Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: A serious and public call to David Von Pein

190 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

John Canal

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 3:53:49 PM12/20/11
to
In article <9002cfe7-2f28-4519...@p20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
F. Carlier says...
>
>Hello everybody,
>
>Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher for
>about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of some
>newsgroups a few years ago.
>
>I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe
>that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John
>Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.
>
>Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather well,
>either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even just
>reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that some of them
>are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just unable to admit
>they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly waste their whole life
>chasing conspirators who never existed in the first place. Whatever=85
>
>Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published
>wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that the
>fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's
>minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.
>
>I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was disappointed
>by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful enough in its display
>of Oswald-did-it evidence.
>
>Anyway.
>
>I want to say this : the very very very best person to defend the truth
>and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far David Von
>Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and posts and am a
>big fan of his.
>
>He is the best, no question.
>
>He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.
>
>He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point,
>logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot, and
>most of all so very true !
>
>This message is a public call to him, an appeal.
>
>Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You
>must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it
>would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists
>and at the same time a springboard for the truth.
>
>I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
>book on the Kennedy assassination.

Why? Just read Case Closed or Reclaiming History and you'll pretty much have
David's take on the case.

But David is very bright, ambitious, and, besides writing well (David, please
forgive my Typos, misspellings and/or grammatical errors..my copy editor is off
for the holidays), he seems to be a pretty nice guy.

That said, other than:

#1. Concluding 25+ witnesses at PH and/or Bethesda, who saw the body, were
hallucinating when they thought they saw a wound in the back of JFK's head
larger than the entry....and..

#2. Concluding the autopsists, at least one PH neurosurgeon, and other Bethesda
eyewitnesses mistook JFK's cowlick for his EOP...and...

#3. Concluding 11 eyewitnesses didn't know cerebellum from cerebrum...and..

#4. Concluding the autopsists couldn't figure out that there was a bullet wound
in JFK's throat until they talked with PH's Doctor Perry Saturday AM, even
though:

A. It had been announced at the PH news conference that JFK was shot in the
throat...and..

B. Dan Rather announced on National TV Friday afternoon that JFK had been shot
in the throat...and...

C. Burkley had been in PH's TR1 and supervised the autopsy...and...

D. Boswell eventually testified they could see the partial circumference of a
bullet hole along the top margin off the trach incision....and...

E. There was so much medical evidence that the bullet transited his neck/upper
back that an 8th grade biology student could have deduced it did...and...

F. Boswell and Finck even said they knew the bullet transited that night...and
Humes clearly indicated that in his WC testimony.

G. Perry at first told Specter that he and Humes talked Friday afternoon vs.
Saturday AM.

H. Several other witnesses stated Bethesda had communicated with PH that night.

G. If anyone (see below) looked at the clothes, they would have realized the
bullet transited.

......and #5, concluding that Greer had a brain cramp or something and had the
clothes locked up in his WH locker instead of giving them to Humes...even though
it's downright obvious (if you read "everything" pertaining to the alleged chain
of custody re. the clothes) Humes did see the clothes...BTW, note that the
placement of the back wound on Boswell's face sheet and the description of its
location better match the hole in the jacket than where the back photo shows the
entry to be (coincidence?...ya, right).....

...David (like McAdams, VB, and Posner) has the medical evidence nailed.

But here's what I wonder. Did David or the rest of team McAdams ever once
consider that the reason they didn't say they knew the bullet transited through
the upper back that night was that they believed (or strongly considered), with
JFK in an anatomically erect position, the path seemed more consistent with a
ground level shooter than it did with one firing from 6 floors up....and that
they didn't think it was in the nation's best interest that news should be
leaked, reported or announced that night?

And that's why they lied about not seeing the clothes...because they [the
clothes] were a dead give-a-way that the bullet transted. IOW, if they admitted
they saw the clothes, that would have meant they knew the bullet transited.

To say it another way, they told the lie about the clothes to cover for their
lie about not knowing about the throat wound that night.

Hell, what's a few lies when they thought they were protecting national
security?

Okay, back to the mythical high entry and undamaged BOH.

Now David, like Posner, VB, and McAdams, will parade out the lateral X-ray and
BOH photograph as all but irrefutable proof of the high entry and undamaged
BOH...but...unless they can see a time stamp on the BOH photo, they can't even
be sure when that photo was taken (read Sibert's taped statement to Bill Law and
you might get some idea on that)....and

..re. the X-rays, they completely ignore Boswell's testimony in which he said
he replaced some pieces of bone, possibly including even those in the BOH,
before some X-rays or photos were taken.

And that so-called evidence is so irrefutable David et al thinks it deunks the
statements and testimony of literally dozens of eyewitnesses?

Go figure.

If he writes a book, you buy it.

John Canal

:-)

>/Fran=E7ois Carlier/
>Esprit....@yahoo.fr
>
>


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Gerry Simone

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 3:57:40 PM12/20/11
to
Bonjour Francois,

Yes, I remember you sir. Hope you were well

However, please don't paint all JFK CTers with your remark,

<<QUOTE ON>>

we have to acknowledge the fact that the
fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's
minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.

<< QUOTE OFF >>

Many JFK CTers do not believe in conspiracy theories for the sake of or love
of conspiracies. The LNT or version, is simply called into question because
the so-called physical evidence is tainted, and the circumstantial evidence
for conspiracy is plentiful if not overwhelming.

Respectfully,

Gerry Simone

"F. Carlier" <Fra-C...@bbox.fr> wrote in message
news:9002cfe7-2f28-4519...@p20g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Hello everybody,

Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher for
about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of some
newsgroups a few years ago.

I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe
that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John
Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.

Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather well,
either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even just
reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that some of them
are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just unable to admit
they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly waste their whole life
chasing conspirators who never existed in the first place. Whatever…

Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published
wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that the
fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's
minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.

I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was disappointed
by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful enough in its display
of Oswald-did-it evidence.

Anyway.

I want to say this : the very very very best person to defend the truth
and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far David Von
Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and posts and am a
big fan of his.

He is the best, no question.

He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.

He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point,
logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot, and
most of all so very true !

This message is a public call to him, an appeal.

Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You
must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it
would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists
and at the same time a springboard for the truth.

I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
book on the Kennedy assassination.


/François Carlier/
Esprit....@yahoo.fr




David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 11:07:48 PM12/20/11
to

Thank you, Francois.

It would be virtually impossible for anyone to write a "lone assassin"
book on the JFK case that could possibly go beyond the scope and sheer
common sense of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History".

But I am certainly flattered that someone would actually think that some
nobody in Indiana named David Von Pein would be capable of writing a book
on the Kennedy assassination that anyone would want to read (and pay money
for). That's flattering enough all by itself. So, thank you, Francois.

I've always thought of my Internet websites on the subject of JFK (and a
little bit about Jackie Kennedy too) as kind of a "virtual book" in a way.
And as you might know, Francois, I've recently created a "Table Of
Contents" on one of my main sites ("JFK Archives") that I think is useful.
It serves as some of the "Chapters" of my online JFK "book".

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html

And the nice thing about having an Internet "book" is that chapters can be
added to the book at any time in the future (unlike a physical book, which
can't be altered once it's been published; unless a "2nd Edition" comes
out later).

I'll tell you something that I find myself doing frequently since Vince
Bugliosi's book came out in 2007:

I like to just grab the book and open it up to a random page -- it doesn't
matter what page it is -- and then I'll just start reading.

I have found this to be a fascinating exercise, because (invariably) each
and every time I open Vincent's book to a random page, I find myself
totally immersed in Mr. Bugliosi's style of writing and his inevitable
common-sense approach to everything connected with the Kennedy case.
Which, in turn, makes me want to re-read the entire chapter (and sometimes
I do, even though I read the whole book when it came out in '07). And when
re-reading the chapter, I also often remember something that I had totally
forgotten since I first read it a few years ago.

So, I find that the "Random Page" exercise is very good as a "memory
refresher" too. More people should try it. (Although it's doubtful that
any Internet conspiracy theorists would want to try it, however. But most
of those CTers on the Web are a lost cause anyway, as we all know.)

:-)

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 20, 2011, 11:09:38 PM12/20/11
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e09e195f6eec1d11/003a669fab31c417?#003a669fab31c417

BUD SAID:


>>> "The services you provide on the internet might be of more value to
the truth than Bug`s book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers
because they get the information they need from the internet. Having the
*really* important information available (and not the silly things the
conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it makes the
information available for those who want to truly know what happened, and
secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow when this
information they would rather ignore is highlighted." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Bud.

The conspiracy theorists would, of course, say that Bud's last sentence
above is a classic Pot/Kettle statement, with the CTers always saying that
it is the LNers, not the CTers who would "rather ignore" information
associated with the JFK murder case.

But when we analyze the things that the CTers say are often "ignored" by
LNers, it's pretty much always something that GOES NOWHERE for the CTers
in their futile but non-stop efforts to prove that any conspiracy existed
in JFK's death (let alone proving that Lee Oswald was an innocent patsy
who never shot anyone on 11/22/63).

For example, off the top of my head, the kind of chaff that some CTers
like to highlight (which the CTers think the LNers have essentially
ignored or swept under the rug):

The claim that Lee Oswald could not possibly have taken a commercial
airline flight from London to Helsinki in October 1959 when Oswald was en
route to Russia.

That one above is chaff of the first order, mainly because it occurred 4
years prior to JFK's death (meaning it can't really GO ANYWHERE in trying
to prove Oswald was innocent of shooting Kennedy four years later).

But even THAT hunk of chaff WAS dealt with by the Warren Commission. They
went into some depth, in fact, in attempting to reconstruct Oswald's route
to Helsinki, and they DID find a possible way for Oswald to get there via
commercial airline flights.

But the CTers never want to talk about the Commission's own findings
regarding that subject. They'd rather stick to their theory of it being
impossible for Oswald to have gotten there via any non-sinister means.

Another thing the CTers totally distort is the "5.6 seconds" timeline that
they (the CTers) will insist the Warren boys were married to from Day 1.
But that just is not so. The Commission fully acknowledged the possibility
of either the first or third shot being the one "missed" shot in the
shooting sequence, thereby expanding the total timeline for all three
shots (up to as much as 7.9 seconds, which is fully laid out on Page 117
of the Warren Report, my favorite page in the whole WCR, which is a page
the CT kooks stay away from as though it's a terminal disease).

WR; Pg. 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

CTers also totally mangle the Warren Commission's precise location of
President Kennedy's upper-back wound, with the CTers insisting that Gerald
Ford verbally "moved" the wound up several inches, into JFK's neck.

But as anyone can easily see in CE903, that allegation is just flat- out
dead wrong....because the wound in JFK's upper back (as depicted in CE903)
is just exactly where the real wound in Kennedy was located-- in his UPPER
BACK, not in the "NECK". And as CE903 also vividly shows, the SBT works
perfectly with the wound being in the UPPER BACK of the JFK stand-in, and
not in his NECK.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

More....

I wonder how many CTers still think that Eddy Benavides died in 1964
(prior to Domingo's WC testimony)?

As was proven beyond all doubt in 2010, that 1964 date is incorrect, with
Eddy really dying in 1965, a year after his brother testified in front of
the WC:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c3dc4b1ee740c319


And then there's the recent debate I have had on The Education Forum
concerning Darrell Tomlinson's comments to Ray Marcus during a 1966
telephone interview.

It was, once again, the work of Jean Davison which steered me toward this
interesting fact: Tomlinson told Marcus that he (Tomlinson) was shown a
bullet by an FBI man at Parkland after the assassination, and Tomlinson
definitely told Marcus that the bullet he was shown looked the "same" as
the bullet Darrell found on a stretcher on the day of the assassination.

There is some confusion about which FBI agent showed Tomlinson the bullet,
and a question about just exactly when he was shown the bullet, but the
key fact is still intact -- Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the
stretcher bullet. (And now CTers want to pretend that the FBI man probably
didn't show Tomlinson CE399 at all; they'll now claim it was a different
bullet that the FBI displayed to Tomlinson. Note how the goal line must
change locations whenever a conspiracy theory becomes challenged.)

In three of the above topics, I have Jean Davison to thank (again). She
provided some very good information (and ordinary common sense) when
discussing some of these issues.

I'd love to see Jean write another JFK book. It could be called "JFK
Assassination Common Sense".

Or, maybe my "Quoting Common Sense" website would make a good book. I
think it might, seeing as how I've included (so far) ten excellent quotes
from Jean Davison, plus several more from people like Vincent Bugliosi,
Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Bud too. It's a potpourri of common sense
when examining a large number of issues surrounding JFK's assassination:

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David Von Pein
December 20, 2011

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 9:29:23 AM12/21/11
to
In article
<c162d9ec-a3f9-4b15...@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e09e195
> f6eec1d11/003a669fab31c417?#003a669fab31c417
>
> BUD SAID:
>
>
> >>> "The services you provide on the internet might be of more value to
> the truth than Bug`s book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers
> because they get the information they need from the internet. Having the
> *really* important information available (and not the silly things the
> conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it makes the
> information available for those who want to truly know what happened, and
> secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow when this
> information they would rather ignore is highlighted." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Thank you, Bud.
>
> The conspiracy theorists would, of course, say that Bud's last sentence
> above is a classic Pot/Kettle statement, with the CTers always saying that
> it is the LNers, not the CTers who would "rather ignore" information
> associated with the JFK murder case.


David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
285, you evaporate?

We were in the middle of a very productive discussion about Nellie
Connally the last time this happened. Why don't we spend a little time
on that issue and see if we can't figure out when the woman heard the
shot that she thought, wounded her husband?

What makes Nellie such a good witness is that we don't have to rely
entirely on what she said. We have a very clear picture of her actions
and reactions then. In fact, I think we could figure this out even if
she had never said a word about it.

All this goofy crap about how brilliant you are and how stupid your
adversaries are just doesn't achieve anything.

The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right is
to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them.

Are you up for that, David?








Robert Harris

Mike

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 2:46:28 PM12/21/11
to
> I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> book on the Kennedy assassination.
>
>
> /François Carlier/
> Esprit....@yahoo.fr
>
>


You are not going to find a lot of people to ask David Von Pein to write
a book on the assassination.

Mike

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 2:51:49 PM12/21/11
to
You are brainwashing yourself. Each time you read it things that bug says
just fit better and better don't they? You are not discovering the truth,
you are discovering the adaptability of the brain.

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 2:54:04 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 8:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
Geez, David, why is this so hard for you to grasp? CE 903 was a con.
Specter knew full well the bullet trajectory depicted passed well above
the back wound shown on the autopsy photos, and the bullet holes on the
clothes, and made sure NO pictures showing the trajectory from behind were
entered into the record. Fortunately, however, the FBI held onto their
photos, which PROVE Specter's willful deception.

As shown here:

http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg

Pamela Brown

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 4:45:58 PM12/21/11
to
Would it include a chapter on Marina Oswald, the star witness, recanting
her statements that LHO acted alone?

Pamela Brown

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 4:47:22 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 11:58 am, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
> Hello everybody,

Ca va...good to see you posting again.

>
> Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher for
> about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of some
> newsgroups a few years ago.
>
> I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe
> that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John
> Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.
>
> Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather well,
> either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even just
> reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that some of them
> are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just unable to admit
> they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly waste their whole life
> chasing conspirators who never existed in the first place. Whatever…
>
> Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published
> wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that the
> fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's
> minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.
>
> I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was disappointed
> by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful enough in its display
> of Oswald-did-i

Agreed. It is unfortunate that McAdams seems to have developed his book
in an environment where he made all the rules and didn't allow his
opinions to be held up to scrutiny.

>
> Anyway.
>
> I want to say this : the very very very best person to defend the truth
> and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far David Von
> Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and posts and am a
> big fan of his.
>
> He is the best, no question.

DVP is certainly articulate, but he does ramble.

>
> He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.

Not according to CTs though.

