Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

Recommended Posts

Way to go, Dave. You have successfully diverted everyone's attention from Connally's "back" wound.

That is how the game is played, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bingo.

i'm practicing ignoring him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go, Dave. You have successfully diverted everyone's attention from Connally's "back" wound.

You're funny, Bob. As usual.

All threads go off course. You know that. Everybody knows it. It's as inevitable as a CTer saying the SBT is bunk. You act like it's a brand-new thing. And I'm certainly not the only person who has gone "off topic" in EF threads. But you'll just give CTers a pass when they do it, right Bobby?

And, of course, it would be physically impossible to just totally ignore ol' DVP, wouldn't it, Bob?

And how is it that I am preventing people from talking about Connally's back wound again?

Just start talking about it some more.

Too simple for you?

BTW, this is a thread that I myself started. Go start your own thread on "Connally's back wound" if you want.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"too simple for you"

how is it you're getting away with talking to people like that when i was reprimanded for calling you a shill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you really think you're brilliant, don't you. i'm being serious - you think you're a genius and that allows you to talk to other people like they're children...?

news flash: ___________________________________________ (add your own)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for being ignored by Glenn Nall.

(But it was nice while it lasted.)

BTW, who "reprimanded" you for calling me a "shill"? I don't think Stephen Roy counts. He's not an EF moderator/administrator, is he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Glenn

I think you are beginning to understand how the game is played on this and other forums that have the audacity to question the Government's official interpretation of the JFK assassination, or any other questionable event of the last 50 years; such as whether or not Saddam Hussein really did have WMD's tucked away somewhere in Iraq.

David Von Pein is not here to win debates or arguments with us, and convert us to the pro-Warren Commission side. He knows that this would be a futile endeavour and, if that was all there was to it, he and others like him would have abandoned this site years ago.

Everything DVP writes on here is directed toward the casual Internet browser possessing a very limited knowledge of the assassination of JFK. These are the so called "great unwashed masses". His method for "winning the hearts and minds" is simple, and very similar to that employed to sell used cars. He takes a product of questionable quality (ie. the Warren Commission Report), slaps a coat of cheap shiny paint on it, puts it in a flashy show room and then proceeds to distract you from its deficiencies with a fast paced and non-stop sales pitch. When anyone with any real technical knowledge asks some difficult questions about what he is selling he, just like a salesman, gets very upset that anyone would dare to ask such questions, and falls back on the infallibility of the manufacturers of the product he is selling.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, yes, we can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back.

It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period.

So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson....

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post. You KNOW that Dale Myers conceded my point that the jump seat was 2 1/2 inches inboard, while his animation shows it 6 inches inboard, and that he tried to explain this by saying he showed it in the wrong place for the purpose of "clarity". You know also that he admitted his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted and inaccurate, due to its being filmed at an angle off a monitor. And you know these things because you helped bring them to light after begging him to defend himself against the likes of me.

And yet you continue to pretend--for whose benefit I have no idea--that an honest investigation into the assassination only leads in one direction--that CTs are deceptive and unwilling to look at the "truth" before them, and that all those telling you what you want to hear are somehow honest and scientific.

I mean, Lucien Haag's articles and TV appearances are embarrassingly awful.

But, beyond that, let's go back to Specter.

I have proved, beyond any doubt, using the words of the Bethesda and Warren Commission staff, that:

1) Joseph Ball was assigned the task of explaining how a bullet fired from six floors up could enter on the back and exit the throat.

2) Chief Justice Warren had a melt-down when the witnesses started saying things indicating there had been more than one shooter, and ordered Specter to bring the autopsy doctors in ahead of schedule to testify as soon as possible.

3) Joe Ball accompanied Specter out to Bethesda the next day, and asked the doctors to bring along drawings depicting the back wound trajectory for their testimony the next Monday.

4) The drawings created inaccurately depicted the back wound trajectory, and actually moved the back wound up to the base of the neck.

