JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 182)

[David Von Pein]

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 182):

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

QUESTIONS FOR CONSPIRACY THEORIST JAMES DiEUGENIO:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html


ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER AND HIS FILM:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/abraham-zapruder-and-his-film.html


JFK'S FUNERAL SERVICES:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-funeral.html


RUTH PAINE:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html


BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html


CHARLES BREHM:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/charles-brehm.html


BILL AND GAYLE NEWMAN:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/bill-and-gayle-newman.html


JEAN HILL AND MARY MOORMAN:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html


PAUL HARVEY:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/paul-harvey-commentary-november-1963.html


OLIVER STONE:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/oliver-stone.html


HENRY WADE:
http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-conferences.html


LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND SYLVIA ODIO:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/sylvia-odio-part-2.html


GETTING HIRED AT THE BOOK DEPOSITORY:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1VLRED2TYB89B&cdMsgNo=291&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMsgID=Mx2N4Q66OZ5CUX2#Mx2N4Q66OZ5CUX2


GARY MACK:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17527&st=30&p=248451&#entry248451
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17527&st=30&p=248482&#entry248482


JIM FETZER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/13cca352c9b0920b


DAVID MANTIK ON JOHN McADAMS:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/david-mantik-on-john-mcadams.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f25bae85710c56da


"CASTRO'S SECRETS":
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/03/kennedy-assassination-did-castro-know.html


MORE STUFF:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18878&st=0&p=248364&#entry248364




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

[aeffects]

On Mar 27, 11:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising nutless.... you know the drill.

[aeffects]

On Mar 28, 12:56 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:22 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> no advertising nutless.... you know the drill.

bump

[David Von Pein]

Healy-ignoring bump.....

One more new one:

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-and-nellie-connally.html

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because if only a small percentage of the evidence against Oswald has
not been faked or tampered with, then Oswald's very likely guilty.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

That does not follow logically. All they have to do is steal Oswald's
rifle and then fire those shots from the sniper's nest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think it's MORE reasonable and MORE logical and MORE likely
for someone to have stolen Oswald's rifle and shot President Kennedy
with it, rather than just believing that Oswald himself did the
shooting with his own gun?

That's not logically following the evidence. That's inventing a theory
from whole cloth which has no hard evidence to support it. (For
example: How did your make-believe thief get the rifle out of Ruth
Paine's garage without being heard or seen?)

Why would you want to believe an unsupportable extraordinary theory
about rifle-pilfering, vs. just simply believing what the evidence
suggests about LHO's guilt?

And any rifle-stealing theory is all the more ridiculous in this case
when we factor in Oswald's own lies that he told the police (and Buell
Frazier).

E.G.:

Why did Oswald lie to Frazier about the contents of that brown bag?

Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never carried
any large bag into the Depository?

Why did Oswald lie to the police when he told them he never said a
word to Buell Frazier about any curtain rods?

Why did Oswald lie and say he didn't own a rifle?

Still think Oswald's rifle was stolen, Tony?

[mainframetech]

--------------------
Sounds like the blind leading the blind! Why would the shots have
to come from the 'nest'? There's doubt they all came from the back
of JFK in the first place, but there's always the Daltex building if
you need a back shot. And LHO's rifle needn't be stolen from him when
the chain of evidence of bullets was broken so badly by the FBI, that
there was plenty of opportunity to fire off some 'test' shots that
would supply bullets and fragments aplenty to insert into the chain.
Why do you assume that the brown bag carried a rifle? Maybe it had
curtain rods in it and LHO didn't lie to anyone. That would fit if he
didn't know he was the patsy.

If the original WC whacko theory were real and made sense, there
wouldn't be any argument. But there were just too many things that
didn't fit.

If we're so needful of 'evidence', find some showing that LHO
practiced with an unfamiliar bolt action enough that he might be able
to fire 3 (at least) shots from the rifle in the time allotted.

Chris

[bigdog]

You can speculate about any number of possibilities. If you confine
yourself to what the evidence tells us, you are stuck with LHO from
the TSBD with his MC rifle.

The above conclusion does not require that anybody supply proof that
he practiced or even that he practiced at all. Also, we do not know
what the allotted time was, we can only estimate since we don't know
precisely when the first shot hit. What we do know, if we limited
ourselves to what we have evidence of, we know the bullets that killed
JFK were fired from Oswald's rifle. If you are going to reject the
conclusion that Oswald fired the shots because we don't have proof
that he practiced with the rifle, where is the proof that somebody
else practiced with the rifle. The bottom line is, we don't have proof
of anybody practicing with that rifle yet we know the assassin used
that rifle and did the shooting within "the time allotted", whatever
that time was.

