Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

live camera from 6 - i know you've probably seen it, but...

Recommended Posts

The shirt and Jacket do not lie David.

When have I ever suggested the shirt and jacket are lying?

But it's the hole in Kennedy's BACK that counts the most. Why would anyone think the CLOTHING trumps this picture?....

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

(Cue Cliff Varnell's entrance....stage right.)

And how anyone could conclude that the throat wound was located HIGHER than the back wound after comparing these two pictures below is a really big (HSCA) mystery that I have yet to solve....

JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

David, I just can not figure out where these Nutters are coming from. One thing they do that does work is they keep others arguing about something that we know did not happen and whether/how it 'really' happened. Example: Arguing about whether a bullet could have gone into JFK on the downward angle, not hit anything that would slow it down or change direction, yet it changes direction upward, comes out in exactly the same entrance wound where JFK had already been hit and then turns to the right, travels a little ways, changes direction again to go into Connally in a right to left direction, hits a rib but does no damage to the bullet except changes direction of the bullet again to hit connally's wrist which was to the right of his body at the time, breaks the large wrist bone, does no damage to the bullet, bullet changes direction again and hits with so little speed that it barely gets into the leg enough to keep it, then after being transported to the hospital, the bullet once again comes to life and jumps over to a gurney that neither JFK or JC occupied that day. But then it was miraculously found and fortunately the testing shows that it was fired from a rifle that had not been fired (due to rust in the barrel) for some time. Was that a 'magic bullet' or what. But then back to my point. Everyone with two brain particles to rub together knows that did not happen, but we sit here day after day with the Nutters saying we are nuts for not believing them. And we argue with them that it could not have happened, while they insist that it did. And of course, they say if was fired from a spot that it was physically impossible to fire the shot from. And they say there were witnesses, but even though hundreds had camera's, darn it, wouldn't you know it, not one soul thought to take a photo of that rifle sticking out the window firing shots at the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you and Gary Mack in a legal arrangement where you are his 'official mouthpiece'[?] Is there a reason he can't say it for himself?

He did say it for himself. It's the stuff I posted right after the words "GARY MACK SAID:". :)

Is he paid to say the things he says to you but can't come on a public forum to say the same things[?]

Gary has been a member of this forum since July 10, 2006. (Which, ironically enough, is almost--to the very day--when I first joined this forum. I lasted 4 days here in July 2006 before Mr. Simkin decided he had had enough of my silly LNer ravings and tossed me out the door.)

Gary Mack's EF Profile:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=4967

His unwillingness to say if for himself lowers the value of what he says.

I don't see why. His information is either useful and accurate and valuable or it isn't -- whether he says it to me via an e-mail or whether he posts it himself in a post at this forum. It's the same information either way. And I happen to think Gary is loaded with good and useful info about the JFK case. I doubt there's another person alive who has so much overall knowledge about this case. And I, for one, appreciate it when he takes the time to write to me by e-mail with all kinds of informative details.

Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?

That's not very nice, Ken. You're accusing me (by the implication in your question above) of deliberately misquoting someone (or misrepresenting myself by pretending to be Gary Mack). That's a despicable allegation, IMO.

FYI, I have never deliberately misquoted anyone. I am always very very careful when I quote another person. I never want anyone reading my posts to be confused as to who is saying what. And I don't appreciate the implied dishonesty you just accused me of. Because I would never even consider passing off my own thoughts as someone else's (or vice versa). And I really don't understand WHY you would think I would ever engage in such a silly tactic. Care to explain why you said what you just said, Ken?

There clearly was not room for the shots to be made from that window, regardless of what DVP/Mack says.

And you, Kenneth Drew, clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about.

~Mark VII~

BTW / FYI.....

Here's a really good interview with Gary Mack (from 2003):

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shirt and Jacket do not lie David.

When have I ever suggested the shirt and jacket are lying?

But it's the hole in Kennedy's BACK that counts the most. Why would anyone think the CLOTHING trumps this picture?....

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

(Cue Cliff Varnell's entrance....stage right.)

And how anyone could conclude that the throat wound was located HIGHER than the back wound after comparing these two pictures below is a really big (HSCA) mystery that I have yet to solve....

JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

DVP, see those two photos near the bottom? see that stick sticking thru from the throat? why does that photo show it coming out about 4 or 5 inches above the hole in his back. I can't really read that ruler, but the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point. that is 'below' his shoulder blades. that stick is coming out near the hump which is above his shoulder blades. So what do you get from that, and what is the point of the stick going thru at the wrong place? Oh, and that point where the stick comes out at the front, is that the point where the bullet changed direction upward and to the right?

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, if you think the back wound is at about the "5-6 inch point" on that ruler, you need to go back to school. (Or go look at a ruler.) It's not nearly at the "5-6 inch point". And it couldn't be more obvious when comparing the two pictures I posted above that the upper-back wound was physically ABOVE the wound in the throat of JFK. Even Dr. Humes (in his WC testimony) said the throat wound was physically LOWER than the back wound. And the Clark Panel measured out the distances and said the throat wound was 3.5 cm. LOWER anatomically than the back wound....

