Re: Help...anyone on a CE and WCH pg. no. - SBT, Groden::s pics2.jpg
Jean Davison
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:enr7p...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Besides CE-903 on pg. 18WCH, 96 that David VP posted the History Matters
> link
> to, on pg. 125 of his The Killing of a President, Groden includes another
> pic of
> the SBT re-enactment, as well as a cutout pic showing just a blow-up of
> the
> proposed entry locations on JFK and JBC. Does anyone know the CE numbers
> and WCH
> pages for these two pics?
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Canal
>
John,
I'm pretty sure that this photo of Specter is not a Commission
Exhibit.
Groden's caption is misleading. What the photo actually shows
is that raising the entry to the "back of the neck" does NOT support the
SBT, because the bullet would exit too high -- under the stand-in's chin
instead of where CE 903 shows it, at the level of the knot in the tie,
where it actually exited.
CTs often show this photo rather than the WC's official
illustration of the SBT, CT 903. (The caption for 903 on the title page
of Volume XVIII reads: "Photograph taken at garage, following reenactment
of assassinatlon on May 24, 1964, depicting probable angle of declination
of bullet which passed through President Kennedy and Governor Connally.")
John Canal
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:enr7p...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Besides CE-903 on pg. 18WCH, 96 that David VP posted the History Matters
>> link
>> to, on pg. 125 of his The Killing of a President, Groden includes another
>> pic of
>> the SBT re-enactment, as well as a cutout pic showing just a blow-up of
>> the
>> proposed entry locations on JFK and JBC. Does anyone know the CE numbers
>> and WCH
>> pages for these two pics?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>
> John,
> I'm pretty sure that this photo of Specter is not a Commission
>Exhibit.
Hi Jean,
Well, that would explain why I couldn't find it in the WC volumes. :-)
>Groden's caption is misleading. What the photo actually shows
>is that raising the entry to the "back of the neck" does NOT support the
>SBT, because the bullet would exit too high -- under the stand-in's chin
>instead of where CE 903 shows it, at the level of the knot in the tie,
>where it actually exited.
Ok.
>CTs often show this photo rather than the WC's official
>illustration of the SBT, CT 903. (The caption for 903 on the title page
>of Volume XVIII reads: "Photograph taken at garage, following reenactment
>of assassinatlon on May 24, 1964, depicting probable angle of declination
>of bullet which passed through President Kennedy and Governor Connally.")
But here's what puzzels me about those photos in TKOAP. That's the same
room, is it not, as the room shown in CE-903? And, isn't that Specter
holding the rod in "Groden's photos" and aren't the stand-ins for JFK and
JBC the same guys who are in C-903?
Because of those photos in TKOAP (and never taking a close look at
CE-903), I had always assumed the FBI's re-enactment of the SBT trajectory
was just a flawed demonstration. Wow, was I fooled.
So, if that is Specter in Groden's pics, that demonstration was one to
simply show, like you said, that "raising the entry to the "back of the
neck" does NOT support the SBT, because the bullet would exit too
high...", not to show what they thought was the actual trajectory
(CE-903). Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Thanks Jean.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
The FBI's demonstration was flawed because it ignored the moderately
tangential strike upon Kennedy's back. In particular Commander
attributed the seven by four millimeter oval hole in Kennedy's back to
a bullet with an approximate 45 degree angle of incidence.
Source: WC testimony of Commander James J. Humes
Mr. McCLOY - Was the bullet moving in a direct line or had it begun to
tumble?
Commander HUMES - To tumble?
That is a difficult question to answer. I have the opinion, however,
that it was more likely moving in a direct line. You will note that the
wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is
somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet
discussed in the low neck. We believe that rather than due to a
tumbling effect, this is explainable on the fact that this missile
struck the skin and skull at a more tangential angle than did the other
missile, and, therefore, produced a more elongated defect, sir.
End of source.
Of course this disclosure did not fit Specter's agenda so he relied his
boy to confuse the issue.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Charles Francis Gregory
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted
on the Governor, that is those described by Dr. Shaw. and those which
you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one
missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a
weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second
at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a
trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees? Dr.
GREGORY - I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a
single missile under these specifications.
End of source.
In this manner, Arlen Specter was able to confuse angle of decline with
the angle of incidence and have a medical doctor accede to the figure
of forty five degrees.
Apparently the concept of incidence angle was forbidden knowledge. For
example when a ballistic expert expressed the idea that a missile that
wasn't presenting nose on struck not at normal incidence, they
substituted the absurd phrase "normal instance."
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Frederick Light
Mr. SPECTER. And based on the descriptions which have been provided to
you about the nature of the wound on the Governor's back, do you have
an opinion as to whether the bullet was yawing or not at the time it
struck the Governor's back?
Mr. LIGHT. No; I don't. That is really one of the points----
Mr. SPECTER. It would be either way?
Dr. LIGHT. Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The
measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You
wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is
difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on.
It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a
certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built.
End of source.
Herbert
Jean Davison
Absolutely. I think there's no doubt that this photo was taken
during the same reenactment, but it's not one that the WC put forward as a
demonstration of anything. Judging by the extra people shown, it seems to
be a informal shot taken while they were getting set up. I assume that
Groden or someone else found this picture at the Archives.
>
> Because of those photos in TKOAP (and never taking a close look at
> CE-903), I had always assumed the FBI's re-enactment of the SBT trajectory
> was just a flawed demonstration. Wow, was I fooled.
>
> So, if that is Specter in Groden's pics, that demonstration was one to
> simply show, like you said, that "raising the entry to the "back of the
> neck" does NOT support the SBT, because the bullet would exit too
> high...", not to show what they thought was the actual trajectory
> (CE-903). Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I didn't mean to imply that that was the *purpose* of the photo,
just that it happened to show that a neck entry above the shoulder wouldn't
help the SBT at all, so Ford had no motive to "move" the wound up that far.
Incidentally, Shaneyfelt testified about CE 903:
>>>
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission
Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.
Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of
that photograph?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an
angle of 17[degrees]43'30''.
Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. He did.
Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally
positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President
Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position of the
President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around
frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the
signboard.
Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an
angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the
stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance
wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or
button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance
hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the
stand-in for Governor Connally.
>>>
From near the bottom of this page:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
CE903 again:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> Thanks Jean.
>
Thank you, John.
Jean
John Canal
Blenner says...
<Bottom Post>
Herbert, I've read enough of your posts to know that, no matter what anyone
says, expert or otherwise, you're not going to change your position and/or
conclusions on this case.
That said, it seems to me that it makes a Hell of a lot more sense to look at
the where the entry and exit were and look at where the bullet came from (SN) as
well as where it went (JBC's back on the right side) to determine its trajectory
angle....not the abrasions and shape of the wounds. The SBT has been certified
as, at the very least being highly likley, with replications, demonstrations and
re-enactment more times than you can shake a stick at. These include CE-903, and
work by Lattimer, HSCA, NOVA, Failure Analysis, Dale Myers, John Hunt, and the
History and Discovery Channels. And let me add that the most convincing of all
these demonstrations for me was John Hunt's work....one, because he's a
dedicated CT and two because he's seemingly spent more time studying the
technical aspects of issues like this than all the rest of the research
community combined.
Now, IMO, the big problem you and the other SBT doubters have (if you want to
convince anyone else besides yourselves, that is) is to come up with an feasible
alternate scenario to the SBT....that, BTW, does not require two shooters firing
along pretty much the same trajectory at pretty much the same time.
John Canal
David Von Pein
the same two stand-ins too. And it appears to be the same location as
in CE903 (only from the other side of the car).
CE903:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
The alternate "Specter Holding A Probe" picture used by Robert Groden:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
Of course, Mr. Groden (as per usual) skews things greatly to fit his
pro-CT purposes when he writes this caption to that photo on Page 125:
"In order for the bullet's trajectory to have passed through the
President and entered Connally, the President's wound needed to be six
inches higher than its actual location, which is shown by the white
spot on the jacket {of the stand-in}, below Specter's hand." -- RJG;
Pg. 125; TKOAP; Bottom Photo
Groden, of course, is 100% incorrect there (in addition to
mis-identifying Specter at one point in the caption, by saying it is
Specter who is holding "the tip of the probe against the location of
Governor Connally's back wound").
As Jean Davison has rightly pointed out numerous times now, any "moving
up" (six inches or otherwise) of the JFK back wound doesn't enhance the
SBT's path....it destroys it altogether, as the Groden pic on Page 125
amply illustrates, when we see Specter's pointer/(rod) being held too
high on the neck (at the top of the shirt collar on the stand-in), with
the "exit" point being at chin level....much too high for the real exit
wound below the Adam's Apple.
Groden decided to print that alternate photo showing Specter and his
"rod", instead of printing the official WC exhibit displaying the true
SBT path as proposed by the Commission in CE903.
I'd also love to know where Groden got that photo on Page 125. I can't
find a source credit in Groden's book for it. And I'd like to know what
that piece of TOO-HIGH rod-pointing is supposed to demonstrate. For it
certainly does not equate to what we find in CE903.
John Canal
>
>
>"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:enslp...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <45a1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
<Top Post>
All clear now...and pretty slick on Groden's part not even to mention CE-903.
Par for the course, though.
And you read my mind...I was going to ask you if you could guess how Groden
could get his mitts on those photos he included in TKOAP...and what you said
below makes excellent sense.
Thanks again, Jean.
John
Herbert Blenner
I have not reached a conclusion on whether multiple shooters inflicted
the wounds on the two victims or the authorities doctored the reported
wounds to conceal panic reaction by one or both victims.
>
> That said, it seems to me that it makes a Hell of a lot more sense to look at
> the where the entry and exit were and look at where the bullet came from (SN) as
> well as where it went (JBC's back on the right side) to determine its trajectory
> angle....not the abrasions and shape of the wounds.
Perhaps you think that a bullet can enter crooked and come out
straight. But the unchallenged medical evidence has a bullet entering
the back at an approximate 45 degree angle of incidence and coming out
straight enough to produce a fairly round to slightly oval throat
wound. These circumstances require a considerable deflection of the
bullet during transit. But this turn represents the lesser problem.
Attributing the fairly round to slightly oval throat wound to the
bullet that entered the back requires changes in yaw and pitch angles
to compensate for the deflection of the bullet. These stumbling blocks
are sufficient to declare the SBT dead before conception.
> The SBT has been certified
> as, at the very least being highly likley, with replications, demonstrations and
> re-enactment more times than you can shake a stick at. These include CE-903, and
> work by Lattimer, HSCA, NOVA, Failure Analysis, Dale Myers, John Hunt, and the
> History and Discovery Channels.
All they have to do is ignore the shapes and sizes of the wounds. A
bullet enters a simulation of Kennedy with a 20 degree angle of
declination and makes fairly round to slightly oval holes in the back
and throat. By contrast the 7 mm by 4 mm hole in Kennedy's back was
highly eccentric. Nobody in their right mind would describe this hole
as slightly oval.
> And let me add that the most convincing of all
> these demonstrations for me was John Hunt's work....one, because he's a
> dedicated CT and two because he's seemingly spent more time studying the
> technical aspects of issues like this than all the rest of the research
> community combined.
Hunt's essay on breakability underscores his shortcomings. One equation
relating the speed of a bullet, v, its angle of incidence, i, upon an
obstacle to the threshold for fragmentation, t, namely t = v cos (i)
replaces his critique of diminishing velocity and more important
explains why a tangential strike by a bullet with a speed, v, greater
than the fragmentation threshold, t, emerged in one piece. In
particular cos (i) was less than t divided by v. This result is
consistent with the medial testimony that described a tangential
collision, cos (i) < 1, between the bullet and Connally's rib.
>
> Now, IMO, the big problem you and the other SBT doubters have (if you want to
> convince anyone else besides yourselves, that is) is to come up with an feasible
> alternate scenario to the SBT....that, BTW, does not require two shooters firing
> along pretty much the same trajectory at pretty much the same time.
IMO, your mind is set on the SBT and the facts including WC
documentation will not change it. For example, CE 689 shows alignment
of Governor Connally's wounds with a trajectory of about 45 degree.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
CE697 shows President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the limousine a
short time before the shooting. Superimposing the trajectory from CE
689 shows that the bullet, which supposedly inflicted Connally's wounds
would have passed a few feet above Kennedy's head.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190b.htm
So contrary to your expectations, SBT doubters are seeking any
rational explanation based upon physics for the nine wounds on two
victims.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> In article <45a2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>>
>> "John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:enslp...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <45a1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Jean Davison says...
>
> <Top Post>
>
> All clear now...and pretty slick on Groden's part not even to mention CE-903.
> Par for the course, though.
>
Huh? I seem to have missed your point. Why do you think CE-903 is so
important? Is it only because he showed that Specter lied? We already
knew that.
Shaneyfelt lied as well. Lucky it wasn't a court of law.
Anthony Marsh
> That's definitely Arlen Specter on Page 125 of TKOAP. And I think it's
> the same two stand-ins too. And it appears to be the same location as
> in CE903 (only from the other side of the car).
>
> CE903:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
>
> The alternate "Specter Holding A Probe" picture used by Robert Groden:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
>
>
> Of course, Mr. Groden (as per usual) skews things greatly to fit his
> pro-CT purposes when he writes this caption to that photo on Page 125:
>
> "In order for the bullet's trajectory to have passed through the
> President and entered Connally, the President's wound needed to be six
> inches higher than its actual location, which is shown by the white
> spot on the jacket {of the stand-in}, below Specter's hand." -- RJG;
> Pg. 125; TKOAP; Bottom Photo
>
Groden is pointing out that in that photo taken from a different angle
than CE 903 we can see the details for ourselves that are hidden in CE
903, naming the real entrance wound well below where Specter was holding
the rod.
> Groden, of course, is 100% incorrect there (in addition to
> mis-identifying Specter at one point in the caption, by saying it is
> Specter who is holding "the tip of the probe against the location of
> Governor Connally's back wound").
>
> As Jean Davison has rightly pointed out numerous times now, any "moving
> up" (six inches or otherwise) of the JFK back wound doesn't enhance the
> SBT's path....it destroys it altogether, as the Groden pic on Page 125
> amply illustrates, when we see Specter's pointer/(rod) being held too
> high on the neck (at the top of the shirt collar on the stand-in), with
> the "exit" point being at chin level....much too high for the real exit
> wound below the Adam's Apple.
>
Shh, you and Jean aren't supposed to be admitting things like that. That
is conspiracy talk.
