Dale Myers debunks his own work.
pjsp...@aol.com
the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup by David Von Pein, are several
acknowledgments by Myers that I was correct about some key issues.
In Von Pein's May 1, 2008 post of an email by Myers, Myers writes "The
movements of JBC and the jumpseat (as shown in the ABC/ History Channel
program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the differences
between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality, were done in
unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false."
This is as good as a confession that Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6
inches in from the door when he created animation showing it to be 6
inches from the door. He now insists the center of Connally was 6 inches
inboard of Kennedy, but that the jump seat on which he was riding was only
2 1/2 inches in from the door. I wonder how many millions of people,
seeing Myers animation, and seeing Connally sitting comfortably in the
middle of his chair in a direct line of a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck,
suspected Myers and ABC and the Discovery Channel knew Connally was not
sitting comfortably in his chair in the direct line of fire, but was
inexplicably scooted way to his left, hanging off the edge of his seat? I
wonder how many of them would have believed Myers' trajectories if it
showed Connally in this position? I wonder how many of them would feel
deceived to find out that Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of
his seat was merely a Myers invention designed to "clarify" things for
them?
Some might call this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.
In both Von Pein's May 1, 2008 email denouncing my criticisms, and a May
8, 2008 post of a commentary by Myers from his website, Myers acknowledges
another mistake as well. In an effort to debunk my criticism of his using
distorted images in his overhead views of the single-bullet theory, Myers
has asserted:
"(Speer) continues to claim that the Connally (JBC) figure was shrunk (as
was the jumpseat) to accomodate the SBT. He now uses images of my work
culled from the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" to
promote this nonsense. Even a cursory look at the images should tell
anyone with a brain that the images used by Mr. Speer are at an angle to
the viewer (i..e, the right side of the image is falling away from the
viewer). This is due to the fact that the images are being filmed directly
off my computer monitor and that the camera filming these images is
viewing the monitor at a considerable angle. This can be seen in any of
the wide angle shots in which I am visible alongside the monitor (none of
which, BTW, are included in Speer's presentation). If Mr. Speer had shown
his viewers those wide angle views, it would be obvious that the reason
JBC (and the jumpseat) appears smaller is because of the camera/monitor
relationship."
While Myers attempted to insult my intelligence, he, in fact, overshot and
hit his supporters as well. I'd come forward with my complaints about the
distorted images years ago. No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until
this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
animation--the animation shown round the world to convince people the
single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you--was shot at an angle from a
computer monitor. David Von Pein, one of my Myers' biggest supporters,
still has trouble believing it.
Lost in the catcalls of Myers' supporters (ha ha ha--Myers called Pat
stupid--ha ha ha) are the ramifications of his assertion. By admitting the
images used in the program were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting
that his whole presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was
irrelevant. No, it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators
added a trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up
perfectly with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the
single-bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which
he calls the "single-bullet fact," does not work on undistorted figures.
While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a substantial amount
of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment of the failure of his
animation to demonstrate the single-bullet theory, was probably worth it.
Now we can all stop pretending the alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and
thus the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, has been "proven".
Pat Speer, May 08, 2008
John Fiorentino
I think I've explained this "measurement" but apparently you don't think
it's important to pay attention.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a4985ad5-75ee-4e45...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
WORTH AN INSTANT REPLAY --- my thoughts on this matter, which have not
changed at all since I wrote the two articles/posts below. The SBT lives,
and for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is just
garden-variety common sense:
======================================
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7f8d9865c0151610
>>> "His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat
occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are
corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the
middle of his back." <<<
Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
(as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
nothing.
Why?
Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
below)*, the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
* = When we look at the following two schematics of the 1961 Presidential
Lincoln limousine (the top one being an animated schematic-type image that
can be found at Dale Myers' excellent wesite; scroll down a little bit to
find it), we can see that Connally's jump seat is definitely "inboard" of
the back seat on which JFK was sitting when the assassination occurred
(and from photos, it's also fairly clear that JFK was sitting just about
as FAR RIGHT on that seat as humanly possible, probably to make it easier
to put his arm up on the window ledge and wave at the big crowds in
Dallas, which is a "Far Right" determination that shouldn't be overlooked
either, because it places Kennedy as far to the RIGHT of Connally's jump
seat as would be humanly possible--per some of the pictures taken on
11/22/63).....
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
.....And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door).
And when we COMPARE the above two charts, we find that they are IDENTICAL
with respect to the distance between the right door and John Connally's
jump seat. (They sure look identical to me anyway.)
Main point being: Dale K. Myers is not trying to pull the wool over
anyone's eyes at all. He's got the schematic (in animated form) right
there on his website for all to see...i.e., the schematic that he used for
his computer model, which was then laid on top of the Zapruder Film to
form Dale's completed 3D model of the assassination.
And the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS and FITS perfectly, based on that
schematic that can be found right on Dale's website. (And even though
there aren't any detailed measurements that are readable on Dale's
animated version of the schematic of the limousine, we can, as I
mentioned, compare Mr. Myers' chart to the larger Hess & Eisenhardt limo
chart that I also linked above (which does include the measurements), and
we can toggle between the two charts and see that the distance between the
inside of the right door and the right-hand jump seat is just about as
identical as you can get in both of those charts/schematics (by way of
"eyeballing" the two charts anyway).
Dale K. Myers' exacting animation project ("Secrets Of A Homicide") is a
great achievement in animation, IMO. And it's a project that Mr. Myers
deserves the right to be very proud of. His animation model has virtually
proven the doability, viability, workability, and (above all) the
PROBABILITY of the Single-Bullet Theory.
And, in my view, even the most hardened anti-SBT conspiracy theorist would
be wise to take a good long look at Mr. Myers' website and his animation
project (and buy the DVD of the 2003 ABC-TV documentary "The Kennedy
Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy", which is a program that includes
several clips from Dale's animation). And it should be blatantly obvious
that Myers has done his homework here....and has gone to extreme measures
to ensure accuracy within his animation project.
Let me ask the following question one more time (I've made this inquiry in
the past as well, without receiving any satisfactory answer from any
anti-SBT conspiracy theorist):
If the animation project authored by Dale K. Myers is dead-wrong in its
depiction of the Single-Bullet Theory as being a one-bullet scenario that
is not only POSSIBLE, but very, very likely a rock-solid FACT in all
respects, then I want to know HOW in this wide world of ours it would have
been even remotely possible for Dale Myers to have stuck THAT CLOSE TO THE
REAL EVIDENCE in the case and to have produced a BOGUS animation (as CTers
believe he has done) that comes so incredibly CLOSE to what a true and
NON-BOGUS animation would have looked like?
To clarify what I mean by that --- The depiction of the victims (JFK &
JBC) in Myers' animation (along with the general configuration of the limo
and of Dealey Plaza and of the TSBD and of Elm Street, etc.) are certainly
NOT so far "out of whack" that any CTer can look at it and say this:
"Myers is full of *beep* here! He doesn't have this model even CLOSE to
being accurate in any way!"
So, even if the anti-SBT crowd wants to nitpick about the size of John
Connally's head in Dale's 3D model, or about the height of the limo's
crossbar seen in the animation.....those same CTers haven't a leg to stand
on when it comes to the big-ticket question that no conspiracist has EVER
been able to reconcile--and that question is:
If the SBT is only a wet dream of "WC shills" (et al), then how in the
world did multiple gunmen firing multiple bullets (usually at least THREE
missiles, per CTer accounts) into the bodies of two victims manage to
MIMIC A PERFECT (or damn near perfect-looking) SINGLE-BULLET EVENT with
those multiple bullets?
I'm still waiting for a single SBT-hating conspiracy theorist to logically
and believably answer the above question.
In short.....the Single-Bullet Theory makes a whole bunch of (common)
sense. (Especially when placed up against ANY alternate scenario that
might be used to try and knock it down.)
David Von Pein
April 18, 2008
=========================================
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "James, you're accepting, without any evidence, that the bullet wounds
are in alignment and project back to the sniper's nest. Based on what? The
two main proofs of this are Canning's trajectories, debunked by a number
of people including Myers, and Myers' trajectories, debunked by me." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN INTERJECTS:
Pat,
Let me try to get a firmer grip on what you think you've "debunked" with
respect to Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" 3D computer model.....
You're contending that Myers fudged some data, or skewed a limousine
measurement (the "Number of inches the jump seat was from the right
door" measurement, that is)....correct?
And Pat stated the following in an earlier Internet post:
"{Dale K. Myers'} animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the
seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and...when these
mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes
Connally in the middle of his back." -- Patrick Speer; 04/18/08
Therefore, per Pat's above quote, if Mr. Myers were to have slid John
Connally's jump seat inboard a total of only 2.5 inches from the right
door (vs. the "6 inches" that Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service
testified was the distance between the right door and the jump seat
and is the "6-inch" measurement that Pat Speer is claiming that Myers
DID utilize for JBC's seat in Dale's 3D computer model), this would
then mean that Governor Connally would have been struck by the bullet
"in the middle of his back".
But if Myers utilizes the "6 inches from the door" measurement for
JBC's jump seat, it would mean that Myers is able to get the bullet
wound placed properly at the FAR RIGHT portion of JBC's back (near the
armpit, which, of course, is where he was hit by a bullet).
Is that correct, Patrick?
Well, after mulling over these two options afforded Mr. Myers and his
animated computerized model, I think Mr. Patrick Speer might have a
very big problem when trying to reconcile this possible "3.5-inch"
error into any kind of a BIG DEAL or a "lie" by Mr. Myers at all.
Why do I say that?
Well, mainly because of John Bowden Connally and the known bullet
wounds in his body....i.e., we KNOW that Governor Connally was struck
in THE BACK by only ONE single bullet on 11/22/63. And we know where
exactly that entry wound was located (far-right part of the back, near
the right armpit).
So, even if some conspiracists want to argue that JBC was hit by more
than one bullet (total), there hasn't been a single CTer on the planet
(that I'm aware of) who thinks that Connally was struck IN THE BACK by
more than one single bullet.
Therefore, it seems as though Mr. Speer's whole argument falls flat
and is rendered very nearly moot and meaningless.
Why?
Because:
VIA EITHER OF THE DISPUTED JUMP-SEAT MEASUREMENTS (either the 2.5-inch
measurement or the 6-inch version), it's obvious that John Connally
WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE BULLET THAT EXITED JOHN KENNEDY'S
THROAT.
And that is a shooting scenario (i.e., a "Single Bullet Hitting Both
Men" scenario) that very few conspiracy theorists embrace at all,
regardless of WHERE exactly the jump seat was located.
But Mr. Speer is telling us, it seems to me, that John Connally is
certainly going to be hit in the back by the bullet coming out of
JFK's neck no matter WHERE the jump seat is situated.
And as far as that argument goes, I'd fully agree with him....because
given the alignment of the two victims in the car....plus the fact
they were each struck by a bullet that entered their UPPER
BACKS....plus the fact that a bullet almost certainly (beyond a
proverbial "reasonable doubt") went clean through John Kennedy's body
on a downward trajectory from back to front -- there was simply
nowhere else for that bullet to go except into JBC's back after
leaving JFK's body.
I'll repeat this once again (which I've stated numerous times in the
past) -- It's always been my firm belief that a few things regarding
the SBT and its details can NEVER be fully known with 100% certainty,
with one of the most-crucial of these "unknowable" things being the
exact orientation of the victims' bodies to one another at the precise
moment the SBT bullet struck them at Z223-Z224 (due to the built-in
and obvious analytical limitations of Abraham Zapruder's two-
dimensional motion-picture film).
I'd also like to point out the following Dale Myers' quote, which can
be found on Mr. Myers' website (concerning the "margin of error"
within Dale's computer animation project):
"From about Zapruder frame 240 through 360, the effect of film grain on
the ability to position the occupants in the car accurately is negligible.
At their farthest point from Zapruder's camera, it was possible to rotate
both JFK and JBC up to 6 degrees in any direction without a perceivable
mismatch with the original film. This amount of error dropped to about 4
degrees by Zapruder frame 190 and within 3 degrees by Zapruder frame 223.
Therefore, the ESTIMATED MARGIN OF ERROR [Myers' emphasis] lies between 3
and 6 degrees, depending on which point in the film is under discussion.
The larger figure was used to calculate potential errors in plotting
trajectories." -- Dale K. Myers
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm
PAT SPEER SAID THE FOLLOWING ON APRIL 18, 2008:
>>> "Should we tell Bugliosi that his defense of the single-bullet theory
was in large part based on the "erroneous premise" that the jump seat was
6 inches inboard of the door? Or should we assume that Myers, who, after
all, was on Bugliosi's payroll, has already set him straight?" <<<
Well, if I were to hazard a guess at what Mr. Bugliosi's reaction would be
to the "Distance From The Right Door" controversy (and I don't deny there
IS definitely a discrepancy in the official records regarding the precise
distance between the door and the jump seat, with Thomas Kelley and Tom
Canning saying one thing, and the Hess & Eisenhardt body draft saying
something else) -- I'd wager that Vince just might say something like
this:
Well, even if you're right and Dale Myers is wrong by 3.5 inches -- where
does your argument really take you? Does it "go anywhere" -- except to a
different theory that STILL HAS JOHN CONNALLY BEING HIT IN THE BACK BY THE
SINGLE BULLET THAT EXITED THE FRONT OF KENNEDY'S NECK?
[/VB Mode Off.]
I'd like to also offer up something else here....take a look at the third
picture from the top on the following webpage from Dale Myers' website:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
In that computer-animated image, it looks like Connally's jump seat is
very close to the right door of the car. It doesn't look like it's any "6
inches" from the door anyway--does it?
I cannot deny that it's my impression that Mr. Myers DOES seem to slide
JBC's seat more than just 2.5 inches inboard from the right door in the
2004 Discovery Channel documentary (and, as Pat has also said, the same
thing seems to occur in the 2003 ABC-TV special as well, unless my eyes
are deceiving me in some manner).
But when turning back to that last link to Myers' website I just provided,
and focusing on the "Trajectory Cone" that is shown on the left side of
the third photo from the top on that webpage --- if Connally's seat is
slid further inboard than Mr. Myers has it in that photo, it would mean
that the "trajectory [margin-of-error] cone" would have to be shifted
slightly to the WEST on the Dealey Plaza compass.
Exactly how far west it would need to be shifted and adjusted, I don't
know. I'm just guessing. But we can see that by moving the cone westward,
it completely eliminates the Dal-Tex Building as a source for the SBT
shot, and any such adjusted "cone" could very likely still include
Oswald's Sniper's-Nest window in the Depository.
In any event, any trajectory cone that is shifted WESTWARD would include
ONLY windows in the Book Depository and no other building at all in the
whole of Dealey Plaza.
And since the ONLY KNOWN AND CONFIRMED SOURCE OF GUNFIRE in Dealey Plaza
was the "Oswald window" on the 6th Floor of the TSBD, the "Where Could The
Shot Have Come From?" math becomes fairly simple at this point (even WITH
an "adjusted" trajectory cone).
Or do CTers want to place a SECOND gunman somewhere on the upper floors of
the Depository (to accommodate this different "trajectory cone" I'm
theorizing about here)? Maybe Elsie Dorman was firing a gun at JFK from
her fourth-floor perch, as well as filming the motorcade at the same time.
Therefore, in the final analysis (which certain CTers will undoubtedly
refer to as another "strawman" argument; but I'd prefer to think of it as
a "common-sense" type of argument instead), even WITH a possible (but not
proven) "3.5-inch" jump-seat discrepancy in Mr. Myers computer animation,
the Warren Commission critics still don't have ANYWHERE TO GO with their
anti-SBT arguments and theories.
As mentioned earlier, about the only places they can go with this
discrepancy, it seems to me, is to a bullet that STILL GOES INTO JOHN
CONNALLY'S BACK, with that bullet STILL BEING FIRED FROM THE BOOK
DEPOSITORY BUILDING as well.
David Von Pein
April 23, 2008
Spiffy_one
Wrong once again Speer.
WhiskyJoe
I do not get this. Does not the following video show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
Before, the Anti SBT Positions:
After, the Pro SBT Positions, as measured by Myers:
*****************************************
Does this video not show:
* Connally six inched inboard of Kennedy, in the Pro SBT position?
* In the Anti SBT position, the right edge of the seat extends about 3.5
inches beyond the right edge of the interior of the limousine. Part of the
seat now occupies the same space as the door, obviously impossible, but
needed to show Connally in the position CTers have placed him, directly in
front of Kennedy.
* After Connally is moved six inches inboard, the right edge of the seat
is now about 2.5 inches inboard of the limousine's door, right where it
should be.
You seem to think that Myer's shows both:
1. Connally six inches inboard of Kennedy
2. Connally's seat moved six inches inboard from the door, making for a
six inch gap between the seat and the door
You are right about the first point, but wrong about the second. Clearly,
the seat does not end up six inches from the door. It's hard to tell for
certain, but it looks like it ends up roughly 2.5 inches from the door.
Stop the film at 0:25. You will see part of the seat overlaps the door. It
is not flushed with the door. Then by 0:35, Connally and the seat are now
moved six inches. But there is not a six inch gap between the seat and the
door. There is only a 2.5 inch gap.
Can you not see this?
Questions:
> This is as good as a confession
> that Myers knew the jumpseat was
> not 6 inches in from the door
> when he created animation showing
> it to be 6 inches from the door.
Where does his video show the jumpseat as being six inches from the
door?
> I wonder how many millions of
> people, seeing Myers animation,
> and seeing Connally sitting
> comfortably in the middle of
> his chair in a direct line of
> a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck,
> suspected Myers and ABC and the
> Discovery Channel knew Connally
> was not sitting comfortably in
> his chair in the direct line of
> fire, but was inexplicably
> scooted way to his left,
> hanging off the edge of his seat?
I imagine not many. You may be unique among all viewers, since the
video shows:
* the edge of the jumpseat about 2.5 inches from the door
* Connally seated in the center of his jumpseat
* the center of Connally's body 6 inches inboard of Kennedy, just like
the Powers film shows
Or if you could, just answer one question.
Why do you believe Myers represents the jumpseat as being six inches
from the door? That is, there is an allege six inch gap between the
jumpseat and the door. Where do you see this?
Andrew Mason
> WORTH AN INSTANT REPLAY --- my thoughts on this matter, which have not
> changed at all since I wrote the two articles/posts below. The SBT lives,
> and for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is just
> garden-variety common sense:
>
> ======================================
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7f8d9865c0151610
>
>
>>>>"His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
>
> Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat
> occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are
> corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the
> middle of his back." <<<
>
>
> Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
> (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
> nothing.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
> inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
> very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
> below)*,
Does it strike anyone else that this appears to be an astounding
admission of Myers that he built his computer model without knowing this?
> the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
> positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
> quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
> that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
> interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
> was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
>
> And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
> we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
> car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
> jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
> be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
> KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
Agreed. But why does it have to hit him in the impossible location on
his right armpit?
>
> * = When we look at the following two schematics of the 1961 Presidential
> Lincoln limousine (the top one being an animated schematic-type image that
> can be found at Dale Myers' excellent wesite; scroll down a little bit to
> find it), we can see that Connally's jump seat is definitely "inboard" of
> the back seat on which JFK was sitting when the assassination occurred
> (and from photos, it's also fairly clear that JFK was sitting just about
> as FAR RIGHT on that seat as humanly possible, probably to make it easier
> to put his arm up on the window ledge and wave at the big crowds in
> Dallas, which is a "Far Right" determination that shouldn't be overlooked
> either, because it places Kennedy as far to the RIGHT of Connally's jump
> seat as would be humanly possible--per some of the pictures taken on
> 11/22/63).....
If JFK was indeed seated as far right as humanly possible, the right
side of his rib cage would be pressed against the side of the car,
putting his spine 7 inches from the side of the car. That would make it
difficult for his arm to come down at a 45 degree angle to rest on the
top of the car as seen.
But even with JFK that far right, with JBC in the middle of his jump
seat, his right shoulder extends to the edge of the jump seat which is
2.5 inches from the door and 3.5 inches from the right side of JFK's
right ribcage. If you add 2.5 inches for the shoulder, JBC would still
only be 6 inches inside JFK, not nearly enough for a bullet moving right
to left to strike JBC on the right armpit. And that is if JFK is as far
right as humanly possible which is not the case here.
There was only one shooter. You are using circular reasoning to prove
the SBT, based on the assumption that only alternative to the SBT is a
multiple shooter scenario. That is not what the evidence shows.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original 5/8/08
article posted on his website:
==============================
"In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
from a computer monitor.”
"Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.
"The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.
"It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
area.”)
[Later....]
"Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.
"According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”
"I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.
"To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery
Channel.
"The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
television time available – especially given the fact that the
position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
bullet theory.
