Gary Mack, James DiEugenio, And "Inside The Target Car"
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14511&st=0&p=169029&#entry169029
J. RAYMOND CARROLL (AT "THE EDUCATION FORUM") SAID:
>>> "There [is nothing] sinister about Dave [Perry] helping Gary Mack to land the Curator's job at the Sixth Floor Museum. Sounds like Dave Perry is a good neighbor." <<<
GARY MACK THEN SAID (VIA AN E-MAIL SENT TO CARROLL):
>>> "Dave Perry had absolutely nothing to do with me gaining the Archivist (now Curator) position at The Sixth Floor Museum. Folks forget that I was one of the original unpaid consultants for the Museum beginning two years or so before it opened in 1989. For the newly-created position I had to make a complete career change and, if I got the job, had to take two years of entry level archival and curatorial training at area universities. [James] DiEugenio’s review – and “facts” - are absurd." <<<
REPEATING GARY MACK'S LAST SIX WORDS (FOR EMPHASIS):
>>> "DiEugenio’s review – and “facts” - are absurd." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
I agree, Gary. Very much so.
James DiEugenio has probably spent more time trying to debunk,
undermine, and trash the Discovery Channel's 2008 documentary "JFK:
INSIDE THE TARGET CAR" than it took to produce the program itself.
DiEugenio's oversized 3-part "Target Car" review is completely
meaningless (and I'll explain why in a moment):
www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd.html
www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd2.html
www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html
Regardless of the conspiracy-oriented spin that people like Jim
DiEugenio continuously want to apply to the "Inside The Target Car"
program, it won't change the following bottom-line fact:
The November 2008 "Target Car" documentary achieved one of its
ultimate goals by answering this question --- COULD PRESIDENT KENNEDY
HAVE BEEN SHOT IN THE HEAD FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL?
To repeat what I said earlier this month on this issue:
"The conspiracy nuts/retards act as if Gary Mack ALL BY HIMSELF
is holding the "lone assassin" scenario together with his bare hands.
As if Gary Mack...or ANY single person...needs to do ANYTHING at all
in order to hold together the facts of the JFK assassination...with
those facts being: Lee Harvey Oswald killed two people in Dallas on
11/22/63, and he almost certainly acted alone. (And so did Mr. Ruby.)
"Gary Mack could retire tomorrow and the "LN" scenario wouldn't
crumble to bits. How could it? It's built on a bedrock of facts --
facts that Gary Mack HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH.
"As for the "JFK: Inside The Target Car" program -- it served
its main purpose very well (despite Mr. DiEugenio's and Ms. [Milicent]
Cranor's seemingly-endless efforts to rip the program to pieces with a
million meaningless words of criticism).
"And that "main purpose" was to try and find out (via actual
tests with various types of rifles) if President Kennedy could have
been shot in the head with a gunshot that came from the FRONT of his
automobile.
"And the answer to that question is a firm and undeniable "No",
the President could not possibly have been shot in the head with a
rifle bullet that came from anywhere in FRONT of his car.
"As the "Target Car" program amply demonstrated via actual
tests, if a frontal shot had hit JFK in the head, his head would have
probably either been completely blown off of his neck or would have
resulted in obvious damage to the LEFT side of his head (if a lower-
powered rifle like Oswald's Carcano had been used by a frontal
gunman). ....
"The remainder of the "Target Car" program, other than the two
"From The Knoll" tests, is not very important at all (in my opinion),
because once it can be established that President Kennedy COULD NOT
have been shot in the head from the FRONT (which is a fact that was
definitely established, very firmly, in the "Target Car" program),
then the math concerning the fatal head shot becomes pretty simple to
perform....even for hardline conspiracy theorists. ....
"A secondary "purpose" that was accomplished during
the...documentary was to see if Oswald's 6th-Floor gunshot to JFK's
head could be duplicated within a reasonable degree of accuracy. And
it was. ....
"But I'm sure that the conspiracy kooks of Planet Earth will
continue to cry "FOUL" when examining every single test that has ever
been done in trying to simulate the wounds of President Kennedy,
including all of the Discovery Channel specials...[which all favor]
the likelihood of a single assassin named Lee Oswald being able to
perform his wicked deed of murder in 1963." -- DVP; June 22, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8217880bc4f4e937
==========================================
RELATED LINKS:
"JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/24ba8fc851da4e27
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80
"JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (AND DVP):
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
==========================================
Bib Leofile
Hello, Mr. Von Pein. I am the guy from the Education Forum.
"As the "Target Car" program amply demonstrated via actual
tests, if a frontal shot had hit JFK in the head, his head would have
probably either been completely blown off of his neck or would have
resulted in obvious damage to the LEFT side of his head (if a lower-
powered rifle like Oswald's Carcano had been used by a frontal
gunman). ...
Hold on, Mr. Von Pein. At best the Target Car program shows that the shot
that killed JFK was probably NOT fired by a weapon of the type used in the
Target Car's Grassy Knoll experiment. Only one type of weapon, and one
type of ammo, was used in that test, if memory serves, while we do not
know (without making unwarranted assumptions) what type of bullet -- or
what type of weapon -- fired the actual shot that started this whole
controversy. .
