The Single-Bullet Theory
David Von Pein
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:503b9bc8-fdb8-4f39...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
You can look at those CARTOONS or look at Official records HERE>>>
David Von Pein
KEN MURRAY WROTE THIS AT WWW.JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM.COM:
>>> "Notice that one Von Pein always shows that picture of Specter [Warren Commission Exhibit #903] but NEVER shows the opposite side.
DVP SAID:
Better learn how to read, Ken. I have the "opposite angle" photo in my
SBT Blog (TWO opposite-angle pics, in fact, including the very rarely-
seen picture shown below). And I'm fully open and above-board when
talking about those photographs.
So, why are you pretending I never brought up the "opposite angle"
picture to CE903?
Quoting from my SBT Blog (linked below):
"In the "opposite angle" photo above, Arlen Specter's pointer is
positioned slightly above the chalk mark representing the bullet wound
in JFK's upper back, but if the coat of the JFK stand-in had been
"bunched-up" on his back (as President Kennedy's suit coat was when he
was shot), then the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would have been
slightly HIGHER in that photograph above, and would have likely merged
perfectly with the position of Specter's pointer/rod.
"And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO
FRONT. Without a doubt.
"Also: Some conspiracists attempt to use this photo to discredit
the SBT (which is a different "opposite angle" picture from the one
shown above, but is a photo that also shows Arlen Specter holding his
pointer a little above where he is holding it in CE903).
"But the CTers who claim that there something is "fishy" or
"misleading" about that photograph are doing so without ever having
determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO IS, and for what exact
purpose it was taken, etc.*
"* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's
unfair to say that it depicts the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory
precisely, because it is NOT an official Warren Commission exhibit
like CE903." -- DVP
www.Single-Bullet-Theory,blogspot.com
>>> "Still waiting if one Von Pein would take on DiEugenio in a debate since Von Pein talks a "big game" all the time." <<<
I've already done it -- many times -- in the articles below (articles
that took me many hours to write).
Maybe you missed these "on paper" debates I've had with James
DiEugenio, dating back to October 2008. I've only posted them about 10
or 20 times previously, but I don't mind re-posting them again. After
all, the conspiracy theorists of the world could use all the common
sense they can get their hands on. Or don't my arguments count unless
they are spoken on a radio show? .....
JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI (AND DVP):
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb486bcbb592bacf
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
----------------------
And as far as my own opinions about the "Inside The Target Car"
program that DiEugenio loves to trash endlessly and futilely, I've
pretty much laid out all of my thoughts on that program in these
articles:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/701242d562279b80
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8217880bc4f4e937
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/357ca6b5ac159dba
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/60526b2684b200ba
WhiskyJoe
David
http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/
Good enough. You got me convinced. And you got
Tom Rossley all riled up. I think your on to
something.
***************************************************
The Zapruder film, large picture, frames 222
through 250, is very good. I can't imagine that
if one introduces someone to the subject with that
video and ask "Who is wounded first, JFK or Connally"
will come away with the impression that they were hit
at different times. Only if one's mind is set that
JFK was hit first can one look at that and not
conclude that they were hit at the same time.
You show a good quality version of the film,
with large pictures, stabilized and the
appropriate time range, Z222-250. I think
your presentation here is quite effective.
The Z222-262 film you show is, of course a little
smaller, but sharper, so I think it's worth
showing as well.
***************************************************
You need to have a similar film sequence around
frame Z285 showing the people reacting to a
Z285 missed shot.
Just kidding.
***************************************************
PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND
-- WHERE EXACTLY WAS IT LOCATED?
IN THE "NECK"? IN THE "BACK"?
IN THE "BACK OF THE NECK"? WHERE?:
In this section, you have an autopsy photograph,
of JFK's left profile and a diagonal line showing
the path of the bullet:
I always felt that the following:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
or:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/back_wound/Bunching--John_Hunt/Bunching2--Hunt.html
; about one third of the way down
showing a picture of the living JFK, left profile
and on the same level an autopsy picture of his
back, are the pictures that most effectively show
the back wound is higher than the throat wound.
I can't see where the back wound is in the autopsy
profile view. One cannot see the throat wound in
the pictures I recommend, but everyone agrees the
throat would was near the tie knot. Also, the
profile autopsy picture is a little more disturbing
than the one of his back.
***************************************************
> Or do [conspiracy theorists] think Connally had
> a desire to willfully jerk his right arm around
> in such an odd way just an instant BEFORE that
> SAME WRIST was hit by a bullet? That's just ...
> frankly ... nuts.
I think the explanation is:
1. Perhaps some CTers are not sincere. I can
never get beyond that suspicion.
or:
2. But for most CTers, they became convinced that
JFK was hit well before Connally, before they
looked at a good stabilized Zapruder film.
The lesson is, don't put the cart before the
horse. Don't allow others to convince you that
JFK was hit well before Connally. Instead,
the first thing to do is look at the film
and study it.
Look at the evidence first before one form's
one's opinion and have one's mind set in
concrete.
Again, the correct order is:
1. Look at the evidence thoroughly
2. Then form an opinion
Don't do the opposite.
> To the people who think that Governor Connally
> was hit EARLIER than Zapruder frame 224 (such
> as Vincent Bugliosi)
My impression is that Vincent Bugliosi has not
studied the minute issues carefully and concluded
that the SBT occurred at exactly Z210. I don't
think he is, or claims to be, the leading expert
on the minute details like when did each bullet
get fired, etc. His forte is checking out all
leading and obscure CT theories and dealing with
them in detail.
Instead, I think he just remembers that the WC
put the SBT between Z210-225, which he
remembers as the SBT at Z210 theory. I would be
surprised that if one was to talk to him in person
and make the points that you make that he would
still insist that the SBT did not occur during
Z221-224 but instead occurred at Z210.
In the mid 1980's, he talked of a Z190 SBT. But
that was because that was the HSCA opinion. I
don't think Vincent Bugliosi ever looked at the
"coat bulge" or the "hat flip" issues and still
concluded that Z190 or Z210 was when the bullet
must have hit.
***************************************************
I think the website by Vincent Vandevoorde:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/jfk-eng.htm
is the best site on the Internet for arguing for
the SBT and showing the head shot, but your blog
is quite good.
***************************************************
WhiskyJoe
David Von Pein
Thanks for your comments, WhiskyJoe.
BTW, after reading your post above, I decided to add this useful photo
to my SBT Blog:
Thanks for reminding me how helpful that picture is. That photo was
available in a sub-link of a sub-link within my SBT Blog, but I've now
added the picture directly to my blog page itself.
Regards,
David V.P.
==============================
My New JFK Blogs:
http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
http://www.On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com
http://www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
http://www.JFK-Photos.blogspot.com
http://www.YouTube-Playlists.blogspot.com
==============================
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:380f35d1-c1a4-4f94...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> That reverse photo has been on my website for years>>>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
>
>
You need to stop your juvenile nonsense and learn how to cite things
properly. All you do is claim that you have something to prove a point
and then give us a link to one of your pages which may have 100
documents and photos. You don't point specifically to the exact piece of
evidence we asked about. All you have to do is right click on the photo
and then select view, then cut and paste the URL for that particular
photo. Such as:
http://whokilledjfk.net/single24.gif
Is this the photo you are talking about? We have to guess.
It is especially interesting because we can clearly see that Specter's
pointer is a few inches ABOVE where they marked an entrance wound on the
JFK stand-in (not the actual jacket, not the actual location of his
entrance wound). And they had absolutely no bunching up of the jacket
then. They did not yet realize they needed the jacket to be bunched up.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Thanks for your comments, WhiskyJoe.
