EVIDENCE WORTH REVISITING --- "BACK AND TO THE LEFT"
David Von Pein
WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE?
ANYTHING?
-------------------------------------------------
A YOUNG CONSPIRACY BUFF (STUDENT) WROTE:
"{After watching the Zapruder Film}, out of 35 students in my
classroom, 35 said the {head} shot came from the front; 0 said the
shot came from the rear."
DVP REPLIES:
Well, heck yes, they all thought that from JUST focusing on the "back
and to the left" reaction of JFK on the Z-Film. Cripes, who WOULDN'T?
But out of those 35 classmates of yours, how many have ANY idea what
the autopsy report says re. JFK's head wounds? And how many have ever
read the WC testimony of one James J. Humes, the lead autopsist? Any
of them do those things? (I'm doubting they have.)
The "back and to the left" motion of President Kennedy's head is
definitive proof of NOTHING with respect to the precise direction from
which the bullet came.
The Zapruder Film is ONE PIECE of evidence to look at and evaluate,
sure. But why would anybody simply stop after watching the Z-Film,
toss up their hands, and say "That's it! He was shot from the front!
Let's have lunch!"?
That's silly.
Read the autopsy report and the doctors' statements. Put the pieces
TOGETHER. Don't leave them isolated (like most CTers seem to want to
do).
And there are the autopsy photos too....which tell us this:
There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head -- and it was IN THE REAR
of Kennedy's head. Hence, there is no way POSSIBLE that the head shot
came from the FRONT.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
===========================
IN ADDITION......
There's this super-slo-mo version of the Zapruder Film at circa Z312-
Z313 (linked below), verifying beyond very much doubt whatsoever that
at the exact moment the bullet strikes its target (i.e., JFK's
cranium), the President's head is being pushed FORWARD (away from the
Book Depository Building and in the same direction the speeding bullet
is travelling).
Only after this initial forward movement does JFK's head start to move
backward.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Plus (referring to the Z-Film at frames 313-320) --- There's the "ALL
BLOOD IS TO THE FRONT OF THE HEAD" thing too.
And the "NOT A SPECK OF BLOOD CAN BE SEEN AT THE EXIT POINT IN THE
BACK OF THE HEAD IF JFK HAS SUPPOSEDLY JUST BEEN HIT BY A FRONTAL
SHOT" thing too.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Does any conspiracy theorist have any "Frontal Shot" explanation(s) at
all for those two "blood" observations I just mentioned, which can
both easily be seen on Mr. Zapruder's movie?
And CTers can't really very logically use the excuse of "The Z-Film
has been faked". Why? Because almost all conspiracists think that the
"back and to the left" motion of Kennedy's head on the Zapruder Film
almost single-handedly convinces those CTers that a frontal shot hit
JFK in the head.
Therefore, with that popular belief in the minds of so many people --
who in the wide, wide world of conspiracy plots would be stupid enough
to go to the trouble of "faking" a film in such a way so that the end
result of such fakery would PROVE "conspiracy" in the eyes of so many
Z-Film viewers, rather than lead away from that dreaded "C" word?
That's just...well...frankly...crazy.
Food for Z-Film/Head-Shot thought.
David Von Pein
March 2007
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Herbert Blenner
> WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE?
>
> ANYTHING?
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> A YOUNG CONSPIRACY BUFF (STUDENT) WROTE:
>
> "{After watching the Zapruder Film}, out of 35 students in my
> classroom, 35 said the {head} shot came from the front; 0 said the
> shot came from the rear."
>
> DVP REPLIES:
>
> Well, heck yes, they all thought that from JUST focusing on the "back
> and to the left" reaction of JFK on the Z-Film. Cripes, who WOULDN'T?
More than two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not make any statement
indicating that the shot came from the front. In fact some witnesses
stated the opposite by attributing what they saw to a shot from the
rear.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
How do you explain the discrepancy between what viewers of the
Zapruder film see and what actual eyewitnesses saw?
Herbert
>
> But out of those 35 classmates of yours, how many have ANY idea what
> the autopsy report says re. JFK's head wounds? And how many have ever
> read the WC testimony of one James J. Humes, the lead autopsist? Any
> of them do those things? (I'm doubting they have.)
>
> The "back and to the left" motion of President Kennedy's head is
> definitive proof of NOTHING with respect to the precise direction from
> which the bullet came.
>
> The Zapruder Film is ONE PIECE of evidence to look at and evaluate,
> sure. But why would anybody simply stop after watching the Z-Film,
> toss up their hands, and say "That's it! He was shot from the front!