"The remainder of the "Target Car" program, other than the two
"From The Knoll" tests, is not very important at all (in my opinion),
Wrong again, Mr. Von Pein, The Target Car program shows (in case anyone
was still fooled) that the Jet Effect theory is a dead duck. In every one
of the Target Car's experiments, the bullet drove the skull backwards,
just as we see in the Zapruder film. The Target Car program is compelling
evidence that the Jet Effect is a myth and that JFK was killed by a bullet
from the right front.
claviger
> Hold on, Mr. Von Pein. At best the Target Car program shows that the shot
> that killed JFK was probably NOT fired by a weapon of the type used in the
> Target Car's Grassy Knoll experiment.
How so?
> Only one type of weapon, and one type of ammo, was used in that test,
> if memory serves, while we do not know (without making unwarranted assumptions)
> what type of bullet -- or what type of weapon -- fired the actual shot that started this
> whole controversy. .
Didn't you just make one of those unwarranted assumptions above?
> Wrong again, Mr. Von Pein, The Target Car program shows (in case anyone
> was still fooled) that the Jet Effect theory is a dead duck.
Don't tell the airlines. No one will want to fly in their jet
airplanes anymore.
> In every one of the Target Car's experiments, the bullet drove the skull backwards,
> just as we see in the Zapruder film. The Target Car program is compelling
> evidence that the Jet Effect is a myth and that JFK was killed by a bullet
> from the right front.
Where from the front right? With what kind of weapon? Why didn't
anyone in close proximity to the Grassy Knoll hear or see the weapon
fired? Why didn't any witness see the sniper run away? Why did the
HSCA determine if there was a sniper on the GK that he missed the
Limousine entirely? Why did every group of medical experts who
examined the evidence determine both wounds on the body of the
President came from behind the Limousine? What force caused the
President's head to suddenly go forward before it went back and to the
left?
pamela
The very expensive dummy head in the ITTC tests sat on a neck that did
not move. This alone renders any actual conclusions invalid, as there
is no way to duplicate the head movement of the fatal shot.
claviger
> The very expensive dummy head in the ITTC tests sat on a neck that did
> not move. This alone renders any actual conclusions invalid, as there
> is no way to duplicate the head movement of the fatal shot.
I believe the purpose of the test was to compare splatter patterns of
brain fluid, not head movement. The analysis of paint splatter indicates
the direction of the shot. The spray pattern in the test matched what
witnesses observed in the Limousine parked at the hospital. The Zapruder
film clearly shows the first movement of the President's head is suddenly
forward, then a back to the left reaction. That would be consistent with a
missile entering from the back and exiting the front of the skull.
David Von Pein
"PAM" SAID:
>>> "The very expensive dummy head in the ITTC ["Inside The Target Car"]
tests sat on a neck that did not move. This alone renders any actual
conclusions invalid, as there is no way to duplicate the head movement of
the fatal shot." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Excuses, excuses. That's what CTers are made of--excuses.
"Pam" must think that if the dummy heads had been affixed to a
"spring"-like neck device, it would have made Yardley's two "From The
Knoll" shots interact totally differently with the dummy heads. Is that
it, "Pam"?
Does "Pam" think that Yardley's "From The Knoll" test bullets (one from a
Winchester rifle; the other from a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to Oswald's)
would NOT have either blown the head of the dummy off its simulated neck
(which the the Winchester bullet accomplished) or cause damage to the left
side of the dummy head (which the Carcano bullet did) if the heads had
been situated on more true-to-life "necks"?
In short -- the conspiracy theorists who continue to want to paint the
"Inside The Target Car" program as worthless are looking very, very
foolish in their efforts to do so.
Because regardless of the mistakes made in the program (Jackie's
positioning in the car for one), the BOTTOM LINE is crystal clear and
undeniable, despite the paper-thin protests of conspiracy theorists -- and
that bottom line is:
A gunshot hitting President Kennedy in the head from a position in FRONT
of JFK's limousine would have caused damage to the LEFT side of Kennedy's
head. And since the President did not suffer any damage to the LEFT side
of his head (or brain)....just do the simple math from there.
Conspiracists, unfortunately, always manage to score an "F" when taking
this easy "Where Did The Head Shot Come From?" exam.
ShutterBun
From what I understood,the neck was not constructed so as to be
"immobile," but rather that
it would "move, if caused to move." These people made crash-test
dummies for cars, so I
would assume they constructed this torso to behave, overall, as a
"person sitting rigidly."
That the head did not "move" as a result of the shot (err...other than
be blown to smithereens)
is not a testament to its inaccuracy, but rather to the fact that:
"Hey! Bullets that penetrate
solid objects do not push them around!"
You are correct that it did not "duplicate" the fatal shot, insofar as
it was not fired at a living
(albeit injured) human being. Do please forgive the producers for
this shortcoming. But one
thing it DID demonstrate is that simple physics (i.e. "bullet from
front pushes head back") was
NOT a factor in the JFK head shot. Granted, the HSCA already knew
this, via watching more goat-killing
movies than my uncle has in his personal collection, but the point
still stands: The neck (in the video)
was flexible, and presented as being life-like in its behavior. The
head, even moreso. Face it:
a frontal shot exhibited NOTHING like what CT'ers think happened in
the Z-film. Replace the ammo with
whatever you want, you'll only make your case that much harder to
prove. (frangible bullets, etc? Good luck)
Just my two cents. Glad to be aboard.
jas
So, if I get this straight-- you're saying that the mounting of the
test head renders the test completely invalid?? Excuse me whilst I
insert some hearty laughter here...
If that isn't a "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" response, I
don't know what is.