>
> BTW, after reading your post above, I decided to add this useful photo
> to my SBT Blog:
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/back_wound/bunching--john_hunt/Bunching2--Hunt_files/hsca.jpg
>
>
> Thanks for reminding me how helpful that picture is. That photo was
> available in a sub-link of a sub-link within my SBT Blog, but I've now
> added the picture directly to my blog page itself.
>
You like that photo because it is a lie, a false comparison. Look at
where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in the photo on the left (black
line). Then look at where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in the
autopsy photo on the right. Nowhere close to being lined up together.
Not even a meager attempt to put the two photos to the same scale.
Pitiful. That's why you like it.
Anthony Marsh
>
> David
>
> http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/
>
> Good enough. You got me convinced. And you got
> Tom Rossley all riled up. I think your on to
> something.
>
> ***************************************************
>
> The Zapruder film, large picture, frames 222
> through 250, is very good. I can't imagine that
> if one introduces someone to the subject with that
> video and ask "Who is wounded first, JFK or Connally"
> will come away with the impression that they were hit
> at different times. Only if one's mind is set that
Except for the FBI and the WC before April 1964.
No, those are lies. They are deceptive because they are not at the same
scale. The shoulders do not even line up. That's why you like them,
because they are deceptive.
> I can't see where the back wound is in the autopsy
> profile view. One cannot see the throat wound in
> the pictures I recommend, but everyone agrees the
> throat would was near the tie knot. Also, the
> profile autopsy picture is a little more disturbing
> than the one of his back.
>
> ***************************************************
>
>> Or do [conspiracy theorists] think Connally had
>> a desire to willfully jerk his right arm around
>> in such an odd way just an instant BEFORE that
>> SAME WRIST was hit by a bullet? That's just ...
>> frankly ... nuts.
>
> I think the explanation is:
>
> 1. Perhaps some CTers are not sincere. I can
> never get beyond that suspicion.
>
Perhaps the WC defenders have been lying for 45 years and can't break
the habit.
> or:
>
> 2. But for most CTers, they became convinced that
> JFK was hit well before Connally, before they
> looked at a good stabilized Zapruder film.
>
Maybe some CTers became convinced that JFK was hit before Connally when
Connally himself said exactly that. Who could be a better witness than
the man who was actually hit?
> The lesson is, don't put the cart before the
> horse. Don't allow others to convince you that
> JFK was hit well before Connally. Instead,
> the first thing to do is look at the film
> and study it.
>
Who said "well" before. You only need "well" before if you are trying to
keep a single shooter.
> Look at the evidence first before one form's
> one's opinion and have one's mind set in
> concrete.
>
> Again, the correct order is:
>
> 1. Look at the evidence thoroughly
>
Something that WC defenders refuse to do.
> 2. Then form an opinion
>
Some CTers have already formed an opinion that evidence is unreliable.
Then what?
> Don't do the opposite.
>
>> To the people who think that Governor Connally
>> was hit EARLIER than Zapruder frame 224 (such
>> as Vincent Bugliosi)
>
> My impression is that Vincent Bugliosi has not
> studied the minute issues carefully and concluded
> that the SBT occurred at exactly Z210. I don't
He can't even make up his mind when the SBT happened.
> think he is, or claims to be, the leading expert
> on the minute details like when did each bullet
> get fired, etc. His forte is checking out all
> leading and obscure CT theories and dealing with
> them in detail.
>
His forte is the straw man argument. Like any good lawyer.
> Instead, I think he just remembers that the WC
> put the SBT between Z210-225, which he
> remembers as the SBT at Z210 theory. I would be
> surprised that if one was to talk to him in person
> and make the points that you make that he would
> still insist that the SBT did not occur during
> Z221-224 but instead occurred at Z210.
>
I talked to him in person. He refuses to answer any questions.
> In the mid 1980's, he talked of a Z190 SBT. But
> that was because that was the HSCA opinion. I
Or maybe he got it from the CIA.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> KEN MURRAY WROTE THIS AT WWW.JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM.COM:
>
>>>> "Notice that one Von Pein always shows that picture of Specter [Warren Commission Exhibit #903] but NEVER shows the opposite side.
>
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> Better learn how to read, Ken. I have the "opposite angle" photo in my
> SBT Blog (TWO opposite-angle pics, in fact, including the very rarely-
> seen picture shown below). And I'm fully open and above-board when
> talking about those photographs.
>
No, you aren't. Why don't you point out that Specter is holding the rod
a few inches above the entrance wound they drew in on the jacket of the
Kennedy stand-in? Why do you claim that the original WC solution is
perfect when it does not have any bunching up of the jacket? What you
should be saying is close, but no cigar.
http://whokilledjfk.net/single24.gif
David Von Pein
>>> "That reverse photo has been on my website for years." <<<
Yes, you are correct, Tom Rossley. Thanks.
Come to think of it, I'm now certain that your site is the place where
I downloaded that picture from. So, thank you for that.
(See, Tom's website is useful for some things after all.)
:-)
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Why don't you point out that Specter is holding the rod a few inches above the entrance wound they drew in on the jacket of the Kennedy stand-in?" <<<
DVP SAID:
I did point that out in my SBT Blog.
Maybe you should read a little bit first, Tony--before you start
criticizing people for not pointing out things that they really have
pointed out.
Directly from my SBT Blog:
"Below is another picture that was also taken on 5/24/64 in
Dallas, showing another "SBT" view, similar to CE903 (taken from the
other side of the car)...
"...In the "opposite angle" photo above, Arlen Specter's pointer
is positioned slightly above the chalk mark representing the bullet
wound in JFK's upper back, but if the coat of the JFK stand-in had
been "bunched-up" on his back (as President Kennedy's suit coat was
when he was shot), then the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would
have been slightly HIGHER in that photograph above, and would have
likely merged perfectly with the position of Specter's pointer/rod.
And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT.
Without a doubt.
"Also: Some conspiracists attempt to use this photo
[www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg] to discredit the SBT
(which is a different "opposite angle" picture from the one shown
above, but is a photo that also shows Arlen Specter holding his
pointer a little above where he is holding it in CE903).
"But the CTers who claim that there something is "fishy" or
"misleading" about that photograph are doing so without ever having
determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO IS, and for what exact
purpose it was taken, etc.*
"* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's
unfair to say that it depicts the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory
precisely, because it is NOT an official Warren Commission exhibit
like CE903." -- DVP
WhiskyJoe
> Maybe some CTers became convinced that JFK was
> hit before Connally when Connally himself said
> exactly that. Who could be a better witness than
> the man who was actually hit?
The Zapruder film is a much better witness.
Connally's coat, when it bulged at Z224, is a
better witness than Connally. Connally's wrist
when it flew up in front of his chin during
Z226-230, is a better witness than Connally.
Any man may be mistaken, but his "soon to be hit"
coat and wrist let slip the truth.
>> Again, the correct order is:
>> 1. Look at the evidence thoroughly
> Something that WC defenders refuse to do.
I would not hesitate to introduce someone to the
subject of the Kennedy assassination, show them,
repeatedly, good quality, stabilized versions of
the Zapruder film, after asking them who they
think clearly shows signs of being wounded first,
Kennedy or Connally. I can't imagine any CTer
would do the same. They certainly would not be
making an effective case for conspiracy if they
did so.
Will any CTer introduce someone to the subject
by pointing out Connally's apparent coat movement
at Z224 and say it may have been the wind? Will
any CTer introduce the subject by pointing out
that the wrist that was wounded flies up during
Z225-230, but that probably had nothing to do with
being hit?
>> 2. Then form an opinion
> Some CTers have already formed an opinion that
> evidence is unreliable. Then what?
I cannot help people who form an opinion on who
was wounded first without first studying the
evidence. I cannot help people who decide the
evidence is unreliable without first studying the
evidence.
