Jump to content
The Education Forum
Glenn Nall

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

Recommended Posts

Well DVP we're still waiting for you to tell where the fragments came from and how they got on the drivers seat. Is there a reason, other than you don't have a clue, that you don't answer?

That's an easy one ----

The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windsield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there.

But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP.....

Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.

Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.

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

(I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.) :)

ok, so they blew out the RIGHT side of his head (with no damage to the left side of his head), then somehow got into the DRIVER'S seat...

how'd they manage that? IAE

(I'm All Ears - I'm using IAE cause I'm betting I'm going to be writing that a LOT)

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo....

Still+Image+From+1963+Secret+Service+Fil

JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of Kennedy's head. After the bullet entered his head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film).

The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield.

Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all.

Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm

In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known....

JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....

107.+Zapruder+Film+(Head+Shot+Sequence+I

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DVP we're still waiting for you to tell where the fragments came from and how they got on the driver's seat. Is there a reason, other than you don't have a clue, that you don't answer?

That's an easy one ----

The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there.

But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP.....

Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.

Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.

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

(I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.) :)

. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there. let's see if I got this right now. It 'might' have come from the 3rd shot? but 'we' don't know that. and then one of the fragments, which we don't know where it came from, might have hit the windshield, even though all the Nutters swear the windshield 'had no damage', but if that bullet, which might have come out of JFK's rectum might have hit the windshield. We're guessing on that one since we can't even prove it is a fragment of that bullet and we can't prove that that fragment is actually a piece of a bullet that was fired from 2766, and then this other piece of a bullet came from 'Wonderland" and dented the chrome strip and fell on the seat. Now we can't really prove where this fragment came from or when it got into the limo, but we are pretty sure it was in Wonderland before that and we sure didn't find any bullet that had lost a fragment, but somehow this one, why it come with a label on it that said 'fragment of 3rd bullet from 'Wonderland" and it was just laying there on the seat waiting for us to find it so that we could solve this mystery. Wasn't that nice that we could wrap it up so cleanly and solve the crime of the century. That sounds about like the fairy tale you want thinking people to believe? Your grade on that answer was F- -.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't know what to say. I'm beside myself with glee. I'm pinching myself.

I'm going to have to look back on this tomorrow to see that i wasn't dreaming.

you answered a question. on the first try.

my gosh.

wait'll Robert and Ken see this! they're going to be so proud...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo....

Still+Image+From+1963+Secret+Service+Fil

JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of his head. After the bullet entered Kennedy's head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film).

The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield.

Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all.

Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0458a.htm

In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known....

JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....

107.+Zapruder+Film+(Head+Shot+Sequence+I

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope? And let's see if this is right. The bullet was traveling downward, hit JFK in the back/right of head, came out the right front of his head and then veered left to go over to the drivers side of the car. That about the way you see it? Them Manlicher Carcano bullets are always 'veering' off to fulfull the needs of the evidence. right? Even though there is a seat back between his head and the agents in the front seat, the bullet apparently rose upward to miss that seat back then came back to the right and dented the chrome strip on one side of the car and the windshield (which wasn't damaged) on the other side. Did we get some test firing showing these marvelous characteristics of the bullets ability to veer right, left, up, down, or what ever was necessary to get to the right spot? And these are now known as the MFT (mutiple fragment theory)

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say. I'm beside myself with glee. I'm pinching myself.

I'm going to have to look back on this tomorrow to see that I wasn't dreaming. You answered a question on the first try.

And, of course, why on Earth my answer wasn't already blatantly obvious to you is a bit of a mystery.

This is stuff that is incredibly easy to figure out. It's kindergarten math.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm just so downright delighted that you answered a question i don't care how stupid your answers are, Dave, my boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, were these fragments found before or after the limo was sent to The Rouge and the windshield replaced? Oh, and which one of the two fragments did they decide it was that hit the back of the rear view mirror? by back of rear view mirror, I mean the side of the rear view mirror that faces the front of the limo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?" -- DVP

Remember lesson 1 in making accusations, Davey? It's not the Defender who has to prove the Accuser wrong, it's the Accuser who has to PROVE his accusations.

We don't HAVE to effin' prove they are fraudulent. YOU have to effin' prove that they're evidence.

why is that so effin' hard to understand???

:)

You're funny, Glenn. You've got everything backwards (as usual).

It's the conspiracy buffs who are always arguing that the various pieces of evidence are fake/phony/planted/manufactured/fraudulent/worthless. Therefore, it's THAT accusation that must be PROVED. And since it's an extraordinary and outrageous accusation (particularly when it involves nearly ALL of the evidence in BOTH murders--JFK's & Tippit's), then the accusation requires an extraordinary amount of proof to back it up.

Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant CT Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked---let alone the DOZENS of pieces of evidence the CT Brigade claims was faked.

Try again, Glenn. I need another laugh before supper. And you seem to be making a habit out of impersonating Red Skelton.

Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant CT Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked Oh, I get it,, it's a 'sliver' you're looking for. Well, other than the fact that the shells from the tippit scene that had the marks of 2 police officers at the scene disappeared and was replaced with others without the officers marks, and other than the fact that the bullets recovered from tippits body got changed out before they got intro'd, And other than the fact that the manufacturer of the bullets and shells from tippets murder didn't match LHO's revolver. I'm sure those don't qualify as 'slivers', so you might ignore those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. Where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, were these fragments found before or after the limo was sent to The Rouge and the windshield replaced? Oh, and which one of the two fragments did they decide it was that hit the back of the rear view mirror? by back of rear view mirror, I mean the side of the rear view mirror that faces the front of the limo.

I don't think there ever was any damage to the BACK of the mirror.....

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The fact remains that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who said it was? It sure as heck wasn't Robert Frazier. Give me a citation

for this alleged mirror damage. I've never heard anyone else make the

claim that the mirror was "smashed in".

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I SAID. I was the first person to notice it. Several other people now

agree. If you can't see the obvious damage it is only because you are a WC

defender pushing an agenda and can't explain it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. That's what I figured. YOU were the first person to "notice it".

The fact is, of course, that no damage to the rearview mirror exists. Nor

was any such mirror damage reported by Robert A. Frazier of the FBI.

Let me guess, Tony--you think Frazier is lying here (or he just wasn't

very observant, even though he went over the limo with a fine-toothed comb

searching for signs of bullet strikes):

MR. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose

any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a

bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

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

Whatever it is that Marsh thinks is "smashed in" on the back of this

rearview mirror (via CE350) is nothing more than the design of the mirror

and its mounting bracket:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaPcHRbfp-8/UdL56MLbWxI/AAAAAAAAvAg/EiNqKPVSX3c/s3000-h/ce350.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyObRpFqMPg/UdL56D88mmI/AAAAAAAAvAk/jIS2PHhQ83s/s3000-h/Limo-At-Love-Field-11-22-63.jpg

DVP

July 2013

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

BTW, what the heck is "The Rouge"?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DVP we're still waiting for you to tell where the fragments came from and how they got on the driver's seat. Is there a reason, other than you don't have a clue, that you don't answer?

That's an easy one ----

The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there.

But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP.....

Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.

Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?

Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.

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

(I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.) :)

The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, Maybe this is a 'sliver', let me see. A bullet, which was NOT recovered, split off some fragments which continued on..... Now let's figure out how we know that bullet split off exactly two fragments and that 'fortunately' they hit a dash chrome strip and a windshield and then fell harmlessly down onto or beside the drivers seat so that they could be found and identified as 'definitely a part of the third bullet' which we never could find. Now, even though we never did find that third bullet, we were able to identify that these two fragments were definitely a part of that unfound bullet. And even without finding that third bullet, we know for sure what rifle it came from because it was firing metal fragments and any bullet fragment that day had to have come from 2766. right? Does that qualify as a 'sliver' DVP, or are we still gonna be sliver hunting? If you think this is humorous, you should read DVP's answer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. Where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

yep, and notice that the downward angle he is firing would fall very short of where the shot is claimed to have gone. To get the proper angle the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that. Go back to your re-creation photo from a few days ago and put all those boxes where you claimed they were and 'then' put him in that position.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. Where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope?

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures....

WH_Vol18_0050b.jpg

yep, and notice that is NOT a Manlicher Carcano and notice it doesn't have a stock. If it had a stock the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. If this were a MC rifle as 2766 is, that position is NOT possible. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that.

Oh, for Pete sake.

Kenny, you just buried yourself in deep do-do with your above quote.

The rifle we see in the above photo is the C2766 Carcano rifle (CE139).

Let's listen to Shaneyfelt.....

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight. This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission.

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...