David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I am pretty confident that many of the autopsy images were altered,

More "altered" stuff, Denise? Yikes!

And you are confident in saying "many of the autopsy images were altered", despite the fact we find these words written on Page 41 of HSCA Vol. 7? ....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

11 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

But the CE903 trajectory isn't using the level of the chalk mark on the Kennedy model's back. See the CE 886 chalk mark in my post above. Specter can't use a trajectory from that level, because it would be an upward trajectory through Kennedy's body to exit at the throat, not a downward trajectory towards Connally's arm pit.

Just do an "eyeball" comparison yourself of where the "wound" is in these two pictures. It sure looks to me like Specter's got it pretty close to being right (even though he didn't drill the rod clean through the JFK stand-in). Do you really think Specter's north/south placement of the wound is way off here? ....

48 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

So I'm not sure where Specter got his angle trajectory from...

Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.

If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either.

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210.

But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.

Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been about 17 degrees downward).

The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903.

And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in:



More......

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3

2 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

No one has been able to pin point the Z-film frame for the SBT.

I think I have. It's Z224.*

* But, as some LNers prefer to say, the bullet was actually fired by Oswald from his sixth-floor sniper's perch at around Z222 or Z223. But I prefer to utilize Z224 as the "SBT frame" because it represents the first visual signs on the film of the bullet's impact upon the victims, via the Connally lapel bulge/flip....

I believe we're seeing the immediate signs of physical reaction on the part of both JFK and John Connally at precisely Z225 (below) -- via the various things that are happening to Governor Connally in that frame (shrugging shoulders, opening his mouth into what I'd call a grimace, and his head seems to drop down slightly too, which would be indicative of a normal type of "startled" kind of response). Plus, at Z225, we see JFK's open mouth....

Unfortunately, however, due to that damn Stemmons sign, we'll never ever know for sure whether Mr. Kennedy's mouth was open or closed at Z224, but I'd wager the farm that his mouth is probably closed in that frame. Which would mean, if I could prove it (which is impossible), that we'd then have the mouths of BOTH victims being closed in Z224 and then open just one frame later in Z225, which would most certainly be strong evidence of both men initially reacting to being hit by gunfire at the exact same moment in time.

Plus, there's the fact that John Kennedy's right hand appears to still be moving DOWNWARD between Z224 and Z225. (My thanks to researcher John Corbett for pointing out that interesting fact a few years ago.)

So that would indicate that Kennedy's hands have not even begun their upward swing toward his throat as late as Z225. We don't see the upward movement of JFK's hands until Z226, which is exactly the same frame we also see Connally's right arm raise up (which is easily identifiable by his white Stetson hat that's rising into the air)....

I challenge anyone (even a staunch conspiracy believer) to watch the real-time Z-Film clip below a few times in a row and then come back in here and try to tell me there's no way in the world this clip shows the two limo victims reacting to bullet wounds at the exact same time. If anyone does want to still tell me that after viewing this clip 12 times consecutively, I think they're only fooling themselves....

Denise said this in her new SBT article....

"In order for the SBT to work, the first entrance, into Kennedy, has to be at the level of the neck, not the back."

But that statement is just not accurate at all. And the proof that it's not accurate rests on Page 96 of WC Volume #18, which is where we find CE903, which has Arlen Specter demonstrating the trajectory for the Single-Bullet Theory, and the entrance wound in Kennedy is NOT up in the "NECK". It's in the upper back, just where this autopsy photo shows it to be (or at least very, very close to the exact "north/south" location of the entry wound seen in that autopsy photograph).

CE903:

Another very bizarre statement made by Denise Hazelwood in her new 2024 SBT article is this one:

"My own contention is that it was Connally (not Kennedy) who was struck by a bullet when the limousine was in the Z313 position."

In case anyone has forgotten (which is not likely at a forum like this one), this is frame 313 of the Zapruder Film.

Denise, based on her bold statement I just quoted, quite obviously thinks the Z-Film has been significantly altered and tampered with. I, however, disagree strongly with such a contention.

Today, BTW, is the 17th anniversary of the Bugliosi vs. Wecht debate [below]. The debate focused primarily on the SBT....

11 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

I would like to acknowledge, however, your incredibly excellent collection of videos from contemporaneous broadcasts and photos and other source materials that have been invaluable to researchers and that you have freely shared. So even though I disagree with your conclusions about the SBT and Z-film authenticity, I am grateful for your other work, which is quite impressive.

Thank you, Denise.

Also see:

More CE399 Banter.....