They have to start with studying the evidence.
They have to look at a good quality version of
the Zapruder film first.
> I talked to him in person. He refuses to answer
> any questions.
Any of your questions. Good for him. For that, I
forgive his book "The Betrayal of America".
WhiskyJoe
From David Von Pein:
> Thanks for your comments, WhiskyJoe.
> BTW, after reading your post above, I decided
> to add this useful photo to my SBT Blog:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/back_wound/bunching-...
> Thanks for reminding me how helpful that picture is.
> That photo was available in a sub-link of a sub-link
> within my SBT Blog, but I've now added the picture
> directly to my blog page itself.
Your welcome.
WhiskyJoe
WhiskyJoe
To David Von Pein:
*************************************************
I've been looking at your "Pictures of the Pein"
blog and I noticed the following.
*************************************************
from:
http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/
I can't detect any such Connally "reaction" at
Z222 at all. The first firm "reaction" on
Connally's behalf comes later, at Z225, just
after having been struck at Z224. Again, that's
in my own personal opinion on the matter.
*************************************************
The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around
Z222, not Z224.
In Larry Sturdivan's "The JFK Myths", chapter 11,
page 234, he explains that Dr. Lattimer did some
tests, with ballistic gel models of Kennedy and
Connally, with the Connally model wearing a coat,
and the coat did bulge in four out of five shots.
But only one tenth of a second after the bullet
struck, never at the same time as the bullet.
So the best real life experiment supports the
bullet striking one tenth of a second before
the coat bulge, not striking at the same time.
The other evidence for the Z222 hit cannot be
ignored. There was a camera jiggle at Z227.
Zapruder, nor anyone else, can react that fast
to the sound of a bullet, if this jiggle was
caused by the sound of the shot at Z224.
Zapruder jiggled the camera at Z318.
Five to six frames earlier was Z312 and Z313.
Zapruder jiggled the camera at Z227.
Five to six frames earlier was Z221 and Z222.
And looking at:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/SBT/Connally_Z223-eng.htm
the bottom shows frames Z222 through Z224. Clearly,
as early as Z223, Connally's right shoulder is
driven down, relative to the left shoulder. The
effect is subtle, as expected.
Connally probably won't react immediately with
his muscles. It takes time for any pain message
to travel to the spinal cord, up to the brain,
the brain process the information and then send
any command to the muscles to down the spinal
cord and on to the muscle. Any immediate movement
will be instead from the momentum of bullet.
And a rifle bullet only carries about the same
amount of momentum as I do when I walk at 1/6 th
of a mph.
Still, it is evident that Connally's right shoulder
is driven down some by the bullet that was descending
at 18 degrees relative to the limousine. And the right shoulder is
goes forward too, although he was likely
turning that way when he was hit.
The 1/10th of a second delay makes sense.
The bullet won't push the coat fabric along
with it. The fabric which was moved weighs
several times as much as the bullet.
It would break the laws of physics, the
Conservation of Momentum, if the bullet did that.
Instead, the bullet passed through Kennedy's neck,
Connally's torso, Connally's wrist and stopped
in Connally's thigh, in about 5 milliseconds (ms),
a fraction of the 55 ms Zapruder frame. During
that 5 ms, the coat hardly bulged at all. But,
during the next 100 ms, the coat swung forward
at 3 mph, 3 inches per Zapruder frame, reaching
is maximum bulge two frames later.
My high school Physics teacher said that in
matters of Physics, never by guided by
"Common Sense". Common sense will generally
mislead you. The Z223-224 coat bulge does not
imply a shot at Z224. It implies a shot at
Z222. And Connally's torso movement during
Z222-224 and the camera jiggle at Z227,
confirm this.
*************************************************
WhiskyJoe
David Von Pein
>>> "Look at where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in the photo on the left (black line). Then look at where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in the autopsy photo on the right. Nowhere close to being lined up together." <<<
The bottom black line in the photo on the left [linked below] isn't
supposed to be going across the "top of the shoulder", Tony. Why in
the world would you think such a thing in the first place? It's a line
that was drawn straight across from President Kennedy's TIE KNOT
(i.e., the location of where there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat
on 11/22/63).
Do you think that the "tie knot" position is the same level as the
"top of the shoulder"? Come now. A person's tie knot is quite a bit
below the top of the shoulders.
With some obvious "alignment" limitations between the two photos shown
below, I think whoever created this montage of images lined things up
pretty well....as accurately as things could be "lined up" when
attempting to draw black lines on two-dimensional photos, even though
the objects being depicted are really in three dimensions, quite
obviously:
David Von Pein
RELATED TOPIC........
www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,797.msg9653.html#msg9653
MILES SCULL SAID:
>>> "The fact that the bullet [CE399] can be linked to Oswald's gun makes it look all the more like a plant." <<<
DVP SAID:
This is utter nonsense, Miles. Exactly the opposite is true.
The fact that CE399 is linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle "to the exclusion of all other weapons" is a very strong
indication that the bullet was NOT "planted"?
Why do I say that?
Because of all the OTHER evidence in the case that ALSO can be linked
to Oswald's rifle -- e.g., the 3 shells in the Sniper's Nest, CE567,
and CE569.
Is all that other stuff that is tied to Rifle C2766 supposedly
"planted" evidence too?
If not, then why on Earth would anyone even feel any NEED to plant any
additional bullet evidence in the first place?
Weren't the 3 shells and CE567/569 good enough to frame the "patsy"?
As usual, conspiracy theorists fail to apply a lick of ordinary common
sense and/or logic to their arguments relating to the evidence
associated with the two murders committed by Lee Oswald in Dallas in
November 1963.
Use your noodle. It couldn't hurt.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Maybe some CTers became convinced that JFK was
>> hit before Connally when Connally himself said
>> exactly that. Who could be a better witness than
>> the man who was actually hit?
>
> The Zapruder film is a much better witness.
> Connally's coat, when it bulged at Z224, is a
> better witness than Connally. Connally's wrist
> when it flew up in front of his chin during
> Z226-230, is a better witness than Connally.
> Any man may be mistaken, but his "soon to be hit"
> coat and wrist let slip the truth.
>
>>> Again, the correct order is:
>
>>> 1. Look at the evidence thoroughly
>
>> Something that WC defenders refuse to do.
>
> I would not hesitate to introduce someone to the
> subject of the Kennedy assassination, show them,
> repeatedly, good quality, stabilized versions of
> the Zapruder film, after asking them who they
> think clearly shows signs of being wounded first,
> Kennedy or Connally. I can't imagine any CTer
> would do the same. They certainly would not be
> making an effective case for conspiracy if they
> did so.
>
That is exactly what we did and 90% of the people said that Kennedy was
hit first and then Connally. The remaining 10% said that they would just
believe whatever the government and the CIA told them to believe.
> Will any CTer introduce someone to the subject
> by pointing out Connally's apparent coat movement
> at Z224 and say it may have been the wind? Will
Keep trying with your straw man arguments.
> any CTer introduce the subject by pointing out
> that the wrist that was wounded flies up during
> Z225-230, but that probably had nothing to do with
> being hit?
>
>>> 2. Then form an opinion
>
>> Some CTers have already formed an opinion that
>> evidence is unreliable. Then what?
>
> I cannot help people who form an opinion on who
> was wounded first without first studying the
> evidence. I cannot help people who decide the
> evidence is unreliable without first studying the
> evidence.
>
You might start by actually studying the evidence yourself.
> They have to start with studying the evidence.
> They have to look at a good quality version of
> the Zapruder film first.
>
You WC defenders were the ones who wanted the Zapruder film withheld by
the government.
>> I talked to him in person. He refuses to answer
>> any questions.
>
> Any of your questions. Good for him. For that, I
> forgive his book "The Betrayal of America".