>
> He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point,
> logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot, and
> most of all so very true !
>
> This message is a public call to him, an appeal.
>
> Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You
> must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it
> would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists
> and at the same time a springboard for the truth.
>
> I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> book on the Kennedy assassination.
>

It will be yet another attempt to redux the WCR; but that's ok with
me. It never seems to work. :-)

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 4:50:08 PM12/21/11
to
On 12/21/2011 9:29 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <c162d9ec-a3f9-4b15...@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e09e195
>> f6eec1d11/003a669fab31c417?#003a669fab31c417
>>
>> BUD SAID:
>>
>>
>>>>> "The services you provide on the internet might be of more value to
>> the truth than Bug`s book. Most people have stopped reading newspapers
>> because they get the information they need from the internet. Having the
>> *really* important information available (and not the silly things the
>> conspiracy retards obsess about) serves two important roles, it makes the
>> information available for those who want to truly know what happened, and
>> secondly it is a bitter pill for the retards to swallow when this
>> information they would rather ignore is highlighted."<<<
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Thank you, Bud.
>>
>> The conspiracy theorists would, of course, say that Bud's last sentence
>> above is a classic Pot/Kettle statement, with the CTers always saying that
>> it is the LNers, not the CTers who would "rather ignore" information
>> associated with the JFK murder case.
>
>
> David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
> 285, you evaporate?
>

Robert, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
285, you disappear?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 5:32:34 PM12/21/11
to
We should appreciate the fact that Specter accidentally showed how a
bullet could miss Kennedy and hit Connally.


David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 5:38:13 PM12/21/11
to

>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
285, you evaporate?" <<<

Oh, not every time, Bob. ....

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRMAAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts


>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them." <<<

Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
for the LNers to handle.

But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob. It's merely a case of a
conspiracy theorist (you) seeing things in a silent film that you think
mean something that nobody else on the planet thinks they mean.

But have you, Bob, eliminated OTHER possible explanations for the so-
called "gunshot reactions" you see in the limo victims just after Z285?

For example, have you completely eliminated "Pure Coincidence" from your
list of possible explanations?


>>> "Are you up for that, David?" <<<

Bob has a short memory....

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRMAAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 5:38:39 PM12/21/11
to
Marina eventually changed her mind about Lee's *guilt.* You really mean
she decided he had accomplices in being innocent?
(Meanwhile, she still maintained that he shot at Walker, that he took
the backyard photos, etc., etc.)
/sm


David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 6:25:36 PM12/21/11
to

>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
285, you evaporate?" <<<


[QUOTE ON:]

Robert, you are in your own little dream world, entitled: "I BELIEVE
THAT A GUNSHOT OCCURRED AT Z285 AND I'M GOING TO STICK BY THAT THEORY
FOREVER, DESPITE THE ONLY "EVIDENCE" BEING THE LIMO OCCUPANTS'
MOVEMENTS ON A SILENT PIECE OF MOVIE FILM THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE
EVALUATE IN COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAYS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE
GUNSHOTS WERE OCCURRING IN DEALEY PLAZA".

In short -- There is NOTHING concrete or definitive or absolute about
any of the movements of the people in that limousine that could
possibly make any REASONABLE person want to declare--with FINALITY--
that a gunshot positively occurred at exactly frame #285 of Abraham
Zapruder's home movie.

But Robert wants to believe that his subjective analyses of the
peoples' "reactions" (i.e., movements) within the car are PROOF of a
gunshot at exactly Z285.

Quite obviously, however, Robert Harris is only fooling himself -- for
there are certainly no definitive signs of a PROOF-POSITIVE gunshot
occurring at Z285 within that silent motion picture.

Bob will probably next claim that I am talking out of both sides of my
mouth when I claim that Oswald's first shot occurred at approx. Z160
on the same silent home movie (which is, indeed, what I think
occurred).

But there is one significant difference there -- and that is the fact
that we can KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that Governor Connally
was not struck by a bullet until a few seconds AFTER THE FIRST SHOT
WAS FIRED.

John Connally's own testimony after the shooting tells us this fact,
and it's something that isn't merely "subjective" on a researcher's
part. It's evidence being based on a VICTIM'S first-hand account of
WHEN he was hit (i.e., per Connally: "The first shot did not hit me; I
had time to think; I had time to react [to the first gunshot]; then I
was hit").

Connally is really sort of 'two witnesses in one' in a way, due to the
fact that he had the unique ability to "time" the first shot in his
own mind by way of comparing the sound of it to when he, himself, FELT
the impact of the bullet that hit him in the upper back.

And since the overwhelming evidence (including all of the non-Zapruder
Film evidence, of course) indicates that only three shots were fired
and that ALL three shots came from the Book Depository's 6th-Floor
Sniper's Nest (and from Oswald's own rifle)....it's then fairly easy
to piece together a reasonable "timeline" of the three shots when
looking just at the Zapruder Film.

And via the above type of evidence-based starting point before ever
even looking at the Zapruder Film (utilizing the entire SUM TOTAL of
the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists in this case,
plus throwing in some common sense for good measure), there simply is
NO ROOM FOR A GUNSHOT AT Z-FILM FRAME #285.

Based on the "sum total" of evidence, a shot at Z285 could not and did
not occur (Robert Harris' subjective analysis of the film
notwithstanding).

David Von Pein
February 10, 2008

[/QUOTE OFF.]

Original Post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1cb66ee1ebe1667

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 6:27:08 PM12/21/11
to


>>> "CE 903 was a con." <<<

Yeah, right, Pat.

That must be why the string on the wall in the background of CE903 is
perfectly parallel to Specter's rod in the same photograph.

And the string on the wall, per Lyndal Shaneyfelt, was placed at an
angle matching the downward angle from the TSBD's Sniper's Nest to the
wound on JFK's back (17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds). [That's when
taking away the 3.15-degree slope of Elm Street.]

And then we have that rod of Specter's (which is perfectly parallel
with that string on the wall; you couldn't get it any more perfect)
entering the UPPER BACK part of the JFK stand-in (not his NECK), and
then exiting exactly where JFK's throat wound was--the tie knot, and
then going into the same bullet hole in Connally's jacket that was
created by a bullet on Nov. 22 (the stand-in was wearing Connally's
jacket).

And I'm supposed to believe that that kind of DETAIL and "17,43,30"
precision is just a "con" on the part of the Warren Commission?

Get real, Pat. CE903 is absolutely perfect for representing the
SBT....to the letter....right down to the insertion of the rod into
the SAME BULLET HOLE in Connally's jacket that really was hit on
11/22.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

FOOTNOTE.......

Pre-empting the defense--namely Tony Marsh:

Tony's next words will be:

"But Davey, Specter's rod is ON TOP OF THE SHOULDER of the JFK
stand-in. Therefore, CE903 is worthless."

Tony, of course, knows full well that Specter couldn't drill a hole
into the JFK stand-in. Therefore, the rod was placed a little to the
right side of the real wound location. But if Specter HAD impaled the
stand-in, and if the rod were moved just a little more to Specter's
left (toward the middle of the stand-in's back), while also
maintaining the very same downward angle of 17-43-30, then where would
that place the wound? In the UPPER BACK? Or in the NECK?

Take another good look at CE903 and get back to me on that one....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 10:00:06 PM12/21/11
to
In article
<82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
> 285, you evaporate?" <<<
>
> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRM
> AAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts
>
>
> >>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
> is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them." <<<
>
> Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
> unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
> for the LNers to handle.
>
> But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob.

Then why do you and the other nutters have to evade the issue?

And have you EVER seen anyone post a convincing rebuttal to my analysis?
Or even an unconvincing one that isn't easily refuted?

If so, tell everyone about it.

If not, then perhaps you need to acknowledge that "difficult" is a huge
understatement.


> It's merely a case of a
> conspiracy theorist (you) seeing things in a silent film that you think
> mean something that nobody else on the planet thinks they mean.
>
> But have you, Bob, eliminated OTHER possible explanations for the so-
> called "gunshot reactions" you see in the limo victims just after Z285?
>
> For example, have you completely eliminated "Pure Coincidence" from your
> list of possible explanations?

I will be happy to answer that question but what I want to know is, will
you disappear off into the sunset and drop the issue like you always do
or do you intend follow it through to some kind of logical conclusion?

And would you like me to start a new thread on the 285 shot?


>
>
> >>> "Are you up for that, David?" <<<
>
> Bob has a short memory....

No I don't David. I remember that you first tried to claim that the limo
passengers were thrown forward because Greer decelerated the limo.

And after I showed you that you were getting your cause and effect
reversed, you changed your story and said you didn't see any reactions
at all.

Is there something I'm leaving out? Did you post a brilliant rebuttal in
the past that I overlooked??

If so, please tell me about it David.





Robert Harris

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 21, 2011, 10:16:12 PM12/21/11
to
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

What SILLINESS, Dave! The FBI took a series of photos showing the
trajectory rod in comparison to the back wound location. NONE of these
were published by the commission or entered into evidence. Now, why do you
think that was, Dave? Because they supported the SBT? Well, how could that
be, when the photo that became CE903, with the rod INCHES above the back
wound location in the FBI's photos, also supports the SBT?

Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute that
the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound location
shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works in both
photos?


David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 9:38:18 AM12/22/11
to


PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works in both photos?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted.
But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But
CE903 IS the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's
volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be
placed up in the neck of JFK.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall
behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds
[hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind,
is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the
chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle
between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Mr.
Shaneyfelt.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Therefore, it really isn't the EXACT angle of a bullet going through
JFK & JBC at precisely Z224 (which is when I think the bullet struck
both men). And I'll admit that. If you split the difference between
Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT
shot striking at Z217 or Z218.

But the photo in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at
17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact
bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on
Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer
either.

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles
and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in
CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903
and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide"
animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that
Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is
so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is
nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the
trajectory isn't even close either!"

If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-
bin crazy.

In any event, CE903 IS the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT,
and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which
is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to
believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back
wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out
myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

I'll also ask this question:

If CE903 is such a "con", as Patrick J. Speer said earlier, then I'm
wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like
the opposite-angle pic shown above to ever get released to the public?
Why weren't those pictures destroyed? Any ideas on that, Pat?

Also:

Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the
stand-in's back in CE903, do you, Pat, really think that the wound
placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER
BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a
little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-
Bullet Theory completely?

And even if the trajectory angles in both CE903 and the reverse angle
picture linked above are both exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure
of, since the opposite angle picture is not an official picture that
appears in the WC volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in the reverse
angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short
indeed.

And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurements is just an
"average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of
"leeway" on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early
as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30
angle, since the limo was closer to Oswald in the TSBD at Z210.

But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away
from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have less
(or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.

Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11
minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the
slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16
or so degrees downward).

The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play
when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission
Exhibit No. 903.

And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be
included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems
fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below
does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet
Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred
(which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in
that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30
angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle
for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would,
therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going
through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's
pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little
below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the
pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's
stand-in:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s1600/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

David Von Pein
December 22, 2011

=================================

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory


Jason Burke

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 11:34:57 AM12/22/11
to
On 12/21/2011 7:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
>> 285, you evaporate?"<<<
>>
>> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-mIRM
>> AAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+posts
>>
>>
>>>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
>> is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them."<<<
>>
>> Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
>> unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
>> for the LNers to handle.
>>
>> But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob.
>
> Then why do you and the other nutters have to evade the issue?

Because, and let me type this REALLY slowly Harris, so you'll understand...

There IS no issue of a shot at 285. It's not just LN's that ignore (not
evade,) your "issue". No one on the CT side is listening to you either.

The "shot at 285" is a figment of your verdant imagination.

>
> And have you EVER seen anyone post a convincing rebuttal to my analysis?

Why should anyone rebut your total fantasy? I think even YOU realize
that there's no one who agrees with your nonsense. Oh, wait! You have
354 youtube likes! Gee, there's something for you.

> Or even an unconvincing one that isn't easily refuted?
>
> If so, tell everyone about it.
>
> If not, then perhaps you need to acknowledge that "difficult" is a huge
> understatement.
>

No, Harris. Stupidity, as in your "theory" is what everyone is, well,
ignoring.

>
>> It's merely a case of a
>> conspiracy theorist (you) seeing things in a silent film that you think
>> mean something that nobody else on the planet thinks they mean.
>>
>> But have you, Bob, eliminated OTHER possible explanations for the so-
>> called "gunshot reactions" you see in the limo victims just after Z285?
>>
>> For example, have you completely eliminated "Pure Coincidence" from your
>> list of possible explanations?
>
> I will be happy to answer that question but what I want to know is, will
> you disappear off into the sunset and drop the issue like you always do
> or do you intend follow it through to some kind of logical conclusion?
>
> And would you like me to start a new thread on the 285 shot?
>
>

Oh, wait, sorry I forgot, to put, commas after, darn near every, other
word, because it makes me seem, like I know what I'm talking about.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 1:35:32 PM12/22/11
to
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5J...
>
> David Von Pein
> December 22, 2011
>
> =================================
>
> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

Geez, David. Shaneyfelt testified that when Connally's back wound and
Kennedy's throat wound were aligned with a shot from the sniper's
nest, the trajectory rod "approximated" Kennedy's back wound location.
The FBI photos proved that by "approximately" he meant the back wound
was 2 or 3 inches below, which is to say it wasn't all that close.
This makes it quite clear, to anyone with the least knowledge of how
these things work, IMO, that the rear view photos were deliberately
not entered into evidence. I mean, think about it. Shaneyfelt said
"approximately." They had photos demonstrating what this meant. Why
wouldn't they let the public see these photos?

You forget, as well, that CE903 was used to push the commission's
single-bullet theory. The FBI was slow to accept this theory, if they
actually ever did. So any conjecture that the FBI would destroy the
photos discrediting Specter's theory is off-base, IMO.

Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied
by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder
films?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position
of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the
area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they
emerge from the signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned
at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be
positioned?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the
stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the
entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button
of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was
inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat
which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 1:37:42 PM12/22/11
to
In article <jcubc1$1hv$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/21/2011 7:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
> >> 285, you evaporate?"<<<
> >>
> >> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-m
> >> IRM
> >> AAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+post
> >> s
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
> >> is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them."<<<
> >>
> >> Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
> >> unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
> >> for the LNers to handle.
> >>
> >> But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob.
> >
> > Then why do you and the other nutters have to evade the issue?
>
> Because, and let me type this REALLY slowly Harris, so you'll understand...
>
> There IS no issue of a shot at 285. It's not just LN's that ignore (not
> evade,) your "issue". No one on the CT side is listening to you either.

I'm afraid that's not true Jason. My video presentations have been seen
almost 6 million times now, with nearly unanimous thumbs up ratings. And
in A.C.J. even people like Ben Holmes, who absolutely despises me for my
position that the Zapruder film is legit, has fully agreed with me on this
issue.

At the other end of the intellectual spectrum, Dr. Michael Stroscio, who
holds a Phd. in Physics and has chaired Presidential science commissions
has fully endorsed my analysis.


>
> The "shot at 285" is a figment of your verdant imagination.

I don't think so Jason. Even some of the most radical of the nutters have
acknowledged the reactions, although they have tried to argue that the
limo passengers were startled by a backfire, rather than a gunshot.

They just run into a problem when they can't find an example of the limo
passengers ever reacting like that to any other backfires prior to Dealey
Plaza.

Trying to label this issue as "Harris's theory", as though it was on a par
with badgeman or "the driver did it", is a very transparent evasion,
Jason. If I had never been born, you guys should be discussing the real
reason why Greer was startled and slowed the limo, simultaneous with
obvious startle reactions by the other passengers.

And you should be discussing why there were no startle reactions prior to
285 that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 312. We
know for a fact, that had Oswald fired the early shots, the limo
passengers would have been exposed to sound levels 16 time greater than is
required to provoke involuntary startle reactions. Anyone who doubts that,
only needs to watch them following 285 and 313.

Jason, "Robert Harris" is not your problem. This is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI



Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 3:22:21 PM12/22/11
to
In article
<bobharris77-AEB9...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
David?






Robert Harris



>

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 9:56:03 PM12/22/11
to

>>> "David?" <<<

Yes, Bob? .....

[QUOTING FROM A FEB. 2008 DISCUSSION I HAD WITH BOB HARRIS:]

Harris Said:


>>> "Either those people were reacting to the gunshot, that they claimed
they heard, or they weren't. If you are a moral individual, then you have
NO business promoting a belief that shields the other killers/terrorists,
until you are able to prove that they weren't." <<<
DVP
Feb. 10, 2008

[UNQUOTE]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1cb66ee1ebe1667

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 9:57:40 PM12/22/11
to

>>> "So any conjecture that the FBI would destroy the photos discrediting
Specter's theory is off-base, IMO." <<<

Pat,

When I did ever say that the FBI would want to destroy any photos? I
never said FBI. I said "Warren boys". Here's my exact quote:

"If CE903 is such a "con", as Patrick J. Speer said earlier,
then I'm wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed
photos like the opposite-angle pic shown above to ever get released to
the public? Why weren't those pictures destroyed?" -- DVP

--------

I'm glad this topic of CE903 came up again, because it gave me a
chance to evaluate this subject from an angle that I had never thought
about before yesterday.