Please, as a conspiracist, try to come up with something -- anything
-- better than that.
Anthony Marsh
>
> "PAM" SAID:
>
>
>>>> "The very expensive dummy head in the ITTC ["Inside The Target Car"]
> tests sat on a neck that did not move. This alone renders any actual
> conclusions invalid, as there is no way to duplicate the head movement of
> the fatal shot."<<<
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Excuses, excuses. That's what CTers are made of--excuses.
>
>
> "Pam" must think that if the dummy heads had been affixed to a
> "spring"-like neck device, it would have made Yardley's two "From The
> Knoll" shots interact totally differently with the dummy heads. Is that
> it, "Pam"?
>
> Does "Pam" think that Yardley's "From The Knoll" test bullets (one from a
> Winchester rifle; the other from a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to Oswald's)
> would NOT have either blown the head of the dummy off its simulated neck
> (which the the Winchester bullet accomplished) or cause damage to the left
> side of the dummy head (which the Carcano bullet did) if the heads had
> been situated on more true-to-life "necks"?
>
Do you have photos from those test shots? Can you upload the photos
showing what the entrance wound on the right side looks like as compared
to the exit wound on the left side? Can you tell which is which at just
a glance?
> In short -- the conspiracy theorists who continue to want to paint the
> "Inside The Target Car" program as worthless are looking very, very
> foolish in their efforts to do so.
>
Worthless is too strong a word. Deliberately deceptive is much more
accurate. We can often tell what the truth is by how outrageous the lie is.
> Because regardless of the mistakes made in the program (Jackie's
> positioning in the car for one), the BOTTOM LINE is crystal clear and
> undeniable, despite the paper-thin protests of conspiracy theorists -- and
> that bottom line is:
>
> A gunshot hitting President Kennedy in the head from a position in FRONT
Directly in front? I would think it would therefore exit the rear
according to your theory, as some conspiracy writers have claimed.
If the shot came from the right then how could it exit the rear
according to your theory?
> of JFK's limousine would have caused damage to the LEFT side of Kennedy's
> head. And since the President did not suffer any damage to the LEFT side
> of his head (or brain)....just do the simple math from there.
>
Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
> Conspiracists, unfortunately, always manage to score an "F" when taking
> this easy "Where Did The Head Shot Come From?" exam.
>
Your explanation that a shot from the FRONT must exit the LEFT side of
the head earns you an F.
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Pamela,
>
>> The very expensive dummy head in the ITTC tests sat on a neck that did
>> not move. This alone renders any actual conclusions invalid, as there
>> is no way to duplicate the head movement of the fatal shot.
>
> I believe the purpose of the test was to compare splatter patterns of
> brain fluid, not head movement. The analysis of paint splatter indicates
> the direction of the shot. The spray pattern in the test matched what
> witnesses observed in the Limousine parked at the hospital. The Zapruder
The spray pattern on the limo was everywhere, trunk, inside, hood.
Strangely only a couple of tiny drops hit the windshield. How do you
explain that? Is that what the show demonstrated?
pamela
Perhaps you might want to watch the Z-film again to note the head movement
following the Z313 shot. If that cannot be duplicated, the test is not
valid. In ITTC, of course, there was no head movement. Apples and
oranges.
pamela
Let's keep it simple for "DVP". Apples and oranges. Either a test
duplicates the Z313 shot or it does not. The ITTC test did not. Case
Closed.
claviger
> Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
> notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
There was not extensive damage to the left side of the skull, a fatal
flaw in your theory. Your exploding bullet failed to explode in the
same direction it was going, causing a major blow-back in the
direction it came from. Nobody designs bullets that way. They would be
as dangerous to the shooter if they did!
David Von Pein
Subject: More Nonsense From Jim DiEugenio On "Black Op Radio"
Date: 7/3/2009 1:35:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
-----------------------------------
Hi Gary,
I just felt like writing to you today to give you my support with
regard to the 2008 Discovery Channel program that you were a part of,
"JFK: Inside The Target Car", which is a documentary, despite a few
errors, that served its purpose very nicely (i.e., it demonstrated,
via actual rifle tests, the direction from which the fatal head shot
to President Kennedy must have come -- FROM BEHIND).
I've enjoyed reading some of the e-mails that you've been sending to
various people in the last several days concerning "Inside The Target
Car" (which have then been formatted into Internet messages),
including the following very good excerpt culled from one such e-mail
message:
"During production of 'JFK: Inside the Target Car' a year ago, I
told the producer that the conspiracy buffs will either love me or
hate me depending solely on what the tests revealed. Since the results
proved the fatal shot came from behind and that JFK was not hit from
the front, the buffs have resorted to trying to discredit me since
they cannot criticize the science behind the experiment. Perhaps they
expected me to phony the results? Such crazy rantings demonstrate to
me who the nuts are, making it easy to differentiate between real
researchers and everyone else." -- Gary Mack
===============
I also wanted to remind you (in case you didn't know) that conspiracy
theorist James DiEugenio was once again spouting his usual anti-Gary
Mack and anti-"Target Car" nonsense on Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio"
laughfest on July 2, 2009 [link below].
www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html
Near the end of the 7/2/09 Black Op program (as DiEugenio was winding
down his interminably lengthy and meaningless critique of the "Inside
The Target Car" program), DiEugenio issued a challenge to four people
with whom Jim said he would like to have a debate about the "Target
Car" documentary.