>
I am the only one who has the guts to call him a liar to his face. And
back it up with facts.
Anthony Marsh
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Why don't you point out that Specter is holding the rod a few inches above the entrance wound they drew in on the jacket of the Kennedy stand-in?"<<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> I did point that out in my SBT Blog.
>
> Maybe you should read a little bit first, Tony--before you start
> criticizing people for not pointing out things that they really have
> pointed out.
>
You said "slightly." It's much more than slightly.
bigdog
people when they begin to study the Z-film. Most people when they look
at the Z-film focus on JFK as he reappears from behind the sign. It is
only natural that they do this. JFK was the President. He was the one
who was assassinated. JBC was a supporting actor in the event. But if
someone wants to really understand what happened, they need to shift
their focus to JBC. More often than not, when people look at JBC, it
is in still frames or slow motion. It is easy to get a false
impression about his reaction when doing this. No single frame by
itself shows JBC's reaction. There are any number of frames you can
look at post-Z225 where it doesn't even look like he as been shot. But
when you put it all together, his reaction is evident and
unmistakeable. If one watches the Z-film at normal speed, focuses on
JBC, and mentally says "BANG" to themselves at the instant JBC
reappears, which is also almost the instant he was shot, they will see
that his reaction is immediate. His right arm flips up into the air
and this action is followed immediately by his turn/dip to the right
and he continues to gyrate in his seat for quite a while after that. I
have demonstrated this to several people and when I do, they suddenly
give a lot more credence to the SBT.
WhiskyJoe
From David Von Pein's blog, near the bottom
of the page:
**************************************************
http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/
YEP, HERE'S ANOTHER PRO-SBT ESSAY (YOU CAN NEVER
HAVE TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE WHEN DISCUSSING THE
"SINGLE-BULLET THEORY"):
The following motion clip covers Zapruder Frames
222 and 223. Via this Z-Film clip, it does seem
that the jacket lapel of Mr. Connally might very
well have been moving around even prior to Z224,
thus casting some doubt on the idea that the
"flip" at Z224 was being caused exclusively
by a bullet
**************************************************
I have heard about it but your pictures of Z222
and Z223 make it very clear that the coat is
bulging in Z222-223 as well as Z223-224. This is
the best picture sequence I have ever seen showing
the coat starting to bulge between Z222 and Z223.
This would seem to indicate the coat bulge could
not be from a bullet, if one believes that the
coat will bulge at the speed of a bullet. But,
of course, it can't. The bullet cuts through
in a fraction of millisecond (ms), transferring
a fraction of it's momentum to the coat while
the bullet speeds on with scarcely any reduced
speed.
Dr. Lattimer's experiments show that if a bullet
struck at Z222, we should expect the coat to bulge
forward during Z223 and Z224, reaching it's
maximum bulge by Z224. This is consistent with
what we see in the Zapruder film.
The coat movement during Z222-223, does not hurt
the theory that the further coat movement of
Z223-224 cannot be from a bullet, it must be from
something else, like a well timed gust of wind.
Instead the coat movement during Z222-223,
strengthens the case for a Z222 SBT bullet.
tomnln
See>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
5th photo from the bottom.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5fc4c5b1-fd27-440b...@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c23a6015009ec83f
>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around Z222, not Z224." <<<
Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
Not that this two-frame differential really matters a great deal. You
and I both know full well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
exact Z-Film frame. And Vince Bugliosi realizes that important fact as
well, such as when Vince says this on page 482 of "Reclaiming
History":
"The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
same bullet." -- VB
It's kind of like arguing whether or not Lee Oswald's toenails were
neatly trimmed at the time he was murdering JFK. In other words --
what difference does it really make in the long run?
But I still favor Zapruder Frame #224 for the Single-Bullet Theory.
One thing's for certain (IMO) -- the first EFFECTS of the bullet
striking either victim are first VISIBLE on the Z-Film at exactly
Z224, with that precise frame of the film showing (IMO) the actual
IMPACT of the bullet striking Governor John Connally, via Connally's
right shoulder pitching forward and dropping down slightly:
There are absolutely no visual indicators of a bullet striking the
victims prior to Z224 (IMO).
Along a related line of thought -- A lot of JFK researchers like to
get "cute" (in a sense) by saying that the head shot to President
Kennedy occurred at Z-frame 310 or Z311 (or some pre-Z313 frame), when
it's quite clear that the first VISUAL evidence on the Zapruder Film
of JFK being struck in the head by a bullet is Z313 exactly.
But, naturally, it took the bullet a certain amount of time to reach
President Kennedy's head after leaving the muzzle of Lee Harvey
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Vincent Bugliosi covers this subject quite well in his book
"Reclaiming History", with Vince concluding that the fatal bullet that
hit JFK in the head was fired at approximately Z310 or so, 3/18ths of
a second before we see the impact on the Z-Film.
Similarly, some researchers prefer to say that the SBT is occurring at
Z221 or Z222 or Z223, even though there's not a sign of such a SBT hit
VISUALLY on Mr. Zapruder's film until Z224. (Dale Myers prefers Z223.)
As for me personally, I always go by this rule (just for clarity and
consistency):
The Zapruder Film frames that I utilize when discussing the details of
when JFK and Governor Connally were struck by bullets in Dealey Plaza
are always the frames that equate to when the first SIGNS OF IMPACT
upon the victims can be seen in the film (i.e., precisely Z224 and
Z313).*
* = Another obligatory "IMO".
Plus, I'll add this (for good measure):
"At issue is the time delay between bullet impact and the
observable reactions of each man to his injury, which in turn is
determined by many factors, including whether or not their reactions
were voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary, they would have
occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries. If voluntary, there
is often a slight delay in reacting." -- HSCA Volume 7; Page 179
REPLAY:
"If involuntary, they would have occurred almost simultaneously
with the injuries." -- 7 HSCA 179
www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
>>> "It's much more than slightly [the distance between Specter's rod and the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in]." <<<
No it's not:
WhiskyJoe
>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally
>>> around Z222, not Z224."
from David Von Pein:
>
> Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>
> Not that this two-frame differential really
> matters a great deal. You and I both know full
> well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
> exact Z-Film frame.
It does make a difference. Timing the shots would
be a lot easier if bodies where shoved around by
bullets as one sees in Hollywood movies. But they
aren’t because bullets have too little momentum to
do push whole bodies. But they do have enough
momentum to push smaller objects, like coats,
heads and bloody organic matter.
If he say the bullets hit at Z224 and Z314, then
we would have to toss out all the visible information
about the direction of the bullets, like:
* the coat bulge during Z222-224
* Connally's right shoulder dip during Z222-224,
the most subtle movement because of the large
mass of the torso
* the forward movement of JFK's head during Z312-313
* the forward movement of the bloody spray
during Z312-313
so the difference of a frame or two is important.
Your blog, at the bottom of the page showing
frames Z222-224, specifically says that the lapel
movement during Z222-224 cannot be from a bullet
because you believe the movement would be over
within one frame.
If we misplace the likely times the bullets
strikes, even if by just a frame or two, we
inevitably have to throw out some of our
evidence for shots from the rear.
***************************************************
> There are absolutely no visual indicators of a
> bullet striking the victims prior to Z224 (IMO).
No, your blog, at the bottom, pictures of frames
222 through 224, show Connally's right shoulder
dip and the coat movement. There are these two
visual indicators in frame 223.
If you look at your pictures of Z222-224 again:
* Do you not see Connally dip his right shoulder
while his left shoulder moves up?
* Do you not see Connally's coat move?
These are indicators of a bullet hit, just
like Connally's hat flip during Z226-231.
