Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, Jean Davison, And The Beauty Of The SBT

71 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 4:45:36 PM1/6/07
to
WHY DID GERALD FORD "MOVE" ONE OF JOHN KENNEDY'S WOUNDS?

WAS FORD ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THINGS? OR WAS HE PART OF SOME MASSIVE
"COVER-UP" (AS MANY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BELIEVE)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location of
President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of
Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the CTers of
the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some
conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes.

But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound
(and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that
Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more
HARM than it does good!

I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this
fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by
Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").

Why does the "Ford Move" do the SBT more harm than good, you ask?

Well, for starters, there's this photo of CE903 (showing Arlen Specter
with a probe/rod being held up for the cameraman to photograph)....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

....We can easily see that the metal rod does not indicate that JFK's
back wound is in the "neck". It's definitely in the upper back; with an
exit point JUST EXACTLY at the tie knot, perfectly matching the SBT's
flight path.

This CE903 evidence is something that I had seen many times before; but
I hadn't really thought about its significance too much. Most CTers, in
their usual "Everything Must Be Faked/Phony" style, scoff at CE903,
claiming it proves the SBT is "impossible", for some reason....which is
obviously a kooky notion, because it proves no such thing.

In some recent postings at "The Education Forum", Jean Davison was
highlighting the significance of CE903, and reminding everyone who
would listen that the photo that is seen in CE903 actually does,
indeed, visibly show the general path/trajectory of the SBT, just
exactly how Specter (et al) purported it as happening.

And the CE903 photo is also is general agreement (location-wise) with
the autopsy photo showing John F. Kennedy's back wound....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg

To quote Jean herself:

"Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound HAD to be raised
to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's
single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's
simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the
wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of
the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that IS the WC's trajectory for the
single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the
back of the neck".

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My
question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision
in order to support the SBT?" -- Jean Davison; 12/31/2006

~~~~~~

"To my knowledge, {nobody} has ever explained how moving the back wound
up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving
the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not
strengthen it.

Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in
the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the
entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on
the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees --
that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the
re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under
JFK's Adam's apple.

Or take a look at this photo of JFK:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg

Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's
tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right?

The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
true.

If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison;
01/02/2007

~~~~~~

Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote
the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the SBT?

Just excellent!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b

Bud

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 8:00:36 PM1/6/07
to

David Von Pein wrote:
> WHY DID GERALD FORD "MOVE" ONE OF JOHN KENNEDY'S WOUNDS?
>
> WAS FORD ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THINGS? OR WAS HE PART OF SOME MASSIVE
> "COVER-UP" (AS MANY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BELIEVE)?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The subject of Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford "moving" the location of
> President Kennedy's back wound has come up quite a bit in the wake of
> Mr. Ford's death on December 26, 2006; with, of course, the CTers of
> the world highlighting how Ford supposedly "moved" the wound for some
> conspiratorial or "cover-up" purposes.
>
> But if CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound
> (and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they'd realize that
> Ford's moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more
> HARM than it does good!
>
> I hadn't really realized that fact until just recently....with this
> fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by
> Jean Davison (the author of the 1983 book "Oswald's Game").

Thanks for bringing this here, David. I was just searching the old
posts here of Jean`s for her comments on Ford moving the back wound,
but I couldn`t find the particular post I was thinking of. This point
is somewhat different than the one I was looking for (as I remember, it
had to do with Ford objecting to using "back" as a location on the
body, and also using "back" as the opposite of front in the same
sentence. He thought it needed to be written clearer, not changed, was
her point, as I remember it), but also interesting, as is most of what
Jean writes.

Exactly right. The wound in the autopsy photo is exactly where it
needs to be to support an 18 degree downward angle to the throat exit.
Occam wins again, don`t posit complex explainations where they are not
needed. Interesting how the WC version of the trajectory can be so
easily seen, what is the kook alternative? An entry wound to the throat
from the front that goes where?

> The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not
> true.
>
> If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison;
> 01/02/2007

Yah, you can only offer them water, you can`t make them drink. These
kook talking points get a life of their own, and are harder to kill
than Freddy Kruger.

