David Von Pein

John Connally's Lapel

243 posts in this topic

Oswald never had a gun.

That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die the agonizing death it deserves (just like dozens of other such conspiracy-oriented myths and fairy tales).

The truth is, of course, that Lee Harvey Oswald's purchase and ownership of Carcano Rifle #C2766 and Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 have been established and proven beyond all possible reasonable doubt (and in many different ways, to boot), as I demonstrate at the links below....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

""That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die" As you well know, the major conspiracy theory about the assassination is the WCR. We all know that 'a' rifle was ordered by A Hidell. We also know that 'the rifle' ordered by him is not the rifle that was used as the plant in the SBD. It was similar, but distinctlvely different.

"Oswald's bullet" should be more accurately referred to as Jack Ruby's bullet. He's the one that delivered it to Parkland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been no debate on the SBT and John Connally's lapel. David Von Pein's posts - throughout these 14 pages - have drowned [out] any chance for fellow members discussing this issue.

Huh? Why on Earth would you say such a thing, James?

How is it that my posts regarding various other issues connected with the SBT and John Connally's reactions in the Z-Film --- which are issues that YOU yourself have commented on repeatedly in this thread --- are prohibiting other members from steering the conversation back to my thread-starting title -- "John Connally's Lapel"?

Are all other Education Forum members now somehow gagged? And are they somehow forced to keep quiet about the "lapel" even though this thread -- like all forum threads almost always do -- drifted away from the "lapel" topic and focused more on Connally's other reactions as seen in the Z-Film?

I'm afraid I'm forced to do another one of these (and it's almost as noticeable as the one John Connally can be seen doing in the Zapruder movie)....

~ SHRUG ~

This thread is focusing my interest on [an] issue that - at the moment - I do not have an answer to. The issue is this: at what point does a member's right to post and discuss limit the rights of other members to also discuss[?] Is there a point where the rights of other members override the rights of any individual member?

Time for another one of these....

~shrug~

Although this thread has reached 14 pages, there has been no serious debate on the issues. And what I do not know is where is the line between every member having his/her right to post and the point where an individual's right to post in [is???] limiting fellow members right to debate and discuss.

I do not have an answer to this problem at the moment.

I think a better question is:

Why is James Gordon inventing a "problem" where none seems to exist at all?

Fellow members are still free to post anything they want. (Aren't they, Jim?)

And fellow posters can steer the debate back to ONLY the topic of "John Connally's Lapel" if they want to. Right?

So what IS the "problem"? I see none--other than a "problem" being manufactured by an administrator named James Gordon who seems to have a desire to FIND some kind of "problem" with an Education Forum member he vehemently disagrees with named David R. Von Pein.

And, btw, even though I gave this thread the title of "John Connally's Lapel", everybody can easily see that in the thread-starting post, I talk about a whole lot of OTHER stuff besides just the "lapel". So, in reality, this thread HAS remained pretty much on course and on the rails when the TOTALITY of everything I discuss in my thread-starter is taken into account (the actual title of the thread notwithstanding).

Everyone is free to disagree with my next comment if they so desire, but....

Based on the comments I just quoted above by James Gordon, it sounds to me like James is trying his hardest to steer the topic back to ONLY the area of "John Connally's Lapel" and keep the discussion AWAY from some of Connally's other reactions seen in the Z-Film (e.g., the flinching, the grimace, the arm raising, etc.). And the only reason I can envision James wanting to do that is because he knows--deep down--that his posts in this thread have been totally defeated and flattened by my counter-arguments and various GIF clips proving that James is 100% wrong about his interpretations concerning Governor Connally's movements in frames 224 to 227 of the Zapruder Film. (IMHO.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't think so, David. He is as much firm in his opinion as you are yours. He removed posts, and told you why, so that should suffice. He would admit he was wrong if he felt he were. That has been demonstrated. He's pretty open.

I suggest you just continue with your thread theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He [James R. Gordon] is as much firm in his opinion as you are yours.

Exactly, Kathy.

And who among us enjoys seeing our opinions (and beliefs) smashed to bits by somebody else on a public forum for many other people to witness?

A "firm opinion" (even if it's an inaccurate one) is difficult to soften. Wouldn't you agree, Kathy?

He [James G.] removed posts, and told you why.

He did? Where?

I must have missed that post by James.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize. He just told you he removed them., and explained why he removed Mark's.

(I am sorry to keep coming in here. I only do a quick fly through any more on these forums.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize. He just told you he removed them., and explained why he removed Mark's.

(I am sorry to keep coming in here. I only do a quick fly through any more on these forums.)

OK, Kathy. Thanks.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wind? The wind 'puffed' his lapel outward? The wind? That's the best you can do?