And, if any case, if real world experiments,
like those of Dr. Lattimer's in the 1990's,
show the bullet strikes a tenth of a second
before visual indicators occur, we should put
the bullet strike one tenth of a second before
these indicators and not just ignore his
experiments. The maximum bulge occurs in Z224.
So the bullet struck at Z222.
***************************************************
>
> As for me personally, I always go by this rule
> (just for clarity and consistency):
>
> The Zapruder Film frames that I utilize when
> discussing the details of when JFK and Governor
> Connally were struck by bullets in Dealey Plaza
> are always the frames that equate to when the
> first SIGNS OF IMPACT upon the victims can be
> seen in the film (i.e., precisely Z224 and
> Z313).*
In my opinion, this is not a good rule, if it
forces us to toss out some of our evidence,
the coat bulge at Z223-224, the forward head
movement at Z312-313.
I don't think people will get confused that much
if we refer to these as bullet strikes at Z222
and Z312. But it's better to risk a little
confusion that to have to toss out some of our
evidence.
At the very least, you should not say, as you do
at your website:
"The following motion clip covers Zapruder
Frames 222 and 223. Via this Z-Film clip,
it does seem that the jacket lapel of
Mr. Connally might very well have been moving
around even prior to Z224, thus casting some
doubt on the idea that the "flip" at Z224 was
being caused exclusively by a bullet:"
if your conclusion that the coat was moving before
the bullet strike was just based on you finding
it more convenient to think of this as a Z224
bullet strike and not as a Z222 bullet strike.
***************************************************
By the way, I think your blog was better when it
showed Z222-224 than it does not, showing just
Z222-223.
***************************************************
> Along a related line of thought -- A lot of JFK
> researchers like to get "cute" (in a sense) by
> saying that the head shot to President Kennedy
> occurred at Z-frame 310 or Z311 (or some
> pre-Z313 frame), when it's quite clear that the
> first VISUAL evidence on the Zapruder Film of
> JFK being struck in the head by a bullet is
> Z313 exactly.
A Z314 strike for the head wound was fanciful,
but most people put the bullet at Z313. If the
bullet really did strike at Z313, even if
it struck as the shutter opened, the head would
still have been in it's original position and we
could not observe the back of the head move
forward between Z312-313.
Strictly speaking, if we insist on a bullet strike
at Z313, then we have to throw out the movement
of the head between Z312-313 as evidence that the
bullet struck from behind.
Clearly, the bullet struck much closer to Z312,
right about when the shutter closed for Z312,
which allowed the head to be shoved forward an
observable amount by the time the shutter opened
for Z313.
Question:
If the bullet really did hit during Z313, would
we expect to see any forward head movement
between Z312 and Z313?
So, in conclusion, the bullet was fired at Z310
and struck right at the end of Z312, perhaps just
after the shutter closed.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c23a6015009ec83f
>
>
>>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around Z222, not Z224."<<<
>
>
> Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>
> Not that this two-frame differential really matters a great deal. You
Correct. Accuracy means nothing to the WC defenders. You guys can't even
agree on a frame number. You keep changing it every day.
> and I both know full well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
Again you are begging the question because you can't prove your argument.
Never have, never will. Which is why 90% of the public doesn't believe
you.
> exact Z-Film frame. And Vince Bugliosi realizes that important fact as
> well, such as when Vince says this on page 482 of "Reclaiming
> History":
>
> "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
> were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
> same bullet." -- VB
>
> It's kind of like arguing whether or not Lee Oswald's toenails were
> neatly trimmed at the time he was murdering JFK. In other words --
> what difference does it really make in the long run?
>
> But I still favor Zapruder Frame #224 for the Single-Bullet Theory.
>
Please pick and frame and stick with it. Stop changing your theory every
hour.
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, and the same thing can be seen on Connally's coat out at Love
Field, so I suppose this proves that Connally was shot at Love Field?
You WC defenders ridicule the jiggle analysis and then you take lapel
flips seriously? It's to laugh.
> Dr. Lattimer's experiments show that if a bullet
> struck at Z222, we should expect the coat to bulge
> forward during Z223 and Z224, reaching it's
> maximum bulge by Z224. This is consistent with
> what we see in the Zapruder film.
>
> The coat movement during Z222-223, does not hurt
> the theory that the further coat movement of
> Z223-224 cannot be from a bullet, it must be from
> something else, like a well timed gust of wind.
> Instead the coat movement during Z222-223,
> strengthens the case for a Z222 SBT bullet.
>
Why can't you WC defenders just pick a frame and stick with it?
It's not much of a theory if you keep changing the frame every minute.
Anthony Marsh
There is simply no way that JFK could have gotten his hands up in front of
his throat within one Zapruder frame. No human can react that quickly. So
he MUST have been hit before Z-224. How much more before does not matter
as much as the fact that this alone destroys the SBT.
Andrew Mason
>>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally
>>>> around Z222, not Z224."
>
> from David Von Pein:
>> Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>>
>> Not that this two-frame differential really
>> matters a great deal. You and I both know full
>> well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
>> exact Z-Film frame.
>
> It does make a difference. Timing the shots would
> be a lot easier if bodies where shoved around by
> bullets as one sees in Hollywood movies. But they
> aren’t because bullets have too little momentum to
> do push whole bodies. But they do have enough
> momentum to push smaller objects, like coats,
> heads and bloody organic matter.
A 2000 fps (610 m/sec) 10 gram (.01 kg) bullet can impart 6 kg m/sec of
momentum to a target. But the target must be strong enough to deflect it
or slow it down in order to have that momentum transferred.
A coat does not have enough strength to slow a bullet down, so the
bullet plows through it destroying the molecular bonds in the fibres and
simply blasts a hole without imparting much momentum to the cloth.
JBC said he felt the impact of the shot that hit him in the right
armpit. He said it was a significant impact. That indicates that
momentum was transferred to his body which means the bullet was slowed
down suddenly or deflected suddenly. 6 kg m/sec of momentum can move a
60 kg torso 10 cm/sec. That would be visible.
The problem is that they could be indicators of voluntary bodily
movement as well.
Andrew Mason
bigdog
> On 7/11/2009 5:31 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c23a6015009ec83f
>
> >>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around Z222, not Z224."<<<
>
> > Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>
> > Not that this two-frame differential really matters a great deal. You
>
> Correct. Accuracy means nothing to the WC defenders. You guys can't even
> agree on a frame number. You keep changing it every day.
>
window for the SBT provided by the WC from Z210-224 to a much smaller
window of Z221-224. The fact that we are unable to precisely identify
the exact frame to everyone's satisfaction due to the limitations of
circa 1963 home movie technology does not invalidate the SBT.
Reasonable disagreements can be made about exact details while
maintaining agreement on the basic premise. While there are dissenters
among modern LNs for a Z221-224 window, I would wager that at least
90% of us agree on it. We would love to be even more precise in our
findings but the definitive proof just isn't there...yet.
Perhaps someone will discover a clue that to date has been overlooked
or technological advances will give us definitive proof of the exact
frame the SB struck but in absence of that, the SBT remains sound. It
is truly puzzling why you think that the SBT is invalid simply because
we cannot identify an exact frame that everyone can agree on. If the
day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
proven to be correct.
> > and I both know full well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
>
> Again you are begging the question because you can't prove your argument.
> Never have, never will. Which is why 90% of the public doesn't believe
> you.
>
> > exact Z-Film frame. And Vince Bugliosi realizes that important fact as
> > well, such as when Vince says this on page 482 of "Reclaiming
> > History":
>
> > "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
> > were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
> > same bullet." -- VB
>
> > It's kind of like arguing whether or not Lee Oswald's toenails were
> > neatly trimmed at the time he was murdering JFK. In other words --
> > what difference does it really make in the long run?
>
> > But I still favor Zapruder Frame #224 for the Single-Bullet Theory.
