Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

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

Recommended Posts

WHOA.

Houston, we have a problem.

I believe I recall WC testimony indicating that the chalk mark on the jacket represents something OTHER than the back wound.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I recall reading that the reenactment was done in the QM, rather than SS100X. According to the testimony, it was determined that the agent in the JFK position of the QM was sitting about 10 inches higher than JFK's position in SS100X...and that the chalk mark on the jacket was to mark the location of JFK's HEAD wound, relative to the alleged sniper's view from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and was NOT placed there to represent the back wound. In fact, I believe the testimony was that the back wound was represented by a mark on the TRUNK of the QM.

SO using the chalk mark on the jacket to plot trajectories of the BACK wound is....well, let's just say it's disingenuous. Because the back wound, being lower than the head wound, would require different angles, as it relates to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

And if the angles are all wrong...then someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

SO am I wrong about the testimony regarding what the chalk mark on the jacket represented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the testimony, it was determined that the agent in the JFK position of the [Queen Mary] was sitting about 10 inches higher than JFK's position in SS100X...and that the chalk mark on the jacket was to mark the location of JFK's HEAD wound, relative to the alleged sniper's view from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and was NOT placed there to represent the back wound. In fact, I believe the testimony was that the back wound was represented by a mark on the TRUNK of the QM.

Here's Thomas Kelley (Secret Service) at 5 H 133....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Von Pein, THIS is what I'm talking about:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine.
Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter.
Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in.

SO...at this point, was the mark on the coat there to mark the spot where the BACK wound occurred...or was it to compensate for the 10" difference, and to mark the spot for the HEAD wound?

Seems like Mr. Frazier wanted to have it both ways... but that simply can't be...can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Mark. After reading your earlier post, I recalled seeing some testimony about a mark being placed on the car itself. I couldn't remember who testified about it. But I now I see it was Bob Frazier. Thanks for that.

But in Lyndal Shaneyfelt's WC testimony, we get some further explanation about the chalk mark on the stand-in's back. And it's fairly clear to me that the chalk mark on the BACK of the JFK stand-in ALWAYS was representing the BACK wound and not the head wound, even after the 10-inch height difference between the Queen Mary and SS-100-X is accounted for, as Shaneyfelt explains here....

---------------

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.

Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any adjustment made for the difference in the height of the automobiles on the location where the back of the President's stand-in was visible through the tree?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was an adjustment made for the 10 inch differential in the heights because of the different cars, and this was established as frame 186.


http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0079b.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated in another thread:

Not even a single "re-creation" film should have been required!

Think about it: Two armed robbers enter a bank and demand that the teller give them all the cash in their drawer. After they have the cash they tie the employees' hands together and put gags in their mouths before getting away.

Luckily, the robbers wore no masks and the entire episode was recorded by a security camera. When the police arrive the robbers have vanished. Shortly thereafter the FBI arrive on scene since bank robbery is a federal offense.

Can you imagine the city police AND the FBI separately coming back days later to each shoot a "re-creation film" of the crime? For what purpose would they do such a thing? They already have the REAL film of the entire crime in their possession.

If they already had the REAL DEAL on film a "re-creation" film serves absolutely no innocuous purpose. This is particularly evident due to the fact that they shot the films from the exact location from which the REAL film was shot!

However, such an otherwise extraneous film could serve several "not so innocent" purposes.

-----

So tell us, David, why would the FBI replace the security camera in a bank with one of their own a few days after a robbery in order to film a re-enactment of the crime? Why would they enlist the services of "stand-ins" to play the part of the victims in the crime? And, now that they have more than one "re-enactment film" of the crime, why is it useful?

Is it the "Best Evidence" --even over the real film(s) of the crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell us, David, why would the FBI replace the security camera in a bank with one of their own a few days after a robbery in order to film a re-enactment of the crime? Why would they enlist the services of "stand-ins" to play the part of the victims in the crime? And, now that they have more than one "re-enactment film" of the crime, why is it useful?

Greg,

Do you think a "through the rifle scope" film (or photo) exists of the actual assassination of President Kennedy? Because THAT was the whole point of the WC's May '64 re-enactment. And how can the investigators acquire that type of "TSBD POV" information by looking at just the Zapruder Film? Mr. Zapruder wasn't filming from Oswald's sniper's perch.

I don't think you've thoroughly thought out your last post, Greg.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ten inch adjustment was performed to bring the re-enactment photos in line with the frames from the Zapruder film. They rolled the car forward and found that Kennedy's position in frame 161 of the re-enactment matched up with frame 166 in the film, etc. The relationship between Kennedy and Connally was fixed via a separate adjustment, however.

From the testimony of Thomas Kelley:

"When Mr. Anderton was placed in the followup car, it was found that the top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment made so that there would be--- the stand-in for Governor Connally would be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the 3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his height."

I discussed the re-enactment and the wound ballistics report of Dr. Olivier in my Bethesda presentation last year. The video of this presentation is now online. The slides were inserted out of sync with the audio, however, making it hard to follow in places. As a consequence, I made a movie showing just the slides, and over-dubbed some audio. This movie is best watched on youtube, in theater mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, how silly of me to contest the great David Von Pain [sic; as usual].

Why single me out? You've got to contest a whole bunch of people (and committees) a whole lot more important and knowledgeable than some nobody in central Indiana named DVP. You've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true.

So I'm the least of your troubles, Bobby.

both of which said the SBT is true. Let me be sure I got that right. A 'single bullet "theory" is "true". Now let me go to Dictionary.com and see what they say a 'theory' is:

noun, plural theories.

1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Einstein's theory of relativity.
Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Hmmm. seems as if they think that by calling it a theory means it has not been proven as 'true', only "commonly regarded as correct"

So I'm gonna go on record as saying that DVP is wrong, he only has a 'theory' that the WC said the SBT is true. I think they concluded it was a theory.

DVP, next.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

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.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly. If it don't fit, you must acquit...... remember that?

and then this: Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. viability of a theory? maybe you should copyright that DVP. One thing for sure, as long as it remains a 'theory' it is not a 'fact'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

All of the things you mentioned might very well be accurate. But I'll repeat my post from earlier....

"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 [the] photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period."

"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"), So in the future you will be using these terms interchangeably? So you are sticking with your, 'back' and 'neck' and 'base of the back of the neck' all mean the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated in another thread:

Not even a single "re-creation" film should have been required!

Think about it: Two armed robbers enter a bank and demand that the teller give them all the cash in their drawer. After they have the cash they tie the employees' hands together and put gags in their mouths before getting away.

Luckily, the robbers wore no masks and the entire episode was recorded by a security camera. When the police arrive the robbers have vanished. Shortly thereafter the FBI arrive on scene since bank robbery is a federal offense.

Can you imagine the city police AND the FBI separately coming back days later to each shoot a "re-creation film" of the crime? For what purpose would they do such a thing? They already have the REAL film of the entire crime in their possession.

If they already had the REAL DEAL on film a "re-creation" film serves absolutely no innocuous purpose. This is particularly evident due to the fact that they shot the films from the exact location from which the REAL film was shot!

However, such an otherwise extraneous film could serve several "not so innocent" purposes.

-----

So tell us, David, why would the FBI replace the security camera in a bank with one of their own a few days after a robbery in order to film a re-enactment of the crime? Why would they enlist the services of "stand-ins" to play the part of the victims in the crime? And, now that they have more than one "re-enactment film" of the crime, why is it useful?

Is it the "Best Evidence" --even over the real film(s) of the crime?

Of course a re-creation film was not necessary. DVP uses the excuse that it was from a different 'point of view' from the 6th floor vs from the plaza. Notice of course, that they got many things 'wrong' and of course that was the 'reason for the re-creation'. To try to change actuality to make the things fit that didn't fit because they weren't true. If they were going to re-create it,, why not get everything right. the seat height's and locations, the limo location, the height of the persons, etc. because if they had gotten it all correct, none of it would fit. And of course they couldn't even get the rifle shot sounds times to match either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding the "neck" v "back" semantics; i was just reading the notes from the Lipsey interview and listening to the interview itself, and as it was that he was in no way colluding with WC and telling the uncomfortable truth about what he witnessed at the autopsy, I noticed that he, too, had the tendency to interchange 'neck' and 'back' pretty frequently - especially since he was "testifying" to having seen TWO wounds involving the neck and back.

just an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The re-enactment was necessary. They had a film taken from Zapruder's location. They needed to see how this translated to the location of the limo on the street, and how this was viewed from the sniper's nest. This demonstrated to them that the "three shots, three hits" solution previously pushed by the SS and FBI was impractical. And this, in turn, led them to embrace the single-bullet theory.

It was their only way to avoid saying the evidence suggested more than one shooter, so they took it. Even though it was nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

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...