[Sam McClung]

tom wilson obtained and analyzed a high quality copy of altgen's photo
showing the open dal-tex 2nd floor window and concluded there was no rifle
there but rather a camera

tom was no ballistics expert and his conclusion about the storm drain shot
trajectory was just plain wrong, though his photographic interpretation work
on the damage seen to jfk's head in the moorman photo is accurate

perhaps he confused an optical sight like that on roscoe white's weapon in
the acoustic position (seen in the zapruder film per my work) for a camera,
but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, as it appears no shot(s)
at jfk may have come from behind, ruby's cops (white, tippit, dean) in the
parking lots, north and south, were firing from in front of jfk

does clint hill know buddy walthers may have had a sawed off automatic
shotgun pointed ay him and the others on the queen mary from the north
knoll?

[Sam McClung]

and ruby had been a nixon spook since 1947

given the latest revelations about nixon's sexual preferences (re: bebe
rebozo) , coupled with rumors about ruby's preferences, one might wonder if
nixon and ruby were more than just partners in crime

seems to possibly fit in with the whole blohemian grope theme

[mainframetech]

Ah, but I was speaking of evidence! The things I've mentioned could
just as well fit the 'evidence' as the whacko theory of the WC.

> The above conclusion does not require that anybody supply proof that
> he practiced or even that he practiced at all.

So you try to walk away from that one? Well, I say that you need
evidence of LHO's abilities with a bolt action rifle. Otherwise, the
'evidence' says he could only muster 'Marksman' classification (his
most recent award).

> Also, we do not know
> what the allotted time was, we can only estimate since we don't know
> precisely when the first shot hit.

Welp, an awful ot of folks have mentioned a number of seconds. Are
there no sound files to listen to and count? Or are you talking of
little bitty bits of time?

> What we do know, if we limited
> ourselves to what we have evidence of, we know the bullets that killed
> JFK were fired from Oswald's rifle.

False. You don't know that becasue of the terrible mess the FBI
made of the 'chain of evidence' related to the bullets, especially
CE399. During the problems with the 399 bullet, there was a point
where there were 2 399's outstanding at the same time, as I've pointed
out and proven here in the past. Which was the one that was found
lying on an uninvolved stretcher? And why would the only complete
bullet sitting on the wrong stretcher anyway? You (of course) have no
qualms about 'almost undamaged' bullets that turn up where it doesn't
make any sense.

> If you are going to reject the
> conclusion that Oswald fired the shots because we don't have proof
> that he practiced with the rifle, where is the proof that somebody
> else practiced with the rifle.

Use your head. That doesn't need to be proved until you locate and
indentify the other shooter. Then you can check his/her practice
sessions and abilities. But we know from what evidence we do have
that LHO was marginal as a shooter in this case, and the real shooters
were obviously good shots.

> The bottom line is, we don't have proof
> of anybody practicing with that rifle yet we know the assassin used
> that rifle and did the shooting within "the time allotted", whatever
> that time was.

Nope. We don't know that that rifle shot the kill shot, because of
the info above.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

My interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was
it investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES,
we were lied to, over and over.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're not being fair to Specter, Shaneyfelt, Kelley, et al. You think
they lied. They didn't, of course. And the reason I am sure they never
lied about anything in this case is quite simple:

They didn't NEED to lie to convict Lee Harvey Oswald.

And that's because everything Oswald did and said reeks with his
(double) guilt. Everything.

As far as Thomas J. Kelley's "six inch" measurement regarding the jump
seat -- even you, Pat, admitted in 2008 that regardless of exactly
where that jump seat was located (whether it be 6 inches or 2.5 inches
inboard), John Connally would STILL have been hit by any bullet coming
out of JFK's throat.

And since there's no other reasonable and rational conclusion to reach
other than to conclude that a bullet DID exit JFK's throat, and since
we know that Connally was struck in the upper back by only ONE bullet
(not two) -- then do the math. It's not too hard.

My thoughts regarding Kelley's "6 inches" testimony:

I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct.
And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a
slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for
the jump seat location.

Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't.
I think that measurement must have been different because they were
measuring from a different starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing
point" was different than H&E's.

And as for Shaneyfelt and Specter deliberately lying about the back-
wound location, you're being way too harsh on those men....mainly
because we KNOW that some things had to be approximated as far as the
SBT trajectory analysis is concerned. And the word "approximately" is
used in Shaneyfelt's testimony 24 different times when they get to the
subject of the SBT and the 5/24/64 re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. 24
times!

