 20 degrees when the 3.9-degree street grade of
Elm Street isn't factored into the equation. But when we put the
limousine (and, hence, President Kennedy's body too, since he was
sitting, upright, in that car when it was travelling on Elm Street,
which is angled at a declination of 3.9 degrees) back onto level
ground, without any angle of declination in the road, the angle of the
bullet path through JFK's upper back and throat measures approximately
17.5 degrees.
>>> "They subtracted the three-degree decline of Elm Street from this declination angle to compensate for the stand-ins being on level ground. So the pointer with a declination angle of seventeen degrees passed through the exit wound on the stand-in for the President and the entrance wound on the stand-in for the Governor. Your failure to correct the mistaken explanation by the WC for subtracting the three-degree angle from the declination angle of the bullet does not speak well of your qualifications to mock critics of the SBT." <<<
Why should I (or anyone) feel the need to "correct" the Warren
Commission and the Commission's surveyors with respect to the angles
they used?
There is no need to do that, of course....because the angles that were
measured ARE WHAT THEY ARE (with a built-in "plus or minus" of
potential error, of course, since the WC's 17.43-degree measurement
through the President's upper back and throat was actually the AVERAGE
angle of two separate angles that were taken from Oswald's Sniper's
Nest) -- at Zapruder Frame 210 and Z225 -- since the WC determined
that JFK was struck with the first bullet that hit him somewhere
between those two Z-Film frames.
And even via 1964 technology, they were 100% right....JFK and JBC were
struck by Oswald's CE399 bullet at Z224, which indeed falls in the
bracketed range of Z-Frames estimated by the Warren Commission.
The angle from the Sniper's Nest to JFK's inshoot wound on his upper
back was measured to be 21.34 degrees at Z210 and 20.11 degrees at
Z225.
The 3.9-degree street grade of Elm Street was then factored into the
measurements (and subtracted, just as it should have been), with the
average angle between Z210 and Z225 (sans the 3.9-degree declination
of the Elm St. pavement) coming out to 17.43 degrees "assuming that he
[JFK] was sitting in a vertical position" (WCR; Pg. 106) -- which he
almost certainly was, as evidenced by Z-Frame 225:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
QUOTING THE WARREN REPORT:
"A surveyor placed his sighting equipment at the precise point
of entry on the back of the President’s neck, assuming that the
President was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end
of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have
been held by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degrees 34’. From
the same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at
20 degrees 11’, giving an average angle of 20 degrees 52’30” from
frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street grade of 3
degrees 9’, the probable angle through the President’s body was
calculated at 17 degrees 43’30”, assuming that he was sitting in a
vertical position." -- WCR; PAGE 106
==========================
Mr. 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?
Mr. 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".
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.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a couple of questions? Am I correct in
assuming that you have made these determinations about the degree of
the angle of the trajectory of the bullet at the time the President
was struck, locating the position of the President in the car on the
one hand, and the location of the rifle at the time the shots were
fired?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the
wound?
Senator COOPER. Yes. .... You had to establish the position of the
President at the time the bullet struck him and the position of the
rifle to make a determination about the degree of the angle of the
direction?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The positions in the car, their
positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film.
Senator COOPER. And you were able to determine what you think very
accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that
you have examined?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Senator COOPER. Then the factor then, which is not determinable
exactly, then is the location of the rifle, is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. Upon what did you determine the location of the rifle
upon what factors?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rifle was positioned in the sixth floor window of
the Book Building where the cartridges were found, and was determined
from information furnished by representatives of the Commission.
Senator COOPER. Did you have information about the location of certain
boxes that were seen--were found--at the window after the shooting
occurred?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Yes; we had photographs of the boxes
and we were advised, of the approximate position in the window and how
far down the window was, the fact that some observers noted the rifle
sticking out the window.
Senator COOPER. I want to ask you--you did have information from the
testimony of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the
window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had this information furnished to us by the
Commission.
Senator COOPER. And those facts, those locations were made known to
you, and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these
calculations?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in
all of our calculations.