>
> Please pick and frame and stick with it. Stop changing your theory every
> hour.
>
When has DVP said anything other than Z224? Why aren't LNs allowed to
have minor disagreements?
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read my original paragraph over several times and I can't find
the where I said the bullet hit at Z224. Are you able to point it out
for us or is this just another example of Tony Marsh's strawman
tactic.
Since you apparently made a knee jerk reaction to my observation
before you read it thoroughly enough to comprehend what I was saying,
let me try to restate it a little more simply. JBC's observable
reaction begins at the same time JFK's observable reaction begins.
JFK's hands move upward rapidly from Z225 to Z226. By contrast, there
is little movement of his right hand from Z224 to Z225. JBC's right
arm also moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226. This is precisely
when JFK reacted. The two men reacted in unison. My observation had
everything to do with the observable reactions of the two men and
nothing to do with when the two were hit. For that, we have other
clues which tell us approximately, but not precisely when the bullet
hit. It is my belief that it came in the Z222-223 time frame which
would allow for a reaction time of 3 frames.
claviger
> Why can't you WC defenders just pick a frame and stick with it?
> It's not much of a theory if you keep changing the frame every minute.
Why don't you pick a weapon on the GK and stay with it? How many so
far, 4 or 5? And the ammunition fired by those weapons too!
Anthony Marsh
>
> RELATED TOPIC........
>
> www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,797.msg9653.html#msg9653
>
> MILES SCULL SAID:
>
>>>> "The fact that the bullet [CE399] can be linked to Oswald's gun makes it look all the more like a plant."<<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> This is utter nonsense, Miles. Exactly the opposite is true.
>
> The fact that CE399 is linked to Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
> Carcano rifle "to the exclusion of all other weapons" is a very strong
> indication that the bullet was NOT "planted"?
>
> Why do I say that?
>
Because you are a WC defender and will say anything to defend the WC lies.
> Because of all the OTHER evidence in the case that ALSO can be linked
> to Oswald's rifle -- e.g., the 3 shells in the Sniper's Nest, CE567,
> and CE569.
>
> Is all that other stuff that is tied to Rifle C2766 supposedly
> "planted" evidence too?
>
Another of your many straw man arguments. Stick to the issue at hand and
stop making up crap.
> If not, then why on Earth would anyone even feel any NEED to plant any
> additional bullet evidence in the first place?
>
Why would? You can't figure it out? To link the shooting to Oswald, to
frame him. We've been saying that for 45 years and you never figured it out?
> Weren't the 3 shells and CE567/569 good enough to frame the "patsy"?
>
Maybe not. How could they predict the condition of the fragments or even
be sure that any would be found? Remember how the DPD could not link the
Walker bullet to Oswald. Not my theory, but other conspiracy authors claim
that the rifle and cartridges were planted. The fact that the cartridges
were fired from CE 2766 does not prove WHEN they were fired.
> As usual, conspiracy theorists fail to apply a lick of ordinary common
> sense and/or logic to their arguments relating to the evidence
> associated with the two murders committed by Lee Oswald in Dallas in
> November 1963.
>
> Use your noodle. It couldn't hurt.
>
Would it hurt you so much to actually look at the evidence some day?
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Look at where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in the photo on the
left (black line). Then look at where Kennedy's top of the shoulder is in
the autopsy photo on the right. Nowhere close to being lined up
together."<<<
>
>
> The bottom black line in the photo on the left [linked below] isn't
> supposed to be going across the "top of the shoulder", Tony. Why in
> the world would you think such a thing in the first place? It's a line
> that was drawn straight across from President Kennedy's TIE KNOT
> (i.e., the location of where there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat
> on 11/22/63).
>
The bottom line most certainly is at the level of the shoulder. The top of
the shoulder on the autopsy photo is much higher. You know that this
proves they are not to scale and are presenting a false comparison. That
is why you praise it.
> Do you think that the "tie knot" position is the same level as the
> "top of the shoulder"? Come now. A person's tie knot is quite a bit
> below the top of the shoulders.
>
> With some obvious "alignment" limitations between the two photos shown
> below, I think whoever created this montage of images lined things up
> pretty well....as accurately as things could be "lined up" when
> attempting to draw black lines on two-dimensional photos, even though
> the objects being depicted are really in three dimensions, quite
> obviously:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010a.+UPPER-BACK+AND+THROAT+WOUND+COMPARISON?gda=iPtLDF4AAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9UQMLZdZGRaTIT09LbiNLBiZiW1W55TAqGeIu5uDhqL-nVucZzYUjZitPoZinvRFC7usShdQrGh1-FGScom9G3uOwpdWz5ftt1dlzlu5J-bE&gsc=cdBXiBYAAAAsM6MFz20qraAJTpyL_FgZn_jru2-fVACx0Irg8SkaKg
>
It's quite obvious that the comparison was meant to deceive. That's why
you use it.
David Von Pein
>>> "When has DVP said anything other than Z224?" <<<
I'll answer this one -- Never.
David Von Pein
>>> "The bottom line most certainly is at the level of the shoulder." <<<
Which means that you (Anthony Marsh) must believe that JFK's tie knot
is at SHOULDER LEVEL too...because that line is drawn straight across
from Kennedy's tie knot.
You've lost this one, Tony. Why continue to make yourself look silly
by pretending that Kennedy's tie knot is at shoulder level?
David Von Pein
>>> "If the bullet really did hit during Z313, would we expect to see any
forward head movement between Z312 and Z313?" <<<
Of course we would. Why wouldn't we?
Given those parameters, at Z312 he has not been hit....at Z313 he has been
hit. Therefore, in Z313 his head has moved FORWARD of the position that it
was in in Z312.
Makes sense to me anyway.
But maybe ALL of the FORWARD movement of the head really IS within frame
313 itself (and continuing a little bit into Z314 too, which it does).
That seems quite possible as well.
IOW--perhaps the forward head movement doesn't begin until Z313.11905907
(approx.). Or maybe Z313.1191798085633315. It could be. ~grin~
Anthony Marsh
You are adding in hoaxsters, not researchers.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 11, 4:08 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/11/2009 5:31 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c23a6015009ec83f
>>
>>>>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around Z222, not Z224."<<<
>>
>>> Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>>
>>> Not that this two-frame differential really matters a great deal. You
>>
>> Correct. Accuracy means nothing to the WC defenders. You guys can't even
>> agree on a frame number. You keep changing it every day.
>>
> Now we don't, Tony. What modern LNs have done is narrowed the original
> window for the SBT provided by the WC from Z210-224 to a much smaller
> window of Z221-224. The fact that we are unable to precisely identify
How many more centuries will it take for you to decide on a frame?
> the exact frame to everyone's satisfaction due to the limitations of
> circa 1963 home movie technology does not invalidate the SBT.
It is not fair for you to blame your own lack of precision on the
Zapruder film.
> Reasonable disagreements can be made about exact details while
> maintaining agreement on the basic premise. While there are dissenters
> among modern LNs for a Z221-224 window, I would wager that at least
> 90% of us agree on it. We would love to be even more precise in our
90% of the 10%? I'd like to see your survey.
> findings but the definitive proof just isn't there...yet.
> Perhaps someone will discover a clue that to date has been overlooked
> or technological advances will give us definitive proof of the exact
> frame the SB struck but in absence of that, the SBT remains sound. It
Hey, I thought you guys already had your clue with the lapel flip? What
else are you waiting for?
> is truly puzzling why you think that the SBT is invalid simply because
> we cannot identify an exact frame that everyone can agree on. If the
I never said that. I have pointed out several reasons why the WC and
HSCA SBTs are impossible. I have said that some type of SBT may be
possible, but WC defenders are too lazy to find the solution. So in the
meantime it is fun to make fun of them when they pretend to be so
superior to the conspiracy believers.