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

So, many things are only the BEST GUESSES of people like Shaneyfelt
and Robert Frazier, et al, when dealing with the subject of the SBT
and the precise positioning of the two victims, etc.

Plus, the Warren Commission's whole SBT scenario was based on an
AVERAGE (or approximate) positioning of the limo between a 16-frame
range of Zapruder Film frames (Z210-Z225). They merely split the
difference and used, in essence, Z217.5 as their SBT frame, which is
exactly what we see in CE903, which is an exhibit that thoroughly
demolishes the idea that the WC needed to move the wound in JFK's
upper back into his neck, because it's obvious that the wound on the
JFK stand-in is far below the "neck". For some reason, however, CTers
refuse to acknowledge this fact.

To reiterate an important point:

The Warren Commission didn't lie because they just flat-out had no
reason to lie. And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
really did kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. And Oswald's own
actions, plus all of the physical evidence he left behind, proves that
he was guilty. And that fact was proven many days before there ever
was a "Warren Commission" (as illustrated by Henry Wade in the
11/24/63 news conference linked below).

http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-conferences.html

[aeffects]

best guesses when it comes to case evidence? surely even YOU aren't
that dumb?

> Plus, the Warren Commission's whole SBT scenario was based on an
> AVERAGE (or approximate) positioning of the limo between a 16-frame
> range of Zapruder Film frames (Z210-Z225). They merely split the
> difference and used, in essence, Z217.5 as their SBT frame, which is
> exactly what we see in CE903, which is an exhibit that thoroughly
> demolishes the idea that the WC needed to move the wound in JFK's
> upper back into his neck, because it's obvious that the wound on the
> JFK stand-in is far below the "neck". For some reason, however, CTers
> refuse to acknowledge this fact.
>
> To reiterate an important point:
>
> The Warren Commission didn't lie because they just flat-out had no
> reason to lie. And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
> really did kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. And Oswald's own
> actions, plus all of the physical evidence he left behind, proves that
> he was guilty. And that fact was proven many days before there ever
> was a "Warren Commission" (as illustrated by Henry Wade in the
> 11/24/63 news conference linked below).
>

> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-...

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19006&st=0&p=250516&#entry250516


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007TBWQ3W?ie=UTF8&tag=dvsre-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B007TBWQ3W

Upon looking at the free sample of text from Barry Krusch's book
"Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald: Volume One", I can
already see a pretty major error (regarding the TSBD boxes that Barry
points out in the book's Foreword).

Barry, who is a member of John Simkin's Education Forum, asks:

"Why are these boxes in different positions [in Commission
Exhibits 733 and 509]? Did anyone at the Warren Commission notice?"

Well, the answer is: Yes, of course somebody at the WC noticed, and
all of the information about the movement of those boxes fully comes
out in the Warren Commission testimony of the DPD's Robert Studebaker
(beginning at 7 H 141):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0075a.htm

Mr. BALL. Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as
"Exhibit D," [which is the same exact picture that is seen in CE509]
was that taken by you?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Does that show the position of the boxes before or after
they were moved?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. That's after they were dusted - there's fingerprint
dust on every box.

Mr. BALL. And they were not in that position then when you first saw
them?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

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

So, neither the Warren Commission nor the DPD (Studebaker) were trying
to pass off CE509 (aka Studebaker Exhibit D) as a photo depicting the
Sniper's Nest boxes as they were first found by the police on
11/22/63.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Studebaker was very honest and forthright
about the photos that were taken after the boxes had been moved, and
he openly told the WC that CE509/Studebaker D is a picture that was
taken AFTER the boxes had been moved and that that photo did not
represent the configuration of the boxes when they were first
discovered by police, with Studebaker also noting the fingerprint dust
all over the boxes.

Now, I haven't the slightest idea why the DPD felt it was necessary to
photograph the boxes in different positions after they had been dusted
and moved around. I'm still scratching my head about why those photos
were needed at all, but the fact is they were taken--and the DPD told
the truth about them. They didn't hide the fact that some pictures
were taken after the boxes had been moved and dusted for prints.

And when looking at the photo of CE509, it couldn't be more obvious
that the DPD wasn't even attempting to perfectly re-create the
position of the boxes in the Sniper's Nest, because they didn't even
place a box back on the window ledge for CE509. Instead, they stacked
the "windowsill" box on top of the other two boxes.