Gee, I thought I was doing pretty good---what with all this stuff linked below that can't possibly be reasonably refuted. It can only be attacked by CTers who want to whine about the Z-Film being faked; but that's not a "reasonable" argument, so it can be dismissed right away....

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT

Oswald's bullet? Fired from the 2nd floor break room?

Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

And just how do you think those 2 large fragments from "Oswald's bullet" managed to find their way into JFK's car if Oswald's gun wasn't being used that day to shoot bullets at Kennedy?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

And can you tell me who was MORE LIKELY to be using Oswald's gun on Nov. 22 (or any other day) than Oswald himself?

"Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63." He was until recently, Since Truly and Baker both saw him there at that time. Have you now found out that he was somewhere else? Oh, maybe you think he was in the Dal Tex building?

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

He was until recently...

"Until recently"? You mean Oswald was in the lunchroom until just last week (or maybe last night)? That's amazing.

Since Truly and Baker both saw him there at that time.

They didn't see Oswald in the lunchroom at exactly 12:30. They saw him there a couple of minutes later after Oswald shot the President from the sixth floor and then hurried down the back stairs.

And to pre-empt your next argument, Vickie Adams' testimony doesn't pave the way for Oswald's innocence either. Here's why -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

It's funny to note that the conspiracy theorists don't think Lee Oswald had a prayer of getting from the sixth floor to the second floor of the Book Depository in 90 seconds, and yet those same conspiracists don't have any problem at all believing that the two women (Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles--wearing high heels too) could go from the 4th floor to the 1st floor in just 60 seconds.

And the difference in the distance travelled is just one floor (with Oswald needing to travel down four flights--from 6 to 2--while the girls need to go down three flights--from 4 to 1).

I guess the CTers just can't believe that Oswald could have traversed that ONE extra flight of stairs (and hid the rifle near the stairs) in the 30 seconds that separates LHO's time from the time the CTers like for the girls so much (1 minute flat).

Ironic, huh?

Have you now found out that he was somewhere else? Oh, maybe you think he was in the Dal Tex building?

No, he wasn't in the Dal-Tex. He was just where Howard Brennan saw him---on the sixth floor of the Depository firing a rifle at President Kennedy.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion2.gif

First word he uttered was "Whoa"?

Like when something nearly hits you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

I assume you are talking about the violent reaction. What you are seeing is Z frame 226 which is partially blurred and 227 which is extremely blurred.

Run those two frames after 224 and 225 which are reasonably clear, you are going to get an unexpected result.

That movement - if that is the movement you are talking about - has nothing to do with Connally reacting to being wounded. It is the consequence of using blurred frames in a gif sequence.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, he [John B. Connally] is obviously wincing in pain. His right hand flips quickly, his mouth opens in agony, his eyes shut in pain. I don't know what blurred frames have to do with changing that truth. I'm trying to understand your point but I am not able to do so.

Amen, Mark.

And this slo-mo GIF shows Connally's initial involuntary reactions even better (this clip ends at Z225, before the arm/hat flip starts).....

Z-FilmClipSBTInMotion3.gif

And then, just one frame later, the arm/hat flip at Z226, which just happens to be the EXACT same frame when President Kennedy starts raising his right arm too. The right arms of the two victims who were shot that day are jerking upward simultaneously. If this isn't a good solid indication that both Kennedy and Connally were hit by the very same bullet, then what is? ....

109Z225-Z226TogglingClip.gif

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

See the image below.

Z 224 + 225 are reasonably clear frames. Therefore running them in a gif will give an accurate account of the content of the frames translated into movement.

However Z 226 is a little blurred. When the gif comes to translate that it may well include errors because the image is not very clear. That said, I expect a reasonable proportion of the data in the image will still be translated.

Now Z 227 is totally blurred. What can the gif make of that image. However it has to be translated into movement and that is why you get that massive reaction that you earlier say that if members don't see what is going on there, then there is nothing to say.

However, what is going on is the gif trying to analyse and make sense of a frame that is extremely blurred and whose data points - like Connally's head - are difficult to describe and is also in a radically different position. That is the reason you get that massive movement. It is not Connally moving it is the gif trying to analyse very blurred frames and make sense of them.

That is what I mean.

Blurred Frames:-

Blurred%20Frames_zpsxuaalyab.jpg

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But James....

Once we get to the blurry frame 227, it's all over with anyway. I.E., Connally's already been hit and he has ALREADY reacted back there in the clearer frames (Z224-225-226).

So what makes the difference whether Z227 is clear or not? The cat's already out of the bag (so to speak). Connally's already been wounded prior to Z227, and he is visibly REACTING to being hit by the bullet in the clearer frames (Z224-226).

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

I was not talking to you. My post was trying to answer a question Mark's raised in post 230.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

I was not talking to you.

Yes, I know that. I answered anyway. Is that against forum rules now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now