Repeating what I think is an important point:

When factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be
included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems
fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below
does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet
Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT
occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on
perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same
17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an
angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below
would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot
going through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would
Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a
little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place
the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F.
Kennedy's stand-in:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s1600/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 9:59:53 PM12/22/11
to
On 12/22/2011 1:37 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<jcubc1$1hv$1...@dont-email.me>,
So you claim, but you can't prove.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 10:17:27 PM12/22/11
to
On 12/22/2011 9:38 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>

>>>> "Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute
that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound
location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works
in both photos?"<<<

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted.
> But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But
> CE903 IS the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's
> volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be
> placed up in the neck of JFK.
>
> Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall
> behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds
> [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind,
> is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the
> chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle
> between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Mr.
> Shaneyfelt.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
>
> Therefore, it really isn't the EXACT angle of a bullet going through
> JFK& JBC at precisely Z224 (which is when I think the bullet struck
> both men). And I'll admit that. If you split the difference between
> Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT
> shot striking at Z217 or Z218.
>
> But the photo in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at
> 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact
> bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on
> Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer
> either.
>

No it doesn't. Are you blind? It clearly shows that a bullet can go over
JFK's right shoulder, not through him, and hit Connally's back.

> Let me ask this of the CTers:
>
> Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles
> and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in
> CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?
>

No, the attempt was to phony up the exhibit to mislead the public. Now
here is a question that you are not brave enough to answer, but I bet a
conspiracy believer can answer. Which specific frame is CE903 supposed to
be illustrating? And prove it with documents.

> If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903
> and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.
>
> And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide"
> animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that
> Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is
> so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is
> nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the
> trajectory isn't even close either!"
>

Now, wait a minute here. Why do you specify the exact words that his
critics would have to say? Why isn't it just good enough to point out his
errors and lies? Well, I guess I'll have to make you happy and copy your
list and say it myself:

Myers is nuts!
His model isn't even close!
The wounds are miles off!
And the trajectory isn't even close either!

So there, was that good enough for you? Or would you like me to also add:

Myers is a pathological liar!
Just one exclamation point good enough for you?


> If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-
> bin crazy.
>
> In any event, CE903 IS the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT,
> and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which

Of course it does. Rankin admitted that the back wound was really lower
than the throat wound. And you wouldn't even know that fact if not for the
efforts of all those kooky, loony-bin crazy conspiracy believers you love
to ridicule, because your beloved, honest WC destroyed the transcript of
that meeting.

That's what scares you WC defenders. We loony-bin crazy kooks keep finding
the evidence which you thought was safely destroyed.

> is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to
> believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back
> wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out
> myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).
>

Then why did Myers move it up ABOVE the top of JFK's shoulder, just as
Specter did in CE903? Accidental or trying to pay homage to the master
of deception Arlen Specter?

> I'll also ask this question:
>
> If CE903 is such a "con", as Patrick J. Speer said earlier, then I'm
> wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like
> the opposite-angle pic shown above to ever get released to the public?
> Why weren't those pictures destroyed? Any ideas on that, Pat?
>

They did not allow. We loony-bin crazy conspiracy kooks dug it up. Same
with the autopsy photos which clearly show that the back wound was BELOW
the top of the shoulders.

> Also:
>
> Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the
> stand-in's back in CE903, do you, Pat, really think that the wound
> placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER
> BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a
> little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-
> Bullet Theory completely?
>

Silly. The chalk mark you claim would not even show where the bullet
entered JFK's back. Maybe you forgot that you WC defenders claim the back
wound is much higher than the chalk mark because his jacket was bunched
up. You guys can't even keep your own propaganda straight. It doesn't
matter where you move the rod. It is always ABOVE the top of the JFK's
shoulder. His back wound was BELOW the top of his shoulder. Does a
difference of 2 inches really matter? Apparently it does to you guys which
is why you think CE903 proves it is the only possible solution.

> And even if the trajectory angles in both CE903 and the reverse angle
> picture linked above are both exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure
> of, since the opposite angle picture is not an official picture that
> appears in the WC volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in the reverse
> angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short
> indeed.
>

And why is it not an official photo that appears in the WC volumes?
Cover-up.
Again, why are you trying to undermine the carefully crafted WC defender
propaganda? Your side says the chalk mark is not where the bullet hit
his back.

> And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurements is just an
> "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of

I think I agree with that, but let's see you math to prove what the
angles for 210 and 225 we and what the average SHOULD be.

> "leeway" on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early
> as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30
> angle, since the limo was closer to Oswald in the TSBD at Z210.
>

No problem for such a sloppy theory.

> But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away
> from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have less
> (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.
>
> Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11
> minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the
> slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16
> or so degrees downward).
>
> The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play
> when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission
> Exhibit No. 903.
>

But you say the HSCA not allowed to have a margin of error.

> And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be
> included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems
> fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below
> does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet
> Theory.
>

No, but is does indicate that there was enough room for a bullet to miss
Kennedy and hit Connally. Thank you for proving our points for us.

> In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred
> (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in
> that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30
> angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle
> for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would,
> therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going
> through both victims at exactly Z224.
>
> And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's
> pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little
> below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the
> pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's
> stand-in:
>

Silly. Your side says the chalk mark is NOT where the bullet hit Kennedy.

Pamela Brown

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 10:23:41 PM12/22/11
to
LHO acting alone is the thesis of the WCR.

> (Meanwhile, she still maintained that he shot at Walker, that he took
> the backyard photos, etc., etc.)
> /sm

So far, maybe...but who knows? Perhaps she will come clean about
everything someday...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 11:08:29 PM12/22/11
to
On 12/21/2011 6:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "CE 903 was a con."<<<
>
> Yeah, right, Pat.
>
> That must be why the string on the wall in the background of CE903 is
> perfectly parallel to Specter's rod in the same photograph.
>
> And the string on the wall, per Lyndal Shaneyfelt, was placed at an
> angle matching the downward angle from the TSBD's Sniper's Nest to the
> wound on JFK's back (17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds). [That's when
> taking away the 3.15-degree slope of Elm Street.]
>

At what frame. Are you going to place all the blame on Shaneyfelt or
don't you think it is possible that he was just following orders?

> And then we have that rod of Specter's (which is perfectly parallel
> with that string on the wall; you couldn't get it any more perfect)

Jesus, how could they get it PERFECTLY parallel by luck?
Seems that some level of coordination would be necessary.

> entering the UPPER BACK part of the JFK stand-in (not his NECK), and

Excuse me? Are you blind? Everyone can see that the rod is ABOVE JFK's
shoulder, not in his back.

> then exiting exactly where JFK's throat wound was--the tie knot, and
> then going into the same bullet hole in Connally's jacket that was
> created by a bullet on Nov. 22 (the stand-in was wearing Connally's
> jacket).
>
> And I'm supposed to believe that that kind of DETAIL and "17,43,30"
> precision is just a "con" on the part of the Warren Commission?
>

It is superb propaganda, your tax dollars at work.

> Get real, Pat. CE903 is absolutely perfect for representing the
> SBT....to the letter....right down to the insertion of the rod into
> the SAME BULLET HOLE in Connally's jacket that really was hit on
> 11/22.
>

Isn't that what good propaganda is good for?

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
>
> FOOTNOTE.......
>
> Pre-empting the defense--namely Tony Marsh:
>

Well, jeez I tried to reply BEFORE seeing your message, but I always
read the most recent messages first to make sure I don't duplicate
someone else's reply.

> Tony's next words will be:
>

So now you are claiming to predict what I will say and then attack me
for predicting what you will say?

> "But Davey, Specter's rod is ON TOP OF THE SHOULDER of the JFK
> stand-in. Therefore, CE903 is worthless."
>

Nah, I would never call you Davey boy. I can only go with the name you are
using to post so I usually say DVP since I don't know your real name. I
think the exact word I have used about 4,000 times is ABOVE, not ON TOP.
And I did not say that CE903 is worthless, ever. I said it is very useful
because it proves our point that a bullet can go over JFK's shoulder and
then hit Connally.

> Tony, of course, knows full well that Specter couldn't drill a hole
> into the JFK stand-in. Therefore, the rod was placed a little to the

Not necessary. Just use one of those fake arrows that people put around
their bodies to make it look like a bullet going through their bodies.

> right side of the real wound location. But if Specter HAD impaled the

Not just to the right, but also ABOVE the real wound location.

> stand-in, and if the rod were moved just a little more to Specter's
> left (toward the middle of the stand-in's back), while also
> maintaining the very same downward angle of 17-43-30, then where would
> that place the wound? In the UPPER BACK? Or in the NECK?
>

Ok, so you don't know the difference between the UPPER BACK and the NECK.
The autopsy doctors said UPPER BACK and the autopsy photos show the
UPPER BACK. Only liars say NECK.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 11:09:48 PM12/22/11
to
So now you claim that LEE took the backyard photos? I thought Marina
said that SHE took the backyard photos.


HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 11:10:27 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 22, 9:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

RE your:

Quote On

because your beloved, honest WC destroyed the transcript of
that meeting

Quote Off

You still on that transcript destruction kick?

No transcripts were ever destroyed.

I'd really like to see you post support for this outlandish claim of
yours.

You keep posting this claim but have never posted anything to support
it.

JM/HD

PS...I'm also still waiting for that Biffle article and that symposium
you say exist.
> >http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5J...

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 11:11:10 PM12/22/11
to
Yes, but you questioned whether the book Jean was encouraged to write
would "include a chapter on Marina Oswald, the star witness, recanting her
statements that Oswald acted alone."

Not the same thing.

/sm

Jean Davison

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:21:49 AM12/23/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
David is being very kind to me, but no way will I write
another book.

Marina's *opinion* wasn't evidence in 1963 and isn't
evidence now. The WC didn't rely on her testimony to reach its
conclusions, and didn't need to.

IMO, the most damning thing Marina said about Oswald was,
"Yes, he has a rifle, it's in the garage." There are other witnesses
and evidence supporting that statement, and she has never denied
saying this or recanted anything in her testimony other than her
*opinion*, so far as I know.


Jean



>
>
>
>
> > Or, maybe my "Quoting Common Sense" website would make a good book. I
> > think it might, seeing as how I've included (so far) ten excellent quotes
> > from Jean Davison, plus several more from people like Vincent Bugliosi,
> > Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Bud too. It's a potpourri of common sense
> > when examining a large number of issues surrounding JFK's assassination:
>
> >http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
> > David Von Pein
> > December 20, 2011- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:24:09 AM12/23/11
to
In article <4ef3a97f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Of course I can. I faxed a copy of the letter to Jim Rathman in 1995 and
Barbara Junkarrien, despite her best efforts to distort things, phoned
Stroscio who confirmed his endorsement.

You need to understand Tony, that I am as different from you as day and
night.





Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:29:16 AM12/23/11
to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Rankin admitted that the back wound was really lower than the throat wound." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Rankin ever did say that (which I doubt he ever did), he's wrong.
And even Dr. Humes testified that the trach wound (i.e., the bullet
hole in JFK's throat) was located BELOW the wound in the upper back.

Plus, the photo composite below is really all you need in order to
determine the obvious fact that the throat wound was lower on the body
than the back wound (unless Marsh wants to think that Kennedy really
ISN'T positioned anywhere close to the "anatomical" position in the
picture on the left, which would be a ridiculous thing to say,
although Marsh HAS said it in the past):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg



>>> "But you say the HSCA [is] not allowed to have a margin of error." <<<

The HSCA's absurdly-early Z190 SBT shot is dead wrong, and I think
everybody knows that by now.

A shot entering Kennedy that early would have created a much steeper
trajectory for the bullet (when compared to the WC's trajectory
analysis and angles). And a shot at Z190, entering JFK's upper back,
would have exited his body much too low for the SBT to work (and would
not have hit Connally in the right place either).

And why the HSCA didn't realize that fact (or just didn't give a damn)
is a bit of a mystery, I'll admit.


>>> "Your side says the chalk mark is NOT where the bullet hit Kennedy." <<<

I do think that chalk mark is a bit too low, yes. It looks slightly
low to me anyway, when compared with the autopsy photo of the back
wound.

If the chalk mark were to be raised just the slightest little bit--
plus reduce the angle of Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle
picture to accommodate a Z224 SBT hit (vs. the WC's "average" angle
between Z210 and Z225)--then the trajectory would fit perfectly for a
Z224 SBT shot, IMO. And I think thaty such minor adjustments would
also accommodate a bullet exiting at JFK's tie-knot location too.

Yes, I know that's quite a bit of speculation on my behalf. But after
all, I'm merely a Langley underling. I can't be expected to cover-up
the whole conspiracy all by myself. I need the help of the MSM and
McAdams and Bugliosi too. Right, Tony? :)

Anyway, those are my sincere beliefs about CE903 and the opposite-
angle photos. And I certainly do not believe the WC covered up
anything regarding the SBT, the angles, or anything else connected to
the assassination. The 17-43-30 angle, after all, WAS just an
"average" angle between a RANGE of Z-Film frames that the Commission
utilized for the SBT shot (Z210-225).

And, quite obviously, the President was not hit with a bullet during
each and every one of those 16 frames that encompass that range of Z-
frames. So, in effect, it was a BEST GUESS on the Warren Commission's
behalf. And they came darn close to getting it exactly right too, IMO.
They were off by only a few frames--6.5 frames to be precise, which is
the difference between Z217.5 (which is the exact half-frame that the
angle of "17-43-30" equates to when you average it out) and Z224,
which is when I think the SBT occurred.

And when speaking of the "opposite angle" pictures of CE903---

The one I linked to earlier is actually only one of at least three
such pictures that exist. I guess the evil, rotten Warren boys just
couldn't bring themselves to destroy these photos, huh Tony? They
would falsify and misrepresent evidence till the cows come a-knockin',
but they wouldn't dare tear up a few pictures (which are photos that
prove a WC cover-up, per people like Tony Marsh). Correct, Anthony?

Just like the FBI, I guess. They decided to leave a few bread crumbs
of conspiracy in their own files and in the National Archives for
future CTers to find, versus just simply getting rid of all the
evidence of the cover-up. Right, Tony?

Two more photos of Specter and his rod:

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/999/16

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/999/15



Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:29:22 AM12/23/11
to
David, you aren't discussing the issues. You're delivering a lecture,
made up almost entirely of false statements.

The first thing we need to resolve is whether Bill Greer and the other
passengers were startled, beginning at frame 290.

Do you believe they were?

In addition to our subjective opinions there are some very good
objective ways to make that determination, based on when each of the
reactions began and on their testimonies and statements about the shots.


David, is it possible that your assertion that this issue cannot be
resolved is driven by your desire to evade the issue?

If not then are you willing to give it your best shot to figure this
out? I'm pretty sure I have researched this issue more than you have.
Why don't we talk about?






Robert Harris

bigdog

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:30:24 AM12/23/11
to
On Dec 22, 10:23 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> LHO acting alone is the thesis of the WCR.
>
Actually, the thesis of the WCR is that LHO was the assassin and that
there was no credible evidence he was part of a conspiracy. That is a
subtle but distinct difference. Chapter 6 is devoted to exploring the
possibility of a conspiracy. The following is their conclusion at the
end of that chapter:

[Quote on]

CONCLUSION

Based upon the investigation reviewed in this chapter, the Commission
concluded that there is no credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald
was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Examination
of the facts of the assassination itself revealed no indication that
Oswald was aided in the planning or execution of his scheme. Review of
Oswald's life and activities since 1959, although productive in
illuminating the character of Lee Harvey Oswald (which is discussed in
the next chapter), did not produce any meaningful evidence of a
conspiracy. The Commission discovered no evidence that the Soviet
Union or Cuba were involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Nor did the Commission's investigation of Jack Ruby produce any
grounds for believing that Ruby's killing of Oswald was part of a
conspiracy. The conclusion that there is no evidence of a conspiracy
was also reached independently by Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State;
Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense; C. Douglas Dillon, the
Secretary of the Treasury; Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General; J.
Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI; John A. McCone, the Director of
the CIA; and James J. Rowley, the Chief of the Secret Service, on the
basis of the information available to each of them.1296

[Quote off]

This conclusion does not completely rule out the possibility of a
conspiracy, only that the WC found no credible evidence of one. After
48 years, no one else has either.


