S.B.T. & CE903
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1f9b46e2d4071559
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/9dbed04c8d32ecc5
>>> "The FBI didn't need a SBT, the SS didn't need a SBT and the WC itself did not need a SBT as late as April 1964." <<<
The detailed reconstruction of the shooting had not yet been done as
of that April date. The reconstruction was done on May 24, 1964. And
guess what it indicated? .......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0055b.jpg
Anthony Marsh, naturally, will retort with his proverbial mantra of:
"Nonsense" or "CE903 is a deliberate misrepresentation of the
shooting, since the bullet is shown going over the top of JFK's
shoulder in 903".
But CE903 depicts the SBT trajectory to a tee (right down to Specter's
rod being inserted into the bullet hole in John Connally's coat, being
worn by the stand-in), and there's nothing Tony Marsh can do about it.
I, for one, love the number "903". It's become my favorite number.
I think it's probably one of Jean Davison's favorite numbers too.
Speaking of Jean, I think I'll give the following DVP essay an encore
presentation here in this post (it seems fitting).....
=======================================================
POSTED BY DAVID VON PEIN ON JANUARY 6, 2007:
The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location
of President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake
of Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the CTers
of the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for
some conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes.
But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound
(and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that
Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT
more HARM than it does good!
I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this
fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by
Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").
Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask?
Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter
with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's
back wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with
an exit point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the
SBT's flight path.
This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before;
but I hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most
CTers, in their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at
CE903, claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some
reason....which is obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such
thing.
In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was
highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who
would listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does,
indeed, visibly show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just
exactly how Specter (et al) purported it as happening.
And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with
the autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
To quote Jean herself:
"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be
raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren
Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't
supported, it's simply a claim.
"Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to
raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC
illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
"Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory
for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry
in "the back of the neck".
"I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My
question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision
in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; 12/31/2006
~~~~~~
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the
back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it,
because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT
trajectory, not strengthen it.
"Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a
hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done
so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a
string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18
degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is
moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound
under JFK's Adam's apple.
"Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
"Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in
JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that
Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I
haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; 01/02/2007
~~~~~~
Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who
wrote the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the
SBT?
Just excellent!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60
http://www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b
=======================================================
http://www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
=======================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "I have always said that some type of SBT is possible and you always ignore that." <<<
DVP UTTERED BACK:
But, of course, the perfectly-reasonable "SBT" that the WC came up
with isn't nearly good enough, is it?
Some OTHER "SBT" IS "possible", per Tony Marsh....but the SBT that's
currently on the table (and endorsed by many people and backed up by
newer computer re-creations that are locked in to the Z-Film itself!)
isn't good enough for Anthony.
All together now.......
GEESH!
lazu...@webtv.net
bullet wounds and trajectories than medical doctors and SS agents on the
scene, virtually all who have rejected the SBT.---Old Laz, who believes
the witnesses over the government lawyers any day
lazu...@webtv.net
disbelieve the SBT, along with those many medical doctors and SS agents.
So why is it that the experts on the scene don't know better than the
non-experts who were not there?---Old Laz, who does know better than to
throw out all the witnesses.
tomnln
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23555-47...@storefull-3233.bay.webtv.net...
aeffects
great question, one I'm sure the Lone Nut/SBT adherents will run
from.....
aeffects
great question, one I'm sure the Lone Nut/SBT adherents will run
from.....
David Von Pein
To use Tony's favorite word --- Nonsense.
With slight variations in precise Z-Film frames, there's only ONE
basic "SBT", and it involves Bullet CE399 going through both JFK & JBC
on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza.
Simple as that.
But, per Tony Marsh's above comment, there are literally THOUSANDS of
different "SBTs" that have been postulated since '63. Funny, though, I
only know of ONE basic SBT (with CE399 playing the part of that lone
bullet).
Maybe Tony can fill us in on just a handful of different examples of
the many THOUSANDS of "SBTs" out there in research-land.*
* = And a slight variation in the exact Z-Film frame number with
respect to WHEN the "CE399/SBT" occurred doesn't count either. Why
Tony thinks it does count as a separate "SBT" is anybody's guess. But,
of course, it doesn't count.
Because the HSCA's "SBT" and the WC's "SBT" are identical in all basic
respects -- i.e., the bullet is exactly the same (CE399)....the number
of wounds on the two victims is, of course, the same (7)....the
locations of the wounds on both victims are the same....and the bullet
(399) was the only bullet recovered that is linked to both the WC's
and HSCA's "SBT".
I can't wait to see Tony post "SBT" theory #19,997 (which he claims
HAS been postulated by somebody since 1963). (For, there have surely
been 20,000 total "JFK researchers" who have studied the case since
'63. Heck, that's just a low "starter" number when it comes to "JFK
researchers", I would imagine.)
But I'll settle for just 5 TOTALLY-DIFFERENT "SBTs", Tony.
Can you list those five TOTALLY-DIFFERENT "SBTs", Tony?
Thank you, in advance, for your list of non-existent "SBTs".