"But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
something." -- DALE K. MYERS; ADD-ON SECTIONS TO HIS MAY 8TH ARTICLE
LINKED BELOW
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-job-debunking-debunkers.html
==============================
* = Which was just exactly my response to Mr. Speer regarding this
very issue (when it surfaced in the following May 6, 2008, newsgroup
exchange):
PATRICK SPEER WROTE:
>>> "The [video] clip at your link is most certainly the clip filmed at an angle now denounced by Myers as inaccurate. As you can see they start the trajectory line to the left of the monitor and superimpose it on Myers' distorted animation." <<<
DVP WROTE BACK:
>>> "Merely to illustrate the obvious--i.e., that any bullet exiting John Kennedy's neck IS going to strike John B. Connally's body without a shred of a doubt. But the ENTIRE FULL-SCREEN CLIP (showing the trajectory line going back into the Sniper's-Nest window) isn't filmed at any skewed "angle", for Pete sake. In other words, it's not being filmed straight off a computer screen, kinescope-style. This seems quite obvious (to me anyway)." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/28950255fd4a09b5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c466785c78ce077c
I will add this (once again) regarding the "jump seat" topic:
There is definitely a discrepancy with respect to the exact
measurement of the jump seat that John Connally was sitting on when he
was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (CE399).
The Hess & Eisenhardt chart shows the seat to be "2.50 inches" inboard
of the right door (which is almost certainly the best possible source,
I would think, to rely on for the true distance between those two
points in the limousine, which Myers has, in fact, done in his 3D
computer model).
But there's also testimony from the Warren Commission (via Thomas J.
Kelley) and the HSCA (by Thomas Canning) indicating that the seat was
located 6 inches inside the door.
Author Vincent Bugliosi, via the quotes in his 2007 book "Reclaiming
History", quite obviously thinks the jump seat was a "half foot"
inboard of the right door, instead of the 2.5-inch measurement found
in the H&E body draft (schematic). Vince uses those exact words ("half
foot") at one point in his book. And in an Endnote on Page 344 of the
CD-ROM, VB says this (which certainly is at odds with the Hess &
Eisenhardt measurement):
"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right
door [6 HSCA 49]."
6 HSCA 49:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028a.htm
But, as Dale Myers has also pointed out, the exact location of the
seat on which John Connally was riding is NOT the most important
factor at all with regard to lining up the SBT trajectory in Dale's
three-dimensional computer model. It is the location of the two MEN
themselves (JFK & JBC) in "virtual space" that is the key factor.
And Dale's model, as he has fully explained already to Mr. Speer, has
been key-framed to the MEN THEMSELVES as they appear in the Zapruder
Film--and not to the SEATS of the two victims.
I'm still a bit confused myself about the precise jump-seat
measurement. As mentioned, there's definitely an official disagreement
there with respect to that measurement from the right-hand door.
But I'll also add a breath of CSA (Common Sense Air) to this Mountain-
Out-Of-A-Molehill discussion:
It couldn't BE more obvious that a bullet proceeding on a downward and
forward path exiting John Kennedy's throat had noplace else to go
except into Governor Connally's back -- REGARDLESS OF EXACT JUMP-SEAT
LOCALITY (be it 6 inches from the damn door, or 2.5 inches from it).
Pat Speer probably realizes that my last paragraph is 100%
true....which is probably why he decided to invent his own unique
"SBT" a while back, wherein Pat pretends that a non-existent bullet
hole was located at the "hairline" of JFK's body, with that bullet
being fired from a make-believe gunman firing a gun from a made-up
shooting location (the Dal-Tex Building), with this make-believe
bullet then exiting Kennedy's throat at a lesser right-to-left angle
than a Depository SBT bullet would.
You see, being a conspiracy theorist, Pat apparently thinks he doesn't
have to stay within the borders of something called "THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE". Almost all conspiracists own this strange and
unique rulebook; just as nearly all "CTers" also adhere to the
following motto -- "ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER".
And if Pat wants to respond to my last statement with a comment about
my being a hypocrite and insisting that Dale Myers hasn't been able to
stay within the "known evidence" either -- I'd fire back with:
Yes, he has (regardless of exact jump-seat placement).
Why?
Because, as Dale has said (and I have no reason to think he's lying
about this, mainly because it makes SO MUCH SENSE for this statement
printed below to be a truthful and accurate one, based on his computer
animation work):
"The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of
ANY trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of
JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the
location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire
limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC
would still be valid since their position in space is based on
Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and
their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings.
In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the
single bullet theory." -- DALE K. MYERS; 05/08/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
pjsp...@aol.com
the Magic Bullet was inaccurate.
I pointed out the animation was distorted.
I accused him of deliberately distorting the animation images to make
the single-bullet theory work.
He responded by admitting that the animation was distorted on the
program, but claimed that he had nothing to do with it. He said they'd
simply filmed his monitor from a "considerable angle" and that this
had distorted his images.
As the correct angle from the sniper's nest was added on to his
admittedly distorted images, and as the correct angle somehow "worked"
when placed atop his distorted images, it is clear that this angle
would not "work" on an undistorted image, and that Beyond the Magic
Bullet's use of Myers' animation debunks his claim that his work
proves the President's wounds and Connally's wounds to be in exact
alignment for a shot from the sniper's nest circa Z-224.
Myers has also stated here that the movement of Connally and the seat
in unison on both Beyond the Magic Bullet and Beyond Conspiracy was
done "for clarity" purposes, which is to admit they were not accurate.
He now claims the proper position of Connally's seat is immaterial,
and that his placement of Connally in the car had nothing to do with
his seat. This is a recent twist, as he previously had stated that his
animation depicted the seat in the proper location, 2 1/2 inches
inboard of the door.
This came as a response to my charge that he'd misled people by moving
the seat inboard six inches on the program, when he knew the seat was
only 2 1/2 inches inboard. He now says, essentially, that this doesn't
matter.
As far as your suggestion that the seat directly in front of Kennedy
was 3 1/2 inches outside the door before Myers slid the seat over, and
that his sliding the seat over put it in the proper position, I've
already tested this, and shown it to be false. (All my work re Myers
animation is in chapter 12c at patspeer.com.)
Apparently, Myers believed it was okay to depict Connally sitting in
the middle of his seat 6 inches inboard from the door, because he
believed Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard, only not in the middle
of his seat. He thought moving the seat with Connally would "clarify"
things. I think his failing to show that, in his estimation, Connally
was sitting way over his seat, confused millions of people.
If a CT pulled such a stunt, the LN community would crucify him and
call him a fraud.
CTs devour other CTs over such stuff. Look at the battles between
Thompson and the alterationists.
I'm still waiting for one LN to acknowledge what is obvious: that
there is reason to doubt the accuracy of Myers' animation.
John Fiorentino
to the best of my knowledge. The idea propounded by the conspiracists is
that there is something sinister afoot, and the WC was all wet when they
stated JBC's jumpseat was "6 inches from the right door."
All:
Again, most here simply have missed the mark on this issue, including I
believe Myers.
I dealt with this several years ago, and if you desire you may wish to
Google it up.
In any event, the six inches is more likely correct, if one examines
closely the diagram of the limo, the photos of the interior etc.
The key points are thus:
(1) A measurement from the TOP of the backseat rest of the jumpseat to the
right door will produce a measurement which is different (less) than that
when measured from the seat portion of the jumpseat to the right door.
(2) The right door included the presidential seal and (lap robes) (I
believe that is the correct term, but it may have escaped me for the
moment) which were HUNG from the door. A measurement from the jumpseat to
the "right door" (seal) produces a measurement different (less) than a
measurement from the jumpseat (more) to the actual DOOR.
(3) The rear seat in which JFK sat (when viewed from the rear of the limo
forward) is actually slightly to the RIGHT of the seal and lap robe on the
inside portion of the right door.
So to sum it up a measurement taken from the seat portion of JBC's
jumpseat to the "right door" would produce a measurement of approx 6
inches. There is nothing sinister about it.
I mentioned this to Myers a few years ago, and when he got a little testy,
I just let it drop. (He's the one who wins the awards you know)
So, BOTH Speare and Dale are in error.
John F.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:781e26d4-6485-498b...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> I do not get this. Does not the following video show:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
>
> Before, the Anti SBT Positions:
>
> After, the Pro SBT Positions, as measured by Myers:
>
> *****************************************
>
> Does this video not show:
>
> * Connally six inched inboard of Kennedy, in the Pro SBT position?
>
No, not exactly. And Myers's lie is about the midline of Connally being
6 inches left of Kennedy's midline, not his seat being 6 inches to the
left of Kennedy.
> * In the Anti SBT position, the right edge of the seat extends about 3.5
> inches beyond the right edge of the interior of the limousine. Part of the
> seat now occupies the same space as the door, obviously impossible, but
> needed to show Connally in the position CTers have placed him, directly in
> front of Kennedy.
>
Obviously, but we already know that some early Cters made that mistake.
> * After Connally is moved six inches inboard, the right edge of the seat
> is now about 2.5 inches inboard of the limousine's door, right where it
> should be.
>
Close enough for a WC defender.
You can't get the SBT to work with Connally seated in the center of his
jumpseat. You have to keep moving him over to the left.
> * the center of Connally's body 6 inches inboard of Kennedy, just like
> the Powers film shows
>
Connally can NOT be in the same position as in the Powers film. He is
not far enough to the left.
Jas
proving that Captain Fritz had worn a blue shirt on November 22, 1963, as
opposed to some that say he had a white shirt on.
All added up in the overall context of the Kennedy assassination and the
Oswald-acted-alone LN findings, it equals zip.
James
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a4985ad5-75ee-4e45...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> read more »
Thanks, David, for providing this response. Myers is a classic weasel. As
he now admits, he DELIBERATELY deceived people about the seat position.
When originally confronted on this, he LIED and said the mis- perception
that the seat was in the wrong location was Peter Jennings' fault. When I
demonstrated on my webpage that it was not Jennings' fault, but HIS fault,
he back-tracked and said "Oh yeah, we put the seat in the wrong position,
but only "for clarity". Now, he says moving Connally and the seat
together "was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
television time available – especially given the fact that the position
of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."
Oh, really? Now let's recall the actual words used in Beyond Conspiracy
and Beyond the Magic Bullet to accompany Myers' movement of the seat. In
Beyond Conspiracy, Jennings says "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor
Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the
time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches
inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this
pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an
animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now
compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year
later: "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied
at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of
Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches
inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image
in the slide up above). And turned to his right."
By stating that Connally was "sitting" or was "seated" 6 inches inboard,
and then sliding the seat 6 inches inboard, they created what can only be
interpreted as a deliberate deception. Now, Myers is trying to weasel out
of it by claiming that the position of the seat is irrelevant, and saying,
basically, that if people were deceived by his deliberate deception then
that's their own problem. Well, I beg to differ. I've spoken to hundreds
of people on the Kennedy assassination over the years, and dozens of them
have said they were skeptical of the single-bullet theory until they saw
Myers' animation, with Kennedy sitting in the MIDDLE of his seat, in a
direct line with the bullet. Myers' admitted deception, in other words,
has been the single-biggest propaganda tool promoting his position. But he
wants us to believe it's inconsequential.
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
Similarly, he now admits that the trajectory super-imposed on his
animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet is irrelevant. He claims the
distortion of his animation from its being filmed at an angle was "self
evident"-- an amazingly self-serving proclamation, considering that NONE
of his online defenders noticed it until he mentioned it. He says further
that lines drawn on three dimensional images are irrelevant--which is a
repudiation of Beyond the Magic Bullet's addition of a trajectory line
onto his animation as much as my own studies of Myers' work. He fails to
explain why he was so SILENT about this when Beyond the Magic Bullet was
first broadcast. Myers, after all, and by his own admission, knew they
used distorted images. Myers, after all, knew they were projecting a line
over his animation. (His own line was noticeably absent). While he
criticizes me for "pretending" like I've "proven something" he allowed a
TV program broadcast worldwide to use his animation to "pretend" to "prove
something." Where is his outrage at their abuse of his work? Oh, that's
right. They are on his "team" and are helping him in his goal of saving
the world from those darned "conspiracy theorists".
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
WhiskyJoe
> WhiskyJoe, Myers has admitted
> that the over-view featured in
> Beyond the Magic Bullet was
> inaccurate.
Questions for Pat Spear
******************************
******************************
Question:
Inaccurate in what way? What is the exact quote of this "admission",
or a link to his entire response?
******************************
******************************
As far as I can tell, Myers has consistently claimed:
* the bullet came in at a
horizontal angle of 10 degrees,
relative to the limousine.
* the center of Connally is
seated six inches inboard of
Kennedy, just as the Powers
film, taken from the rear,
most clearly shows.
* the edge of the jumpseat is
2.5 inches from the door.
******************************
******************************
Question:
One or more of these statements have to be false, in order for his
model to be invalid. Which of these statements is invalid?
******************************
******************************
> As far as your suggestion that
> the seat directly in front of
> Kennedy was 3 1/2 inches
> outside the door before Myers
> slid the seat over, and that
> his sliding the seat over put
> it in the proper position, I've
> already tested this, and shown
> it to be false. (All my work
> re Myers animation is in
> chapter 12c at patspeer.com.)
I checked out:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania
and found the following quote.
"If so, the seat in his first image
was 3.5 inches OUTSIDE
the inside of the door.
Does this make any sense?"
But clearly, that is what his model shows. It shows the jumpseat, in
the "BEFORE, Anti SBT" position, overlapping the door by 3.5 inches.
Can you not see that? Does not the seat overlap the heavy lines
showing the car door?
> "Does this make any sense?"
Well, yes, it does. He is depicting the position reported in many Anti
SBT diagrams, most notably in the movie "JFK", of Connally sitting
directly in front of JFK. This required the jumpseat to overlap the
door. Don't blame Dale Myers for this. Go blame Robert Groden and
Oliver Stone.
You still seem to insist that since the jumpseat slides 6 inches
between views, then the after view shows the jumpseat a full 6 inches
inboard from the car door. But this is clearly not true. It starts 3.5
inches to the right of the car door and ends up 2.5 inches from it,
after moving 6 inches.
> I pointed out the animation
> was distorted. I accused him
> of deliberately distorting
> the animation images to make
> the single-bullet theory work.
> He responded by admitting that
> the animation was distorted on
> the program, but claimed that
> he had nothing to do with it.
> He said they'd simply filmed
> his monitor from a "considerable
> angle" and that this had
> distorted his images.
This is it? This is the best proof that Myer's work is distorted? If
you look at his model properly, it looks pretty good. But, if you look
at his model through a computer screen and the computer screen is seen
at an angle, then the model becomes distorted. Therefore, his model is
distorted.
Is this the wave of the future of assassination research? Will Mantik
and White next claim that when viewed from an angle, the Zapruder film
clearly shows the spectators as being impossibly thin, thereby showing
the Zapruder film was tampered with?
What about judging his model fairly. Why not judge it based on the
following sequence, during the first minute, where there is minimum
distortion, with the camera at right angles to the screen, not at a
large angle, as in the last few seconds, where the primary purpose is
to show Myers looking at his model, which has to be shown at an angle
to avoid just looking at the back of Myers head looking into the
screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
Where, in his model, is there a clear error?
The ten degree horizontal angle of the bullet?
The 6 inch horizontal separation between JFK and Connally?
The position of the jumpseat?
David Von Pein
>>> "Does it strike anyone else that this appears to be an astounding
admission of Myers that he built his computer model without knowing this
He knew the measurement, because he used the body draft of the car itself
to create his computer model.
And I'd have to believe the schematic of the actual car itself would be
the "best evidence" when it comes to locating the correct and exact seat
locations.
But Dale certainly is sliding that seat more than 2.5 inches inboard in
the Discovery Channel program. That's quite obvious (IMO anyway). And Dale
is even SAYING, in effect, that he's moving the seat 6 inches inboard.
But.....
In his FULL WORKING MODEL (with 3D lines on it leading back to the TSBD),
and not just culling the snippet with the moving seat, Dale appears to
have that jump seat CLOSER to the door (i.e., in the CORRECT location, per
the H&E body draft). And the SBT works perfectly via that
CLOSER-TO-THE-DOOR full working model. And THAT'S the most important
thing.
groov...@gmail.com
WhiskyJoe, Jas, John Fiorentino, etc you need to go back and study the
limo model. The door next to Connally is most assuredly NOT 3 1/2 inches
inboard of the right edge of Kennedy's seat. Myers never claims this.
Myers has as much as admitted that the seat was inaccurately moved 6
inches inboard of the door. He says this was because it was "easier." than
showing Connally sitting to the left on a seat only 2 1/2 inches in from
the door.
I know it's hard to swallow. He's admitting the whole overview segment of
his TV appearances were deliberately deceptive. He claims that the proper
placement of Connally on his seat is irrelevant. He should have let the
viewers decide if Connally's position on the seat was of any importance,
and if the position of Connally on the seat had any bearing on their
acceptance of the single-bullet theory. But he did not. He showed them
Connally in the middle of his seat even though he knew Connally's seat was
3 1/2 inches closer to the door.
I realize this has little bearing on whether we should accept or deny the
single-bullet theory. But I think it's important we realize that it's not
just wacky CTs who'll pull the wool over our eyes to make a buck and get
their face on TV.
I'd debunk Myers even if I were an LN. If you look at my website, you'll
see that I spend some time trying to show why I think the autopsy doctors
were right and the Parkland witnesses wrong about the head wound. At other
points I spend some time trying to show why I doubt there was shooter on
the grassy knoll. My prime agenda is to bring some clarity to this whole
assassination thing. Which is why Myers, and his deliberate (and now
admitted) distortions, makes me angry.
groov...@gmail.com
BTW, WhiskyJoe, the animation you linked to is the animation filmed at a
"considerable angle" and now wholly disowned by Myers. He claims the
producers of Beyond the Magic Bullet were out of line putting a 10 degree
line atop his distorted images. I say the fact that the proper trajectory
"works" on his animation when it is distorted can be taken as a clue that
it doesn't work when the images are not distorted. He says that drawing
any conclusions on his animation based upon 2D lines drawn atop his
animation, goes against the cardinal rule of photogrammetry etc.
I think he's blowing smoke. In his most recent attack/defense he claims
that the distortion of the animation used in Beyond the Magic Bullet is
"self-evident." He thinks he's putting me down. Now...honesty time. Is it
obvious to you that the figures and positions of Kennedy and Connally at
that youtube link are distorted from being filmed at a "considerable
angle"? Does it not seem that the close-up shots are filmed pretty much
straight-on?
Andrew Mason
The problem is that these statements are true (they are pretty close) and
prove that the SBT cannot work. With these numbers, JBC's right armpit is
RIGHT of JFK's midline. A right to left shot through JFK cannot strike
anywhere close to the wound.
Work it out: The wound is 7.9 inches right of JBC's midline. JBC's midline
is 6 inches left of JFK's midline. So the wound is 1.9 inches right of
JFK's midline. A shot from the SN at a 10 degree right to left angle
cannot possibly strike JBC's right armpit.
That is the problem. And Myers doesn't seem to realize it.
Andrew Mason
John Canal
>were right and the Parkland witnesses wrong about the head wound.
What makes you say that the autopsy docs disagreed that much with the PH
docs' take on head wounds?
John Canal
cdddraftsman
Not to mull over your disasterously low threshold of what you consider
evidence or your poor production values Pat , I think everyone knows by
now my feelings about those subjects but .......gulp .........you
mIsSpElLeD Mysterious in your video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz77kr4JZZM
So sorry to be the one to bring it up but perhaps Dale Myers could teach
you a thing or two about how to put a credible video together . It you
spent half as much time learning from some one like him instead of
bringing up spurious objections to his work you wouldn't be half as
confused about this open and shut case .
tl
cdddraftsman
Apparently Pat will be the last person on earth to realise that such
notions that he has are easily refuted by noting :
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine
a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking
. All the evidence for a failed SBT falls under the rubric of this fallacy
and scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a
convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry .
tl
cdddraftsman
would stop and realise that bullets as they enter and exit bodys can and
do change course . The determining factor is that there is no damage to
the inside of the limo any place and the only bullet hole is in JBC's
right arm pit , caused by a downward tragectory aimed bullet . If you
can't posit a hit else where start positing who the other gunman was and
how he disappeared leaving no shell casings , no gun and no visible trace
of himself . I'm sure we'd see Pat disappear faster if he undertook such a
task .
tl
Anthony Marsh
His false claim is that Connally's midline was 6 inches to the left of
Kennedy's midline. The problem is not just the jump seat. In fact he
claims that the jump seat does not matter at all, just the relative
positions of the bodies.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Does it strike anyone else that this appears to be an astounding
> admission of Myers that he built his computer model without knowing this
> [the exact jump-seat measurement]?" <<<
>
>
> He knew the measurement, because he used the body draft of the car itself
> to create his computer model.
>
> And I'd have to believe the schematic of the actual car itself would be
> the "best evidence" when it comes to locating the correct and exact seat
> locations.
>
> But Dale certainly is sliding that seat more than 2.5 inches inboard in
> the Discovery Channel program. That's quite obvious (IMO anyway). And Dale
> is even SAYING, in effect, that he's moving the seat 6 inches inboard.
>
Myers is confused. He knows what he meant to say, but said it wrong.
> But.....
>
> In his FULL WORKING MODEL (with 3D lines on it leading back to the TSBD),
> and not just culling the snippet with the moving seat, Dale appears to
> have that jump seat CLOSER to the door (i.e., in the CORRECT location, per
> the H&E body draft). And the SBT works perfectly via that
> CLOSER-TO-THE-DOOR full working model. And THAT'S the most important
> thing.
>
Funny how the SBT seems to work perfectly no matter what conditions
apply. Myers could make it work even with the jump seat incorrectly
located. Remember that he said the location of the jump seat is not the
deciding factor, but rather it is the relative positions of the bodies.
>
Anthony Marsh
Don't underestimate the weasliness of these WC defenders.
Even if the jump seat were directly in front of Kennedy, they would find
a way to make their SBT work. Even if they mistakenly thought that
Connally was sitting on the left jump seat they would find a way to make
their pet SBT work. Here is an example of how a WC defender has Oswald
firing the fatal head shot from the TSBD, from the FRONT:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif
Anthony Marsh
In fact, don't underestimate Myers. If he is correct that the actual
location of the jump seat is NOT the most important factor at all, then
he could start with the incorrect conspiracy drawings and still get his
SBT to work.
> And Dale's model, as he has fully explained already to Mr. Speer, has
> been key-framed to the MEN THEMSELVES as they appear in the Zapruder
> Film--and not to the SEATS of the two victims.
>
Nope.
> I'm still a bit confused myself about the precise jump-seat
> measurement. As mentioned, there's definitely an official disagreement
> there with respect to that measurement from the right-hand door.
>
> But I'll also add a breath of CSA (Common Sense Air) to this Mountain-
> Out-Of-A-Molehill discussion:
>
> It couldn't BE more obvious that a bullet proceeding on a downward and
> forward path exiting John Kennedy's throat had noplace else to go
> except into Governor Connally's back -- REGARDLESS OF EXACT JUMP-SEAT
> LOCALITY (be it 6 inches from the damn door, or 2.5 inches from it).
>
Sure, but in the wrong place. Not where Connally was actually hit.
> Pat Speer probably realizes that my last paragraph is 100%
> true....which is probably why he decided to invent his own unique
> "SBT" a while back, wherein Pat pretends that a non-existent bullet
> hole was located at the "hairline" of JFK's body, with that bullet
> being fired from a make-believe gunman firing a gun from a made-up
> shooting location (the Dal-Tex Building), with this make-believe
> bullet then exiting Kennedy's throat at a lesser right-to-left angle
> than a Depository SBT bullet would.
>
> You see, being a conspiracy theorist, Pat apparently thinks he doesn't
> have to stay within the borders of something called "THE KNOWN
> EVIDENCE IN THE CASE". Almost all conspiracists own this strange and
> unique rulebook; just as nearly all "CTers" also adhere to the
> following motto -- "ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER".
>
> And if Pat wants to respond to my last statement with a comment about
> my being a hypocrite and insisting that Dale Myers hasn't been able to
> stay within the "known evidence" either -- I'd fire back with:
>
Why should Myers stay within the known evidence? He is a WC defender.
That allows him to make up his own evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
>> WORTH AN INSTANT REPLAY --- my thoughts on this matter, which have not
>> changed at all since I wrote the two articles/posts below. The SBT
>> lives, and for a number of different reasons, not the least of which
>> is just garden-variety common sense:
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7f8d9865c0151610
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> "His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
>>
>> Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the
>> seat occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these
>> mistakes are corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes
>> Connally in the middle of his back." <<<
>>
>>
>> Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement
>> is (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do"
>> about nothing.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only
>> 2.5 inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that
>> might very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram
>> linked below)*,
>
> Does it strike anyone else that this appears to be an astounding
> admission of Myers that he built his computer model without knowing this?
>
Myers damn well knows it. He misspoke.
geovu...@gmail.com
I find that the following quote from Pat Speer's website sums up his
position on actual scientific thought and critical thinking.
(from patspeer.com) - "As for his explanation on why Connally appears to
be under-sized, it leaves a lot to be desired--chiefly, the truth. By
stating that Connally only appeared to be a midget due to blah blah blah
photogrammetry blah blah blah, he is as much as admitting that his
overhead depiction of the left-right trajectory between Kennedy and
Connally was deceptive."
Is it true that ignorance is bliss? That science stuff is just a bunch of
blah blah blah. Who needs it? Pat truly has missed the mark here and it
appears that he just keeps digging further and further. At least Marsh and
Mason stick to some math to defend their position.
Andrew Mason
> This whole ado about nothing , to anyone with one iota of common sense ,
> would stop and realise that bullets as they enter and exit bodys can and
> do change course . The determining factor is that there is no damage to
> the inside of the limo any place and the only bullet hole is in JBC's
> right arm pit ,
Wrong. There were three wounds in JBC. Since the trajectory goes to
JBC's left the back wound is not possible. That makes it pretty simple
to determine what it hit.
> caused by a downward tragectory aimed bullet . If you
> can't posit a hit else where start positing who the other gunman was and
> how he disappeared leaving no shell casings , no gun and no visible trace
> of himself . I'm sure we'd see Pat disappear faster if he undertook such a
> task .
There was only one gunman. Oswald. One does not need to reject the LN
conclusion in rejecting the SBT. The Connallys didn't.
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
David Von Pein wrote:
> But Dale certainly is sliding
> that seat more than 2.5 inches
> inboard in the Discovery Channel
> program. That's quite obvious
> (IMO anyway). And Dale is even
> SAYING, in effect, that he's
> moving the seat 6 inches inboard.
Yes, he does. But just as clearly, before moving, the seat overlaps the
door.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
Is it not clear that in this video, at time 0:25, the seat overlaps the
door. It is not flush with the door, but about 3.5 inches outside the car
door. The outline of the seat overlaps the heavy lines showing the car
door. Then, after it moves 6 inches, the seat ends up 2.5 inches from the
door.
This is not strange, because the purpose is to show the most common
depiction of the Anti SBT drawings, as in the movie JFK, with Connally
directly in front of JFK. To put Connally in this position, Myers has to
have the seat impossibly too far to the right, where it overlaps the door.
The net result is that when he moves Connally to the proper position, the
seat is where it is suppose to be, 2.5 inches from the car door.
David Von Pein
>>> "Before moving, the seat overlaps the door." <<<
You could be right. It's kind of hard to tell though (IMO).
But if that is the case, it would explain the discrepancy much better.
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> But Dale certainly is sliding
>> that seat more than 2.5 inches
>> inboard in the Discovery Channel
>> program. That's quite obvious
>> (IMO anyway). And Dale is even
>> SAYING, in effect, that he's
>> moving the seat 6 inches inboard.
>
> Yes, he does. But just as clearly, before moving, the seat overlaps the
> door.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
>
> Is it not clear that in this video, at time 0:25, the seat overlaps the
> door. It is not flush with the door, but about 3.5 inches outside the car
> door. The outline of the seat overlaps the heavy lines showing the car
> door. Then, after it moves 6 inches, the seat ends up 2.5 inches from the
> door.
>
> This is not strange, because the purpose is to show the most common
> depiction of the Anti SBT drawings, as in the movie JFK, with Connally
> directly in front of JFK. To put Connally in this position, Myers has to
> have the seat impossibly too far to the right, where it overlaps the door.
>
As far as I know, none of the conspiracy drawings had used a highly
detailed drawing showing the side of the door. They were very simple and
intended only to be diagrammatic, not to scale.
> The net result is that when he moves Connally to the proper position, the
> seat is where it is suppose to be, 2.5 inches from the car door.
>
Wrong again. He says it doesn't matter where the seat was, only where he
places Connally.
pjsp...@aol.com
WhiskyJoe, go back and look at the limousine model. The inside of the door
is less than an inch inboard of the far side of JFK's seat. This idea that
the jump seat, when directly in front of JFK, would be 3 1/2 inches
outside the inside of the door is incorrect. Myers himself refuses to
state this. Instead, he has retreated to the position that the jump seat
position doesn't matter. He says that Connally was shown sitting in
middle of his seat, six inches inboard, when Myers knows he was not, for
"clarity" purposes, and because it was "easier".
One can only imagine the OUTRAGE among LNers if some CT was broadcast
around the world saying that a 10 year analysis of the limousine and
Zapruder film shows that Connally WAS sitting directly in front of
Kennedy, and then revealed animation showing Connally sitting on a chair
directly in front of Kennedy, and then, when it was demonstrated that
Connally's seat was not directly in front of Kennedy, saying "Oh yeah, I
know, but Connally was sitting on the outside of his seat, and we thought
it would be "easier" to move him in unison with his seat. I assure you
this deception was done "for clarity."
So why is there no outrage about Myers behaving in this same manner?
For the purposes of this thread, I am a LNer. I love the SBT. I think it's
"neat". I think it's "true". But I still am disgusted that Myers took
this "shortcut", to give him the benefit of the doubt, and waited more
than five years to tell anyone about it.
Who will be the first SBT devotee to man-up and acknowledge that Myers'
putting Connally on the middle of a knowingly misplaced seat was
deceptive?
If the answer is that no one will, then what does that say about SBT
believers? Does it not follow that they are more like a cult than a group
of logical men devoted to understanding the evidence?
How can one justify Myers' deception when a similar deception on the part
of a CT would be considered outrageous, and further evidence that CTs are
cognitively challenged and morally bankrupt?
Anthony Marsh
Wrong again. The chrome topping above the windshield was dented. There
are rumors about a hole in the floor.
Anthony Marsh
Sure, Myers is great at making cartoons. It's facts that he seems to
have trouble with.
David Von Pein
>>> "Who will be the first SBT devotee to man-up and acknowledge that
Myers' putting Connally on the middle of a knowingly misplaced seat was
deceptive?" <<<
Me, I guess:
"Dale [Myers] is definitely sliding that jump seat inboard more than
2.5 inches, and IMO that's not a good thing for him to do, regardless of
"time" constraints for the Discovery Channel program. Because it can only
serve to confuse people who see the whole seat (with Connally sitting on
it) being shoved into a place inside the Presidential limousine where it
was never really located." -- David Von Pein; May 11, 2008; 2:38 AM EDT
Full May 11 post:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d244601d30c6a3c
Andrew Mason
WhiskyJoe
WhiskyJoe:
>> "Before moving, the seat
>> overlaps the door."
David Von Pein:
> You could be right. It's kind
> of hard to tell though (IMO).
If there is any doubt, should we not give Myers the benefit of the doubt?
Or should we assume that Myers incorrectly positions the jumpseat because
Pat Speare has repeatedly told us he did.
I've been told that Myer's has practically admitted as much that the
jumpseat is incorrectly positioned six inches inboard, but from what I can
tell, he just said that he moved Connally and the jumpseat six inches. He
never admitted or claimed he has the jumpseat six inches from the door.
But, in truth, there is no need to give Mr. Myers the benefit of the
doubt. There is no serious doubt. His video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
shows two heavy lines, which the jumpseat crosses over in the "Before"
position. Those heavy lines have to represent the door. The inboard heavy
line is the edge of the door at floor level, the outboard heavy is the
edge of the door up high. The lines continue the length of the passenger
compartment and are roughly flushed with Kennedy's seat and the front seat
which Kellerman and Greer sat on. Kennedy's seat overlaps the inboard
line, as it may very well have done, since the back seat may have extended
slightly beyond the interior boundary at floor level.
What else can these heavy lines represent? Not the door itself but some
sort of force field generated by the door? Of course not. They represent
the door, the boundary of the interior of the limousine.
They can't be the glass in the door. This is clearly shown to be outboard
of both of the lines in question.
*******************************
Of course, if Mr. Myers is in error, if the two lines represent something
else, like the edge of the interior carpet or fuel lines and he really
does have the jumpseat six inches from the door, which I guess is not
shown in his model, then we should acknowledge his error, even though it
has no real bearing since his work was primarily based on the positions of
Kennedy and Connally seen in the Zapruder film, the jumpseat is never even
visible in the Zapruder film. However, I see no evidence that Mr. Myers
was in anyway in error about the position of the jumpseat and a good deal
of evidence showing that he had the jumpseat positioned correctly, 2.5
inches from the door.
*******************************
David Von Pein:
> But if that is the case, it would
> explain the discrepancy much better.
It certainly would explain the discrepancy much better. There would be
no discrepancy. Only continuous confusion on Mr. Speare's part. Which
we do not have to take part in.
WhiskyJoe
Pat Speare:
> WhiskyJoe, go back and look
> at the limousine model.
> The inside of the door is
> less than an inch inboard
> of the far side of JFK's seat.
> This idea that the jump seat,
> when directly in front of JFK,
> would be 3 1/2 inches outside
> the inside of the door is
> incorrect.
No, that does not logically follow. If JFK was sitting as far to the
right in his seat, flushed against the side of the limousine, while in
contrast Connally is seated in the center of his seat, Connally's seat
may indeed have to overlap the door, in order to have Connally
directly in front of Kennedy.
You seem to have trouble with logic. Since Connally and his seat moves
six inches, you believed that that means the jumpseat is incorrectly
placed, since it didn't make sense to you for Myer's to start with the
jumpseat overlapping the door. You stated as much on your website:
"If so, the seat in his first image
was 3.5 inches OUTSIDE
the inside of the door.
Does this make any sense?"
But, in truth, it does make sense for him to do this. In order to have
Connally seat where CTers have depicted him, directly in front of
Kennedy, and Connally placed naturally in the center of his jumpseat,
then part of the jumpseat has to extend beyond the door. There is just
no avoiding this.
Now, on a separate thread of thought, you again have trouble with
logic. You believe that Myer's couldn't have shown the jumpseat
overlapping the door because he had Connally directly in front of
Kennedy and Kennedy's seat did not overlap the door, ergo, Connally's
seat could not overlap the door either.
This overlooks the possibility that Kennedy might be as far right in
his seat as possible, so his seat did not overlap the side of the
door. In contrast Connally was not sitting flushed right as far as he
could be in his seat, but in the center instead. And so, his seat
could indeed extend beyond the door, even though Kennedy's seat did
not and Connally was directly in front of Kennedy. And this is exactly
what Myer's model shows.
******************************
If you still insist the Myer's model never shows the jumpseat
overlapping the door, then could you answer the following questions on
this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
You see the jumpseat, when it moves 6 inches, crosses 4 lines, two
heavy and two light. I believe the two heavy lines represent the side
of the door.
The top heavy line is "Line 0". I believe it represents the bottom of
the door. The outboard heavy line next to it is "Line -1". I believe
it represents the top of the door. Line 0 and -1 show the boundaries
of the interior of the limousine. As the jumpseat moves inboard, it
crosses
lines -2, -1, 0 and +1.
Questions:
Do you see Lines -2, -1, 0 and +1?
Do you agrees that Lines -1 and 0 represent the side of the interior?
If not, what do you think Lines -1 and 0 represent? Why are these
lines draw more heavily than the other lines?
What line (-3?, -4?) do you believe does represent the door, that is
the boundary of the interior, from what we should measure the distance
to the jumpseat, to determine is it is 2.5 or 6 inches from the door?
What is the basis of this belief? Why would Myer's use light lines to
show the door but heavy lines to show something else?
*******************************
Pat Spear:
> For the purposes of this
> thread, I am a LNer. I love
> the SBT. I think it's
> "neat". I think it's "true".
I don't care if you are a LNer and support the SBT, for the purpose of
this thread of even always. If your wrong about Myer's model, your
wrong. And it's plain that you are wrong. You totally misrepresent how
far Myer's has the jumpseat from the door. It's plain that the
jumpseat overlaps the door by 3.5 inches and after it slides left 6
inches, it is now 2.5 inches from the door.
Andrew Mason
> WhiskyJoe:
>
>>>"Before moving, the seat
>>>overlaps the door."
>
>
> David Von Pein:
>
>>You could be right. It's kind
>>of hard to tell though (IMO).
>
>
>
>
> If there is any doubt, should we not give Myers the benefit of the doubt?
> Or should we assume that Myers incorrectly positions the jumpseat because
> Pat Speare has repeatedly told us he did.
>
> I've been told that Myer's has practically admitted as much that the
> jumpseat is incorrectly positioned six inches inboard, but from what I can
> tell, he just said that he moved Connally and the jumpseat six inches. He
> never admitted or claimed he has the jumpseat six inches from the door.
>
> But, in truth, there is no need to give Mr. Myers the benefit of the
> doubt. There is no serious doubt. His video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
>
> shows two heavy lines, which the jumpseat crosses over in the "Before"
> position. Those heavy lines have to represent the door. The inboard heavy
> line is the edge of the door at floor level, the outboard heavy is the
> edge of the door up high.
Look at the side glass panel immediately in front of the door. That
panel is in the same line as the door glass so it marks the middle of
the door. Myers' initial position of the jump seat is well inside that
line. There is no way that anyone can claim the jump seat is shown
outside the car.
Myers made a mistake. He should admit it. He should also give us his
numbers (distances, angles). I am not sure why he refuses to divulge
that information.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
I've just been watching the above-linked video featuring Dale Myers
again (and again)....plus I've been looking at some pictures of the
interior of the limousine for comparison purposes....and I noticed
something in one of the photos of the limo taken after the
assassination at the White House garage that I hadn't paid much
attention to previously (although I have definitely seen this gory
picture before). There is a hump running down the middle of the
limousine (directly between the two jump seats):
www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky2.jpg
Now, given the fact that each jump seat was exactly 20 inches wide,
and keeping in mind the place in the middle of the car where the
"hump" begins to curve upward, I'm just wondering if it would be
physically POSSIBLE to even place John Connally's jump seat a full SIX
inches inboard of the right-hand door?
Seems to me that might not even be physically conceivable to do, given
the "hump" being where it is (and given the location in the car where
the hump BEGINS its curve upward toward the center of the vehicle).
If the jump seat is 20 inches wide (which the Hess & Eisenhardt chart
says it is), and IF the seat was placed a full six inches from the
inner surface of the door, it looks like that might be an awfully-
tight squeeze without actually having the seat itself (or the base
part of it) running up onto the hump.
That, of course, is just a guess on my part, based on nothing more
than merely eyeballing the above "hump" picture, without having any
way to accurately measure the distances with any precision. And since
we are only talking about a "discrepancy" of 3.5 inches in the first
place, I suppose I could very well be mistaken. But it seems to me,
it's something to take into account anyway.
I must admit (even though I've seen the above "hump" photo before), I
had never thought about the way that the hump in the middle of the car
could have physically affected the location of the jump seats.
And, Joe, once again, I want to emphasize that you might very well be
correct regarding the "heavy lines" representing the thick car door in
the Discovery Channel video clip. It's just that it's kind of
difficult to know for certain what all of those schematic lines mean
that are criss-crossing the car.
But, like John Fiorentino recently said, when speaking of Myers (and I
must concur):
"He's the one who wins the awards you know." -- John F.; May 3,
2008
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/63c694cdf3e8fe25
======================================
SOME MORE LIMO PHOTOS:
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/jfk.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky3.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/window.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky1.jpg
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
======================================
Anthony Marsh
> WhiskyJoe:
>>> "Before moving, the seat
>>> overlaps the door."
>
> David Von Pein:
>> You could be right. It's kind
>> of hard to tell though (IMO).
>
>
>
> If there is any doubt, should we not give Myers the benefit of the doubt?
No, never. He is a liar.
> Or should we assume that Myers incorrectly positions the jumpseat because
> Pat Speare has repeatedly told us he did.
>
He only positions the jumpseat incorrectly when trying to make fun of
the earlier conspiracy diagrams.
> I've been told that Myer's has practically admitted as much that the
> jumpseat is incorrectly positioned six inches inboard, but from what I can
> tell, he just said that he moved Connally and the jumpseat six inches. He
> never admitted or claimed he has the jumpseat six inches from the door.
>
Again, the six inches is not the jumpseat. It is the midline of Connally
to the left of the midline of Kennedy.
> But, in truth, there is no need to give Mr. Myers the benefit of the
> doubt. There is no serious doubt. His video
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
>
> shows two heavy lines, which the jumpseat crosses over in the "Before"
> position. Those heavy lines have to represent the door. The inboard heavy
> line is the edge of the door at floor level, the outboard heavy is the
> edge of the door up high. The lines continue the length of the passenger
> compartment and are roughly flushed with Kennedy's seat and the front seat
Roughly? That's the whole freakin point.
> which Kellerman and Greer sat on. Kennedy's seat overlaps the inboard
> line, as it may very well have done, since the back seat may have extended
> slightly beyond the interior boundary at floor level.
>
>
>
> What else can these heavy lines represent? Not the door itself but some
> sort of force field generated by the door? Of course not. They represent
> the door, the boundary of the interior of the limousine.
>
And you presume to guess about these things and claim they are facts?
> They can't be the glass in the door. This is clearly shown to be outboard
> of both of the lines in question.
>
> *******************************
>
> Of course, if Mr. Myers is in error, if the two lines represent something
> else, like the edge of the interior carpet or fuel lines and he really
> does have the jumpseat six inches from the door, which I guess is not
> shown in his model, then we should acknowledge his error, even though it
Myers never has the jump seat 6 inches away from the door.
He simply got confused and misspoke.
> has no real bearing since his work was primarily based on the positions of
> Kennedy and Connally seen in the Zapruder film, the jumpseat is never even
> visible in the Zapruder film. However, I see no evidence that Mr. Myers
> was in anyway in error about the position of the jumpseat and a good deal
> of evidence showing that he had the jumpseat positioned correctly, 2.5
> inches from the door.
>
> *******************************
>
> David Von Pein:
>> But if that is the case, it would
>> explain the discrepancy much better.
>
> It certainly would explain the discrepancy much better. There would be
> no discrepancy. Only continuous confusion on Mr. Speare's part. Which
> we do not have to take part in.
>
We are criticizing Myers's error in saying that Connally's midline was 6
inches to the left of Kennedy's midline. That is not far enough over
to the left.
Jas
like a cult than a group of logical men devoted to understanding the
evidence? How can one justify Myers' deception when a similar deception on
the part of a CT would be considered outrageous, and further evidence that
CTs are cognitively challenged and morally bankrupt?"
Wow, you guys should collaborate on a book, or become advertising
executives. Very eloquent indeed Mr. Speare.
There's only one problem: Your Myers' graphics argument is all sizzle and
no steak.
As I posted before:
Pat give it a rest. You haven't proved a thing, and if you have, it's like
proving that Captain Fritz had worn a blue shirt on November 22, 1963, as
opposed to some that say he had a white shirt on.
All added up in the overall context of the Kennedy assassination and the
Oswald-acted-alone LN findings, it equals zip.
James
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:vbGdnfbtLr-VYbXVnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "From what I can tell, he [Dale Myers] just said that he moved
Connally and the jumpseat six inches. He never admitted or claimed he has
the jumpseat six inches from the door. But, in truth, there is no need to
give Mr. Myers the benefit of the doubt. There is no serious doubt. His
video shows two heavy lines, which the jumpseat crosses over in the
"Before" position. Those heavy lines have to represent the door. The
inboard heavy line is the edge of the door at floor level, the outboard
heavy is the edge of the door up high. The lines continue the length of
the passenger compartment and are roughly flushed with Kennedy's seat and
the front seat which Kellerman and Greer sat on. Kennedy's seat overlaps
the inboard line, as it may very well have done, since the back seat may
have extended slightly beyond the interior boundary at floor level. What
else can these heavy lines represent? Not the door itself but some sort of
force field generated by the door? Of course not. Th ey represent the
door, the boundary of the interior of the limousine." <<<
>
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
>
>
> I've just been watching the above-linked video featuring Dale Myers
> again (and again)....plus I've been looking at some pictures of the
> interior of the limousine for comparison purposes....and I noticed
> something in one of the photos of the limo taken after the
> assassination at the White House garage that I hadn't paid much
> attention to previously (although I have definitely seen this gory
> picture before). There is a hump running down the middle of the
> limousine (directly between the two jump seats):
>
That's called the transmission hump. The engine is in the front of the
car and the power wheels are in the back of the car so you need a drive
shaft to transmit the energy from the engine to the rear axle.
> www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky2.jpg
>
> Now, given the fact that each jump seat was exactly 20 inches wide,
No, exactly 20.5 inches.
> and keeping in mind the place in the middle of the car where the
> "hump" begins to curve upward, I'm just wondering if it would be
> physically POSSIBLE to even place John Connally's jump seat a full SIX
> inches inboard of the right-hand door?
>
I doubt it. Let me see if I have any photos of the back seat with the
jump seats folded up and out of the way. Dillard photo out at Love Field:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Dillard1.jpg
> Seems to me that might not even be physically conceivable to do, given
> the "hump" being where it is (and given the location in the car where
> the hump BEGINS its curve upward toward the center of the vehicle).
>
> If the jump seat is 20 inches wide (which the Hess & Eisenhardt chart
> says it is), and IF the seat was placed a full six inches from the
20.5 inches.
> inner surface of the door, it looks like that might be an awfully-
> tight squeeze without actually having the seat itself (or the base
> part of it) running up onto the hump.
>
Probably impossible. That extra 3.5 inches would not fit.
> That, of course, is just a guess on my part, based on nothing more
> than merely eyeballing the above "hump" picture, without having any
> way to accurately measure the distances with any precision. And since
> we are only talking about a "discrepancy" of 3.5 inches in the first
> place, I suppose I could very well be mistaken. But it seems to me,
> it's something to take into account anyway.
>
> I must admit (even though I've seen the above "hump" photo before), I
> had never thought about the way that the hump in the middle of the car
> could have physically affected the location of the jump seats.
>
It dictates the width and placement of the jump seats.
> And, Joe, once again, I want to emphasize that you might very well be
> correct regarding the "heavy lines" representing the thick car door in
> the Discovery Channel video clip. It's just that it's kind of
> difficult to know for certain what all of those schematic lines mean
> that are criss-crossing the car.
>
Especially when Dale Myers refused to come clean about his data.
> But, like John Fiorentino recently said, when speaking of Myers (and I
> must concur):
>
> "He's the one who wins the awards you know." -- John F.; May 3,
> 2008
>
National Liars Award.
Anthony Marsh
> Pat Speare:
>> WhiskyJoe, go back and look
>> at the limousine model.
>> The inside of the door is
>> less than an inch inboard
>> of the far side of JFK's seat.
>
>> This idea that the jump seat,
>> when directly in front of JFK,
>> would be 3 1/2 inches outside
>> the inside of the door is
>> incorrect.
>
> No, that does not logically follow. If JFK was sitting as far to the
> right in his seat, flushed against the side of the limousine, while in
> contrast Connally is seated in the center of his seat, Connally's seat
> may indeed have to overlap the door, in order to have Connally
> directly in front of Kennedy.
>
Some conspiracy authors did not realize that. Again, I don't remember
seeing even one conspiracy drawing which placed Connally directly in front
of JFK and showed all the details of the limo to scale. Connally alway
must start out a few inches to the left of Kennedy. A SBT would be no
problem at all if Connally was also hit near the spine. But the right
armpit is problematic.
> You seem to have trouble with logic. Since Connally and his seat moves
> six inches, you believed that that means the jumpseat is incorrectly
> placed, since it didn't make sense to you for Myer's to start with the
> jumpseat overlapping the door. You stated as much on your website:
>
> "If so, the seat in his first image
> was 3.5 inches OUTSIDE
> the inside of the door.
> Does this make any sense?"
>
> But, in truth, it does make sense for him to do this. In order to have
> Connally seat where CTers have depicted him, directly in front of
> Kennedy, and Connally placed naturally in the center of his jumpseat,
> then part of the jumpseat has to extend beyond the door. There is just
> no avoiding this.
>
Even that would not put Connally's midline straight ahead of Kennedy's
midline.
> Now, on a separate thread of thought, you again have trouble with
> logic. You believe that Myer's couldn't have shown the jumpseat
> overlapping the door because he had Connally directly in front of
> Kennedy and Kennedy's seat did not overlap the door, ergo, Connally's
> seat could not overlap the door either.
>
> This overlooks the possibility that Kennedy might be as far right in
> his seat as possible, so his seat did not overlap the side of the
> door. In contrast Connally was not sitting flushed right as far as he
> could be in his seat, but in the center instead. And so, his seat
> could indeed extend beyond the door, even though Kennedy's seat did
> not and Connally was directly in front of Kennedy. And this is exactly
> what Myer's model shows.
>
No, SBT proponents need to move Connally as far to his left as possible,
not leave him in the middle of the seat.
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "That's called the transmission hump. The engine is in the front of
the car and the power wheels are in the back of the car; so you need a
drive shaft to transmit the energy from the engine to the rear axle." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I know that, Tony. But for the sake of brevity (if that's even
possible when I write something, which is debatable I know; hehe), in my
previous post regarding this matter, I merely called it the "hump".
But I realize that the "hump" in a car is there for more than just a
conversation piece. I.E., inside the "hump" is stuff to help make the car
"go".
As a kid, I remember that I used to like to stand on the "hump" when I was
riding in the back seat of the car. Now that I come to look back on
that--good gosh, I must've been one short kid! Or else my dad's 1967 Chevy
Impala hardtop had a very high roof. <wink>
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "No, [the width of each jump seat in the Presidential limousine is]
exactly 20.5 inches." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yes, I think you're right here, Tony. Thanks for the correction. The "5"
in "20.50" in this schematic below is blurry and hard to read; I had
thought originally it said "20.00"; but I think it is 20.50:
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
Via the illustration used in the actual HSCA volumes (at 6 HSCA 50), the
"5" in "20.50" is a little clearer and easier to read. So, 20.50 inches it
must be (thank you again, Tony, for that correction, because it makes my
previous argument an even better one--by 1.0 total inches, counting both
jump seats):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
Therefore, given the fact that there's an extra half-inch in there for the
width of EACH jump seat, as opposed to my previous probably- incorrect
statement regarding the distance, it means that my prior argument in
another post is certainly even stronger and more valid about there not
being enough room to slide the jump seats inboard a full six inches
without running up onto the hump that runs along the floor of the car.
For the record (again), I now fully believe that the best and most-
like-to-be-accurate measurement for the "jump-seat-from-the-door" figure
is 2.5 inches--not 6 inches.
Because the actual limo chart (body draft) shows 2.50 inches for that
measurement. Surely that's the data we should rely on as the BEST EVIDENCE
in this regard. And from what I've seen in Mr. Myers' FULL WORKING MODEL
(i.e., the model that is LOCKED INTO THE ZAPRUDER FILM, and not just a
culled video snippet showing a close-up of the seats with a toggling jump
seat moving back and forth), Myers has, indeed, utilized the correct and
best measurement for the distance between the right-hand door and John
Connally's jump seat (2.5 inches).
>>> "Probably impossible. That extra 3.5 inches [if the jump seats had, in
fact, been located 6 inches inboard in the limo, instead of just 2.5
inches inboard] would not fit." <<<
Exactly. I'm glad to see that a lone-assassin believer like myself and a
conspiracy theorist like Anthony Marsh can finally agree with each other
on something. This is precisely what I had theorized in an earlier post:
"If the jump seat is 20 inches wide (which the Hess & Eisenhardt
chart says it is) [I've now come to realize that that measurement is
slightly off; it should be 20.5 inches], and IF the seat was placed a full
six inches from the inner surface of the door, it looks like that might be
an awfully-tight squeeze without actually having the seat itself (or the
base part of it) running up onto the hump. That, of course, is just a
guess on my part, based on nothing more than merely eyeballing
the..."hump" picture, without having any way to accurately measure the
distances with any precision. And since we are only talking about a
"discrepancy" of 3.5 inches in the first place, I suppose I could very
well be mistaken. But it seems to me, it's something to take into account
anyway." -- DVP; 05/13/2008
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7a06d308ef8f91a5
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "...Dale Myers refused to come clean about his data." <<<
DVP SAID:
Dale has a whole bunch of stuff laid out in great detail on his website
(pages of which are linked below). How much more "data" does a skeptical
conspiracy theorist require? Just curious.
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
TONY MARSH BELLOWED (RIDICULOUSLY):
>>> "National Liars Award [referring to Dale K. Myers]." <<<
DVP SAID:
To use Tony's favorite one-word retort:
Nonsense.
===================================
SS-100-X:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/fbiblky3.jpg
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/window.jpg
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Dillard1.jpg
===================================
RELATED POSTS:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f508ef1e61c3faf1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/58af2cc23e444fb1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06bc6aa46b188537
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1faea5b3ab747bd8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/faf673ef14ef8e30
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c466785c78ce077c
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/28950255fd4a09b5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/493fe60256cbf378
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ebedda9226289021 9th
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9328fa334b2541be
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8df4ff374071ada0
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/07996ba6fb162080
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d244601d30c6a3c
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81a8d474167223d4
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3363328-post.html
===================================
WhiskyJoe
David Von Pein:
> And, Joe, once again, I want
> to emphasize that you might
> very well be correct
> regarding the "heavy lines"
> representing the thick car
> door in the Discovery Channel
> video clip. It's just that
> it's kind of difficult to
> know for certain what all of
> those schematic lines mean
> that are criss-crossing the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0
Granted, it's hard to tell for certain. But here is my take on it:
I have labeled these lines as follows:
Line 0: the heavy inboard line. I take this to be the start of the
door down low, on the floor. This is the "Low Inboard Edge of the
Door."
Line -1: the heavy outboard line. I take this to be the start of the
door up high, near where one might rest one's arm. The door was likely
not vertical but tilted outward a bit, as is very common. This is the
"High Inboard Edge of the Door."
Line -3: where the glass of the window goes into the door, about in
the middle of the door.
Line -6: the outboard edge of the door, the outer boundary of the
limousine.
When Myer's moves the jumpseat six inches, the outboard edge of the
jumpseat crosses Lines -2, -1, 0 and +1.
******************************
Reasons why I believe Lines 0 and -1 shown the inboard edges of the
door, low and high.
Reason A:
The heavy lines are likely to show the door. What would be a more
logical use of the heavy lines? To show the edge of a carpet? A fuel
line? Not the door itself but a force field generated by the door?
Reason B:
If my interpretation is correct, then the outboard edge of the
jumpseat starts out about 3.5 inches outboard the edge of the door.
The jumpseat overlaps the door. After moving the jumpseat six inches,
the jumpseat ends up about 2.5 inches inboard of Line 0, the edge of
the door at floor height. Everything makes sense. This would be
consistent with the HSCA Figure II-19. Myer's diagram is correct.
Reason C:
* Also, looking at the following link that you provided:
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
I found that in this figure, the door by Connally is about four times
as wide as the 2.5 inch gap between the door and the jumpseat. So the
door is about 10 inches wide and four times as wide as the 2.5 inch
gap.
And when I look at Mr. Myer's video, the distance between Line 0 and
Line -6 is about four times as wide as the distance between Line 0 and
the edge of the jumpseat after it moves. That is, in Mr. Myer's video,
the distance between Line 0 and Line -6 is about ten inches.
This is entirely consistent with the area between Line 0 and Line -6
representing the ten inch wide door.
And so, maybe only by coincidence, Heavy Line 0 occurs exactly where
we would expect it to do if it is meant to show the inboard most
extent of the door.
******************************
And so, while noting that nothing in this world is ever known for
certain, it is overwhelming likely that the two heavy lines, Line 0
and Line -1, are meant to represent the inner edges of the door (low
and high), and do represent the inner edges of the door, and are
placed correctly by Mr. Myers, or at least in a matter totally
consistent with the HSCA Figure II-19.
******************************
In any case, David, I'll ask the same question I asked of Pat. Which
line do you think is meant to represent the inboard edge of the door?
Line -2? And what reasons would it make it a better candidate than
Lines 0 and -1?
Can you make a better case for a different location for the edge of
the door than I have done for Lines 0 and -1?
And if you do not agree with me on this, you will be hearing from my
lawyer. Or, on second thought, we can just agree to disagree.
WhiskyJoe
Anthony Marsh
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>
>
>>>> "That's called the transmission hump. The engine is in the front of
> the car and the power wheels are in the back of the car; so you need a
> drive shaft to transmit the energy from the engine to the rear axle." <<<
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
> Yes, I know that, Tony. But for the sake of brevity (if that's even
> possible when I write something, which is debatable I know; hehe), in my
> previous post regarding this matter, I merely called it the "hump".
>
> But I realize that the "hump" in a car is there for more than just a
> conversation piece. I.E., inside the "hump" is stuff to help make the car
> "go".
>
> As a kid, I remember that I used to like to stand on the "hump" when I was
> riding in the back seat of the car. Now that I come to look back on
> that--good gosh, I must've been one short kid! Or else my dad's 1967 Chevy
> Impala hardtop had a very high roof. <wink>
>
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>
>>>> "No, [the width of each jump seat in the Presidential limousine is]
> exactly 20.5 inches." <<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> Yes, I think you're right here, Tony. Thanks for the correction. The "5"
> in "20.50" in this schematic below is blurry and hard to read; I had
> thought originally it said "20.00"; but I think it is 20.50:
>
>
Reminder to self. Make a better scan of the limo schematic.
>
>
>
>
> http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
>
>
>
> Via the illustration used in the actual HSCA volumes (at 6 HSCA 50), the
> "5" in "20.50" is a little clearer and easier to read. So, 20.50 inches it
> must be (thank you again, Tony, for that correction, because it makes my
> previous argument an even better one--by 1.0 total inches, counting both
> jump seats):
>
The gap between the jump seats is 7.5 inches. I guesstimate that the
diameter of the hump is about 5 inches.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0028b.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, given the fact that there's an extra half-inch in there for the
> width of EACH jump seat, as opposed to my previous probably- incorrect
> statement regarding the distance, it means that my prior argument in
> another post is certainly even stronger and more valid about there not
> being enough room to slide the jump seats inboard a full six inches
> without running up onto the hump that runs along the floor of the car.
>
Your argument is valid and very strong. But it would not deter people
like Dale Myers. He would argue that Connally could sit on the hump if
necessary.
> For the record (again), I now fully believe that the best and most-
> like-to-be-accurate measurement for the "jump-seat-from-the-door" figure
> is 2.5 inches--not 6 inches.
>
Well, you are making progress. Can I interest you in some conspiracy
theories? ;]>
> Because the actual limo chart (body draft) shows 2.50 inches for that
> measurement. Surely that's the data we should rely on as the BEST EVIDENCE
> in this regard. And from what I've seen in Mr. Myers' FULL WORKING MODEL
> (i.e., the model that is LOCKED INTO THE ZAPRUDER FILM, and not just a
> culled video snippet showing a close-up of the seats with a toggling jump
> seat moving back and forth), Myers has, indeed, utilized the correct and
> best measurement for the distance between the right-hand door and John
> Connally's jump seat (2.5 inches).
>
Yes, Myers knows the correct measurements. He misspoke. The implication
of his mistake is that if he were right about Connally's midline being 6
inches to the left of Kennedy's midline then the SBT is impossible. You
MUST move Connally over farther to his left.
More, more, more.
Remember, I am the guy who found the photos of the delivery of the limo
to the WH, original plans and installation of electronics. I am
interested in the smallest details about some things like Dealey Plaza,
the limo, etc.
David Von Pein
>>> "Well, you are making progress. Can I interest you in some conspiracy
theories? ;]>" <<<
Why would I want to make a silly leap like that? The Single-Bullet Theory
fits absolutely beautifully with the bulk (sum total) of the evidence in
the JFK case.
So perfectly does the SBT "fit", in fact, it would have probably taken an
act (miracle) from God Himself to make so many things end up supporting an
"SBT" scenario and yet still have the single-bullet conclusion NOT be the
truth.
Why more conspiracists fail to realize this fact (or say they don't
realize it) is beyond me.
>>> "Myers knows the correct measurements. He misspoke. The implication of
his mistake is that if he were right about Connally's midline being 6
inches to the left of Kennedy's midline then the SBT is impossible. You
MUST move Connally over farther to his left." <<<
I really have no idea why you're saying this.
Let's have a gander (via two separate sources).....
From Dale Myers' website (3rd picture from the top):
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
And here is an illustration from Vincent Bugliosi's book (an illustration
which is not directly connected with Myers' animation project):
I don't know how to go about "measuring" the exact distance between the
two victims' "midlines" in the above two photos, but "6 inches" looks
approximately correct to me (via just eyeballing the distances).
A conspiracy theorist's mileage, of course, will undoubtedly vary.
ADDENDUM......
Commission Exhibit #903:
Quite obviously, we cannot tell exactly how far "inboard" the stand-in for
John Connally is located in CE903. But we do have Lyndal Shaneyfelt's
Warren Commission testimony to guide us. (Do CTers feel that Shaneyfelt,
too, is a liar or a Government-controlled shill?):
ARLEN 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?"
LYNDAL L. 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."
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?"
SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
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."
SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the position
where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the
approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?"
SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."
[Later....]
SENATOR COOPER -- "You had to establish the position of the President at
the time the bullet struck him and the position of the rifle to make a
determination about the degree of the angle of the direction?"
SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct. The positions in the car, their positions
in the car, were based on the Zapruder film."
COOPER -- "And you were able to determine what you think very accurately
the position of the President in the car by the films that you have
examined?"
SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
================================================
THE SBT PERFECTION OF CE903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
IF CE399 DIDN'T HIT JOHN CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
FORD, SPECTER, DAVISON, AND THE SBT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
================================================
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> WORTH AN INSTANT REPLAY --- my thoughts on this matter, which have not
> changed at all since I wrote the two articles/posts below. The SBT lives,
> and for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is just
> garden-variety common sense:
It lives because LNer's require it to.
>
> ======================================
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7f8d9...
>
> >>> "His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
>
> Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat
> occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are
> corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the
> middle of his back." <<<
>
> Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
> (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
> nothing.
