Jump to content
The Education Forum
Gil Jesus

Why I believe the SBT is nothing but BS

Recommended Posts

David,

I am beginning to see why you might want to refuse to answer any questions on the medical evidence: you have no idea what it means.

Did you really think I would not notice this nonsense you have just posted about Commander Humes?

CE 385

RybergDrawingsCE385.jpg

First Humes points out that the entrance wound was higher than the exit wound. If so what is the wound we see on autopsy image of his back. It is below T1 and above T3. On CE 385 you can see the entrance is above Costa IR and Costa IR is at T1 level.

As I have pointed out to you numerous times – and you appear to either ignore or do not understand – CE 385 is a political document. It was created the way it was to support James Humes testimony. And one element of that testimony was to establish that CE 399 was able to wound the apex of the lung.

That is why you have cut out in the drawing demonstrating the bullet wounding the lungs apex.

I have some sympathy for Commander Humes but – even though he was not a forensic pathologist – he was medically competent doctor and fully understood Human Anatomy. And, though I seldom us the term I will here, here is one example where James Humes deliberately lies to the commission. Whether Specter understood that he was lying or simply did not understand the evidence being offered I do not know.

These drawings, as you very well know, may have been drawn by Ryberg, however everything in the drawings was at the instructions of James Humes. Ryberg, as he has placed in the public record, has stated he had no input to the content of the three drawings,

CE 385 Annotated

DamagetotheLung.png

So what is the problem? In order to establish the lung could be damaged by the bullet – especially taking into account the raised entrance point – the apex of the lung was raised. Images B, C show that the apex of the lung is slightly above Costa IR. Image F also shows that the apex of the lung is slightly above Costa IR but below the Clavical R. Image A which is one of the xrays taken that night labels these bones. Image A2, a clear image, lets you see that the lung’s apex was below Clavical R but slightly above Costa IR

However CE 385 has the lungs apex well above Clavical R – see image E. Humes, elsewhere in his testimony says these drawnings (created under his supervision) are accurate. Yet if you look at image E you will see the apex is at the level of trachea rings 3 & 4. That is well into the upper chest cavity. First the upper chest cavity – that is the area above the Clavicals – contains all the major veins and arteries and other important organs. Second one of the functions of the rib structure is to protect the lungs and heart. Which is why these organs and well inside the exteriors of this structure,

So where is the lie? In order to prove that CE 399 could damage the apex of the lung Humes has distorted the position of the lung. The point? I had a medical examiner look at CE 385 some time ago. It was pointed out to me that any human being whose lung was that extended that far above the rib cage and that high into the body would have a serious medical condition.

Are you suggesting that James Humes was not aware of the distortion within this drawing? If so I do not believe it. But here is a challenge for you. Take a copy of CE 385 to any competent medical practitioner and ask them what would be the implication for any human being if their right lung was positioned as Humes describes JFK’s right lung. I believe the answer you will get is the same as I got.

James

Edited by James R Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, at least, have the decency to call myself a "student" of the assassination, rather than a researcher.

For the record, I have never ONCE referred to myself as a "researcher". Never once. And you'll never find a post of mine where I use that word to refer to myself. Because, like you, I do not consider myself to be a "researcher". I'm not. I merely have a keen interest in JFK and his murder.

And just because somebody claims something is "impossible" or an "imaginary creation" (as many conspiracy theorists like to label the SBT), it doesn't mean I have to believe it's impossible too. And given the ALTERNATIVES to the single-bullet scenario, it's my opinion (not as a "researcher", but merely as a person with a little bit of ordinary common sense) that the SBT is the only conceivable correct conclusion to reach when evaluating the sum total of evidence surrounding the wounding of JFK and Governor Connally on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

The Warren Commission said CE399 hit both victims.

The HSCA said CE399 hit both victims.

Does James R. Gordon's analysis trump BOTH of the above-named organizations? I'm doubting it very much.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

CE385 is an approximation of the wounds and of the body structures of JFK. It's a DRAWING, for Pete sake. And it's not 100% accurate, and anybody can tell that it's not spot-on accurate by the angle of the bullet path in the drawing, which is not steep enough. But it's FAIRLY close.