5) No measurements as to the actual wound location were provided the artist creating these drawings.

6) The artist nevertheless received a commendation letter for "depicting the situation required."

7) Dr. Humes, in his testimony claimed he'd provided measurements to the artist.

8) Dr. Humes, in his testimony, inaccurately claimed this back wound, as described in the autopsy protocol, was on the "low neck," when it was really on the "upper thorax".

9) Dr. Humes and Specter knew a wound on the "low neck" was out of alignment with the holes on the clothing. but had an emergency meeting on the Sunday before Humes' testimony and decided to get around this by claiming Kennedy (at 6 foot, 170) was "extremely well-muscled, and that this forced his shirt and jacket to bunch up in the back.

10) Even so, Specter had his doubts, and asked to have Humes and/or himself verify the wound location in the drawings before performing a re-enactment of the shooting.

11) On the day of the re-enactment, Specter was shown a photo of the back wound, which showed it to be on the back, below the shoulder line.

12) Specter marked the jacket worn by the Kennedy stand-in accordingly, and used this mark in the re-enactment to check the bullet's trajectory at various points of the Zapruder film.

13) The cross-hairs of the rifle/camera used in the re-enactment showed that a bullet entering this location would exit on a straight line far below Connally's back wound.

14) The re-enactment then moved to a warehouse, for more precise measurements. These measurements showed that a bullet fired from the sniper's nest and entering Kennedy's back at the location of the chalk mark would not be likely to exit his throat and then hit Connally in the armpit.

15) When Thomas Kelley (the Secret Service agent who showed Specter the back wound photo and placed the chalk mark on the jacket) testified about the re-enactment, Specter corrected him when he said it was a shoulder wound, and asked him if he meant to say it was a wound on the back of the neck. He then showed Kelley the drawing of the wound at the base of the neck, and asked him if this was what they used to mark the jacket. Kelley, said yes.

16) When Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the FBI testified about the trajectory studies performed in the warehouse, Specter introduced CE 903, showing this trajectory from the front, and failed to enter any photos of the trajectory taken from behind, showing the chalk mark location. He then had Shaneyfelt testify that the the trajectory "approximated" the back wound location--which hid that it was in fact inches away, no matter how they had the stand-in sitting or bending over.

17) Although Specter, in his internal memos, had regularly called the wound a "back" wound , his chapter on the assassination, which was submitted after the re-enactment proved a back location didn't work, or at least not as well as a base of the back of the neck location, now called the wound a wound at the base of the neck, or a wound on the back of the neck.

18) While working on his book The Death of a President, William Manchester spoke to Kennedy's (and Johnson's) physician, George Burkley, and Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, and was put in contact with people who'd actually seen the autopsy photos, and was similarly told the wound was on the back of the neck.

19) When this issue came to the public's attention in late 1966, Dr. Boswell, who'd been issued an order of silence, suddenly became available to the news media, and told them it was indeed a wound on the back of the neck, as shown in the drawing, and not on the back, as shown on the face sheet. Unmentioned in these interviews was that Boswell had signed an inventory of the photos a few weeks before, in which this wound was described as a shoulder wound.

19) The next year, after receiving talking points from the Justice Dept. telling him what to say, Dr. Humes similarly testified that the drawings created for the Warren Commission, in which the back wound was shown to be at the base of the back of the neck, were accurate.

20) Specter continued to claim the wound was on the back of the neck for the rest of his life, even after viewing the back wound photos a second time.

Now, this is a crystal clear case demonstrating that the back wound was moved upwards for the commission, and that a number of people collaborated in spreading the lie that the back wound was a neck wound. This is as clear as history gets.

But this, supposedly fails to interest you one iota. You could say "Yeah, they lied about it in the beginning, because they didn't know if they could prove it at that time.. So thank God we now can show how it all works without pretending the wound was on the back of the neck." But you don't.

No, instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, you've described exactly the pattern of behavior (at the risk of sounding like a psych) i've been seeing here.