The four people Jim challenged are: John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, Gary
Mack, and David Von Pein (that's me, even though host Len Osanic and
DiEugenio seem to think that Reitzes and I are the very same person;
and according to Osanic's comments on July 2nd, I guess I'm supposedly
John McAdams in disguise too!; that type of "alias" silliness never
seems to end either).
As far as my own opinions about the "Target Car" program, I've pretty
much laid out all of my thoughts in print form, at the four Internet
articles linked below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8217880bc4f4e937
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/357ca6b5ac159dba
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/60526b2684b200ba
And Mr. DiEugenio is beyond all mental help if he thinks he can debunk
and undercut the logic (and truth) that resides in this excerpt from
one of the above-linked Internet posts:
"The conspiracy nuts/retards act as if Gary Mack ALL BY HIMSELF
is holding the "lone assassin" scenario together with his bare hands.
As if Gary Mack...or ANY single person...needs to do ANYTHING at all
in order to hold together the facts of the JFK assassination...with
those facts being: Lee Harvey Oswald killed two people in Dallas on
11/22/63, and he almost certainly acted alone. (And so did Mr. Ruby.)
"Gary Mack could retire tomorrow and the "LN" scenario wouldn't
crumble to bits. How could it? It's built on a bedrock of facts --
facts that Gary Mack HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH.
"As for the "JFK: Inside The Target Car" program -- it served
its main purpose very well (despite Mr. DiEugenio's and Ms. [Milicent]
Cranor's seemingly-endless efforts to rip the program to pieces with a
million meaningless words of criticism).
"And that "main purpose" was to try and find out (via actual
tests with various types of rifles) if President Kennedy could have
been shot in the head with a gunshot that came from the FRONT of his
automobile.
"And the answer to that question is a firm and undeniable "No",
the President could not possibly have been shot in the head with a
rifle bullet that came from anywhere in FRONT of his car.
"As the "Target Car" program amply demonstrated via actual
tests, if a frontal shot had hit JFK in the head, his head would have
probably either been completely blown off of his neck or would have
resulted in obvious damage to the LEFT side of his head (if a lower-
powered rifle like Oswald's Carcano had been used by a frontal
gunman). ....
"The remainder of the "Target Car" program, other than the two
"From The Knoll" tests, is not very important at all (in my opinion),
because once it can be established that President Kennedy COULD NOT
have been shot in the head from the FRONT (which is a fact that was
definitely established, very firmly, in the "Target Car" program),
then the math concerning the fatal head shot becomes pretty simple to
perform....even for hardline conspiracy theorists. ....
"A secondary "purpose" that was accomplished during
the...documentary was to see if Oswald's 6th-Floor gunshot to JFK's
head could be duplicated within a reasonable degree of accuracy. And
it was. ....
"But I'm sure that the conspiracy kooks of Planet Earth will
continue to cry "FOUL" when examining every single test that has ever
been done in trying to simulate the wounds of President Kennedy,
including all of the Discovery Channel specials...[which all favor]
the likelihood of a single assassin named Lee Oswald being able to
perform his wicked deed of murder in 1963." -- DVP; June 22, 2009
===============
As far as appearing as a guest on "Black Op Radio" in order to
"debate" James DiEugenio's ridiculous and subjective (and flat-out
loony) thoughts concerning the "Target Car" show, I doubt the day will
ever come when I'll actually have a desire to enter Mr. Osanic's
playhouse of conspiracy-oriented silliness known as "Black Op Radio".
Mr. DiEugenio, however, seems to consider the Black Op "pigpen" his
home away from home.*
* = I put "pigpen" in quotes there, because Jim D. called John
McAdams' alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup a "pigpen" on
multiple occasions during the latter portions of his lengthy "Black Op
Radio" appearance on July 2nd. So, I was merely reciprocating.
Evidently, according to Jim D., the "only place" that lone-assassin
believers such as myself and Prof. McAdams and David A. Reitzes can go
to promote our common-sense thoughts about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt
is to the "pigpen" that McAdams moderates at alt.assassination.jfk.
I guess DiEugenio doesn't realize that Mr. Reitzes and I (and probably
Mr. McAdams too) have posted at other JFK fora around the Internet
over the years too.
I was a member of Debra Conway's JFK-Lancer forum for several years,
up until July 28, 2005, which was the date when my posting privileges
were suspended due to the fact that Ms. Conway got tired of having TWO
different "LNers" posting a lot of lone-assassin facts on her forum at
the same time.**
** = Another lone-gunman believer had joined the forum just 11 days
earlier and began posting a lot too. This became too much common sense
for the conspiracy kooks at Lancer to bear, so we both got kicked out
the Lancer door on the same day.
I've found that such restrictive anti-"LN" actions are commonplace
around the Internet. In other words -- the conspiracy theorists want
the whole field to themselves, and to hell with common sense and the
actual EVIDENCE and the RAW FACTS of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.
An additional hilarious (and stupendously silly) comment made by James
DiEugenio on the 7/2/09 Black Op show was this one:
"If I ever met Hugh Aynesworth, I'd probably spit in his face.
He's been dedicated to the [JFK assassination] cover-up from the day
it happened."
That's hilarious, Jim. Hilarious.
DiEugenio also referred to Oswald's 19-year-old Book Depository co-
worker, Buell Wesley Frazier, as a "suspicious character" during the
July 2 Black Op program.
That's the kind of paranoid conspiracy theorist Mr. DiEugenio seems to
be. Unbelievable.