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

(And, btw, that's not a "stick" in JFK's throat, Ken. It's a line somebody drew on that picture years ago. (I think I downloaded that particular image from the old JFK Lancer forum. I wasn't the one who drew in that line.)

Here's a bigger version of that turned-sideways autopsy photo (sans the added drawn-in line)....

00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, kinda on your high horse there DVP? I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote. You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read. I simply asked you a question, which I notice that you ducked. I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself'

you seem to have quite a reading comprehension problem.

If Gary Mack is a member here, why doesn't he comment himself? If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him. Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here? I understood the reason for personal messenging on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted. I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he? or did you just selectively decide which parts of his comments to you that you would share and left off the part where he asked you or gave you permission to share. Would you post and quote that section of his comments, or all of his comment to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, if you think the back wound is at about the "5-6 inch point" on that ruler, you need to go back to school. (Or go look at a ruler.) It's not nearly at the "5-6 inch point". And it couldn't be more obvious when comparing the two pictures I posted above that the upper-back wound was physically ABOVE the wound in the throat of JFK. Even Dr. Humes (in his WC testimony) said the throat wound was physically LOWER than the back wound. And the Clark Panel measured out the distances and said the throat wound was 3.5 cm. LOWER anatomically than the back wound....

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

(And, btw, that's not a "stick" in JFK's throat, Ken. It's a line somebody drew on that picture years ago. (I think I downloaded that particular image from the old JFK Lancer forum. I wasn't the one who drew in that line.)

Here's a bigger version of that turned-sideways autopsy photo (sans the added drawn-in line)....

00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

I'm not sure if I learned to read a ruler in school or not. Likely I did not. However, I do get my eyes checked by an opthamologist, which it seems you have been neglecting. If you can't see that hole there about 5 inches down from the end of the ruler, I'm not even sure that eye doc would help. You can hardly use that line to show a downward angle from that point because then you have to turn it upward and to the right to get it over to Connally. Whoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, if you're going to claim that line represents the trajectory, tell us again how it went through the spinal column without hitting anything. I don't see the track of the bullet represented that entered his throat from the front. Where did it go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruler photo is meaningless. What distance is being measured? It's impossible to say. There is no "Point A" -- which is a body landmark. There is an ambiguous "Point B" given the various marks on the back. Surely, this isn't a photo even an amateur autopsist would have ordered taken. Furthermore, why measure the distance between two points on a curved surface with a straight ruler? It doesn't make sense. This photo is a fake.

The other, lateral photo is suspicious. There was no tile on the wall several feet to the right of JFK's remains in the Bethesda morgue. There was no head brace in the Bethesda morgue.

Above all else, why don't these two famous photos, supposedly taken at the autopsy, show injury to JFK's head? Z-313 suggests the head was blasted. Of course, the angles of the photographer to the subject might have avoided the injury. But Why? These photos never were meant to become public. So why these photos and not the graphic photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruler photo is meaningless. What distance is being measured? It's impossible to say. There is no "Point A" -- which is a body landmark. There is an ambiguous "Point B" given the various marks on the back. Surely, this isn't a photo even an amateur autopsist would have ordered taken. Furthermore, why measure the distance between two points on a curved surface with a straight ruler? It doesn't make sense. This photo is a fake.

The other, lateral photo is suspicious. There was no tile on the wall several feet to the right of JFK's remains in the Bethesda morgue. There was no head brace in the Bethesda morgue.

Above all else, why don't these two famous photos, supposedly taken at the autopsy, show injury to JFK's head? Z-313 suggests the head was blasted. Of course, the angles of the photographer to the subject might have avoided the injury. But Why? These photos never were meant to become public. So why these photos and not the graphic photos?

Jon, you're correct that the photo seems to not be a real photo. Nothing is identified on the photo, and as I said you can't even read the numbers on the ruler. But the hole is down at about what I would say is about the 5-6 inch mark on the 'ruler'. DVP seems to think it is there at the top of the ruler. If it's there at the top, then the measurer would be measuring the bullet hole to be 0 " down from 0". Would anyone measure that way, well, except DVP. It seems rather clear that the bullet hole is about 45 degrees down and to the left of the point of his right shoulder blade. That seems to be the spot where I've seen it on some other photo. I can't figure out how a bullet that was traveling at quite a downward angle at that point to come back up about 16 inches or so to go into Connally. No wait. I'll get a nutter to explain it to me.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote.

Okay....

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely by posting my own comments under Gary's name. There is no other possible interpretation of those words you wrote. I'd call that an "accusation".

But you don't even seem to remember (or comprehend) what you yourself wrote on this forum just a few minutes ago.

You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read.

I understood it perfectly. You were implying that Gary Mack might not have written any of the words I attributed to him. And, instead, you were implying that I myself wrote those words and tried to pass them off as Gary Mack's words. How else could anybody interpret this question you asked?...

"Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew

I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself'.

You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. And you know it. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid.

If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him.

I don't control Gary Mack's actions. And I would never try to speak for Gary (even though that is exactly what you implied I might be doing in your earlier post). Gary can post in any fashion he sees fit. He chooses not to post on the forums. That's his choice. Sometimes I choose to post his e-mails here (when they relate to a particular topic or thread).