Jason Burke

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 3:50:16 PM12/23/11
to
On 12/22/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<jcubc1$1hv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jason Burke<Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2011 7:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>>> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at frame
>>>> 285, you evaporate?"<<<
>>>>
>>>> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i-m
>>>> IRM
>>>> AAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+post
>>>> s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
>>>> is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade them."<<<
>>>>
>>>> Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
>>>> unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
>>>> for the LNers to handle.
>>>>
>>>> But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob.
>>>
>>> Then why do you and the other nutters have to evade the issue?
>>
>> Because, and let me type this REALLY slowly Harris, so you'll understand...
>>
>> There IS no issue of a shot at 285. It's not just LN's that ignore (not
>> evade,) your "issue". No one on the CT side is listening to you either.
>
> I'm afraid that's not true Jason. My video presentations have been seen
> almost 6 million times now, with nearly unanimous thumbs up ratings.

Oh, good. And how many of these six million people know ANYTHING about the
JFK assassination? Gee, if the number of thumbs up on youtube meant
anything (you know, like having to do with facts, science, and evidence -
that sort of nonsense - maybe SOMEONE might be impressed by that.)

And
> in A.C.J. even people like Ben Holmes, who absolutely despises me for my
> position that the Zapruder film is legit, has fully agreed with me on this
> issue.
>

Oh, Ben Holmes - is that the fellow with the burning knife, or the guy who
ends every post with LMAO? Don't recall him coming here and backing up
your postulation 100%. Can you point me to where he did? A timestamp will
be adequate - I can take it from there.

> At the other end of the intellectual spectrum, Dr. Michael Stroscio, who
> holds a Phd. in Physics and has chaired Presidential science commissions
> has fully endorsed my analysis.
>

Interesting. Just where can I read Stroscio's analysis of YOUR theory?
And why hasn't it received the laurels that it should?

>
>>
>> The "shot at 285" is a figment of your verdant imagination.
>
> I don't think so Jason. Even some of the most radical of the nutters have
> acknowledged the reactions, although they have tried to argue that the
> limo passengers were startled by a backfire, rather than a gunshot.
>

So you're saying that some people have acknowledged that 'yeah, maybe
they were reacting'. But why are you the *only* one arguing that they
were reacting to a shot (and not the backfiring / siren that EVERYONE
else claims)?

> They just run into a problem when they can't find an example of the limo
> passengers ever reacting like that to any other backfires prior to Dealey
> Plaza.
>

The problem is in your mind. You've made your theory. It has no basis in
reality. Maybe, just maybe, that means it's wrong. Though you sure did
impress those six million people on youtube!

> Trying to label this issue as "Harris's theory", as though it was on a par
> with badgeman or "the driver did it", is a very transparent evasion,
> Jason.

Well, since no one but Harris believes in it, I think "Harris's theory"
is as good a moniker as any, Bobbie Boy.

If I had never been born, you guys should be discussing the real
> reason why Greer was startled and slowed the limo, simultaneous with
> obvious startle reactions by the other passengers.

If you were never born, this whacky theory would never have come about, so
why should we be discussing it? And what would those six million people on
youtube be doing? Guess they'd have to give thumbs up to a cat playing
with string.

>
> And you should be discussing why there were no startle reactions prior to
> 285 that were even remotely similar to the ones following 285 and 312. We
> know for a fact, that had Oswald fired the early shots, the limo

You are getting, better with the overload of, commas. I'll give you that!

> passengers would have been exposed to sound levels 16 time greater than is
> required to provoke involuntary startle reactions. Anyone who doubts that,
> only needs to watch them following 285 and 313.
>
> Jason, "Robert Harris" is not your problem. This is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>

Hmm, do I want to waste more time looking at Harris nonsense. Let's see...
I'm going to have to go with a big 'No' today. But maybe tomorrow I'll be
unemployed and need to do something with myself. Tell you what! I'll
pencil you in just in case I have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do tomorrow. But
just to make you happy, I did click on that video. Let's see. 5,000 views.
Ten likes, five dislikes. And you seem to be getting rather blasted on the
comments. Yeah, you're impressing not only me, but darn near everyone.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:41:25 PM12/23/11
to
Ford made the distinction that they didn't FIND any conspiracy.
Maybe because they were forbidden from looking for any conspiracy.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:46:08 PM12/23/11
to
On 12/23/2011 9:29 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>

>>>> "Rankin admitted that the back wound was really lower than the throat
wound."<<<

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> If Rankin ever did say that (which I doubt he ever did), he's wrong.
> And even Dr. Humes testified that the trach wound (i.e., the bullet
> hole in JFK's throat) was located BELOW the wound in the upper back.
>

Are you really this clueless? Yes folks, he is.
This is OLD news. The executive session transcripts of January 27, 1964.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm

At a top secret executive session of the Warren Commission on January
27, 1964, J. Lee Rankin told the Commission that ?it seems quite
apparent now since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in
the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right
of the backbone which is below the place where the picture shows the
bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front.?


Why is it that the conspiracy believers know more about the WC than the
WC defenders?
You guys pretend to use Argument by Authority, but actually you are
using Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.



> Plus, the photo composite below is really all you need in order to
> determine the obvious fact that the throat wound was lower on the body
> than the back wound (unless Marsh wants to think that Kennedy really
> ISN'T positioned anywhere close to the "anatomical" position in the
> picture on the left, which would be a ridiculous thing to say,
> although Marsh HAS said it in the past):
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg
>
>
>
>>>> "But you say the HSCA [is] not allowed to have a margin of error."<<<
>
> The HSCA's absurdly-early Z190 SBT shot is dead wrong, and I think
> everybody knows that by now.
>

And yet you claim that you can fudge the angles all the way from Z-210
to Z-225 and always get the SBT to work.
You really don't care what frame is chosen.

> A shot entering Kennedy that early would have created a much steeper
> trajectory for the bullet (when compared to the WC's trajectory
> analysis and angles). And a shot at Z190, entering JFK's upper back,
> would have exited his body much too low for the SBT to work (and would
> not have hit Connally in the right place either).
>

Angles are no hinderance for you. You already admitted the CE903 is just
the AVERAGE between Z-210 and Z-225 so the specific angle does not
matter to you at all.
And now some of you guys are starting to allow for deflections.

> And why the HSCA didn't realize that fact (or just didn't give a damn)
> is a bit of a mystery, I'll admit.
>

Of course they realized. I was the first to inform them of their stupid
error.

>
>>>> "Your side says the chalk mark is NOT where the bullet hit Kennedy."<<<
>
> I do think that chalk mark is a bit too low, yes. It looks slightly
> low to me anyway, when compared with the autopsy photo of the back
> wound.
>

A little bit too low? But you can't just admit that what I said is true,
that the chalk mark only indicates where the hole was on the COAT, not
the BACK. You guys need a LOT of bunching to move the wound up to the neck.

> If the chalk mark were to be raised just the slightest little bit--
> plus reduce the angle of Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle
> picture to accommodate a Z224 SBT hit (vs. the WC's "average" angle
> between Z210 and Z225)--then the trajectory would fit perfectly for a
> Z224 SBT shot, IMO. And I think thaty such minor adjustments would
> also accommodate a bullet exiting at JFK's tie-knot location too.
>

Sure, and if Boswell simply lies and Myers simply lies and says the
wound is ABOVE the shoulders then your angle could work. I've always
said that the SBT can work if one is willing to lie about the location
of the wounds.

> Yes, I know that's quite a bit of speculation on my behalf. But after
> all, I'm merely a Langley underling. I can't be expected to cover-up
> the whole conspiracy all by myself. I need the help of the MSM and
> McAdams and Bugliosi too. Right, Tony? :)
>

You need to check your secret mailing list every day.

> Anyway, those are my sincere beliefs about CE903 and the opposite-
> angle photos. And I certainly do not believe the WC covered up
> anything regarding the SBT, the angles, or anything else connected to
> the assassination. The 17-43-30 angle, after all, WAS just an
> "average" angle between a RANGE of Z-Film frames that the Commission
> utilized for the SBT shot (Z210-225).
>

Ford was part of the WC and he lied about the back wound and changed the
report. So I think that technically qualifies as the WC covering up the
facts, of which Rankin informed them personally. The truth would have been
exposed immediately had they published the autopsy photos, which is why
they hid them for so many years.

> And, quite obviously, the President was not hit with a bullet during
> each and every one of those 16 frames that encompass that range of Z-
> frames. So, in effect, it was a BEST GUESS on the Warren Commission's
> behalf. And they came darn close to getting it exactly right too, IMO.

It was a logical conclusion based on the evidence they were ALLOWED to
see. Z-210 is the first frame for a clear shot after the oak tree. Kennedy
has clearly been hit before Z-225. They could not get away with pretending
that they had never seen the Zapruder film. They COULD get away with
pretending that they never saw the autopsy photos.

> They were off by only a few frames--6.5 frames to be precise, which is
> the difference between Z217.5 (which is the exact half-frame that the
> angle of "17-43-30" equates to when you average it out) and Z224,
> which is when I think the SBT occurred.
>
> And when speaking of the "opposite angle" pictures of CE903---
>
> The one I linked to earlier is actually only one of at least three
> such pictures that exist. I guess the evil, rotten Warren boys just
> couldn't bring themselves to destroy these photos, huh Tony? They

Maybe they destroyed the other 4 you don't know about.
But as usual you miss the point. The FBI had a lot of stuff that the WC
never used. The other two came from Shaneyfelt's files.
Remember when the National Archives released the unsorted and unindexed
FBI Bulkies? No? I didn't think I saw you there that day.

But you finally did find out that they destroyed the transcript of the
January 22, 1964 executive session.

> would falsify and misrepresent evidence till the cows come a-knockin',
> but they wouldn't dare tear up a few pictures (which are photos that
> prove a WC cover-up, per people like Tony Marsh). Correct, Anthony?
>

Maybe they did and we found them.

> Just like the FBI, I guess. They decided to leave a few bread crumbs
> of conspiracy in their own files and in the National Archives for
> future CTers to find, versus just simply getting rid of all the
> evidence of the cover-up. Right, Tony?
>

The evidence of the cover-up is glaring.
Read the description for each photo:

Note the chalk marks on their backs showing the bullet entrance locations
on both men.

Now that you know that is not true, do you have to say that Gary Mack is a
liar?

Also, how good is your eyesight? Can you use the Macrovision Zoom in
function to look carefully at the JFK stand-in behind the Connally
stand-in? Can you see that the top of the JFK stand-in's head is SEVERAL
inches higher than the Connally stand-in's? And yet you still say this is
a realistic replication? Do you even know that the SS told the WC that
Connally's head was only about and inch and a half lower than JFK's head
because Connally was an inch and a half taller than JFK? Of course not,
because that's in the Hearings which you never bothered to read.



pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:47:18 PM12/23/11
to
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5J...

For that rod to be aligned with the back entrance, it would have to be
dropped well below the throat exit, onto Kennedy's chest.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 4:51:33 PM12/23/11
to
On 12/23/2011 9:24 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<4ef3a97f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
But you don't have a scanner so you can't just scan it in and upload it
here?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 6:19:46 PM12/23/11
to
On 12/22/2011 11:10 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
> On Dec 22, 9:17 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> RE your:
>
> Quote On
>
> because your beloved, honest WC destroyed the transcript of
> that meeting
>
> Quote Off
>
> You still on that transcript destruction kick?
>
> No transcripts were ever destroyed.
>
> I'd really like to see you post support for this outlandish claim of
> yours.
>

Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents many
times.

> You keep posting this claim but have never posted anything to support
> it.
>

22 Jan 1964 - This session was called specifically to address the
allegation that Oswald was a paid "FBI Undercover Agent," number 179, paid
$200 per month from September 1962 until the assassination. Waggoner Carr,
the Texas Attorney General, had called Rankin that morning with
allegations which had come from a member of the press (Lonnie Hudkins,
though not named in the transcript). Rankin noted that "I am confident
that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records will never
show it...," and noted that Oswald's use of postal boxes "would be an
ideal way to get money to anyone that you wanted as an undercover agent."
Rankin also noted that if the allegation were true "then you would have
people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination
that nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate." Rankin
expressed puzzlement that the normally conservative FBI was so insistent
the Oswald was the sole assassin, saying "They would like to have us fold
up and quit." After more such discussion, Dulles said the transcript of
the meeting itself "ought to be destroyed." This was indeed done, but an
original court reporter's tape was later recovered and the transcript
re-made from it after a long legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.

Talk to Jim Lesar.

You are not very much of a Historian and certainly not a detective.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 6:21:51 PM12/23/11
to
But you just admitted that is not where the bullet hit his back.



Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 6:22:05 PM12/23/11
to
That distinction was already made quite clearly in the WCR Conclusion.

Pamela Brown

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 7:10:15 PM12/23/11
to
On Dec 23, 8:24 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <4ef3a97...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>  Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/22/2011 1:37 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > > In article<jcubc1$1h...@dont-email.me>,
> > >   Jason Burke<Burke_Ja...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> > >> On 12/21/2011 7:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c-9bc3-3ab79e67b...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>    David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>   wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at
> > >>>>>>> frame
> > >>>> 285, you evaporate?"<<<
>
> > >>>> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
>
> > >>>>http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_autho...
Good for you. You even managed to pass scrutiny by Barb it seems.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:39:14 PM12/23/11
to

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "I'm pretty sure I have researched this issue more than you have. Why
don't we talk about [it]?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We have talked about it. Numerous examples are provided below. I doubt
that I can add much more than what I have said in these posts reprinted
below (and please check out my post following this post in this thread,
which contains the verbatim text of a nice, long discussion I had with Bob
Harris on December 1, 2009; after re-reading that particular post, I don't
think Bob can complain that I have totally ignored or "run away from" his
theory every single time it has been raised):


"For one (very big!) thing, the limo occupants' "reactions" that you
attribute to a gunshot are not SHARP or SUDDEN or JERKY in any way
whatsoever. The "reactions" (i.e., movements) are perfectly SMOOTH and
NON-JERKY (unlike John Connally's head snap to his right after he heard
the first shot at circa Z160). When watching Nellie and Jackie "leaning
in" toward their husbands, they are SMOOTHLY leaning in toward each man.
There's nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about Nellie's and Jackie's
movements at all. In short -- There's nothing at all on the Z-Film that
could possibly prove that a shot was fired at circa Z285. But that won't
stop Robert Harris from imagining that he has discovered proof-positive of
just such a gunshot." -- DVP; February 6, 2009

------------

"The reactions you (Robert) equate to a gunshot are MUCH more in
line with the two women tending to their shot-up husbands and leaning in
toward them out of concern. Surely you must realize this too. Don't you
think that is even REMOTELY more probable, Bob? Or do you think there was
no "concern" for JFK & JBC being displayed at all by Jackie and Nellie
during the Z-frames you equate to "ducking" from a Z285 gunshot? Are you
really saying the ONLY thing making the ladies "lean in" is hearing a 285
shot? They might not have been leaning in ANYWAY while in the process of
trying to help their husbands? That's not even possible in your "Z285"
mind?" -- DVP; June 29, 2006

------------

"Oh, sure.....that massive and violent "slow down" from 11.2 MPH
(approx.) to 8 MPH (approx.) was enough to practically throw every limo
occupant through the windshield, I'm sure! It's a wonder everybody in the
car wasn't killed as a result of Bill Greer's sudden 11 MPH to 8 MPH
braking action! I ask -- Can CTers GET much sillier than this with respect
to their incredibly-inane attempts to avoid the obvious?" -- DVP; April 3,
2009

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:40:22 PM12/23/11
to

>>> "But you just admitted that is not where the bullet hit his back." <<<

It's really really close. And I'll also reiterate the fact that the
"17-43-30" angle used by the WC was just the AVERAGE angle between a total
of SIXTEEN different Z-Film frames (Z210-Z225).

So, unless JFK had, in fact, been struck at exactly Z217.5 (which I don't
think he was), then the WC trajectory isn't going to be exactly correct.
And I've always maintained that some things associated with the SBT can
NEVER be determined with the exactitude that many CTers seem to require.