Anyway, I just wanted to write to you and talk about the latest round
of "Gary Mack's an asshole" [quote from Len Osanic] horse manure that
surfaced on Osanic's weekly batch of conspiracy-laden gobbledygook
this week.
And a friendly piece of advice -- If you decide to take DiEugenio up
on his "debate" offer, please don't forget to wear your wading boots
and your gas mask -- because the bullshit that's dished out on "Black
Op Radio" every week is at least a mile deep....and not exactly
pleasant to sniff.
Best regards,
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic=776.msg9299.html#msg9299
pamela
>
> www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic=776.msg9299.html#msg9299
How naive for Gary Mack to think that CTs would 'believe' a test
without first deciding for themselves whether it was valid or not.
But of course, that has been the problem with the WCR apologist stance
right from the start -- it is inconceivable to the defenders that
people can actually see through trolls such as this.
Nobody 'loves' or 'hates' Gary Mack -- we simply accept him for what
he is, which is a mouthpiece for the apologists who in this case also
decided to script a test and then try to make claims about it.
jas
>
(Original post snipped)
> Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
> notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
>
>
Left side damage? Oh really?
Where are your photos proving this?
Which doctor/autopsy report describes this?
What fairy tale book have you been reading?
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
>> notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
>
> There was not extensive damage to the left side of the skull, a fatal
The fatal flaw in your misinformation campaign are the autopsy photos
which show extensive missing skull bone on the left side of the head and
the drawings done for the ARRB by the autopsy doctors which show that
the area of missing skull extended well into the left side of the head.
Now, you can argue if wish that all the autopsy doctors were lying and
that all the autopsy photos are fake. That is often the only way to
wiggle out of incontrovertible evidence.
> flaw in your theory. Your exploding bullet failed to explode in the
> same direction it was going, causing a major blow-back in the
> direction it came from. Nobody designs bullets that way. They would be
> as dangerous to the shooter if they did!
>
>
When the Hinckley bullets exploded they blew the base of the bullet out
of the entrance back towards the shooter.
BTW, if your jet effect were true then an execution would be dangerous
to the firing squad. Maybe that's why they need to tie the victim to a
pole, so that he doesn't go flying back towards the rifles.
BTW, you know nothing about ballistics, which explains why you are
discussing it here.
Anthony Marsh
Are there photos showing both sides of the test shot head?
claviger
> Nobody 'loves' or 'hates' Gary Mack -- we simply accept him for what
> he is, which is a mouthpiece for the apologists who in this case also
> decided to script a test and then try to make claims about it.
Gary Mack has not been a mouthpiece for anyone but himself. He once
believed in Badge Man, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman, the acoustic evidence,
and actually believed the exit wound in the neck was higher than the
entrance wound in the back! That is not a description of a die hard LN
believer. What changed his mind is the classic Scientific Method. Field
testing is a significant and integral part of scientific research. As
someone pointed out the first priority of field testing is to falsify a
given theory, to eliminate it as a possibility. The experiment doesn't
have to be exact or perfect but prove it was impossible. So far the
Australian research team has demonstrated the shots attributed to Oswald
are not only possible, but highly probable. The only anomaly left
unexplained is the massive failure of the lead core into 40+ fragments in
the head wound. The Donahue theory fills in that gap.
claviger
> The fatal flaw in your misinformation campaign are the autopsy photos
> which show extensive missing skull bone on the left side of the head and
> the drawings done for the ARRB by the autopsy doctors which show that
> the area of missing skull extended well into the left side of the head.
> Now, you can argue if wish that all the autopsy doctors were lying and
> that all the autopsy photos are fake. That is often the only way to
> wiggle out of incontrovertible evidence.
No metallic fragments found on the left side of the skull. That is
impossible if an explosive bullet was used. This is irrelevant speculation
anyway. The overwhelming medical evidence is two entrance wounds in the
posterior anatomy of the President.
> When the Hinckley bullets exploded they blew the base of the bullet out
> of the entrance back towards the shooter.
> BTW, if your jet effect were true then an execution would be dangerous
> to the firing squad. Maybe that's why they need to tie the victim to a
> pole, so that he doesn't go flying back towards the rifles.
> BTW, you know nothing about ballistics, which explains why you are
> discussing it here.
No, the jet effect would cause the head of the prisoner to fall
towards the firing squad because the head is an enclosed chamber. The
torso would not be as influenced by the jet effect.
jas
(Original post snipped)
> Perhaps you might want to watch the Z-film again to note the head movement
> following the Z313 shot. If that cannot be duplicated, the test is not
> valid. In ITTC, of course, there was no head movement. Apples and
> oranges.
Your sweeping dismissal of the test because you think, but do not
actually know for a fact, that the test head didn't pitch forward,
even microscopically, is wrong.
Essentially what you're saying is all scientific field tests should be
deemed invalid because there is, or could be, some minute discrepancy
compared to the actual event. Your argument is flawed because *no*
test or recreation can have the exact same results, and be duplicated
flawlessly, compared to the actual event. To believe this goes against
any thread of common sense.
This rationale when comes to assassination re-creations is something
conspiracy mongers consistently use in their arguments and it gets
really old. I mean, it gets to the point that conspiracists want tests
or recreations to somehow -- magically -- recreate the events of Nov.
22, 1963 exactly. To do this is impossible; it would require some sort
of time machine to go back to the actual event.