Senator COOPER. Just one other question. Assuming that there might
have been some variation in the location of the rifle, length of the
window, the breadth of the window, or that the rifle you used was held
higher than the rifle might have been, would it have made how much
variation would it have made, in your judgement, in these calculations
you made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't believe that any movement of the rifle in that
specific window would alter our calculations to any appreciable degree
if you stay within that window, because our reenactment and our
repositioning of the bodies in the car based on the photographs is
subject to some variation, too, so we have variations throughout. And
the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular
window, I feel would be negligible.
Senator COOPER. At every point where you made it, hypothetically, at
least, made the determination that at a particular point the President
was struck by a bullet, at that point the car and the President could
be seen from the window?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0063b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0064a.htm
=============================
Every single thing about CE903 and the 5/24/64 re-creation that was
performed by the FBI and Warren Commission in Dealey Plaza works out
to "SBT perfection". And only someone who is totally blind (or someone
who just doesn't WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be true) could fail
to see that obvious fact when examining the detailed record concerning
this matter.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
aeffects
> >>> "The declination angle of the bullet that allegedly went through President Kennedy was twenty degrees." <<<
told you once, we've told you a million times, troll.... NO free
advertising.... Geeesh, what a fucking moron...
lazu...@webtv.net
Rhydburg,Crenshaw Bowron, etc..the people who were there don't buy it?
After all they saw the body and most for a length of time, so you have
to listen to what they say...Jeff
David Von Pein
>>> "How come Sibert, O'Neill, O'Conner Custer, Robinson, Bell, McClelland, Rhydburg [sic], Crenshaw Bowron, etc..the people who were there don't buy it [the SBT]?" <<<
Did any of those people participate in the 5/24/64 WC/FBI
reconstruction of the shooting in Dealey Plaza?
(Didn't think so.)
Addendum:
You DO realize, don't you Jeff, that without the SBT in place, you
need THREE separate bullets, fired by THREE separate gunmen, to
replace what the SBT did to the TWO victims?
You do realize that basic fact of anti-SBT life....don't you?
Now, step back from the kooky CT abyss and ask yourself....What is
more logical:
The SBT?
Or:
Three bullets from three different guns going into two men at
virtually an identical time (per the Z-Film record), with these three
bullets forming a perfect-looking SBT (via CE903, which cannot
possibly be denied), AND having all 3 of these "other" bullets
magically disappearing after the shooting (per most CT-Kooks' beliefs
that CE399 never touched any victim on 11/22)?
Does any CTer here have the guts to answer the above question
honestly?
(Should I hold my breath?)
aeffects
> >>> "How come Sibert, O'Neill, O'Conner Custer, Robinson, Bell, McClelland, Rhydburg [sic], Crenshaw Bowron, etc..the people who were there don't buy it [the SBT]?" <<<
[...]
> (Should I hold my breath?)
ya fart?
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "The declination angle of the bullet that allegedly went through President Kennedy was twenty degrees." <<<
>
> It's only approximately 20 degrees when the 3.9-degree street grade of
> Elm Street isn't factored into the equation. But when we put the
> limousine (and, hence, President Kennedy's body too, since he was
> sitting, upright, in that car when it was travelling on Elm Street,
> which is angled at a declination of 3.9 degrees) back onto level
> ground, without any angle of declination in the road, the angle of the
> bullet path through JFK's upper back and throat measures approximately
> 17.5 degrees.
The distance of the shooter above their victim and the distance of the
shooter behind the victim determines the declination angle of the
bullet. Period. Neither factor requires an adjustment for declination
angle of Elm Street.
Further the angle of the line connecting the wound in the upper back
to the throat wound is not a declination. Instead the line represents
a transit angle between the trajectory of the bullet and the
transverse plane of the body. Of course the angle between the
horizontal plane as determined by a carpenter's level and the
transverse plane of the body represents an angle of lean or recline.
So the angle of the line connecting the wounds depends upon the
declination angle of the bullet and the angle of lean or recline of
the victim. Again, both factors do not depend upon the declination
angle of Elm Street.
>
> >>> "They subtracted the three-degree decline of Elm Street from this declination angle to compensate for the stand-ins being on level ground. So the pointer with a declination angle of seventeen degrees passed through the exit wound on the stand-in for the President and the entrance wound on the stand-in for the Governor. Your failure to correct the mistaken explanation by the WC for subtracting the three-degree angle from the declination angle of the bullet does not speak well of your qualifications to mock critics of the SBT." <<<
>
> Why should I (or anyone) feel the need to "correct" the Warren
> Commission and the Commission's surveyors with respect to the angles
> they used?