And therein lies a big problem with the Warren Commission and its incredibly STUPID, DUMB, and IDIOTIC decision to not fully and extensively utilize the autopsy photos and X-rays during its investigation and during the testimony of witnesses like Dr. Humes.

Instead of relying on the BEST evidence available in the whole case for the medical testimony--which would be, of course, the autopsy pictures and X-rays--Earl Warren decides he cannot possibly bend his rule regarding the autopsy pictures even when Dr. Humes is on the stand, with Warren insisting that EVERY exhibit HAD to be made available to the public, and therefore he would not even make an exception with the autopsy pictures.

And Warren stuck to that ridiculous decision even though a very reasonable explanation could have quite easily been written into the final Warren Report to the public, stating that the Commission and the pertinent witnesses HAD seen and made proper use of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, but for reasons of good taste [and out of deference to the Kennedy family too], we, the Commission, are not publishing the gory autopsy pictures in these 26 volumes.

Why the above type of explanation could not have been written is a huge mystery to me, but Chief Justice Warren wouldn't hear of such a thing evidently, so we're left with those crappy Rydberg drawings, which have done much more harm than good to the finders of fact and truth in the JFK assassination than just about anything else I can think of, creating huge controversy over the wound locations where none would likely have existed at all if only the autopsy pictures would have been utilized by the Commission and by Dr. Humes during his testimony.

But, with that rant aside, the fact remains that President Kennedy's lungs and chest were NOT violated or punctured by any bullets. There were only BRUISES in those areas of JFK's body. You surely aren't DENYING that fact of "BRUISING ONLY" of those areas, are you James?

And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd.

Ergo, your fancy charts and detailed analysis in the JFK case are totally moot and meaningless. Unless you really want to believe that TWO bullets (or more?) went into JFK from different directions and yet caused NO major damage at all, and yet both of those bullets (or more?) somehow stopped on a dime inside the President's upper body -- and then disappeared, to boot!

Can ANY sensible person give any credence to such a multi-bullet theory? If so, please explain HOW you can do so with a straight face?

If I haven't made my point by now, should I try for a fourth time tomorrow?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

You comment about “crappy Rydberg drawings.” What on earth are you talking about?

Humes testified that Harold Rydberg was “a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator in our command at Naval Medical School.” He went on to explain how Rydberg created the three drawings. “The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed.” In addition to that, the descriptions and information that Humes gave to Rydberg were done from memory. Humes had no notes with him, nor did he have the autopsy images. It is understood he did not even have his autopsy protocol present.

They were not “crappy Rydberg drawings” they were “crappy Humes drawings.” Harold Rydberg had no input into the drawings, all input and information came from Humes and Boswell. So, in a sense, although Rydberg carried out the actual drawing, the real owner of these three drawings is Commanders Humes and Boswell. What is quite astonishingis, if we are to accept Humes description, is that four months had elapsed since the autopsy and yet he was able to instruct a corpsman on the details of a death that he had last worked on four months earlier. Yet to the Commission Humes made the following declaration:

Mr. SPECTER. Have you checked the drawings subsequent to their preparation to verify their accuracy?

Commander HUME. Yes, sir.

Though Humes goes on to comment about the problems of proportions he states – under oath – that these drawing are accurate and that he has checked that accuracy before coming before the Commission.

Are you really saying that the position of the lungs is a mistake that Humes did not see. And that after the bullet’s trajectory was drawn over it Humes still did not see the error with the lungs position.

In his Testimony Humes has made clear that in his mind CE385 is accurate and further that he has checked that accuracy before arriving at the Commission.

The position of the lung is a deliberate act by Commander Humes to underline a political point. He must have known medically that drawing was inaccurate but he states the drawing was accurate and he had checked it.

You go on to comment:

the fact remains that President Kennedy's lungs and chest were NOT violated or punctured by any bullets. There were only BRUISES in those areas of JFK's body. You surely aren't DENYING that fact of "BRUISING ONLY" of those areas, are you James?

And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd.

I am somewhat amused that you feel the above statements responds to my question how a bullet could transverse through JFK upper chest area. You reply is that it did because there was no damage. It is such an interesting comment because it is exactly what Humes said during his testimony.