And one of the things that I don't think can ever be determined perfectly
(and to-the-inch) is the exact positions of the victims (in relation to
EACH OTHER) in the limo at the exact moment the SBT bullet struck them.
That's a BEST GUESS on the part of anyone attempting to re-create the SBT.
And the WC says that very thing in the WCR. They admit that they could not
re-create the exact positions of the two men. They merely used a BEST
GUESSTIMATE.

Here's the exact quote that appears on Page 107 of the WCR:

"The exact positions of the men could not be re-created; thus, the
angle could only be approximated."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm

I've also wondered if it's possible that the reason for the chalk mark on
the back of the JFK stand-in being (IMO) just slightly too low is because
that mark was put there to correspond to the hole in Kennedy's JACKET,
instead of the actual bullet hole in Kennedy's SKIN.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt's testimony, however, does indicate that the chalk mark
is supposed to represent the actual hole in the body of the President
(although I do not believe he ever used those precise words). So I'm a
little bit unsure on that point regarding the chalk mark.

In any event, I still stand by my earlier posts on this matter -- and when
allowing for a little bit of "margin of error" in the WC's 5/24/64 SBT
trajectory tests, the Single-Bullet Theory works just fine. And CE903 is a
very good visual representation of the feasibility and workability and
plausibility of the single-bullet hypothesis.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:47:28 PM12/23/11
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

[QUOTING FROM A 2009 DISCUSSION:]

[GRAMMAR NOTE -- All of Robert Harris' needless commas have been
removed by DVP in the post below.]


ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

>>> "David, why is it that in the Altgens photo, taken at the equivalent
of [Zapruder frame] 255, after at least two shots have been fired, we see
so many smiling faces, with no-one screaming or diving to the ground?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would there necessarily have to be mass hysteria in Dealey Plaza at
that time (circa Z255)?

At that point in the James Altgens picture, it's only been 5.2 seconds
since Lee Harvey Oswald fired his first shot. Not exactly a long time,
right Robert? And two Secret Service agents are, indeed, reacting to the
sound of the gunfire by looking over their right shoulders.

But it's only been 1.7 seconds since anyone in the limousine was HIT by a
bullet, which is hardly enough time for people to start reacting to the
EFFECTS of the shots being fired (i.e., the wounding of people in Dealey
Plaza).

BTW, Bob, how can you determine if anyone is "screaming" or not via the
silent Altgens photograph? (Just curious.)

>>> "Why do we ONLY see such things after frame 285?" <<<

Because it was only after Z285 (and after Z313 actually) that the
spectators realized what was truly happening in the Plaza -- i.e., that
the President was being shot at.

Duh!

>>> "Why did none of the Secret Service agents pull out a gun until after
frame 285?" <<<

The Secret Service men reacted somewhat slowly, yes. No denying that
fact. But I don't really see how this inquiry bolsters your pet "Z285"
theory though.

>>> "Why did Clint Hill wait until after frame 285 to leap from the limo
and state that he did so in direct reaction to a gunshot?" <<<

I'm sure his leaping from the running board of the SS car was, indeed, "in
direct reaction to a gunshot". Obviously Hill's running toward the
President's car was "in direct reaction to a gunshot", for Pete sake. What
ELSE would have been the reason for his dramatic action that day?

But to state categorically that Clint Hill was "reacting" to a specific
gunshot fired at precisely Z285 (as you theorize) is just plain silly and
impossible to pin down with spot-on accuracy (as is the case with pretty
much everything you purport with regard to your totally-subjective
analysis of the Zapruder Film and the witness statements in relation to
your pet Z285 theory).

Time for another one of these -- Duh!

>>> "Why did Bill Greer wait until just after 285 to slow the limo and
spin around so fast that some critics thought his turns were humanly
impossible?" <<<

Once more we're treated to Bob Harris' unique subjective look at things.
In Harris' world, everything seems to revolve around his fictitious missed
shot at exactly Z285 of the Zapruder Film.

In Bob's one-sided "Z285 world", there isn't even the slightest
possibility that what we're seeing in the Z-Film just after frame #285
could be the limousine's occupants behaving in ways that might NOT
indicate that they were each hearing a gunshot at precisely Z285.

In Bob's "Z285" world, the movements of Nellie Connally and Jacqueline
Kennedy couldn't POSSIBLY be the movements and actions of two women who,
just 3.33 seconds prior to Z285, heard a gunshot being fired from Lee
Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository....with that single
gunshot resulting in the husbands of both of those women being wounded by
the same bullet....with the two women then reacting in a perfectly normal
fashion by LEANING IN toward their respective wounded spouses.

The above scenario is simply IMPOSSIBLE in the Z285 world of Robert
Harris.

Go figure.

>>> "Why did Greer say he felt the "concussion" of the second shot as he
was turned to the rear? And how do you explain why he didn't turn to the
rear until well after 223??" <<<

Once again, Mr. Harris is assigning ludicrous levels of ASSUMED AND
PRESUMED SPOT-ON ACCURACY to the statements of certain Dealey Plaza
witnesses.

We're only talking about a fraction more than THREE SECONDS IN REAL TIME
between the time of the actual second shot fired (by Oswald at Z224) and
Bob Harris' make-believe missed shot at Z285.

3.3 seconds, Bob!! That's all.

Anything you attribute to a missed shot at precisely Z285 can just as
easily be attributed to Oswald's real second shot at Z224. The difference
in real time is negligible.

But to Bob "Z285" Harris, 3.3 seconds is an amount of time that can be
dissected and sliced to absolute perfection in the minds and testimony of
EVERY SINGLE LIMO OCCUPANT.

Can you say "That's ridiculous"? I sure can when talking about this
silly "Z285" subject that Bob Harris loves so much.

>>> "Why did both Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally believe that their
husbands were hit by a shot that came after Gov Connally began to shout,
but before the explosive headwound?" <<<

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9871273b0f35f000

>>> "And why did they both visibly react to that shot in perfect unison
with Zapruder's, Greer's and Kellerman's reactions?" <<<

Coincidence. And as I mentioned above, the coincidence is fully
explainable and understandable and reasonable in the case of Nellie's and
Jackie's in-unison head movements (which Harris thinks is "ducking" from
the sound of a gunshot, but it isn't).

>>> "Why did Kellerman duck and simultaneously shield his ear at exactly
the same instant that the others reacted?" <<<

Your "shield his ear" comment is pure speculation. And Kellerman's
movements can easily be explained this way:

He was reaching for the radio microphone in front of him.

>>> "Why did Brehm, J. Hill and Mary Moorman all remember multiple shots, beginning just as the limo passed in front of them?" <<<

Maybe because there WERE multiple shots being fired at just about that
time. Oswald fired two shots after Z160 (at Z224 and Z313), and all three
of those witnesses were pretty close to the limo during that Z224-Z313
timespan.

>>> "Why did Greer say that the last shots were nearly simultaneous and
Kellerman say they were like a "flurry"?" <<<

Kellerman's "flurry of shells/shots coming into the car" testimony is
very easily explained:

He heard the effects of the head-shot bullet fragments striking the
windshield and the chrome molding very near his seated position in the
limousine. That is almost certainly the best explanation for Roy
Kellerman's "flurry" testimony.

BTW, how did bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's gun (CE567 and CE569) get
into the front seat area of the limo if, as you suggest, Lee Oswald didn't
actually HIT any victims (or the car's interior) with any of his
Mannlicher-Carcano bullets on November 22nd?

Were CE567/569 planted in the limo by evil cover-up agents after the
assassination, Bob?

>>> "Why did most witnesses recall that the final shots were closely
bunched?" <<<

And there were several who didn't recall such a thing, as I discuss
here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a77dff325e995531

>>> "Why is it that not even one law enforcement professional recalled the
early shots being closer together than the final shots??" <<<

What difference does it really make?

Oh, I know to a person who loves the idea of a JFK conspiracy (like Robert
Harris, for example) something like this makes a world of difference.

But the answers to the important questions "HOW MANY SHOTS WERE FIRED?"
and "WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM?" can be found by looking at the BEST
EVIDENCE in the case when it comes to trying to answer those two
inquiries.

And the following links (in tandem) contain that "Best Evidence", IMO:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHE...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg

>>> "Why did Gov Connally not hear the shot that hit him?" <<<

Simple: Because that shot ACTUALLY HIT HIM. And he was no doubt physically
struck by that bullet (CE399, of course) before the sound of that shot
reached his ears. I think you'll find that it is not uncommon for a victim
of a gunshot wound to not physically hear the shot that wounded him.

Connally Addendum --

Keep in mind that the totality of John Connally's testimony perfectly
buttresses the single-assassin scenario and the Single-Bullet Theory
particularly (whether JBC himself believed in the SBT or not).

John Connally, in 1967, even went so far as to admit that the SBT was
certainly "possible" in his mind:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe

>>> "Why did no-one else in the limo hear that shot either?" <<<

You're so entrenched in your belief of your made-up "Z285" missed shot
that you will never ever be able to see that your theory rests solely on
subjective and unprovable analysis of the Zapruder Film.

Of course people in the limo heard the shot that hit Governor
Connally....that was Shot #2 from Lee Oswald's gun at Z224. But you, Bob
Harris, have convinced yourself that those limo occupants were talking
about some OTHER shot (your make-believe Z285 shot, I guess).

But, yes, of course the limo witnesses heard the shot that hit John
Connally (except Mr. Connally himself, of course, as mentioned earlier).

>>> "Why did his [John Connally's] wife only recall hearing ONE noise
prior to him beginning to shout?" <<<

If you fine-tune your analysis any further, you'll probably be able to
convince yourself that Nellie Connally blinked her eyes exactly 17 times
after hearing the first shot but before she heard her husband shout "No,
no, no".

>>> "Why did no-one in the limo recall more than one early shot and why
did they exhibit no startle reactions prior to frame 285?" <<<

If they had been standing right next to Oswald in the Sniper's Nest,
perhaps they would have exhibited some "startle" reactions.

As a comparison here, do you think that every limo occupant should be
exhibiting "startle" reactions whenever one of the nearby motorcycles
backfired (which, by all accounts, is something that happened
frequently during Presidential motorcades)?

Food for thought.

>>> "And why DID they exhibit simultaneous startle reacts beginning a
third of a second AFTER 285?" <<<

They didn't. That's only your singularly subjective look at things. I
doubt that one other person on the planet would evaluate the movements
of the limo occupants the exact same way that Robert "Z285" Harris has
done.

>>> "Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez conclude that Zapruder and Greer were
startled by a loud noise at precisely frame 285?" <<<

I'll take this opportunity to quote the author of the JFK Bible:

"The CBS experiment [in 1967] proves that a gunshot will
normally cause a cameraman’s neuromuscular system to go into, as Dr.
[Luis] Alvarez put it, “a temporary spasm.”

"So the three gunshots that day [November 22, 1963] would have
almost assuredly caused a startled reaction in Zapruder and, hence, a blur
on his film. And we find blurs around Z160 (the first shot), around
Z220–228 (which clearly coincides with Kennedy’s and Connally’s
reactions to the second shot), and Z313 (the third shot).

"The demonstrable defect in blur or jiggle analysis is that
although a gunshot will produce a blur (and hence, the absence of a
blur is very strong circumstantial evidence of the absence of a
gunshot), a blur obviously does not necessarily have to be caused by a
gunshot.

"Any number of other things--a cough, an unintentional nudge
(Zapruder’s secretary was right next to him), a gust of wind, movement
of Zapruder’s feet, even his efforts to keep an object in frame--could
also cause a blur.

"Zapruder himself testified before the Warren Commission that
his images weren’t very clear for the simple reason that his camera
movements were magnified by the telephoto lens setting he was using.
“Did you ever have binoculars,” he asked, “and every time you move,
everything is exaggerated in the move? That’s one reason why they’re
kind of blurred, the movement” (7 H 572).

"Further, the emotional reaction of what one sees through the
viewfinder could also easily cause a startled reaction. Indeed,
Zapruder testified how he reacted to the sight of the impact of the
bullet on Kennedy’s head (“I started...yelling, ‘They’ve killed
him.’”) (7 H 571–572).

"This would explain the fact that Alvarez, Hartmann, and Scott
all detected blurs in the Zapruder film not only around the time of
the head shot at Z313, but also around Z330–334, a second later, when
he was fully absorbing the horrific sight of the president’s head
having exploded in front of him.

"In fact, though the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows
that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, the two experts from
the HSCA photographic panel saw six blurs on the Zapruder film, the
weakest of which was around Z290–292, a time when there is no evidence
at all that a shot was fired (6 HSCA 30).

"Because of all of the above variables and imponderables, and
because there is no known way to distinguish a blur or jiggle caused
by an involuntary reaction from one caused by, for instance, a
voluntary pan/search movement, blur or jiggle analysis can never be
conclusive on the number or timing of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza
and should not be given great weight." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
335-336 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

>>> "Why did DMN reporter Mary Woodward recall two closely bunched shots
as the limo approached her, that she described as "ear shattering", David?
How could some shots be ear shattering while others were not heard at
all??" <<<

Possibly due to Oswald's first (missed) shot at Z160 being something
akin to a misfire (but not a complete misfire, since the bullet
certainly was fired from the gun, as indicated by the number of shells
[3] found on the floor in the Sniper's Nest).

That first shot could have had a different (and quieter) sound to it.
In fact, many/most witnesses reported that the first sound they heard
sounded more like a firecracker than it did a rifle shot.

>>> "And why did so many other witnesses state that the first noise they
heard sounded much different than the ones at the end?" <<<

See my last comment.

In the final analysis, we're left with these things:

1.) THREE shells being found in the TSBD Sniper's Nest.

2.) Lee Oswald's rifle (with his prints on it) being found on the same
floor as the shells.

3.) Bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 (fired conclusively from Oswald's
rifle) being found in the limousine.

4.) Bullet CE399 being determined by both the Warren Commission and
the HSCA to be the bullet that injured both Kennedy and Connally in
Dealey Plaza (like it or not).

5.) And this previously-linked witness statistic:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg

When looking at the above list (plus many other items of physical and
circumstantial evidence that I didn't mention), you don't have to be
an A+ student in mathematics to figure out the most-reasonable and
most-likely answer to the basic questions concerning the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.

But, for some odd reason, the obvious answers to those questions keep
eluding conspiracy theorists the world over.

~shrug~

David Von Pein
December 1, 2009

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a581746c27b7a2f

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 9:47:48 PM12/23/11
to

Thanks for the 1/27/64 transcript, Tony.

Yes, Rankin is saying that the back wound was lower than the throat
wound. I was wrong. Rankin is ON RECORD giving that opinion. (And I
apologize to Marsh for the sin I committed of not having the entire
1/27/64 Executive Session memorized and on the tip of my tongue,
24/7.)

But that was a very early WC session....before they talked to Humes
(who told them the back wound was anatomically HIGHER than the throat
wound).

But, as I said before, anyone (Rankin included) who says the back
wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound is just flat-out
wrong, and the autopsy photos prove it.

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 1:27:50 AM12/24/11
to
In article <jd1dqb$dae$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/22/2011 10:37 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article<jcubc1$1hv$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Jason Burke<Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/21/2011 7:00 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <82fc54e6-44ef-4d7c...@x19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> "David, why is it that every time we discuss the alleged shot at
> >>>>>>> frame
> >>>> 285, you evaporate?"<<<
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, not every time, Bob. ....
> >>>>
> >>>> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Robert+Harris+Z285&enc_author=9i
> >>>> -m
> >>>> IRM
> >>>> AAAA3yFoBhfZ_9_Ufq56fl6exWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww&qt_p=Search+author%27s+po
> >>>> st
> >>>> s
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> "The way to convince intelligent, objective people that you are right
> >>>> is to tackle the most difficult theories, and never, ever evade
> >>>> them."<<<
> >>>>
> >>>> Please note how Bob Harris has decided (on his own) to label his own
> >>>> unique and purely-subjective "Z285" theory as being a "difficult" theory
> >>>> for the LNers to handle.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's really not "difficult" at all, Bob.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do you and the other nutters have to evade the issue?
> >>
> >> Because, and let me type this REALLY slowly Harris, so you'll
> >> understand...
> >>
> >> There IS no issue of a shot at 285. It's not just LN's that ignore (not
> >> evade,) your "issue". No one on the CT side is listening to you either.
> >
> > I'm afraid that's not true Jason. My video presentations have been seen
> > almost 6 million times now, with nearly unanimous thumbs up ratings.
>
> Oh, good. And how many of these six million people know ANYTHING about the
> JFK assassination?


