The SBT And The Importance Of CE903
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
====================================
WHY DID GERALD FORD "MOVE" ONE OF JOHN KENNEDY'S WOUNDS?
WAS FORD ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THINGS? OR WAS HE PART OF SOME MASSIVE
"COVER-UP" (AS MANY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BELIEVE)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location
of
President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of
Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the CTers of
the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some
conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes.
But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound
(and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that
Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT
more
HARM than it does good!
I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this
fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by
Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").
Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask?
Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter
with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph)....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's
back wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with
an
exit point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the SBT's
flight path.
This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before;
but
I hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers,
in
their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903,
claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which
is
obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing.
In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was
highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who
would listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does,
indeed, visibly show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just
exactly how Specter (et al) purported it as happening.
And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with
the autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
To quote Jean herself:
"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be
raised
to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's
single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's
simply a claim.
Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the
wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration
of
the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the
single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the
back of the neck".
I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My
question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision
in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; 12/31/2006
~~~~~~
"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the back
wound
up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving
the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not
strengthen it.
Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole
in
the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the
entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on
the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees --
that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the
re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under
JFK's Adam's apple.
Or take a look at this photo of JFK:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's
tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right?
The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
true.
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison;
01/02/2007
~~~~~~
Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who
wrote
the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the SBT?
Just excellent!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/34899bb8b457348f
>>> "But even they {the WC} did not know the exact {SBT} frame and hence the exact angle." <<<
Yeah. So, instead, they should have just ignored the whole problem and
tossed the SBT-favoring common sense out the nearest window, right
Tony?
Or maybe they should have printed this in their final Warren Report
instead:
"Instead of the Single-Bullet Theory (a scenario which has the only
bullet [CE399] that can be connected with the wounds of EITHER Kennedy
or Connally being recovered and placed into evidence for further
study), we members of the Commission believe that three bullets
actually struck these two men, with the majority of these missiles
simply vanishing into thin air, and (somehow) leaving no trace of
bodily damage inside President Kennedy's back or neck. This three-
bullet stance seems a bit complicated and far-reaching on the
"doability" and "reasonable" scales--especially when compared to the
wholly-reasonable SBT explanation (which has EVERY LAST QUESTION
ANSWERED WITHIN THAT THEORY)--but we have been told by expert
assassination analyst Anthony Marsh and others like him that the SBT
just cannot work and will not work....so, we're tossing our hands in
the air and accepting the three-bullet scenario instead.
Signed....Yours very truly (but also truly confused), Earl Warren."
>>> "We gave up on Jean {Davison} a long time ago. She simply refuses to look at the evidence." <<<
And you simply refuse to accept the logic of the reasonable and non-
conspiracy-slanted arguments she makes.
>>> "Pure nonsense." <<<
Yeah...you are.
>>> "The point is that the WC knew that the back wound was actually lower than the throat wound." <<<
They never "knew" any such thing, because it's just flat-out not
so....and anyone who spends just 20 seconds examining the following
two photographs (in tandem) can easily see that JFK's back wound was
certainly not anatomically LOWER than the throat wound......
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance
wound in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit wound in
the throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of the left
side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a
metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound
to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this
photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound
in the throat." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
Yeah, Specter should have impaled the stand-in instead. (He was only a
stand-in for JFK anyway; so why not just drill the bastard in the back
with a real MC bullet, right?)
Tony Marsh is a "misrepresentation" of reality, folks. But CE903
isn't.
David Von Pein
I didn't draw that line on that photo. I don't know who did. It's
imported from the Lancer/(Conway) archives. Mr. McAdams also has a
nice (bigger) version of that turned-sideways autopsy picture.
And the angle of descent, to be technical, is 17.43 degrees.
Anyway, as VB also says, it's as obvious as can be that the photo of
JFK's left side while he is lying on the slab is as proof-positive as
proof-positive can get that the throat wound was undeniably
ANATOMICALLY LOWER than the back wound.
Because if we're to believe that the back wound had really been LOWER
(anatomically) than the throat wound (as most CTers still believe to
this day and was also the crazy-as-all-get-out conclusion of the HSCA
as well), then via this photo below, if the back wound was visible in
this picture, the back wound would have to be literally OFF THE BOTTOM
EDGE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
And JFK is certainly (without doubt) in a NEUTRAL, ANATOMICALLY-ERECT
position in this photo (can anyone argue he isn't?)......
David Von Pein
As if I need Pat's "video series" to determine where the back wound
was. <large chuckle>
And CE903 is spot-on, dead-on accurate when comparing it (903) with
the autopsy photo and measurements done at autopsy by Boswell, et al.
But keep pretending that CE903 isn't a beautiful illustration of how
the SBT WORKS (and always has WORKED). It's better for CTers and their
unsupportable theories if they just forget this photo below even
exists. Because with it in existence, it totally demolishes a good
chunk of their Anti-SBT rhetoric.....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>>> "If you watched the videos..." <<<
I didn't. Not interested. I don't need any silly "video" to inform me
as to where the back wound was. Duh. I know where it's located --
right here in this picture (which equates nicely with where Boswell's
11/22 Face Sheet places it; "14cm. below tip of Mastoid..."; EXACTLY
there, in fact, unless you think Dr. Boswell doesn't know his
measurement stick from his asshole):
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg