Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

Recommended Posts

Bob,

Dale Myers' computer model (which is aligned with the Z-Film itself) shows how far Governor Connally is turned to his right when the SBT bullet struck. It's difficult to tell exactly how much to the RIGHT Connally is turned when JUST looking at the Z-Film. I certainly can't tell how many "degrees" to the right JBC is turned at Z224 by merely watching the Z-Film. But Myers has locked his computer animation right to the Zapruder Film itself. So this is the most accurate 3D rendering we're likely to ever get....

FromDaleMyersAnimation11.jpg

FromDaleMyersAnimation14.jpg

FromDaleMyersAnimation21.jpg

Other still images here -----> With--Malice.blogspot.com

But VP, the upper right photo above shows the trajectory into the left side of JFK"S spine. Not into the right side. kinda interesting trajectory into JC's back also. Where did that bullet trajectory originate, the Courthouse on the South Side of Main street?

"Good heavens, what more proof do you require?" What more? it's the prosecution side that has to supply proof, get busy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

That Z201 trajectory is a still image from Myers' "trailer" for the DVD that was never released. When viewed as a motion sequence, those two "cones" will merge together and form just one trajectory that leads back to the Oswald window.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the bullet avoid going through the vertebrae, Dave? Magic?

Well, Bob, all I can say is....

You are obviously incorrect in your analysis. Simple as that.

Also....

The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel had no problem with the bullet going clean through JFK's body. Nor did the autopsy doctors have any difficulty arriving at such a "thru-&-thru" conclusion (after Dr. Humes talked with Dr. Perry on the morning of November 23rd, that is).

But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck.

You think you know more than TWELVE different pathologists, Bob? Please enlighten me on WHY you think that.

And here's another panel which concluded something that Robert Prudhomme thinks could have only resulted from "magic". So this brings the total number of doctors that Bob P. needs to ignore up to sixteen....

Quoting from the Clark Panel Report (emphasis added by DVP).....

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.

There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity.

Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report."

[END QUOTE.]

These excerpts deserve a replay and lots of extra emphasis:

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found."

"Any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

---------

"But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck."

Yep, if you see a bullet path thru JFK's neck then it's your lying eyes that are deceiving you. You can't show any photo that shows the back shot anywhere except about 5 inches down to right of spine. Put on another one of those 6 sets of eyeglasses you just bought, then look again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

Why are you totally ignoring all of those Clark Panel quotes I just posted? Particularly this one....

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." -- Clark Panel; 1968

Why did you ignore that quote, Ken? Do you think you know more than the four medical doctors who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays for the Clark Panel in 1968?

~~patented DVP shrug~~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RELATED COMMENTS......

While re-reading a few portions of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" today, I came across something that I don't remember having seen before. This happens to me frequently when revisiting parts of Bugliosi's immense JFK book---I'll find something that seems brand-new, even though I read the book in its entirety years ago.

But this habit of "revisiting" Vincent's book from time to time is usually a worthwhile exercise, because since the book is so large, some stuff in it is bound to be forgotten or overlooked after going through it just once (or even twice).

Here's the interesting segment from today's "re-reading" of page 790 of Bugliosi's tome:

"In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found inside a box." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 790 of "Reclaiming History"

Sources used by Bugliosi for the above quote:

CD 578, March 7, 1964, FBI Exhibit D-85; and

7 H 195, WCT Richard S. Stovall.

In addition to the sources shown above, one other source concerning this subject that Bugliosi didn't mention is Commission Document No. 7, Page 388.

So, we can see HERE that there were two separate clipped portions of two different Klein's magazine advertisements found among Lee Oswald's possessions in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, both of which are nearly identical to the order form that Oswald used to order his rifle from Klein's in March of 1963 [seen in CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 8].

CE773.jpg

This particular topic of two nearly identical Klein's order forms being found among Oswald's belongings the day after President Kennedy was assassinated is something I don't recall being discussed too much (if at all) among JFK researchers.

I wonder how the conspiracy theorists who think Lee Oswald never ordered the rifle from Klein's are able to combat this additional "Klein's" evidence that was found in Ruth Paine's garage the day after the assassination?

Do those theorists want to believe that those blank Klein's order forms were planted in Paine's garage in order to help frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder? Or do the CTers who know about this "Klein's" evidence found in Commission Document No. 578 simply shrug it off as being irrelevant and immaterial entirely?

But it is rather revealing to have in evidence those two other "Klein's" order forms, seeing as how Klein's in Chicago is the exact same mail-order company that sent a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to a post office box in Dallas that was being used at the time by a certain Mr. Lee H. Oswald.

The clippings seen in CD578 provide further physical evidence tying Lee Harvey Oswald to Klein's Sporting Goods.

Footnote/Addendum....

Vincent Bugliosi's verbiage in the quote I cited above isn't quite 100% accurate. Vince says that "portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found" in Ruth Paine's garage. (Emphasis added by DVP.)

The words "for the rifle", however, do not apply in that quote, because as we can see in the links I provided earlier, the Klein's clippings are not ads "for the rifle" that Oswald ultimately ended up receiving from Klein's in late March of 1963. The clippings only show two blank Klein's order forms.

So, Mr. Bugliosi has overstated the facts just a little bit in that quote I cited. The proper way for Vince to have said it in his book would have been this way (IMO)....

"In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads were found inside a box."

I'm sure the discovery of another small error in Vince Bugliosi's book will make some conspiracy theorists jump for joy, because they can now claim once again that Vince deliberately "lied" to his readers on page 790 of "Reclaiming History", with a determined and calculated effort being made by Bugliosi to deceive them.

I, of course, will choose to categorize Vincent's "for the rifle" mistake in a different manner, as I have done when confronted with the "Bugliosi Is A xxxx" brigade in the past as well.

David Von Pein

November 28, 2014

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

THE KLEIN'S ADS (PART 2)

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

DVP actually you first read the Bug's book in 03, right? About 4 years before it was published, right? And you have been shot down so many times on any factual matter you claim from the book that I'm surprised you are not ashamed to even mention the book again. Must have been visiting the pigpen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have been shot down so many times on any factual matter you claim from the book...

And those many times I have been "shot down" would include....?

Try to cite just one.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

Why are you totally ignoring all of those Clark Panel quotes I just posted? Particularly this one....

"The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." -- Clark Panel; 1968

Why did you ignore that quote, Ken? Do you think you know more than the four medical doctors who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays for the Clark Panel in 1968?

~~patented DVP shrug~~

Because when someone starts talking about a bullet passing through the throat from the back, my BS alarm sounds. There are no autopsy photos that show that a shot went through the throat from the rear, uh well, at least none of JFK's autopsy photos. But then, you know that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, the four Clark Panel doctors (Fisher, Morgan, Carnes, and Moritz) were all liars? Is that what you think?

Or were those four men just piss-poor at evaluating X-rays and photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have been shot down so many times on any factual matter you claim from the book...

And those many times I have been "shot down" would include....?

Try to cite just one.

"For example, Von Pein responded to the first part of my Reclaiming History series by questioning my analysis of whether or not Oswald could have ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that is in evidence today. I spent several paragraphs in part one of my critique showing that in view of all the evidence, it is highly unlikely that he could do so. (Click here for that review.) I also posed a serious question about the transaction: the mail order company sent him the wrong rifle. Both the length and the classification were wrong. Although Oswald ordered the 36-inch model classified as a carbine, the Commission says he received the 40-inch model classified as a short rifle. Further, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered that Klein's only placed scopes on the 36-inch model. Yet the 40-inch model in evidence has a scope on it. (Click here for that discussion.)

Von Pein said he would admit all this," http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html

And before you belabor the point, now that I submitted my proof, why don't you cite a time where you were actually correct on any fact. Just one.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, the four Clark Panel doctors (Fisher, Morgan, Carnes, and Moritz) were all liars? Is that what you think?

Or were those four men just piss-poor at evaluating X-rays and photos?

I haven't assessed their abilities. Maybe if they actually got to look at JFK's autopsy photos, they might see the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, the four Clark Panel doctors (Fisher, Morgan, Carnes, and Moritz) were all liars? Is that what you think?

Or were those four men just piss-poor at evaluating X-rays and photos?

Of course they were liars. Every panel, committee and commission the US government ever put together on JFK is lousy with liars. They HAD to be liars. I don't think you could actually find people stupid enough to come up with the nonsense they did so, the only alternative is they were lying.

NOW, cut the chit chat and physically demonstrate to me how a bullet passed from back to front through JFK's neck without going through the vertebrae.

Put up or shut up.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if they actually got to look at JFK's autopsy photos, they might see the truth.

Oh, so you think the Clark Panel DIDN'T really look at ANY of the "real" JFK autopsy photos or X-rays? Is that what you're suggesting, Kenneth? They merely were examining "fake" autopsy pictures, is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, Von Pein responded to the first part of my Reclaiming History series by questioning my analysis of whether or not Oswald could have ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that is in evidence today. I spent several paragraphs in part one of my critique showing that in view of all the evidence, it is highly unlikely that he could do so. (Click here for that review.) I also posed a serious question about the transaction: the mail order company sent him the wrong rifle. Both the length and the classification were wrong. Although Oswald ordered the 36-inch model classified as a carbine, the Commission says he received the 40-inch model classified as a short rifle. Further, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered that Klein's only placed scopes on the 36-inch model. Yet the 40-inch model in evidence has a scope on it. (Click here for that discussion.)

Von Pein said he would admit all this, http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html

It would be nice if you could learn to quote people properly. You didn't write most of your above response. Jim DiEugenio did. And yet you fail to cite him for any of the above words. Not even a quotation mark around Jim's quotes. It's not clear at all where Jimbo's quote ends and where your latest anti-DVP tirade begins, Ken. Very sloppy. [Ken later edited his post to include quotation marks. But that's still not really good enough. He should have cited the person's name who is being quoted too.]

Moreover, your DiEugenio example above is nothing but pure malarkey coming from a man (DiEugenio) who won't even admit that Oswald shot J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't get much worse than that in the "Denial" department.)

Furthermore, in my rebuttal articles that I have written in response to the never-ending fantasies and crap promoted by Mr. DiEugenio, I have effectively destroyed all of his nonsensical arguments when it comes to the items of physical evidence connected with Oswald and the JFK case (such as the C2766 rifle and the revolver and the backyard photos and the bullets, etc.). I've amassed a 100-part series devoted to debunking DiEugenio's fantasies and non-stop misrepresentations. So just because Jimbo D. says something on CTKA, don't think that's where the argument ends. Because it certainly doesn't end there at all....

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

And before you belabor the point, now that I submitted my proof, why don't you cite a time where you were actually correct on any fact. Just one.

You're being ridiculous, Kenneth, and you know it. I have provided fact after fact to prove that Lee Oswald killed two people in Dallas in Nov. 1963. (See the link below for tons of examples.) You just don't like those facts. It's as simple as that.

Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

----------

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they [ALL FOUR CLARK PANEL MEMBERS] were liars. Every panel, committee and commission the US government ever put together on JFK is lousy with liars. They HAD to be liars. I don't think you could actually find people stupid enough to come up with the nonsense they did so, the only alternative is they were lying.

NOW, cut the chit chat and physically demonstrate to me how a bullet passed from back to front through JFK's neck without going through the vertebrae.

Put up or shut up.

Excellent, Bob. Thanks for confirming what I was hoping either Ken or you would be silly enough to write down in print for all to see (and laugh at).

And yet, amazingly, with posts like Bob's latest one (quoted by me above), Mr. Prudhomme thinks his opinions and conclusions are worthy of serious consideration....and respect.

Incredible.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if they actually got to look at JFK's autopsy photos, they might see the truth.

Oh, so you think the Clark Panel DIDN'T really look at ANY of the "real" JFK autopsy photos or X-rays? Is that what you're suggesting, Kenneth? They merely were examining "fake" autopsy pictures, is that it?

You might be on to something.

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...