In addition to this envelope, there is also an often-overlooked document pertaining to the chain of custody of the Parkland stretcher bullet that appears on Page 800 of Warren Commission Volume 18. It's a copy of a typewritten note from Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen. In the note, Johnsen says the following:

"The attached expended bullet was received by me about 5 min. prior to Mrs. Kennedy's departure from the hospital. It was found on one of the stretchers located in the emergency ward of the hospital."

The note is not signed with a handwritten signature, but is "signed" in typewritten form in this manner:

"Richard E. Johnsen
Special Agent
7:30 p.m.
Nov. 22, 1963"

The original note, typed on White House stationery, was photographed at the National Archives by John Hunt in 2004 (pictured below).



Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written by Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically attached to the previously discussed envelope which contained stretcher bullet CE399. Hence the words "the attached expended bullet" at the beginning of the note. And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original note, which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left the White House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple holes (or possibly the staples themselves) which are seen in the envelope as photographed by John Hunt in 2004.

And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten words of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials being present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is documentation in the official records of this case that shows a complete chain of custody of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/Wright....to Johnsen....to Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.

Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain" of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about receiving the bullet from Rowley.

So, yes, maybe this issue about the chain of possession of the bullet will always provide fertile ground for continued debate and argument. It seems quite obvious that it will. (No issue in this case seems to ever go unchallenged by conspiracists, even the ones that have been thoroughly debunked by lone-assassin proponents over the years.)

But if a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
September 28, 2012

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

5 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

You said getting 399 into a court of law would be a piece of cake? I don’t think so… 

Thanks again, Ben, for a friendly and thoughtful reply. I disagree with your overall anti-SBT stance on the matter, but I appreciate your input.

In the final analysis, there are many things that add up (in my opinion) to the Single-Bullet Theory being the obvious and correct solution to explain the wounding of JFK and Connally---including analysis of the Zapruder Film, plus the complete lack of bullets in JFK's body at autopsy, the lack of any substantial damage to the interior structures of Kennedy's neck/back region, the pattern of bruises within JFK's neck, etc.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / SBT Zapruder Film Clips

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Ultimate In SBT Denial Among Conspiracy Theorists

28 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

How is Wade getting CE399 into evidence? 

By calling to the stand Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright, who will each say what they said in CE2011 --- and that is that CE399 looks like the same bullet they each saw at Parkland Hospital on 11/22. It's not a positive identification, that's true. But no court would expect those first two witnesses who touched the bullet to give a POSITIVE identification anyway, because neither man marked the bullet (nor were they expected by anyone to mark the bullet).

And then it will be established by Henry Wade at trial that Bullet CE399 was a bullet that was positively fired in the rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald....which also happens to be the same gun that was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building just 52 minutes after shots were fired into the President's limousine by that very same C2766 Carcano rifle (with that proof being provided by the introduction into evidence of CE567 and CE569, the two front-seat bullet fragments linked conclusively to Rifle C2766).

Given the totality of the bullet and rifle and shell (CE510) evidence which all corroborates each other and ties together and leads straight back to Rifle C2766, getting CE399 into evidence would be a piece of cake and is a piece of evidence that no trial judge would be inclined to exclude (except perhaps the corrupt Jim Garrison).

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

5 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Here's a question for David. Can you present a step by step estimation of the bullet's velocity every step of the way?

No, of course I can't. I can rely on what some of the experts had to say about that matter (even though some of them disagree with each other), but I certainly have no idea personally about such technical matters. I'm not a ballistics expert.

38 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My take is JBC is reacting, though not struck, by a probable shot somewhere around Z-221. It takes few tenths of a second to respond. The bullet may have pinged off of something inside the limo, plus the sound of gunfire jolted JBC. 

JBC testified shots were entering the cab of limo as if by "automatic weapons" fire. I thought he meant "semi-automatic weapons fire" but he repeated the exact phrase in both the WC and HSBC testimonies, and he was gun-savvy. 

I suppose it possible Z-221 is when JBC received his odd wrist wound, on the wristwatch side of his wrist. Such a wound is nearly impossible, from a slug first coursing through JBC's chest. But JBC did not testify accordingly. He seems not to know when he was struck in the worst. 

In any event, JBC recalls getting hit in the back and pushed forward. That is pretty blunt. 

Witness testimony is often iffy. But here the witness---and JBC seems to have all his wits---is testifying what happened to him after he felt a blow to his back. He was pushed forward by the blow.  He is not testifying about a fleeting glimpse of a car crash or shooting, some action at night, etc. 

I credit JBC's testimony. 

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Ben.

But aren't the simultaneous upward movements of JFK's arms and John Connally's right arm at precisely Zapruder frame 226 enough to make you consider at least the possibility that both limo victims were reacting at the same time and therefore were probably hit by the same bullet?

