http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/8a862a89267e3401/efea13a8ca2aeca8?#efea13a8ca2aeca8
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works in both photos?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted.
But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But
CE903 IS the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's
volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be
placed up in the neck of JFK.
Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall
behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds
[hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind,
is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the
chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle
between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Mr.
Shaneyfelt.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
Therefore, it really isn't the EXACT angle of a bullet going through
JFK & JBC at precisely Z224 (which is when I think the bullet struck
both men). And I'll admit that. If you split the difference between
Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT
shot striking at Z217 or Z218.
But the photo in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at
17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact
bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on
Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer
either.
Let me ask this of the CTers:
Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles
and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in
CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?
If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903
and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.
And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide"
animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that
Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is
so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is
nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the
trajectory isn't even close either!"
If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-
bin crazy.
In any event, CE903 IS the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT,
and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which
is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to
believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back
wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out
myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).
I'll also ask this question:
If CE903 is such a "con", as Patrick J. Speer said earlier, then I'm
wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like
the opposite-angle pic shown above to ever get released to the public?
Why weren't those pictures destroyed? Any ideas on that, Pat?
Also:
Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the
stand-in's back in CE903, do you, Pat, really think that the wound
placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER
BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a
little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-
Bullet Theory completely?
And even if the trajectory angles in both CE903 and the reverse angle
picture linked above are both exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure
of, since the opposite angle picture is not an official picture that
appears in the WC volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in the reverse
angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short
indeed.
And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurements is just an
"average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of
"leeway" on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early
as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30
angle, since the limo was closer to Oswald in the TSBD at Z210.
But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away
from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have less
(or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.
Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11
minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the
slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16
or so degrees downward).
The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play
when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission
Exhibit No. 903.
And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be
included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems
fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below
does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet
Theory.
In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred
(which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in
that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30
angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle
for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would,
therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going
through both victims at exactly Z224.
And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's
pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little
below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the
pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's
stand-in:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWSkIlR_hLg/TvLHrMGHtmI/AAAAAAAABSI/CktLE5JK51k/s1600/Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif
David Von Pein
December 22, 2011
=================================
http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory