Testimony of the Eyewitnesses by Fred J. Cook, The Nation, 20 June 1966
aeffects
at 40+ years old
... In summary, then, we are left with this picture:
Unless the commission's one-shot-multiple-wound thesis can be
justified, the entire one-assassin theory collapses. To uphold this
hypothesis, the commission had to turn its back on Governor Connally's
clear and explicit testimony; it had to disregard the graphic,
corroborative evidence of the Zapruder film; it had to ignore the
vital fact that every eyewitness supported the Governor, that not one
saw the action as the commission reconstructed it. To make the pieces
of its theory fit together, the commission took the fastest firing
time of the fastest finger in the FBI and implied that this "bolt-
action only" speed was consistent with both Oswald's capabilities and
his task of aiming accurately at a moving target. But even with this
assumption, theory would not mesh with fact. The commission's case
rested upon the evidence of the Zapruder film and its own
reconstruction, and it established these fixed points: if Oswald were
the marksman, he could not have shot President Kennedy before frame 210
--and Governor Connally could not have been wounded after frame 240.
Yet the fastest marksmen the commission could find could not fire two
shots within that time span; if the President and Governor Connally
were wounded by separate shots, as the weight of the evidence
indicates, there had to be a second marksman. This conclusion is
reinforced by the anatomical evidence. The first bullet to strike the
President, if fired on a downward-slanting angle by Oswald, could not
have entered his back at the point it did and still have exited just
below his Adam's apple; the anatomical evidence says that this bullet
was fired into the President on virtually a flat trajectory. Such a
trajectory would conflict with the angle of fire from Oswald's window,
and so, in illustrative drawings, the entry point was actually moved
from back to neck; otherwise, the downward trajectory of this bullet
could not have been depicted. All of this suggests a reconstruction of
the assassination in serious conflict at vital points with the
preponderance of the evidence.
Yet if the reconstruction was not valid, there had to be a
second marksman--and a Pandora's box of possibilities flies open. To
admit so much is to admit that the man whose bullet actually killed
President Kennedy may still be at large.
David Von Pein
Bullshit statement #1 in above article.
And CE903 proves that the above statement is total bullshit:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Is it any wonder why CE903 isn't used by CTers very often? I can see
why CT-Kooks like Crackpipe (Healy) and Walt and Holmes, etc., don't
like to look at the SBT perfection that is represented within the
image seen in Commission Exhibit 903...because such SBT perfection
tends to make a CTer wonder (or it should make him wonder, big-time!)
just how in the world the SBT could be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE in light
of CE903.
Because if the SBT is wrong, it means that THREE SEPARATE BULLETS
(based on the sum total of evidence in the case) would have to have
actually mimicked a pretty damn good-looking "SBT"....as we can easily
see in CE903:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
>>> "The anatomical evidence says that this bullet was fired into the President on virtually a flat trajectory." <<<
Lookie, kids! CT Myth #477 is here!
>>> "...In illustrative drawings, the entry point was actually moved from back to neck; otherwise, the downward trajectory of this bullet could not have been depicted." <<<
More total bullshit. And, guess what?, CE903 proves that the above-
quoted sentence is total bullshit. Just look....Specter's pointer is
not up in the "NECK"; the entry wound on JFK is in the "UPPER BACK"
via CE903, without a shred of a doubt. And via that UPPER-BACK
depiction in CE903, the bullet track is DOWNWARD (17.43 degrees,
perfectly matching the string on the wall in the background of the
photo in CE903....and that string is angled at exactly 17.43 degrees):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>>> "All of this suggests a reconstruction of the assassination in serious conflict at vital points with the
preponderance of the evidence." <<<
Everything said by this kook so far can easily be destroyed by taking
just one look at CE903 (in conjunction with this autopsy photograph):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
David Von Pein
(seeing as how it just happens to be the first anniversary of its
creation):
==================================
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WARREN COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #903:
As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (linked below), the
"Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works
absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE
bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John
Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by
only one single bullet (CE399).
And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo of
John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, 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
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
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 Arlen 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
--------------------------------
Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection"
that exists in CE903....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
As mentioned by Shaneyfelt in his WC testimony, the stand-in
representing Governor Connally is wearing the same jacket that JBC
wore on 11/22/63....and that pointer/rod being held by Mr. Specter,
which is coming out of JFK's tie knot, is being placed right into the
exact bullet hole in that jacket in CE903.
CE903 shows:
1.) Downward (back-to-front) angle of the bullet path (17 degrees) =
Perfect.
2.) Upper-back JFK wound = Perfect.
3.) JFK exit wound at tie knot = Perfect.
4.) Entry wound on JBC's back = Perfect (with Specter's metal rod
being jammed into the same hole on JBC's exact jacket where a bullet
just happened to penetrate Connally's suit jacket on 11/22/63, by
gosh!).
5.) Exit wound on JBC's chest (under right nipple) = Perfect via CE903
as well.
Sum Total.....
No "zig-zag" path.
No "magic" bullet.
No "SBT conspiracy".
In short: CE903 = S.B.T. PERFECTION!
~MARK VII~
--------------------------------
PAGE 107 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm
--------------------------------
MORE ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CE903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
--------------------------------
AND A QUOTE FROM THE MAN WHO IS "RECLAIMING HISTORY":
"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
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfb02505fe1534df
David Von Pein
March 26, 2007