> day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
> Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
> Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
> proven to be correct.
>
Wow, the WC said both men were hit while the limousine was on Elm Street
so when that is proven it means the WC was 100% accurate? That's a
little bit of a stretch.
>>> and I both know full well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
>>
>> Again you are begging the question because you can't prove your argument.
>> Never have, never will. Which is why 90% of the public doesn't believe
>> you.
>>
>>> exact Z-Film frame. And Vince Bugliosi realizes that important fact as
>>> well, such as when Vince says this on page 482 of "Reclaiming
>>> History":
>>
>>> "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
>>> were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
>>> same bullet." -- VB
>>
>>> It's kind of like arguing whether or not Lee Oswald's toenails were
>>> neatly trimmed at the time he was murdering JFK. In other words --
>>> what difference does it really make in the long run?
>>
>>> But I still favor Zapruder Frame #224 for the Single-Bullet Theory.
>>
>> Please pick and frame and stick with it. Stop changing your theory every
>> hour.
>>
> When has DVP said anything other than Z224? Why aren't LNs allowed to
> have minor disagreements?
Because it ruins their claim of superiority to conspiracy believers when
they make fun of disagreements amongst conspiracy believers.
>>
>
WhiskyJoe
>> "If the bullet really did hit during Z313,
>> would we expect to see any forward head
>> movement between Z312 and Z313?"
> Of course we would. Why wouldn't we?
No, we wouldn't, at least as far as the back
of the head is concerned.
We can see that the back of the head moves
forward between Z312 and Z313:
http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
As I have used before, I will use a decimal system
to show the exact time.
Z312.0 is when the shutter opens for Z312.
Z312.5 is when the shutter closes.
Z313.0 is when the shutter opens for Z313.
Z313.5 is when the shutter closes.
If the bullet struck anytime during Z313.0-313.5,
any time when the shutter was opened, the back of
the head would not appear to move forward. That is
because, when the shutter opened at Z313.0, the
head was still in the same position. If the bullet
struck at Z313.1, or even Z313.0, and the head
started to move forward, it wouldn't matter. The
image on the film would already have been made.
The back of the head would appear in the same
place in the Z313 image as it did in the Z312
image.
One may think, it doesn't matter, we will see
the front of the head move forward. Except, in
this case, we can't because the front of the
head is obscured by the bloody spray.
If the bullet struck anytime during Z313.0
through Z313.5, we would not see the back of
the head change position, even if it did by
Z313.5. The exposure at the instance of Z313.0
would make that impossible.
The position of the head by Z313.5 does not matter.
The apparent position of the back of the head is
going to be determined by the position of the head
at Z313.0. If by Z313.5 the head moved forward,
that is not going to effect the apparent position
of the back of the head.
It appears the head had moved forward by one
inch between Z312 and Z313. Likely the bullet
struck around Z312.5. By Z313.0, the head had
moved forward about 1 inch. By the time the
shutter closed at Z313.5, it had moved 2 inches,
as measured by William Hoffman for Josiah Thompson
and the Itek study.
The bullet probably pushed the head forward at
2 mph, which is about 2 inches per Zapruder frame.
By Z313.0, the head had moved forward by one inch.
That means the bullet struck at Z312.5.
> But maybe ALL of the FORWARD movement of the
> head really IS within frame 313 itself
> (and continuing a little bit into Z314 too,
> which it does). That seems quite possible as
> well.
No, it can't, it is not possible. We would
not see the back of the head move forward.
The exposure at Z313.0 would prevent that,
regardless of the forward movement afterwards.
**************************************************
These little details are important. If we insist
on placing the shots too late, we lose much of
our evidence.
If we go with bullets at Z224 and Z313, CTers
will say:
* Connally's torso does appear to move somewhat
oddly between Z222 and Z224. But this can have
nothing to do with a bullet since this movement
occurs before you say the bullet struck
* Connally's coat does appear to move between
Z222 and Z224. But this can have nothing to do
with a bullet since this movement occurs before
you say the bullet struck
* JFK's head does appear to move forward between
Z312 and Z313. But this can have nothing to do
with a bullet since this movement occurs before
you say the bullet struck
**************************************************
If we go with a bullet at Z222, the evidence for
this bullet is:
* Connally's torso movement
* Connally's coat movement
* Camera jiggle at Z227
** Connally's wrist movement
But if we insist on a SBT at Z224, we lose all
the '*' points, only keeping the '**' points.
We throw away 75% of our visible evidence from
the Zapruder film.
Individually, the evidence doesn't mean much.
If all we head was Connally's wrist movement,
that would not be totally compelling. Maybe
he heard a shot and decided to wave his cowboy
hat. But collectively, the case is much stronger.
If there was not shot then, why did Zapruder
jiggle his camera then? Why does Connally's
torso appear to move strangely? Why does Connally's
coat appear to move then? Why does Connally's
wrist move then?
In general, if we must error, we must error on
the early side, so we don't have to throw away
any signs of a shot.
bigdog
> On 7/11/2009 6:49 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 4:08 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2009 5:31 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c23a6015009ec83f
>
> >>>>>> "The SBT bullet struck Kennedy and Connally around Z222, not Z224."<<<
>
> >>> Isn't Z222 "around" Z224, WhiskyJoe? ~grin~
>
> >>> Not that this two-frame differential really matters a great deal. You
>
> >> Correct. Accuracy means nothing to the WC defenders. You guys can't even
> >> agree on a frame number. You keep changing it every day.
>
> > Now we don't, Tony. What modern LNs have done is narrowed the original
> > window for the SBT provided by the WC from Z210-224 to a much smaller
> > window of Z221-224. The fact that we are unable to precisely identify
>
> How many more centuries will it take for you to decide on a frame?
>
> > the exact frame to everyone's satisfaction due to the limitations of
> > circa 1963 home movie technology does not invalidate the SBT.
>
> It is not fair for you to blame your own lack of precision on the
> Zapruder film.
>
> > Reasonable disagreements can be made about exact details while
> > maintaining agreement on the basic premise. While there are dissenters
> > among modern LNs for a Z221-224 window, I would wager that at least
> > 90% of us agree on it. We would love to be even more precise in our
>
> 90% of the 10%? I'd like to see your survey.
>
wager that at least 90% of us agree on Z221-224. I might be wrong and
I might lose that wager, but I would be glad to make it.
> > findings but the definitive proof just isn't there...yet.
> > Perhaps someone will discover a clue that to date has been overlooked
> > or technological advances will give us definitive proof of the exact
> > frame the SB struck but in absence of that, the SBT remains sound. It
>
> Hey, I thought you guys already had your clue with the lapel flip? What
> else are you waiting for?
>
If we knew the lapel flip occured simultaneous with the bullet passing
through, we would have the defintive answer. However, the physics does
not allow us to do that. WhiskyJoe has presented a very sound argument
regarding the physics and why the lapel flip/bulge would happen after
the bullet passed through, not simultaneous with it. That agrees with
numerous super slow motion films I have seen of a bullet passing
through an object. The bullet exits first and the material being
blasted out follows in its wake. Now how these super slow motion
pictures would equate to the 18.3 fps of the Z-film, I do not know. I
think it would be an interesting experiment to simulate the bulge of
the coat by firing a shot through it and use the superslow motion
camera to determine the lag time between the pass through and the
bulge. If we knew the lag time, we might be able to precisely identify
the frame. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to conduct such
an experiment.
> > is truly puzzling why you think that the SBT is invalid simply because
> > we cannot identify an exact frame that everyone can agree on. If the
>
> I never said that. I have pointed out several reasons why the WC and
> HSCA SBTs are impossible. I have said that some type of SBT may be
> possible, but WC defenders are too lazy to find the solution.