And, btw, the other picture that Barry pointed out (CE733; aka
Studebaker Exhibit J) is ALSO a picture that was taken after the boxes
were moved--and that fact also comes out in Studebaker's WC testimony,
at 7 H 147:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0078a.htm

Mr. BALL. The picture of the boxes; this is after they were moved?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; they were moved there. This is exactly the
position they were in.

Mr. BALL. It is?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes - not - this was after they were moved, but I put
them in the same exact position.

Mr. BALL. Were they that close - that was about the position?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Let's take one of these pictures and mark it the next
number, which will be "Exhibit J."

Mr. BALL. After the boxes of Rolling Readers had been moved, you put
them in the same position?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. And took a picture?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. And this is Exhibit J, is it, is that right?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Exhibit J, yes, sir.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0337a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0268a.htm

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

So I'm wondering why any conspiracist would look at CE509 and CE733
and still think the DPD was trying to pull the wool over anybody's
eyes--particularly with Studebaker's very own truthful testimony about
those boxes staring them in the face at 7 H 141 and 7 H 147?

Didn't you bother to even read Bob Studebaker's WC testimony, Barry?
Apparently you didn't, otherwise you would have never written these
words in your book: "Why are these boxes in different positions? Did
anyone at the Warren Commission notice?"


MORE ABOUT THE BOXES AND STUDEBAKER:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-police-fake-evidence.html

[Ben Holmes]

In article <7c65acdd-1f8b-4aa0...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Apr 12, 4:46=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> PAT SPEER SAID:
>>
>> My interest in the case transcends "whodunnit" and extends to how was
>> it investigated and did the government LIE. The answer is clearly YES,
>> we were lied to, over and over.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> You're not being fair to Specter, Shaneyfelt, Kelley, et al. You think
>> they lied. They didn't, of course. And the reason I am sure they never
>> lied about anything in this case is quite simple:
>>
>> They didn't NEED to lie to convict Lee Harvey Oswald.

Of course, this is PRECISELY what continues to happen.

Take, for example, Bugliosi's lie about Carrico's description of the original
bullet wound.

Nothing other than a blatant lie.

And without that lie, you can't easily defend the WCR's theory.

>> And that's because everything Oswald did and said reeks with his
>> (double) guilt. Everything.

How silly! Quite the contrary, in fact.

>> As far as Thomas J. Kelley's "six inch" measurement regarding the jump
>> seat -- even you, Pat, admitted in 2008 that regardless of exactly
>> where that jump seat was located (whether it be 6 inches or 2.5 inches
>> inboard), John Connally would STILL have been hit by any bullet coming
>> out of JFK's throat.
>>
>> And since there's no other reasonable and rational conclusion to reach
>> other than to conclude that a bullet DID exit JFK's throat,

Untrue.

>> and since
>> we know that Connally was struck in the upper back by only ONE bullet
>> (not two) -- then do the math. It's not too hard.

Connally's doctor felt that he'd been hit by as many as three bullets.

>> My thoughts regarding Kelley's "6 inches" testimony:
>>
>> I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct.
>> And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a
>> slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for
>> the jump seat location.
>>
>> Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't.
>> I think that measurement must have been different because they were
>> measuring from a different starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing
>> point" was different than H&E's.
>>
>> And as for Shaneyfelt and Specter deliberately lying about the back-
>> wound location, you're being way too harsh on those men....mainly
>> because we KNOW that some things had to be approximated as far as the
>> SBT trajectory analysis is concerned. And the word "approximately" is
>> used in Shaneyfelt's testimony 24 different times when they get to the
>> subject of the SBT and the 5/24/64 re-enactment in Dealey Plaza. 24
>> times!
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
>>
>> So, many things are only the BEST GUESSES of people like Shaneyfelt
>> and Robert Frazier, et al, when dealing with the subject of the SBT
>> and the precise positioning of the two victims, etc.
>
>best guesses when it comes to case evidence? surely even YOU aren't
>that dumb?

Nah... DVP is just a garden variety liar. The LNT'er crowd seems to specialize
in them...

>> Plus, the Warren Commission's whole SBT scenario was based on an
>> AVERAGE (or approximate) positioning of the limo between a 16-frame
>> range of Zapruder Film frames (Z210-Z225). They merely split the
>> difference and used, in essence, Z217.5 as their SBT frame, which is
>> exactly what we see in CE903, which is an exhibit that thoroughly
>> demolishes the idea that the WC needed to move the wound in JFK's
>> upper back into his neck, because it's obvious that the wound on the
>> JFK stand-in is far below the "neck". For some reason, however, CTers
>> refuse to acknowledge this fact.
>>
>> To reiterate an important point:
>>
>> The Warren Commission didn't lie because they just flat-out had no
>> reason to lie.