But that is not the pertinent point. The point is that there should have been damage. A bullet traveling at 2000 ft per second should have created damage.

The SBT raises two questions.

a) How did the bullet get from entrance to exit without having to change direction? A question you have still not addressed.

Looking at the image below, how did the bullet not do any damage? You are aware the carotid artery is directly in the bullet’s path.

Body Image:-

Body_zps09ae443f.png

I am awaiting you fourth go.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that there should have been damage. A bullet traveling at 2000 ft per second should have created damage.

Okay.

Therefore, how did the bullet (or bullets) that YOU say must have hit JFK (within the confines of any anti-SBT theory you might want to present) manage to completely MISS all of his vital structures, like the lungs, the spine, the chest cavity, etc.?

In case you missed it, THAT was my whole point when I said this....

"And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd." -- DVP

I assume you DO believe President Kennedy WAS struck by at least one bullet in the region of the upper back and neck, correct James?

And you DO also accept Dr. Humes' conclusions that none of JFK's vital structures were punctured or directly struck by any bullet in his neck and upper back and chest, correct? Or was Humes lying about that fact? Do you think when they opened up Kennedy, there was a TON of damage to his chest and lungs that the three autopsy doctors just kept quiet about? Is that the explanation? Because lacking that kind of speculation on your part, I can't see where you can go with any of your charts and skeletal graphs. Because SOME bullet (even if it wasn't CE399) DID strike JFK in those upper regions of his body, right?

You surely don't want to posit a theory that has JFK hit by NO bullets at all in his back and neck regions, do you? From your past posts, it almost comes across as if you do want to believe such a theory.

Good heavens, even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the most vocal of all SBT critics, has no problem with a bullet transiting Kennedy's body. I wonder why Wecht hasn't seen the roadblocks that would have prevented a bullet from going all the way through JFK's upper back and neck? If anyone on this planet would want to use such an argument, you'd think it would be Cyril Wecht, who hates the SBT with a passion. And yet he's never once utilized any of the arguments presented in this thread by James R. Gordon. I wonder why not?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now, REALLY. Whose "theory" is preposterous?

Yours, of course. It's not even a close call as to whose theory is "preposterous". Yours is.

And all other anti-SBT theories are without foundation or reason (or bullets!) too.

Knowing the JFK case as I know you do know it, you should be embarrassed by these two quotes repeated below, Pat. Even I feel embarrassed for you when reading this type of tommyrot....

"CE 399 could be from the back wound." -- Pat Speer

"The throat wound could have been a fragment wound from the head shot." -- Pat Speer

Once again, David, YOUR saying something is embarrassing is meaningless. Please tell us WHY those statements are inaccurate. The FBI, as you know, claimed both that CE 399 caused the back wound and that the throat wound was a fragment wound from the head shot.

If one accepts that there were two entrances on the back of the body--one on the back and one low on the back of the skull--one should realize that NEITHER of these two wounds were probed to their supposed exits on the front of the body. Do you understand how INSANE that is? Autopsies are designed to identify and probe wounds. This was not done.

So how can you pretend YOU know what happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how can you pretend YOU know what happened?

And yet YOU, Pat, ARE allowed to pretend that YOU know "what happened", via your theories about head-shot fragments exiting the throat and CE399 coming from Kennedy's back wound and a bullet hole of entry in JFK's head that nobody else in the world can see, right? (Even though absolutely NONE of those theories is supported by any of the official investigations that looked into the case.)

The irony abounds (yet again).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to jump in the middle of this, where I have no skin in the game, but...

Despite certain reservations about the SBT, I do not concur that JFK is clearly hit before he goes behind the sign, and that JBC is clearly not hit until after he emerges from the sign. There are some good arguments against the SBT, but this is not one of them.

I strongly disagree. We are constantly told that we're supposed to listen to the experts. Well, in this case, the experts have concluded that Kennedy showed a response to being shot as he went behind the sign. And the experts weren't blowing smoke. This was clearly demonstrated in the video I wrote for Black Op last year.