>
> There is no need to do that, of course....because the angles that were
> measured ARE WHAT THEY ARE (with a built-in "plus or minus" of
> potential error, of course, since the WC's 17.43-degree measurement
> through the President's upper back and throat was actually the AVERAGE
> angle of two separate angles that were taken from Oswald's Sniper's
> Nest) -- at Zapruder Frame 210 and Z225 -- since the WC determined
> that JFK was struck with the first bullet that hit him somewhere
> between those two Z-Film frames.
The surveyor measured an average declination angle of about 20.7
degree between frames 210 and 225. So the claim of a 17.43-degree
angle for the line joining the wounds require that President Kennedy
was reclining at a 3.15 degree angle that match the declination angle
of Elm Street. This orientation would not have aligned his transverse
plane with the surface of Elm Street. Instead the angle between them
would have been twice the declination angle of the street. So in
reality the WC made two errors. First they made an improper
subtraction and rotated the victim in the wrong direction.
>
> And even via 1964 technology, they were 100% right....JFK and JBC were
> struck by Oswald's CE399 bullet at Z224, which indeed falls in the
> bracketed range of Z-Frames estimated by the Warren Commission.
>
> The angle from the Sniper's Nest to JFK's inshoot wound on his upper
> back was measured to be 21.34 degrees at Z210 and 20.11 degrees at
> Z225.
>
> The 3.9-degree street grade of Elm Street was then factored into the
> measurements (and subtracted, just as it should have been), with the
> average angle between Z210 and Z225 (sans the 3.9-degree declination
> of the Elm St. pavement) coming out to 17.43 degrees "assuming that he
> [JFK] was sitting in a vertical position" (WCR; Pg. 106) -- which he
> almost certainly was, as evidenced by Z-Frame 225:
The assumption that Kennedy was in a vertical position means that the
angle between a carpenter's plane and the transverse plane of the body
was zero degree.
Under these conditions the angle of the line joining the wounds equals
the declination angle of the bullet.
>
> http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
>
> QUOTING THE WARREN REPORT:
>
> "A surveyor placed his sighting equipment at the precise point
> of entry on the back of the President’s neck, assuming that the
> President was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end
> of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have
> been held by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degrees 34’. From
> the same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at
> 20 degrees 11’, giving an average angle of 20 degrees 52’30” from
> frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street grade of 3
> degrees 9’, the probable angle through the President’s body was
> calculated at 17 degrees 43’30”, assuming that he was sitting in a
> vertical position." -- WCR; PAGE 106
I suggest that readers draw diagrams. First construct a line making a
20.4 degree angle with the horizontal. Mark two points to represent
the wounds. Now rotate the drawing so that the original horizontal
takes on a decline of three degrees. Measurement of the new angle
between the line joining the wounds and the original horizontal shows
an increase by three degrees. Obviously a three-degree decrease of the
angle requires a rotation in the opposite direction.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0063b.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0064a.htm
They were talking about the 17.43 degree angle of decline for the line
joining the exit wound on Kennedy's stand-in to the entrance wound on
the stand-in for Connally. Here the subtraction of the declination
angle of Elm Street was proper.
Again drawing diagrams show that the grade of Elm Street lowered
Connally with respect to Kennedy and slightly reduced the horizontal
distance between the victims.
>
> =============================
>
> Every single thing about CE903 and the 5/24/64 re-creation that was
> performed by the FBI and Warren Commission in Dealey Plaza works out
> to "SBT perfection". And only someone who is totally blind (or someone
> who just doesn't WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be true) could fail
> to see that obvious fact when examining the detailed record concerning
> this matter.
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
So how do you explain backtracking a bullet at a 17.4 degree
declination angle leading to the sniper's nest from which the surveyor
measured a 20.4 degree declination angle. Over a distance of about 160
ft, this three-degree error translates into placing the shooter 8.8 ft
too high and nearer the fifth-floor witnesses. How do these figures
grab you?
Herbert
David Von Pein
Herbert's full of shit.