It has become obvious that this person KNOWS he has no hope of convincing anyone of anything in line with the WC, et al, yet persists in trying to do so.

It has become obvious to me that he has left the realm of reason -- so obvious that i have to ask why he has made it so obvious. It's as you say, that his goal is not to convert but to just muddy the waters. (i saw a great quote by some great person about just muddying the waters in order to achieve a deception - i'll look it up. or maybe DVP knows it).

I'm not a naturally paranoid person; I cannot but help wonder if activity like this really isn't at the beck of 'someone else'. If not, then this person has in actuality lost the ability to reason, and at the moment i doubt that that's the case - but he sure makes me think twice about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't help it:

:)

"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to tie Oswald to the assassination or to the "Sniper's Nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository...

(Let me pinch myself yet again, because such a statement is just ludicrous.)

OSWALD'S rifle.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142). Like it or not, CE142 is an official piece of evidence, seen by multiple policemen in the SN, and it is irrevocably tied to Oswald via his 2 prints. Pretend it's a fake, but LNers will keep reminding CTers it exists all the same.

And there's, of course, Howard Brennan, who supplied "witness identification" evidence of Oswald's guilt. I know CTers hate Brennan's Johnny-come-lately positive IDing of LHO, but that's in the record too. So you'll have to deal with it (and toss it aside), much the same way I have to deal with Luke Mooney's account of seeing the chicken bones on a SN box. So, life ain't always easy, is it? For LNers or CTers. :)"

after a good description of the difference between phys. evidence that suggests a person's complicity vs. direct evidence that PUTS a person somewhere, any one want to tackle this...?

maybe i will in a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, you've described exactly the pattern of behavior (at the risk of sounding like a psych) i've been seeing here.

It has become obvious that this person KNOWS he has no hope of convincing anyone of anything in line with the WC, et al, yet persists in trying to do so.

It has become obvious to me that he has left the realm of reason -- so obvious that i have to ask why he has made it so obvious. It's as you say, that his goal is not to convert but to just muddy the waters. (i saw a great quote by some great person about just muddying the waters in order to achieve a deception - i'll look it up. or maybe DVP knows it).

I'm not a naturally paranoid person; I cannot but help wonder if activity like this really isn't at the beck of 'someone else'. If not, then this person has in actuality lost the ability to reason, and at the moment i doubt that that's the case - but he sure makes me think twice about that.

Glenn

Would you buy a used car from this man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't help it:

:)

"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to tie Oswald to the assassination or to the "Sniper's Nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository...

(Let me pinch myself yet again, because such a statement is just ludicrous.)

OSWALD'S rifle.

FIRST ACCEPTING THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF PROOF VERSUS THAT OF CONJECTURE (WHICH IS WHERE THE WHOLE PROBLEM LIES, REALLY - DVP'S UNWILLINGNESS TO ADMIT THE DIFFERENCE) VS THAT OF SUGGESTION -

THIS PROVES THAT HIS RIFLE WAS: A) FIRED, AND B - ON THE 6TH FLOOR THAT DAY. THAT'S ALL IT PROVES. IT SUGGESTS THAT OSWALD USED IT ON THE 6TH FLOOR THAT DAY, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVE IT.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

THIS PROVES THAT SHELLS FROM THAT GUN WERE ON THE FLOOR - THAT'S ALL IT PROVES, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF PROOF. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS WILL HAVE TO SHOW A NEW DEFINITION OF THE WORD PROOF. I'M OPEN TO THAT.