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My take is JBC is shot about Z-295

Then please explain why Gov. Connally jerked his right arm upward at Z226 (which just happened to be the same right arm/wrist that was struck by a bullet in Dealey Plaza, even though you say it won't be hit by that bullet for another 3.7 seconds)?

So, is it your opinion, Ben, that this arm-jerking is merely an odd coincidence that has nothing to do with a bullet striking the Texas Governor?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The slug was not tumbling as it struck JBC. 

You might be right. It doesn't really matter to me if the bullet was tumbling or went straight into Mr. Connally's body. Whichever way it happened, I'm convinced (for a whole variety of reasons) that one single bullet hit both JFK and Gov. Connally in Dealey Plaza.

8 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The bullet didn’t really create an elongated wound though. Connally’s clothing proves definitively he was hit almost dead on.

Some thoughts on this subject:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1147.html

9 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

What is the empirical, not circumstantial, evidence you base your assumption of Oswald’s guilt on? I want to know it. 

It's not just one or two things. It's everything in total --- including the incredibly important factor of evaluating Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and November 22nd, 1963. It seems as though many people just totally ignore the very odd and out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Oswald did on those two days.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Everything Oswald Did Indicates His Guilt

10 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

I never once mentioned the discussion of ludicrous theories,

Nor did I. A theory doesn't have to be "ludicrous" in order for me to think it's been "already debunked". A good example of that is all the stuff that's been written by CTers about Acquilla Clemons. Every single bit of the garbage ever written about Clemons has been misinterpreted and mangled by conspiracy theorists over the years.

Two other examples would be:

....The "Baker/Truly/Oswald second-floor encounter never happened at all" theory.

and

....The "Oswald never ordered or ever possessed Carcano Rifle No. C2766" fairy tale.

Both of the above theories, however, do indeed (IMO) belong in the "ludicrous" category. ("Super Ludicrous" actually.) Those are both the type of theory that reek of CTer desperation.

23 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Instead of including links to various web pages I thought we could discuss the evidence here, in an open and civil manner can’t we? I mean if you can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, my defense of Oswald surely would be easy and, dare I say it, enjoyable to destroy in such a public forum no? 

Well, yeah, sure. But one of the reasons to have a vast archive of JFK arguments and posts at your disposal (as I do at my blog sites) is so that every time the same old already-debunked conspiracy stuff comes up at JFK forums or in E-mail group discussions, the material can be easily accessed and a link provided. It sure does save a lot of keyboard-pounding and repetition. (But repetition does seem to be a common tendency when discussing the JFK case. I can certainly testify to that fact after 20+ years.)

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Also the whole Walker story relies solely on the testimony of Marina Oswald.

And she would never tell the truth, would she?

And what about LHO's notebook full of pictures of Walker's backyard, etc.? Was that all created by the patsy framers? Or Marina perhaps?

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

she could not testify against her husband in a court of law.

So what? That's totally irrelevant when discussing the facts here at the EF forum.

38 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

So let us look into the available evidence of this case. Would you like to start with CE142? Or CE399? 

How about if I tackle both at the same time? I've got tons of stuff already archived concerning both of those topics....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#The-Paper-Bag

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

21 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Not Donahue’s version, exactly, but yes. Donahue was on the right track, but he got the details wrong.

OK. Thanks for answering.

29 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

There is no comparison between Walker and Kennedy.

But from Oswald's POV (re: Cuba), there certainly would have been.

29 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

So in the final analysis, Oswald['s] supposed Motive is not known, correct? 

Correct.

14 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

What was Lee Oswald’s motive to murder President John Kennedy? 

Of course, as we all know, nobody can know with any certainty why Oswald shot JFK. All we can do is take guesses to try and answer the burning question concerning "Motive".

And I think the best guess is that Oswald probably killed Kennedy because he felt that by murdering the leader of the United States (i.e., Fidel Castro's bitter enemy in the early 1960s, particularly following the Cuban Missile Crisis), he would be aiding a person he greatly admired (Castro) and a cause he wanted very much to defend (Castro's Cuban Revolution).

But, at the same time, I've often wondered if Oswald himself really knew what his true motive was. And I wonder the same thing about Oswald's motive and mindset when it comes to his attempt on General Edwin Walker's life in April of 1963.

But the facts clearly indicate, regardless of the motive(s), that Oswald, who was very politically active in the year 1963, did in fact take shots at both of those political figures (Walker and Kennedy) in nineteen sixty-three in attempts to end both men's lives.

And each of those political figures was very much ANTI-Castro and ANTI-Communist in their beliefs, just the opposite of Mr. Oswald's ideology.
 

2 minutes ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

The "conspiracy" was the covering up of embarrassing Secret Service accidents...

Do you actually believe the "Hickey Shot JFK By Accident" theory?