Thanks, Herb, but I'll take the word of the professional people doing
the surveying in 1964...vs. taking the word of some conspiracy-happy
theorist with a keyboard at his disposal in 2008.
No offense.
tomnln
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abb24519-4610-4ed6...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Okt, 20:14, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > WHO IS WALT?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>>
>> > ALL in her own words.
>>
>> You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
>> for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
>>
>> The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
mucher wrote;
> How many *is* on your side, perv?
I write;
Over 90% of the American people are on my side.
Thanks for asking.
Maybe we can get you your American Citizenship ? ? ? ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WHO IS WALT?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
>
You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
Mark, The Old pervert sees me as a real threat to his capturing the
crown as being the one who cracked the case. I could care less about
being recognized... but the Old Pervert has illusions of grandeur.....
so he'll attack me any time he gets the opportunity. What the stupid
old pervert doesn't understand is I'm happy to see that he has
compiled a list of things that he thinks will embarrass me. I've
encouraged him to keep up the good work of calling attention to my
posts....and he's cooperating very nicely.
Herbert Blenner
Being told that I am "full of shit" by a jerk who cites evidence that
proves himself wrong does not offend me.
DVP wrote.
QUOTING THE WARREN REPORT:
"A surveyor placed his sighting equipment at the precise point
of entry on the back of the President's neck, assuming that the
President was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end
of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have
been held by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degrees 34'. From
the same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at
20 degrees 11', giving an average angle of 20 degrees 52'30" from
frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street grade of 3
degrees 9', the probable angle through the President's body was
calculated at 17 degrees 43'30", assuming that he was sitting in a
vertical position." -- WCR; PAGE 106
End of quotation.
The assumption that the President's body was vertical means that the
direction of his transverse plane coincided with the horizontal
direction used by the surveyor to measure the declination angle of the
bullet. Under these conditions the angle of the bullet through the
body measure with respect to the transverse plane equals the
declination angle.
So in reality a writer for the Warren Commission got it wrong. Their
figures would apply if the transverse plane of the President were
parallel to the surface of Elm Street.
Personally, I am amused by criticism from someone who cannot even
figure out that Dr. Petty referenced the "upward" direction of the
bullet transiting President Kennedy's back to the transverse plane of
the body while a surveyor referenced the "downward" direction of a
bullet to the horizontal plane as determined by a carpenter's level.
Frankly, David, your support of the SBT makes critics superfluous.
Herbert
tomnln
On 30 Oct, 12:31, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WHO IS WALT?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > ALL in her own words.
>
You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
Mark, The Old pervert sees me as a real threat to his capturing the
crown as being the one who cracked the case. I could care less about
being recognized... but the Old Pervert has illusions of grandeur.....
so he'll attack me any time he gets the opportunity. What the stupid
old pervert doesn't understand is I'm happy to see that he has
compiled a list of things that he thinks will embarrass me. I've
encouraged him to keep up the good work of calling attention to my
posts....and he's cooperating very nicely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEN, Why do you continue to RUN from those Stupid Bastard "claims" of yours
Wally?
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Carlos Marcello worked for RFK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Blenner
Being told that I am "full of shit" by a jerk who cites evidence that
proves himself wrong does not offend me.
DVP wrote.
QUOTING THE WARREN REPORT:
"A surveyor placed his sighting equipment at the precise point
of entry on the back of the President's neck, assuming that the
President was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end
of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have
been held by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degrees 34'. From
the same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at
20 degrees 11', giving an average angle of 20 degrees 52'30" from
frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street grade of 3
degrees 9', the probable angle through the President's body was
calculated at 17 degrees 43'30", assuming that he was sitting in a
vertical position." -- WCR; PAGE 106
David Von Pein
>>> "Personally, I am amused by criticism from someone who cannot even figure out that Dr. Petty referenced the "upward" direction of the bullet transiting President Kennedy's back to the transverse plane of the body while a surveyor referenced the "downward" direction of a bullet to the horizontal plane as determined by a carpenter's level. Frankly, David, your support of the SBT makes critics superfluous." <<<
Herbert is full of shit....as per usual.
