THE SBT & CE903 (YES, AGAIN -- BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT)
David Von Pein
www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,832.msg10594.html#msg10594
JOHN SNOW SAID:
>>> "If you don't move the wound, then the single bullet theory doesn't work." <<<
DVP SAID:
John Snow,
The above statement just simply is not true.
In fact, as we can easily see in CE903 below, if the wound is moved up
into JFK's NECK, it DESTROYS the SBT--it doesn't enhance it! That
couldn't BE more obvious.
Note -- I give all of the credit for this forehead-slapping revelation
that I had in late 2006 and early 2007 to author and first-rate "LNer"
Jean Davison. I'm repeating her excellent post on this matter below
the picture of CE903 (the caption within this photo is mine, btw):
===========================
"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 [Arlen] 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:
"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
[Gerald] 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;
January 2, 2007
===========================
MORE:
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT NUMBER 903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
Gil Jesus
Here's a bulletin for ya:
CE903 is NOT evidence. It's an illustration of a THEORY.
Your parading this picture out time and time again claiming that it is
"proof" of the SBT is deceptive at best.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
That trajectory shows a bullet path ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SHOULDER.
Show us that entrance wound in the autopsy photo.
SHOW US THAT ENTRY WOUND IN THE NECK ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SHOULDER.
Secondly, is the car in that photo the Lincoln Continental convertible
that was the "murder scene", or is it a Cadillac ?
CUT THE BS VON PEIN, NO ONE'S FALLING FOR IT.
You're performing before empty theaters.
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a9ecf7e2-0574-49d8...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> Hey dumbass:
Nice piece of christianity scumsucker. ROTFLMAO!
>
<snip bullshit>
David Von Pein
Gil, being the retard he is (of course), fails to see that one of the
main points I'm making by trotting out CE903 so much is this point:
CE903 (all by itself!!) proves that the CT-Kooks are DEAD-WRONG when
they INSIST that the Warren Commission HAD to "MOVE" President
Kennedy's back wound up into his "NECK" in order to make the SBT work.
As Jean Davison said on January 2nd, 2007.....If I haven't made my
point by now, I give up.*
* = Although I, personally, will never quit propping up
CE903....because it absolutely proves beyond ALL doubt that the Warren
Commission was NOT playing fast-and-loose with the location of John F.
Kennedy's upper-back wound.
The bullet entered in JFK's upper back....and CE903 demonstrates the
SBT trajectory with the entrance wound being in the UPPER BACK (not
the "neck").
Period.
And "Mark VII".
And once again, the anti-SBT conspiracy nuts are left with egg on
their faces, as they gaze upon CE903 (below) and ask themselves this
question (or at least they SHOULD be asking themselves this question
anyway):
Hmmm, it sure looks like that rod is located at a place that's well
BELOW the "neck". And the exit point is just where it should be at the
tie knot. Hmmm, I wonder why I've been so adamantly opposed to the
Single-Bullet Theory in the past?
aeffects
your lies are reaching new heights shithead.... but carry on, watching
you dance the dance of Mcadams is revealing...
aeffects
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
my goodness your getting touchy shithead.... guilt building up, need
release, perhaps church, the only saving grace for fucktards such as
your self..... fret not, you won't be the first to find saving
grace....
You be a pokey mouth hon..... that surgeon friend you share bodily
fluids throw you out por sumpin' Shit happens potty mouth, shit
happens! :)
jbarge
what a disappointment this all is......
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7f35b67740f676eb
You're talking nonsense, Pat.
Or, to quote my favorite author (yes, him again):
"The conspiracy theorists will still lie even when there is a
photo or film proving them wrong." -- Vince Bugliosi [paraphrasing VB
when he said virtually the same thing in hundreds of radio/TV
interviews in 2007]
And the "photo or film" in this instance is CE903:
CE903 is PROVING that the Warren Commission did NOT require a wound in
the back of the "neck" of John Kennedy in order for the SBT to work
out just fine.
But CTers like Patrick J. Speer will continue to write thousands of
words denouncing a perfectly-reasonable photo like CE903....even
though Pat surely must KNOW that the photo trumps the WC critics who
still seem to believe that the Warren Commission HAD to have the entry
wound placed up in the "neck" of President Kennedy in order for the
SBT to align properly.
Jean Davison -- where are you??!!
~wink~
================================================
"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 [Arlen] 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:
"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
[Gerald] 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;
January 2, 2007
================================================
aeffects
<snip the nutter-troll nonsense>
no free advertising shithead.....
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/bda2592a476a3054
>>> "It is...indisputable that the photo comparison pushed by yourself and [Tom] Lowry matches up the base of JFK's skull in the first photo with the base of his neck in the second photo. You have effectively removed his neck. .... Will you at least admit the obvious and that this comparison is incorrect?" <<<
Why would I admit that? The comparison photo in question (linked
below) looks just fine to me. The top black line is being drawn from
HAIRLINE to HAIRLINE. So what's the big complaint?
Granted, as I've mentioned previously on this newsgroup when talking
about that very same photo montage, such comparisons of two-
dimensional images that were taken from different angles and distances
from the subject are always going to be problematic, and can likely
never be ideal in a "Perfectly Lined Up To The Inch" sense (just ask
Dale Myers about the difficulty or the impossibility of performing
that photographic task).
In addition, JFK's head is being tilted back somewhat in the autopsy
photo on the right, which could be affecting the comparison to a small
extent as well (since Kennedy's head isn't tilted back at all in the
left-hand picture). But, in general, it looks like a fairly good
comparison montage:
And I'll add this important footnote -- For the purpose in which Jean
Davison was utilizing the above photo in her Internet posts of
December 2006 and January 2007, we could actually eliminate the
autopsy picture on the right entirely, because Jean's whole point is
perfectly demonstrated by using just the photograph on the left
depicting President Kennedy in profile with his tie on.
Jean's whole point being: That when you draw a line toward Kennedy's
back from his tie knot, angled at approx. 17 to 18 degrees, the
imaginary line will extend through JFK's UPPER BACK, and not his NECK.
And the autopsy picture on the right isn't needed at all to prove that
point.
Of course, an even BETTER photo to use for such an "imaginary line"
demonstration is this autopsy picture of JFK, which actually gives us
the "starting point" for the imaginary line -- the visible throat
wound itself:
And when you extend a 17- or 18-degree line toward Kennedy's back,
starting from that throat wound, the "wound" is certainly not going to
be up in JFK's "neck". It's going to be in the upper BACK, just where
the back-wound photo shows the wound to be.
>>> "But for you to go around pretending the back wound was well above the throat wound is just plain wacky." <<<
~sigh~ (again)
Nonsense. (again)
Only a totally blind individual could look at these two pictures below
and somehow conclude that the throat wound was anatomically HIGHER
than the back wound (or at the same level). Now THAT'S "wacky" (the
HSCA's silly determination regarding this matter notwithstanding):
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ae5c05ee183d107a
>>> "The "back wound was above the throat wound" was a hoax perpetrated by the WC and Johnson Administration, and refuted by the HSCA. Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that after looking at the back wound photo ON THE RECORD he now believed the back wound was at the level of T-2. This was inches higher than he'd been claiming up to that point, and indisputably below the throat wound location." <<<
Total nonsense.
So now you're claiming that Boswell's 1996 ARRB version of the back-
wound location is "inches HIGHER" that what he had said in the
past....but even though it's INCHES HIGHER, it's still BELOW the
throat-wound location??
Absolutely ridiculous.
And this photo proves that such talk is absolutely ridiculous (even if
we can't see the actual hole in JFK's upper back):
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ae5c05ee183d107a
>
> >>> "The "back wound was above the throat wound" was a hoax perpetrated by the WC and Johnson Administration, and refuted by the HSCA. Dr. Boswell told the ARRB that after looking at the back wound photo ON THE RECORD he now believed the back wound was at the level of T-2. This was inches higher than he'd been claiming up to that point, and indisputably below the throat wound location." <<<
>
> Total nonsense.
>
> So now you're claiming that Boswell's 1996 ARRB version of the back-
> wound location is "inches HIGHER" that what he had said in the
> past....but even though it's INCHES HIGHER, it's still BELOW the
> throat-wound location??
>
> Absolutely ridiculous.
>
> And this photo proves that such talk is absolutely ridiculous (even if
> we can't see the actual hole in JFK's upper back):
>
sheeeeet shithead even President Gerald Ford said he moved an entry
wound, who you trying to bullshit, shithead..... ROTFLMFAO!
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/FBI.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e1a318d4-66a3-497a...@r25g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
GARY MACK SAID:
>>> "CE903 is not what you think it is. While the angle of the rod may be correct, Connally's stand-in is not. Was he the same height and body shape as the Texas governor? Unknown. Was the stand-in's seat the same height relative to JFK as the Lincoln limousine? No. So how can anyone make a conclusion from such a misleading photograph? /s/Gary Mack" <<<
DVP SAID:
You're talking utter nonsense here, Gary. CE903 perfectly represents
the SBT.
The differences between JFK's Lincoln limousine and the seats in the
Secret Service follow-up car (which was the car used in the 5/24/64 re-
creation) were taken into account by the Warren Commission for the re-
creation, just as Lyndal Shaneyfelt says in his WC testimony here:
LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Because of the difference in the automobiles,
there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches
that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was
sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was
sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were
sitting and we took this into account in our calculations."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
So, Gary, I guess you think the WC lied when it comes to CE903, huh?