Jason, how many JFK books must one read to be able to recognize that
someone was startled:-)

And I'm pretty sure that most of those people are a lot smarter than folks
who follow an adversary around from thread to thread, blurting out
repetitive, phony insults and never once offering a shred of evidence or
analysis:-)

What is sad about these pathetic characters is, that they don't even
realize that their obvious inability to refute their victims, only
corroborates his arguments.

(As I'm sure the moderators will agree, there is no one in this forum like
that:-)


Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 1:29:28 AM12/24/11
to
On 12/23/2011 9:47 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Thanks for the 1/27/64 transcript, Tony.
>
> Yes, Rankin is saying that the back wound was lower than the throat
> wound. I was wrong. Rankin is ON RECORD giving that opinion. (And I
> apologize to Marsh for the sin I committed of not having the entire
> 1/27/64 Executive Session memorized and on the tip of my tongue,
> 24/7.)
>
> But that was a very early WC session....before they talked to Humes
> (who told them the back wound was anatomically HIGHER than the throat
> wound).
>

Yeah, very, very early. January 27, 1964 and you pretend that the WC did
not know ANYTHING about the autopsy. Nice try. Got any other excuses?

> But, as I said before, anyone (Rankin included) who says the back
> wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound is just flat-out
> wrong, and the autopsy photos prove it.
>


Yeah, but the fact that Rankin was a moron was not the issue. The point is
that Rankin looked at the photos and figured out for himself that the back
wound was lower than the throat wound. So that is what the WC knew at that
moment and why they had LATER lie in the report and move the wound up from
the UPPER BACK to the base of the neck.


John McAdams

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 1:31:45 AM12/24/11
to
On 24 Dec 2011 01:29:28 -0500, Anthony Marsh
You have no evidence at all that he looked at the photos.

He was almost certainly looking at the autopsy face sheet, which was
not drawn to scale.

Do you think the photos and x-rays we now have are forged?

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

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 2:37:59 PM12/24/11
to
Yeah, right David. I love how you common sense deniers insist the back
wound was significantly higher than the throat wound, even though a NINE
member panel of forensic pathologists sympathetic to the single- assassin
conclusion said you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. You stomp your feet all day
long insisting that CTs are at odds with the experts, when you thoroughly
reject, without any real foundation beyond what feels right to you, a
conclusion by the "experts" at the center of the evidence.

I think I've asked you this before, but here it goes again. Grab a CD
case, roughly 14 cm wide. Place one of the short sides against the BOTTOM
tip of the skull of a volunteer, with the rest of the case stretching down
onto his back. Then note the location of the bottom of the case in
comparison to his Adam's Apple, and the presumed location of the exit on
Kennedy.

When you do this, if you do it accurately and honestly, you'll find that
the wound location as measured at autopsy was at the same level or below
the throat wound. It's that simple. The measurements supposedly supporting
the SBT do the exact opposite.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 6:31:18 PM12/24/11
to
FYI the 14 cm measurement is inaccurate and sloppy. Never rely on
ANYTHING from the autopsy. In this case the experts specifically
criticized that measurement as being incompetent.

PART III. CONCLUSIONS
(95) The two major issues connected with the autopsy are its
scope--full versus partial--and the competency with which the prosectors

17

performed it. Despite allegations that the Kennedy family or other
authorities ordered a partial or limited autopsy, evidence shows that
the pathologists were given authority to perform a complete autopsy. The
autopsy was not complete, however, according to established medicolegal
standards. A combination of strong Kennedy family desires to finish the
autopsy quickly, a military environment that hindered independent
action, a lack of experience in forensic pathology among the prosectors,
and a lack of established jurisdictional and procedural guidelines all
contributed to the pathologists' failure to take certain measures
essential to the completion of a thorough medicolegal autopsy and to
competently perform the autopsy.
(96) The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the
pathologists failed to take are the autopsy in an atmosphere free from
the presence of individuals not necessary to any medical or
investigative aspects of the autopsy. Aside from the Secret Service and
FBI agents, it was not necessary for other military personnel to be in
the autopsy room who were not performing a medical function. Consulting
the Parkland Hospital doctors who administered emergency treatment to
the President before initiating the autopsy. According to the medical
panel of the committee, such consultation is normal procedure.
3. Acquiring the assistance of an experienced pathologist engaged in
the full-time practice of forensic pathology, as opposed to the
consulting capacity Dr. Finck possessed. Such experienced assist-
ance might have prevented several errors.
4. Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to
anatomicil landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical
panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document
the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the
acromion--are movable points and should not have been used.
________________

5. Dissecting the wound that traversed the upper back of the
President. The medical panel stated that probing a wound with a finger
is hardly sufficient; to ascertain the actual track, the wound must be
dissected.
6. Examining all organs and documenting the results of such
examinations. Although the pathologists did examine most organs, they
made no reference to the adrenal glands, part of the anatomy routinely
examined during the autopsy.
7. Sectioning the brain coronally. Such documentation could have
provided additional insight into the destructive impact of the missile
in the brain.

(97) The committee recognizes that the inadequacies of the autopsy
originated in part from the unique and hectic circumstances surrounding
the death of the President, and not with any one source. Whatever the
cause, however, these inadequacies have continued to feed the confusion
and mistrust so long associated with the autopsy of President Kennedy
and have reduced the effectiveness of the committee's review of the
medical evidence. These problems reinforce the necessity for
establishing substantive and procedural guidelines to be followed in the
performance of any autopsy stemming from the assassination of a national
political official.


> When you do this, if you do it accurately and honestly, you'll find that
> the wound location as measured at autopsy was at the same level or below
> the throat wound. It's that simple. The measurements supposedly supporting
> the SBT do the exact opposite.
>
>

Why do you claim that we should rely on the HSCA forensic pathologists
and then ignore what they said?

the mastoid process and the acromion--are movable points and should not
have been used.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 6:33:53 PM12/24/11
to
I'm sure you've seen the photo of the back wound. I'm sure you've seen
the side view of JFK lying on the autopsy table. The creases at the
base of his neck are visible in both photos and it is glaringly
obvious that the level of the back wound is closer (as in higher) to
those creases than the tracheotomy incision is. The FPP was unanimous
in their verdict that a bullet entered JFK's back and exited from his
throat. If that is correct and the back wound was lower than the exit
wound, it would mean the shot was fired from below and behind JFK. The
shooter would have to have been firing from street level. Do you want
to argue for that position? If not, where do you want to place the
shooter? Front or back, I'd like to see you place that shooter in a
position that is even remotely feasible.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 11:44:10 PM12/24/11
to
Ok, how many years do you think you can get away with this fiction?
Then after you are proved wrong you'll claim that you never said it.

> Do you think the photos and x-rays we now have are forged?
>

No, of course not.
Why do you keep asking silly an insulting questions when you know that I
have never said anything like that?

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


David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 11:46:32 PM12/24/11
to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Yeah, very, very early. January 27, 1964 and you pretend that the WC
did not know ANYTHING about the autopsy. Nice try. Got any other excuses?"
<<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Tony, the FBI was seemingly still totally clueless about a lot of
the details of the autopsy even as late as Jan. 13th, 1964 (in the FBI
Supplemental Report; CD107).

Just look at the ridiculous (and clueless) statement made by Hoover's FBI
as late as January 13, 1964:

"Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the
bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a
finger length." -- CD107; p.2

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10507&relPageId=8

So it's not surprising that the Warren Commission and its staff members
might have still been just as clueless about the facts of the autopsy as
late as January 27, 1964, since most of the early information the WC was
getting was coming from the FBI and Hoover's 12/9/63 and 1/13/64 initial
reports.

Try again, Tony.


>>> "The WC...had [to] LATER lie in the report and move the wound up from
the UPPER BACK to the base of the neck." <<<

Total bullshit.

Why are you continuing to tell this outrageous falsehood about the WC? The
Commission did no such thing. They did not at any time "move" the back
wound of President Kennedy up into his "neck".

And we KNOW they never "moved" that wound up into the neck.

How can we know?

Because there's photographic PROOF that they never "moved" the wound. Just
take one good look at CE903....or the "opposite angle" picture similar to
CE903. When looking at those pictures, it's obvious that the WC's SBT
trajectory does NOT require a wound to be placed up into the "neck" of
JFK.

In fact, if the wound were to be placed that high (in the "neck"), it
would have ruined the SBT trajectory entirely, because it would have meant
the bullet would have exited JFK's chin instead of his throat (as the
additional "opposite angle" photo shown below [the bottom link]
demonstrates):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0055b.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s1600/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RoucRB2pM-c/TvWYueE8I2I/AAAAAAAABUg/s1jtdpPrX-E/s1600/Specter-02.png

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 24, 2011, 11:55:30 PM12/24/11
to

>>> "Yeah, right David. I love how you common sense deniers insist the
back wound was significantly higher than the throat wound, even though a
NINE member panel of forensic pathologists sympathetic to the
single-assassin conclusion said you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. You stomp your
feet all day long insisting that CTs are at odds with the experts, when
you thoroughly reject, without any real foundation beyond what feels right
to you, a conclusion by the "experts" at the center of the evidence." <<<

You are exactly right, Pat. I plead guilty. And I'll admit that I am
doing something that I often scold CTers for doing -- throwing out
EXPERT testimony and clinging to my own personal beliefs.

So, if you want to, you can shoot me down with Oswald's remaining
unfired C2766 bullet. Yes, I'm asking for it, because I did something
that I ridicule the conspiracy theorists for constantly doing. In this
instance, I'm nothing but a hypocrite.

However, I sincerely believe that the HSCA/FPP was wrong about the
throat wound being higher than the back wound. And I think I've
provided a very good reason for WHY I think they were wrong. Mainly--
this composite picture below, which plainly shows the throat wound to
be LOWER than the bullet hole in JFK's upper back. And I don't see how
anyone can argue with this plain-as-day observation:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s400/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

But, just in case you want to -- I'm ready to be strung up by the oak
tree in front of the TSBD for my sin of disagreeing with the HSCA. I'm
guilty. And I know it.

Of course, I also disagree with the HSCA regarding their conclusion
that a conspiracy existed in the JFK case. So, I guess that means I'll
have to suffer two separate deaths on the gallows (or in front of the
Book Depository Building). Your choice.

Merry Xmas. :-)

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 2:01:43 PM12/25/11
to
On Dec 24, 3:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
The members of the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP criticized the use of the
mastoid, and then turned around and used it themselves, even verifying
within a half cm the measurements determined at autopsy. The measurements
align perfectly with the wound in the photos, and are proof positive that
DVP and others positing that the back wound was well above the throat
wound are full of smoke.

Lattimer, for example, said the 14 cm measurement was accurate, AND that
the back wound was at the level of Kennedy's chin. This proves he was
either insane, or something simulating insanity, IMO. I mean, how does one
measure down 14cm from the base of the skull and only reach the level of
the chin?

pjsp...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 2:15:02 PM12/25/11
to
The HSCA FPP carefully studied the photos and concluded the backwound
was below the throat wound, and that the "crease" theory is nonsense.
They ONLY signed off on the single-bullet theory, furthermore, under
the belief it happened while Kennedy was leaning sharply forward while
behind the sign. You can think what you want, but you shouldn't
pretend the "experts" are on your side.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 4:56:00 PM12/25/11
to
On 12/24/2011 11:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Yeah, right David. I love how you common sense deniers insist the
> back wound was significantly higher than the throat wound, even though a
> NINE member panel of forensic pathologists sympathetic to the
> single-assassin conclusion said you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. You stomp your
> feet all day long insisting that CTs are at odds with the experts, when
> you thoroughly reject, without any real foundation beyond what feels right
> to you, a conclusion by the "experts" at the center of the evidence."<<<
>
> You are exactly right, Pat. I plead guilty. And I'll admit that I am
> doing something that I often scold CTers for doing -- throwing out
> EXPERT testimony and clinging to my own personal beliefs.
>
> So, if you want to, you can shoot me down with Oswald's remaining
> unfired C2766 bullet. Yes, I'm asking for it, because I did something
> that I ridicule the conspiracy theorists for constantly doing. In this
> instance, I'm nothing but a hypocrite.
>
> However, I sincerely believe that the HSCA/FPP was wrong about the
> throat wound being higher than the back wound. And I think I've
> provided a very good reason for WHY I think they were wrong. Mainly--
> this composite picture below, which plainly shows the throat wound to
> be LOWER than the bullet hole in JFK's upper back. And I don't see how
> anyone can argue with this plain-as-day observation:
>

Actually I'll only use half the bullet because you are only half wrong.
Pat only told you half the story. If you look very carefully at the HSCA
diagram it shows the back wound is at exactly the same height as the
throat wound, not below it. But that drawing represents a hypothetical
body position called the anatomically neutral position. When they adjusted
for the fact that JFK's right shoulder was elevated because his arm was
over the side of the car, they found that the back wound was slightly
higher than the throat wound AT THE MOMENT he was shot.


> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s400/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg
>

Garbage. That photo does not represent his position at the moment he was
shot or the anatomically neutral position. Apples and oranges.


> But, just in case you want to -- I'm ready to be strung up by the oak
> tree in front of the TSBD for my sin of disagreeing with the HSCA. I'm
> guilty. And I know it.
>

Yet when I point out where I disagreed with the HSCA forensic pathology
panel you called me a kook, Mr. Hypocrite. Then when I uploaded the
articles which prove that a couple of those forensic pathologists on the
HSCA panel are the ones whose work several years after the HSCA confirmed
my point, you ignored the later work and continued to cite the false claim
iterated by the HSCA forensic pathology panel and most WC defenders.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 4:59:02 PM12/25/11
to
On 12/24/2011 11:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Yeah, very, very early. January 27, 1964 and you pretend that the WC
> did not know ANYTHING about the autopsy. Nice try. Got any other excuses?"
> <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, Tony, the FBI was seemingly still totally clueless about a lot of
> the details of the autopsy even as late as Jan. 13th, 1964 (in the FBI
> Supplemental Report; CD107).
>

I have always pointed out that Hoover was totally clueless and certain WC
defenders continue to defend Hoover as the smartest person in the world.

> Just look at the ridiculous (and clueless) statement made by Hoover's FBI
> as late as January 13, 1964:
>
> "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the
> bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a
> finger length." -- CD107; p.2
>

I don't see how paraphrasing the S&O report qualifies as a final
conclusion.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10507&relPageId=8
>
> So it's not surprising that the Warren Commission and its staff members
> might have still been just as clueless about the facts of the autopsy as
> late as January 27, 1964, since most of the early information the WC was
> getting was coming from the FBI and Hoover's 12/9/63 and 1/13/64 initial
> reports.
>

Keep pretending that the WC never had the autopsy report.

> Try again, Tony.
>
>
>>>> "The WC...had [to] LATER lie in the report and move the wound up from
> the UPPER BACK to the base of the neck."<<<
>
> Total bullshit.
>

Ford changed the wording. It was a lie and you know it. Why are you
defending a lie?

> Why are you continuing to tell this outrageous falsehood about the WC? The
> Commission did no such thing. They did not at any time "move" the back
> wound of President Kennedy up into his "neck".
>

Verbal plastic surgery.

> And we KNOW they never "moved" that wound up into the neck.
>
> How can we know?
>
> Because there's photographic PROOF that they never "moved" the wound. Just
> take one good look at CE903....or the "opposite angle" picture similar to
> CE903. When looking at those pictures, it's obvious that the WC's SBT
> trajectory does NOT require a wound to be placed up into the "neck" of
> JFK.
>

CE903 shows that they had to lie about where the back wound was.

> In fact, if the wound were to be placed that high (in the "neck"), it
> would have ruined the SBT trajectory entirely, because it would have meant
> the bullet would have exited JFK's chin instead of his throat (as the
> additional "opposite angle" photo shown below [the bottom link]
> demonstrates):
>

Then finally after so many years you finally admit that the rod does not
indicate where the back wound really was.
I am looking at the bottom link and you are a God Damned [censored].
He has the rod ABOVE the damn jacket collar and even then it still does
not go through the chin. How can he have an entrance wound in the neck
without any corresponding hole in the jacket?
The real hole in the jacket was BELOW the collar. I know you guys love
to dream up a bunched up jacket, but how can you bunch it up enough to
leave a hole 5-1/2 inches BELOW the collar on the jacket with the bullet
entering the skin ABOVE the collar?
Is there some chance that before this year is over just one WC defender
will answer a simple yes or no question honestly?
Look at the bottom photo again. Is the jacket on the JFK stand-in
bunched up? Yes or no?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 4:59:36 PM12/25/11
to
Misleading. How low the creases are depends on how the body is oriented.
In the side view his head on up on a rest. In the prone view his head is
being pulled back. That moves the creases down.

