Another Round Of "SBT" Debates

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/06/jfk-wounds-and-more-sbt-talk.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2012 11:03 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/06/jfk-wounds-and-more-sbt-talk.html
>


You call that a debate? It looks like a straw man argument. Something
you made up to then easily shoot down.
You repeat fiction and say it is fact.

:
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark (and Mr. Gordon),

The obvious answer to your elaborate charts and analysis is this:

The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike
any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an
ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with
100%.

And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each
signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the
above fact as well.

And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey
Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs
in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.*
:

Patently untrue. The HSCA medical panel (See Dr. Baden) determined that
the bullet hit the tip of the T-1 vertebra. You intentionally withhold
that from the debate because you know it destroys your position.
The bullet could well have been on a downward course into the lung, but
was deflected up and away from the lung when it hit the top of T-1.
The bullet hit bone yet you inform your innocent readers that it did not.

And while you were uploading diagrams why didn't you upload the drawings
made by Dale Myers for Video Toaster?
They show that Connally's right armpit was to the RIGHT of JFK's
midline. A bullet exiting JFK's throat would hit Connally's midline not
his right armpit. Is the reason why you don't show the cover
illustration because you are embarrassed by your buddy? Or merely that
you don't want the public to see how you misrepresented the facts?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The bullet hit bone..." <<<

No it didn't. The vertebra was damaged by the mere passage of the nearby
bullet, not a direct strike. And the HSCA (as a whole) agreed on that
point.

>>> "Is the reason why you don't show the cover illustration because you
are embarrassed by your buddy? Or merely that you don't want the public to
see how you misrepresented the facts?" <<<

You're silly, Anthony.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2012 7:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "The bullet hit bone..."<<<
>
> No it didn't. The vertebra was damaged by the mere passage of the nearby
> bullet, not a direct strike. And the HSCA (as a whole) agreed on that
> point.
>

Dr. Michael Baden told me in person that the bullet "grazed" the tip of
T-1.

>
>>>> "Is the reason why you don't show the cover illustration because you
> are embarrassed by your buddy? Or merely that you don't want the public to
> see how you misrepresented the facts?"<<<
>
> You're silly, Anthony.
>

This is why you are afraid to answer my questions.
Maybe you didn't even read Videtoaster.
Maybe you weren't even aware of it.
Or maybe you were embarrassed by it.
Myers was featured to show off Lightwave software.
The editors accidentally selected a frame from his video which shows
Connally too far to his right. So far that any bullet hitting JFK's back
and exiting his throat could not possibly hit Connally's right armpit
and would have to hit the middle of his back.
This is exactly why McAdams will not allow graphics to be displayed
inline so that you can simply ignore my points and pretend that what I
said it not valid. Maybe you won't even have the courage to click on the
link, but if even one or two people do they will see that I am right and
you are misrepresenting the evidence.
I scanned in the cover of the Videotoaster magazine which shows one
frame from the Dale Myers video of the limousine driving through Dealey
Plaza. Then I placed a white dot on where Connally's entrance wound was
on his coat. Then I copied and tried to rescale the HSCA diagram of
JFK's back with their black dot on his back where they thought the
entrance wound was.
Even if all you do is project the black dot straight forward anyone
except you can see that it could not possibly hit the white dot on
Connally's back and would more likely hit the middle of his back.
Myers accidentally disproves the SBT. Myers accidentally reveals that
there was plenty of room for a bullet to pass over JFK"s right shoulder
and hit Connally's right armpit, just as Specter accidentally did with
CE 903. Maybe YOU can't see that or you refuse to look, but everyone
else here can. If you don't agree with the positions of Kennedy and
Connally, talk to your buddy Myers. I didn't alter them. You may already
know that I believe JFK's back wound was slightly higher than the HSCA
depicted it, but that difference does not affect the horizontal gap.
Connally is too far to the right.
JFK's back appears wider because the HSCA view is straighton whereas
Myers has a view from the side.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

[David Von Pein]

You're funny, Tony.

This VideoToaster view of the victims isn't the same as Oswald's
Sniper's-Nest POV at all:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

The car isn't even on Elm Street yet in the above photo. What makes you
think Myers has got it all wrong when the above picture doesn't even
purport the "Sniper's View" of the victims from the TSBD? Oswald didn't
shoot from Main & Houston; he shot from Elm & Houston, six floors up.

