Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 174)

26 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 16, 2011, 10:03:02 PM12/16/11
to

ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 174):

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

RAY MARCUS' INTERVIEW WITH DARRELL TOMLINSON (COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html


LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND REVOLVER V510210:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=225&p=240802&#entry240802
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=225&p=240803&#entry240803
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=225&p=240817&#entry240817
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=240&p=240846&#entry240846
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=240&p=240868&#entry240868
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=270&p=241087&#entry241087


CE2011 VS. FD-302:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240879&#entry240879
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5454bfd3395f07a2
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=120&p=240947&#entry240947
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d72a93ebe3d92068
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/08ee470cd70147a4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/acec1aff067cb8d8
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=135&p=241079&#entry241079
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f2c5b954c162c100


JOHN CONNALLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f2672b7994d767f6


JFK'S HEAD MOVEMENT:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5551.msg128699.html#msg128699
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5551.msg128703.html#msg128703



CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND OSWALD'S GUILT:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=255&p=241055&#entry241055
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cfde98670f8d4fc2



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

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 19, 2011, 5:39:30 PM12/19/11
to

>>> "The simplest explanation for practically ALL Parkland medical staff, and Clint Hill, seeing a gaping wound in the rear of Kenendy's head was because there was one. Pretty simply to me. Occam eat your heart out." <<<

Not when you also factor in the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the
autopsy report, plus the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons.

And all of those things I just mentioned (particularly the photos and
X-rays) are better evidence than any of the Parkland witnesses,
regardless of how many witnesses that might entail.

Occam--welcome back.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 1:06:47 AM12/22/11
to

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

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 1:52:54 AM12/22/11
to

aeffects

unread,
Dec 22, 2011, 3:34:08 PM12/22/11
to
On Dec 21, 10:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<sniperoo>

dumb-da-da-dumb..... carry on moron!

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 23, 2011, 2:45:22 AM12/23/11
to

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Rankin admitted that the back wound was really lower than the throat wound." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Rankin ever did say that (which I doubt he ever did), he's wrong.
And even Dr. Humes testified that the trach wound (i.e., the bullet
hole in JFK's throat) was located BELOW the wound in the upper back.

Plus, the photo composite below is really all you need in order to
determine the obvious fact that the throat wound was lower on the body
than the back wound (unless Marsh wants to think that Kennedy really
ISN'T positioned anywhere close to the "anatomical" position in the
picture on the left, which would be a ridiculous thing to say,
although Marsh HAS said it in the past):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg



>>> "But you say the HSCA [is] not allowed to have a margin of error." <<<

The HSCA's absurdly-early Z190 SBT shot is dead wrong, and I think
everybody knows that by now.

A shot entering Kennedy that early would have created a much steeper
trajectory for the bullet (when compared to the WC's trajectory
analysis and angles). And a shot at Z190, entering JFK's upper back,
would have exited his body much too low for the SBT to work (and would
not have hit Connally in the right place either).

And why the HSCA didn't realize that fact (or just didn't give a damn)
is a bit of a mystery, I'll admit.


>>> "Your side says the chalk mark is NOT where the bullet hit Kennedy." <<<

I do think that chalk mark is a bit too low, yes. It looks slightly
low to me anyway, when compared with the autopsy photo of the back
wound.

If the chalk mark were to be raised just the slightest little bit--
plus reduce the angle of Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle
picture to accommodate a Z224 SBT hit (vs. the WC's "average" angle
between Z210 and Z225)--then the trajectory would fit perfectly for a
Z224 SBT shot, IMO. And I think thaty such minor adjustments would
also accommodate a bullet exiting at JFK's tie-knot location too.

Yes, I know that's quite a bit of speculation on my behalf. But after
all, I'm merely a Langley underling. I can't be expected to cover-up
the whole conspiracy all by myself. I need the help of the MSM and
McAdams and Bugliosi too. Right, Tony? :)

Anyway, those are my sincere beliefs about CE903 and the opposite-
angle photos. And I certainly do not believe the WC covered up
anything regarding the SBT, the angles, or anything else connected to
the assassination. The 17-43-30 angle, after all, WAS just an
"average" angle between a RANGE of Z-Film frames that the Commission
utilized for the SBT shot (Z210-225).

And, quite obviously, the President was not hit with a bullet during
each and every one of those 16 frames that encompass that range of Z-
frames. So, in effect, it was a BEST GUESS on the Warren Commission's
behalf. And they came darn close to getting it exactly right too, IMO.
They were off by only a few frames--6.5 frames to be precise, which is
the difference between Z217.5 (which is the exact half-frame that the
angle of "17-43-30" equates to when you average it out) and Z224,
which is when I think the SBT occurred.

And when speaking of the "opposite angle" pictures of CE903---

The one I linked to earlier is actually only one of at least three
such pictures that exist. I guess the evil, rotten Warren boys just
couldn't bring themselves to destroy these photos, huh Tony? They
would falsify and misrepresent evidence till the cows come a-knockin',
but they wouldn't dare tear up a few pictures (which are photos that
prove a WC cover-up, per people like Tony Marsh). Correct, Anthony?

Just like the FBI, I guess. They decided to leave a few bread crumbs
of conspiracy in their own files and in the National Archives for
future CTers to find, versus just simply getting rid of all the
evidence of the cover-up. Right, Tony?

Two more photos of Specter and his rod:

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/999/16

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/999/15


David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 4, 2012, 1:25:14 PM1/4/12
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/58c3fd4cd0984c0a/c965968f1390bb85?#c965968f1390bb85

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "So you are admitting that Dale Myers animation is just a cartoon?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's an animated version of the Z-Film. If you want to call it a
"cartoon", so be it. But it's also an animation that has been synched
to the actual Z-Film itself. And that's the thing that makes it so
important and accurate (within a 3- to 6-degree margin of error, that
is).

CTers love to simply dismiss Myers' work by saying "it's merely a
cartoon and, therefore, it's worthless". But that kind of casual
dismissal of such important and groundbreaking work is just flat-out
foolish on the part of CTers.

(Awaiting Marsh's ruthless attack of Dale Myers, which will
undoubtedly include the word "liar" at least once.)

aeffects

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:30:49 AM1/6/12
to
On Jan 4, 10:25 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

uh-uh-huh moron

no advertising, you know the drill....

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 8:50:42 AM1/6/12
to
Aeffects,
Hmm. Once again I see you remind people about the advertising, but
you never tell your alter ego little benny that, and ALL his posts
have advertising. Giving yourself a break? :))

Absolute Head Troll Chris

aeffects

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:52:41 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 5:50 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 3:30 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 10:25 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > uh-uh-huh moron
>
> > no advertising, you know the drill....
>
> Aeffects,

when addressing me, it's ALL cap's hon!

...

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 8:28:10 AM1/7/12
to
Aeffects,
'hon' don't work for me...try some other guy...:)

In the meantime, if advertising is out, it's out for everyone.

Absolute Head Troll Chris

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 11, 2012, 6:09:04 PM1/11/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7fd9a3be8a11fbb2/f041e98da51695f8?#f041e98da51695f8


TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Tell me exactly when she [Helen Markham] threw her hands up in front of her face and prove it. And why should you even be admitting simple little facts like this when you want your witness to be perfect?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have never once denied the fact that Mrs. Markham threw her hands up
in front of her face. Are you impying I *have* denied that fact, Tony?

But it's fairly obvious that Markham only put her hands to her face
AFTER the shooting occurred. What reason would she have had for
putting her hands up to her face PRIOR to Oswald firing the shots at
Tippit?

Was she terrified by the mere fact that a cop was talking to Oswald on
the sidewalk? Was the sight of Oswald talking to Tippit so horrifying
that she wanted to slap her hands up to her face prior to the murder
taking place?

The fact is:

Helen Markham certainly did put her hands up to her face after the
Tippit murder (she said she did this; and she demonstrates it in the
1964 interview seen below). But she certainly got a good enough look
at Oswald--prior to putting her hands to her face--to make a positive
identification of Tippit's killer.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/helen-markham.html
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 12, 2012, 9:02:08 PM1/12/12
to


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7fd9a3be8a11fbb2/cf74263ac91493bd?#cf74263ac91493bd

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Now you are starting to play along. So you now refine your claim and say she only covered her eyes after Oswald shot Tippit. At least that is a baby step better than your buddy who denies that she ever covered her eyes. BTW, your correct response should have been that she only covered her eyes when Oswald looked at her and she did not want him to think that she had seen anything. Yes, she really was THAT stupid." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID (IN EARLIER POST):

>>> "The fact is: Helen Markham certainly did put her hands up to her face after the Tippit murder (she said she did this; and she demonstrates it in the 1964 interview seen below). But she certainly got a good enough look at Oswald--prior to putting her hands to her face--to make a positive identification of Tippit's killer." <<<

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "From behind as he was leaning in through the open window? Was she asked to identify his butt in a line-up?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Didn't you even bother watching the video I posted, Marsh?

Markham is very specific in that 1964 video about when she put her
hands up to her face. She said that she and Oswald looked at each
other before she slapped her hands up to her face.

Why do you think that she only saw LHO when he was leaning over
Tippit's car? Obviously, after Oswald started to flee the scene, his
whole body (and face/head) was visible from Markham's location, which
was just across the street on the opposite corner (not exactly a mile
away, you know).

Here's the video again (for Marsh to ignore, again):

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/helen-markham.html
0 new messages