> ~~~~~~
>
> Is it any wonder why I've always loved the woman named "Jean" who wrote
> the above common-sense-filled remarks re. Gerald Ford and the SBT?
>
> Just excellent!
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&st=60

You seem to be annoying the right people over there, David. Keep up
the good work.

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/252be5dd0610a57b

HistorianDetective

unread,
Jan 6, 2007, 8:26:50 PM1/6/07
to


Bud,

I particularly find interesting what she writes in Chapter
17...Conspiracy Thinking....

"Building a conspiracy theory is easy. One might say, it's what the
mind does best."


JM

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 1:20:48 AM1/7/07
to
In article <1168133210.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
HistorianDetective says...


However, providing the evidence of such conspiracy is far more difficult. It's
in the realm of *evidence* that we so brightly see the dishonesty that must be
involved in those who attempt to support the WC's theory.

No-one yet has been able to explain why the 'truth' needs lies to support it,
and both the WC and HSCA provably lied in their reports. The HSCA was
particularly blatant about it.

The small percentage of the American population that *ever* believed in the WC's
theory have even largely taken cover in a censored group. Embarrassing, isn't
it? To think that the "truth" needs such 'protection'. (Embarrassing too, that
the percentage of those who still believe in the lone assassin can so closely be
matched to the 'Elvis Factor')

The authors of the Constitution wisely saw that the best defense to a weakening
of freedom was a perfectly free press.

The posters at the censored group must have problems with that concept.

Message has been deleted

Bud

unread,
Jan 7, 2007, 7:21:07 AM1/7/07
to

The first thing out of his mouth is a stupid statement. Or does Ben
believe all the 9-11 conspiracy evidence? It`s easy to imagine
evidence, you only need claim a particular frame of the z-film doesn`t
look right to you, and place the onus on the opposition to prove you
wrong.

> It's
> in the realm of *evidence* that we so brightly see the dishonesty that must be
> involved in those who attempt to support the WC's theory.

Actually, it`s not the WC`s theory. The theory that Oz killed some
people that day was in existance before the WC was formed.

> No-one yet has been able to explain why the 'truth' needs lies to support it,
> and both the WC and HSCA provably lied in their reports. The HSCA was
> particularly blatant about it.

Ben is impressed with his ability to attack sitting ducks. Of
course, if the investigation was headed up by Ben Holmes, and conducted
to his specifications, thousands of zealots could still descend upon
it, and pick it apart.

> The small percentage of the American population that *ever* believed in the WC's
> theory have even largely taken cover in a censored group.

Does Ben think that the millions of people who believe that Oswald
alone was guilty are all huddled over on the moderated, afraid of him?

> Embarrassing, isn't
> it? To think that the "truth" needs such 'protection'.

Then Ben should really be ashamed for suggesting that the LN here
leave. And Harris should really be ashamed for wanting to set up a
moderated group to protect the CT here from LN attacks.

> (Embarrassing too, that
> the percentage of those who still believe in the lone assassin can so closely be
> matched to the 'Elvis Factor')

During the 60s, everyone "knew" you didn`t go swimming for at least
an hour after eating. Ben would be proud to be in the group that "knew"
this, since it was a majority.

> The authors of the Constitution wisely saw that the best defense to a weakening
> of freedom was a perfectly free press.

Of course they could never had envisioned the internet, where every
kook gets a soapbox.

> The posters at the censored group must have problems with that concept.

The posters on the moderated board are exercising their basic
freedom of choice. Is it possible they don`t care how a kook chooses to
chracterize this choice?


<SNIP>

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 5, 2007, 8:19:55 AM3/5/07
to
"Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck
by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0

http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_st_rd/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0060958103&store=yourstore&cdThread=TxNAB5QRHN187B&reviewID=RKSOWSBHINZSJ&displayType=ReviewDetail

luthie...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 5, 2007, 8:31:33 AM3/5/07
to
"On Jan 6, 4:45 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
WHY DID GERALD FORD "MOVE" ONE OF JOHN KENNEDY'S WOUNDS?

WAS FORD ATTEMPTING TO CLARIFY THINGS? OR WAS HE PART OF SOME MASSIVE
"COVER-UP" (AS MANY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BELIEVE)?"