DVP
Herbert Blenner
Shaneyfelt was talking about CE 888, not CE 903. This should be
obvious from the discussion of the ten-inch difference in heights.
Over a horizontal spacing of 24 inch the change in angle due to
difference in heights becomes inverse tangent (10 / 24 ) = 22.6
degree!
Herbert
David Von Pein
Yes, Herb, Shaneyfelt was talking about CE888 in the quote I provided
earlier.
But the car is the SAME CAR in CE888 and CE903. And the 2 stand-ins
were sitting 10 inches higher than the real JFK & JBC in BOTH CE888
and CE903. So why the complaint?
Do you deny this fact? Or would you like to perform some more of your
double-talk/gobbledygook about "inverse tangents", etc.?
Herbert Blenner
Now that I have your attention let's take this step by step.
If the car raised the wounds on both stand-ins by ten inches then the
vertical distance between the exit wound on the Kennedy one stand-in
and the entry wound on the Connally stand-in angle did not change. So
the declination angle of the straight line connecting these wounds
remained the same. In other wounds the ten- inch difference has no
effect upon the slope of this line.
However, the raised wound of entry wound on the Kennedy stand-in
decreased the height of the shooter above the wound by 10 inch. This
change decreased the declination angle of the inshoot by 0.2 degree, a
negligible fraction of the 3.15 degree error in made in CE-903.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "If the car raised the wounds on both stand-ins by ten inches then the vertical distance between the exit wound on the Kennedy one stand-in and the entry wound on the Connally stand-in angle did not change. So the declination angle of the straight line connecting these wounds remained the same. In other wounds the ten- inch difference has no effect upon the slope of this line. However, the raised wound of entry wound on the Kennedy stand-in decreased the height of the shooter above the wound by 10 inch. This change decreased the declination angle of the inshoot by 0.2 degree, a negligible fraction of the 3.15 degree error in made in CE-903." <<<
Big deal.
Herbert Blenner is talking crappola (again)...as he ignores the
obviousness of something called the "Single-Bullet Theory" (again).
Tell me Herb.....why do you think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA fully
endorsed a theory (the SBT) that you think is full of more holes than
can be found at a swiss cheese factory?
Do you truly believe that BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House
Select Committee on Assassinations were total idiots when it came to
the subject of the "SBT"?
Herbert Blenner
Readers should note the nonsense that DVP defends.
The WCR stated:
A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of
entry on the back of the President's neck, assuming that the President
was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the
muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held
by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degree 34 minute. From the
same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at 20
degree 11 minute, giving an average angle of 20 degree 52 minute 30
second from frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street
grade of 3 degree 9 minute, the probable angle through the
President's body was calculated at 17 degree 43 minute 30 second,
assuming that he was sitting in a vertical position.
End of statement.
Assuming that President Kennedy was sitting in a vertical position
when shot in the back then the angle between the transverse plane of
his body and the horizontal as measured by a carpenter's level would
have been zero degree. However, the surveyor measured an average angle
of 20 degree 52 minute 30 second between the line of sight from the
sniper's nest to the horizontal. So the line of sight made exactly the
same angle with the transverse plane of Kennedy's body. In other
words, Shaneyfelt had no reason to subtract the downward street grade
of 3 degree 9 minute from the declination angle.
In fairness to DVP, I acknowledge that the experts who testified
before the WC and HSCA were smart. So the issue is why did Shaneyfelt
subtract 3 degree 9 minute from the measured declination angles for
both the back and the head shots? Without doubt the filmed evidence
and eyewitnesses placed Kennedy nearly upright when shot in the back
and leaning forward when shot in the head. So the angles of the bullet
with respect to Kennedy's transverse plane differed from the
declinations angles by varying degrees and certainly not a constant 3
degree 9 minute.
Since this is be kind to WC week, I suggest that those smart people
acted dumb to evade the embarrassment from explaining that the
locations of bullet holes on the Kennedy sit-in aligned with the wrong
angle because they cheated on CE-903.
Assuming that a single bullet event did occur then an honest
reenactment would have found that a straight connecting the inshoot
with the outshoot locations on the Kennedy stand-in would have made an
angle of 20 degree 52 minute 30 second minus the angle of lean.
However, the measurement of a declination angle of 17 degree 43 minute
30 second for the straight line joining the outshoot from the Kennedy
stand-in to the inshoot on the Connally stand-in on the flat surface
of the garage shows that the bullet had to transited President Kennedy
without deflection. This condition undermines the tumble explanation
of the 15 mm elongated wound on Governor Connally's back. So CE-903 is
a double embarrassment for SBT.