> in their verdict that a bullet entered JFK's back and exited from his
> throat. If that is correct and the back wound was lower than the exit

Yeah, and so what? No matter where the bullet hit the back they could
still claim that it exited the throat.

> wound, it would mean the shot was fired from below and behind JFK. The

No, you are not using your imagination. The HSCA imagined that JFK was
leaning over to change the angle into downward.

> shooter would have to have been firing from street level. Do you want
> to argue for that position? If not, where do you want to place the
> shooter? Front or back, I'd like to see you place that shooter in a
> position that is even remotely feasible.
>


I place the shooter in the sniper's nest.


John Canal

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 5:58:26 PM12/25/11
to
In article <da797e55-7867-45aa...@b10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>On Dec 24, 3:33=A0pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2:37=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 23, 6:47=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Thanks for the 1/27/64 transcript, Tony.
>>
>> > > Yes, Rankin is saying that the back wound was lower than the throat
>> > > wound. I was wrong. Rankin is ON RECORD giving that opinion. (And I
>> > > apologize to Marsh for the sin I committed of not having the entire
>> > > 1/27/64 Executive Session memorized and on the tip of my tongue,
>> > > 24/7.)
>>
>> > > But that was a very early WC session....before they talked to Humes
>> > > (who told them the back wound was anatomically HIGHER than the throat
>> > > wound).
>>
>> > > But, as I said before, anyone (Rankin included) who says the back
>> > > wound was anatomically lower than the throat wound is just flat-out
>> > > wrong, and the autopsy photos prove it.
>>
>> > Yeah, right David. I love how you common sense deniers insist the back
>> > wound was significantly higher than the throat wound, even though a NIN=
>E
>> > member panel of forensic pathologists sympathetic to the single- assass=
>in
>> > conclusion said you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. You stomp your feet all day
>> > long insisting that CTs are at odds with the experts, when you thorough=
>ly
>> > reject, without any real foundation beyond what feels right to you, a
>> > conclusion by the "experts" at the center of the evidence.
>>
>> > I think I've asked you this before, but here it goes again. Grab a CD
>> > case, roughly 14 cm wide. Place one of the short sides against the BOTT=
>OM
>> > tip of the skull of a volunteer, with the rest of the case stretching d=
>own
>> > onto his back. Then note the location of the bottom of the case in
>> > comparison to his Adam's Apple, and the presumed location of the exit o=
>n
>> > Kennedy.
>>
>> > When you do this, if you do it accurately and honestly, you'll find tha=
>t
>> > the wound location as measured at autopsy was at the same level or belo=
>w
>> > the throat wound. It's that simple. The measurements supposedly support=
>ing
>> > the SBT do the exact opposite.
>>
>> I'm sure you've seen the photo of the back wound. I'm sure you've seen
>> the side view of JFK lying on the autopsy table. The creases at the
>> base of his neck are visible in both photos and it is glaringly
>> obvious that the level of the back wound is closer (as in higher) to
>> those creases than the tracheotomy incision is. The FPP was unanimous
>> in their verdict that a bullet entered JFK's back and exited from his
>> throat. If that is correct and the back wound was lower than the exit
>> wound, it would mean the shot was fired from below and behind JFK. The
>> shooter would have to have been firing from street level. Do you want
>> to argue for that position? If not, where do you want to place the
>> shooter? Front or back, I'd like to see you place that shooter in a
>> position that is even remotely feasible.
>
>The HSCA FPP carefully studied the photos and concluded the backwound
>was below the throat wound,

Okay, so what?...if he was leaning forward the trajectory works...OR do
you have some evidence that's sooooo powerful you juust opt to take an
ittsy bittsy tiny weiny CT leap that a bullet fired from the SN didn't
enter JFK's back at the entry sight seen in the photographs and exit the
throat where the trach incision was made??????...meaning there must have
been a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?????????????

>and that the "crease" theory is nonsense.

So damn what?...look at the ton of bloody evidence that the bullet
transited...you know what it is...or have you ignored it like you have the
irrefutable evidence that F8 was taken face-on?

Oh ya, Dr. Angel was incompetent?...is that your imagination overworking
again?or did Angel just look at F8 too quickly?......un-bloody believable.

Did Stringer lie when he signed a statement for me that he took F8 when
his camera was aimed at JFK's face ?

And what about the bone flap hanging off the front right of his head in
F8?....do you still think that isn't the same bone flap hanging off the
front right of his head in F3 with F8 orientated face-on?...or are you
still blowing smoke that that bone flap was only scalp????

Do you want me to post the enlargement of that flap again? ...or are you
willing to concede it's bone?

Marsh is correct about one thing (that's about one out of a thousand re.
this case)...and that's that F8 was taken with JFK facing the camera.

Okay, I lied....he's good at the minutia pertaining to this case
too....it's only the important findings that he doesn't have a clue
about.....or at least posts that he doesn't.

>They ONLY signed off on the single-bullet theory, furthermore, under
>the belief it happened while Kennedy was leaning sharply forward while
>behind the sign. You can think what you want, but you shouldn't
>pretend the "experts" are on your side.

Ok, so what if they said that?

If you have that proof there was NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that he was
leaning forward at circa 223 please share it.

You don't think the bullet that hit him in back transited?

Do you think, like your CT buddy Marsh does, that the bullet didn't
penetrate?

Maybe an "ice bullet? How about a dud? Are you going there?

Not to mention the bruised apex of the pleura and lung, what do you think
caused the bruising below the larynx to the tissue to the right of the
trach? Note please that that bruising had to be done while his heart was
still beating strong....duh, like when he was hit by the first of the two
bullets that hit him?

...hey, here's a good out for you on that bruising evidence the bullet
transited:.....one of the conspirators wanted to make sure he died and
karate chopped him in the throat on the right side during the confusion in
TR1?

Geeze!

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 8:36:21 PM12/25/11
to
Nope. They were stuck with Z-190 from the acoustical evidence and we can
see for ourselves that JFK is NOT leaning forward. Did you ever see Dr.
Baden demonstrate how far he thinks JFK would have to be leaning over to
make their SBT possible?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Baden%5B1%5D.jpg



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 9:51:17 PM12/25/11
to
SHOW me how they used the mastoid. That's about all they had to start with
because that is the only measurement Humes wrote down. Independent of that
the HSCA noted the air in the shoulder and the fact that T-1 was
fractured.

> Lattimer, for example, said the 14 cm measurement was accurate, AND that

Lattimer was a bloody urologist.

> the back wound was at the level of Kennedy's chin. This proves he was

He lied and said JFK was a hunchback to get the back wound higher.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif

And he got the angle wrong. He shows a 25-degree downward angle instead
of 18 degrees.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 25, 2011, 11:32:28 PM12/25/11
to
IF? Only by lying. Maybe you've never seen Baden demonstrate how far over
JFK would have to be leaning to get it to work.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Baden%5B1%5D.jpg

Do you ever see JFK leaning over that much?

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 9:07:55 AM12/26/11
to


>>> "How can he have an entrance wound in the neck without any corresponding hole in the jacket?" <<<

JFK never had any entrance wound in the neck. The wound is in the
upper back--and always was. And the WC never "moved" the wound at all,
and CE903 proves that fact. Because to move the wound UP into the neck
would totally destroy ANY SBT trajectory (at Z217.5, Z224, Z220, or
whenever)....as CE903 also demonstrates very nicely.

How many times do those basic facts need to be repeated before they
sink in, Marsh?

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 11:58:11 AM12/26/11
to

>>> "...you are a God Damned [censored]." <<<

You know I haven't "lied" about a Goddamn thing in this case. So why not
can the crap about people constantly "lying" when they say something you
don't agree with (or when they say something that you don't have a
reasonable conspiracy- flavored answer for).

BTW, I can think of no really good reason as to why Arlen Specter had a
desire to have a picture taken of this silly trajectory through JFK's neck
and chin (see photo below), which is obviously not even close to the entry
or exit wounds in President Kennedy's upper back and throat:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RoucRB2pM-c/TvWYueE8I2I/AAAAAAAABUg/s1jtdpPrX-E/s1600/Specter-02.png

....Other than (perhaps?) the WC was playing around with the idea that
(somehow) the bullet that hit JFK in the HEAD had somehow struck Connally
in the back. Because the "entry" as depicted in that silly photo above is
very close to the (equally silly and dead wrong) entry wound location at
JFK's hairline that was endorsed by all of the autopsy doctors (except for
Humes' temporary restoration to sanity in 1978 in front of the HSCA, when
Humes admitted that the cowlick entry was accurate, which is obviously
true).

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 26, 2011, 4:58:27 PM12/26/11
to
On 12/26/2011 9:07 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>

>>>> "How can he have an entrance wound in the neck without any
corresponding hole in the jacket?"<<<

>
> JFK never had any entrance wound in the neck. The wound is in the
> upper back--and always was. And the WC never "moved" the wound at all,
> and CE903 proves that fact. Because to move the wound UP into the neck
> would totally destroy ANY SBT trajectory (at Z217.5, Z224, Z220, or
> whenever)....as CE903 also demonstrates very nicely.
>

Then why do you and so many WC defenders defend Ford and say he wasn't
lying when he changed the wording from the autopsy doctors from UPPER BACK
to BASE OF THE NECK?

I like your "whenever." You are openly admitting that the exact frame does
not matter at all and you can fudge the angles to fit any frame at random.
Not a very strong theory.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 10:39:55 AM12/27/11
to

>>> "You are openly admitting that the exact frame does not matter at all
and you can fudge the angles to fit any frame at random. Not a very strong
theory." <<<

I don't really care exactly when the SBT occurred (although I am convinced
beyond all doubt it occurred at Z224) -- the most important point is: it
DID occur. Because if a bullet came out of JFK's throat (which it did), it
had no choice but to continue forward and downward and hit John Connally.

And I would think that even the most hardened CTer would scratch their
head a little bit and say this to himself:

"Gee, we've got a bullet hitting JFK hit in the UPPER BACK. And
we've got a bullet hole in the THROAT of JFK. And then we've got the man
sitting in front of him ALSO hit in the UPPER BACK with a bullet at about
the very same time. And we've got NO BULLETS in Kennedy's body.
Hmmm....maybe there's something to this SBT stuff after all."

Wouldn't you think a FEW CTers might be able to figure this out via the
above common-sense approach?

Maybe the CTers should scratch their heads more often.

HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 10:40:37 AM12/27/11
to
On Dec 23, 5:19 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

RE your:

"....Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents
many times......This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's
tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long
legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.

Talk to Jim Lesar. "

I have talked to Jim Lesar about this quite a few times and you never have
provided support that a transcript was made and then destroyed. You still
haven't.

And you still don't get it. No transcript was RE-MADE. No transcript was
ever prepared by anyone. One wasn't prepared by Ward & Paul as the
reporter's notes were confiscated. One wasn't prepared by the WC. As far
as Weisberg and Lesar is concerned, what they got and what is found in the
National Archives is nothing more than a ROUGH DRAFT. It isn't a
transcript.

And Dulles never stated during the meeting that the transcript should be
destroyed. He agreed with Boggs displeasure that their speculation was
being recorded. Dulles opined and questioned about the necessity to have
that particlular meeting recorded. Nothing was ever said about a
transcript being destroyed. That's your wild claim and nothing else. You
simply have no support whatsoever.

BTW! Rumor has it that sometime in 2013 or 2014, a true transcript
(unofficial) will finally be made available for the public to read.


JM/HD





> On 12/22/2011 11:10 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 9:17 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
> > RE your:
>
> > Quote On
>
> > because your beloved, honest WC destroyed the transcript of
> > that meeting
>
> > Quote Off
>
> > You still on that transcript destruction kick?
>
> > No transcripts were ever destroyed.
>
> > I'd really like to see you post support for this outlandish claim of
> > yours.
>
> Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents many
> times.
>
> > You keep posting this claim but have never posted anything to support
> > it.
>
> 22 Jan 1964 - This session was called specifically to address the
> allegation that Oswald was a paid "FBI Undercover Agent," number 179, paid
> $200 per month from September 1962 until the assassination. Waggoner Carr,
> the Texas Attorney General, had called Rankin that morning with
> allegations which had come from a member of the press (Lonnie Hudkins,
> though not named in the transcript). Rankin noted that "I am confident
> that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records will never
> show it...," and noted that Oswald's use of postal boxes "would be an
> ideal way to get money to anyone that you wanted as an undercover agent."
> Rankin also noted that if the allegation were true "then you would have
> people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination
> that nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate." Rankin
> expressed puzzlement that the normally conservative FBI was so insistent
> the Oswald was the sole assassin, saying "They would like to have us fold
> up and quit." After more such discussion, Dulles said the transcript of
> the meeting itself "ought to be destroyed." This was indeed done, but an
> original court reporter's tape was later recovered and the transcript
> re-made from it after a long legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
>
> Talk to Jim Lesar.
>
> You are not very much of a Historian and certainly not a detective.> JM/HD
>
> > PS...I'm also still waiting for that Biffle article and that symposium
> > you say exist.
>
> >> On 12/22/2011 9:38 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> >>>>>> "Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute
>
> >> that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound
> >> location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works
> >> in both photos?"<<<
>
> >>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >>> The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted.
> >>> But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But
> >>> CE903 IS the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's
> >>> volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be
> >>> placed up in the neck of JFK.
>
> >>> Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall
> >>> behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds
> >>> [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind,
> >>> is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the
> >>> chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle
> >>> between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Mr.
> >>> Shaneyfelt.
>
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
>
> >>> Therefore, it really isn't the EXACT angle of a bullet going through
> >>> JFK&    JBC at precisely Z224 (which is when I think the bullet struck
> >>> both men). And I'll admit that. If you split the difference between
> >>> Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT
> >>> shot striking at Z217 or Z218.
>
> >>> But the photo in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at
> >>> 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact
> >>> bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on
> >>> Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer
> >>> either.
>
> >> No it doesn't. Are you blind? It clearly shows that a bullet can go over
> >> JFK's right shoulder, not through him, and hit Connally's back.
>
> >>> Let me ask this of the CTers:
>
> >>> Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles
> >>> and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in
> >>> CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?
>
> >> No, the attempt was to phony up the exhibit to mislead the public. Now
> >> here is a question that you are not brave enough to answer, but I bet a
> >> conspiracy believer can answer. Which specific frame is CE903 supposed to
> >> be illustrating? And prove it with documents.
>
> >>> If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903
> >>> and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.
>
> >>> And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide"
> >>> animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that
> >>> Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is
> >>> so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is
> >>> nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the
> >>> trajectory isn't even close either!"
>
> >> Now, wait a minute here. Why do you specify the exact words that his
> >> critics would have to say? Why isn't it just good enough to point out his
> >> errors and lies? Well, I guess I'll have to make you happy and copy your
> >> list and say it myself:
>
> >> Myers is nuts!
> >> His model isn't even close!
> >> The wounds are miles off!
> >> And the trajectory isn't even close either!
>
> >> So there, was that good enough for you? Or would you like me to also add:
>
> >> Myers is a pathological liar!
> >> Just one exclamation point good enough for you?
>
> >>> If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-
> >>> bin crazy.
>
> >>> In any event, CE903 IS the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT,
> >>> and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which
>
> >> Of course it does. Rankin admitted that the back wound was really lower
> >> than the throat wound. And you wouldn't even know that fact if not for the
> >> efforts of all those kooky, loony-bin crazy conspiracy believers you love
> >> to ridicule, because your beloved, honest WC destroyed the transcript of
> >> that meeting.
>
> >> That's what scares you WC defenders. We loony-bin crazy kooks keep finding
> >> the evidence which you thought was safely destroyed.
>
> >>> is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to
> >>> believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back
> >>> wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out
> >>> myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).
>
> >> Then why did Myers move it up ABOVE the top of JFK's shoulder, just as
> >> Specter did in CE903? Accidental or trying to pay homage to the master
> >> of deception Arlen Specter?
>
> >>> I'll also ask this question:
>
> >>> If CE903 is such a "con", as Patrick J. Speer said earlier, then I'm
> >>> wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like
> >>> the opposite-angle pic shown above to ever get released to the public?
> >>> Why weren't those pictures destroyed? Any ideas on that, Pat?
>
> >> They did not allow. We loony-bin crazy conspiracy kooks dug it up. Same
> >> with the autopsy photos which clearly show that the back wound was BELOW
> >> the top of the shoulders.
>
> >>> Also:
>
> >>> Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the
> >>> stand-in's back in CE903, do you, Pat, really think that the wound
> >>> placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER
> >>> BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a
> >>> little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-
> >>> Bullet Theory completely?
>
> >> Silly. The chalk mark you claim would not even show where the bullet
> >> entered JFK's back. Maybe you forgot that you WC defenders claim the back
> >> wound is much higher than the chalk mark because his jacket was bunched
> >> up. You guys can't even keep your own propaganda straight. It doesn't
> >> matter where you move the rod. It is always ABOVE the top of the JFK's
> >> shoulder. His back wound was BELOW the top of his shoulder. Does a
> >> difference of 2 inches really matter? Apparently it does to you guys which
> >> is why you think CE903 proves it is the only possible solution.
>
> >>> And even if the trajectory angles in both CE903 and the reverse angle
> >>> picture linked above are both exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure
> >>> of, since the opposite angle picture is not an official picture that
> >>> appears in the WC volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in the reverse
> >>> angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short
> >>> indeed.
>
> >> And why is it not an official photo that appears in the WC volumes?
> >> Cover-up.
> >> Again, why are you trying to undermine the carefully crafted WC defender
> >> propaganda? Your side says the chalk mark is not where the bullet hit
> >> his back.
>
> >>> And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurements is just an
> >>> "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of
>
> >> I think I agree with that, but let's see you math to prove what the
> >> angles for 210 and 225 we and what the average SHOULD be.
>
> >>> "leeway" on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early
> >>> as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30
> >>> angle, since the limo was closer to Oswald in the TSBD at Z210.
>
> >> No problem for such a sloppy theory.
>
> >>> But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away
> >>> from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have less
> >>> (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.
>
> >>> Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11
> >>> minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the
> >>> slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16
> >>> or so degrees downward).
>
> >>> The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play
> >>> when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission
> >>> Exhibit No. 903.
>
> >> But you say the HSCA not allowed to have a margin of error.
>
> >>> And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be
> >>> included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems
> >>> fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below
> >>> does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet
> >>> Theory.
>
> >> No, but is does indicate that there was enough room for a bullet to miss
> >> Kennedy and hit Connally. Thank you for proving our points for us.
>
> >>> In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred
> >>> (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in
> >>> that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30
> >>> angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle
> >>> for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would,
> >>> therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going
> >>> through both victims at exactly Z224.
>
> >>> And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's
> >>> pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little
> >>> below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the
> >>> pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's
> >>> stand-in:
>
> >> Silly. Your side says the chalk mark is NOT where the bullet hit Kennedy.
>
> >>>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5J...
>
> >>> David Von Pein
> >>> December 22, 2011
>
> >>> =================================
>
> >>>http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
> >>>http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 3:47:06 PM12/27/11
to
Yeah, some people tried using common sense very early on. That is how
Humes came up with the ice bullet theory or the bullet falling out of a
shallow wound. Some people connected the throat wound with the head
would because they didn't know about the back wound.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 5:32:19 PM12/27/11
to
On 12/27/2011 10:39 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "You are openly admitting that the exact frame does not matter at all
> and you can fudge the angles to fit any frame at random. Not a very strong
> theory."<<<
>
> I don't really care exactly when the SBT occurred (although I am convinced
> beyond all doubt it occurred at Z224) -- the most important point is: it