Here's what Oswald was seeing at the time of the SBT:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg

If JFK's killer had been located at Main & Houston, you might have a
point, Tony. But Kennedy wasn't shot from that location. So your constant
"Myers Is A Liar" whining is totally meaningless and moot (as usual). Just
as I knew it would be before I ever clicked on your VideoToaster photo.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jun 2012 19:31:55 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Of course, the image put on the front cover of a magazine is
manipulated for design and aesthetic reasons, and don't *claim* to
have any forensic significance.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/22/2012 10:39 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2012 19:31:55 -0400, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You're funny, Tony.
>>
>> This VideoToaster view of the victims isn't the same as Oswald's
>> Sniper's-Nest POV at all:
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
>>
>> The car isn't even on Elm Street yet in the above photo. What makes you
>> think Myers has got it all wrong when the above picture doesn't even
>> purport the "Sniper's View" of the victims from the TSBD? Oswald didn't

>> shoot from Main& Houston; he shot from Elm& Houston, six floors up.

>>
>> Here's what Oswald was seeing at the time of the SBT:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>>

>> If JFK's killer had been located at Main& Houston, you might have a

>> point, Tony. But Kennedy wasn't shot from that location. So your constant
>> "Myers Is A Liar" whining is totally meaningless and moot (as usual). Just
>> as I knew it would be before I ever clicked on your VideoToaster photo.
>
> Of course, the image put on the front cover of a magazine is
> manipulated for design and aesthetic reasons, and don't *claim* to
> have any forensic significance.
>

Are you claiming that Myers did not create that frame? My claim is not
that it depicts the SBT, but accidentally shows that Connally was too far
to the right for a SBT to work and there was plenty of room for a bullet
to go over JFK's shoulder and hit Connally. Are you going to dispute those
two simple points? Are you able to visualize in your mind where the bullet
would go after hitting the black dot on JFK's back? Do you think it would
hit the white dot I put on Connally's back?

This is what DVP refuses to discuss and I predict that you will too. Never
admit even the simplest fact.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Of course, the image put on the front cover of a magazine is
manipulated for design and aesthetic reasons, and don't *claim* to have
any forensic significance." <<<

But even if it did have some degree of "forensic significance", that Video
Toaster image, as I said before, only shows the car on Houston St., not on
Elm.

So I'm just wondering why Tony Marsh thinks he can utilize that Main &
Houston computer image as proof that Dale Myers is a rotten liar? Kennedy
wasn't shot on Houston Street. He was shot on Elm.

(And, btw, I noticed that after three full days of my last reply being
visible on this aaj site, Mr. Marsh, who I know reads everything posted
here, is uncharacteristically silent about this issue now-- which is
highly unusual for this site's #1 poster.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/22/2012 10:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Of course, the image put on the front cover of a magazine is
> manipulated for design and aesthetic reasons, and don't *claim* to have
> any forensic significance."<<<
>
>
> But even if it did have some degree of "forensic significance", that Video
> Toaster image, as I said before, only shows the car on Houston St., not on
> Elm.
>

I never said it had forensic significance so don't even bring that up.
Again, my point is that it just illustrates that what I said is true.
Connally was too far to the right to be hit by a SBT bullet and there was
plenty of room for a bullet to hit him directly without having to go
through JFK first. Certain deadhaads here are not able to visualize that
so the Myers cartoon SHOWS how it is possible.

> So I'm just wondering why Tony Marsh thinks he can utilize that Main&
> Houston computer image as proof that Dale Myers is a rotten liar? Kennedy
> wasn't shot on Houston Street. He was shot on Elm.
>

This example was not offered to prove that Myers is a liar. I do that
elsewhere with other examples. This example was to show that he
accidentally revealed the truth which many WC defenders deny.

> (And, btw, I noticed that after three full days of my last reply being
> visible on this aaj site, Mr. Marsh, who I know reads everything posted
> here, is uncharacteristically silent about this issue now-- which is
> highly unusual for this site's #1 poster.)
>

Maybe you can also claim that I refused to reply to this message. See
what you can get away with.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "I never said it had forensic significance so don't even bring that
up. Again, my point is that it just illustrates that what I said is true.
Connally was too far to the right to be hit by a SBT bullet and there was
plenty of room for a bullet to hit him directly without having to go
through JFK first. Certain deadhaads here are not able to visualize that
so the Myers cartoon SHOWS how it is possible." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If JFK had been shot in the upper back near the Main & Houston
intersection, and also from a position just exactly where the "virtual
camera" was located in the Video Toaster animated photo--then, yes,
you might have a point.

But, to reiterate this vital point, the Toaster image proves none of
what you claim it proves--because the Toaster picture shows the car on
HOUSTON STREET, not on ELM.

In addition, the Video Toaster image certainly is not showing nearly
the correct angle to match the angle that Oswald from shooting from,
which was 60 feet up in the Depository.

So why, Tony, are you even pretending that the Video Toaster image is
identical to the view and shooting angles that Oswald was faced with
as he fired his SBT shot into the President's upper back from the
sixth floor of the TSBD? They are two completely different angles
entirely. And you know it.

You've proved nothing, because you're comparing plums with apricots
(or, in this instance, Houston St. angles with Elm St. angles).

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/23/2012 2:22 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "I never said it had forensic significance so don't even bring that
> up. Again, my point is that it just illustrates that what I said is true.
> Connally was too far to the right to be hit by a SBT bullet and there was
> plenty of room for a bullet to hit him directly without having to go
> through JFK first. Certain deadhaads here are not able to visualize that
> so the Myers cartoon SHOWS how it is possible."<<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>

> If JFK had been shot in the upper back near the Main& Houston

> intersection, and also from a position just exactly where the "virtual
> camera" was located in the Video Toaster animated photo--then, yes,
> you might have a point.
>
> But, to reiterate this vital point, the Toaster image proves none of
> what you claim it proves--because the Toaster picture shows the car on
> HOUSTON STREET, not on ELM.
>
> In addition, the Video Toaster image certainly is not showing nearly
> the correct angle to match the angle that Oswald from shooting from,
> which was 60 feet up in the Depository.
>

Nor did anyone claim that Connally was shot by a separate shot from the
sniper's nest. Not enough time to wound Kennedy and then Connally. That is
not my claim. You keep moving the goal posts after you have lost. You just
conceded my point. Unless you can show and prove a radical change in
position Connally was too far to the right for any SBT. And he could be
hit by a separate bullet. Mission Accomplished.

> So why, Tony, are you even pretending that the Video Toaster image is
> identical to the view and shooting angles that Oswald was faced with
> as he fired his SBT shot into the President's upper back from the
> sixth floor of the TSBD? They are two completely different angles
> entirely. And you know it.
>

More false charges after you have lost the argument. I never pretended
that the cover frame is identical to the view from the sniper's nest. They
are two completely different angles. That is the point. Myers screwed up
and accidentally showed how Connally was too far to the right for a SBT to
work.

And his six inches doesn't work either.

> You've proved nothing, because you're comparing plums with apricots
> (or, in this instance, Houston St. angles with Elm St. angles).
>

Not I. Myers.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "I never pretended that the cover frame is identical to the view from
the sniper's nest." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, in essence, that's pretty much exactly what you claimed. Because
if you admit the angles are totally different, then what the hell's
your point in the first place?

In reality, you have no point--because the angles are obviously
different due to the fact JFK wasn't shot at a low angle from the
corner of Main & Houston. (Duh.)

>>> "They are two completely different angles. That is the point." <<<

You're making my argument for me. Thanks.

>>> "Myers screwed up and accidentally showed how Connally was too far to
the right for a SBT to work." <<<

But only if Kennedy and Connally had been shot at the corner of Houston
and Main Streets by a gunman who was situated at a much lower location
than was Oswald in the Depository. That's the point you keep missing or
deliberately sidestepping with more Tony Talk©.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/24/2012 8:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "I never pretended that the cover frame is identical to the view from
> the sniper's nest."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yes, in essence, that's pretty much exactly what you claimed. Because
> if you admit the angles are totally different, then what the hell's
> your point in the first place?
>

The point is Connally's position, too far to the right for a SBT. I mean
just for example the WC defenders and the HSCA use photos taken at other
times such as Croft or Willis or Betzner to try to prove that Connally was
far enough to the left for a SBT. So I used an example from a few seconds
earlier to show that he started out too far to the right for a SBT.

> In reality, you have no point--because the angles are obviously
> different due to the fact JFK wasn't shot at a low angle from the
> corner of Main& Houston. (Duh.)
>

Low angle has nothing to do with it. Specify how low you think the angle
was. I am talking only about the horizontal angle, right to left path of
the bullet.