Ford was in on it at least knew about it, and made damn sure he
pardoned his good ol buddy there Nixon, the dirtbag for the whole
watergate scandal, that the CIA tried to steal documents about the
Kennedy Assassanation. the break in by some miraculous coincidance by
this guy "Hunt" who was also tied to alot of other powerfull
individuals that i cant mention here, as well as Oswald.

as far as your majick bullet thingy.............your a moron!!!!!!

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 5, 2007, 10:46:44 AM3/5/07
to
I'm pretty sure now that Mr. "Luthier" is only pretending to be the
staunch, ignorant, silly-sounding CT-Kook he wants people to believe.

Because, lacking that explanation, I can't explain such irrational
paranoia....except to say it's....

irrational "Everybody Was Involved In The Plot" paranoia.

Wanna reveal the truth Luthier?

luthie...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 6, 2007, 2:21:21 AM3/6/07
to
Hey arch van popen, you nazi truth murdering midget, maybe you should
learn what your talking about before you go shooting off you big mouth
because all you do is make yourself real stupid, but since your ok
with that so am i............

http://www.watergate.info/
here is the watergate link, go educate yourself, notice the guy named
hunt, now im sure if you got any sense at all, the name should be real
familiar.

http://watergate.info/ford/pardon.shtml
check it out, this is where the now dead good buddy of ol nixon there,
pardons him from going to the big house, because think about it moron,
if that was me or you, where would you be.......

i cant believe your this big an idiot, do you really need me to go get
the watergate transcript references to the "bay of Pigs?"
because thats easy too stupid.

do your own homewood moron and stop existing on the cuflinks of
others...... im sure your real use to that...
man, i sure hope you arent married, because your ol lady is gonna be
long gone before you even know it, then you be wondering why caus your
such an idiot.

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 6, 2007, 2:36:33 AM3/6/07
to
>>> "i cant believe your this big an idiot..." <<<

Nor can I believe you're this big a one.

>>> "do you really need me to go get the watergate transcript references to the "bay of Pigs?"" <<<

Sure. It'll give you a break from the bottle and the needles at any
rate.

>>> "do your own homewood moron..." <<<

Homewood eh? Can that also be used in my fireplace?

Still haven't found that shift key I see.

>>> "i sure hope you arent married, because your ol lady is gonna be long gone before you even know it..." <<<

Will she be murdered by the JFK Mystery Death Squad perhaps? Or will
she simply leave me for a conspiracy kook? If so, good riddance.

PS -- Luthier is almost certainly an LNer. Because nobody can want to
look this stupid and asshole-ish on purpose.

Luthier -- Did you go by the name "Bride Of Groden" recently at
another Internet location? Sure sounds like it.

Happy deceiving, Luth.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 6, 2007, 7:00:00 AM3/6/07
to
My...how clever.

That weed is pretty potent tonight.

luthie...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 6, 2007, 7:10:33 AM3/6/07
to
thats the best you can do??? LOL
when someone mentions something over and over, especially drugs, thats
usually what they are doin......... so now i get it. you dont even got
a job.
in that case welfare dirtbag, stop crying, go paint some more
swastika's on your bedroom wall, and smoke another fattie.
Be thankfull that this government let you and your pathetic wannabe
family come into this country, because with a name like yours we
should of just shot first and asked questions later.
make sure you get to the grocery store and spend them foodstamps

luthie...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 9, 2007, 1:47:41 PM3/9/07
to
since you ran away from this post to, i will post it here for
you.............

"On September 8, 1974, one month after President Richard Nixon
resigned the presidency amid the Watergate scandal, his successor,
President Gerald R. Ford, announced his decision to grant Nixon a full
pardon for any crimes he may have committed while in office"

"Both events resulted from two of the worst scandals in American
political history: the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro T.
Agnew after he pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of income tax
evasion, and the Watergate affair, which ultimately led to the
resignation of President Richard Nixon"

""Nixon: When you get in these people when you...get these people
in, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the
whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that" ah,
without going into the details... don't, don't lie to them to the
extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a
comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, "the President
believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up
again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and
that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country,
don't go any further into this case", period!""

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist
in
New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred
and
written an Internet book about it."
If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck
Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.


hehe...
nixon's staff test. that nixon's "bay of pigs" is a codeword for "the
kennedy assassanation"
lets see if you can put this two and two together
why would ford pardon nixon for watergate........??????
maybee because he was involved in the cover up of the throat wound,
and they didnt want that to come out ..........
dont be so ignorant and naive


On Mar 6, 7:10 am, "luthier4l...@yahoo.com" <luthier4l...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > That weed is pretty potent tonight.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 4:22:11 AM3/26/07
to
WORTH REPEATING......

THE BEAUTY OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT #903......

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

Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection"
that exists in CE903.....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

The stand-in representing Governor Connally is wearing the exact same
jacket that JBC wore on 11/22/63....and that pointer/rod being held by
Arlen Specter, which is coming out of JFK's tie knot, is being placed
right smack-dab into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket in
CE903. ....

LYNDAL 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."

ARLEN 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."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

------------------

CE903 shows:

1.) Downward (back-to-front) angle of the bullet path (17 degrees).

2.) Upper-back JFK wound = Perfect.

3.) JFK exit wound at tie knot = Perfect.

4.) Entry wound on JBC's back = Perfect (jammed into the same hole on
JBC's exact jacket where a bullet just happened to penetrate his suit
jacket on 11/22/63, by gosh!).

5.) Exit wound on JBC's chest (under right nipple) = Perfect via CE903
as well.

Sum Total.....

No "zig-zag" path.
No "magic" bullet.
No "SBT conspiracy".

In short --- S.B.T. PERFECTION!

~MARK VII~

Walt

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:47:19 AM3/26/07
to
On 26 Mar, 02:22, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> WORTH REPEATING......
>
> THE BEAUTY OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT #903......
>
> ======================================================
>
> Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection"
> that exists in CE903.....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

Hey Von Pea Brain..... There are several of anomolies in the photo
that I'd like you to explain......


a) Why doesn't Specter have the rod on the right side of the "JFK "
and "JBC" so he can depict the true location of the back wound? He's
depicting the bullet as if it struck several inches higher than it
hole in JFK's shirt and jacket.

b) Why was an old Cadillac used from the demonstration, rather than a
Lincoln Continental Convertible?
The spacing between "JFK" and "JBC" is much closer in the Cadillac
than it would have been in the Lincoln.

Do you really believe that is is an accurate depiction of the
event?..... If You do ......I've got some swell tropical seashore
property in Nevada that I think you might be interested in .


Walt

luthie...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 1:46:27 PM3/26/07
to
He already bought it, hook line and sinker.....
what they fail to realize is......... a liar is a liar is a liar is a
liar...
they all lied, and why would they lie?? only a dumbass would take up a
liars cause
sooner or later, reality has to sink in, unless this is all a front
and they sit home at night and pat themselves on the back for a "nice
act" today because the bullshit they spew is paid for
"if the glove dont fit, you must acquit"
i think this concept has eluded them, because they still sit and push
the liars cause

> Walt- Hide quoted text -

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 7:57:23 PM3/26/07
to
>>> "Why doesn't Specter have the rod on the right side of the "JFK" and "JBC", so he can depict the true location of the back wound?" <<<

Specter does have the pointer/rod on the "RIGHT" side of JFK.

I guess you CTers would have preferred it if Specter had just gone
ahead and skewered the JFK stand-in with the metal rod, in order to
make the re-construction a little more precise...huh?


>>> "He's depicting the bullet as if it struck several inches higher than it hole in JFK's shirt and jacket." <<<

Which only goes to show that Mr. Specter wasn't a stupid kook like
you. He was basing the back wound (entry) location on the SKIN entry
hole ("14cm. below mastoid...")....NOT on the freaking clothes, as you
kooks want to do so badly.

And just look how things "line up" nice between the real photo of JFK
and CE903. Perfectly.....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm


>>> "Why was an old Cadillac used from the demonstration, rather than a Lincoln Continental convertible?" <<<

Because the X-100 (Lincoln) limo was unavailable for the FBI/SS/WC
tests on 05/24/64...that's why. And the WR fully states this on Page
97....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061a.htm

"Any differences {between the two limos} were taken into account" --
WR; Pg. 97

>>> "The spacing between "JFK" and "JBC" is much closer in the Cadillac than it would have been in the Lincoln." <<<

And you measured the exact distance yourself, did you? Let's see your
documentation (i.e., proof) to back up your assertion.