And yet, I've provided many examples where they did precisely this - lie.

Unrefuted by the kooks.

>> And that's because Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
>> really did kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit. And Oswald's own
>> actions, plus all of the physical evidence he left behind, proves that
>> he was guilty. And that fact was proven many days before there ever
>> was a "Warren Commission" (as illustrated by Henry Wade in the
>> 11/24/63 news conference linked below).
>>
>> http://DVP-Video-Audio-Archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/henry-wade-press-...
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[David Von Pein]

REGARDING THE LIMOUSINE'S JUMP SEAT MEASUREMENTS:

The more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am becoming
that the U.S. Secret Service (Thomas J. Kelley) merely measured the
"inboard" distance of John Connally's jump seat from a different place
from that which appears on the official Hess & Eisenhardt body draft
of the 1961 Lincoln limousine, just as I speculated the other day when
I said this:

"I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are
correct. And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken
from a slightly different place on the car than was the H&E
measurement for the jump seat location. Do you really think Kelley
just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't. I think that measurement
must have been different because they were measuring from a different
starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing point" was different than

H&E's." -- DVP; 4/12/12

Now, when we look at the two pictures below, I can easily envision the
Secret Service's measurement for the jump seat being calculated from a
different starting point on the car to account for the 3.5-inch
difference in the measurements when compared to H&E.

If the Secret Service measurement also included the area between the
arrows in the second picture linked below, it looks to me as though
that would add up to just about six inches when the 2.50-inch
measurement in the H&E diagram is included too.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPi7vWjHAeI/AAAAAAAAHYU/ym4sMBkmCVs/s1600/JFKs_Limousine_After_Assassination.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K2TjOn2QvIw/T4n59EXr9AI/AAAAAAAAHzA/6jvLAoOB8mI/s1600/JFK-Limo-Schematic.gif


Furthermore, the HSCA also used the six-inch figure, when it said
this:

"Connally...was seated well within the car on the jump seat
ahead of Kennedy. A gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated
this seat from the car door." -- HSCA Volume 6; Page 49

Moreover, the HSCA's "slightly less than 15 centimeters" figure was
obviously NOT being derived solely from Thomas Kelley's testimony,
because just after citing the "15 centimeters" measurement at 6 HSCA
49, the HSCA gives a source for the 15-cm. measurement--Figure II-19,
at 6 HSCA 50--which is the H&E body draft of the limo, which says the
jump seat is 2.50 inches inboard. Which makes me think the HSCA was
also using a measurement that included the 2.50-inch measurement we
see specified in the H&E body draft PLUS an additional 3.5 inches of
space that I've outlined with arrows in my photo above.

I'll also add this:

At one point in the endnotes in his JFK book, when Vincent Bugliosi
cited his source for a "six-inch gap" between the jump seat and the
limo door, Vince cited the HSCA and not Thomas Kelley's WC testimony:

"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right
door [6 HSCA 49]." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 of Endnotes

Final Thought:

In my opinion, BOTH Thomas Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt
measurements are accurate. It's just that each of those figures was
calculated in a different manner, utilizing a different starting point
on the SS-100-X limousine. That's all.


2008 "JUMP SEAT" DISCUSSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/35fbd3b213ef4d86

[David Von Pein]

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6180.msg157279.html#msg157279


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald's first (missed) shot struck Tague. (IMO.)


ANDREW MASON SAID:

The problem you have, David, is that at least 20 witnesses said that
JFK reacted to the first shot immediately: leaned to the left/ stopped
waving/ moved his hands to his body-neck/ had a blank look or
combinations of those things. Nearly all the occupants of the SS car
immediately behind JFK noticed this. No one said JFK continued to wave
and smile after the first shot. Can an opinion that does not fit so
much evidence be correct?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In this particular instance, yes, I think it can. And the biggest
reason to think it can, IMO, is the testimony of John Connally
(coupled with the knowledge that the SBT is, indeed, an ironclad fact
and not just a "theory").

Given the certainty of the SBT and Connally's unimpeachable testimony
about NOT being hit by shot #1, then I am confident that the first
shot missed the car and probably struck James Tague. (Although, as
I've stated before, the alternative theory about Tague being hit by a
head-shot fragment is also possible.)

But your theory about shot #2 hitting Tague requires something that's
just impossible for me to accept -- it requires me to throw out the
SBT -- which is something I cannot possibly do, because the SBT is
correct.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-did-john-connally-see.html

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