Anybody looking at this photo who thinks that the throat wound was
above the back wound is either blind or full of shit. Petty and the
FPP must have never turned this picture sideways; because if they had,
the relative location of the 2 wounds would be obvious:
Walt
> >>> "Personally, I am amused by criticism from someone who cannot even figure out that Dr. Petty referenced the "upward" direction of the bullet transiting President Kennedy's back to the transverse plane of the body while a surveyor referenced the "downward" direction of a bullet to the horizontal plane as determined by a carpenter's level. Frankly, David, your support of the SBT makes critics superfluous." <<<
Herbert is full of shit....as per usual.
I have not yet read Herberts post...but I can tell he's spoke the
truth simply by the way Von Pea Brain attacks him with an ad hominem
attack. Von Pea Brain has used the same old tired tactic on me
several times so I know how he works.
>
> Anybody looking at this photo who thinks that the throat wound was
> above the back wound is either blind or full of shit. Petty and the
> FPP must have never turned this picture sideways; because if they had,
> the relative location of the 2 wounds would be obvious:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
Herbert Blenner
> On 31 Oct, 18:56, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Personally, I am amused by criticism from someone who cannot even figure out that Dr. Petty referenced the "upward" direction of the bullet transiting President Kennedy's back to the transverse plane of the body while a surveyor referenced the "downward" direction of a bullet to the horizontal plane as determined by a carpenter's level. Frankly, David, your support of the SBT makes critics superfluous." <<<
>
> Herbert is full of shit....as per usual.
>
> I have not yet read Herberts post...but I can tell he's spoke the
> truth simply by the way Von Pea Brain attacks him with an ad hominem
> attack. Von Pea Brain has used the same old tired tactic on me
> several times so I know how he works.
I have noticed a pattern. Some people, including David, say the
dumbest things to divert attention from a serious problem.
According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in
President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical column.
However, the FPP released autopsy photographs that show the longer
axis of the abrasion surrounding the bullet hole as almost
perpendicular to the vertical column. No twist of an autopsy
photograph can dismiss this problem.
Fortunately, the FPP discussed features associated with the bullet
hole that corroborated the contradictory alignment reported by Humes.
In other words the abrasion showed that one object entered the back on
an inward and leftward course while the tears and lacerations
associated with the bullet hole placed another object on an inward and
upward course. Obviously for some people avoidance of this evidence of
an altered back wound has the highest priority.
Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anybody looking at this photo who thinks that the throat wound was
> > above the back wound is either blind or full of shit. Petty and the
> > FPP must have never turned this picture sideways; because if they had,
> > the relative location of the 2 wounds would be obvious:
>
> >http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical column." <<<
Was that observation noted by Humes before or after he stuck his pinky
in the bullet hole? I forget.
Herbert Blenner
I quote the report by Humes.
"These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we
observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
vertical column."
A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
In any event would mind explaining how reaming an elliptical hole
changes the direction of its longer axis?
Herbert
Walt
> On Nov 1, 6:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical column." <<<
>
> > Was that observation noted by Humes before or after he stuck his pinky
> > in the bullet hole? I forget.
>
> I quote the report by Humes.
>
> "These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we
> observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
> Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
> wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
> above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
> millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
> vertical column."
>
A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
Worth repeating....
Walt
>
> > >>> "According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical column." <<<
>
> > Was that observation noted by Humes before or after he stuck his pinky
> > in the bullet hole? I forget.
>
> I quote the report by Humes.
>
> "These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we
> observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
> Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
> wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
> above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
> millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
> vertical column."
>
> A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
> chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
> have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
I've always said IF IF Humes probed that bullet hole with his finger
the it had to have been larger than 4 X 7mm, and if he probed it with
his finger then it had to have been an EXIT hole.
David Von Pein
>>> "In any event[,] would [you] mind explaining how reaming an elliptical hole changes the direction of its longer axis?" <<<
Beats me. You're apparently the "axis" authority. I really couldn't
care less about this trivial "axis" shit.
Instead, I'll rely on some good ol' CS&L:
1.) A bullet went into JFK's upper back...
2.) That bullet struck nothing that could have possibly stopped its
forward progress...
3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his lower throat...
4.) JFK had no bullets or bullet fragments in his body (not counting
his head)...