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

THESE ARE NOT OSWALD'S BULLET FRAGMENTS, THEY ARE BULLET FRAGMENTS FIRED FROM A GUN THAT OSWALD (QUESTIONABLY) OWNS. THIS DOES NOT PROVE OSWALD WAS ON 6. IT PROVES THAT BULLETS FROM THE MC WERE FIRED AT THE LIMO. CANNOT CONNECT OSWALD UNTIL HE'S PLACED ON 6 POSITIVELY, WHICH IS NOT BEING DONE. BRENNAN DOESN'T DO IT. (SOME THINK HE PLACES OSWALDS CROTCH THERE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY)

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

A - NO, THEY WERE NOT. (I HAVE NOT YET CONSIDERED YOU UNTRUTHFUL - PLEASE CONSIDER STRONGLY THE ASSERTIONS YOU MAKE IF YOUR CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT TO YOU - I DOUBT THAT IT IS, BUT IT MIGHT BE)

B - EVEN IF THEY WERE, THAT PROVES THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE TSBD. THAT'S ALL IT PROVES. IN ANY MURDER CASE FINGERPRINTS DO NO GOOD WHEN THE SUBJECT IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN AT THE MURDER SCENE LEGITIMATELY AT ANY POINT.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW YOU CAN SAY "ALL OVER".

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142). Like it or not, CE142 is an official piece of evidence, seen by multiple policemen in the SN, and it is irrevocably tied to Oswald via his 2 prints. Pretend it's a fake, but LNers will keep reminding CTers it exists all the same.

THE PAPER BAG WAS PROVEN TO NOT HAVE CONTAINED THE RIFLE BY DPD SHORTLY AFTER ITS DISCOVERY.

And there's, of course, Howard Brennan, who supplied "witness identification" evidence of Oswald's guilt. I know CTers hate Brennan's Johnny-come-lately positive IDing of LHO, but that's in the record too. So you'll have to deal with it (and toss it aside), much the same way I have to deal with Luke Mooney's account of seeing the chicken bones on a SN box. So, life ain't always easy, is it? For LNers or CTers. :)"

BRENNAN'S TESTIMONY CARRIES NO WEIGHT. YOU KNOW THAT.

after a good description of the difference between phys. evidence that suggests a person's complicity vs. direct evidence that PUTS a person somewhere, any one want to tackle this...?

maybe i will in a bit.

in fact, you know all of this.

but instead of diverting attention to the case itself, you actually help me sort through these little pieces and place them in proper perspective - you're helping me practice my presentation. what you think of my input means less than nothing - what i think of how i worded something means everything as i am able to improve and realign the pertinents.

thank you, David. et al.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really get more glee out of "watching" the WC members squirm in the face of this kind of evidence. :)

Just as the Warren Report was going to Press, Gerald Ford changed the wording of the bullet location, moving it several inches upward so that the SBT would work. No evidence was presented or used to justify the move. So you 're not going to see a photo that shows the higher bullet entry.

This is largely a myth, that I have been debunking at conferences for the last several years. Ford changed the description of the wound from a back wound to a neck wound but one time in one section of the chapter discussing Kennedy's wounds.

The problem is that this chapter contained something like 30 other references to the wound as being on the neck. It follows, then, that Ford was merely trying to bring a sentence in which Specter slipped up, and said the wound was on the back, in line with the many other references to the wound, where it was described as being on the back of the neck.

And, yes, we can be fairly certain it was Specter who called it a neck wound, even though he'd seen a photo proving it was really on the back. Throughout his life he would boast/brag that there were very few changes done to his chapter in the report. We also have the testimony of Thomas Kelley, the SS agent who showed Specter the back wound photo. In his testimony Kelley slipped up and said the wound was in the shoulder, only to have Specter correct him and ask if he meant the one in the back of the neck. Kelley of course said yes.

I discuss all this in chapter 10.

Pat, I don't want to disagree with you, but:This is largely a myth, that I have been debunking at conferences for the last several years. Ford changed the description of the wound from a back wound to a neck wound.

My statement was that Ford moved the wound from his back to his neck. You say it is 'largely a myth' and then to proceed to tell us that, he did, in fact move the location from his back to his neck. There might have been a good reason for Ford to change his description from back to neck, but I'd say the preponderance of the evidence is that he actually did do so.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

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...