To dismiss all JFK tests because of this belief is also totally
irresponsible. If we were to apply this belief to all scientific
testing in all disciplines, all laboratory and field test results
would be considered invalid, and science would come to a standstill.
Or is it that, somehow, the JFK assassination transcends scientific
testing and is unable to be re-created? I don't think so.
Anthony Marsh
> Pamela,
>
>> Nobody 'loves' or 'hates' Gary Mack -- we simply accept him for what
>> he is, which is a mouthpiece for the apologists who in this case also
>> decided to script a test and then try to make claims about it.
>
> Gary Mack has not been a mouthpiece for anyone but himself. He once
> believed in Badge Man, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman, the acoustic evidence,
> and actually believed the exit wound in the neck was higher than the
> entrance wound in the back! That is not a description of a die hard LN
I like your tactic. Your wording implies without having to prove that he
has changed his mind about each of those things. Just for fun, I'd like
to see you prove with quotes which of those things he has actually
changed his mind about. Somehow I suspect you'll come up with nada.
> believer. What changed his mind is the classic Scientific Method. Field
In this case the classic Scientific Method is $$. He has never applied
any scientific method to this case.
> testing is a significant and integral part of scientific research. As
Especially if you want to mislead the public by creating straw man tests
the way they do on Mythbusters.
> someone pointed out the first priority of field testing is to falsify a
> given theory, to eliminate it as a possibility. The experiment doesn't
> have to be exact or perfect but prove it was impossible. So far the
> Australian research team has demonstrated the shots attributed to Oswald
> are not only possible, but highly probable. The only anomaly left
> unexplained is the massive failure of the lead core into 40+ fragments in
> the head wound. The Donahue theory fills in that gap.
>
Ridiculous. The antimony levels of an AR-15 bullet are quite different
from a M-C bullet. End of silly theory.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>> The fatal flaw in your misinformation campaign are the autopsy photos
>> which show extensive missing skull bone on the left side of the head and
>> the drawings done for the ARRB by the autopsy doctors which show that
>> the area of missing skull extended well into the left side of the head.
>> Now, you can argue if wish that all the autopsy doctors were lying and
>> that all the autopsy photos are fake. That is often the only way to
>> wiggle out of incontrovertible evidence.
>
> No metallic fragments found on the left side of the skull. That is
Several metallic fragments found on the left side of the head,
indicating an explosive bullet.
> impossible if an explosive bullet was used. This is irrelevant speculation
> anyway. The overwhelming medical evidence is two entrance wounds in the
> posterior anatomy of the President.
>
You are begging the question.
>> When the Hinckley bullets exploded they blew the base of the bullet out
>> of the entrance back towards the shooter.
>> BTW, if your jet effect were true then an execution would be dangerous
>> to the firing squad. Maybe that's why they need to tie the victim to a
>> pole, so that he doesn't go flying back towards the rifles.
>> BTW, you know nothing about ballistics, which explains why you are
>> discussing it here.
>
> No, the jet effect would cause the head of the prisoner to fall
> towards the firing squad because the head is an enclosed chamber. The
> torso would not be as influenced by the jet effect.
>
You have never shown any such examples. And unfortunately there are
thousands of films showing prisoners shot in the head. In not one single
case does the head fall back towards the rifle. NONE. You are making up
crap again.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 2, 9:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
> (Original post snipped)
>
>> Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
>> notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> Left side damage? Oh really?
>
> Where are your photos proving this?
>
The autopsy photos.
> Which doctor/autopsy report describes this?
>
Humes and Boswell.
> What fairy tale book have you been reading?
>
You've never looked at the actual evidence.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> The fatal flaw in your misinformation campaign are the autopsy photos
>> which show extensive missing skull bone on the left side of the head and
>> the drawings done for the ARRB by the autopsy doctors which show that
>> the area of missing skull extended well into the left side of the head.
>> Now, you can argue if wish that all the autopsy doctors were lying and
>> that all the autopsy photos are fake. That is often the only way to
>> wiggle out of incontrovertible evidence.
>
> No metallic fragments found on the left side of the skull. That is
Wrong again. There were metallic fragments found in the left side of the
HEAD. I did not say that fragments were embedded in the skull.
They can be seen in the X-rays unless you think those were faked.
> impossible if an explosive bullet was used. This is irrelevant speculation
You know absolutely nothing about explosive bullets so you in no
position to make any claims about what is possible or impossible.
> anyway. The overwhelming medical evidence is two entrance wounds in the
> posterior anatomy of the President.
>
>> When the Hinckley bullets exploded they blew the base of the bullet out
>> of the entrance back towards the shooter.
>> BTW, if your jet effect were true then an execution would be dangerous
>> to the firing squad. Maybe that's why they need to tie the victim to a
>> pole, so that he doesn't go flying back towards the rifles.
>> BTW, you know nothing about ballistics, which explains why you are
>> discussing it here.
>
> No, the jet effect would cause the head of the prisoner to fall
> towards the firing squad because the head is an enclosed chamber. The
> torso would not be as influenced by the jet effect.
>
Show me even one such example. You won't. You can't. You talk big, but
you have no facts on your side.
>
pamela
> Pamela,
>
> > Nobody 'loves' or 'hates' Gary Mack -- we simply accept him for what
> > he is, which is a mouthpiece for the apologists who in this case also
> > decided to script a test and then try to make claims about it.
>
> Gary Mack has not been a mouthpiece for anyone but himself. He once
> believed in Badge Man, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman, the acoustic evidence,
> and actually believed the exit wound in the neck was higher than the
> entrance wound in the back! That is not a description of a die hard LN
> believer.
That was Gary Mack before he 'saw the light'. He may have had a reasoning
mind at that time; certainly one that was interested in things other than
the WCR. Now he only spouts what the WC defenders tells him to. He loves
to troll CTs and then come back to his 'no hard evidence of conspiracy'
mantra. Classic BS for anyone who can see through it.
>What changed his mind is the classic Scientific Method. Field
> testing is a significant and integral part of scientific research. As
> someone pointed out the first priority of field testing is to falsify a
> given theory, to eliminate it as a possibility. The experiment doesn't
> have to be exact or perfect but prove it was impossible.
Unfortunately, there is just nothing about the ITTC show that has anything
to do with actual scientific method. The test was scripted and its basis
was invalid. They didn't even care, and went ahead to try to claim some
sort of success. Pure propaganda.
>So far the
> Australian research team has demonstrated the shots attributed to Oswald
> are not only possible, but highly probable.
They did not use a valid head model and did not have the head at the
correct angle. If they claim success from inaccuracy, we must then ask
where the Z313 shot was fired from, because based on their test it could
not have come from the TSBD.
>The only anomaly left
> unexplained is the massive failure of the lead core into 40+ fragments in
> the head wound. The Donahue theory fills in that gap.
You seem to be looking for excuses.
claviger
> > No metallic fragments found on the left side of the skull. That is
> Several metallic fragments found on the left side of the head,
> indicating an explosive bullet.
Would you please cite the evidence for making this statement.
> > impossible if an explosive bullet was used. This is irrelevant speculation
> > anyway. The overwhelming medical evidence is two entrance wounds in the
> > posterior anatomy of the President.
> You are begging the question.
No, just reminding you that every medical examination by expert panels
of doctors have come to the same conclusion. There is really no point
indulging you about your unsupported theory there was a shot from the
GK. The trajectory simply doesn't work. How many times have you
changed your mind about the rifle supposedly used or the weird kind of
exploding bullets that backfire? You claim that is not impossible
while at the same time insisting there were fragments on the left side
of the skull. Do you have a split personality? You seem to be arguing
with yourself.
> You have never shown any such examples. And unfortunately there are
> thousands of films showing prisoners shot in the head. In not one single
> case does the head fall back towards the rifle. NONE. You are making up
> crap again.
How many prisoners were shot with a MC in the back of the head while
sitting down with a back brace on? Just curious.
claviger
Pamela,
Did you flunk science in high school or what? You seem oblivious to the
Scientific Method and bitter towards science in general. What exactly do
you not believe?
That an aerodynamic shaped lead missile traveling 2000 fps cannot
penetrate two mammals positioned in tandem?
That an aerodynamic shaped lead missile traveling 2000 fps cannot
penetrate a human skull?
That bullets normally make small entrance wounds and much larger exit
wounds?
Is it your position that a projectile fired from the GK made a large
entrance wound in the front of the head then somehow squeezed through a
small exit wound in the back of the skull? Can you explain what kind of a
bullet can even do that?
Or perhaps you are one those CTs who give way too much credit to "the
conspiracy" of medical geniuses who performed amazing surgical procedures
to the body on Air Force One while in the air on the way back to
Washington.
In my opinion, from reading comments and asking questions of Gary Mack by
email and telephone that he never was neutral. It was obvious to me Mack
leaned toward a CT solution to this case. The fact results from
professional field testing have influenced Mack to rethink his position
shows character and intellectual honesty on his part. It takes a person
with integrity to admit he may have been wrong. I respect Mack for having
the courage to do that rather than to continue grasping at straws out of
embarrassment or pride.
You have made disparaging remarks about Mack embracing the scientific
approach to this case. Why don't you start taking an intellectual approach
instead of pouting about the results of the latest high tech scientific
research. You promised an in-depth response to the recent Discovery
Channel program. We are still waiting for that response. Or you can start
a new topic discussion beginning with an outline of your critique where we
can focus on the scientific issues instead of your tiresome repetitious
tirade about Gary Mack. Better yet, why don't you find some investors and
produce your own TV special proving your own theories.
jas
I guess Tony Marsh has anointed himself the guru of the JFK
assassination investigation. ?????
And I guess he's going to carry on with his charade of "left side of
head was damaged."
And, I could argue that the sun did a super nova, then burned out a
million years ago, but I know for a fact that it did not, so I choose
not to go on public forums and argue it.
:>)
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>> No metallic fragments found on the left side of the skull. That is
>> Several metallic fragments found on the left side of the head,
>> indicating an explosive bullet.
> Would you please cite the evidence for making this statement.
Illustrations made by Wecht/Smith and Lattimer indicating bullet
fragments seen in the X-rays. And of course the X-rays themselves, q.v.
>
>>> impossible if an explosive bullet was used. This is irrelevant speculation
>>> anyway. The overwhelming medical evidence is two entrance wounds in the
>>> posterior anatomy of the President.
>> You are begging the question.
> No, just reminding you that every medical examination by expert panels
> of doctors have come to the same conclusion. There is really no point
Yeah, I don't care. And you don't seem to care that the HSCA medical panel
disagreed with the autopsy doctors. As long as Kennedy was hit SOMEWHERE
in the head you don't care exactly where.
> indulging you about your unsupported theory there was a shot from the
> GK. The trajectory simply doesn't work. How many times have you
> changed your mind about the rifle supposedly used or the weird kind of
I changed my mind once about the type of rifle when we had better details
from the acoustical evidence which indicates a muzzle velocity of 2235
fps.
> exploding bullets that backfire? You claim that is not impossible
I never said that explosive bullets backfire. I cited the example from the
Reagan assassination where there was a bullet hole in the window on the
building, but the base of the bullet had been blown backwards and fell
onto the sidewalk.
> while at the same time insisting there were fragments on the left side
> of the skull. Do you have a split personality? You seem to be arguing
> with yourself.
Again, you know nothing about ballistics. Just like the Brady shooting,
tiny bullet fragments from the tip of the bullet penetrated the brain, but
did not exit the head while the base was blown out of the entrance wound.
>
>> You have never shown any such examples. And unfortunately there are
>> thousands of films showing prisoners shot in the head. In not one single
>> case does the head fall back towards the rifle. NONE. You are making up
>> crap again.
> How many prisoners were shot with a MC in the back of the head while
> sitting down with a back brace on? Just curious.
>
Is this a contest to see how ridiculous you can make the straw man
arguments? Several executions were made by the Japanese using the very
similar Arisaka rifle with similar FMJ ammunition.
If they were tied up at the time does that qualify for your straw man
argument?
But again the point you avoid is that you are incapable of providing an
examples.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 4, 9:40 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2009 7:05 PM, jas wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 9:09 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> (Original post snipped)
>>
>>>> Since JFK suffered extensive damage on the left side of his head, your
>>>> notion proves the shot came from the right. Thanks.
>>
>>> Left side damage? Oh really?
>>
>>> Where are your photos proving this?
>>
>> The autopsy photos.
>>
>>> Which doctor/autopsy report describes this?
>>
>> Humes and Boswell.
>>
>>> What fairy tale book have you been reading?
>>
>> You've never looked at the actual evidence.
>
> I guess Tony Marsh has anointed himself the guru of the JFK
> assassination investigation. ?????
>
> And I guess he's going to carry on with his charade of "left side of
> head was damaged."
>
So you think Humes and Boswell were lying and all the autopsy photos and
X-rays are fakes.
> And, I could argue that the sun did a super nova, then burned out a
> million years ago, but I know for a fact that it did not, so I choose
> not to go on public forums and argue it.
>
Well, as usual, when you try to create straw man arguments you may
accidentally stumbled onto a partial truth. The Sun indeed did go
supernova. Where do you think all the heavy elements which make up your
body came from? But that's BILLIONS of years ago, not millions. It's
called solar recycling.
>
> :>)
>
Anthony Marsh
We have already shown other examples of that happening.
> That an aerodynamic shaped lead missile traveling 2000 fps cannot
> penetrate a human skull?
>
Again you beg the question and assume what you need to prove.
> That bullets normally make small entrance wounds and much larger exit
> wounds?
>
Normally does not mean always.
> Is it your position that a projectile fired from the GK made a large
> entrance wound in the front of the head then somehow squeezed through a
> small exit wound in the back of the skull? Can you explain what kind of a
> bullet can even do that?
>
That is not the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory most people
propose is a massive exit wound in the back of the skull.
Can you explain what type of bullet causes an entrance wound, but does
not exit?
> Or perhaps you are one those CTs who give way too much credit to "the
> conspiracy" of medical geniuses who performed amazing surgical procedures
> to the body on Air Force One while in the air on the way back to
> Washington.
>
> In my opinion, from reading comments and asking questions of Gary Mack by
> email and telephone that he never was neutral. It was obvious to me Mack
> leaned toward a CT solution to this case. The fact results from
Maybe originally.
> professional field testing have influenced Mack to rethink his position
> shows character and intellectual honesty on his part. It takes a person
Nope. No facts. $$.
> with integrity to admit he may have been wrong. I respect Mack for having
> the courage to do that rather than to continue grasping at straws out of
> embarrassment or pride.
>
You respect only people who agree with you.
> You have made disparaging remarks about Mack embracing the scientific
> approach to this case. Why don't you start taking an intellectual approach
Never. He never even considered the scientific approach.
David Von Pein
A CTer AT IMDB.COM SAID:
>>> "Go to this link to Jim DiEugenio's CTKA website
[www.ctka.net/alerts.html] and click on the link to Discovery Channel's
viewer feedback forms to let them know your displeasure over their past
JFK assassination propaganda programs." <<<
DVP SAID:
Typical kook behavior --- the conspiracy-flavored nuts don't like the
results of the Discovery Channel test (naturally), so they have to whine
and pout and write letters of discontent.
The same thing occurred in June 2007 at the JFK-Lancer kook shop (forum),
when Debra Conway decided to launch a petition to protest the upcoming Tom
Hanks 10-hour mini-series.
Conway even had this to say in late June of 2007 (which was a mere 20 days
after the "Reclaiming History" mini-series project was announced to the
public):
"Inside sources tell me the HBO project is dead, wasn't really ever alive.
I even took down the petition -- but I am still mailing it to Playtone
[Tom Hanks' production company]." -- Debra Conway; June 27, 2007
Maybe Debra should think about getting some "inside sources" that are
a little more reliable. Ya think?:
www.YouTube.com/watch?v=eU07-SUQv5Q
www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200903/20090316_paxton.html