> Let's have lunch!"?
>
> That's silly.
>
> Read the autopsy report and the doctors' statements. Put the pieces
> TOGETHER. Don't leave them isolated (like most CTers seem to want to
> do).
>
> And there are the autopsy photos too....which tell us this:
>
> There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head -- and it was IN THE REAR
> of Kennedy's head. Hence, there is no way POSSIBLE that the head shot
> came from the FRONT.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_s...
David Von Pein
>>> "More than two dozen head shot eyewitnesses did not make any statement indicating that the shot came from the front. In fact some witnesses stated the opposite by attributing what they saw to a shot from the rear." <<<
My "Who Wouldn't?" comment from above relates to those people who
viewed the Z-Film in a classroom somewhere (and they probably were
able to view the film multiple times). I wasn't talking about the
witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
Those who watch the Z-Film KNOW what's coming--the head shot. They can
expect it. Those in DP on 11/22 certainly couldn't have dreamed that
JFK's head would be exploding in front of them. It was a one-second
head-shot event.
Offhand, I can't recall any DP witnesses who specifically mentioned
ANYTHING about the direction which JFK's head moved after the fatal
shot.
>>> "How do you explain the discrepancy between what viewers of the Zapruder film see and what actual eyewitnesses saw?" <<<
Cite the witnesses who said anything about the directionality of
Kennedy's head movement.
Several witnesses said that JFK "fell into Jackie's lap" (which, of
course, we know is incorrect....he didn't fall into her lap at all;
she climbed out of the way of the falling body).
But who are the witnesses who definitively said: "JFK's head moved
forward" or "His head moved backward"? As I said, offhand I can think
of none. Maybe there were a few, but I can't think of who they were
right now.
Herbert Blenner
Hint. Read the link that you have snipped.
Herbert
David Von Pein
Good hint.
Herbert Blenner
Readers should note the tactics of David Von Pein. He quotes a
declaratory paragraph, snips the link to the supporting evidence and
then continues to argue as if the poster made unsupportable
statements.
In reality, the snipped link
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/twodozen.htm
contains testimonies from two eyewitnesses who attributed movements of
President Kennedy to a shot from the rear.
.
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from
behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as
he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at
the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't
upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have
just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or
something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came
right on down.
Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again,
looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you
would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.
Perhaps the testimonies contain other references to a shot from the
rear. However, dealing with Von Pein turns my stomach. So I will
shorten this reply and go do a household chore. This encounter with
DVP has reminded me that the toilet bowel needs a cleaning.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Perhaps the testimonies contain other references to a shot from the rear. However, dealing with Von Pein turns my stomach." <<<
Why are your bowels in such an uproar? (Or maybe I should have said
"bowls".)
I readily admitted that there possibly WERE witnesses that supported
your claim when I said -- "Maybe there were a few, but I can't think
of who they were right now."
Yes, I ignored the link you provided. I rarely open links posted by
kooks. But thanks for providing it anyway.
>>> "So I will shorten this reply and go do a household chore. This encounter with DVP has reminded me that the toilet bowel [sic] needs a cleaning." <<<
And don't forget to polish your life-sized bust of LHO. Don't ever let
anything relating to ol' Lee get soiled. Right, Herb?
David Von Pein
Addendum --
Apparently Herb must think the kooky film-alterers ADDED IN the rear
head snap on the Z-Film.
Go figure that absurdity by those silly plotters -- they wanted to
make things look MORE like a conspiracy via their faked Z-Film.
A weird bunch of conspirators there, indeed.
Gil Jesus
> Readers should note the tactics of David Von Pein. He quotes a
> declaratory paragraph, snips the link to the supporting evidence and
> then continues to argue as if the poster made unsupportable
> statements.
Anyone who has ever dealt with Von Pein can tell you that he deals in
deceptive tactics. This is why he has no credibility. He posts
opinion, then refers back to it in future postings as if it were fact.
This guy even keeps the links to posts he made at JFK Lancer five
years ago, before they booted him out.
He's on an ego trip looking for fame.
And when he reaches the end of his debatable rope, he responds with
childish name-calling, referring to his opponents as "kooks", "mega-
kooks" and "super-kooks".
His posts are garbage and don't even merit a response.
Gil Jesus
> WHAT DOES "BACK AND TO THE LEFT" PROVE?
>
> ANYTHING?
>
> -------------------------------------------------
ROFLMAO