>
>>>> "They are two completely different angles. That is the point."<<<
>
> You're making my argument for me. Thanks.
>
>
>>>> "Myers screwed up and accidentally showed how Connally was too far to
> the right for a SBT to work."<<<
>
> But only if Kennedy and Connally had been shot at the corner of Houston
> and Main Streets by a gunman who was situated at a much lower location
> than was Oswald in the Depository. That's the point you keep missing or

> deliberately sidestepping with more Tony Talk?.
>


Show me and prove that Connally moved more to the left in time for your
SBT, whichever frame you pick this week.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Show me and prove that Connally moved more to the left in time for
your SBT, whichever frame you pick this week." <<<

Dale Myers already did. The image below is keyed to the Zapruder Film, and
any bullet passing through Kennedy has to hit Connally:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jJWJiWrhpO0/T-WsybgPDMI/AAAAAAAACoY/ulM6_r6H_Ts/s1600/Frame-From-Dale-Myers-Computer-Animation.jpg

Naturally, Tony Marsh thinks the above image from Dale Myers' computer
animation is a complete fraud and a lie.

Mr. Marsh, of course, is incorrect.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/25/2012 12:29 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Show me and prove that Connally moved more to the left in time for
> your SBT, whichever frame you pick this week."<<<
>
> Dale Myers already did. The image below is keyed to the Zapruder Film, and
> any bullet passing through Kennedy has to hit Connally:
>

It is NOT keyed to the Zapruder film. It is from his imagination.
If the bullet went straight through Kennedy with no deflection it might
hit Connally somewhere. But not where Connally was actually hit.
You seem to be ASSuMing that this frame depicts the SBT.
Like the frame I uploaded this one does not. Look at where he has the
crosshairs. You are talking about a bullet entering where the crosshairs
intersect, but his SBT can not work there and his other drawings show
the entrance wound way about that spot. This drawing accidentally, like
the other, proves that the SBT does not work.
You can't keep changing the entrance wound location around from day to
day and claim that the SBT works perfectly.
It's not much of a theory when you change the conditions every day.

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jJWJiWrhpO0/T-WsybgPDMI/AAAAAAAACoY/ulM6_r6H_Ts/s1600/Frame-From-Dale-Myers-Computer-Animation.jpg
>
> Naturally, Tony Marsh thinks the above image from Dale Myers' computer
> animation is a complete fraud and a lie.
>

Much more than that. And you are representing that it shows something
which it does not.

[David Von Pein]

You're wrong, Tony. Simple as that.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 26, 12:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> You're wrong, Tony. Simple as that.

No DVP, it looks like your wrong. If you look at pictures of the
limo just before the bullet strike, you will see the two men in good
alignment with each other. Connally at times even puts his right arm
over the edge of the car as Kennedy does, and you see how closely
aligned they are.

Look at this page and click on the image of the limo and
passengers:
http://www.moviespad.com/pictures/23581/kennedy-assassination-theories/

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

That picture was not taken just before the bullet strike. That's the
point of the argument. He can't even decide WHEN the bullet strike was
and can not show a photo of the positions of the two men at the time the
bullet strikes. So he points to photos earlier, just as you did, just as
I did.

[mainframetech]

OK, but given their shoulder positions, it's doubtful that they would
make a major movement before the strike. Connally says he turned around,
but after things started happening. The 2 men's shoulders are aligned
along the side of the vehicle, and the side is straight throughout its
length. It points to the men being in a line with each other fore and
aft.

Chris

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***JFK and JBC were not in line with each other. The head on view of the limo as it turned onto Houston showed Connally was well inside the limo. Another film showed JFK leaning over to his right after he addressed Mrs. Connally, as the limo moved up Houston. JFK was resting up against the side of the limo wall.

In this overhead photo, it can be seen that Connally's head was inboard of both Kennedy's and Kellerman's. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.htm

***Ron Judge

[Anthony Marsh]

Exactly when and where were JFK and JBC not in line with each other and
from what vantage point? There may be thousands of moments when they were
perfectly in line with each other. Out at Love Field. Early in the
motorcade. If you have a theory you need to be extremely specific, not
extremely vague.

> In this overhead photo, it can be seen that Connally's head was inboard of both Kennedy's and Kellerman's. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.htm
>

Yeah and so what? Are you claiming that they were both hit by the same
bullet at that exact moment?

> ***Ron Judge
>

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***No, they were not hit at that moment, but with JFK seated at the wall
of the car and Connally seated to the left of JFK, due to the placement of
the jump seat, the three- Kellerman, Conally, Kennedy, were not sitting in
a straight line. In the Muchmore film, Conally's head appeared over
Kellerman's left shoulder when the limo was head on into the camera.

At Z230, Connally was facing straight forward. If he was sitting up
against the door of the limo, as JFK was to the wall of the limo, Connally
would not have been able to turn around in the manner that he did.


***Ron Judge