Lacking resources does not equate to being lazy. We are limited to the
information at hand unless we have the resources to conduct our own
experiments. I would be more than happy to conduct the experiment I
described above if I could afford the materials needed to do so.
Unfortunately, that is not the case so I must deal with the
information that is available.
> So in the
> meantime it is fun to make fun of them when they pretend to be so
> superior to the conspiracy believers.
>
> > day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
> > Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
> > Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
> > proven to be correct.
>
> Wow, the WC said both men were hit while the limousine was on Elm Street
> so when that is proven it means the WC was 100% accurate? That's a
> little bit of a stretch.
>
Actually, the WC was a little more precise than that. They gave us a
window of a whopping 3/4 of a second when the bullet could have hit.
>
>
>
>
> >>> and I both know full well that the SBT is true, regardless of the
>
> >> Again you are begging the question because you can't prove your argument.
> >> Never have, never will. Which is why 90% of the public doesn't believe
> >> you.
>
> >>> exact Z-Film frame. And Vince Bugliosi realizes that important fact as
> >>> well, such as when Vince says this on page 482 of "Reclaiming
> >>> History":
>
> >>> "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally
> >>> were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the
> >>> same bullet." -- VB
>
> >>> It's kind of like arguing whether or not Lee Oswald's toenails were
> >>> neatly trimmed at the time he was murdering JFK. In other words --
> >>> what difference does it really make in the long run?
>
> >>> But I still favor Zapruder Frame #224 for the Single-Bullet Theory.
>
> >> Please pick and frame and stick with it. Stop changing your theory every
> >> hour.
>
> > When has DVP said anything other than Z224? Why aren't LNs allowed to
> > have minor disagreements?
>
> Because it ruins their claim of superiority to conspiracy believers when
> they make fun of disagreements amongst conspiracy believers.
>
We are quibbling over at most a quarter of a second. On the other
hand, conspiracy believers have give us a wide array of shooters,
locations, weapons, and supsects, most of which are incompatible with
each other. The disagreements among LNs is miniscule compared to the
ones among the CTs.
Anthony Marsh
Your idea is silly and has been discussed and dismissed before. You are
forgetting that in Z-313 we can see the debris that has already left the
head and has traveled about 3 feet above the head. If you keep moving up
the Z-frame fraction for the impact of the bullet, you produce an unlikely
high velocity for the debris, much of which is light brain matter and
blood.
For example, the total time for each frame is 1/18.3 of a second, or
0.543448 sec. Your .4 of that would be 0.0218579 sec. So to travel that 3
feet in 0.0218579 sec. it would need to be moving at an average speed of
137.25 fps. That is not impossible, but seems on the high side. So it
would only get worse the later you place the impact.
That is why I specify Z-312.6 which is just after the shutter closed on
Z-312. It seems obvious to me that the debris was moving from the moment
that the shutter opened to when it closed. I can't see the debris not
having been moving until after the shutter opened.
Perhaps what you should do is use high speed photography ala Doc Edgerton
and measure exactly how quickly debris will move up when shot by a M-C
bullet. I can make the shot, but doubt that anyone with high-speed cameras
would be interested in filming it.
> One may think, it doesn't matter, we will see
> the front of the head move forward. Except, in
> this case, we can't because the front of the
> head is obscured by the bloody spray.
>
> If the bullet struck anytime during Z313.0
> through Z313.5, we would not see the back of
> the head change position, even if it did by
> Z313.5. The exposure at the instance of Z313.0
> would make that impossible.
>
> The position of the head by Z313.5 does not matter.
> The apparent position of the back of the head is
> going to be determined by the position of the head
> at Z313.0. If by Z313.5 the head moved forward,
> that is not going to effect the apparent position
> of the back of the head.
>
> It appears the head had moved forward by one
> inch between Z312 and Z313. Likely the bullet
Pretty damn close.
> struck around Z312.5. By Z313.0, the head had
> moved forward about 1 inch. By the time the
> shutter closed at Z313.5, it had moved 2 inches,
> as measured by William Hoffman for Josiah Thompson
> and the Itek study.
>
No, that is the blur.
Anthony Marsh
And yet you decline to participate in any tests.
>> So in the
>> meantime it is fun to make fun of them when they pretend to be so
>> superior to the conspiracy believers.
>>
>>> day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
>>> Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
>>> Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
>>> proven to be correct.
>>
>> Wow, the WC said both men were hit while the limousine was on Elm Street
>> so when that is proven it means the WC was 100% accurate? That's a
>> little bit of a stretch.
>>
> Actually, the WC was a little more precise than that. They gave us a
> window of a whopping 3/4 of a second when the bullet could have hit.
Close enough for a lone nutter.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:530b336b-1178-407a...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
> >> So in the
> >> meantime it is fun to make fun of them when they pretend to be so
> >> superior to the conspiracy believers.
>
> >>> day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
> >>> Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
> >>> Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
> >>> proven to be correct.
>
> >> Wow, the WC said both men were hit while the limousine was on Elm Street
> >> so when that is proven it means the WC was 100% accurate? That's a
> >> little bit of a stretch.
>
> > Actually, the WC was a little more precise than that. They gave us a
> > window of a whopping 3/4 of a second when the bullet could have hit.
>
> Close enough for a lone nutter.
>
Close enough for what was known then. We are even closer know. We have
since narrowed the window to 1/4 of second. That is indeed close
enough. A lot closer than anything the CTs have proposed. Perhaps
someday, we will narrow it down to an exact frame. Even if we can't do
bigdog
tomnln
On Jul 13, 11:11 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> bigdog thinks Farts have Lumps ! ! !
>
Another eloquent contribution from Rossley!!!
"GOTCHA" ! ! ! !
When we debate on Anton Batey's radio station;
Am I gonna be Charged with "Voluntary Manslaughter"???
Anthony Marsh
You continue to do that. I put out an open call for anyone to
participate in shooting tests.
>>>> So in the
>>>> meantime it is fun to make fun of them when they pretend to be so
>>>> superior to the conspiracy believers.
>>
>>>>> day comes when we can say with certainty that the bullet struck at
>>>>> Z222, then the WC was correct when it said the bullet hit between
>>>>> Z210-224 and those of us who now say it hit between Z221-224 will be
>>>>> proven to be correct.
>>
>>>> Wow, the WC said both men were hit while the limousine was on Elm Street
>>>> so when that is proven it means the WC was 100% accurate? That's a
>>>> little bit of a stretch.
>>
>>> Actually, the WC was a little more precise than that. They gave us a
>>> window of a whopping 3/4 of a second when the bullet could have hit.
>>
>> Close enough for a lone nutter.
>>
> Close enough for what was known then. We are even closer know. We have
> since narrowed the window to 1/4 of second. That is indeed close
> enough. A lot closer than anything the CTs have proposed. Perhaps
> someday, we will narrow it down to an exact frame. Even if we can't do
> that, the SBT remains sound.
>
Except that the CTers can specify the exact moment.
>
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
If only you had the credibility with Batey to make it happen.
bigdog
specify any frame you want. Now are you going to tell me that all the
CTs agree on the exact moment JFK and JBC are first hit, or does each
CT have their own exact moment for these events?
Anthony Marsh
I am telling you that you have no basis for your haughty attitude when
WC defenders disagree just as conspiracy believers disagree.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have every basis for my haughty attitude. It comes with knowing I am
right. The disagreements the WC defenders have are miniscule compared with
what the CT community offers us. The WC got it right. Oswald did it. There
is no evidence he had any help. He missed with one shot and got both JFK
and JBC with another before blowing JFK's brains out with the third. In
the years since, the LN community has taken the original theory and
refined it with greater precision as to the timing of the shots, but the
original thesis was correct.