Yes, we know that, but it is refreshing to see WC defenders admit it.
None of you care about the facts.

> DID occur. Because if a bullet came out of JFK's throat (which it did), it
> had no choice but to continue forward and downward and hit John Connally.
>

Not true. Bullets often get deflected when they hit bone. And we now
know something that your beloved WC did NOT know. The bullet hit T-1.
That could have deflected it up and out of the throat.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 5:35:14 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 27, 10:40 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 5:19 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> RE your:
>
> "....Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents
> many times......This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's
> tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long
> legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
>
> Talk to Jim Lesar. "
>
> I have talked to Jim Lesar about this quite a few times and you never have
> provided support that a transcript was made and then destroyed. You still
> haven't.
>

In lieu of supporting documentation, it is enough for Tony (and other
CTers) to claim they have provided such documentation, and then expect the
other side to find it.


Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 9:24:22 PM12/27/11
to
On Dec 20, 11:58 am, "F. Carlier" <Fra-Carl...@bbox.fr> wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Some of you may remember me. I've been a JFK-assassination researcher for
> about twenty years, and was, among others, a regular member of some
> newsgroups a few years ago.
>
> I am a defender of the Warren Commission conclusions. I firmly believe
> that Lee Oswald acted alone, that he was the sole assassin of John
> Kennedy, and that there was no conspiracy whatsoever.
>
> Over the years I have come to know some conspiracy theorists rather well,
> either by meeting them or exchanging messages with them, or even just
> reading their books or articles or posts. I have learned that some of them
> are just stubborn and highly proud people who are just unable to admit
> they had been wrong all along, and who will sadly waste their whole life
> chasing conspirators who never existed in the first place. Whatever…
>
> Anyway, after Gerald Posner, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi published
> wonderful and enlightening books, we have to acknowledge the fact that the
> fight against conspiracy theorists (and their destruction of people's
> minds through the lies they are spreading) is not yet finished.
>
> I have bought and read John McAdams's book and must say I was disappointed
> by it. I found it too superficial, and not powerful enough in its display
> of Oswald-did-it evidence.
>
> Anyway.
>
> I want to say this : the very very very best person to defend the truth
> and logic and sound reasoning and critical thinking is by far David Von
> Pein. I have spent the last years reading his articles and posts and am a
> big fan of his.
>
> He is the best, no question.
>
> He is very good at debunking conspiracy theorists' nonsense.
>
> He has a unique style, very simple, direct, straight-to-the-point,
> logical, bright, clever, intelligent, enlightening, right-on-the-spot, and
> most of all so very true !
>
> This message is a public call to him, an appeal.
>
> Please, David, write a book on the JFK assassination. I'm serious. You
> must do it. I am sure it would be a marvelous book. I am convinced it
> would be a great work, that would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists
> and at the same time a springboard for the truth.
>
> I hope lots of people will join me in asking David Von Pein to write a
> book on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> /François Carlier/
> Esprit.criti...@yahoo.fr

Do you have to insult the other side (ie, people that disagree with
you)?

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 9:26:19 PM12/27/11
to

On Dec 20, 10:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> I like to just grab the book and open it up to a random page
> -- it doesn't matter what page it is -- and then I'll just
> start reading.

You are, of course, referring to the Bible, correct?

I am willing to bet my right arm that you are a far conservative.

We have determined in this forum that:

- Conservatives are LNs
- Liberals are CTs

With VERY few exceptions to that rule.

-Ramon

ps: Monsieur Carlier, let me guess: you are pro-Sarkosy (perhaps
farther right), n'est pas?

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 27, 2011, 11:11:34 PM12/27/11
to
You mean, n'est-ce pas, n'est ce pas?
And that's Sarkozy, with a "z."

Hey, get a clue. I'm an LN on the left.
As is Noam Chomsky.
As is Max Holland.
As is Alexander Cockburn.
As was Norman Mailer.
Ever look at Vincent Bugliosi's other political books? One says George
W. Bush should be tried for treason for starting the Iraq War and the
other that the Supreme Court betrayed America by handing the presidency
to Bush over Gore.
Two or three other regular posters here are politically more to the left
than to the right.
And I'd be careful about classifying people. Some of the "conservative"
LNs here do not seem to be mainstream Republicans (whatever that means
anymore...) but of a more libertarian inclination. They have no more
trust in the government than you do.

/sandy

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 10:12:26 AM12/28/11
to
You cited some pretty bad examples who are detested by progressives.
Libertarians are EXTREME rightwingers. Even establishment Conservatives
like William Buckley kicked them out of the Republican Party.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 10:15:33 AM12/28/11
to
He probably considers Sarkozy a Communist. Anyway it may be irrelevant,
because I suspect Carlier is a French-Canadian not a citizen of France
so he may not care about French politics.

HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 1:04:18 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 27, 4:35 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:40 am, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 5:19 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > RE your:
>
> > "....Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents
> > many times......This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's
> > tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long
> > legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
>
> > Talk to Jim Lesar. "
>
> > I have talked to Jim Lesar about this quite a few times and you never have
> > provided support that a transcript was made and then destroyed. You still
> > haven't.
>


RE:

> In lieu of supporting documentation, it is enough for Tony (and other
> CTers) to claim they have provided such documentation, and then expect the
> other side to find it.

The kicker is that if Tony actually did some research into this matter he
could find some support for his wild claim that something was actually
destroyed, but it wasn't a transcript. It would still be speculation, but
strong speculation based on someone's history.

There very well may have been something that was destroyed from that
meeting, if it did indeed exist in the first place. If it did exist then
chances are it survived and is waiting to be rediscovered. If it still
exists and ever surfaces it would be quite the find. I'm quite confident
it is not in the National Archives.

10-1 Tony has no clue what I'm posting about. He relies too much on
Weisberg, Lesar and Hal Verb.

JM/HD

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 1:08:06 PM12/28/11
to
Norman Mailer is a bad example. He wrote an essay-type book explaining
how Lee *could* have acted alone, BUT that was not Mailer's final,
definite position.

-Ramon

"It is not only our unspoken myth, but our national obsession. We have
no answers to his death; indeed, we are marooned in one of two equally
intolerable spiritual states, apathy or paranoia. That's a large
remark but it may fit our condition."
-Norman Mailer

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/jfkpanel1.html

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 2:46:54 PM12/28/11
to
What do you even know about it? Man, you're so "progressive"... slaving
away at a case closed nearly fifty years ago.

It's true that Alex is a bit of a crank when it comes to AGW (he denies it
exists). I've argued with him about it!

Mailer was a male chauvinist and Bugliosi defends the death penalty. Hey,
nobody's perfect! Ha ha.

But all things considered, every one of these names has to be placed left
of the center in the American political spectrum.

I also know plenty more "liberal" LNS whose names would mean nothing to
you.

But serious leftist thinkers generally have other things on their mind. I
wouldn't expect a public intellectual of the caliber of Noam Chomsky to
spend much arguing the case, let alone writing a whole book about it, as
it is really rather a no-brainer.


> Libertarians are EXTREME rightwingers.


Some soi-disant libertarians are indeed. But the term itself covers a lot
of ground.

It was actually first applied politically (as distinct from the very
earliest usage, which was more abstractly philosophical) to
anarcho-leftists.

Today there is, don't you know, a family of political philosophies under
the heading "libertarian socialism," or sometimes "social anarchism" or
"left libertarianism."

However, I am not under the impression that any conservative here is
pro-socialism.

/sm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 2:47:20 PM12/28/11
to

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 3:23:42 PM12/28/11
to
On 12/28/2011 1:04 PM, HistorianDetective wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:35 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 10:40 am, HistorianDetective<historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 5:19 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> RE your:
>>
>>> "....Support what? This is old news and we have uploaded the documents
>>> many times......This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's
>>> tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long
>>> legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
>>
>>> Talk to Jim Lesar. "
>>
>>> I have talked to Jim Lesar about this quite a few times and you never have
>>> provided support that a transcript was made and then destroyed. You still
>>> haven't.
>>
>
>
> RE:
>
>> In lieu of supporting documentation, it is enough for Tony (and other
>> CTers) to claim they have provided such documentation, and then expect the
>> other side to find it.
>
> The kicker is that if Tony actually did some research into this matter he
> could find some support for his wild claim that something was actually
> destroyed, but it wasn't a transcript. It would still be speculation, but
> strong speculation based on someone's history.
>

This is very much like the CIA Inspector General's report. All copies were
ordered destroyed, but one copy survived and that is the one that was
eventually declassified. Helms ordered that ALL MK/ULTRA documents be
destroyed, but some survived because there were undocumented copies out
there and certain intelligence agents made additional copies and put them
in caches to protect themselves.

> There very well may have been something that was destroyed from that
> meeting, if it did indeed exist in the first place. If it did exist then
> chances are it survived and is waiting to be rediscovered. If it still
> exists and ever surfaces it would be quite the find. I'm quite confident
> it is not in the National Archives.
>

We thought for many years that they had destroyed the extra autopsy
photos, but the ARRB found them.

> 10-1 Tony has no clue what I'm posting about. He relies too much on
> Weisberg, Lesar and Hal Verb.
>

When did I mention Hal Verb? I seriously doubt that you ever talked to
him or to Jim Lesar.

> JM/HD
>


HistorianDetective

unread,
Dec 28, 2011, 7:36:49 PM12/28/11
to
RE:

> When did I mention Hal Verb?

You once posted his article from Lancer regarding the notes from that
meeting. In fact, you have posted it more than once. The one where he
tried to fill in the blanks of that ROUGH DRAFT and failed miserably, yet
CTs like yourself believed him and praised his effort.

>I seriously doubt that you ever talked to him or to Jim Lesar
>

I never talked with Hal and have never stated I did. I've discussed the
issue with Lesar on several occasions. I've also discussed this with
Wrone, Hoch, McKnight and others who were very close to Weisberg. Go ahead
and call them to verify whether or not they discussed those notes with
someone a few years ago.

And as I posted, you have no clue as to what that item is that may have
survived that meeting. It wasn't a transcript.

As far as your CIA scenarios go, they are not the same as this
circumstance. A transcript was never prepared. Deal with it and let go of
the destruction of records crap, unless you come up with that one item I
am posting about. Then you may have something to say regarding destruction
of records.

Like I posted before, 10-1 you have no idea what that item could be.

JM/HD

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 11:15:00 AM12/29/11
to

>>> "The bullet hit T-1." <<<

No, it didn't.

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 1:52:54 PM12/29/11
to
From your video clip (thanks!):

"Oswald is a ghost. What's maddening about a ghost is that you can
never know the answer."
-Norman Mailer


Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 1:53:22 PM12/29/11
to
On Dec 28, 1:47 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"That there were conspiracies being contemplated, even attempted on
that day, I am perfectly willing to accept."

-Norman Mailer (not quite a Bible thumper)

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 1:58:30 PM12/29/11
to
On 12/29/2011 11:15 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "The bullet hit T-1."<<<
>
> No, it didn't.
>


Talk to Baden. The X-ray shows that T-1 is fractured.


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 2:55:44 PM12/29/11
to
And the sentence continues:
"...but the conclusions I came to were to me rational ones. Because he
had a motive for doing it, because he was capable of doing it, because
he wanted to do it."
He's saying that if there is evidence anybody else was planning
something, it's not relevant to what Oswald did.
Listen to the whole thing. Mailer's explanation for what actually is all
Oswald, no co-conspirators.
/sm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 2:56:01 PM12/29/11
to
And yet I do.
/sm

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 29, 2011, 11:43:16 PM12/29/11
to

>>> "Talk to Baden. The X-ray shows that T-1 is fractured." <<<

And the majority of the FPP panel members concluded that that fracture
was NOT caused by the bullet directly striking T-1.

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 30, 2011, 9:17:15 AM12/30/11
to
At that time, he argued that point (was selling a book). He wouldn't
bet his life on it, though.

Neither would I.

-Ramon

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 30, 2011, 12:45:51 PM12/30/11
to
Ha ha. Wouldn't his book have sold better if he had appealed to the CT
crowd? (Rhetorical question.)
I am sure that Mailer wrote his honest opinion, which is by far the best
way to write a convincing book.
And I think he would have at least wagered his townhouse here in
Brooklyn Heights on it.
/sm

Ramon F. Herrera

unread,
Dec 30, 2011, 5:13:00 PM12/30/11
to
On Dec 30, 11:45 am, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
I am not saying he was lying, or a peddler. At that particular point in
time (having just finished the book) he was convinced of the LN theory, as
much as anybody can be in such UNCERTAIN, CONFUSING, FRUSTRATING case.

People change their minds from a month to the next, even from a minute to
the next.

In this debate, he does not seem to be dead set on LN:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/jfkpanel1.html

Intelligent, non-fundamentalist (this excludes the far right, then) people
always leave room for DOUBT. "I in order to work, a mind and book must be
open".

-Ramon


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages