David Von Pein Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Edited August 17, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Thanks for posting the two videos, David. The second shows just how bullying and disrespectful, Bugliosi was with his witness. Dr Wecht gave more than as good as he got. Incidentally, do you agree that the layout of the limo shown in the video is correct? Edited August 17, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Mr. Von Pein, have you ever read Dr Finck's HSCA testimony about the back wound? Finck, as you well know, was chief of wound ballistics pathology for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Finck claimed that he attempted to use a metal probe in the back wound, but was unable to find the bullet track. He then testified that he ordered x-rays of the chest cavity in order to try to determine where the bullet went. Yet the x-ray technician who took those x-rays testified that, when he took the x-rays of the chest, they showed an empty cavity because the lungs and other internal organs had already been removed. Now, it would appear to a logical person that if there had been a bullet track within the internal organs, removing the organs would also remove the evidence of a bullet track. Now...are you also familiar with the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Marion Jenkins? Dr. Jenkins testified that, because of "the obvious physical characteristics of a pneumothorax," doctors in Trauma Room 1 "put in a closed chest drainage tube." Do you even know what a pneumothorax is? [THIS is where the copy of Gray's Anatomy would most likely be more beneficial than anything Mr. Bugliosi ever wrote.] I would suggest you STOP right here and right now, and look up the definition of the term and then look up the primary causes of a pneumothorax. [Hint: Bullets passing between strap muscles in the neck are not listed as a cause for a pneumothorax.] THIS is why I recommend educating yourself on exactly what the doctors were saying. Since the most likely cause of a pneumothorax in a gunshot victim would be a bullet or bone fragment puncturing a lung, it would have been nice for the bullet wound pathologist, Dr. Finck, to have had the lungs still in the chest cavity to examine. This might have helped him determine with a better degree of certainty the path of the bullet. But according to the x-ray technician who took the chest x-rays when Dr. Finck ordered them--and the reason he ordered them, according to Finck's HSCA testimony, was to try to locate a bullet in the chest cavity, if it was still there--the lungs had already been removed at the time of the x-rays. And there is NO testimony on file that I can find that states that the lungs were thoroughly examined...at least to the degree that a bullet wound pathologist would have examined them. In his testimony before the AARB, Dr. Finck stated that "(t)he brain, the heart, and the lungs had been removed before my arrival." Notice that in Dr. Finck's testimony, he insists on referring to the wound as one in the upper back, and not a neck wound. Notice that--if you did your homework and learned what a pneumothorax is--somehow, the right lung had apparently been breached in some way. Yet there is no mention of an examination of the lungs, or even a mention of when the lungs were removed...except that their removal occurred prior to the arrival of the wound ballistic pathologist [Dr. Finck]. The Warren Commission Report will NOT explain the significance of a pneumothorax to you. Nothing that Bugliosi wrote will explain that to you. But a textbook of anatomy and physiology, in tandem with a good medical dictionary, WILL give you that information. And they are unbiased. They give information, and have no agendas. Which is why I recommended you consult an unbiased source upon occasion. NO film clip from a fake trial of Oswald will tell you how a pneumothorax occurs...or none that I'm aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) And there is NO testimony on file that I can find that states that the lungs were thoroughly examined...at least to the degree that a bullet wound pathologist would have examined them. It might not be in any of the doctors' testimony, but information about an examination of the lungs is in the autopsy report itself (on page 542 of the Warren Report). There is also the following Warren Commission testimony provided by Dr. Humes [at 2 H 363] (emphasis is my own).... "In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact, no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest. It was completely intact." -- Dr. James J. Humes Plus, Mr. Knight, if you're suggesting that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back did not exit his body and, instead, ranged downward into his chest and lodged there --- then that must surely mean you think another bullet entered Kennedy's throat and did the same thing that the back wound bullet did --- it stopped dead in its tracks and then disappeared (despite the nearly complete lack of injury inside JFK's body that would indicate that ANY bullet, much less TWO of them, could have just stopped its forward movement through the President's body on its own). Do you really believe TWO bullets behaved in this strange "Stopped Dead In Their Tracks" manner on 11/22/63? And then BOTH bullets vanished without a trace? Is that a reasonable conclusion to reach? When we get right down to fundamental basics and common sense, isn't the best solution to this bullet "mystery"--by far--the conclusion reached by the autopsy doctors and by the Warren Commission and by the HSCA --- i.e., one bullet entered JFK's upper back and exited his throat? Edited August 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Do you agree that the layout of the limo shown in the video is correct? No, Ray, the diagram Dr. Wecht utilized at the 1986 mock trial isn't even close to being accurate (the bullet angle, I mean). I discussed that skewed diagram with someone else in 2009. Excerpts below..... ------------ JOE ELLIOTT SAID: David -- Superb collection of videos. I was most curious about: "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald". Very interesting. .... I am disappointed that Bugliosi did not point out that the Anti SBT diagram that Dr. Wecht was using was totally off. .... Wecht's diagram is even more inaccurate than the Costner diagram in the movie JFK. .... I wonder why there was no challenge? .... Questions for David: Have you ever discussed this issue with Bugliosi? Do you know why Bugliosi did not challenge the accuracy of that diagram? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I've wondered that same thing myself, Joe. No, I've never discussed that particular issue with Vince Bugliosi (or through his secretary, Rosemary Newton, which is the only way I've ever "contacted" Vince). But a possible (partial) reason for why Vince didn't challenge Wecht's skewed diagram [shown below] is because Wecht told the jury at the 1986 TV docu-trial that he was of the opinion (via his own personal "analysis") that at least one of the bullets that struck JFK from behind had originated from the WEST end of the Texas School Book Depository and from the second floor, instead of from Oswald's sixth-floor window on the east end of the TSBD building. Dr. Wecht's make-believe west-end gunman is the thing that enables Wecht to pretend that the bullet that went through President Kennedy was able to miss Governor Connally completely. And Cyril's "second floor" theory also enables the good doctor to pretend that the bullet was able to somehow miss the entire limousine after exiting JFK's throat as well (via the not-as-steep angle for the bullet that is provided by Wecht's make-believe "second floor" TSBD assassin). But there's one part of Wecht's diagram that Bugliosi should have strongly objected to and should have verbally ripped to shreds....and that's the positioning of John Connally within that diagram. Wecht does have Connally correctly sitting inboard of President Kennedy (which is unusual for a diagram/chart/sketch that's being propped up by a conspiracist), but that diagram doesn't show Governor Connally turned in his jump seat at all, which is definitely inaccurate and misleading, and is something that Bugliosi should have mentioned at the top of his lungs at the '86 TV trial. But he didn't (AFAIK). Prosecutor Bugliosi should have probably produced a sketch of his own when cross-examining Dr. Wecht -- such as an accurate sketch like this one here (which appears in the photo section of Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book): Another thing that Bugliosi should have nailed Wecht for at the '86 trial is when Wecht said that JFK's head was "driven backward and to the left with substantial force at the moment of impact with the head wound", which is a statement that everyone knows is 100% false. Kennedy's head isn't "driven backward and to the left" at the precise "moment of impact" at Z313 -- JFK's head, instead, moves FORWARD at the precise "moment of impact" between Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313 [as seen in the clip below]. That very important point regarding JFK's initial forward head movement was established by Mr. Bugliosi earlier in the trial (during the testimony of Cecil Kirk), but when Dr. Wecht wanted to leave the incorrect impression in the minds of the jurors that Kennedy's head moved to the rear at the critical "moment of impact", Vince should have thrown the truth of the matter back into Cyril's face during VB's cross-examination of Wecht. David Von Pein April 26, 2009 More: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-503.html Edited August 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 David, why would you have Connally turned to his right when he said he had turned to his left when he was hit by the bullet? And could you explain how a bullet could go through the position shown in Bugliosi's sketch without hitting JFK's spine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) David, why would you have Connally turned to his right when he said he had turned to his left when he was hit by the bullet? Ray, In nearly every post-assassination interview he ever gave, Governor Connally said he was in the process of turning back to his left after turning to his right when he felt the bullet hit him. He was, however, still in a "turned to the right" posture when he was hit. And could you explain how a bullet could go through the position shown in Bugliosi's sketch without hitting JFK's spine? Well, Ray, via the autopsy photos, we know where the TWO bullet holes are located in the upper back and throat of President Kennedy. And we know that no bullets were found in JFK's whole body. TWO bullet holes. But NO bullets. And minimal damage in JFK's neck and back. Plus a bullet hole in the UPPER BACK of Governor Connally. Plus the simultaneous reactions of both victims visible in the Zapruder Film. Don't those facts suggest something pretty obvious? They sure do to me. Plus, I'd like to know how the members of "The Bullet Had No Choice But To Hit JFK's Spine And/Or Vertebra" club can explain to me how THEY can reconcile a rifle bullet entering the bullet hole shown in the autopsy picture below and yet somehow not have that bullet hit the vertebra that those CTers insist was in the direct flight path of the bullet? Seems to me the CTers who belong to that club should be asking themselves how the bullet missed the vertebrae, and not just asking LNers. For how could (or why would) any bullet stop all of its forward motion after penetrating JFK's back just an inch or two? And then those same conspiracy theorists can explain how (and why) a SECOND such missile managed to do the exact same thing on the other side of the President's body --- with the throat bullet also missing the spine and/or vertebrae and also only going into Kennedy's body a very short distance. The SBT bullet is far less "magical" than those two crazy miracle missiles that the conspiracists have invented. Edited April 18, 2016 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) David, why would you have Connally turned to his right when he said he had turned to his left when he was hit by the bullet? Ray, In nearly every post-assassination interview he ever gave, Governor Connally said he was in the process of turning back to his left after turning to his right when he felt the bullet hit him. He was, however, still in a "turned to the right" posture when he was hit. Connally to the Warren Con. "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." Connally to the HSCA "About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit." Niether say he was still turned to his right. Perhaps your theory is wrong. And could you explain how a bullet could go through the position shown in Bugliosi's sketch without hitting JFK's spine? Well, Ray, via the autopsy photos, we know where the TWO bullet holes are located in the upper back and throat of President Kennedy. And we know that no bullets were found in JFK's whole body. TWO bullet holes. But NO bullets. We were told that no bullets were found. And minimal damage in JFK's neck and back. Agreed, Plus a bullet hole in the UPPER BACK of Governor Connally. Agreed -in the upper back not the neck. Plus the simultaneous reactions of both victims visible in the Zapruder Film. Don't those facts suggest something pretty obvious? They sure do to me. Well, you are wrong. They do not react at the same time. Connally reacts after JFK raised his hands towards his throat. Plus, I'd like to know how the members of "The Bullet Had No Choice But To Hit JFK's Spine And/Or Vertebra" club can explain to me how THEY can reconcile a rifle bullet entering the bullet hole shown in the autopsy picture below and yet somehow not have that bullet hit the vertebra that those CTers insist was in the direct flight path of the bullet? If there had been a proper autopsy, these could have been explained. Seems to me the CTers who belong to that club should be asking themselves how the bullet missed the vertebrae, and not just asking LNers. For how could (or why would) any bullet stop all of its forward motion after penetrating JFK's back just an inch or two? See above answer (re autopsy) And then those same conspiracy theorists can explain how (and why) a SECOND such missile managed to do the exact same thing on the other side of the President's body --- with the throat bullet also missing the spine and/or vertebrae and also only going into Kennedy's body a very short distance. See above answer (re autopsy) The SBT bullet is far less "magical" than those two crazy miracle missiles that the conspiracists have invented. What crazy miracle missiles has anybody invented, apart from the one invented by Specter? Edited August 18, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Well, you are wrong. They do not react at the same time. Connally reacts after JFK raised his hands towards his throat. Oh, really? Maybe you need to take another look then. Just keep staring at this Z-Film clip and then try to tell me that these two men aren't reacting at the exact same moment in time.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html What crazy miracle missiles has anybody apart from Specter invented? The two CTer-invented vanishing ones that I talked about in my last post. Edited August 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 I note you have no comment about Connally and his turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) "I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." -- John Connally; WC Testimony ----------- But we can see in the Z-Film that Connally was not looking straight ahead, nor was he facing slightly to his left. He was still turned slightly to his RIGHT when he was hit. And the best examination of this was done by Dale Myers, whose computer animation was keyed directly to the Z-Film itself. And this is one of the frames from Myers' animation that shows Connally turned to his right at Z225.... http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm Edited August 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) "I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder...So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." -- John Connally; WC Testimony ----------- But we can see in the Z-Film that Connally was not looking straight ahead, nor was he facing slightly to his left. He was still turned slightly to his RIGHT when he was hit. And the best examination of this was done by Dale Myers, whose computer animation was keyed directly to the Z-Film itself. And this is one of the frames from Myers' animation that shows Connally turned to his right at Z225.... http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/kframe.htm No, David. You think he was still turned to his right, but he wasn't hit then, so your comments are incorrect. He knows when he was hit. You don't. Edited August 18, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225.... Edited August 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225.... Yes, he could well be reacting to a bullet, but one being fired and not being hit. Why do you think Connally is wrong with when he says he was hit? Because it doesn't fit your scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) What is Connally doing here, Ray? Could he be "reacting" to a bullet injury? This clip ends at Z225.... in case you haven't noticed your film clip here is also rotating around it's y-axis (where 'y' is UP), why? Perhaps it's time for Lampoon Lamson, (or Greg's boys from down undah) to get on the job. Edited August 18, 2015 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now