>
> Why?
>
> Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
> inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
> very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
> below)*, the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
> positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
> quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
> that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
> interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
> was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
There are two points of concern with the above. You and Myer's both
have the exit wound in the neck correctly positioned. However, both
you cite the bullet exited JFK with a "downward trajectory". Anyone
looking at Myer's computer reconstruction can see the problem with
this. For lurkers, it's right here:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm
Myer's correctly notes that the hole in the back of JFK's shirt (more
accurate than his jacket) is "5 3/4 inches below the top of the collar
and 1 1/8 inches to the right of the middle of the back of the
shirt." Yet, when you look at his illustration, he doesn't use this
mearurement. Instead, he measures down from the right ear. Why?
Because he has to or his whole theory goes out the window. The
position of JFK's back wound has been debated here ad nauseum but
always with the same result. The LNer's always move the back wound
up. Anyone who isn't blind can look at Myers' work and see if he has
actually placed the back wound 5 3/4 inches below the top of the shirt
collar. If you think he didn't then you've just called Myer's a liar
- And rightfully so. It's pretty shoddy work.
Nowhere does Myer cite any medical support that the bullet passed
through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the
wound at an 11degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers
showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality
of Meyer's work when UP becomes DOWN?
And, by the laws of physics ("angle of incidence equal angle of
deflection") the HSCA would be correct and Myers would be wrong.
Of course, the laws of physics include another law ("the bullet will
follow the path least resistance"). Although Myer's never cites this
law, he admits to its existence when tracking the bullet through JBC.
This law supercedes the previous law. A bullet that has just smashed
JBC's rib cannot be relied upon not to be deflected. Myer's admits
the possibility but then dismisses that it happened. The two laws of
physics governing bullet trajectories have both been suspended by
Myers by the stroke of a pen. It's how fiction is sold.
But even when Myers refutes the laws of physics, he can't make his
animation work. The bullet that traveled through JFK did so traveling
from right to left. According to the "nick" in JFK's tie, it was
still traveling right to left when it exited. This is where David
claims:
"...given the bullet's... trajectory which was taking it right toward
the middle of the vehicle)."
If you imagine you're JFK and take your right hand and bring it up to
your throat and point your index finger to the left far enough for a
bullet exiting the base of your throat to only "nick" your tie knot on
exit, you'll find your finger is, indeed, pointed "toward the middle
of the vehicle".
In fact, the bullet is headed towards the driver of the limo. It
would miss JBC altogether.
Why doesn't it hit the driver?
Again, the laws of physics - a bullet traveling at an upwards 11
degree angle through JFK's body will exit at a 22 degree upward angle
("path of least resistance" being ignored) by "angle of incidence
equal angle of deflection". Adding "path of least resistance" can
further increase the upward angle to where it misses the driver and
clears the windshield. I'm not saying this happened, mind you. But
no one can say it didn't.
The LN mind corrects for these laws of physics by rotating JFK's body
to the right. Repeat the above demonstration where you are JFK with
your finger at your throat pointing the bullet exit path to your
left. If you turn/rotate your body about 45 degrees to your right,
you'll find your finger is now pointed at JBC in front of you (An
assumption requiring JBC be directly in front of JFK which is
debatable.).
So, if JFK is turned about 45 degrees to his right as he is hit, the
bullet that exited to the left side of his tie knot will be headed at
about the middle of JBC's back if JBC is directly in front of him.
Here are the problems with Myer's reconstruction with that:
1) JFK is not turned 45 degrees to his right.
2) The bullet, having hit the tie, is being defected further to the
left (Bullet paths can be changed by a leaf as Vietnam studies showed)
or away from JBC.
3) The bullet that hit JBC did not hit him in the middle of the back.
It hit him near the right armpit. It's why the argument is being made
that JBC has to be moved further to the left in order for a bullet
traveling from JFK's throat from right to left to hit JBC's right
armpit. You have to put JBC in the middle of the car. Hence, David's
statement that "the bullet's... trajectory... was taking it right
toward the middle of the vehicle)."
You have to put JBC in the middle of the vehicle in order to hit him
and HE'S NOT THERE.
The LN mind argues that, if you take JBC and turn/rotate him to the
right (also to about 45 degrees), his right armpit will move towards
the middle of the car. Now a bullet exiting JFK (who must still be
pivoted at about 45 degrees himself to the right), will now line up
with JBC's right armpit. The problems here are:
1) JFK is not turned some 45 degrees to his right
2) JBC is not turned 45 degrees to his right
So we see where there are are problems with Myer's reconstruction.
Bullets moving UP are moving DOWN. Bullets moving to the LEFT are not
NOT moving to the left.
It's typical LN garbage.
Bullet paths through a human body are very, very difficult to
predict. The idea that we can line all the wounds up in a perfectly
straight line is very unlikely whether you are CT or LN.
>
> And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
> we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
> car....what other choice is there?
UP.
The very direction the bullet was heading when it traversed JFK's
body.
> The bullet, regardless of exact
> jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
> be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
> KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
Changing UP to DOWN and LEFT to NOT LEFT is not reasonable.
But bullets are not required to act with reason.
>
> * = When we look at the following two schematics of the 1961 Presidential
> Lincoln limousine (the top one being an animated schematic-type image that
> can be found at Dale Myers' excellent wesite; scroll down a little bit to
> find it), we can see that Connally's jump seat is definitely "inboard" of
> the back seat on which JFK was sitting when the assassination occurred
> (and from photos, it's also fairly clear that JFK was sitting just about
> as FAR RIGHT on that seat as humanly possible, probably to make it easier
> to put his arm up on the window ledge and wave at the big crowds in
> Dallas, which is a "Far Right" determination that shouldn't be overlooked
> either, because it places Kennedy as far to the RIGHT of Connally's jump
> seat as would be humanly possible--per some of the pictures taken on
> 11/22/63).....
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm
>
> http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee290/JFK22NOV63/figure2.jpg
>
> .....And per the schematic in the bottom link above, the jump seat on the
> right side of the limo was "2.50 inches" from the right door (and the left
> jump seat was "2.25 inches" from the left door).
>
> And when we COMPARE the above two charts, we find that they are IDENTICAL
> with respect to the distance between the right door and John Connally's
> jump seat. (They sure look identical to me anyway.)
>
> Main point being: Dale K. Myers is not trying to pull the wool over
> anyone's eyes at all. He's got the schematic (in animated form) right
> there on his website for all to see...i.e., the schematic that he used for
> his computer model, which was then laid on top of the Zapruder Film to
> form Dale's completed 3D model of the assassination.
>
> And the Single-Bullet Theory WORKS and FITS perfectly,
Then everyone should agree that UP is DOWN.
>based on that
> schematic that can be found right on Dale's website. (And even though
> there aren't any detailed measurements that are readable on Dale's
> animated version of the schematic of the limousine, we can, as I
> mentioned, compare Mr. Myers' chart to the larger Hess & Eisenhardt limo
> chart that I also linked above (which does include the measurements), and
> we can toggle between the two charts and see that the distance between the
> inside of the right door and the right-hand jump seat is just about as
> identical as you can get in both of those charts/schematics (by way of
> "eyeballing" the two charts anyway).
>
> Dale K. Myers' exacting animation project ("Secrets Of A Homicide") is a
> great achievement in animation, IMO. And it's a project that Mr. Myers
> deserves the right to be very proud of. His animation model has virtually
> proven the doability, viability, workability, and (above all) the
> PROBABILITY of the Single-Bullet Theory.
To you.
>
> And, in my view, even the most hardened anti-SBT conspiracy theorist would
> be wise to take a good long look at Mr. Myers' website and his animation
> project (and buy the DVD of the 2003 ABC-TV documentary "The Kennedy
> Assassination--Beyond Conspiracy", which is a program that includes
> several clips from Dale's animation). And it should be blatantly obvious
> that Myers has done his homework here....and has gone to extreme measures
> to ensure accuracy within his animation project.
Does Myer's back wound line up with the bullet hole in the shirt?
>
> Let me ask the following question one more time (I've made this inquiry in
> the past as well, without receiving any satisfactory answer from any
> anti-SBT conspiracy theorist):
>
I'm not anti-SBT. Bullets and bodies do unpredictable things.
> If the animation project authored by Dale K. Myers is dead-wrong in its
> depiction of the Single-Bullet Theory as being a one-bullet scenario that
> is not only POSSIBLE, but very, very likely a rock-solid FACT in all
> respects, then I want to know HOW in this wide world of ours it would have
> been even remotely possible for Dale Myers to have stuck THAT CLOSE TO THE
> REAL EVIDENCE in the case
Did he?
> and to have produced a BOGUS animation (as CTers
> believe he has done) that comes so incredibly CLOSE to what a true and
> NON-BOGUS animation would have looked like?
I can have JFK hit at 182, have the exiting bullet pass over the
driver, have him choke on the first shot, have the second shot hit
JBC, and have everything line up, have two bullets recovered, and have
no need for a bogus animation to do it.
>
> To clarify what I mean by that --- The depiction of the victims (JFK &
> JBC) in Myers' animation (along with the general configuration of the limo
> and of Dealey Plaza and of the TSBD and of Elm Street, etc.) are certainly
> NOT so far "out of whack" that any CTer can look at it and say this:
> "Myers is full of *beep* here! He doesn't have this model even CLOSE to
> being accurate in any way!"
Does he?
>
> So, even if the anti-SBT crowd wants to nitpick about the size of John
> Connally's head in Dale's 3D model, or about the height of the limo's
> crossbar seen in the animation.....those same CTers haven't a leg to stand
> on when it comes to the big-ticket question that no conspiracist has EVER
> been able to reconcile--and that question is:
>
> If the SBT is only a wet dream of "WC shills" (et al), then how in the
> world did multiple gunmen firing multiple bullets (usually at least THREE
> missiles, per CTer accounts) into the bodies of two victims manage to
> MIMIC A PERFECT (or damn near perfect-looking) SINGLE-BULLET EVENT with
> those multiple bullets?
The problem isn't theirs. It's yours. How did LHO, who managed to
hit JFK twice with two out of three shots, manage to miss the limo
with the third?
And how is it possible for JFK to react before JBC when JBC is by far
the more severely wounded?
You might have answers. Again, they've been debated here ad nauseum.
Yet the LNer's never manage a win. They may even be right but it's
built on so many multiple theories, all on such thin ice, that
eventually someone sees an unacceptable flaw that causes the house of
cards to fall.
>
> I'm still waiting for a single SBT-hating conspiracy theorist to logically
> and believably answer the above question.
>
> In short.....the Single-Bullet Theory makes a whole bunch of (common)
> sense. (Especially when placed up against ANY alternate scenario that
> might be used to try and knock it down.)
Go ahead. Knock mine down.
::Clark::
David Von Pein
You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
upward" nonsense correctly at all.
Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
"upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
The HSCA (incorrectly, as is quite obvious by taking just a cursory
look at the top autopsy photo linked below) only determined that the
SBT bullet was travelling "11 degrees upwards" when JFK was re-
positioned in a ramrod straight ("anatomical") position.
But the bullet was ALWAYS travelling DOWNWARD from the sniper's
(Oswald's) POV...quite obviously. Which means, after traversing the
soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back and neck (throat) and striking
"no bony objects" to divert its path significantly (if at all), the
downward-angled bullet had nowhere else to go except into the car's
seats or floor or into the body of the person who was sitting in front
of him (John Bowden Connally Jr., Governor of Texas).
And even Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees with LNers on this one; i.e., Wecht
believes that the bullet did NOT change from a DOWNWARD course to any
kind of an UPWARD course after it passed through John F. Kennedy's
body.
At least that was Dr. Wecht's position regarding that important matter
as of June 14, 2007, as we can hear for ourselves at the following
weblinks when Cyril debated Vincent Bugliosi on matters relating to
the Single-Bullet Theory on Pittsburgh radio station WPTT:
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=8asjq3j40c&v=1
RE: The HSCA.....
By way of the top autopsy photo linked below, the House Select
Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel is pretty much PROVEN dead-wrong
with respect to its determination that the SBT bullet was travelling
UPWARD through an anatomically-erect John Kennedy.
Because it can't be any more obvious that Kennedy IS in an
"anatomical" (straight up & down) posture in this top photo below; and
it also couldn't be any more obvious that the visible throat wound in
this same turned-sideways picture is located WELL BELOW the wound in
JFK's back, despite the fact we can't see the actual bullet hole in
Kennedy's back here. But SOME common sense regarding the approx.
location of the wound should be used when examining this photograph.
And when you toggle back and forth between both of the photos linked
below, can it BE any clearer that JFK's throat wound is located
"anatomically" lower than his upper-back wound?:
================================
WHERE EXACTLY WAS KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND LOCATED?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
================================
David Von Pein
>>> "A bullet that has just smashed JBC's rib cannot be relied upon not to be deflected." <<<
Who cares?
Once the bullet gets into Connally, WHO CARES how (if) it was
deflected?
Since we know beyond all reasonable doubt that John Connally was only
hit by ONE single bullet on November 22, 1963....and since we know the
place on JBC's body where that ONE single bullet entered his body (the
upper back near his right armpit)....what difference does it really
make how much that ONE bullet deflected and moved once it got into
Connally's body?
Dale Myers could actually have stopped at Connally's upper-back wound
in his SBT animation. The remainder of the bullet path through
Connally is relatively insignificant, since, as mentioned, Connally
was only hit by ONE bullet during the shooting. That one bullet,
therefore, HAD to have taken the course it did -- from the upper back,
out through the chest, hitting the right wrist, and then lodging in
the left thigh.
There is NO OTHER PATH that this one bullet could have taken through
Connally's body. And that ONE bullet was positively "Commission
Exhibit No. 399". Any other explanation reeks with silliness (and far
more "unexplainables" than does the Single-Bullet Theory).
=====================================
IF CE399 DIDN'T INJURE JOHN CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF CE903:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF BULLET CE399:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c565d3b4c930a683
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
=====================================
Andrew Mason
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/93f44ffef6dc4380/59d6f758f2cd7fbf?#59d6f758f2cd7fbf
>
>
>
>>>>"Well, you are making progress. Can I interest you in some conspiracy
>
> theories? ;]>" <<<
>
>
>
> Why would I want to make a silly leap like that? The Single-Bullet Theory
> fits absolutely beautifully with the bulk (sum total) of the evidence in
> the JFK case.
>
> So perfectly does the SBT "fit", in fact, it would have probably taken an
> act (miracle) from God Himself to make so many things end up supporting an
> "SBT" scenario and yet still have the single-bullet conclusion NOT be the
> truth.
Perhaps then that it was the Devil who made the witnesses say:
1. (by 16-0) that JFK reacted to the first shot by moving left and
bringing his hands up and 0 said he turned, smiled and waved after the
first shot.
2. (by 22-0) that the first shot was after z186.
3. (by 48-6-9) that the second shot was closer to the third.
>
> Why more conspiracists fail to realize this fact (or say they don't
> realize it) is beyond me.
Why SBTers choose to ignore the witness evidence is beyond me.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/93f44ffef6dc4380/59d6f758f2cd7fbf?#59d6f758f2cd7fbf
>
>
>>>> "Well, you are making progress. Can I interest you in some conspiracy
> theories? ;]>" <<<
>
>
>
> Why would I want to make a silly leap like that? The Single-Bullet Theory
> fits absolutely beautifully with the bulk (sum total) of the evidence in
> the JFK case.
>
Silly. The WC did not need any damn stinkin SBT until Specter realized
that the shooter would not have enough time to reload and fire those two
shots.
> So perfectly does the SBT "fit", in fact, it would have probably taken an
> act (miracle) from God Himself to make so many things end up supporting an
> "SBT" scenario and yet still have the single-bullet conclusion NOT be the
> truth.
>
> Why more conspiracists fail to realize this fact (or say they don't
> realize it) is beyond me.
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Myers knows the correct measurements. He misspoke. The implication of
> his mistake is that if he were right about Connally's midline being 6
> inches to the left of Kennedy's midline then the SBT is impossible. You
> MUST move Connally over farther to his left." <<<
>
>
> I really have no idea why you're saying this.
>
> Let's have a gander (via two separate sources).....
>
> From Dale Myers' website (3rd picture from the top):
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
>
>
> And here is an illustration from Vincent Bugliosi's book (an illustration
> which is not directly connected with Myers' animation project):
>
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/SBT_Rendering_Reclaiming_History.gif?t=1210805710
>
>
And much worse than anyone else's SBT diagram. Bugliosi farmed it out,
but did not bother to tell them the correct data for the wounds. Notice
where the line hits Connally's back. About 4 inches to the right of his
midline, not in the right armpit. Notice the twists and turns his
trajectory takes. Notice Bugliosi's confusion in claiming here that the
SBT was at frame 210. Notice that Bugliosi depicts the men at frame 210,
which just coincidentally happens to be when I say that Kennedy was hit.
But the bullet does not hit Connally in the right place, so it actually
disproves the SBT. Notice how you lambaste me for depicting Kennedy at
210 and Connally at 230 showing that the SBT does not work, but you do
not say squat about Bugliosi's diagram which shows exactly the same thing!
> I don't know how to go about "measuring" the exact distance between the
> two victims' "midlines" in the above two photos, but "6 inches" looks
> approximately correct to me (via just eyeballing the distances).
>
You need to have a computer program which tells you the location of each
pixel. You measure the width of the seat in pixels, which you know to be
equal to 20.5 inches across. That tells you how many pixels per inch.
> A conspiracy theorist's mileage, of course, will undoubtedly vary.
>
> ADDENDUM......
>
> Commission Exhibit #903:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/CE903.jpg?t=1210805831
>
> Quite obviously, we cannot tell exactly how far "inboard" the stand-in for
> John Connally is located in CE903. But we do have Lyndal Shaneyfelt's
> Warren Commission testimony to guide us. (Do CTers feel that Shaneyfelt,
> too, is a liar or a Government-controlled shill?):
>
>
> ARLEN 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?"
>
> LYNDAL L. 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."
>
> 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?"
>
> SHANEYFELT -- "Yes."
>
> SPECTER -- "And through what positions did that rod pass?"
>
> 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
That was simply a lie.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/93f44ffef6dc4380/ff254e011a5dff4d?#ff254e011a5dff4d
>
>
>>>> "A bullet that has just smashed JBC's rib cannot be relied upon not
to be deflected." <<<
>
>
> Who cares?
>
> Once the bullet gets into Connally, WHO CARES how (if) it was
> deflected?
>
> Since we know beyond all reasonable doubt that John Connally was only
> hit by ONE single bullet on November 22, 1963....and since we know the
> place on JBC's body where that ONE single bullet entered his body (the
> upper back near his right armpit)....what difference does it really
> make how much that ONE bullet deflected and moved once it got into
> Connally's body?
No, we do not know that. Connally could have been hit by two bullets, as
Humes et al suggested.
>
> Dale Myers could actually have stopped at Connally's upper-back wound
> in his SBT animation. The remainder of the bullet path through
> Connally is relatively insignificant, since, as mentioned, Connally
> was only hit by ONE bullet during the shooting. That one bullet,
That is the best tactic to use when the evidence disproves a hypothesis.
Just claim that the facts have no bearing on the concept of the
hypothesis.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed
through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound
at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed.
What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers']
work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>
>
> You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
> upward" nonsense correctly at all.
>
> Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
> street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
> "upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
>
> The HSCA (incorrectly, as is quite obvious by taking just a cursory
> look at the top autopsy photo linked below) only determined that the
> SBT bullet was travelling "11 degrees upwards" when JFK was re-
> positioned in a ramrod straight ("anatomical") position.
>
It's even more complicated than that. The 11 degrees upward would be in
the anatomical position, but when adjustments are made for change in
position while sitting in the limo, the 11 degrees becomes only 4 degrees.
Then to get the angle to match a SBT, Baden pretends that Kennedy was
leaning over by 18 degrees, something which he clearly was not doing in
frame 190. They were stuck with frame 190 from the acoustical evidence.
> But the bullet was ALWAYS travelling DOWNWARD from the sniper's
> (Oswald's) POV...quite obviously. Which means, after traversing the
> soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back and neck (throat) and striking
> "no bony objects" to divert its path significantly (if at all), the
> downward-angled bullet had nowhere else to go except into the car's
> seats or floor or into the body of the person who was sitting in front
> of him (John Bowden Connally Jr., Governor of Texas).
>
But even Baden says that the bullet hit T-1.
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "And [Vincent Bugliosi's Z210 SBT 3D diagram that appears in the photo section of VB's 2007 book "Reclaiming History" is] much worse than anyone else's SBT diagram. Bugliosi farmed it out, but did not bother to tell them the correct data for the wounds. Notice where the line hits Connally's back--about 4 inches to the right of his midline, not in the right armpit." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bullshit.
About the only thing wrong with Bugliosi's 3D diagram depicting the
Single-Bullet Theory is that he's got JFK turned a little to his right
when Bullet CE399 hit Kennedy in the back...which I don't think is the
correct posture for President Kennedy at that time. And Dale Myers
doesn't think it's the correct position to have Kennedy in when he's
shot by the SBT bullet either, per Dale's third picture from the top
here:
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
Bugliosi has JFK turned a little to the right, which is making the
bullet enter his upper back slightly too far to the RIGHT of its
actual entry location. But if we were to "straighten out" Kennedy in
VB's chart and make his shoulders almost perfectly parallel with the
back seat (which is the exact "parallel to the back seat" position
Dale Myers has used for his 3D animation, which, of course, is KEYED
to the Zapruder Film itself, making Dale's version the most accurate
version we could possibly hope for here in the real world), then the
bullet would strike Kennedy in the upper back in exactly the correct
location (IMO):
Addendum regarding Bugliosi's SBT chart and VB's general SBT timeline
(taken from my review of "Reclaiming History"):
"Mr. Bugliosi's Single-Bullet Theory timeline has me puzzled a
little bit. The artist rendering pictured below appears in the photo
section of VB's book, and shows the path of the "SBT" bullet from an
overhead viewpoint. And while I believe that Vince is 100% correct
about the SBT being an ironclad fact (as opposed to a mere "theory"),
this illustration must also be viewed with a grain of salt, given the
fact that VB is of the opinion that the SBT bullet struck the two
victims "somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222" of the Zapruder Film,
which is a 13-frame span on the film when both victims are completely
hidden from Zapruder's camera lens by a freeway sign on Elm Street
(except for frame 222, when Connally [but not Kennedy] can be seen
just after emerging from behind the sign).
Therefore, we can't possibly know for sure the exact positions that
President Kennedy and Governor Connally were in at Frame 210 (or even
in the following dozen or so frames that follow 210, for that matter),
because the darn sign is in the way.
Any specific Zapruder Film-based speculation about the SBT shot
occurring at (or just after) Z210 is also strange in another way too,
because frames 208 through 211 don't even exist on any high-quality
versions of the Zapruder Film, due to the fact that those four frames
were damaged by Life Magazine and removed from the film. Only poor-
quality first-generation copies include frames 208-211.
I, myself, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the specific "SBT"
point-of-impact Zapruder Film frame can be established....and that
frame is almost certainly Z224 (and not "somewhere between Z frames
210 and 222", as Bugliosi says in his book on page 463).
Although, VB says in an endnote (on page 25 of the notes) that the SBT
shot occurs at "Z223-224"; so I'm not quite sure which exact Z-Film
frame Vince totally endorses, if any.
Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges
the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge"
tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and
Connally at Z224.
Vince actually mentions a 3-frame range of Zapruder frames in this
"lapel" regard, which seems a little strange to me; but at least VB
admits the possibility of the bullet striking at the correct frame
(IMO) of Z224, when he says this on endnote page 325: "A bulging of
the right lapel of the governor's suit coat may pinpoint the moment
Governor Connally is hit to be at Z222–224".
Another oddity is that even though Vince supports a "Z223-Z224" and/or
a "Z222-Z224" SBT hit at various stages in the book's endnotes, in
other portions of the main text he also seems to be endorsing the
notion that Connally was reacting to already having been hit by a
gunshot as early as Z222, which I totally disagree with.
I can't detect any such Connally "reaction" at Z222 at all. The first
firm "reaction" on Connally's behalf comes later, at Z225, just after
having been struck at Z224. Again, that's in my own personal opinion
on the matter.
However, there's another indication in the book that VB advocates the
exact same frame for the SBT that I, too, endorse (Z224). That occurs
on page 40, when Vince says the second shot (the SBT shot) occurs "3.5
seconds" after the first shot which missed the limousine, a first shot
which, elsewhere in the book, VB says comes at Z-Film frame 160.*
And the only frame that is precisely "3.5" seconds after Z160 is Z224
(given the "round-off" mathematics that VB is utilizing on pages 40
and 41 and Zapruder's camera speed of 18.3 frames-per-second).
* = A "First-Shot Footnote" -- I completely agree with VB's "Z160
first shot" timing. However, I disagree with him on the exact scenario
of how bystander James Tague was wounded by this first bullet.
Vince thinks the probability is high that the Z160 missed shot hit the
concrete on Elm Street and then the bullet (or a portion thereof) went
on to strike yet another hunk of street pavement over on Main Street,
which resulted in a bullet fragment or concrete fragment slightly
injuring Tague's cheek. (See page 471.)
I just cannot quite believe such a scenario myself. I think it's much
more likely that Oswald's first shot struck a portion of the nearby
oak tree, with the bullet then probably fragmenting (at least
partially), sending the majority of the lead portion of the bullet out
to Main Street, resulting in Tague's wounding, while the metal jacket
of the missile possibly struck the pavement on Elm near JFK's car,
resulting in the "sparks" that a few witnesses reported observing.
But, of course, realistically, the only thing that can be done with
respect to any "missed" shot is to simply guess about what happened,
since no physical bullet was recovered with regard to the shot that
missed the limousine's victims.
Another possibility concerning Tague's injury is that he was struck by
a fragment of the bullet that hit JFK in the head. I, however, don't
like that theory much either, since that bullet would have probably
been pretty much spent and out of gas by the time it travelled the
many additional yards from the limousine to Main Street to meet
Tague. ....
Obviously, Bugliosi is simply placing on the table all potential "SBT"
possibilities throughout his immense publication. I, however, would
have preferred more consistency in this book with regard to the timing
of the SBT bullet strike.
But VB evidently feels that the precise "impact" frame cannot be
definitively established on the Zapruder Film for the SBT shot. But I
believe it can be established on the film, via the downward and
forward movement of Connally's right shoulder at exactly Z224. ....
But even with a bit of ambiguity in his SBT timeline, at least Mr.
Bugliosi knows (as do I) that a "Single-Bullet Theory" Z-Film frame
positively DOES exist somewhere within Zapruder's 26-second home
movie. ....
The exact moment when the controversial "SBT" bullet struck Kennedy
and Connally has been debated for many years, of course. Even the two
major inquiries into the assassination had differing views on this
matter, with the Warren Commission offering up a 15-frame range of Z-
Film frames when they said the single bullet struck the victims (Z210-
Z225).
But the HSCA placed the SBT at approx. Z190, which, by the way, is the
timing that was seemingly endorsed by Bugliosi at the TV Docu-Trial in
which he served as prosecutor in 1986; although I strongly suspect
that the reason for such a VB endorsement in '86 was due to the fact
that Bugliosi's main "SBT" witness/expert at the London trial (Cecil
Kirk) was a member of the HSCA, which itself endorsed the absurdly-
early Z190 SBT timeline.
So, as we can see from the pages of this book ["Reclaiming History:
The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"], VB has gotten closer
to the Z224 SBT hit in the intervening years.
Another thing that is worth mentioning here is the false accusation
made by various people over the years concerning Warren Commission
member Gerald Ford. Many conspiracists seem to think that Ford
attempted to "move" JFK's back wound up into the "neck" in order to
better accommodate the flight path of the SBT bullet.
But a person need only look at the picture shown below (CE903) to
easily see that any "moving" of JFK's upper-back wound up into the
"neck" would only serve to DESTROY the path and trajectory of the SBT.
Such a move certainly would not enhance the SBT's path at all, because
moving the wound up to the neck would result in the bullet exiting the
front of JFK's body in much too high of a location (rather than at the
tie knot, where the bullet did exit).
.... It turns out that I disagree (for the most part) with Vince
Bugliosi with respect to the exact timing of the SBT, but certainly
not by very much; so I'm not inclined to call a 0.77-second difference
of opinion (the time interval between Z210 and Z224) a major or all-
important disagreement.
And, as I mentioned, there are references in this book that seem to
indicate VB's possible belief in a "Z223-Z224-Z225" SBT hit too (which
will no doubt have conspiracists attacking Bugliosi's credibility and
lack of consistency throughout the book on this "SBT timing" point,
which, indeed, appears to be warranted criticism when you read the
whole tome, plus the endnotes).
However, in my opinion, as stated previously, the most important point
is the fact that Bugliosi supports the SBT, regardless of exactly when
on the Z-Film the SBT is occurring. And this SBT support is due in
large part to plain common sense....because the sum total of all the
evidence in this case makes the Single-Bullet Theory a virtual
certainty.
Or, to use VB's own words (from page 482 of this book) -- "The
overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit,
or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same
bullet"."
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
======================================================
"Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the
point is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate
perfectly to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame
given the totality of the evidence with respect to the initial
wounding of both victims." -- David Von Pein; May 23, 2005
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7360799fec7f549d
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/93f44ffef6dc4380/60c423673fb8b268?#60c423673fb8b268
>
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>
>>>> "And [Vincent Bugliosi's Z210 SBT 3D diagram that appears in the photo section of VB's 2007 book "Reclaiming History" is] much worse than anyone else's SBT diagram. Bugliosi farmed it out, but did not bother to tell them the correct data for the wounds. Notice where the line hits Connally's back--about 4 inches to the right of his midline, not in the right armpit." <<<
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bullshit.
>
> About the only thing wrong with Bugliosi's 3D diagram depicting the
> Single-Bullet Theory is that he's got JFK turned a little to his right
> when Bullet CE399 hit Kennedy in the back...which I don't think is the
> correct posture for President Kennedy at that time. And Dale Myers
> doesn't think it's the correct position to have Kennedy in when he's
> shot by the SBT bullet either, per Dale's third picture from the top
> here:
>
My God, man, can't you even see that Bugliosi's SBT diagram has the
bullet hit Connally in the back halfway over to the right armpit? Forget
precise measurements. It isn't even CLOSE to the right armpit.
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm
>
>
> Bugliosi has JFK turned a little to the right, which is making the
> bullet enter his upper back slightly too far to the RIGHT of its
> actual entry location. But if we were to "straighten out" Kennedy in
> VB's chart and make his shoulders almost perfectly parallel with the
> back seat (which is the exact "parallel to the back seat" position
> Dale Myers has used for his 3D animation, which, of course, is KEYED
> to the Zapruder Film itself, making Dale's version the most accurate
> version we could possibly hope for here in the real world), then the
> bullet would strike Kennedy in the upper back in exactly the correct
> location (IMO):
>
I never criticized the depiction of Kennedy. He is free to fantasize
about that. The point is that his diagram shows the SBT can not work.
The bullet would hit Connally in the wrong place! If you can't see that,
you have your WC defender blinders on again.
Remember that I asked Bugliosi which frame was the SBT and he refused to
answer the question.
The most important point is the fact that his diagram shows that the SBT
is impossible given his assumptions.
Martijn Meijering
Long time no see, glad to see you back. Two questions based on your post:
> In fact, the bullet is headed towards the driver of the limo. It
> would miss JBC altogether.
Any idea why Oswald didn't target the driver first? Isn't that what
snipers are supposed to do when attacking a vehicle?
> The problem isn't theirs. It's yours. How did LHO, who managed to
> hit JFK twice with two out of three shots, manage to miss the limo
> with the third?
If the missing shot hit the grass and went straight in, would anyone
have had a chance of finding it?
David Von Pein
>>> "My God, man, can't you even see that Bugliosi's SBT diagram has the bullet hit Connally in the back halfway over to the right armpit? Forget precise measurements. It isn't even CLOSE to the right armpit." <<<
Sure it is. Obviously it is. You'd better look again. Because you're
dead wrong. .....
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Bugliosi-Z210.gif
>>> "Remember that I asked Bugliosi which frame was the SBT and he refused to answer the question." <<<
Probably because Vince doesn't know himself what the exact SBT frame
is. He's all over the Z-map in his book regarding the SBT timing,
which is one of the things I've criticized him for. I think he should
have been more consistent in the book regarding the SBT timing.
I'm of the opinion, of course, that the precise and accurate SBT Z-
frame can be established fairly easily by way of John Connally's post-
Z223 reactions and movements.
And I'm actually a bit amazed that Dale Myers (a person who worked
closely with VB on certain parts of the book "Reclaiming History")
wasn't able to convince Vince that Z223-Z224 is the precise time on
the Z-Film when the SBT occurred.
But, obviously, Dale either didn't even TRY to convince Bugliosi of
the Z223-Z224 SBT timing....or VB still didn't buy into such a
timeline even AFTER being exposed to Myers' detailed work and the
various toggling Z-Film clips which depict the obvious involuntary
reactions of John B. Connally having been hit by a bullet just an
instant after Z-Frame #223.
Beats me why Vince can't see the obviousness of a Z224 SBT hit. But
Vince is pretty much everywhere when it comes to his timing of the
Single-Bullet Theory throughout his book -- from Z207 to Z225.
But, then too, when looking at VB's ambiguous SBT timelines in his
book, in a way I can appreciate the fact that Vince doesn't want to
pin himself down to any ONE single Z-Film frame for the SBT. He just
flat-out doesn't think it's possible to KNOW for certain what the
exact frame number is.
This, of course, is exactly what the Warren Commission did as well,
with the WC electing to not pin themselves down to any precise frame
for the SBT, instead deciding to go with a range of frames, from Z210
to 225.
Of course, a lot better (digital) technology exists now with which to
view the Zapruder Film (and constantly toggle back and forth between
any of the frames within the film).
And the super-fast and obviously-involuntary "hat dance" performed by
Connally starting at Z226 is a darn good sign, IMO, that a bullet has
just an instant earlier struck the Governor's right wrist (and the
actual penetration of that bullet certainly didn't occur way back at
Z190 or Z210, given what we see on the Zapruder Film starting at
Z226):
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "My God, man, can't you even see that Bugliosi's SBT diagram has the bullet hit Connally in the back halfway over to the right armpit? Forget precise measurements. It isn't even CLOSE to the right armpit." <<<
>
>
> Sure it is. Obviously it is. You'd better look again. Because you're
> dead wrong. .....
>
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Bugliosi-Z210.gif
>
>
>>>> "Remember that I asked Bugliosi which frame was the SBT and he refused to answer the question." <<<
>
>
> Probably because Vince doesn't know himself what the exact SBT frame
> is. He's all over the Z-map in his book regarding the SBT timing,
> which is one of the things I've criticized him for. I think he should
> have been more consistent in the book regarding the SBT timing.
>
Maybe it hasn't dawned on you yet, but the correct answer is that the
book was written by a committee. Vince wrote that part about 210 and
commissioned the drawing showing 210, while Myers wrote the bit about 224.
> I'm of the opinion, of course, that the precise and accurate SBT Z-
> frame can be established fairly easily by way of John Connally's post-
> Z223 reactions and movements.
>
Sure, except for the minor fact that JFK's balled up fists are in the
way of an exiting bullet at 224.
> And I'm actually a bit amazed that Dale Myers (a person who worked
> closely with VB on certain parts of the book "Reclaiming History")
> wasn't able to convince Vince that Z223-Z224 is the precise time on
> the Z-Film when the SBT occurred.
>
As noted above, the book was written by a committee and cobbled together
at the last minute. For example, Bugliosi sent someone to the Kennedy
Library to find out the specifications of the limo. But that person was
a dunce and did not realize that the documents were about the limo AFTER
the Quick Fix after the assassination. That's why Vince tries to snow us
with very precise details about things like the weight and then reveals
his ignorance by saying it was armored. Sloppy research method. Like Gus
Russo claiming that Kennedy's brain was in the wooden box near the
gravesite at the reinterment.
> But, obviously, Dale either didn't even TRY to convince Bugliosi of
> the Z223-Z224 SBT timing....or VB still didn't buy into such a
> timeline even AFTER being exposed to Myers' detailed work and the
> various toggling Z-Film clips which depict the obvious involuntary
> reactions of John B. Connally having been hit by a bullet just an
> instant after Z-Frame #223.
>
Could be that Bugliosi didn't even bother to read it.
Often authors have never read their own books when they have been
ghostwritten by the CIA.
> Beats me why Vince can't see the obviousness of a Z224 SBT hit. But
> Vince is pretty much everywhere when it comes to his timing of the
> Single-Bullet Theory throughout his book -- from Z207 to Z225.
>
Well, he can have a trigger pull at the end of Z-207 and a bullet strike
during Z-210.
> But, then too, when looking at VB's ambiguous SBT timelines in his
> book, in a way I can appreciate the fact that Vince doesn't want to
> pin himself down to any ONE single Z-Film frame for the SBT. He just
> flat-out doesn't think it's possible to KNOW for certain what the
> exact frame number is.
>
Again, you miss the point. He doesn't care. You don't care. The facts
just get in the way. You can change the frame every day.
> This, of course, is exactly what the Warren Commission did as well,
> with the WC electing to not pin themselves down to any precise frame
> for the SBT, instead deciding to go with a range of frames, from Z210
> to 225.
>
Well, at that time they had no way of being more precise.
Anthony Marsh
> Hi Clark,
>
> Long time no see, glad to see you back. Two questions based on your post:
>
>> In fact, the bullet is headed towards the driver of the limo. It
>> would miss JBC altogether.
>
> Any idea why Oswald didn't target the driver first? Isn't that what
> snipers are supposed to do when attacking a vehicle?
>
Not Oswald, but the rifle had only 4 bullets left. Don't waste three of
them on misses.
>> The problem isn't theirs. It's yours. How did LHO, who managed to
>> hit JFK twice with two out of three shots, manage to miss the limo
>> with the third?
>
> If the missing shot hit the grass and went straight in, would anyone
> have had a chance of finding it?
>
Why yes, yes they would.
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> >>> "Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers'] work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>
> You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
> upward" nonsense correctly at all.
I did. You admit the angle below.
>
> Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
> street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
> "upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
Angle of incidence equals angle of deflection.
It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
impact - Not downward.
>
> The HSCA (incorrectly, as is quite obvious by taking just a cursory
> look at the top autopsy photo linked below) only determined that the
> SBT bullet was travelling "11 degrees upwards" when JFK was re-
> positioned in a ramrod straight ("anatomical") position.
Thus, you admit the HSCA tracked the wound at an 11 degree UPWARD
angle.
>
> But the bullet was ALWAYS travelling DOWNWARD from the sniper's
> (Oswald's) POV...quite obviously.
Yes. It was traveling downward until it hit JFK.
And then the laws of physics take over. Either it followed the path
of "least resistance" or it was deflected upwards.
Those are the laws of physics.
LNer's cannot change them.
> Which means, after traversing the
> soft tissues of Kennedy's upper back and neck (throat) and striking
> "no bony objects" to divert its path significantly (if at all), the
> downward-angled bullet
You're using the "path of least resistance" argument.
>had nowhere else to go except into the car's
> seats or floor or into the body of the person who was sitting in front
> of him (John Bowden Connally Jr., Governor of Texas).
Thereby conveniently missing the car seat or the car floor, correct?
>
> And even Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees with LNers on this one; i.e., Wecht
> believes that the bullet did NOT change from a DOWNWARD course to any
> kind of an UPWARD course after it passed through John F. Kennedy's
> body.
Nice try. Wecht is a very reliable source. Now all you have to do is
show the bullet traveled through JFK at a downward angle. You still
haven't done that. We have the shirt that shows that back entry point
ant the throat exit point. Disprove them.
>
> RE: The HSCA.....
>
> By way of the top autopsy photo linked below, the House Select
> Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel is pretty much PROVEN dead-wrong
> with respect to its determination that the SBT bullet was travelling
> UPWARD through an anatomically-erect John Kennedy.
Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo?
And your photo doesn't show a thing, BTW.
Meanwhile, the shirt does.
>
> Because it can't be any more obvious that Kennedy IS in an
> "anatomical" (straight up & down) posture in this top photo below; and
> it also couldn't be any more obvious that the visible throat wound in
> this same turned-sideways picture is located WELL BELOW the wound in
> JFK's back, despite the fact we can't see the actual bullet hole in
> Kennedy's back here.
Fascinating! You can't see the back wound in the photo but you know
it's higher. You should be playing blackjack in Reno. You'll know
the next card.
>But SOME common sense regarding the approx.
> location of the wound should be used when examining this photograph.
You mean the entry hole in the shirt?
No. You don't mean that, do you? As an LNer, you must resort to
imginary evidence. We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to
support that, you post a picture of an imaginary back wound.
>
> And when you toggle back and forth between both of the photos linked
> below, can it BE any clearer that JFK's throat wound is located
> "anatomically" lower than his upper-back wound?:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
Did it and - No - it wasn't clear at all. But then I guess 11 degrees
is tough to judge from a photo especially when you don't show - or
deny - that an upright JFK doesn't have an 11 degree upward angle
wound.
In fact, car seats recline, don't they? If JFK's back is against the
seat, he's actually leaning backwards - the EXCT OPPOSITE DIRECTION
YOUR THEORY REQUIRES.
The only thing standing in the way of your conclusion is the actual
facts.
>
> ================================
>
> WHERE EXACTLY WAS KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND LOCATED?:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
>
> ================================
Nice try again. But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt
with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat. How far to JFK's
left does JBC have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot
to hit JBC's right armpit?
You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument. Why is that?
Just curious.