> Groden decided to print that alternate photo showing Specter and his
> "rod", instead of printing the official WC exhibit displaying the true
> SBT path as proposed by the Commission in CE903.
>
No. He printed it specifically because people like you had only seen
CE-903 from the official documents and had no idea how much higher
Specter is holding the rod than the actual back wound.
> I'd also love to know where Groden got that photo on Page 125. I can't
> find a source credit in Groden's book for it. And I'd like to know what
> that piece of TOO-HIGH rod-pointing is supposed to demonstrate. For it
> certainly does not equate to what we find in CE903.
>
Too high you say? It is in exactly the same location as CE 903. You are
not supposed to be talking conspiracy like this. You should be like Chad
and claim that the SBT works no matter where you place the wounds.
>
David Von Pein
Of course. Didn't everybody?
Geesh.
John Canal
Blenner says...
<Top Post>
Herbert, two questions for you, if you don't mind.
1. If you don't think the Z-film was doctored on this, what do you think
caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
2. Completely leaving the head shot out, what is your alternative scenario
to the SBT? Please include the no. of shooters, where the shot/s were
fired from, the kind of weapon/s used, and the timing of the shot/s.
Thanks in advance....and please leave out any mathematical formulae.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
CE-903 is a fraud. Pure propaganda. Specter did not place the rod where
Kennedy's wound was. Kennedy's wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders,
as anyone can see for himself in the autopsy photos. Specter placed the
rod ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
> work by Lattimer, HSCA, NOVA, Failure Analysis, Dale Myers, John Hunt, and the
> History and Discovery Channels. And let me add that the most convincing of all
> these demonstrations for me was John Hunt's work....one, because he's a
> dedicated CT and two because he's seemingly spent more time studying the
> technical aspects of issues like this than all the rest of the research
> community combined.
>
John Hunt may be the closest to getting a SBT which works. But in order
to do so he's had to alter the wound locations.
BTW, you might remember that the HSCA had its own SBT.
> Now, IMO, the big problem you and the other SBT doubters have (if you want to
> convince anyone else besides yourselves, that is) is to come up with an feasible
> alternate scenario to the SBT....that, BTW, does not require two shooters firing
> along pretty much the same trajectory at pretty much the same time.
>
Oh, I see. So some solution with only one shooter, so there can't be any
conspiracy?
Anthony Marsh
You seem to miss the point. Having the entrance above the top of the
shoulders was the only way Specter could get the downward 18 degree angle
necessary for HIS SBT.
Anthony Marsh
> "John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:enr7p...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Besides CE-903 on pg. 18WCH, 96 that David VP posted the History Matters
>> link
>> to, on pg. 125 of his The Killing of a President, Groden includes another
>> pic of
>> the SBT re-enactment, as well as a cutout pic showing just a blow-up of
>> the
>> proposed entry locations on JFK and JBC. Does anyone know the CE numbers
>> and WCH
>> pages for these two pics?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>
> John,
> I'm pretty sure that this photo of Specter is not a Commission
> Exhibit.
> Groden's caption is misleading. What the photo actually shows
> is that raising the entry to the "back of the neck" does NOT support the
> SBT, because the bullet would exit too high -- under the stand-in's chin
> instead of where CE 903 shows it, at the level of the knot in the tie,
> where it actually exited.
Wrong. What is shows is that the only way Specter could get the necessary
downward angle was to place the rod ABOVE the top of the shoulders. Maybe
you don't believe Boswell's face sheet placing the wound below the top of
the shoulders. OK. But then maybe you can not see the autopsy photos for
yourself and notice that the wound is actually BELOW the top of the
shoulders.
Herbert Blenner
John Canal wrote:
> In article <1168297284.7...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
> Blenner says...
>
> <Top Post>
>
> Herbert, two questions for you, if you don't mind.
>
> 1. If you don't think the Z-film was doctored on this, what do you think
> caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
>
> 2. Completely leaving the head shot out, what is your alternative scenario
> to the SBT? Please include the no. of shooters, where the shot/s were
> fired from, the kind of weapon/s used, and the timing of the shot/s.
>
> Thanks in advance....and please leave out any mathematical formulae.
>
> John Canal
<A post to top your top post.>
John, to show that two can play your game, I raise the following
issues.
Name one assassination eyewitness whose WC testimony or deposition
described anything similar to the most dramatic and pronounced motion
shown on our copies of the Zapurder film. I refer to President
Kennedy's back and to the left motion immediately following the head
shot of Z313.
I have compiled a list of statements and testimonies reported by the WC
from head shot eyewitness. The closest descriptions to back and to the
left are Kennedy fell back or straighten up.
For details see:
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/twodozen.htm
So much for the easy part. Now let's move on the next level of
difficulty.
Frame Z313 shows four objects lying on a line that insects the top of
Kennedy's head. The usual explanation attribute these objects to an
explosive release of pressure.
Pressurized contents exert equal force upon all portions of its
containment. So this explanation requires that tissues beneath the
skull withstood the pressure as a small section of bone crumbled and
created a nozzle to project head parts in one specific direction. This
explanation fails since bone has the highest yield strength of all
human tissues.
Further the fluids in the head are nearly incompressible. This means
that the slightest increase in volume would relax even an enormous
pressure. As a result, an explosive release of a pressurized fluid does
little work and therefore impacts negligible kinetic energy to its
former containment. Of course this near incompressibility of the fluid
compared with the compressibility of some tissues would prevent
pressurization of the fluid in the first place.
So now you have two problems to ignore. First why does the Zapruder
film show a physical impossibility and second why did the so called
experts advance the unphysical head explosion explanation?
As for the bottom line, we know that any alteration of the Zapruder
film would have left its mark. For example replacement of one group of
frames by another would probably produce a discontinuity in the motion
of one or another moving object.
The following link demonstrates this point. (For best results turn off
image compression before loading the page.)
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/misfit.htm
Pressing on the "Omit" button displays frames Z311 to Z315 without
Z313. This projection shows a slight discontinuity in the movements of
Toni Foster. She appears to stumble as if she kicked her ankle.
Now when we view the sequence from Z311 to Z315 "With" Z313, the
stumble does not disappear. Instead the discontinuity becomes much
worse. So there you have Herbert's proof of Z film authenticity.
I bet you thought technical types have no sense of humor.
Herbert
John Canal
Blenner says...
>
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> In article <1168297284.7...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
>> Blenner says...
<Bottom Post>
No, Herbert, I don't think I have "any" problems....at least as far as this case
goes. It's you with the problems, i.e. you seem to base your conclusions mostly
on mathematical formulae and witness testimony that seem to conflict with what
you think you see in the Z-film.
If you can't agree that the head entry wound was to the right of the EOP and the
exit was along the coronal suture where Dr. Angel drew it, we are wasting our
time and that of the moderators exchanging thoughts here. Both wounds are
photographically confirmed with other evidence in support of the aforementioned
location of those wounds. Herbert, the bottom line is that photographs dwarf
theoretical mathematical forumlae and witness testimony as far as evidentiary
value goes.
You might have a sense of humor, and that's something, but your ability to apply
your impressive technical knowledge is wanting....IMHO, of course.
BTW, afraid to tell us your alternative scenario to the SBT as well as tell me
what you think caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
:-)
John Canal
>Herbert
David Von Pein
much higher Specter is holding the rod than the actual back wound." <<<
No. Groden decided to print the non-903 photo instead of 903 (with 903
depicting the actual SBT trajectory) because, as always, Groden likes to
skew the truth of things. Simple as that.
>>> "Too high you say? It is in exactly the same location as CE 903." <<<
Are you pulling a Grodenscope?
The rod in the Groden (non-SBT) version has the bullet entering at the top
of the collar and exiting JFK's chin. CE903 has it entering in the upper
back (without a doubt) and exiting just where it did exit--the tie knot.
Better look again. And then try making up a better argument next time to
ridicule the perfectly-logical SBT.
BTW, since the SBT is Specter's wet dream (per virtually all CTers)....has
any CTer had any luck locating those three bullets that disappeared
without a trace? Just curious.
And -- Hasn't any CTer ever wondered WHY there weren't a whole bunch of
additional fragments left inside both victims if there had actually been
THREE bullets going into them instead of just CE399? (Or is Dr. Gregory a
cover-upper too?)
And, make no mistake, ANY anti-SBT theory requires THREE substitute
missiles. Gotta be three. Two won't cut it, given the Z-Film
timeline....not to mention the impossibility of getting any transiting JFK
bullet past the man sitting right in front of him. (Mark Fuhrman's
guesswork notwithstanding.)
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "No. He {Robert J. Groden} printed it specifically because people like
> you had only seen CE-903 from the official documents and had no idea how
> much higher Specter is holding the rod than the actual back wound." <<<
>
> No. Groden decided to print the non-903 photo instead of 903 (with 903
> depicting the actual SBT trajectory) because, as always, Groden likes to
> skew the truth of things. Simple as that.
>
It is a rebuttal of the WC, pointing out to the public many things that
the WC tried to keep hidden.
>
>>>> "Too high you say? It is in exactly the same location as CE 903." <<<
>
> Are you pulling a Grodenscope?
>
> The rod in the Groden (non-SBT) version has the bullet entering at the top
> of the collar and exiting JFK's chin. CE903 has it entering in the upper
> back (without a doubt) and exiting just where it did exit--the tie knot.
>
That's what I wanted to find out. I am trying to give you enough rope.
So you seem to think that the bullet went THROUGH the middle of the tie.
> Better look again. And then try making up a better argument next time to
> ridicule the perfectly-logical SBT.
>
> BTW, since the SBT is Specter's wet dream (per virtually all CTers)....has
> any CTer had any luck locating those three bullets that disappeared
> without a trace? Just curious.
>
Yes. But you have never found the bullet which you think missed everything.
> And -- Hasn't any CTer ever wondered WHY there weren't a whole bunch of
> additional fragments left inside both victims if there had actually been
> THREE bullets going into them instead of just CE399? (Or is Dr. Gregory a
> cover-upper too?)
>
Your strawman argument has nothing to do with reality.
> And, make no mistake, ANY anti-SBT theory requires THREE substitute
> missiles. Gotta be three. Two won't cut it, given the Z-Film
> timeline....not to mention the impossibility of getting any transiting JFK
> bullet past the man sitting right in front of him. (Mark Fuhrman's
> guesswork notwithstanding.)
>
Plenty of room. See the Dale Myers diagrams in Video Toaster.
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/Mag_Bull.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1168297284.7...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
> Blenner says...
>
> <Top Post>
>
> Herbert, two questions for you, if you don't mind.
>
> 1. If you don't think the Z-film was doctored on this, what do you think
> caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
>
False assumption. It didn't.
> 2. Completely leaving the head shot out, what is your alternative scenario
> to the SBT? Please include the no. of shooters, where the shot/s were
> fired from, the kind of weapon/s used, and the timing of the shot/s.
>
Z-210 from the sniper's nest. Z-230 from another window in the TSBD.
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> In article <1168297284.7...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
>> Blenner says...
>>
>> <Top Post>
>>
>> Herbert, two questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>
>> 1. If you don't think the Z-film was doctored on this, what do you think
>> caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
>>
>
>False assumption. It didn't.
Hmmmm...Anthony, how did you determine that his jacket didn't bulge out at
223-224? Oh, that was a rhetorical question, BTW. I think the answer
is...drumroll please....."You concluded it couldn't have bulged out, especially
then, because, if it had, that would have made your silly '210 and 230 hit'
theory even sillier".
LOL.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
The medical conflicts with the photographic evidence. In particular an
entry to the right of the EOP and exit along the coronal suture
confines the wound track exclusively to the right side of Kennedy's
head. Further entry near the level of the EOP limits the vertical
distance between the wound track and the spinning axis of the neck. As
a result a leftward spin of the head would have dominated its
mechanical reaction to a transiting bullet. If you cannot deal with
this glaring contradiction with the Zapruder film that shows a nod with
negligible spin then I suggest you study the report by the New York
Daily News of November 24, 1963 on their interview with Officer Hargis.
I quote, "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned
toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head,
spinning it around. I was splattered with blood."
As a side note, I should add that the WC ignored this report and Stern
did not ask Hargis what happened to Kennedy when shot in the head.
Without doubt, unwillingness to confront contradictory evidence is your
weakness.
>
> You might have a sense of humor, and that's something, but your ability to apply
> your impressive technical knowledge is wanting....IMHO, of course.
>
> BTW, afraid to tell us your alternative scenario to the SBT as well as tell me
> what you think caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
Odds favor the cause of the alleged jack bulge at 223-224 was the same
as the numerous other changes in the shape of garments or body parts of
occupants of the limousine. So I wonder whether you attribute the
apparent bulge in Greer's chest to a gunshot or the flopping of Mrs.
Kennedy's hat to a bullet?
As for my alternative to SBT, I contend that the documentation of the
nine wounds on the two victims is inadequate and far too contradictory
to suggest any shooting sequence.
Herbert
>
> :-)
>
> John Canal
>
> >Herbert
Cliff
> work by Lattimer, HSCA, NOVA, Failure Analysis, Dale Myers, John Hunt, and the
> History and Discovery Channels. And let me add that the most convincing of all
> these demonstrations for me was John Hunt's work....one, because he's a
> dedicated CT and two because he's seemingly spent more time studying the
> technical aspects of issues like this than all the rest of the research
> community combined.
Let's take a look at John Hunt's work on this subject and see
if it merits this high praise.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm
Hunt writes on the first page of his essay:
(quote on, emphasis added)
3. The limits of space, combined with the clear and convincing
photographic evidence yet to come, obviate the need to elaborate
on all of the eyewitness testimony. This testimony is both
contradictory and subject to interpretation. Further, my research
indicates that the difference between the impact point of a "smoothly
oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot is little more
than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via e-mail if he
or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned figure.
THAT ESSAY, EXPLAINING IN DETAIL MY METHODOLOGY,
IS NOT YET FINISHED.
(quote off)
THAT ESSAY...IS NOT YET FINISHED?????
Even though Hunt titled his essay "The Case for a Bunched Jacket,"
he left the "case" out of his argument.
Apparantly, all it takes to satisfy you, John, is the simple
re-statement
of unsupported conclusions.
On page 3 of his essay Hunt claims there was a "distinctly arched
shape" at the right base of JFK's neck in all of the pre-shooting Elm
St. photographs.
Is that what you see in this photo, John, a convex curvature of the
neck and shoulder on the right side of JFK?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Willis.jpg
Or is the opposite we see -- a concave curvature?
Clearly the latter is correct, and the former an egregious absurdity.
John Canal
says...
>
>> These include CE-903, and
>>work by Lattimer, HSCA, NOVA, Failure Analysis, Dale Myers, John Hunt, and the
>>History and Discovery Channels. And let me add that the most convincing of all
>> these demonstrations for me was John Hunt's work....one, because he's a
>> dedicated CT and two because he's seemingly spent more time studying the
>> technical aspects of issues like this than all the rest of the research
>> community combined.
>
>Let's take a look at John Hunt's work on this subject and see
>if it merits this high praise.
Cliff, John and I used communicate every now and then by phone exchanging
thoughts. He told me back then that he built a scale model of the limo and
victims in order to check the feasibility of the SBT. After doing so he
was convinced that one bullet, fired from the TSBD, went through both JFK
and JBC as per Specter's conclusion. The only significant departure from
the WC's SBT theory that John traveled was that he didn't believe CE-399
was "THE" bullet that went through the men. IOW, he believed CE-399 was
planted...but I was most interested in the trajectory, which he endorsed
The Jacket, Cliff, is also a different issue for me. I respect your views,
but disagree with them. A few years ago I think we went down that same
road and came out agreeing to disagree....I think we're there again.
John Canal
John Canal
Some of the medical evidence was lied about...even by the autopsists. That said,
the photographs don't lie.
>In particular an
>entry to the right of the EOP and exit along the coronal suture
>confines the wound track exclusively to the right side of Kennedy's
>head.
So?
>Further entry near the level of the EOP limits the vertical
>distance between the wound track and the spinning axis of the neck.
There you go again. Your saying there's a problem because the photographic
ev. that shows the bleeping entry near the EOP, conflicts with a
mathematical theory. I don't have to say again, I hope, what I think about
that so called "problem".
>As
>a result a leftward spin of the head would have dominated its
>mechanical reaction to a transiting bullet. If you cannot deal with
>this glaring contradiction with the Zapruder film that shows a nod with
>negligible spin then I suggest you study the report by the New York
>Daily News of November 24, 1963 on their interview with Officer Hargis.
>I quote, "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned
>toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head,
>spinning it around. I was splattered with blood."
Cripes, Herbert, I don't care abowhat Hargis said when it conflicts with
the photographic ev. Issue is closed!
>
>As a side note, I should add that the WC ignored this report and Stern
>did not ask Hargis what happened to Kennedy when shot in the head.
There was all kinds of that cherry picking of witnesses going on...by both
the WC and HSCA. For example, why do you think eyewitnesses like the
neurosurgeon Grossman wasn't called by the WC to testify? I'll tell you
why...it's because he saw cerebellum tissue exuding from the back of JFK's
head and a larger wound back there than they wanted to hear about. I could
go on, but why beat a dead horse.
>Without doubt, unwillingness to confront contradictory evidence is your
>weakness.
>
>>
>>You might have a sense of humor, and that's something, but your ability to apply
>> your impressive technical knowledge is wanting....IMHO, of course.
>>
>>BTW, afraid to tell us your alternative scenario to the SBT as well as tell me
>> what you think caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
>
>Odds favor the cause of the alleged jack bulge at 223-224 was the same
>as the numerous other changes in the shape of garments or body parts of
>occupants of the limousine.
"Odds favor..."? Did you calculate them? OIC. :-(
>So I wonder whether you attribute the
>apparent bulge in Greer's chest to a gunshot or the flopping of Mrs.
>Kennedy's hat to a bullet?
Was Greer or Jackie precisely in either the proposed trajectory of the SBT
or head shot?
>As for my alternative to SBT, I contend that the documentation of the
>nine wounds on the two victims is inadequate and far too contradictory
>to suggest any shooting sequence.
And, of course, you've completely dissed off all the replications,
demonstrations and re-enactments that I listed before that make the SBT
trajectory, not only feasible, but, undoubtedly, a mathematical certainty?
I can't help you Herbet.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <efydnWWDcaUq-TnY...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <1168297284.7...@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
>>> Blenner says...
>>>
>>> <Top Post>
>>>
>>> Herbert, two questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>>
>>> 1. If you don't think the Z-film was doctored on this, what do you think
>>> caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
>>>
>> False assumption. It didn't.
>
> Hmmmm...Anthony, how did you determine that his jacket didn't bulge out at
> 223-224? Oh, that was a rhetorical question, BTW. I think the answer
> is...drumroll please....."You concluded it couldn't have bulged out, especially
> then, because, if it had, that would have made your silly '210 and 230 hit'
> theory even sillier".
>
The burden is not on me to prove that theory. But it appears to me that
the jacket does not bulge out. And I would expect to see it happen on
several frames not just one.
David Von Pein
<<<
I always love the illogic of this pro-CT argument, which berates LNers for
not FINDING an UNFINDABLE item (i.e., a bullet that "missed everything").
Gotta love that logic there. (Not.)
And (of course) that silly "Why Haven't You Found The MISSED Bullet?"
counter-argument allows the conspiracy theorist to conveniently and
implacably skirt around the question asked of them -- i.e., WHERE ARE
THOSE THREE BULLETS THAT *WENT INTO* TWO VICTIMS ON 11/22/63 THAT JUST
DISAPPEARED INTO NOTHINGNESS?!
Again (for the 101st time or so) -- Where are the damn bullets that you
need to replace the SBT?!! Where did they go? Where?
~~Awaits the CT silence that shall inevitably follow~~
Andrew Mason
There were parts of them in the car or in the wounds. The first bullet
ended up in JBC's thigh after passing through JFK's neck. The second
struck JBC and left pieces in his ribs and wrist. The third bullet... well
there is not much issue about that one.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
neck." <<<
Not possible (if you're saying the bullet went directly to the thigh from
JFK's neck). No way that's possible. That bullet was travelling 1775fps
out of the neck, and it barely grazes the thigh with a superficial wound?
Nonsense. Think up something else.
>>> "The second struck JBC and left pieces in his ribs and wrist." <<<
Not a shred of lead was found in his thorax/chest. Nothing. Not even a
tiny metal fragment.
And the amount of metal in the wrist weighed less than a postage stamp.
Think up something else. You're losing the "Battle Of The Bullet
Fragments" to the LNers.
>>> "The third bullet...well there is not much issue about that one." <<<
Unless you want to say it came from the Knoll/Front. And if so, where's
the exit wound that oughta be in the LEFT side of JFK's head? And where
are the fragments on the LEFT side of his head in the X-rays?
Better try again. This CT attempt of yours screams "desperation" (as well
as "Lack Of Evidence").
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The first bullet ended up in JBC's thigh after passing through JFK's
> neck." <<<
>
> Not possible (if you're saying the bullet went directly to the thigh from
> JFK's neck). No way that's possible. That bullet was travelling 1775fps
> out of the neck, and it barely grazes the thigh with a superficial wound?
> Nonsense. Think up something else.
>
>
>>>> "The second struck JBC and left pieces in his ribs and wrist." <<<
>
> Not a shred of lead was found in his thorax/chest. Nothing. Not even a
> tiny metal fragment.
>
> And the amount of metal in the wrist weighed less than a postage stamp.
>
As far as you know. His body still has more lead in it than was missing
from CE 399.
> Think up something else. You're losing the "Battle Of The Bullet
> Fragments" to the LNers.
>
The WC defenders lost that battle a long time ago.
>>>> "The third bullet...well there is not much issue about that one." <<<
>
> Unless you want to say it came from the Knoll/Front. And if so, where's
> the exit wound that oughta be in the LEFT side of JFK's head? And where
> are the fragments on the LEFT side of his head in the X-rays?
>
There is no "oughta." Learn something about ballistics. There does not
have to be an exit wound exactly opposite an entrance wound. Look at the
shooting of James Brady in the front of the head. Also by an explosive
bullet. No exit wound.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You have never found the bullet which you think missed everything."
> <<<
>
> I always love the illogic of this pro-CT argument, which berates LNers for
> not FINDING an UNFINDABLE item (i.e., a bullet that "missed everything").
>
> Gotta love that logic there. (Not.)
What is sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander. Don't castigate
others for not doing something which you can't do likewise.
>
> And (of course) that silly "Why Haven't You Found The MISSED Bullet?"
> counter-argument allows the conspiracy theorist to conveniently and
> implacably skirt around the question asked of them -- i.e., WHERE ARE
> THOSE THREE BULLETS THAT *WENT INTO* TWO VICTIMS ON 11/22/63 THAT JUST
> DISAPPEARED INTO NOTHINGNESS?!
>
Strawman argument. What's wrong with the two large fragments found in
the front of the limousine. Surely those went through someone.
> Again (for the 101st time or so) -- Where are the damn bullets that you
> need to replace the SBT?!! Where did they go? Where?
>
Again, for the 1,000th time, show me the damn bullet that the WC said
missed. Then I'll show you the other bullet which missed.
Anthony Marsh
Some photographs do not lie. Some photographs can lie.
David Von Pein
Sure they did. Through JFK's head (quite obviously). Which was THE ONLY
THING in the limo which could have possibly caused the fragmentation of
that bullet....with the location of the fragments also proving that JFK
was shot in the head FROM BEHIND.*
* = Unless some crackerjack CTer wants to theorize, and somehow go about
proving, that Oswald's C2766 rifle (the weapon from which those fragments
originated) somehow fired the head shot from the FRONT and was then
quickly transported to the TSBD's 6th Floor after the shooting. I wish
anyone luck with that story (especially in light of the "CE399" matter,
which is a missile that also came from Oswald's gun....but from behind, of
course).
That theory would also have to, of course, include the crazy notion of
fragments completely reversing directions, and ending up to the front of
JFK even though such fragments from a frontal head shot should have
probably ended up behind the President.
Connally's injuries are ruled out as a source for the front-seat
fragments, based on the existence of that pesky bullet called
"Three-Niner-Niner"....which had NO CHOICE but to have gone into John
Connally for obvious "IT WAS FOUND IN THE HOSPITAL WHERE CONNALLY WAS
TAKEN" reasons. And then couple that with the fact that Connally was
positively only shot ONE time....and the math becomes quite elementary.
>>> "Again, for the 1,000th time, show me the damn bullet that the WC said
missed. Then I'll show you the other bullet which missed." <<<
"Other bullet which missed"??? Huh?? And "WTF???"
I'm not talking about any "missed" shots here when I ask you to "SHOW ME
THE BULLETS", for God sake! I'm not stupid enough to think (or expect)
that any bullet which "missed" everything could or would be necessarily
recoverable.
I'm talking about THREE "HITS" on JFK & JBC....the THREE separate
shots/bullets that simply MUST take the place of CE399 and the SBT if you
choose to reject the Single-Bullet Conclusion (and reject the notion that
399 was inside a victim on 11/22/63, which is a fact that virtually all
CTers do reject).
Hence, three bullets that struck victims in the X-100 limousine are AWOL.
How is that even remotely possible? How would even TWO whole bullets going
AWOL be an acceptable solution to any reasonable person?
Where are THOSE three missiles? Not "misses", but direct hits on TWO
victims...with at least two of them going into the body of JFK and never
producing any "exit" wounds (per a non-SBT scenario).
A Triple Disappearing Act I suppose, right? How convenient for you.
Herbert Blenner
True photographic materials do not need the camouflage of junk science.
Now are you ready to discuss how the four blurs on Z313 appear out of and
against a blue sky?
>
> >In particular an
> >entry to the right of the EOP and exit along the coronal suture
> >confines the wound track exclusively to the right side of Kennedy's
> >head.
>
> So?
>
> >Further entry near the level of the EOP limits the vertical
> >distance between the wound track and the spinning axis of the neck.
>
> There you go again. Your saying there's a problem because the photographic
> ev. that shows the bleeping entry near the EOP, conflicts with a
> mathematical theory. I don't have to say again, I hope, what I think about
> that so called "problem".
What is your problem, John. So far I have said nothing about any
mathematical theory. Instead, I use evidence including photographs and
x-rays to make a statement about the distance of the wound track from an
anatomical feature.
Frankly, John, you should read what I have say before responding. If you
had followed this procedure and my argument then probably you would have
caught my error. The vertical distance of the wound tracks relates to the
nodding not spinning axis of the neck.
>
> >As
> >a result a leftward spin of the head would have dominated its
> >mechanical reaction to a transiting bullet. If you cannot deal with
> >this glaring contradiction with the Zapruder film that shows a nod with
> >negligible spin then I suggest you study the report by the New York
> >Daily News of November 24, 1963 on their interview with Officer Hargis.
> >I quote, "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned
> >toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head,
> >spinning it around. I was splattered with blood."
>
> Cripes, Herbert, I don't care abowhat Hargis said when it conflicts with
> the photographic ev.
Perhaps you should ask Chad to show his video of what happens when a
bullet transits a hanging turkey along an off-centered trajectory. The
bird spins and shows a slighter swinging motion. So what you call a
"mathematical theory" is in reality an exact description of commonly
observed rotational motions.
> Issue is closed!
I suggest you push against the right rear of a swivel chair and note that
the magnitudes of the nodding and spinning motions depend on the location
of the push. In fact, technical people can place the position of a push
along a line by measuring these rotational motions of the chair.
>
> >
> >As a side note, I should add that the WC ignored this report and Stern
> >did not ask Hargis what happened to Kennedy when shot in the head.
>
> There was all kinds of that cherry picking of witnesses going on...by both
> the WC and HSCA. For example, why do you think eyewitnesses like the
> neurosurgeon Grossman wasn't called by the WC to testify? I'll tell you
> why...it's because he saw cerebellum tissue exuding from the back of JFK's
> head and a larger wound back there than they wanted to hear about. I could
> go on, but why beat a dead horse.
>
> >Without doubt, unwillingness to confront contradictory evidence is your
> >weakness.
> >
> >>
> >>You might have a sense of humor, and that's something, but your ability to apply
> >> your impressive technical knowledge is wanting....IMHO, of course.
> >>
> >>BTW, afraid to tell us your alternative scenario to the SBT as well as tell me
> >> what you think caused JBC's jacket to bulge out at 223-224?
> >
> >Odds favor the cause of the alleged jack bulge at 223-224 was the same
> >as the numerous other changes in the shape of garments or body parts of
> >occupants of the limousine.
>
> "Odds favor..."? Did you calculate them? OIC. :-(
>
> >So I wonder whether you attribute the
> >apparent bulge in Greer's chest to a gunshot or the flopping of Mrs.
> >Kennedy's hat to a bullet?
>
> Was Greer or Jackie precisely in either the proposed trajectory of the SBT
> or head shot?
You reenforce the strength of my argument by pointing out that those not
in the path of a suspected bullet did in fact exhibit distortions of
garments and body parts comparable with the alleged jacket bulge.
>
> >As for my alternative to SBT, I contend that the documentation of the
> >nine wounds on the two victims is inadequate and far too contradictory
> >to suggest any shooting sequence.
>
> And, of course, you've completely dissed off all the replications,
> demonstrations and re-enactments that I listed before that make the SBT
> trajectory, not only feasible, but, undoubtedly, a mathematical certainty?
>
> I can't help you Herbet.
Time for you to put up the evidence. Show us where a replication,
demonstration or re-enactment made a highly eccentric oval entry wound on
the simulated back and a fairly round to slightly oval exit wound on the
neck side of the simulated victim. Without this for starters your claims
of duplication are worthless.
Herbert
John Canal
Herbert,
On the head shot entry. The entry shows up clearly on the the photos near
the EOP. There is a a lot of other ev. to support that photographic ev.
The issue of where the entry was is closed. I don't want to debate you on
that....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
On the head shot exit. A large piece of frontal bone arrived late to the
autopsy from Dallas. There was somewhat of a semicircular defect on one
corner of that piece. That corner was beveled outward. In addition there
was metallic debris on that corne. Dr. Angel placed that piece so that the
aformentioned corner was along the coronal suture. THAT'S WHERE THE TWO
BULLET FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO EXITED HIS HEAD.
I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that
would change your mind.
On the SBT. I know of nine replications, demonstrations, and/or
re-enactments supporting the SBT that have been done, but there may have
been more. So, how about a dozen more..would that convince you that the
SBT is a fact? No, I didn't think so. I don't want to debate you on
that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
On JBC's jacket bulging out. As far as I know, 100% of the LNers, many
PhDs who have studied this case, and probably a good percentage of CTs
agree that JBC's jacket bulged as a result of a bullet passing through
him. I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO,
that would change your mind.
Anyway, argue with Chad some more...he's got more patience. If you think
I'm just running from your points, fine, you win the debate. John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
Well said, John. Excellent.
~Tip of the cap!~
Nothing anyone can say will change a staunch CTer's mind on any of the
issues you referred to.
Except...perhaps...the verbiage put forth by the man who will be
"Reclaiming History" (via his tome of that title, coming in late May
2007):
http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring07/004525.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b1b2110e73e6650
"His {VB's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence,
reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and nuance
is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the
American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence,
and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American
nightmare." -- W.W. Norton & Co. Publishing; c.1998/2006
Once Vince B. puts forth, in print, his (no doubt) logical and absorbing
and reasonable pro-LN argument regarding my "#1 question mark" surrounding
the entire JFK murder case (i.e., the "BOH Wound Witnesses" matter)....the
remainder of the pro-LN "case" will fall ever-so-neatly in place for
Vincent. Of that, there can be little doubt.
Of course, some hardboiled CTers will still "doubt" VB's CS&L -- but
that's only because they're hardboiled CTers who certainly don't look
forward to tossing their thousands of hours of "Pro-CT" work right into
the trash bin.
(It makes me wonder what conspiracists like Robert Groden will do in the
post-"Reclaiming History" era? A suicide watch just might be in order for
some of these lifelong CTers in such an era.)
Anthony Marsh
> John Canal stated (to a CTer; 4 times fold):
>
>>>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
>
> Well said, John. Excellent.
> ~Tip of the cap!~
>
> Nothing anyone can say will change a staunch CTer's mind on any of the
> issues you referred to.
>
> Except...perhaps...the verbiage put forth by the man who will be
> "Reclaiming History" (via his tome of that title, coming in late May
> 2007):
>
I notice that the closer we get to this mythical date, the more you
reveal your insecurity about Bugliosi.
Anthony Marsh
> [...]
>
> Herbert,
>
> On the head shot entry. The entry shows up clearly on the the photos near
> the EOP. There is a a lot of other ev. to support that photographic ev.
> The issue of where the entry was is closed. I don't want to debate you on
> that....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
>
There is no photograph which shows an entry hole near the EOP. If there
were, you'd upload it and mark where this hole is.
> On the head shot exit. A large piece of frontal bone arrived late to the
> autopsy from Dallas. There was somewhat of a semicircular defect on one
> corner of that piece. That corner was beveled outward. In addition there
> was metallic debris on that corne. Dr. Angel placed that piece so that the
> aformentioned corner was along the coronal suture. THAT'S WHERE THE TWO
> BULLET FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO EXITED HIS HEAD.
> I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that
> would change your mind.
>
Show how a trajectory would work for the two large fragments to exit the
coronal suture location and hit the chrome topping to wind up in the
front seat. All the diagrams show a downward path leaving the head. You
can imagine an upward path, but you can't diagram and upward path
through the hole you've imagined which would then hit the chrome topping.
And then what do you do with the semi-circular defect in the forehead as
Dr. Angel depicts it? Are you saying that President Kennedy was born
with that?
> On the SBT. I know of nine replications, demonstrations, and/or
> re-enactments supporting the SBT that have been done, but there may have
> been more. So, how about a dozen more..would that convince you that the
> SBT is a fact? No, I didn't think so. I don't want to debate you on
> that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
>
And you never once considered it odd that all those SBTs disagree with
each other and yet each one claims to be perfect? Come on!
> On JBC's jacket bulging out. As far as I know, 100% of the LNers, many
> PhDs who have studied this case, and probably a good percentage of CTs
> agree that JBC's jacket bulged as a result of a bullet passing through
> him. I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO,
> that would change your mind.
>
Connally's jacket did not bulge out. Like Badge Man, you are seeing
things that aren't there.
Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein wrote:
> John Canal stated (to a CTer; 4 times fold):
>
> >>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
>
> Well said, John. Excellent.
> ~Tip of the cap!~
>
> Nothing anyone can say will change a staunch CTer's mind on any of the
> issues you referred to.
Herbert Blenner wrote:
The medical conflicts with the photographic evidence. In particular an
entry to the right of the EOP and exit along the coronal suture confines
the wound track exclusively to the right side of Kennedy's head. Further
entry near the level of the EOP limits the vertical distance between the
wound track and the spinning axis of the neck.
John Canal replied:
On the head shot entry. The entry shows up clearly on the the photos near
the EOP. There is a a lot of other ev. to support that photographic ev.
The issue of where the entry was is closed. I don't want to debate you on
that....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
On the head shot exit. A large piece of frontal bone arrived late to the
autopsy from Dallas. There was somewhat of a semicircular defect on one
corner of that piece. That corner was beveled outward. In addition there
was metallic debris on that corne. Dr. Angel placed that piece so that the
aformentioned corner was along the coronal suture. THAT'S WHERE THE TWO
BULLET FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO EXITED HIS
HEAD.
I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that
would change your mind.
Herbert Blenner wrote:
Time for you to put up the evidence. Show us where a replication,
demonstration or re-enactment made a highly eccentric oval entry wound on
the simulated back and a fairly round to slightly oval exit wound on the
neck side of the simulated victim. Without this for starters your claims
of duplication are worthless.
John Canal replied:
On the SBT. I know of nine replications, demonstrations, and/or
re-enactments supporting the SBT that have been done, but there may have
been more. So, how about a dozen more..would that convince you that the
SBT is a fact? No, I didn't think so. I don't want to debate you on
that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
Herbert Blenner wrote:
You reenforce the strength of my argument by pointing out that those
not in the path of a suspected bullet did in fact exhibit distortions
of garments and body parts comparable with the alleged jacket bulge.
John Canel Replied:
On JBC's jacket bulging out. As far as I know, 100% of the LNers, many
PhDs who have studied this case, and probably a good percentage of CTs
agree that JBC's jacket bulged as a result of a bullet passing through
him. I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO,
that would change your mind.
DVP wrote:
John Canal stated (to a CTer; 4 times fold):
>>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
Well said, John. Excellent.
~Tip of the cap!~
Herbert Blenner responds:
Without doubt the moderators SHOULD NOT permit me to accurately
describe what this makes you look like. It will suffice to note that
the unmentionable is amplified three times over. Do you care to try for
four?
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
John Canal wrote:
> [...]
>
> Herbert,
>
> On the head shot entry. The entry shows up clearly on the the photos near
> the EOP. There is a a lot of other ev. to support that photographic ev.
> The issue of where the entry was is closed. I don't want to debate you on
> that....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
>
> On the head shot exit. A large piece of frontal bone arrived late to the
> autopsy from Dallas. There was somewhat of a semicircular defect on one
> corner of that piece. That corner was beveled outward. In addition there
> was metallic debris on that corne. Dr. Angel placed that piece so that the
> aformentioned corner was along the coronal suture. THAT'S WHERE THE TWO
> BULLET FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE FRONT OF THE LIMO EXITED HIS HEAD.
> I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that
> would change your mind.
Do you remember my paragraph that began, "The medical conflicts with the
photographic evidence. In particular an entry to the right of the EOP and
exit along the coronal suture confines the wound track exclusively to the
right side of Kennedy's head. Further entry near the level of the EOP
limits the vertical distance between the wound track and the spinning axis
of the neck."
Allow me to answer my rhetorical question. You responded to my second
sentence with one word, "So?"
So now that I have shown that you are pretending that I have said
something different from what is clearly posted in this thread, I
encourage you to explain your actions. Failure to do so will just
reenforce the appearance that you found a devious way to distort the views
of your perceived opponent.
>
> On the SBT. I know of nine replications, demonstrations, and/or
> re-enactments supporting the SBT that have been done, but there may have
> been more. So, how about a dozen more..would that convince you that the
> SBT is a fact? No, I didn't think so. I don't want to debate you on
> that.....because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind.
Showing us the shapes and sizes of the wounds would convince any rational
doubter. For this reason, I wrote: "Time for you to put up the evidence.
Show us where a replication, demonstration or re-enactment made a highly
eccentric oval entry wound on the simulated back and a fairly round to
slightly oval exit wound on the neck side of the simulated victim. Without
this for starters your claims of duplication are worthless."
Are you pretending that Herbert said give us more re-enactments instead of
asking for particulars of the wounds. Frankly your tactics are outrageous
and I may without asking nor receiving your permission quote your
responses to the overwhelming problems of a single bullet event. The only
consideration that gives my pause is the glaring logical errors of your
arguments would diminished the weight of my work.
>
> On JBC's jacket bulging out. As far as I know, 100% of the LNers, many
> PhDs who have studied this case, and probably a good percentage of CTs
> agree that JBC's jacket bulged as a result of a bullet passing through
> him. I don't want to debate you on that.....because there is nothing, IMO,
> that would change your mind.
Actually the students showed that a transiting bullet could bulge a jacket
and foolishly asserted that the converse was true. Namely a bulged jacket
was caused by a bullet. Of course this nonsense has purpose. It diverts
attention from the timing problem of seeing Kennedy's reaction in less
than one half the reaction time of a human.
Herbert
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>John Canal stated (to a CTer; 4 times fold):
>
>>>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
>
>Well said, John. Excellent.
>~Tip of the cap!~
Thanks, David. Let me say that I've been posting on this NG for nearly a
decade now and that the presence of you, Ed, Tom, and a few others here
seem to have made quite a dramatic difference. I mean that before it
seemed the CTs were more agressive and that when an LN argued against a
CT, other CTs would join in the frey against the LN. Now it seems as if
it's the LNers who support each other...at least more so than I recall.
Anyway, re. VB, besides being an incredible authority on this case, he's
quite a nice man....and I can say that from a personal experience. Indeed,
I faxed him about eight years ago asking him if he knew any publishers
that might be interested in publishing my book...which I told him about.
He actually made a phone call to a Los Angeles publishing house and
recommended that they check out my book. In the end that house rejected my
book, but I still greatly appreciated him trying to help.
I need to get a copy of his book.
John Canal
David Von Pein
reveal your insecurity about Bugliosi." <<<
That must just be another "theory" swimming in the head of Tony "Lots Of
Theories, No Hard Evidence" Marsh....because nothing could be further from
the truth.
I've merely added the "perhaps" for the sake of balance....because it
isn't reasonable to think that ALL hardline CTers can be swayed by
ANYONE...not even the hand of God. Because that type of lifelong CTer will
deny the LN position until they nail the box shut on them, regardless of
the total lack of hard, physical evidence to support their theories.
But any "reasonable" CTer should easily be able to be swayed by 1,632
pages of VB-ism.
Key word -- "Reasonable".
VB Reprise:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic
shooting all by himself. ... You could throw 80 percent of the evidence
against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left
to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- Vince
B.
David Von Pein
TONY SAID: "I notice that the closer we get to this mythical date, the
more you reveal your insecurity about Bugliosi."
DVP NOW STATES: I think VB probably said it best (as per the norm) when he
summed up the reasons why a huge percentage of people believed in a JFK
conspiracy. Let's listen:
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're not
exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what has
happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been inundated with
an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk shows, all alleging
conspiracy.
And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and convinced
the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even though the
reality -- the reality -- is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early media
in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't been
told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone out and
purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They haven't done that.
And this is why the vote coming in will be very, very heavy in favor of a
conspiracy.
I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour {televised
Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in a conspiracy.
And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped dramatically to 71. If
they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony and evidence, it would drop
even further. And if they knew all the truth about the case, very few
people would conclude that there was a conspiracy." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
1988
That entire VB quote can be heard at the end of this video:
Anthony Marsh
Sure, if you point out and further describe what you mean by the four
blurs and what blue sky.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What's wrong with the two large fragments found in the front of the
> limousine? Surely those went through someone." <<<
>
>
> Sure they did. Through JFK's head (quite obviously). Which was THE ONLY
> THING in the limo which could have possibly caused the fragmentation of
> that bullet....with the location of the fragments also proving that JFK
> was shot in the head FROM BEHIND.*
>
No. You have no proof that both fragments came from the same bullet and
went through the same person, much less than specifically through Kennedy.
The location of the fragments proves that they did not emerge from
Kennedy's head. Wrong angles to hit the chrome topping and then ricochet
down into the seat on the right side of the car.
> * = Unless some crackerjack CTer wants to theorize, and somehow go about
> proving, that Oswald's C2766 rifle (the weapon from which those fragments
> originated) somehow fired the head shot from the FRONT and was then
> quickly transported to the TSBD's 6th Floor after the shooting. I wish
> anyone luck with that story (especially in light of the "CE399" matter,
> which is a missile that also came from Oswald's gun....but from behind, of
> course).
>
C2766 was not fired from the grassy knoll. C2766 did not deposit the
fragments in the head.
> That theory would also have to, of course, include the crazy notion of
> fragments completely reversing directions, and ending up to the front of
> JFK even though such fragments from a frontal head shot should have
> probably ended up behind the President.
>
> Connally's injuries are ruled out as a source for the front-seat
> fragments, based on the existence of that pesky bullet called
> "Three-Niner-Niner"....which had NO CHOICE but to have gone into John
> Connally for obvious "IT WAS FOUND IN THE HOSPITAL WHERE CONNALLY WAS
> TAKEN" reasons. And then couple that with the fact that Connally was
> positively only shot ONE time....and the math becomes quite elementary.
>
Humes laid out a scenario for Connally to have been hit by two separate
bullets. I know, I know. He's an idiot so we can dismiss that idea. But CE
399 could possibly have caused Connally's wounds without having to go
through Kennedy first.
>
>>>> "Again, for the 1,000th time, show me the damn bullet that the WC said
> missed. Then I'll show you the other bullet which missed." <<<
>
>
> "Other bullet which missed"??? Huh?? And "WTF???"
>
Fifth shot. See Don Thomas.
> I'm not talking about any "missed" shots here when I ask you to "SHOW ME
> THE BULLETS", for God sake! I'm not stupid enough to think (or expect)
> that any bullet which "missed" everything could or would be necessarily
> recoverable.
>
Oh I'm not so sure about that.
> I'm talking about THREE "HITS" on JFK & JBC....the THREE separate
> shots/bullets that simply MUST take the place of CE399 and the SBT if you
> choose to reject the Single-Bullet Conclusion (and reject the notion that
> 399 was inside a victim on 11/22/63, which is a fact that virtually all
> CTers do reject).
>
The two large fragments found in the front seat could account for two
different bullets and CE 399 is the third.
> Hence, three bullets that struck victims in the X-100 limousine are AWOL.
> How is that even remotely possible? How would even TWO whole bullets going
> AWOL be an acceptable solution to any reasonable person?
>
Why do you need whole bullets? You know some bullets break up into
pieces when they hit hard bones.
> Where are THOSE three missiles? Not "misses", but direct hits on TWO
> victims...with at least two of them going into the body of JFK and never
> producing any "exit" wounds (per a non-SBT scenario).
>
What do you call the throat wound? That was an exit wound.
What do you call the head wound? That was an exit wound.
> A Triple Disappearing Act I suppose, right? How convenient for you.
>
How convenient for Mr. Strawman.
>
David Von Pein
describe what this makes you look like." <<<
Applauding the common sense of John C. makes me look foolish, huh? Curious
indeed. Please explain (in the usual "CT" type of way, of course, so that
the explanation will be appropriately skewed; otherwise, I'd be lost).
Thanks.
>>> "It will suffice to note that the unmentionable is amplified three
times over. Do you care to try for four?" <<<
I thought I already DID make it "four-fold", Herb. Better learn to count.
And then you can tell me where the hell you're hiding all those bullets
that went into two victims and were never seen again. Any notions?
Thanks.
Anthony Marsh
Strawman argument.
> Thanks.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I notice that the closer we get to this mythical date, the more you
> reveal your insecurity about Bugliosi." <<<
>
> That must just be another "theory" swimming in the head of Tony "Lots Of
> Theories, No Hard Evidence" Marsh....because nothing could be further from
> the truth.
>
> I've merely added the "perhaps" for the sake of balance....because it
> isn't reasonable to think that ALL hardline CTers can be swayed by
> ANYONE...not even the hand of God. Because that type of lifelong CTer will
> deny the LN position until they nail the box shut on them, regardless of
> the total lack of hard, physical evidence to support their theories.
>
> But any "reasonable" CTer should easily be able to be swayed by 1,632
> pages of VB-ism.
>
Only 1,632 pages? Is that a guarantee? What happened to the supposed
2,000+ page book? Was Bugliosi forced to leave out a lot of crap because
he couldn't document it? Like his claim on page 792 that modern rifles
never emit any smoke?
Anthony Marsh
> REPRISE.......................
>
> TONY SAID: "I notice that the closer we get to this mythical date, the
> more you reveal your insecurity about Bugliosi."
>
> DVP NOW STATES: I think VB probably said it best (as per the norm) when he
> summed up the reasons why a huge percentage of people believed in a JFK
> conspiracy. Let's listen:
>
> "It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
> eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're not
> exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what has
> happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been inundated with
> an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk shows, all alleging
> conspiracy.
>
> And what's happened, is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
> finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and convinced
> the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even though the
> reality -- the reality -- is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
> scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
> conspiracy.
Jeez, you're not much of a WC defender, are you?
You should not be admitting that the majority of the American people are
convinced it was a conspiracy. Learn from your fellow WC defenders.
Dismiss all the polls. Claim that it all a big lie by the conspiracy
writers. Something.
>
> In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early media
> in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't been
> told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone out and
> purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They haven't done that.
> And this is why the vote coming in will be very, very heavy in favor of a
> conspiracy.
>
Again, how many supposed WC defenders have actually read the report and
the 26 volumes? Practically none. Certainly not you.
> I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour {televised
> Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in a conspiracy.
Yeah, sure. Prove it. You realize that WC defenders are supposed to
dispute such figures?
> And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped dramatically to 71. If
As if you really believe polls and think the numbers are accurate and
significant. Not.
> they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony and evidence, it would drop
> even further. And if they knew all the truth about the case, very few
> people would conclude that there was a conspiracy." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> 1988
>
> That entire VB quote can be heard at the end of this video:
>
And you believe none of his crap.
David Von Pein
through Kennedy." <<<
A reasonable, clear-thinking person (who wasn't all the time searching for
extraordinary, complicated solutions when such solutions aren't nearly
required to reconcile the evidence on the table) would probably disagree
with you, Mr. Marsh. I'm one of those persons.
In-A-Nutshell Ballistics Evidence Distribution:
1.) CE399 found inside Parkland Hospital.
2.) CE399 came from Rifle C2766.
3.) C2766 was located in TSBD (to the REAR of the victims) at the time
when the victims were wounded by gunfire.
4.) No whole bullets (or large bullet fragments even) found inside either
victim.
5.) John B. Connally was hit by just ONE bullet (per his doctors and per
Connally's own beliefs).
6.) CE399 found in an area of Parkland Hospital where neither JFK nor
JFK's stretcher were EVER located prior to the discovery of the bullet by
Darrell Tomlinson.
7.) #1 thru #6 = CE399 must have been the ONE & ONLY bullet that struck
Governor Connally. And those items, combined, also lend major credence to
the SBT, when we factor in other variables like WHEN the victims were hit
by gunfire and the positions in the limo of the two victims (which are
factors, admittedly, that are guesses to a certain extent; but this is
unavoidable). Just try getting a bullet into Connally's far-right back
when looking at this view (via the approximated, but reasonably-accurate,
animation work done by Dale Myers, which was based almost exclusively on
the Zapruder Film).....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
8.) Since we now know (via simple logic) that CE399 is the only bullet
which struck Connally, we can now eliminate the front-seat bullet
fragments as having possibly come from a missile which struck the
Governor.
9.) Two fairly-large bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 (to the exclusion
of every other weapon every made) found in the front of the Presidential
limousine.
10.) Since John F. Kennedy was the only other victim in the limousine
struck by gunfire, it can be logically assumed (when taking #8 into
account first) that the front-seat fragments must have come from the
gunshot to Kennedy's head (which was the ONLY injury sustained by Mr.
Kennedy that could have possibly caused such severe fragmentation of a
bullet).
Perry? Are you up for a rebuttal?
Good luck.
>>> "The location of the fragments proves that they did not emerge from
Kennedy's head. Wrong angles to hit the chrome topping and then ricochet
down into the seat on the right side of the car." <<<
LOL. As if you (or anyone else) could possibly know about those "angles"
and "ricochets" with such exactitude (via a gunshot to a human skull that
would certainly have changed the trajectory and angles greatly after the
bullet struck the skull) in order to eliminate the fragments as fragments
from the head shot.
Give a thinking man a little bit of a break...for once.
>>> "C2766 did not deposit the fragments in the head." <<<
A bullet from it most certainly did. Any other explanation -- as
demonstrated via numbers 8, 9, and 10 above -- pales by comparison....and
is downright laughable by comparison as well.
But do keep dreaming...for dreams keep some men going each day. Are you
one such man?
>>> "Humes laid out a scenario for Connally to have been hit by two
separate bullets." <<<
And Humes, the AUTOPSIST, knows more about Connally's wounds than does Dr.
Shaw and Dr. Gregory, right? Tell me again why this is the case? I must've
missed that.
>>> "CE 399 could possibly have caused Connally's wounds without having to
go through Kennedy first." <<<
Not according to the WC. I know, I know....they're all a bunch of
bullshitters. Why should I trust that ragtag team of BS artists/shills.
Right?
But in addition to that ragtag WC team that you must think couldn't
investigate its way out of Oswald's rifle sack (even if it were soaking
wet with C2766 oil stains) -- you've also got a 170-pound problem with
your above comment -- namely: the personage of John F. Kennedy, who was IN
THE GUNMAN'S WAY when Connally was shot. Hence, bullet goes into Kennedy
first, and into Connally next.
Find a way to remove JFK from the gunman's sights during the time when JBC
is known to have been shot...and then get back to me. And I'll even spot
you several Z-Film frames on either side of Z224 for reaching your goal of
getting Kennedy out of the way of that bullet's path. You can't do it. But
good luck anyway. .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>>> "The two large fragments found in the front seat could account for two
different bullets and CE 399 is the third." <<<
Only if you want to leave all your basic common sense on the doorstep of
"JFK Research Center 101" (which most CTers do wish to do, for some
obscure reasons all their own).
Again, why do CTers love to complicate the uncomplicated so often in this
case? Just....why?
For, don't you think it quite odd -- via your "2 Bullet Theory" re. the
front-seat fragments -- that one of those fragments was a "nose" section,
while the other was a "base" portion? Which were found very close to each
other in the front compartment of the limousine....a limousine that also
just happened to have exactly TWO damaged areas to the frontal part of the
vehicle (chrome & windshield).
In order for those fragments to have come from two separate missiles,
you're going to have to believe that a matching NOSE and BASE portion to
each of the NOSE and BASE portions found in the car somehow escaped
detection or were lost and completely unrecoverable following the
shooting.
With the end result being just perfect for the "Let's Frame Oswald"
plotters (for those who buy into that theory, that is), so that ONLY a
SINGLE base portion and a SINGLE nose portion of a Mannlicher-Carcano
bullet from Oswald's C2766 rifle, TO THE EXCLUSION, were recoverable in
the limousine.
Yeah....that's a much better (and reasonable) scenario than just admitting
that those C2766 fragments were probably from the same bullet, huh?
New Motto For CTers --- Why go with Occam's when we COULD believe a
Tony-Tale??
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1168667253.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, David Von
> Pein says...
>> John Canal stated (to a CTer; 4 times fold):
>>
>>>>> " Because there is nothing, IMO, that would change your mind." <<<
>> Well said, John. Excellent.
>> ~Tip of the cap!~
>
> Thanks, David. Let me say that I've been posting on this NG for nearly a
> decade now and that the presence of you, Ed, Tom, and a few others here
> seem to have made quite a dramatic difference. I mean that before it
> seemed the CTs were more agressive and that when an LN argued against a
> CT, other CTs would join in the frey against the LN. Now it seems as if
> it's the LNers who support each other...at least more so than I recall.
>
Yes, it seems that way. Unless it is just one WC defender posting under 20
aliases, patting himself on the back.
The WC defenders are great at attacking any conspiracy believer, but weak
on the evidence. And they can't even seem to agree on any theories amongst
themselves. Each seems to invent a new SBT each week. Or a new version of
the head shot.
> Anyway, re. VB, besides being an incredible authority on this case, he's
> quite a nice man....and I can say that from a personal experience. Indeed,
Bugliosi is not any type of authority on the JFK assassination. Like
Posner he is just a government shill, a collector of WC myths.
Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "Without doubt the moderators SHOULD NOT permit me to accurately
> describe what this makes you look like." <<<
>
> Applauding the common sense of John C. makes me look foolish, huh? Curious
> indeed. Please explain (in the usual "CT" type of way, of course, so that
> the explanation will be appropriately skewed; otherwise, I'd be lost).
>
> Thanks.
Pardon me for forgetting to add that defending John Canal embarrasses you
to the point of snipping the relevant exchanges.
Herbert Blenner wrote:
John Canal replied:
Herbert Blenner wrote:
John Canal replied:
Herbert Blenner wrote:
John Canel Replied:
Thanks for confirming again the foolishness of your position.
>
> >>> "It will suffice to note that the unmentionable is amplified three
> times over. Do you care to try for four?" <<<
>
> I thought I already DID make it "four-fold", Herb. Better learn to count.
>
> And then you can tell me where the hell you're hiding all those bullets
> that went into two victims and were never seen again. Any notions?
>
> Thanks.
Bingo. You have increased your score to four.
John Canal wrote:
Herbert, I've read enough of your posts to know that, no matter what
anyone says, expert or otherwise, you're not going to change your position
and/or conclusions on this case.
Herbert Blenner replied:
I have not reached a conclusion on whether multiple shooters inflicted the
wounds on the two victims or the authorities doctored the reported wounds
to conceal panic reaction by one or both victims.
Now, Mr. Von Pein, show us where Herbert claims that vanishing bullets
transited President Kennedy and Governor Connally. I predict that you will
not post the paragraph containing your claim for the simple reason that I
have never expressed the idea. So in reality, your statement is merely a
recast of when did you stop beating your wife?
Herbert
David Von Pein
Posner he is just a government shill, a collector of WC myths." <<<
You haven't the slightest idea what you're spouting off about (re.
"shills" and such shit) and you know it.
VB has been writing his book for 21 years. If he's not an authority on the
case and its documented evidence by now, how many more years do you think
it'll take Vince? Another 20 to 25 years perhaps? (Gee-sus.)
I love it when a CTer puts both feet in his enormous mouth, as Tony M.
just did above. I love it!
Just for Marsh.......
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald killed
Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology. There's a
credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation antithetical
to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." -- Vincent Bugliosi
~~~
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent Bugliosi
David Von Pein
Sorry your feathers got ruffled. I was merely endorsing John Canal's
belief that certain CTers can never be convinced of a certain pro-LN POV,
no matter what. (Which is the main point I was trying to make.)
My previous remark....
"Nothing anyone can say will change a staunch CTer's mind on any of the
issues you referred to."
....was more of a "general" observation, rather than being aimed at any
one particular CTer. I didn't read your exchange(s) with John. So I
haven't the slighest idea exactly what you said to him. I was merely
generalizing via my comment to John. (Sorry you felt the need to
copy-&-paste all of that stuff I never read in the first place. And didn't
read in the second place either.)
I shall readily admit, as I have before to this aggregation, that I have a
tendency to "lump" CTers into the same basket on many occasions. And I'll
admit that that is not a good thing to do. But...shit happens sometimes.
And when crossing over from the Nuthouse Forum to this one, sometimes the
line of a CTer's sanity gets blurred. And since there is very little
sanity amongst CTers over in the Nuthouse, I sometimes forget that there
IS some semblance of sanity remaining here.
So, maybe Vincent B. will be able to save some of you CTers after all.
Soldier on, my friend.
DVP
Herbert Blenner
Wrapping the evidence that only supports the LN'er position in a nutshell
is an accurate use of language. Did you intend to pun?
Now for the omitted evidence, I cite the seven by four millimeter oval
hole in President Kennedy's back and the fifteen by six millimeter oval
hole in his head. Commander Humes explicitly ascribed these holes to
tangential strikes by bullets. The Clark Panel strengthened this autopsy
evidence by describing the shapes of these holes as elliptical.
These holes evidence entry by bullets with approximate forty-five and
sixty-five degree angles of incidence. So this evidence combined with the
eyewitness observations that does not place Kennedy nearly lying on his
back when shot prohibits the TSBD as the source of these two bullets.
Needless to say the photographic evidence confirms the observations of the
eyewitnesses.
So now we have uncovered the motive for ignoring the shapes and sizes of
bullet holes. Namely the documented entrance wounds on Kennedy are
inconsistent with the reported exit wounds. In particular the fairly round
to slightly oval wound on Kennedy's neck presents insurmountable problems
for attributing the back and neck wounds to the same bullet.
Since you are a verbose chap, I extend to you the opportunity declined
by John Canal to defend the SBT.
I wrote:
"Perhaps you think that a bullet can enter crooked and come out straight.
But the unchallenged medical evidence has a bullet entering the back at an
approximate 45 degree angle of incidence and coming out straight enough to
produce a fairly round to slightly oval throat wound. These circumstances
require a considerable deflection of the bullet during transit. But this
turn represents the lesser problem. Attributing the fairly round to
slightly oval throat wound to the bullet that entered the back requires
changes in yaw and pitch angles to compensate for the deflection of the
bullet. These stumbling blocks are sufficient to declare the SBT dead
before conception."
So let's hear your explanation of how the SBT can stand with this
uncontested evidence.
Herbert
David Von Pein
sixty-five degree angles of incidence." <<<
BULLETIN: Jack Ruby, in a stealth helicopter hovering above Dealey Plaza,
fires two bullets into JFK!! Stay tuned for further details!!
Okay, where could those shots have come from if not the TSBD, which was
the only KNOWN source of gunfire on Nov. 22nd?
You're micro-managing the JFK entry wounds...and in the process you're
leaving out the common-sense factor, coupled with all of the OTHER STUFF
that says JFK was hit twice from the TSBD and hit only by Oswald's C2766
bolt-action rifle.
Stuff like:
The C2766 fragments in the front seat...
A fragment taken from JFK's head was very likely from a bullet fired in
Rifle C2766 (within a "very good degree of probability", as I stop short
of saying "with 100% certainty", so I won't get jumped on by members of
the "Vince Guinn Haters Club Of America")...
CE399 had to have been the bullet that hit Connally (my previous post
explains why this is true, plain as day, despite CTer protestations)...
And if CE399 (from C2766, which was in the TSBD at the time of the
shooting) was in JBC, it had no CHOICE but to have been the exact bullet
that went through JFK's neck as well. No way around that fact; because,
literally, there was NO WAY AROUND John F. Kennedy for Bullet CE399!
Let's take a quick Vince B. break, okay? Okay. .....
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt
that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon!" -- Vince Bugliosi
>>> "So let's hear your explanation of how the SBT can stand with this
uncontested evidence." <<<
My detailed thoughts re. the validity of the SBT are provided in the
essays linked below. But, in short, the SBT is positively by far the best
explanation to explain the wounding of JFK & JBC in DP. Any other theory
is 1000 times weaker, via common sense ALONE...not to mention the TOTAL
lack of ballistics evidence to prop up any such anti-SBT claims.
In short (again) -- WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS that must replace CE399 if
the SBT is a wet dream? And, via the most-commonly-believed anti-SBT
scenario, this would include multiple bullets (and/or fragments of same)
that went INTO two victims and were never, ever seen again and never
entered into the record of this murder case. Where are they?
And -- How could any "plotters" have gotten so lucky on Nov. 22nd to have
(by pure chance) performed a NON-SBT shooting which miraculously mimicked
a pretty damn good-looking SINGLE-bullet shooting event?
Any rational thoughts on those questions? I'd love to hear something of a
believable nature come from the lips of a conspiracist re. ANY anti-SBT
scenario. Alas, I've yet to hear anything resembling that from CTers.
Should I hold my breath waiting for such a rational/believable anti-SBT
explanation that actually dares to use the EXISTING BALLISTICS EVIDENCE in
this case?
The SBT is a fact. Live with it. Or forever keep spinning your anti-SBT
wheels while promoting a BULLET-LESS multi-shot alternative.
My SBT thoughts.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/284975f119fe13c0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61fe27a14fb7dd35
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
David Von Pein
same bullet." <<<
Nope. It does no such thing. Dr. Lattimer's experiments with "collared"
necks prove that an exiting bullet could very well have been small and
rounded (like an entry hole) if the skin around the wound was held by a
supporting collar/necktie combination (like in Kennedy's case on Nov.
22nd).
Better try again. (Or are Lattimer's pro-SBT and pro-LN-favoring tests
supposed to be tossed in the trash just because a CTer doesn't like the
results?)
David Von Pein
comments directly via your previous post...don't you? I made it quite
clear (twice), of course, that those were VB's words and not my own.
Of particular interest is this remark made by Tony (aimed at VB....I
assume Tony knew he was aiming this at VB, and not DVP).....
"How many supposed WC defenders have actually read the report and the
26 volumes? Practically none. Certainly not you."
Do you REALLY believe that Vince B. has not read the WR and the 26
volumes?
Anthony Marsh
The Irony is that YOU being a supporter of VB do not even have a copy of
the WC and 26 volumes, much less have read them. Another irony is that
VB has not bothered to read the WC internal documents like the ones I
have posted here for all. Another irony is that you refuse to look at
the WC documents lest you slowly give in to conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You have no proof that both {front-seat} fragments came from the same
> bullet and went through the same person, much less than specifically
> through Kennedy." <<<
>
>
> A reasonable, clear-thinking person (who wasn't all the time searching for
> extraordinary, complicated solutions when such solutions aren't nearly
> required to reconcile the evidence on the table) would probably disagree
> with you, Mr. Marsh. I'm one of those persons.
>
You mean like the dumb cops who declared murder and Dr. Henry Lee proved
suicide? Or like the dumb cops who declared traffic accident and Dr.
Henry Lee proved murder?
> In-A-Nutshell Ballistics Evidence Distribution:
>
> 1.) CE399 found inside Parkland Hospital.
>
So what? Could have been real or could have been planted.
> 2.) CE399 came from Rifle C2766.
>
So what? Doesn't tell us when it was fired or by whom.
> 3.) C2766 was located in TSBD (to the REAR of the victims) at the time
> when the victims were wounded by gunfire.
>
In fact the ballistics evidence tells us that C2766 was fired during the
assassination.
> 4.) No whole bullets (or large bullet fragments even) found inside either
> victim.
>
Nor would we expect to find one. Despite Hoover saying that a whole
bullet fell out of Kennedy's head.
> 5.) John B. Connally was hit by just ONE bullet (per his doctors and per
> Connally's own beliefs).
>
Dead wrong. Humes and other speculated that Connally was hit by two
bullets. Shaw said it was more likely that Connally was hit by two bullets.
> 6.) CE399 found in an area of Parkland Hospital where neither JFK nor
> JFK's stretcher were EVER located prior to the discovery of the bullet by
> Darrell Tomlinson.
>
And it was found at Ronnie Fuller's stretcher. Whoever planted it
thought he was putting it on the President's stretcher.
> 7.) #1 thru #6 = CE399 must have been the ONE & ONLY bullet that struck
> Governor Connally. And those items, combined, also lend major credence to
False assumptions lead to false conclusions.
> the SBT, when we factor in other variables like WHEN the victims were hit
> by gunfire and the positions in the limo of the two victims (which are
> factors, admittedly, that are guesses to a certain extent; but this is
> unavoidable). Just try getting a bullet into Connally's far-right back
> when looking at this view (via the approximated, but reasonably-accurate,
> animation work done by Dale Myers, which was based almost exclusively on
> the Zapruder Film).....
>
You could still have one bullet hitting Connally without having it hit
Kennedy first. A Modified Single Bullet Theory (now public domain).
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>
> 8.) Since we now know (via simple logic) that CE399 is the only bullet
> which struck Connally, we can now eliminate the front-seat bullet
> fragments as having possibly come from a missile which struck the
> Governor.
>
No, we don't know that.
> 9.) Two fairly-large bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 (to the exclusion
> of every other weapon every made) found in the front of the Presidential
> limousine.
>
Yes, which is very important. But you can't explain and diagram exactly
how they got there.
> 10.) Since John F. Kennedy was the only other victim in the limousine
> struck by gunfire, it can be logically assumed (when taking #8 into
> account first) that the front-seat fragments must have come from the
> gunshot to Kennedy's head (which was the ONLY injury sustained by Mr.
> Kennedy that could have possibly caused such severe fragmentation of a
> bullet).
>
Not my particular theory, but others could point to the dent in the
chrome topping as a direct hit which deposited those two large fragments.
Why do you think that the SS would feel a need to lie about the dent?
Because they could not fit it into the pattern.
> Perry? Are you up for a rebuttal?
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>>>> "The location of the fragments proves that they did not emerge from
> Kennedy's head. Wrong angles to hit the chrome topping and then ricochet
> down into the seat on the right side of the car." <<<
>
> LOL. As if you (or anyone else) could possibly know about those "angles"
> and "ricochets" with such exactitude (via a gunshot to a human skull that
> would certainly have changed the trajectory and angles greatly after the
> bullet struck the skull) in order to eliminate the fragments as fragments
> from the head shot.
>
Yes, I do.
> Give a thinking man a little bit of a break...for once.
>
>
>>>> "C2766 did not deposit the fragments in the head." <<<
>
>
> A bullet from it most certainly did. Any other explanation -- as
> demonstrated via numbers 8, 9, and 10 above -- pales by comparison....and
> is downright laughable by comparison as well.
>
> But do keep dreaming...for dreams keep some men going each day. Are you
> one such man?
>
>
>>>> "Humes laid out a scenario for Connally to have been hit by two
> separate bullets." <<<
>
>
> And Humes, the AUTOPSIST, knows more about Connally's wounds than does Dr.
> Shaw and Dr. Gregory, right? Tell me again why this is the case? I must've
> missed that.
>
>
Why should you be citing Shaw when he destroys your theory? Shaw said it
was more likely that Connally was not hit by a SB.
>>>> "CE 399 could possibly have caused Connally's wounds without having to
> go through Kennedy first." <<<
>
>
> Not according to the WC. I know, I know....they're all a bunch of
> bullshitters. Why should I trust that ragtag team of BS artists/shills.
> Right?
>
Liars.
> But in addition to that ragtag WC team that you must think couldn't
> investigate its way out of Oswald's rifle sack (even if it were soaking
> wet with C2766 oil stains) -- you've also got a 170-pound problem with
> your above comment -- namely: the personage of John F. Kennedy, who was IN
> THE GUNMAN'S WAY when Connally was shot. Hence, bullet goes into Kennedy
> first, and into Connally next.
>
No, there was plenty of room to hit Connally. See the Dale Myers diagram
in Video Toaster.
> Find a way to remove JFK from the gunman's sights during the time when JBC
> is known to have been shot...and then get back to me. And I'll even spot
> you several Z-Film frames on either side of Z224 for reaching your goal of
> getting Kennedy out of the way of that bullet's path. You can't do it. But
> good luck anyway. .....
>
Plenty of room.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
>
>
>>>> "The two large fragments found in the front seat could account for two
> different bullets and CE 399 is the third." <<<
>
>
> Only if you want to leave all your basic common sense on the doorstep of
> "JFK Research Center 101" (which most CTers do wish to do, for some
> obscure reasons all their own).
>
> Again, why do CTers love to complicate the uncomplicated so often in this
> case? Just....why?
>
Why are WC defenders presupposed to believe whatever lies the WC put out?
> For, don't you think it quite odd -- via your "2 Bullet Theory" re. the
> front-seat fragments -- that one of those fragments was a "nose" section,
> while the other was a "base" portion? Which were found very close to each
> other in the front compartment of the limousine....a limousine that also
> just happened to have exactly TWO damaged areas to the frontal part of the
> vehicle (chrome & windshield).
>
My particular theory is that both fragments came from the same bullet,
the one which hit Connally's wrist. But that can not be proven by just
the fragments themselves.
> In order for those fragments to have come from two separate missiles,
> you're going to have to believe that a matching NOSE and BASE portion to
> each of the NOSE and BASE portions found in the car somehow escaped
> detection or were lost and completely unrecoverable following the
> shooting.
>
That would not be hard to do. The lead core from the base fragment has
never been found. Some other part of the nose fragment is missing. So
lost and completely unrecoverable is not a barrier. BTW, I may be the
only person who has explained where these missing pieces went.
Anyway, your whole approach avoids the fact that I may tell you that
something can not be proven even though I believe it myself.
> With the end result being just perfect for the "Let's Frame Oswald"
> plotters (for those who buy into that theory, that is), so that ONLY a
> SINGLE base portion and a SINGLE nose portion of a Mannlicher-Carcano
> bullet from Oswald's C2766 rifle, TO THE EXCLUSION, were recoverable in
> the limousine.
>
We would expect only fragments to be found.
> Yeah....that's a much better (and reasonable) scenario than just admitting
> that those C2766 fragments were probably from the same bullet, huh?
>
You can think that. I can think that. You can not prove it. I can not
prove it.
> New Motto For CTers --- Why go with Occam's when we COULD believe a
> Tony-Tale??
>
Occam's Razor is a crutch for lazy minds.
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Bugliosi is not any type of authority on the JFK assassination. Like
> Posner he is just a government shill, a collector of WC myths." <<<
>
> You haven't the slightest idea what you're spouting off about (re.
> "shills" and such shit) and you know it.
>
> VB has been writing his book for 21 years. If he's not an authority on the
> case and its documented evidence by now, how many more years do you think
> it'll take Vince? Another 20 to 25 years perhaps? (Gee-sus.)
>
Everything I've seen from Bugliosi so far convinces me that he is not an
authority on the case. Just as when I saw Posner on CompuServe I knew
that he was not fact checking his crap.
David Von Pein
>>> "The irony is that YOU, being a supporter of VB, do not even have a
Amazing is Tony's ability to know what total strangers own and do not own.
An industrial strength crystal ball Tony possesses.....yessssss!
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Darth_Neilzy/clone%20wars/Yoda.jpg
>>> "Another irony is that VB has not bothered to read the WC internal
documents like the ones I have posted here for all." <<<
Tony's ball of the crystal persuasion working overtime today, it
is....yessssss!
>>> "Another irony is that you refuse to look at the WC documents lest you
slowly give in to conspiracy." <<<
Lest I slowly give in to conspiracy, eh? The Force (of Groden-ism) is
strong with this one (named Tony), it is. Yesssss!
David Von Pein
Remarkable. Re. the two key issues of "CE399 being found in Parkland", and
"CE399 coming from C2766"....we're treated to this repetitive gem from the
Marshster:
"So what?"
Lovely.
>>> "Why are WC defenders presupposed to believe whatever lies the WC put
out?" <<<
LOL. I sense some irony here (and a pot/kettle thingy too). LOL.
>>> "Occam's Razor is a crutch for lazy minds." <<<
Yeah, it's ALWAYS much better to complicate the uncomplicated with
unprovable nonsense.
Lovely.
Soldier on.
David Von Pein
the assassination." <<<
A Freudian slip, Tony?
Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "These holes evidence entry by bullets with approximate forty-five and
> sixty-five degree angles of incidence." <<<
>
> BULLETIN: Jack Ruby, in a stealth helicopter hovering above Dealey Plaza,
> fires two bullets into JFK!! Stay tuned for further details!!
You forgot to tell us the color of the helicopter. I bet it was pink,
just like the elephant dancing on the stabilizer. So much for the humor
because laughing cannot wash away the evidence of the highly tangential
entry wounds on JFK
If you want to find something really funny, I suggest reading the
testimony of Dr. Gregory.
Quote on.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted
on the Governor, that is those described by Dr. Shaw and those which
you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one
missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a
weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second
at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a
trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from
a single missile under these specifications.
End quote.
So there you have proof that Arlen Specter and Dr. Gregory believed in
the sniper in sky. Do you suppose they fired from the helicopter?
>
> Okay, where could those shots have come from if not the TSBD, which was
> the only KNOWN source of gunfire on Nov. 22nd?
In fact, Dealey Plaza did have one location from which highly
tangential shots could have entered President Kennedy. DPD officers or
reserved officers closed this location to the public and press and
admitted selected individuals. In nearly the same breath that Chief
Curry ordered his officers to go to Parkland Hospital he directed
forces to this location. Immediately afterwards, Sheriff Decker ordered
men from his department to same and nearby locations.
http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/mysite/curryndecker.wav
>
> You're micro-managing the JFK entry wounds...and in the process you're
> leaving out the common-sense factor, coupled with all of the OTHER STUFF
> that says JFK was hit twice from the TSBD and hit only by Oswald's C2766
> bolt-action rifle.
The conduct of the autopsy shows that what you call "micro-managing the
JFK entry wounds" was standard forensic practice. Commander Humes
explicitly described the shapes, sizes and angular orientation of the
entrance wounds on JFK.
>
> Stuff like:
>
> The C2766 fragments in the front seat...
>
> A fragment taken from JFK's head was very likely from a bullet fired in
> Rifle C2766 (within a "very good degree of probability", as I stop short
> of saying "with 100% certainty", so I won't get jumped on by members of
> the "Vince Guinn Haters Club Of America")...
>
> CE399 had to have been the bullet that hit Connally (my previous post
> explains why this is true, plain as day, despite CTer protestations)...
>
> And if CE399 (from C2766, which was in the TSBD at the time of the
> shooting) was in JBC, it had no CHOICE but to have been the exact bullet
> that went through JFK's neck as well. No way around that fact; because,
> literally, there was NO WAY AROUND John F. Kennedy for Bullet CE399!
The medical treatment of Connally's elliptical back wound disputes the
single bullet scenario.
Source: WC testimony of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw
Attention was next turned to the wound of entrance. The skin
surrounding the wound was removed in an elliptical fashion, enlarging
the incision to approximately 3 cm. Examination of the depths of this
wound reveal that the latissimus dorsi muscle alone was injured, and
the latex rubber drain could be felt immediately below the laceration
in the muscle. A single mattress suture was used to close the
laceration in the muscle. The skin was then closed with interrupted
vertical mattress sutures of black silk.
End of source.
Feeling the previously inserted Penrose drain immediately below the
hole in the muscle shows that the wound track did not go straight into
Connally's back. Instead the bullet entered with a considerable angle
of incidence and made a slanting wound track. Without doubt this
medical treatment is further evidence of a wound produced by a
tangential strike of a bullet with negligible yaw.
>
> Let's take a quick Vince B. break, okay? Okay. .....
>
> "So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt
> that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon!" -- Vince Bugliosi
Indeed the medical evidence gives cause for more than a break and poses
the same questions that single bullet advocates frequently ask critics.
Where is the exit wound for that bullet which entered Connally's back
at a considerable angle of incidence and where was the shooter?
Although we do not have direct testimony on the anatomical direction of
the long axis of the elliptical surface wound, the available
information places the trajectory of the incoming bullet on the surface
of a cone whose axis is perpendicular to the surface wound and apex
angle is the angle of incidence. So I wonder how does it feel to have
the shoe on the other foot?
>
> >>> "So let's hear your explanation of how the SBT can stand with this
> uncontested evidence." <<<
>
> My detailed thoughts re. the validity of the SBT are provided in the
> essays linked below. But, in short, the SBT is positively by far the best
> explanation to explain the wounding of JFK & JBC in DP. Any other theory
> is 1000 times weaker, via common sense ALONE...not to mention the TOTAL
> lack of ballistics evidence to prop up any such anti-SBT claims.
>
> In short (again) -- WHERE ARE THE DAMN BULLETS that must replace CE399 if
> the SBT is a wet dream? And, via the most-commonly-believed anti-SBT
> scenario, this would include multiple bullets (and/or fragments of same)
> that went INTO two victims and were never, ever seen again and never
> entered into the record of this murder case. Where are they?
Now let's try it your way. A bullet with considerable yaw entered
Connally's back at a negligible angle of incidence and produced a 15 mm
linear wound that was incorrectly labeled as elliptical.
According to the Edgewood tests, transiting Connally's chest would
consumes 400 ft-lb from a bullet with negligible yaw. This result means
that a yawed bullet that would have produced a 15 mm wound struck with
three times the area of the unyawed test bullet. Hence the ballistic
evidence indicates 1200 ft-lb loss for transit by a yawed bullet.
However this additional loss of 800 ft-lb due to yaw consumes the
entire energy surplus of the bullet and disallows a yawed transit of
the wrist.
For details see:
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/energycrisis.htm
>
> And -- How could any "plotters" have gotten so lucky on Nov. 22nd to have
> (by pure chance) performed a NON-SBT shooting which miraculously mimicked
> a pretty damn good-looking SINGLE-bullet shooting event?
You have things backwards. The SBT did not raise its head until they
went to the TSBD and saw the alignment of victims with a possible
trajectory. However, this cover story ignored the previously documented
medical descriptions of the wounds. As a result the SBT and the medical
evidence stand in mutual conflict.
>
> Any rational thoughts on those questions? I'd love to hear something of a
> believable nature come from the lips of a conspiracist re. ANY anti-SBT
> scenario. Alas, I've yet to hear anything resembling that from CTers.
> Should I hold my breath waiting for such a rational/believable anti-SBT
> explanation that actually dares to use the EXISTING BALLISTICS EVIDENCE in
> this case?
Let's see if this shoe fits your foot. When the shooting started
neither John Kennedy nor John Connally acted like John Wayne. So
authorities doctored the medical and forensic reports to conceal panic
reactions by the victims. Of course the authorities had to rely upon
the ballistic knowledge of the medical people. So this expediency
explains bullets moving in accord with a medical misunderstanding of
the physics.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "The fairly round to slightly oval wound on Kennedy's neck presents
> insurmountable problems for attributing the back and neck wounds to the
> same bullet." <<<
>
> Nope. It does no such thing. Dr. Lattimer's experiments with "collared"
> necks prove that an exiting bullet could very well have been small and
> rounded (like an entry hole) if the skin around the wound was held by a
> supporting collar/necktie combination (like in Kennedy's case on Nov.
> 22nd).
Your comments merely explain the special circumstances that enable an
exiting
bullet to produce a simple wound. But the quoted sentence does not
assert that
the shape of the neck wound caused any problems for a single bullet
event. Instead
the sentence refers to the back and neck causing the insurmountable
problems.
In fact the following paragraph explains how these problems arose. I
post the text
that you have ignored.
"Perhaps you think that a bullet can enter crooked and come out
straight.
But the unchallenged medical evidence has a bullet entering the back at
an
approximate 45 degree angle of incidence and coming out straight enough
to
produce a fairly round to slightly oval throat wound. These
circumstances
require a considerable deflection of the bullet during transit. But
this
turn represents the lesser problem. Attributing the fairly round to
slightly oval throat wound to the bullet that entered the back requires
changes in yaw and pitch angles to compensate for the deflection of the
bullet. These stumbling blocks are sufficient to declare the SBT dead
before conception."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/103-9597227-6764635?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0151522812&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> Better try again. (Or are Lattimer's pro-SBT and pro-LN-favoring tests
> supposed to be tossed in the trash just because a CTer doesn't like the
> results?)
Are you stereotyping me, again?
Herbert
tomnln
CE139 was never tested to determine if it was fired that day.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1168919568.3...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Yeah, prob'ly so. But who cares? It's obvious to me via just a few
back-and-forth exchanges that you cannot be reasoned with using common
sense and logical WITHIN-THE-BALLISTICS-EVIDENCE reasoning.
The physical (and circumstantial) evidence that says Oswald killed JFK
(and JDT) doesn't mean shit to a person like you....a person who, like
most other CTers here, WANTS a conspiracy to exist in JFK's murder NO
MATTER WHAT.
So, do forge ahead, Mr. Blenner. I hope you eventually locate that
helicopter some day (and all those missing bullets too). You could
certainly use the evidence. God knows, you've got none on your CT side
right now.
Anthony Marsh
Not sure what you mean. I am talking about Oswald's rifle being fired
during the JFK assassination. Why is that controversial?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So what? So what?" <<<
>
> Remarkable. Re. the two key issues of "CE399 being found in Parkland", and
> "CE399 coming from C2766"....we're treated to this repetitive gem from the
> Marshster:
>
> "So what?"
>
> Lovely.
>
I repeat: So what? A fact does not have to prove what you think it proves.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The irony is that YOU, being a supporter of VB, do not even have a
> copy of the WC and 26 volumes, much less have read them." <<<
>
> Amazing is Tony's ability to know what total strangers own and do not own.
> An industrial strength crystal ball Tony possesses.....yessssss!
>
> http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/Darth_Neilzy/clone%20wars/Yoda.jpg
>
>
>>>> "Another irony is that VB has not bothered to read the WC internal
> documents like the ones I have posted here for all." <<<
>
> Tony's ball of the crystal persuasion working overtime today, it
> is....yessssss!
>
>
And you'll admit it next month.
Anthony Marsh
> WRONG DAVID;
>
> CE139 was never tested to determine if it was fired that day.
>
>
>
Irrelevant. The fragments in the front seat came from C2766.
tomnln
that are "IRRELEVANT".
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mcCdnTiGRYJPojPY...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
It isn't. But I just assumed you probably meant to say that C2766 had
NOT been fired on 11/22/63. What kind of CTer are you anyway...actually
thinking CE139 was used during the assassination?! You're gonna lose
some CT points with that major slip-up there (just ask Bob Groden).
David Von Pein
fragments that are IRRELEVANT." <<<
I love the topsy-turvy, inside-out (il)logic of select CTers. It's a howl
to see the lengths these people will go to in order to exonerate a
double-murderer. This one by Tomnln is simply remarkable, too.
Instead of evaluating the evidence in a reasonable and logical manner (as
any rational person would), Tom would rather insert an "extraordinary"
type of explanation, which is much, much less likely to be true...i.e.,
that some gang of plotters got together to frame poor Lee Oswald, and as a
part of that plot they "planted" two badly-fragmented hunks of metal from
CE139 in the front seat of X-100. (The names of these "planters" will
forever remain a secret, naturally....as all of these "evidence
manipulators" must, in a CTers' murky world replete with dozens of
ever-conniving henchmen.)
But back in the world of the less extraordinary, fragments from
CE139/C2766 being found in the President's vehicle PROVE beyond ALL DOUBT
that CE139/C2766 was fired during the Dealey Plaza shooting. No other
solution is logical, as Tom R. must realize (but will never admit).
It's the same way that CE399's existence inside the very same hospital
where the two shooting victims were taken proves beyond any reasonable
doubt whatsoever that CE399 entered that medical facility by way of one of
those two victims who were carried into that hospital on 11/22/63.
And since we know (also beyond any reasonable doubt) that JFK's stretcher
(and body) were never in the area where CE399 was found at the time when
399 was discovered by Darrell Tomlinson -- this proves beyond all
reasonable doubt (and without interjecting the "extraordinary"
explanations that CTers cannot live without, but can never prove) that it
was the body of John B. Connally that deposited that bullet onto that
stretcher on Nov. 22nd. Any other explanation fails the "logic" test, and
fails the "Proof It Was Planted" test as well.
If a certain skeptical CTer went to bed one snow-free night and then woke
up to find 4 inches of the white stuff on his driveway the next morning, I
wonder if he'd say to himself:
How do I REALLY know it snowed last night? I think this stuff might have
been "planted" here by Jack Ruby and Company overnight. (Ruby supposedly
had access to that green pick-up, you know....that truck could hold a lot
of the white stuff.)
I wonder if Tom R. could be snowed in in such a fashion? Shall we ask
him?
Anthony Marsh
Don't assume. You know what happens when you ASSuME don't you? See Benny
Hill's instructional video on that subject. I believe I have always said
that C2766 fired three shots.
Now you know why so many of the wacky conspiracy believers hate me. I
might also remind you that I was the person who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic. That ruins the pet theories of many conspiracy
believers.
Anthony Marsh
> Until you can Prove that CE-139 was fired THAT Day, it's your Fragments
> that are "IRRELEVANT".
>
>
Some of the fragments have been proven to have been fired from C2766
during the assassination.
tomnln
THAT DAY.
Show us where they tested the rifle THAT DAY?
THEN you can address officer Baker's Lies >>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169107205....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Was it proven WHEN?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TsSdnQvoSr01djLY...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
Zapruder film is authentic." <<<
LOL.
As if the film ever really NEEDED to be "proved authentic".
It makes one wonder why anybody should be forced to jump through hoops to
prove a film or photo is "authentic" just because a few kooks see an
"anomaly" in just about every photo and film taken on Nov. 22nd?
A valid point, wouldn't you agree?
Let's now examine how many films and photos have been proven to be "faked"
in some manner after they've been examined for such anomalies due to the
kooks' insistence they be examined for forgery/fakery:
Total Number Of "Proven-To-Be-Fake" Films & Photographs & X-Rays Re. The
JFK Case = Zero (0).
And even AFTER a film or photo has been "authenticated" as "genuine" and
"unaltered" in any manner (such as the Z-Film, all of the autopsy pics and
X-rays, and the LHO Backyard Photos), that still doesn't silence the
conspiracy-loving kooks. Because those CTers will dredge up the "Photos
Are Faked" argument once again after a few days.
When does that kind of merry-go-round stop spinning anyway? And how CAN it
stop spinning when there are people that have devoted their lives to a
"JFK Conspiracy"?
Food for 11/22/63 thought, to be sure.
John McAdams
wrote:
>>>> "I might also remind you that I was the person who proved that the
>Zapruder film is authentic." <<<
>
>LOL.
>
>As if the film ever really NEEDED to be "proved authentic".
>
>It makes one wonder why anybody should be forced to jump through hoops to
>prove a film or photo is "authentic" just because a few kooks see an
>"anomaly" in just about every photo and film taken on Nov. 22nd?
>
OK, people shouldn't propose crackpot theories about the photographic
evidence.
But given that they do, the theories are worth debunking.
Give Tony credit were credit is due. He's played a major role in
shooting that sort of nonsense out of the water.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Mantik1.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/zapruder.htm
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "I might also remind you that I was the person who proved that the
> Zapruder film is authentic." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> As if the film ever really NEEDED to be "proved authentic".
>
> It makes one wonder why anybody should be forced to jump through hoops to
> prove a film or photo is "authentic" just because a few kooks see an
> "anomaly" in just about every photo and film taken on Nov. 22nd?
>
> A valid point, wouldn't you agree?
>
No, even Roland Zavada, who authenticated the Zapruder film for the
National Archives felt that he had to address the kooky alterationist
theories.
> Let's now examine how many films and photos have been proven to be "faked"
> in some manner after they've been examined for such anomalies due to the
> kooks' insistence they be examined for forgery/fakery:
>
I don't know about ALL films and photos. You could try to limit it to
the ones taken in Dealey Plaza, but we don't have all of them. And
remember that various news outlets have modified the films and photos
over the years. I don't count those alterations of their particular
copies to fall into the category of proven to be fake, but others might.
Certainly used for propaganda value.
> Total Number Of "Proven-To-Be-Fake" Films & Photographs & X-Rays Re. The
> JFK Case = Zero (0).
>
> And even AFTER a film or photo has been "authenticated" as "genuine" and
> "unaltered" in any manner (such as the Z-Film, all of the autopsy pics and
> X-rays, and the LHO Backyard Photos), that still doesn't silence the
> conspiracy-loving kooks. Because those CTers will dredge up the "Photos
> Are Faked" argument once again after a few days.
>
Yes, the alterationists have a shotgun approach as Josiah Thompson
points out. Much like the SBT of the month club the WC defenders have.
> When does that kind of merry-go-round stop spinning anyway? And how CAN it
> stop spinning when there are people that have devoted their lives to a
> "JFK Conspiracy"?
>
Lifton still believes in the body alteration theory. It will never end,
but it can be ignored eventually, just like the driver did it theory.
Anthony Marsh
> WHEN MARSH WHEN?
>
> Was it proven WHEN?
>
HSCA. It's in the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:45b06be0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Andrew Mason
>>>>"The first bullet ended up in JBC's thigh after passing through JFK's
>
> neck." <<<
>
> Not possible (if you're saying the bullet went directly to the thigh from
> JFK's neck). No way that's possible. That bullet was travelling 1775fps
> out of the neck, and it barely grazes the thigh with a superficial wound?
> Nonsense. Think up something else.
You are saying it was a superficial wound. Dr. Shires didn't. In
cauterizing the wound he examined deep into the thigh near the region of
the femur.
It seems to me that it is at least as good an explanation as a slightly
deformed bullet emerging after: 1. striking JBC in the back (feeling
like a full punch to the back from 12 inches away - which is physically
impossible without the bullet deflecting within the back) 2. blasting a
hole in his chest taking out 4 inches of rib, 3. striking the wrist and
shattering leaving numerous little piecse, 4. taking a dramatic turn to
the left and 5. digging deep into his thigh backward.
You seem to think that is possible. Maybe. The magic bullet explanation
drives a lot of people to conclude that it did not happen that way.
Since LNers pin their explanation to the SBT, people who are not
persuaded that the magic bullet theory is correct (not to mention the
lack of any evidence of or reasonable explanation for a missed shot) are
left believing in a conspiracy.
My point is that both are incorrect. Oswald was the lone assassin but
there were three shots, three hits.
>
>
>
>>>>"The second struck JBC and left pieces in his ribs and wrist." <<<
>
>
> Not a shred of lead was found in his thorax/chest. Nothing. Not even a
> tiny metal fragment.
>
> And the amount of metal in the wrist weighed less than a postage stamp.
>
> Think up something else. You're losing the "Battle Of The Bullet
> Fragments" to the LNers.
You asked where the fragments of three bullets were. Does the fact that
there were only small fragments of lead mean the bullet did not exist?
>
>
>>>>"The third bullet...well there is not much issue about that one." <<<
>
>
> Unless you want to say it came from the Knoll/Front. And if so, where's
> the exit wound that oughta be in the LEFT side of JFK's head? And where
> are the fragments on the LEFT side of his head in the X-rays?
>
> Better try again. This CT attempt of yours screams "desperation" (as well
> as "Lack Of Evidence").
CT?? When have I ever suggested that anyone but LHO took all the shots?
Andrew Mason
>
>
David Von Pein
Not possible. Here's why.....
tomnln
What part of "THAT DAY" don't you understand?
Did they test CE 139 That Day to determine it had been fired THAT DAY???
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TsSdnQvoSr01djLY...@comcast.com...
tomnln
Did they test CE 139 That day to determine it had been fired THAT Day?
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169107205....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Anthony Marsh
> MARSH;'
>
> What part of "THAT DAY" don't you understand?
>
What part of ballistics match don't you understand. The two large
fragments found in the front seat came from C2766 and the chrome topping
was dented during the attack. That proves that his rifle was fired
during the assassination.
> Did they test CE 139 That Day to determine it had been fired THAT DAY???
>
No, that's a silly notion, given how long it took them to find the rifle.
cdddraftsman
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm :
In real world criminal cases, scientific ballistic evidence is among
the strongest evidence. In conspiracy books, this hard scientific
evidence is cited to prove that Oswald could not have killed John
Kennedy. Unfortunately, conspiracy authors have to cite a variety of
pseudoscientific principles that real world forensics experts know to
be nonsense. There are, for example:
The failure of the Dallas cops to test the rifle found in the
Depository to see whether it had been recently fired. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid1.htm
The fact that Oswald's fingerprints were not found on the rifle nor
the pistol supposedly used to shoot Tippit. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm
The negative paraffin test on Oswald cheek that supposedly shows he had
not shot a rifle. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
The small throat wound which is supposedly too small to be an exit
wound, and perhaps even an entry wound from a 6.5 mm. round. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid5.htm
The ammunition clip that was claimed to have been missing when the
rifle was recovered, and without which Oswald could not have fired
three shots. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
Oswald supposedly unreliable ammunition, manufactured during the 1940s.
:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid7.htm
The fact that Oswald's rifle was described as "well-oiled," and
therefore should have left traces of oil on the blanket in the Paine
garage or on the paper bag that the Warren Commission said Oswald used
to transport the rifle to the Depository. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid8.htm
A much longer list of firearms factoids is a veritable cornucopia of
bogus forensics principles. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms.htm
In any normal murder case, evidence as strong as the firearms evidence
against Lee Harvey Oswald would virtually guarantee conviction. Thus
writers wanting to get Oswald off the hook have to explain how this
apparently very strong evidence doesn't really show the guilt of their
boy Lee.
To make their case, the conspiracy authors have to invent a number of
"principles" that sound plausible, but in fact are contrary to what
real ballistics experts know to be true. Let's look at some of these.
Factoid: Damage to the windshield of the presidential limo indicated it
had been hit from the front, and not from a bullet fired from behind.
In fact, the evidence indicates that the windshield was hit by a
fragment from behind.
Factoid: The bullet fired at General Walker was a "steel-jacketed"
bullet, and could not have been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle.
The bullet matched Oswald's rifle in "class characteristics," and
therefore could well have been fired from his rifle. However the bullet
was badly mangled, and no positive identification was possible.
Factoid: The rifle recovered on the sixth floor of the Depository was
in fact a Mauser, and not a Mannlicher-Carcano, such as Oswald owned.
The recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his
footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano. Here is one frame
from his footage, and here is another. In fact, a Mannlisher-Carcano
could easily be mistaken for a Mauser.
Factoid: Oswald's rifle had a "hair-trigger" and would have been very
difficult to fire accurately.
The rifle did not have a "hair-trigger," and could indeed be fired
accurately.
Factoid: Oswald had to have taken time to wipe the prints off the
rifle, making it impossible for him to have made it downstairs soon
enough for his confrontation with Officer Baker.
There were in fact two smudged prints on the trigger guard of Oswald's
rifle, and the wooden parts of the gun were too rough to take prints.
It is not, in fact, very common to find usable fingerprints on firearms
used in crimes.
Factoid: The scope on the MC was "mounted for a left-handed shooter."
There in fact is no such thing as a "scope mounted for a left-handed
shooter."
Factoid: The paraffin test showed that Oswald had not fired a rifle.
The paraffin test was unreliable, and produced both false positives and
false negatives. Its only real use was to intimidate naive suspects
into confessing.
Factoid: Oswald's rifle was not tested to see whether it had been
recently fired.
There was not, and still is not, any test that can determine whether a
rifle has been "recently fired."
Factoid: The dented shell casing found in the depository shows a
conspiracy, since it could not have been fired from Oswald's gun.
The casing was almost certainly dented when it was ejected from the
rifle, since the Mannlicher-Carcano regularly dents ejected hulls.
Factoid: The Mannlicher-Carcano had no ammunition clip with it, which
means that it could have fired only one round, and not the three that
the Warren Commission said it did.
Although poorly documented, the clip was with the rifle when it was
recovered, and remained in evidence.
Factoid: The Mannlicher-Carcano was known in the Italian Army as the
"humanitarian rifle" because it never harmed anybody.
The rifle was the standard Italian Army issue for a half-century, and
was an effective infantry weapon.
Factoid: The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was "well-oiled" and would have
left oil on the paper bag had the bag been used to carry it to the
Depository.
Only the firing pin and sping were described as "well-oiled." Further,
a "well-oiled" gun does not drip oil, but rather has a thin but uniform
coating of oil on the working parts.
Factoid: Ammunition for the Mannlicher-Carcano had not been
manufactured since World War II therefore no reliable rounds would have
been available to Oswald.
The ammunition was in fact recently manufactured by the
Western-Cartridge Company, and was found to be highly reliable in
Warren Commission tests, with no misfires in over 100 rounds (Warren
Commission Report, pp. 193, 646). Further tests by Lattimer and Nichols
confirmed its reliability.
Factoid: The Mannlicher-Carcano was inaccurate.
Ronald Simmons, of the Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory, bench
tested Oswald's rifle for the Warren Commission, and found the
dispersion to be .29 mils - a figure typical for high-powered rifles
- and described it as "quite accurate" (3H442-443).
Factoid: Commission Exhibit 399 (the "magic bullet") is "pristine."
In fact, the bullet is quite misshapen when viewed end-on.
Factoid: Even if it is not pristine CE399 could not have caused all the
non-fatal wounds and emerge in such good condition.
Ballistics tests by Lattimer and Fackler showed that a bullet like
Oswald's round could inflict damage similar to what the Warren
Commission's "Single Bullet" inflicted and emerge in similar condition.
Factoid: There was too much lead in John Connally to have come from
CE399, showing that another bullet must have hit him.
The surgeon who removed the lead explained that the fragments were
tiny, and would have to be weighed on the same sort of scale used to
weigh a postage stamp. House Select Committee experts felt they could
have come from CE399.
Factoid: The hulls found at the scene of the Tippit shooting were from
an automatic weapon, not the revolver Oswald is supposed to have used.
Cops on the scene, finding hulls laying around, jumped to the
conclusion that they must have been fired from an automatic, which
automatically ejects spent cartridges. In fact, witnesses saw Oswald
emptying hulls from the revolver.
Factoid: The bullets found in Tippit's body "didn't match" Oswald's
revolver.
They were perfectly consistent with Oswald's revolver, but because the
revolver had been converted from a .38 into a .38 Special, no bullet
fired from it could be positively matched to it.
Factoid: The fact that the bullet that hit JFK in the head fragmented
showed that it wasn't a full metal jacket bullet, and thus didn't match
the rounds supposedly fired by Oswald.
Olivier (for the Warren Commission) and John Lattimer (a private
researcher) shot skulls with rounds identical to those Oswald used, and
the bullets fragmented.
Factoid: The bullet wound in Kennedy's throat was smaller in diameter
than the 6.5 mm. caliber of Oswald's rifle, indicating it must have
been fired from a different weapon.
This assertion is based on selective use of the testimony of the
doctors who saw the wound, and who in fact gave varying estimates.
However, it is possible for a bullet to pass through the skin and leave
a defect smaller than the diameter of the bullet.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Mf-dnXoUz-PsfCnY...@comcast.com...