I, myself, would love it if Gary would start posting here (and at other JFK forums on the Internet). He has helped me out many times in the past via his evidence-packed e-mails that he has chosen to send me (and almost always unsolicited e-mails, I might add). He writes to me (and many other people too) when he feels the record needs to be set straight on a particular sub-topic of the JFK case.

Now, yes, I too would like it if he would post regularly (or even semi-regularly) on the forums. I'm sure we would be treated to even MORE useful information about so many JFK topics if he were to do that. But he has chosen not to post directly on the forums, and that's his decision.

But regardless of the manner or the frequency by which Gary's useful information gets passed along, I for one am grateful to Gary Mack for sharing it with me.

Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here?

Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the second question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one.

The answer to your first question above, however, is No. Gary has never once "asked" me to post something on the forums for him. I do that on my own, usually because the info Gary imparts needs to get "out there" to the masses in order to set the record straight concerning so many of the myths that are still being spread by conspiracy theorists.

KENNETH DREW SAID:

I understood the reason for personal messenging [sic] on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary never sends me his messages via the forum's Private Message service. He always uses e-mail. And many times I'll even show the precise date and time of the e-mails when I re-post his messages on the forums. I didn't format Gary's last message to me in that manner, but many times I have.

KENNETH DREW SAID:

I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Answered above.

I suppose I could put a disclaimer such as "Posted here by permission of Gary Mack" on each of Gary's messages I have posted. But I don't feel that's really necessary.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruler photo is meaningless. What distance is being measured? It's impossible to say. There is no "Point A" -- which is a body landmark. There is an ambiguous "Point B" given the various marks on the back. Surely, this isn't a photo even an amateur autopsist would have ordered taken. Furthermore, why measure the distance between two points on a curved surface with a straight ruler? It doesn't make sense. This photo is a fake.

I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. But Ken is certainly way off if he thinks the wound is "5-6 inches" down on that ruler. If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), then there's no way it's halfway down the ruler's length (quite obviously).

None of the autopsy photos are "fakes". The HSCA proved that fact in Volume 7 of their materials. Go look it up, Jon. Or were all 20 people on the HSCA's Photographic Panel telling a bunch of lies too? I'll help you look it up. Here's the link....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely What? I asked you a question. I didn't 'imply' anything. No interpretation is necessary. I was quite clear.

"Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew Correct, I didn't accuse you of anything or imply anything. I asked you a very clear question, which you ducked.

You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. That's your attempt at humor? You said I accused you then you said I was 'basically implying' which is it? If I accused you, quote me at accusation.

You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid. Are you calling me stupid? Is that 'calling me a name'? No damage control needed by me.

Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the latter question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one. So you don't quote his entire messages, you just pick and choose what you want to post. And that post above that you quoted from, in that message to you, he asked you to post that to the forum? Or did he give you permission to post some parts of the message but not all of it. How do you decide which parts of his messages do you quote. Are some parts of the message specifically addessed to you with directions of what to do with them? Are you hiding something. Does this have anything to do with you not being 'totally free' to post what you would like to post?

You sure stepped in a big pile of doo doo, I'll bet you don't make that mistake again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruler photo is meaningless. What distance is being measured? It's impossible to say. There is no "Point A" -- which is a body landmark. There is an ambiguous "Point B" given the various marks on the back. Surely, this isn't a photo even an amateur autopsist would have ordered taken. Furthermore, why measure the distance between two points on a curved surface with a straight ruler? It doesn't make sense. This photo is a fake.

I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. But Ken is certainly way off if he thinks the wound is "5-6 inches" down on that ruler. If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), then there's no way it's halfway down the ruler's length (quite obviously).

None of the autopsy photos are "fakes". The HSCA proved that fact in Volume 7 of their materials. Go look it up, Jon. Or were all 20 people on the HSCA's Photographic Panel telling a bunch of lies too? I'll help you look it up. Here's the link....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), Is that a 'fact' or an 'assumption' or a 'wild ass guess' or what? I figured it was a 6 inch ruler, that's standard, isn't it in autopsy rooms?

I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. LOL. scale? there are no numbers on the scale. so the hole is down x inches from x? The bullet hole is down near the end of that ruler, below the shoulder blade, it is not up there at the top end. If it is there, then they are measuring how far it is from it. Nope, down below point of right shoulder blade. You seem to be trying to move it in that photo.

I'll give you permission to quote any part of this comment. that's 'total freedom'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at that big steaming pile of "damage control" Kenny is shoveling out in his Post #207. Unbelievable. He's even in denial about the undeniable meaning of this remark he aimed at me....

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew

Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. ("Denial".)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at that big steaming pile of "damage control" Kenny is shoveling out in his Post #207. Unbelievable. He's even in denial about the undeniable meaning of this remark he aimed at me....

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew

Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. (For Denial.)

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Where is the damage control? What did I accuse you of? I asked you a question, which you continue to duck. Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? I'm not saying that he does, I'm asking you if he allows you to speak on his behalf? Simple question.

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...