::Clark::
David Von Pein
>>> "It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
impact - Not downward." <<<
Now all you have to do is prove (somehow) that the bullet that went
through John Kennedy's body "deflected" AT ALL....which you, of course,
cannot do. There is no indication that the bullet deflected in any fashion
while travelling through JFK's soft tissue.
Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the fiercest SBT critics the world has ever
known, insists that the bullet did not deviate from its downward
trajectory during its journey into (and then out of) President Kennedy's
body.
What makes you think you can prove the bullet "deflected"?
What makes ANYONE think they can prove the bullet "deflected" after
hitting JFK's body and therefore strayed from its approx. 17-to-20- degree
downward course from Lee Oswald's sniper's perch in the Depository
Building?
>>> "Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo [linked below]?" <<<
I often wonder if they ever turned it sideways for better "SBT"
orientation (like the photo above). Apparently they never did....because
if they had, they would have been able to see (as anyone who isn't blind
as a proverbial bat can easily see) that the throat wound is positively
LOWER ("anatomically") than the upper-back wound--even if the upper-back
wound isn't visible in the above photograph.
>>> "Meanwhile, the shirt does." <<<
The shirt of JFK is pretty much meaningless in this discussion. CTers love
to harp on the location of the hole in the back of the shirt as some kind
of "proof" that the SBT introduced by the Warren Commission is invalid.
But nothing could be much sillier than such a CT argument. The clothing
holes don't trump the photo below, which shows the bullet hole in
Kennedy's upper back. The clothing holes simply CAN'T, and never will,
trump this MUCH BETTER physical evidence:
>>> "Fascinating! You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know
it's higher. You should be playing blackjack in Reno." <<<
As stated a thousand times previously -- a practically-blind person could
easily tell from toggling back and forth between the two
authenticated-as-"unaltered" autopsy photos linked below that the bullet
hole in John F. Kennedy's throat was substantially lower anatomically than
the bullet wound in Kennedy's upper back.
Why can't you see it, Clark? Or maybe you can, but you just simply don't
want to admit what is obvious when it comes to the question of "Which
Wound Is Anatomically Higher?":
>>> "We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to support that, you post a
picture of an imaginary back wound." <<<
You think this wound in JFK's upper back is "imaginary", do you Clark?:
Whether we can physically SEE the upper-back wound or not in the photo
showing the left side of President Kennedy's head, we certainly know
generally where that bullet hole is located as a result of looking at the
photo I just linked above which shows Kennedy's upper-back wound.
To believe the HSCA was correct when it declared that JFK's throat wound
was "anatomically" HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the wound in his back,
we'd have to believe that the back wound was located at the very BOTTOM of
this photo (or even LOWER than that, which would place the wound off the
bottom edge of the picture):
Does anybody in his/her right mind actually believe that Kennedy's back
wound was located THAT far south on the President's body?
Come now, my good (CT) man! Use your eyes.
REPRISE:
>>> "You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's higher."
<<<
Dang straight:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
And Vince B. thinks so too (I'm proud to note):
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance
wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the
throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of
the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal
headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>>> "Nice try again. But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt
with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat. How far to JFK's left
does JBC have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot to hit
JBC's right armpit?" <<<
Answer -- Not a person in the world can answer the above question with
100% accuracy....as is quite obviously the case, since some things in this
murder case will forever remain unknowable -- such as JFK's and JBC's
relative positions to one another at the exact moment when Oswald's CE399
bullet slammed into both of them. And this is due in large part, of
course, to the fact that we can't even SEE Kennedy in the Zapruder Film at
the precise moment the bullet hit him at Z223- Z224.
>>> "You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument. Why is that?"
<<<
No, you just THINK I'm wrong.
Most CTers have fooled themselves into believing that the wholly-true and
logical Single-Bullet Conclusion is nothing but a pile of WC- created
excrement.
A shame indeed. But it's to be expected from the conspiracy-happy crowd, I
suppose. They forever shun Occam's handy Razor in favor of unsupportable
guesswork and a steady diet of their favorite food -- chaff.
It's always been that way. And my guess is--it will forever remain that
way in the future.
Andrew Mason
>>>>>"Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed
through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound
at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed.
What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers']
work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>>
>>You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
>>upward" nonsense correctly at all.
>
>
> I did. You admit the angle below.
>
>
>>Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
>>street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
>>"upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
>
>
> Angle of incidence equals angle of deflection.
>
> It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
> impact - Not downward.
Perhaps we could apply that principle to JBC's wrist. The bullet was
moving downward. It struck the radius - the hardest bone in the human
body, on the top of the back of the wrist. Which way is it going to
deflect?
Andrew Mason
John Fiorentino
and others have shown this repeatedly. It will be in my book also. (If I
ever get it out that is)
I visited with Dr. Lattimer (who wrote the introduction to my book) on
several occasions and discussed this at length.
You may wish to Google the archives here on alt.assassination.jfk
John F.
<clarkw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9babcc7e-e9b3-4cf4...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
For a ray of light, the angle of incidence equals the angle of
reflection. Of course, a bullet is not a ray of light so the misquoted
law of physics does not apply.
A force diagram answers the question of which way a bullet deflects.
The force from the obstacle upon the striking bullet is perpendicular
to surface of the obstacle. When the direction of this force differs
from the direction of the striking bullet a deflection as in a change
in direction of the bullet will occur. This condition is equivalent to
saying that the bullet strikes tangentially. By resolving the force
from the obstacle into components opposite and perpendicular to the un
deflected direction of the striking bullet immediately give the change
in direction of the bullet as the direction of the perpendicular
component.
Duration of the tangential collision is a primary variable in
determining the magnitude of the deflection measured by the deflection
angle. The deflection begins as the bullet makes first contact with
the obstacle and ceases as the penetrating bullet breaks the surface
and forms a non tangential contact. For a medium or high speed bullet,
this interval is so brief that the accumulated deflection is
negligible.
A grazing collision in which the bullet impacts the obstacle without
breaking the surface greatly extends the interval of tangential
striking. This condition can deflect a medium or a high speed bullet
by several degrees.
Herbert
>
> Andrew Mason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> Baden and the HSCA is all wet on the angle of the bullet through JFK. I
> and others have shown this repeatedly. It will be in my book also. (If I
> ever get it out that is)
>
> I visited with Dr. Lattimer (who wrote the introduction to my book) on
> several occasions and discussed this at length.
>
Not a good source. Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made
JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher.
geovu...@gmail.com
> On May 15, 7:33 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers'] work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>
> > You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
> > upward" nonsense correctly at all.
>
> I did. You admit the angle below.
>
>
>
> > Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
> > street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
> > "upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
>
> Angle of incidence equals angle of deflection.
>
> It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
> impact - Not downward.
That's funny because I was just watching a replay of an NFL game and a
football hit the goal post on a downward trajectory and it magically
continued downward. Did it defy the "laws of physics" or did it simply
glance off of the side of the goal post? I guess the laws of physics are
more complicated than you thought. I have to laugh when people claim that
the reason that the bullet didn't hit Connally was a deflection that
caused it to go over the top of him and out of the limo (conveniently
allowing for the lack of bullet evidence that we have) yet they disagree
that the bullet could have deflected into the location it hit the
Governor. It's as if deflected bullets only go in the direction that they
want them to go and anything else is laughable.
I don't necessarily believe that the bullet had to deflect for the
trajectory to work. I think it's too difficult to actually layout the
bodies, the shooter, and the car. People tend to pick and choose their
favorite data to show how it cannot work, but never look into what it
would take to make it work. Clearly a bullet passing through Kennedy had
to hit Connally unless it was deflected out of the way. If you are willing
to admit that, you have to be willing to admit that it could have just as
easily deflected into the location that we find it.
I would be interested to see a compilation of all of the diagrams over the
years. It would help us figure out where the data came from and how
accurate it is. It's a shame that Meyers doesn't create some 2D diagrams
of his 3D recreation to show the angles and body locations.
Anthony Marsh
It is going to break up into several pieces and obviously some of them
deflected up.
> Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>>>> "It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
> impact - Not downward." <<<
>
>
> Now all you have to do is prove (somehow) that the bullet that went
> through John Kennedy's body "deflected" AT ALL....which you, of course,
> cannot do. There is no indication that the bullet deflected in any fashion
> while travelling through JFK's soft tissue.
>
Wrong. The location of the entrance wound and the exit wound is all we
need to prove that the bullet deflected off T-1, plus the fact that T-1
is fractured.
> Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the fiercest SBT critics the world has ever
> known, insists that the bullet did not deviate from its downward
> trajectory during its journey into (and then out of) President Kennedy's
> body.
>
> What makes you think you can prove the bullet "deflected"?
>
I did.
> What makes ANYONE think they can prove the bullet "deflected" after
> hitting JFK's body and therefore strayed from its approx. 17-to-20- degree
> downward course from Lee Oswald's sniper's perch in the Depository
> Building?
>
Close enough for a WC defender.
>
>>>> "Are you claiming the HSCA never saw this photo [linked below]?" <<<
>
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=gHDYg0cAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDPHd1y3qBDs4RWHUkkfNPVGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDStMCE0MWDv4Xd50RohAGPU8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q
>
>
>
> I often wonder if they ever turned it sideways for better "SBT"
> orientation (like the photo above). Apparently they never did....because
> if they had, they would have been able to see (as anyone who isn't blind
> as a proverbial bat can easily see) that the throat wound is positively
> LOWER ("anatomically") than the upper-back wound--even if the upper-back
> wound isn't visible in the above photograph.
>
JFK is not in the anatomical position. His head is on a head rest.
And who drew in that gray line and what angle does it represent?
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Meanwhile, the shirt does." <<<
>
>
> The shirt of JFK is pretty much meaningless in this discussion. CTers love
> to harp on the location of the hole in the back of the shirt as some kind
> of "proof" that the SBT introduced by the Warren Commission is invalid.
>
The WC invalidated the SBT when they said in Executive Session that the
back wound was lower than the throat wound. Now you know what they
wanted to destroy the record and what they were trying to cover up.
> But nothing could be much sillier than such a CT argument. The clothing
> holes don't trump the photo below, which shows the bullet hole in
> Kennedy's upper back. The clothing holes simply CAN'T, and never will,
> trump this MUCH BETTER physical evidence:
>
Upper back, not neck. The WC lied.
Look at the upper hand and arm. What is that shadow falling on?
>
>>>> "Fascinating! You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know
> it's higher. You should be playing blackjack in Reno." <<<
>
>
> As stated a thousand times previously -- a practically-blind person could
> easily tell from toggling back and forth between the two
> authenticated-as-"unaltered" autopsy photos linked below that the bullet
> hole in John F. Kennedy's throat was substantially lower anatomically than
> the bullet wound in Kennedy's upper back.
>
Wrong. Even the WC knew that the back wound was lower than the throat
wound.
> Why can't you see it, Clark? Or maybe you can, but you just simply don't
> want to admit what is obvious when it comes to the question of "Which
> Wound Is Anatomically Higher?":
>
Why can't you just admit that the WC said that the back wound was lower
than the throat wound?
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=gHDYg0cAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDPHd1y3qBDs4RWHUkkfNPVGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDStMCE0MWDv4Xd50RohAGPU8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q
>
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=xEd300cAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDPHd1y3qBDs4RWHUkkfNPVGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQdfM7hvD8lWaLEYnfy72B18B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "We are to IMAGINE the HSCA was wrong and, to support that, you post a
> picture of an imaginary back wound." <<<
>
>
>
> You think this wound in JFK's upper back is "imaginary", do you Clark?:
>
There you go again, misrepresenting others.
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=BvkYJUcAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDbrKLEXaNl8DAoqMcST2wXGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQdfM7hvD8lWaLEYnfy72B18B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q
>
>
>
>
> Whether we can physically SEE the upper-back wound or not in the photo
> showing the left side of President Kennedy's head, we certainly know
> generally where that bullet hole is located as a result of looking at the
> photo I just linked above which shows Kennedy's upper-back wound.
>
Generally? You mean close enough for a WC defender.
> To believe the HSCA was correct when it declared that JFK's throat wound
> was "anatomically" HIGHER on Kennedy's body than the wound in his back,
> we'd have to believe that the back wound was located at the very BOTTOM of
> this photo (or even LOWER than that, which would place the wound off the
> bottom edge of the picture):
>
That's exactly what your beloved WC said!
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.%20JFK%20AUTOPSY%20PHOTO?gda=gHDYg0cAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDPHd1y3qBDs4RWHUkkfNPVGG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDStMCE0MWDv4Xd50RohAGPU8B2-MV0IipJI7NbJ85PE2Q
>
>
> Does anybody in his/her right mind actually believe that Kennedy's back
> wound was located THAT far south on the President's body?
>
> Come now, my good (CT) man! Use your eyes.
>
Jeez, use a little common sense.
>
> REPRISE:
>
>
>>>> "You can't see the back wound in the photo, but you know it's higher."
> <<<
>
>
> Dang straight:
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
>
>
>
> And Vince B. thinks so too (I'm proud to note):
>
>
>
> "Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance
> wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the
> throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of
> the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal
> headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
> upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
> wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 424 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Nice try again. But I can't help but notice that you haven't dealt
> with the right to left exit wound at JFK's throat. How far to JFK's left
> does JBC have to be for a bullet exiting missing JFK's tie knot to hit
> JBC's right armpit?" <<<
>
>
> Answer -- Not a person in the world can answer the above question with
> 100% accuracy....as is quite obviously the case, since some things in this
Yes, I can. It is simple math. Connally's midline would have to be 13
inches to the left of Kennedy's midline. Never happened.
> murder case will forever remain unknowable -- such as JFK's and JBC's
> relative positions to one another at the exact moment when Oswald's CE399
> bullet slammed into both of them. And this is due in large part, of
> course, to the fact that we can't even SEE Kennedy in the Zapruder Film at
> the precise moment the bullet hit him at Z223- Z224.
>
And it is largely due to the fact that you guys keep changing the SBT
frame every day.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "You seem to be wrong in every aspect of your argument. Why is that?"
> <<<
>
>
> No, you just THINK I'm wrong.
>
> Most CTers have fooled themselves into believing that the wholly-true and
> logical Single-Bullet Conclusion is nothing but a pile of WC- created
> excrement.
>
> A shame indeed. But it's to be expected from the conspiracy-happy crowd, I
> suppose. They forever shun Occam's handy Razor in favor of unsupportable
> guesswork and a steady diet of their favorite food -- chaff.
>
Occam's Razor applies to mathematics, not lying politicians.
Anthony Marsh
You laugh because you have not examined the facts and don't understand
physics. The path from right to left through Kennedy was about 20 degrees.
If you allow for him to be turned slightly to the right waving and looking
at the crowd, it fits the 11-1/2 degree angle from the sniper's nest. No
problem there. But the bullet exiting the throat will continue on that
11-1/2 degree angle right to left. A bullet can not turn in midair of its
own accord. This is basic Newtonian physics. So, the bullet will have
traveled another 4.9 inches farther to the left of the exit wound, which
was slightly to the left of Kennedy's midline in that gap of 24 inches
between the men. Connally's wound was 7.9 inches to the right of his
midline. When you add those 2 numbers together it means that Connally's
midline needs to be 12.8 inches to the left of Kennedy's midline for an
exiting bullet to cause his back wound. Connally was never that far to the
left and if Dale Myers is correct in his claim that the distance was only
6 inches then he proves that the SBT is physically impossible.
Now, if you want to invoke the bullet deflecting horizontally inside the
body, fine, but you are still stuck with the 11-1/2 degree exit. And such
a deflected bullet would then go through Connally at the wrong angle.
> I don't necessarily believe that the bullet had to deflect for the
> trajectory to work. I think it's too difficult to actually layout the
> bodies, the shooter, and the car. People tend to pick and choose their
No, it is not too difficult.
> favorite data to show how it cannot work, but never look into what it
> would take to make it work. Clearly a bullet passing through Kennedy had
I just said what it would take to make it work. Connally's midline being
about 13 inches to the left of Kennedy's midline. But that never happened.
> to hit Connally unless it was deflected out of the way. If you are willing
> to admit that, you have to be willing to admit that it could have just as
> easily deflected into the location that we find it.
>
NO.
Herbert Blenner
> On May 22, 3:28 pm, clarkwilk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 7:33 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Nowhere does [Myers] cite any medical support that the bullet passed through JFK at a downward angle. But the HSCA did. They tracked the wound at an 11-degree UPWARD angle. The exact opposite to what Myers showed. What a surprise. Again, what does this say about the quality of [Myers'] work when UP becomes DOWN?" <<<
>
> > > You're not stating the HSCA's position regarding the "11 degrees
> > > upward" nonsense correctly at all.
>
> > I did. You admit the angle below.
>
> > > Do you think that a gunman shot Kennedy in the upper back from below
> > > street level or some such impossible angle (so as to achieve a literal
> > > "upward" trajectory through JFK's body when the shooting occurred)?
>
> > Angle of incidence equals angle of deflection.
>
> > It's simple physics. A downward aimed bullet will deflect upward on
> > impact - Not downward.
>
> That's funny because I was just watching a replay of an NFL game and a
> football hit the goal post on a downward trajectory and it magically
> continued downward. Did it defy the "laws of physics" or did it simply
> glance off of the side of the goal post? I guess the laws of physics are
> more complicated than you thought.
If we were talking about a bullet with insufficient speed to penetrate
the victim then your observation would have relevance.
> I have to laugh when people claim that
> the reason that the bullet didn't hit Connally was a deflection that
> caused it to go over the top of him and out of the limo (conveniently
> allowing for the lack of bullet evidence that we have) yet they disagree
> that the bullet could have deflected into the location it hit the
> Governor. It's as if deflected bullets only go in the direction that they
> want them to go and anything else is laughable.
I place people who argue that a tumbling bullet struck Governor Connally
after passing straight through President Kennedy on the same level as
those that you criticize. In reality any obstacle that induces a bullet to
tumble, as in mis align the long axis with the linear direction of motion,
must deflect that bullet. Obviously neither side in the SBT debate has a
monopoly on abusing physics to support their unrealistic arguments.
>
> I don't necessarily believe that the bullet had to deflect for the
> trajectory to work. I think it's too difficult to actually layout the
> bodies, the shooter, and the car. People tend to pick and choose their
> favorite data to show how it cannot work, but never look into what it
> would take to make it work.
The SBT is about more than one bullet striking two victims. The medically
least significant thigh injury is forensically the paramount wound.
Getting that bullet from the chest or the wrist to come to rest in the
thigh involves a considerable deflection of the bullet provided of course
that the victim was sitting when shot.
> Clearly a bullet passing through Kennedy had
> to hit Connally unless it was deflected out of the way. If you are willing
> to admit that, you have to be willing to admit that it could have just as
> easily deflected into the location that we find it.
Clearly you are assuming knowledge of the bullet's trajectory through
Kennedy. However, a careful examination of the autopsy evidence shows that
the striking angles of the bullet that entered Kennedy's back are
inconsistent with wounding of a sitting victim by a bullet fired from any
reasonable location. To make matters worse, the Forensic Panel revised the
striking angles of the bullet angles but did resolve the earlier conflict
raised by the prosectors. Instead the panel in its infinite wisdom placed
the entering bullet on course for a catastrophic collision with the spine.
>
> I would be interested to see a compilation of all of the diagrams over the
> years. It would help us figure out where the data came from and how
> accurate it is. It's a shame that Meyers doesn't create some 2D diagrams
> of his 3D recreation to show the angles and body locations.
In 1964, they knew that the angles did not work so for the next four
decades that have frustrated intelligent discourse of the problem.
Herbert
David Von Pein
<<<
LOL.
JFK is stretched out flat as a pancake on the autopsy table, and yet this
ISN'T the "autopsy" or "anatomical" position, per Tony M.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
LOL.
Just exactly what WOULD be "anatomical" (aka: the "autopsy" position),
Tony?
If JFK isn't "anatomical" in the above photo.....he's as close to it as
possible.
Care to argue about the "JFK is 2 millimeters away from being anatomical"
you're probably to argue next, Anthony?
John Fiorentino
Lattimer didn't lie about anything. Perhaps if you repeat your own
distortions enough, someone might believe them.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IICdnSunYYP7VKvV...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
El-Oh-El.
Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
did anyway)?
CE903 provides perfect SBT-favoring data (sans any "hunchbacking"):
Andrew Mason
David,
Do you honestly believe that JBC's midline is left of JFK's midline in
this photo? If so, do you think it is 12 inches left of JFK's midline as
it has to be in order for a right to left shot through JFK's midline to
strike JBC 8 inches right of his midline?
In any event, even if it was possible for the SBT trajectory to work,
this is not enough. You have to have evidence that JFK was not hit on
the first shot. That is the real problem. By my count, there are 86
witness recollections that are consistent only with JFK being hit on the
first shot.
Andrew Mason
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
Andrew Mason wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > WORTH AN INSTANT REPLAY --- my thoughts on this matter, which have not
> > changed at all since I wrote the two articles/posts below. The SBT lives,
> > and for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is just
> > garden-variety common sense:
> >
> > ======================================
> >
> > www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7f8d9865c0151610
> >
> >
> >>>>"His [Dale K. Myers'] animation deceptively depicts an under-sized
> >
> > Connally model on a seat 3.5 inches further from the door than the seat
> > occupied by the flesh and bone Connally, and that, when these mistakes are
> > corrected, the bullet exiting Kennedy's neck strikes Connally in the
> > middle of his back." <<<
> >
> >
> > Pat Speer's 3.5-inch differential regarding the jump-seat measurement is
> > (as is usually the case with conspiracy theorists) a lot of "to-do" about
> > nothing.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because even if John Connally's jump seat was, indeed, located only 2.5
> > inches from the right door of the limousine (and apparently that might
> > very well be the accurate measurement, based on the diagram linked
> > below)*,
>
> Does it strike anyone else that this appears to be an astounding
> admission of Myers that he built his computer model without knowing this?
>
>
> > the bullet that went clear through President Kennedy's body and
> > positively "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck" (a
> > quote from the "Summary" of JFK's official Autopsy Report) was a bullet
> > that had no choice but to strike either John Connally's body or the
> > interior of the limousine (given the bullet's downward trajectory which
> > was taking it right toward the middle of the vehicle).
> >
> > And since we know that the bullet did not strike the limo's interior, and
> > we know it also didn't hit any OTHER (non-JBC) victim(s) in the
> > car....what other choice is there? The bullet, regardless of exact
> > jump-seat placement in relation to the car's right-hand door (whether it
> > be 6 inches or 2.5 inches), HAD TO HAVE HIT JOHN B. CONNALLY AFTER IT LEFT
> > KENNEDY'S NECK. It is THE only reasonable conclusion.
>
> Agreed. But why does it have to hit him in the impossible location on
> his right armpit?
***Because that is where Connally was struck, which indicates it was
not an impossible location.
Connally was turned to his right, to face the crowd to the right of
the vehicle. Thus his right shoulder was to the left of where it
would have been he had been sitting in the middle of the seat, facing
directly forward.
***Ron Judge
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>
> El-Oh-El.
>
> Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
> did anyway)?
>
> CE903 provides perfect SBT-favoring data (sans any "hunchbacking"):
>
Dr. Lattimer wrote:
The metal rod (or pointer) being held by Arlene Specter in CE903 is angled
at approx. 17.5 degrees (matching the trajectory Oswald's window), and the
rod is being held in such a way against the JFK stand- in to perfectly
mimic the place on Kennedy's upper back where a bullet entered his body,
with the bullet's "exit" on the stand-in perfectly matching JFK's actual
tie-knot exit location.
Also: The end of the pointer is being placed in the bullet hole in
Connally's suit coat. And the Connally stand-in is, indeed, wearing exact
same jacket that was worn by Connally when he was shot in the back on
11/22/63. End of transcription.
In Dealey Plaza the limousine rode on the three-degree decline of Elm
Street. This declination angle lowered Governor Connally with respect to
President Kennedy. The reenactment in a level garage compensated for this
change in the relative position of Connally by subtracting three degrees
from the 20.5-degree declination angle of the trajectory.
However, the declination angle of Elm had no effect upon the location of
the exit at the tie-knot relative to the location of the entry on
Kennedy's upper back. So the perfect alignment of the rod with the entry
on the upper back and exit at the tie-knot demands that the lean angle of
Kennedy when shot on 11/22/63 exactly matched the insensible declination
angle of Elm Street. This coincidence arising from a conceptional error
canceling the effect of an ignored variable strongly suggests fudging of
the data. In any other arena, rational people would accept this
cancellation as proof of intentional deception.
Herbert
John Fiorentino
occasions.
So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot, then
WHERE did that bullet go?
John F.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:9JCdnVxrd9Y_36XV...@posted.sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on numerous
> occasions.
>
> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot, then
> WHERE did that bullet go?
>
Over the triple underpass and into the ground.
It will be dug up in 3035.
Anthony Marsh
False logic. Circular reasoning. You are begging the question. We are
saying that location is impossible for a bullet leaving JFK's throat.
Obviously that location is possible for a different shot.
> Connally was turned to his right, to face the crowd to the right of
> the vehicle. Thus his right shoulder was to the left of where it
> would have been he had been sitting in the middle of the seat, facing
> directly forward.
>
Not quite. Connally was in the process of turning to his right to try to
see the President. He had started turning back to his left and was
facing forward when he was hit.
> ***Ron Judge
>
Anthony Marsh
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a
>>>>> hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>>
>>
>>
>> El-Oh-El.
>>
>> Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
>> did anyway)?
>>
>> CE903 provides perfect SBT-favoring data (sans any "hunchbacking"):
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/119.%20CE903?gda=wAdhujsAAAAsmAl25jZSKUsApTZ6VJRDNn_6jKpjgCybRbXluJwbm2G1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDQeXua_GAigK7LvjCezu4Fn&gsc=8vNidBYAAADD9p0ayav2mmZsiOOBWGQdbG-gATLp4MryfoMfixIMkw
>>
>>
>
> David,
>
> Do you honestly believe that JBC's midline is left of JFK's midline in
> this photo? If so, do you think it is 12 inches left of JFK's midline as
> it has to be in order for a right to left shot through JFK's midline to
> strike JBC 8 inches right of his midline?
>
Look at Bugliosi's diagram:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Bugliosi-Z210.gif
Tell me how many inches to the left of Kennedy's midline he has
Connally's midline. Notice how his SBT has the bullet hitting Connally
only about 4 inches to the right of his midline. He did not place
Connally far enough to the left.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>
>
> El-Oh-El.
>
> Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
> did anyway)?
>
Lattimer did precisely that by producing a bogus diagram. Tell us what
the downward angle of that trajectory is.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony:
>
> Lattimer didn't lie about anything. Perhaps if you repeat your own
> distortions enough, someone might believe them.
>
Lattimer lied about several things. In particular he produced a bogus
diagram showing a hump on Kennedy's back:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "JFK is not in the anatomical position. His head is on a head rest."
> <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> JFK is stretched out flat as a pancake on the autopsy table, and yet this
> ISN'T the "autopsy" or "anatomical" position, per Tony M.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
>
His head is elevated.
> LOL.
>
> Just exactly what WOULD be "anatomical" (aka: the "autopsy" position),
> Tony?
>
Head flat on the table.
> If JFK isn't "anatomical" in the above photo.....he's as close to it as
> possible.
>
Close enough for a WC defender.
> Care to argue about the "JFK is 2 millimeters away from being anatomical"
> you're probably to argue next, Anthony?
>
2 inches difference does not matter to a WC defender like you. Which is
why you endorse Bugliosi's SBT diagram of the SBT at Z-210 which has the
bullet hit Connally 4 inches too far to the left.
Andrew Mason
location that is considered?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on numerous
> occasions.
>
> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot, then
> WHERE did that bullet go?
>
> John F.
John,
What you are saying is that the recollections of these witnesses (16 of
them):
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
are ludicrous. I am just pointing out their evidence. You should tell
them to change their recollections if you think they are wrong.
The first bullet passed through JFK's neck. It ended up in JBC's
stretcher with very little damage. How it got there is not entirely
clear but it is the only missle that could have made a butt-first
puncture wound in JBC's thigh. According the JBC, it did not strike his
back. That is the evidence. You can figure out as well as I can what
scenario fits that evidence.
Andrew Mason
pjsp...@aol.com
wrote:
> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on numerous
> occasions.
>
> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot, then
> WHERE did that bullet go?
>
> John F.
>
>
> news:9JCdnVxrd9Y_36XV...@posted.sasktel...
>
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>"Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a
> >>>>>hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>
> >> El-Oh-El.
>
> >> Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
> >> did anyway)?
>
> >> CE903 provides perfect SBT-favoring data (sans any "hunchbacking"):
>
>
> > David,
>
> > Do you honestly believe that JBC's midline is left of JFK's midline in
> > this photo? If so, do you think it is 12 inches left of JFK's midline as
> > it has to be in order for a right to left shot through JFK's midline to
> > strike JBC 8 inches right of his midline?
>
> > In any event, even if it was possible for the SBT trajectory to work, this
> > is not enough. You have to have evidence that JFK was not hit on the first
> > shot. That is the real problem. By my count, there are 86 witness
> > recollections that are consistent only with JFK being hit on the first
> > shot.
>
> > Andrew Mason
I think someone else is being ludicrous. If dozens of people see a man
react to being shot by the first of three shots, and the shots are
spaced several second apart, and no one near the man thinks the first
shot missed, or recalls his calmly waving to a crowd after the first
shot was fired, then it is utterly foolish to conclude that the first
shot missed. All too many people--both CT and LN--have been getting
away with this preposterous notion for years. It has no more
credibility than the "driver-did-it" notion propounded on Youtube.
That presumably sane people--Posner, Myers, and Bugliosi come to mind--
have been spreading this absolute farce makes it no more credible. In
chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com, I go through every statement I
could find by every eyewitness to the shooting. And it's
overwhelmingly clear that the first shot did not miss. The cherry-
picking of the words of Connally, Bennett and Hine to support that the
first shot missed is pathetic and intellectually dishonest. As one
reads all the statements, this becomes clear.
Herbert Blenner
> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>
> > El-Oh-El.
>
> > Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
> > did anyway)?
>
> Lattimer did precisely that by producing a bogus diagram. Tell us what
> the downward angle of that trajectory is.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif
A straight line connecting two wounds on a victim does not coincide with
the trajectory angle of the bullet. Instead the direction of the line is a
measure of the angular orientation of the victim. If they rotate the
drawing x degree clockwise then the angle made by the connecting line with
the horizontal increases by exactly x degree. Likewise a counterclockwise
rotation of the drawing by 5.5 degree changes the 27 degree angle made by
the connecting line with the horizontal to 21.5 degree.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/secantangle.bmp
If a common bullet made the two wounds then the connecting line would
represent a secant that would coincide with the trajectory only if the
bullet transited without deflection. Under these conditions knowledge of
the either the declination angle of the bullet or orientation angle of the
victim enables an analyst to find the other angle.
When the bullet makes simple wounds, such as the elongated oval hole in
President Kennedy's back or the roundish to slightly oval hole in his
throat then the analyst can calculate the angles of incidence at the entry
and exit sites. This knowledge is the stumbling block for a perforating
back-to-neck trajectory. In particular the considerable incidence angle at
the back wound is inconsistent with the negligible incidence angle at the
throat wound. Appendix 3 of Punching Holes discusses and illustrates this
insurmountable problem.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Herbert
John Fiorentino
thigh. (Which doesn't work ballistically, but let's leave that alone for a
moment)
Now please explain the rest of the bullet evidence, i.e., where the (other
bullet) you propose which hit Connally went. And please ID it among the
evidence pieces.
John F.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:4bmdnVOAGfmIJqTV...@posted.sasktel...
Andrew Mason
Excellent post. The problem is that most LNers refuse to read the evidence.
The following people recalled that JFK reacted to the first shot :
1. T.E. Moore (24 H 534, "President KENNEDY had reached the Thornton
Freeway sign, a shot was fired and Mr. MOORE observed the President
slumping forward in the Presidential car.")
2. Nellie Connally (4 H 147. "I turned over my right shoulder and looked
back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.")
3. David Powers (7 H 473: "I noticed then that the President moved quite
far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he
had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally
disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off
the top of the President’s head")
4. Gayle Newman (19 H 488: "President Kennedy kind of jumped like he was
startled and covered his head with his hands and then raised up. After I
heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor grabbed his
chest and lay back on the seat of the car")
5. William Newman (19 H 490 "The President jumped up in his seat, and it
looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought
he had realized it.")
6. John Chism (19 H 472 “When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the
President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just
about in front of me, he turned and waved at the crowd on this side of
the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one
shot, and I saw him, "The President," sit back in his seat and lean his
head to his left side.”
7. Faye Chism (19 H 471 “As the President was coming through, I heard
this first shot,and the President fell to his left.”)
8. James Altgens (7 H 520. He said his z255 shot was after first shot
and before any other. It shows JFK reacting.)
9. Abraham Zapruder (TV interview at 2:00 pm Nov. 22/63:
http://www.jfk.org/Research/Zapruder/Transcript.htm - " I heard a shot,
and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two,
I couldn't say it was one or two)
10. Clint Hill (2 H 138, Recalled only two shots. After the first: "I
saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the
left". CE1024, 18 H 742: "I saw the President hunch forward and then
slump to his left.").
11. Linda Willis (7 H 498. “ Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little
bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When
the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people,
and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I
couldn’t tell where the second shot went.)
12. George Hickey (CE1024, 18 H 761. Perhaps 2 or 3 seconds elapsed from
the time I looked to the rear and then looked at the President. He was
slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost
erect sitting position as I turned and looked. At the moment he was
almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and
that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report
and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no
time element between them.”)
13. Sam Kinney (CE1024, 18 H 731. “As we completed the left turn and on
a short distance, there was a shot. At this time I glanced from the
tailights of the President's car that I use for gaging distances for
driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have
grabbed his chest with right hand. There was a second of pause and then
two more shots were heard”).
14. Paul Landis (CE1024, 18 H 758. Saw JFK move in response to first
shot but thought he was just turning in the direction of the sound.
Landis began to scan crowd, buildings and car before second shot was
heard. He recalled only two shots.)
15. Cecil Ault (24 H 534. Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported
to have seen JFK rise up in his seat after first shot.)
16. Harold Norman (3 H 191. “but I know I heard a shot, and then after I
heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know,
slumped or something,”)
17. Malcolm Summers (Affidavit, 19 H 500 “The President's car had just
come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump
down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "Oh, no", then a second shot
and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots.”)
18. Mary Moorman (Affidavit, 19 H 487, “As I snapped the picture of
President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of
slumped over.”)
19. Jean Newman (Affidavit, 19 H 489, “The motorcade had just passed me
when I heard that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the
President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there
was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President
jumped, he sort of ducked his head down and I thought at the time that
it probably scared him, too, just like it did me, because he flinched,
like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on
his chest.”)
20. Charles Brehm (Dallas Times Herald statement, Nov. 22, 1963 “The
witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the
shooting. ‘The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just
slumped’.”)
21. Pierce Allman, (WFAA radio interview, Nov. 22/63. Allman says that
he thought the President was ducking from the first shot.)
That is not all. There are 48 witnesses who said that the last two shots
were close together. This necessarily means that the first shot struck
JFK because there is 5 seconds between the time he is reacting until the
last shot.
And there is more: about 22 witnesses put the first shot was after z191.
It is not possible to have two shots between 191 and 224 with Oswald
shooting the MC.
The problem is that most LNers don't bother to read the evidence. They
ridicule and belittle those who simply point out that this evidence
exists like John Fiorentino's "ludicrous" comment. I suppose when you
the evidence is against you, bully-type argument is all that is left.
Andrew Mason
John Fiorentino
responded to as yet.
There is no "bully-type" argument here Andrew.
John F.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:K6ednUVeQuRWjafV...@posted.sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
> On May 25, 3:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> "Lattimer is the guy who lied about the SBT and made JFK into a hunchback to get the back wound higher." <<<
>>> El-Oh-El.
>>> Why would he need to do such a silly thing (which he obviously never
>>> did anyway)?
>> Lattimer did precisely that by producing a bogus diagram. Tell us what
>> the downward angle of that trajectory is.
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/latsbt.gif
>
> A straight line connecting two wounds on a victim does not coincide with
> the trajectory angle of the bullet. Instead the direction of the line is a
> measure of the angular orientation of the victim. If they rotate the
> drawing x degree clockwise then the angle made by the connecting line with
> the horizontal increases by exactly x degree. Likewise a counterclockwise
> rotation of the drawing by 5.5 degree changes the 27 degree angle made by
> the connecting line with the horizontal to 21.5 degree.
>
Are you dealing with the Lattimer drawing or just speaking in general?
Naturally the angle can be changed if you tilt JFK forward, but Lattimer
did not. The angle he used was approximately 27 degrees. How did he arrive
at that angle? It does not match a downward trajectory from the sniper's
nest at any of the frames proposed for the SBT. Answer: He made it up to
match the downward angle through Connally's body.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/secantangle.bmp
>
> If a common bullet made the two wounds then the connecting line would
> represent a secant that would coincide with the trajectory only if the
> bullet transited without deflection. Under these conditions knowledge of
> the either the declination angle of the bullet or orientation angle of the
> victim enables an analyst to find the other angle.
>
Lattimer's SBT assumes no deflection.
Andrew Mason
Not only that, he has JFK so far to the right side of the car that the
side panel is practically to his spine. That is an impossible position. It
also does not look like a 12 degree angle which was the angle at z210 of a
line from the SN to the direction of the limo.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
> John Fiorentino wrote:
>
>> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on
>> numerous occasions.
>>
>> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot, then
>> WHERE did that bullet go?
>>
>> John F.
>
>
> John,
>
> What you are saying is that the recollections of these witnesses (16 of
> them):
>
> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>
> are ludicrous. I am just pointing out their evidence. You should tell
> them to change their recollections if you think they are wrong.
>
> The first bullet passed through JFK's neck. It ended up in JBC's
> stretcher with very little damage. How it got there is not entirely
> clear but it is the only missle that could have made a butt-first
> puncture wound in JBC's thigh. According the JBC, it did not strike his
> back. That is the evidence. You can figure out as well as I can what
> scenario fits that evidence.
>
There is nothing about the thigh wound which indicates it was hit by an
intact bullet, much less butt first.
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on
>>> numerous occasions.
>>>
>>> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot,
>>> then WHERE did that bullet go?
>>>
>>> John F.
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> What you are saying is that the recollections of these witnesses (16
>> of them):
>>
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>>
>> are ludicrous. I am just pointing out their evidence. You should tell
>> them to change their recollections if you think they are wrong.
>>
>> The first bullet passed through JFK's neck. It ended up in JBC's
>> stretcher with very little damage. How it got there is not entirely
>> clear but it is the only missle that could have made a butt-first
>> puncture wound in JBC's thigh. According the JBC, it did not strike
>> his back. That is the evidence. You can figure out as well as I can
>> what scenario fits that evidence.
>>
>
> There is nothing about the thigh wound which indicates it was hit by an
> intact bullet, much less butt first.
Are you saying that Dr. Gregory's evidence is nothing?:
Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the
rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to
believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact
missile.
How would a "remarkably round" wound by made by a bullet if the bullet
was not round (and therefore, intact)?
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> I asked some specific questions re: your scenario, which you haven't
> responded to as yet.
You apparently haven't read my post in response. I said:
"The first bullet passed through JFK's neck. It ended up in JBC's
stretcher with very little damage. How it got there is not entirely
clear but it is the only missle that could have made a butt-first
puncture wound in JBC's thigh. According the JBC, it did not strike his
back. That is the evidence. You can figure out as well as I can what
scenario fits that evidence."
By "bully-type" argument I mean an argument that is intended to
intimidate rather than persuade. If you wish to disparage a position
that is based on evidence, deal with the evidence. If you use terms such
as "ludicrous" or "riduculous" to describe such a position without
addressing the reasoning behind it, you are, perhaps unwittingly, using
a bully-type argument.
Andrew Mason
Andrew Mason
> Andrew Mason wrote:
>
>> John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> Your scenario is ludicrous Mason, as you have been informed on
>>> numerous occasions.
>>>
>>> So, let me ask you a question. IF JFK was struck by the ist shot,
>>> then WHERE did that bullet go?
>>>
>>> John F.
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>> What you are saying is that the recollections of these witnesses (16
>> of them):
>>
>> http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.pdf
>>
>> are ludicrous. I am just pointing out their evidence. You should tell
>> them to change their recollections if you think they are wrong.
>>
>> The first bullet passed through JFK's neck. It ended up in JBC's
>> stretcher with very little damage. How it got there is not entirely
>> clear but it is the only missle that could have made a butt-first
>> puncture wound in JBC's thigh. According the JBC, it did not strike
>> his back. That is the evidence. You can figure out as well as I can
>> what scenario fits that evidence.
>>
>
> There is nothing about the thigh wound which indicates it was hit by an
> intact bullet, much less butt first.
Are you saying that Dr. Gregory's evidence is nothing? (4 H 128):
Mr. DULLES. And in his thigh?
Dr. GREGORY. I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the
rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to
believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact
missile.
How would a "remarkably round" wound by made by a bullet if the bullet
was not round (and therefore, intact)?
Andrew Mason
>
John Fiorentino
So, let's play along. You have CE 399 as striking Kennedy then on to JBC's
thigh. (Which doesn't work ballistically, but let's leave that alone for a
moment)
Now please explain the rest of the bullet evidence, i.e., where the (other
bullet) you propose which hit Connally went. And please ID it among the
evidence pieces.
John F.
"Andrew Mason" <a.m...@dufourlaw.com> wrote in message
news:PdidnawTeb0jXKbV...@posted.sasktel...
Anthony Marsh
Conjecture is not proof. A bullet fragment can be as round as the butt
end of a bullet.