The evidence for this was considered so convincing, in fact, that the HSCA sided with their photographic panel and ruled that Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign. They decided that "Well, geez, Connally must have been hit at this same time, and suffered a delayed reaction."

Then came Failure Analysis, and their conclusion Connally was hit at 224, as he came out from behind the sign.

Well, like rats from a sinking ship, the very same single-bullet theorists who'd accepted that Connally was hit with Kennedy before they went behind the sign started claiming "No, we meant that they were both hit as they came out from behind the sign." The earlier hit on Kennedy--a centerpiece of the HSCA's conclusions and a centerpiece of Vincent Bugliosi's case against Oswald in the 1986 mock trial--was made to DISAPPEAR. POOF.

The disappearance of the early hit from the LN theory is proof of its subjectivity, and lack of consistency. "Yeah, I see it--wait, if I see it, then there was more than one shooter, so NO, I don't see it--I mean, it's ridiculous--only a conspiracy wacko would say he saw it--I mean yeah I saw it but that was before I realized that my seeing it made me a conspiracy wacko--so NO, of course I don't see it."

So, NO, this isn't something we should just let go of, and pretend is inconclusive. The government's experts saw something and said we should see it as well. And it's there. And no pretending it's not will change that.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how can you pretend YOU know what happened?

And yet YOU, Pat, ARE allowed to pretend that YOU know "what happened", via your theories about head-shot fragments exiting the throat and CE399 coming from Kennedy's back wound and a bullet hole of entry in JFK's head that nobody else in the world can see, right? (Even though absolutely NONE of those theories is supported by any of the official investigations that looked into the case.)

The irony abounds (yet again).

You're 100% wrong, David. I don't pretend to know what happened. I DO KNOW the record, however, and what textbooks say about the medical evidence. You have never read any of these textbooks. You rely upon the CONCLUSIONS of flawed and/or dishonest reports, er rather, Vincent Bugliosi's desperate interpretations of these conclusions.

It comes down to this. Your chosen experts say 2 plus 2 equals 3. Bugliosi and yourself say SEE 2 plus 2 equals 3. When what you need to do is learn to READ, and do basic math so that you can see 2 plus 2 doesn't equal three.

And so I ask again. Explain to us, step by step, how this bullet passed through Kennedy and Connally while suffering so little damage. You can't do it. No one can. Larry Sturdivan TRIED to do it in his book but ended up embarrassing himself by writing a book that was totally at odds with his prior testimony--y'know, the testimony Bugliosi relied upon and referenced in his own book. OOPS.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for Pat Speer....

Why did JFK raise his arms up to a place near his throat/neck if he had not yet suffered a wound in his throat/neck yet? Because according to your theory, the hole in the President's throat wasn't even there yet when we see him jerk his hands up toward the area of his neck.

Do you think it was "Thorburn's" that caused the sudden rise of Kennedy's arms starting at Z226 of the Zapruder Film?

You obviously have no idea what my theory is.

As far as Thorburn...I suspect you know that that's long been debunked as a hoax. The "response" noted by Thorburn took place over a number of days. Lattimer was blowing smoke...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you really think..." is not evidence. You didn't provide any evidence, Mr. Von Pein.

Use some 3D--hell, even 2D would be an improvement for you--evidence to explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong.You cite the same old drivel every time. And when you refuse to answer a question, you counter with a question.

Now, if you don't allow for the structure of the human body under the skin--that is, if you use a mannequin--you MIGHT get the SBT to work. Except that, by acknowledging what the pathologists noticed...that T1 was nicked at worst, that the lung was bruised but not punctured, and that the "exit" was at or near the center of the throat to have damaged the trachea...you MUST account for the "turn" of the bullet that Mr. Gordon shows MUST have happened if the SBT is true.

You haven't done that. I don't think you CAN do that, based upon the evidence...not ONLY the medical testimony in the WC report, but the very construction of the human body. And answering a question with a question isn't evidence. I suggest that the reason you do this is because you're afraid that you might prove your pet theory to be flawed...or, heaven forbid, flat-out wrong.

I don't believe in fantasy gunmen firing from 47 different points in Dealy Plaza. I don't believe everything I read, from either the government OR from conspiracy theorists. But I believe that Mr. Gordon's analysis of bullet paths has validity, based upon the condition of T1 and the bruising, but lack of puncture to the lung.

I'm asking you something that SHOULD be simple: use actual human physiology to prove Mr. Gordon wrong. Do some study; do some research; find the flaw in Mr. Gordon's work. I've done some preliminary research, and I don't find the flaw...if it exists.

"Where did the bullet go?" is NOT research. For the discussion at hand, let's forget the final destination of the bullet/bullets and concentrate on how the bullet traversed JFK's body. Just show me that the path of a single bullet, as told by the SBT, is possible, traversing the torso and creating ONLY that damage acknowledged by the pathologists in the WC report, the Clark Panel, and even the HSCA investigation.

Don't TELL me; show me. Mr. Gordon is showing me [and you] how the SBT simply CAN'T be true. Show me how it CAN. Don't tell me what "must've" happened; show me how it happened, using actual human physiology. If you believe Mr. Gordon is wrong, as you obviously do, SHOW us where he is in error.

I'm betting that you won't. I'm betting that you can't. If you can prove Mr. Gordon is mistaken, or that his evidence is in error...PROVE IT.

While I respect and appreciate James Gordon's contribution on this issue, this is not new ground. Dr. John Nichols in the seventies and Dr. Mantik in the 90's argued that the bullet would have to have struck the spine to travel along the route proposed by the SBT. Nichols' article was published in a prestigious medical journal, for that matter. It was never countered. But it was allowed to fade away. The HSCA FPP signed off on the SBT with the proviso that it happened while Kennedy was behind the sign, at the same time the HSCA photo panel said Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign. The HSCA's staff got around this, however, by hiring someone to move Kennedy's back wound back to its location in the Rydberg drawings. This was demonstrated in my presentation last November in Dallas.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11%3Athesingle-bullettheory/government%20transparency.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that there should have been damage. A bullet traveling at 2000 ft per second should have created damage.

Okay.

Therefore, how did the bullet (or bullets) that YOU say must have hit JFK (within the confines of any anti-SBT theory you might want to present) manage to completely MISS all of his vital structures, like the lungs, the spine, the chest cavity, etc.?

In case you missed it, THAT was my whole point when I said this....

"And since there was positively NO MAJOR DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck and upper back, it means that NO BULLETS (no matter how many you think struck the President) hit the lungs or punctured the chest cavity of John F. Kennedy on November 22nd." -- DVP

I assume you DO believe President Kennedy WAS struck by at least one bullet in the region of the upper back and neck, correct James?

And you DO also accept Dr. Humes' conclusions that none of JFK's vital structures were punctured or directly struck by any bullet in his neck and upper back and chest, correct? Or was Humes lying about that fact? Do you think when they opened up Kennedy, there was a TON of damage to his chest and lungs that the three autopsy doctors just kept quiet about? Is that the explanation? Because lacking that kind of speculation on your part, I can't see where you can go with any of your charts and skeletal graphs. Because SOME bullet (even if it wasn't CE399) DID strike JFK in those upper regions of his body, right?

You surely don't want to posit a theory that has JFK hit by NO bullets at all in his back and neck regions, do you? From your past posts, it almost comes across as if you do want to believe such a theory.

Good heavens, even Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the most vocal of all SBT critics, has no problem with a bullet transiting Kennedy's body. I wonder why Wecht hasn't seen the roadblocks that would have prevented a bullet from going all the way through JFK's upper back and neck? If anyone on this planet would want to use such an argument, you'd think it would be Cyril Wecht, who hates the SBT with a passion. And yet he's never once utilized any of the arguments presented in this thread by James R. Gordon. I wonder why not?

Do the research, David, and you will see. Most wounds observed by civilian forensic pathologists are handgun wounds. A handgun bullet might transit a neck while leaving little damage. Not so a full-metal jacketed bullet traveling at full velocity. It will shear veins and arteries and shred trachea.

The HSCA FPP waas made up of civilians, none of whom knew anything about military rifle wounds. This was acknowledged by Petty and Baden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

You made the following point.

“And you DO also accept Dr. Humes' conclusions that none of JFK's vital structures were punctured or directly struck by any bullet in his neck and upper back and chest, correct? Or was Humes lying about that fact? Do you think when they opened up Kennedy, there was a TON of damage to his chest and lungs that the three autopsy doctors just kept quiet about? Is that the explanation? Because lacking that kind of speculation on your part, I can't see where you can go with any of your charts and skeletal graphs. Because SOME bullet (even if it wasn't CE399) DID strike JFK in those upper regions of his body, right?”

I am not letting you away with that nonsense. I never said that when the body was opened up there was a ton of damage. And I agree, with reservation regarding the lung and C7, that there was no major damage inside the body. But that is the critical point and that is the weakness of the SBT. There should have been significant damage had CE 399 traveled through JFK’s upper chest area.

Pat Speer highlighted the pertinent point:

“Do the research, David, and you will see. Most wounds observed by civilian forensic pathologists are handgun wounds. A handgun bullet might transit a neck while leaving little damage. Not so a full-metal jacketed bullet traveling at full velocity. It will shear veins and arteries and shred trachea.”

I could not have said it better myself. I agree that you are not to blame for this mess, blame rests firmly with the Warren Commission and the HSCA who never bothered to consider the medical implications of the SBT.

Your problem is that you are in denial to any evidence that questions the WC outcomes. A programme you have commented on, and I agree with you on its merits is Nova’s Case Cold. That program illustrated the destructive of this bullet. With gelatin it even showed what would happen to muscle and soft tissue. Such damage should have been evident. There should have been significant damage to the vessels and arteries on its route to the throat. One of which was the carotid artery. One thing we know about high velocity bullets is that during their travel through a body they push material through the damaged area thus causing a larger exit wound. John Connally's chest wound is a good example. However, this bullet is the exception to that rule. The diameter of the exit wound was smaller than the diameter of the bullet.

I will leave with two questions.

Question 1:-

Body_zps09ae443f.png

How could a Full Metal Jacket bullet pass through all that and leave no trace aside from a bruise on the lung’s apex and a bruise on the right strap muscle? Google’s image bank is perfuse with examples of the damage FMJ bullets do. But you are trying to persuade that on this occasion that did not happen.

Question 2:-

JFKImage2_zps97efa906.png

How could this bullet get from entrance to exit? This was not an issue that was dealt with by the WC. It was given no thought, yet it is at the heart of the SBT. Nor did the bullet have to change direction once: it had to change direction twice. LN’s had considerable fun at the expense of magic bullet supporters when they talked about “zigging and zagging” of the bullet. However that is exactly your position. In order for the bullet to get from entrance to exit it has to zig and zag. There is no other means open to it.

So how is that possible?

James.

Edited by James R Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to jump in the middle of this, where I have no skin in the game, but...

Despite certain reservations about the SBT, I do not concur that JFK is clearly hit before he goes behind the sign, and that JBC is clearly not hit until after he emerges from the sign. There are some good arguments against the SBT, but this is not one of them.

I strongly disagree. We are constantly told that we're supposed to listen to the experts. Well, in this case, the experts have concluded that Kennedy showed a response to being shot as he went behind the sign. And the experts weren't blowing smoke. This was clearly demonstrated in the video I wrote for Black Op last year.

I respect your opinion on this, and those experts who share your opinion, but I still disagree.

Years ago, when we were working from jumpy optical copies of the film, I was unsure. I don't believe it is possible to determine with precision the moments of impact from still frames. When much clearer, closer to the original versions of the film became available, and especially versions reframed to minimize the jumpiness of the film, it became easier to focus on the movements while in motion. I am not able to see, with any degree of certainty, a pre-sign reaction which I could interpret as "obviously hit."

I have reservations about several things, especially CE399, but I now think that the observation that JFK was hit before going behind the sign is not a strong argument. Not strong enough to be sure. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Thorburn...I suspect you know that that's long been debunked as a hoax. The "response" noted by Thorburn took place over a number of days. Lattimer was blowing smoke...

On this point, I tend to agree with you ....

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-arm-raising.html

Edited by David Von Pein

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

×
×
  • Create New...