>>> "Do you really believe that is is an accurate depiction of the event?" <<<

Yes. Absolutely it is. It's as accurate as humanly possible, at any
rate.

The two stand-ins were seated in the same approx. positions as the
real JFK & JBC. As can be seen in CE903, the Connally stand-in is
seated lower than is "JFK". And the trajectory being plotted by
Specter's pointer is a perfect match for the SBT....which, as I said
previously, would be a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY if two or three bullets
caused all 7 wounds to both men on November 22nd.

Can't CTers see how UNLIKELY a NON-SBT shooting scenario is when
taking one look at CE903?.....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Even if CTers want to argue that the exact angle is off, or that the
entry holes are slightly off (and the CTers do want to argue these
things, of course)....the angle and wound locations are still mighty
close to the REAL McCOY, even via a CTer's eyes, are they not?

WHAT ARE THE ODDS that a team of THREE shooters could have peppered
the two victims in such an even-NEARLY-perfect "SBT"-like fashion (if
not spot-on perfect) and have the wound pattern on the TWO men align
so that Arlen Specter would even be able to BEGIN to propose this
trajectory for a SINGLE-bullet conclusion?......

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Plus: In any 3-Shot replacement theory, the CTers have to have ALL
THREE BULLETS just vanish too! (Assuming the CTer proposing the theory
believes that CE399 was a "plant"...which very nearly all
conspiracists do believe was the case.)

The chances are probably ZERO of such a non-SBT scenario having
occurred -- i.e., a non-SBT scenario which mirrored the SBT in so many
ways, right down to the number of bullets (1) being found that can be
associated with the double-victim wounding, plus the LACK OF BODILY
DAMAGE sustained by President Kennedy (so that the most-reasonable
explanation is to conclude that just one bullet went all the way
through the man).

The SBT fits.
To a tee.
Always has.
Always will.

Walt

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 8:10:51 PM3/26/07
to
On 26 Mar, 17:57, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Why doesn't Specter have the rod on the right side of the "JFK" and "JBC", so he can depict the true location of the back wound?" <<<
>
> Specter does have the pointer/rod on the "RIGHT" side of JFK.
>
> I guess you CTers would have preferred it if Specter had just gone
> ahead and skewered the JFK stand-in with the metal rod, in order to
> make the re-construction a little more precise...huh?
>
> >>> "He's depicting the bullet as if it struck several inches higher than it hole in JFK's shirt and jacket." <<<
>
> Which only goes to show that Mr. Specter wasn't a stupid kook like
> you. He was basing the back wound (entry) location on the SKIN entry
> hole ("14cm. below mastoid...")....NOT on the freaking clothes, as you
> kooks want to do so badly.
>
> And just look how things "line up" nice between the real photo of JFK
> and CE903. Perfectly.....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

>
> >>> "Why was an old Cadillac used from the demonstration, rather than a Lincoln Continental convertible?" <<<
>
> Because the X-100 (Lincoln) limo was unavailable for the FBI/SS/WC
> tests on 05/24/64...that's why. And the WR fully states this on Page
> 97....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0061a.htm
>
> "Any differences {between the two limos} were taken into account" --
> WR; Pg. 97
>
> >>> "The spacing between "JFK" and "JBC" is much closer in the Cadillac than it would have been in the Lincoln." <<<
>
> And you measured the exact distance yourself, did you? Let's see your
> documentation (i.e., proof) to back up your assertion.
>
> >>> "Do you really believe that is is an accurate depiction of the event?" <<<
>
> Yes. Absolutely it is. It's as accurate as humanly possible, at any
> rate.
>
> The two stand-ins were seated in the same approx. positions as the
> real JFK & JBC. As can be seen in CE903, the Connally stand-in is
> seated lower than is "JFK". And the trajectory being plotted by
> Specter's pointer is a perfect match for the SBT....which, as I said
> previously, would be a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY if two or three bullets
> caused all 7 wounds to both men on November 22nd.
>
> Can't CTers see how UNLIKELY a NON-SBT shooting scenario is when
> taking one look at CE903?.....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

>
> Even if CTers want to argue that the exact angle is off, or that the
> entry holes are slightly off (and the CTers do want to argue these
> things, of course)....the angle and wound locations are still mighty
> close to the REAL McCOY, even via a CTer's eyes, are they not?
>
> WHAT ARE THE ODDS that a team of THREE shooters could have peppered
> the two victims in such an even-NEARLY-perfect "SBT"-like fashion (if
> not spot-on perfect) and have the wound pattern on the TWO men align
> so that Arlen Specter would even be able to BEGIN to propose this
> trajectory for a SINGLE-bullet conclusion?......
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0...