Solution: The same bullet that struck him in the upper back exited his
lower throat.
And a bunch of double-talk about the "axis" of the wounds, etc., is
never going to change the above-mentioned facts, Herbert.
Now....tell me again how one bullet couldn't have gone through John
Kennedy's body. I love watching a CTer deny the obvious.
>>> "If you believe that Humes stuck has chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter...." <<<
So, you think Humes didn't stick his "chubby little finger" into the
back wound at all then? Is that what you're saying?
Or would you like to pretend that the bullet hole seen in the picture
below was really a completely-different size and/or configuration from
what is exhibited in this photograph (a picture that was determined by
the HSCA to be "unaltered in any manner")?:
tomnln
On 1 Nov, 17:34, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 6:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in
> > >>> President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical
> > >>> column." <<<
>
> > Was that observation noted by Humes before or after he stuck his pinky
> > in the bullet hole? I forget.
>
> I quote the report by Humes.
>
> "These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we
> observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
> Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
> wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
> above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
> millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
> vertical column."
Wally wrote;
A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
Worth repeating....
A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
I write;
WHY pick on Gil, Wally???
He just quoted Dr. Humes.
WHY haven't you questioned Humes' statement in 44 Years??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:eff0ea25-8bb3-4db0...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Nov, 17:34, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "According to Commander Humes the longer axis of the bullet hole in
> > > >>> President Kennedy's back was roughly parallel to the vertical
> > > >>> column." <<<
>
> > > Was that observation noted by Humes before or after he stuck his pinky
> > > in the bullet hole? I forget.
>
> > I quote the report by Humes.
>
> > "These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we
> > observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
> > Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I
> > wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just
> > above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4
> > millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
> > vertical column."
>
> Wally wrote;
>
> A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
> chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
> have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
>
> Worth repeating....
>
> A pinky has a diameter of 15 mm. If you believe that Humes stuck has
> chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter then I
> have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.
>
> I write;
>
> WHY pick on Gil, Wally???
Pssst.... Ya senile old queer.... I was responding to Herb's post.
>
> He just quoted Dr. Humes.
>
> WHY haven't you questioned Humes' statement in 44 Years??
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Child Molester Wally wrote;
Pssst.... Ya senile old queer.... I was responding to Herb's post.
I write;
Hey Wally World;
How many Cub Scouts did you Eat today????
WHEN are you gonna document your Many "Speculations?>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Carlos Marcello worked for RFK
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "In any event[,] would [you] mind explaining how reaming an elliptical hole changes the direction of its longer axis?" <<<
>
> Beats me. You're apparently the "axis" authority. I really couldn't
> care less about this trivial "axis" shit.
>
> Instead, I'll rely on some good ol' CS&L:
>
> 1.) A bullet went into JFK's upper back...
Agreed.
>
> 2.) That bullet struck nothing that could have possibly stopped its
> forward progress...
Agreed.
>
> 3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his lower throat...
What evidence do you have that a bullet caused the hole in the throat?
Nobody at Bethesda including Doctors Humes, Boswell and Finck and the
president's personal physician attributed the throat wound to a
bullet. In fact the initial reactions of the Parkland doctors
attributed the small roundish hole to an entering bullet. The fact
that the quantity of damage to the throat documented hours later by
Bethesda has gone unexplained for more than four decades strongly
indicates that the bullet hole in the throat was a cover story for a
botched attempt to establish an effective airway.
>
> 4.) JFK had no bullets or bullet fragments in his body (not counting
> his head)...
Disputable. At least one radiologist recognized fragments near the
spine.
>
> Solution: The same bullet that struck him in the upper back exited his
> lower throat.
Resolution. The bullet that entered the back and struck no significant
bony mass continued traveling in the same direction as it entered. The
anatomical direction of the long axis of either the abrasion or bullet
hole coincides with the tangential component of direction of travel.
>
> And a bunch of double-talk about the "axis" of the wounds, etc., is
> never going to change the above-mentioned facts, Herbert.
I am not surprised that you label evidence that contradicts the SBT
scenario as double-talk. I dare you to say the something about the
conclusion drawn by the FPP.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
"Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives."
End of source.
>
> Now....tell me again how one bullet couldn't have gone through John
> Kennedy's body. I love watching a CTer deny the obvious.
Now tell me how a bullet that entered the back going inward and
leftward missed the central portion of the spine and exited the
throat?
In fairness, I acknowledge that the rough alignment of the longer axis
of the bullet hole with the vertical column gives an initial direction
of travel that leads to a documented exit wound in the late arriving
piece of skull. More important the semicircular bevel that was
actually an elliptical arc, is consistent with the trajectory that
would have the bullet strike the inner table of the skull at a small
or moderate incidence angle.
>
> >>> "If you believe that Humes stuck has chubby little finger into a bullet hole with a 4 mm diameter...." <<<
>
> So, you think Humes didn't stick his "chubby little finger" into the
> back wound at all then? Is that what you're saying?
>
> Or would you like to pretend that the bullet hole seen in the picture
> below was really a completely-different size and/or configuration from
> what is exhibited in this photograph (a picture that was determined by
> the HSCA to be "unaltered in any manner")?:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
You are showing us a picture of the 7 mm by 10 mm abrasion that
surrounded the unseen hole. I guess you just cannot distinguish
roughly parallel from nearly perpendicular.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Resolution. The bullet that entered the back and struck no significant bony mass continued traveling in the same direction as it entered. The anatomical direction of the long axis of either the abrasion or bullet hole coincides with the tangential component of direction of travel." <<<
That's a "resolution"?
LOL.
Tell me, Herb, does the above batch of impressive-sounding highbrow
mumbo-jumbo mean that John F. Kennedy was hit by one bullet, two
bullets, three bullets, or maybe four?
And if the bullet that entered the President's upper back didn't exit
his throat, where did it go? (You never did say.)
I often wonder why obviously-smart people turn a blind eye to common
sense when it comes to evaluating the JFK murder case (and the
logicality of the SBT in particular).
It boggles the (common-sense) mind.
=====================================
"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since [the members of the WC staff] all knew that the bullet,
fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
it? ....
"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well. ....
"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
respond to this issue [via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005],
and he declined." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
=====================================
INSTANT REPLAY:
"The [single-bullet] theory was so obvious that a child could
author it." -- VB
=====================================
muc...@gmail.com
> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:abb24519-4610-4ed6...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On 30 Okt, 20:14, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > WHO IS WALT?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> >> > ALL in her own words.
>
> >> You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
> >> for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
>
> >> The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
>
> mucher wrote;
>
> > How many *is* on your side, perv?
>
> I write;
>
> Over 90% of the American people are on my side.
OK... if anyone reading this wants to align him/herself with Rossley,
this is the time to speak up.
> Thanks for asking.
>
> Maybe we can get you your American Citizenship ? ? ? ?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> On 31 Okt., 01:54, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:abb24519-4610-4ed6...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On 30 Okt, 20:14, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > WHO IS WALT?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > >> > ALL in her own words.
>
> > >> You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
> > >> for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
>
> > >> The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
And you a raving lunatic......as well as being a homosexual pervert.
> > >> > >> May 2007- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 2 Nov, 01:31, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 31 Okt., 01:54, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:abb24519-4610-4ed6...@p39g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...>
> >On 30 Okt, 20:14, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> <much...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:24752683-c3a9-4843...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On 30 Okt, 18:32, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > WHO IS WALT?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> > >> > ALL in her own words.
>
> > >> You attack Walt for calling DVP a moron?! Seems you're cheerleading
> > >> for DVP now, eh, tomnln?
>
> > >> The 3 of you are on the same side Asshole.
WEally World wrote;
And you a raving lunatic......as well as being a homosexual pervert.
I writel
And, you're a Warren Commission SHILL ! ! ! ! !
And, you RUN from your own words>>>
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Carlos Marcello worked for RFK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------限-----------------------------------------------------
> > mucher wrote;
>
> > > How many *is* on your side, perv?
>
> > I write;
>
> > Over 90% of the American people are on my side.
>
> OK... if anyone reading this wants to align him/herself with Rossley,
> this is the time to speak up.
>
>
>
> > Thanks for asking.
>
> > Maybe we can get you your American Citizenship ? ? ? ?
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------限--------------------------------------------------------------