Herbert.
bigdog
position.". There is no reason to assume he was in a vertical
position. Nearly upright does not equate to vertical. We can't see him
at the moment of impact. Nearly upright does not equate to vertical.
Are we supposed to assume he was sitting perfectly erect as well or
would it be more likely that someone with a well documented bad back
would be sitting in a slightly hunched over postition to relieve
stress on his back. A curved spine is not going to provide a constant
body lean from which you can make exacting calculations. Once again
you are trying to make rigid calculations regarding a very non-rigid
object, a human body.
> Since this is be kind to WC week, I suggest that those smart people
> acted dumb to evade the embarrassment from explaining that the
> locations of bullet holes on the Kennedy sit-in aligned with the wrong
> angle because they cheated on CE-903.
>
What an absolute load of bullshit. Like all your CT bretheren, you
make assumptions about the motives of those providing expert testimony
because there opinions run contrary to your fantasies.
> Assuming that a single bullet event did occur then an honest
> reenactment would have found that a straight connecting the inshoot
> with the outshoot locations on the Kennedy stand-in would have made an
> angle of 20 degree 52 minute 30 second minus the angle of lean.
> However, the measurement of a declination angle of 17 degree 43 minute
> 30 second for the straight line joining the outshoot from the Kennedy
> stand-in to the inshoot on the Connally stand-in on the flat surface
> of the garage shows that the bullet had to transited President Kennedy
> without deflection. This condition undermines the tumble explanation
> of the 15 mm elongated wound on Governor Connally's back. So CE-903 is
> a double embarrassment for SBT.
>
Why is a tumbling bullet inconsistent with a bullet maintaining a
straight line tragjectory?
> Herbert.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/40a95c18e3adc8d0
>>> "Forget the obvious physical and mathematical errors. The rod [in CE903] is ABOVE the top of the shoulders [of JFK,] while the actual wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders. What CE 903 demonstrates is that Connally could be hit with a bullet which barely misses Kennedy." <<<
That's immaterial and meaningless.
Why?
Because we know that Connally was struck in his upper-right back by
just ONE single bullet....and that ONE bullet HAD to have been the one
bullet that exited JFK's throat, because that bullet had noplace else
it could have gone other than into the body of the person in front of
Kennedy--JBC.
So whether a shot could have conceivably barely missed JFK and hit JBC
is academic and beside the point, since we know that the bullet that
hit Governor Connally in the back must have been the one that went
through the President.
Common Sense 101.
David Von Pein
>>> "Only if you assume that JBC was hit by only one bullet." <<<
We know for a fact that JBC was hit by only one bullet, Andrew. Why is
this fact even in doubt (even by conspiracists)?
Dr. Shaw, in his afternoon press conference on November 22 on live TV,
told the world that it was his opinion that all of Connally's wounds
were caused by "one bullet".
So why is this fact even debated?
Plus, the anti-SBT CTers who don't think that JFK's back/neck wounds
were caused by just one bullet have increased their anti-SBT theories
to absurd levels (via a scenario that has JBC hit by 2 or more
missiles).
Because, given those starting parameters, this would mean FOUR bullets
(at least) did the damage of the ONE official SBT bullet (CE399). And
then ALL FOUR of those bullets somehow vanished without a trace, a la
Jimmy Hoffa.*
* = This assumes, of course, that the CTer purporting such 4-bullet
nonsense also thinks that CE399 was a planted/subbed bullet, which
virtually all CTers do believe, naturally.
See how silly this anti-SBT stuff looks when you type it out like I
just did?
Pretty silly, huh?
I think so too.
tomnln
JBC's Dr. said he may heve been hit be 2 or, even 3 bull! ! !
No wonder you RUN from radio debates.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2e7acaa7-b5b3-4786...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "JBC's Dr. said he may heve been hit be 2 or, even 3 bull[ets]!" <<<
But on Day 1 (11/22/63), Dr. Shaw said "one bullet".
Plus: Whenever John Connally was interviewed, he never once even
HINTED that he was hit by more than just the ONE BULLET that struck
him in the back. Connally always accepted as FACT that he was hit by
just one bullet.
tomnln
REPEAT ASSHOLE ! ! !
JBC's Dr said JBC was hit by 2 or even 3 bullets ! ! !
Doncha even know your own testimony???????
David Von Pein
>>> "JBC's Dr said JBC was hit by 2 or even 3 bullets!!!" <<<
And yet not a single bullet (or any large bullet fragments) remained
inside Connally's body.
And: if Connally were hit by THREE separate bullets, then CT-Kooks
like Rossley need FIVE disappearing bullets to replace CE399.
You DO realize how stupid this anti-SBT shit sounds...don't you, Mr.
Nutsack?