>
> Plus: In any 3-Shot replacement theory, the CTers have to have ALL
> THREE BULLETS just vanish too! (Assuming the CTer proposing the theory
> believes that CE399 was a "plant"...which very nearly all
> conspiracists do believe was the case.)
>
> The chances are probably ZERO of such a non-SBT scenario having
> occurred -- i.e., a non-SBT scenario which mirrored the SBT in so many
> ways, right down to the number of bullets (1) being found that can be
> associated with the double-victim wounding, plus the LACK OF BODILY
> DAMAGE sustained by President Kennedy (so that the most-reasonable
> explanation is to conclude that just one bullet went all the way
> through the man).
>
> The SBT fits.
> To a tee.
> Always has.
> Always will.

Pathetic...absolutely pathetic.......

An intelligent adult man believing in utter nonsense. I'll bet your
looking forward to the Easter Bunny laying some colored eggs for
you...aren't you Von Pea Brain.

Walt

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 8:14:13 PM3/26/07
to
>>> "Pathetic...absolutely pathetic." <<<

Yes, you are.

You're the one who believes that THREE bullets did the damage to TWO
victims....with the end result = A pretty damn close SBT-like
trajectory & pattern...and THREE DISAPPEARING BULLETS.

Yeah....that's pathetic alright.

Kook.

Walt

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:07:20 PM3/26/07
to

I defy you to post proof that I ever once posted anything even
remotely like the scenario you attribute to me.


I believe Dr Crenshaw...who said before he died that he saw the wounds
on JFK that day and there was absolutely NO DOUBT that JFK was hit by
two bullets fired from the front. He saw the tiny little bullet
entry hole in JFK's throat and he saw the crease a bullet made as it
tore JFK's skull apart.

Walt

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 26, 2007, 9:20:37 PM3/26/07
to
<laugh> And Dr. Crenshaw's name appears on the Bethesda autopsy
documents....where again??? I can't find his name there.

Kook.

>>> "I defy you to post proof that I ever once posted anything even remotely like the scenario you attribute to me." <<<

Oh, yeah....that's right...I forgot for a moment, Walt. I'm sorry.

YOU'RE the kook who has just a mere TWO bullets "replacing" the SBT-
like wounds on the 2 victims....because you think the bullet going
into JFK entered from the FRONT and exited his BACK.

I think you're alone out in Kookland via that ludicrous theory,
though. Good luck getting some physical support for it. Or even
getting another CT-Kook to back you up on such silliness.

And: Good luck getting JFK out of that gunman's way, so that he could
fire a separate bullet into JBC's back. That one's gonna be tough too.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg

But, Walt (being an "inventive kook"), will figure out a way to move
JFK...and find a way to skew the doctors' and experts' testimony,
which said if the bullet that hit Connally hadn't gone through Kennedy
first, JBC's wounds would have been much more severe.

Walt = Pathetic (indeed).

David Von Pein

unread,
Mar 27, 2007, 12:31:55 AM3/27/07
to
Addendum........

I'd also like to know Walt's theory re. WHERE the gunman was located
who supposedly shot a thru-&-thru shot through JFK (from the front)?

And: How did this gunman avoid hitting John Connally with that bullet
(given the minimal "lateral" angle through Kennedy's body that this
bullet took)?

Evidently, John Connally must have shot JFK, per Walt's silliness. I
can't see any other possible shooter making that shot work. It
certainly wasn't a shot fired from the Badge Man/picket fence position
(given the path thru JFK's body). ....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg

Anyway, just make something up re. the "WHERE WAS THIS GUNMAN?"
inquiry, Walt. That type of approach usually satisfies you.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages