Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is one of the worst aspects of the Krazy Kid Oswald Crowd.    They refuse to acknowledge that a certain personage has been discredited.

See, on our side, we do not blindly accept every book that comes down the pike because it advocates Oswald as innocent and Kennedy was killed in a plot. With their side, with few exceptions, that is usually the case.  

Jean Davison is a stellar example of this.  This is a woman who wrote a pathetic biography of Oswald.  It broke every rule that a biographer should follow.  There is no new research in the book.  In examining her footnotes, there is no evidence she ever went anywhere or even called anyone. I mean she makes Bugliosi look peripatetic.

She began her book with a deception.  She said that somehow, because Jack Ruby passed his lie detector test, Mark Lane was wrong to say that Ruby was hiding something. Its important to note that this was four years after the HSCA exposed the Warren Commission polygraph as  deliberately rigged by the FBI.  Let me repeat that:  It was Four YEARS after it was exposed as being rigged.  In other words, the  truth is that the FBI covered up Ruby's lies!  And anyone could see that if they read the volumes.  I don't know what is worse.  If she didn't read them or if she did and decided to ignore them to fool the reader.  With Davison it could be either one.  Why?

Because she has an aversion to primary documents.  Again, four years after the HSCA, she said that the witnesses in Clinton/Jackson confused Banister for Shaw and therefore they could not be trusted identifying Oswald.  This was another misrepresentation of the facts. And all that Davison had to do was track down the investigators of the HSCA who did the work up there. None of the witnesses identified Banister. This was pure James Phelan BS. The witnesses all identified Shaw, mainly because of his height which they said was well over six feet. Shaw was 6' 4" and Banister was 5' 10".  But this is the kind of phony research this woman does.

When my review of her cruddy book appeared, she said that somehow I was not accurate about what she said about Oswald acquiring the Russian language. Not true. But obviously someone had gotten to her and told her she screwed up back then by implying that Oswald learned Russian in the service.  That is in her book.  But once she was alerted to this screw up, probably by McAdams, she now said that Oswald learned Russian through his Intourist Guides.  Oh really Jean?  Then if that was the case, why did he speak fluent Russian to Rosaleen Quinn before he left the USA?  :stupid

 

This is what happens when one is so steeped in disinfo that you actually forget what the facts are.  In your denial of those facts, you trip over yourself and then have to be coached by your allies.

Even though I took  her book apart almost chapter by chapter, showing it had no credibility, Von Pein still uses her.  

What a disgrace.  For them both.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For those who wish to see the sordid details about Jean Davison's godawful cover up book, click here.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/davison-jean-oswald-s-game

If you want to see how she misrepresented the claims in her own book about Oswald's language acquisition, click through to Part 2.  A cover up laid over a cover up.

 

I will sign off from my exposure of DVP for awhile.  This guy is so bad, no human should have to put up with him continually.  You need R and R every once in awhile to rehab your senses back to the real world.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I will sign off from my exposure of DVP for awhile.  This guy is so bad, no human should have to put up with him continually.  You need R and R every once in awhile to rehab your senses back to the real world.

Thanks, Jim. I feel exactly the same way about a conspiracy theorist by the name of James DiEugenio.

(I'm off to rehab now.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David and Jean, as we know, would like it if we pretended it was just a coincidence the back wound was moved up to the base of the neck for the Rydberg drawings, and that this helped sell the single-assassin conclusion. But here's the facts they don't want you to know.

1. One of the tasks assigned Joseph Ball in Area 2 of the commission's investigation was to answer the following question: "What about the trajectory of the bullet in the angle of striking---point of exit appears higher than point of entry." This is an obvious reference to the face sheet's depiction of the wounds. It was thereby Joe Ball's job to fix or explain this problem.

2. Ball's boss Rankin told the commissioner's he'd be seeking help from the doctors on this issue.

3. Ball (from Area 2, whose job it was to establish Oswald as the assassin) accompanied Specter (from Area 1, whose job it was to establish the basic facts of the case,  including the locations of the wounds) when Specter first visited Bethesda Hospital (that is, when they told the doctors they wouldn't be allowed access to the autopsy photos during their upcoming testimony, and that they needed to create drawings instead).

4. Skip Rydberg, the man tasked with creating these drawings, confirmed that the autopsy doctors failed to provide the location measurements to him when he created these drawings, and that he was instead instructed to show a bullet heading downward from the base of the neck to the bottom of the throat (a trajectory at odds with both the autopsy photos and measurements). He was then given a special letter of thanks for "depicting the situation required."

5. Ball would later claim he worked with Specter as part of a team which established Oswald as the assassin (this is interesting in that Specter's job was to establish the facts regarding a sniper, and that Ball and Belin were supposed to be working independently to determine the identity of this sniper.)

6. In any event, the drawings put into evidence by Specter grossly misrepresented the bullet trajectory needed to connect the back wound and throat wound. (Well, I'll be! It was exactly what Ball needed!)

7. Specter, to his credit, didn't trust that this would hold, and instead pushed for Warren to let Dr. Humes view the autopsy photos and double-check the location of back wound in the photos against the location in the drawings. At this time he still called the wound a back wound.

8. His request was refused, however. No, he was, instead, shown a copy of the back wound photo by Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley, so that he--Specter--could double-check the location. Now, let's be clear. This photo proved the drawings to be inaccurate, and that the SBT trajectory pushed in the drawings was a fraud.

9. And yet Specter failed to act on this info.

10. Nope, instead of tattle-telling that the SBT drawing presumably drawn at Ball's request was at odds with the evidence, and essentially a fraud, Specter decided to double-down on this deception.

11. To wit, after seeing the photo of the wound on the back, he began claiming the wound was on the back of the neck, and submitted a chapter for the report in which he called this wound a wound to the neck or wound at the base of the neck dozens of times. He then stuck by this deception till his dying days.

12. He failed to tell his superiors on the commission he saw the photo, and didn't admit it publicly for years afterwards.

13. When taking Kelley's testimony about the May 24 re-construction, he "corrected" Kelly when Kelley said the wound was on the back, and made him say it was on the back of the neck.

14. While a number of re-enactment photos were taken from behind and showed just how far Specter's proposed trajectory passed from the bullet hole on the back of JFK's jacket, none of these photos were entered into evidence by Specter.

15.  Now look at what he did instead.... When taking Lyndal Shaneyfelt's testimony about the re-enactment, Specter had Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory of the bullet in the re-enactment approximated the trajectory through the body in the drawings created by Rydberg. Now even DVP acknowledges these drawings are inaccurate and that this isn't true.

So, WHY, is it then that we're supposed to give Specter the benefit of the doubt on all this? It should be obvious to anyone that he knowingly misrepresented Kennedy's wounds and suborned perjury.

If we know anything about the case, it is this. And yet, here I am, still arguing this stuff with DVP.

Still, maybe we can creep an inch forward. Do you care to address the points listed above one by one, David? Do they not reflect badly on Specter?

And why is it, anyway, that neither you nor Jean nor Vince nor any supporter of the single-assassin conclusion outside perhaps Robert Wagner, is willing to admit the blatantly obvious fact that Specter and others lied about much of the evidence? You could still have Oswald as your major bad guy....So why do you have to have ALL the policeman and investigators as saints who have been terribly maligned by these awful conspiracy people?

It's this tribal attitude that freaks me out. it's like this country was invaded by some body snatchers back in the 60's, and we've reached the tipping point whereby roughly half the country now calls a pod "mom".

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's both. The use of the phrase "neck" and "lower neck" is an innocent verbiage used on the night of the autopsy. However, the proof for this is also proof that Humes et. al lied about how much they knew about the throat wound when the body was still under examination.

 

George A. Barnum

8/20/1979 interview from BEST EVIDENCE: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David Lifton, 1980

[Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered]

[...]

[...]Nevertheless, circumstancial evidence supports this theory. My own investigation has turned up two accounts indicating that a transiting neck trajectory was being discussed on Friday night. In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"
The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.*

James Jenkins told me that during the autopsy, when the "civilians" were practically arguing with Humes, they put the idea to him that the bullet entered at the rear, exiting through the tracheotomy inision, and that the bullet went on to hit Connally.**62 [...]

[...]

*Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound.

**Unfortunately, Jenkins never made a written record, and so it is easy to discount his recollections by claiming he was influenced by what he later read in books and magazines.

But having spoken with him, I didn't believe that was the case. Jenkins did not follow the case and, in fact, until I spoke with him in September 1979, did not know a bullet wound at the front of the neck had been observed in Dallas. Jenkins kept referring to it as the "tracheotomy incision," and couldn't understand why those "civilians" in the autopsy room kept claiming that a bullet exited there.

 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Pat,

What's your source(s) for all your info about the super-evil Arlen Specter and Joe Ball in your last post above? (Just curious to know. Are your sources listed on your website somewhere?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And why is it, anyway, that neither you nor Jean nor Vince nor any supporter of the single-assassin conclusion outside perhaps Robert Wagner, is willing to admit the blatantly obvious fact that Specter and others lied about much of the evidence? You could still have Oswald as your major bad guy....So why do you have to have ALL the policeman [sic] and investigators as saints who have been terribly maligned by these awful conspiracy people?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Pat,

What's your source(s) for all your info about the super-evil Arlen Specter and Joe Ball in your last post above? (Just curious to know. Are your sources listed on your website somewhere?)

Yep. And many of them were included in my 2014 presentation on the single-bullet theory, which I. presented at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference in Bethesda. While the conference schedule was a mess, and my presentation was thinly attended, I did have one surprise attendee, Warren Commission counsel turned judge Burt Griffin, who quickly left the room when I presented the goods on Specter. (We later exchanged a few emails in which he kinda sorta explained his behavior. He said that no matter what I put up on the screen, he just couldn't believe that Specter would lie about anything of substance. Strangely enough, this echoes Howard Willens, who told me pretty much the same thing the year before. They just refuse to believe the WC investigation was tainted by the actions of the WC or its staff...NO MATTER what the facts show...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

They [Burt Griffin & Howard Willens] just refuse to believe the WC investigation was tainted by the actions of the WC or its staff...NO MATTER what the facts show...)

But the long and short of it is....

It doesn't really matter what the awful Rydberg drawings depict, and it doesn't really matter whether Arlen Specter said "neck" 3000 times in his lifetime, because the Rydberg drawings are trumped (and always will be) by the "live action" scene demonstrated in CE903 that you hate so much, which PROVES that Specter & Co. did NOT raise the back wound into JFK's "neck".

And I don't see how anyone can say the CE903 photo is rigged or "phony" in some fashion. It shows the angle that leads back to the 6th floor (17d 43m 30s), and it shows the bullet exiting exactly where everyone agrees a bullet wound was located on JFK's body (the tie knot/trach wound area), and it shows the rod being placed into the known bullet hole in JBC's jacket.

Pat, don't those THREE things lining up perfectly in an "SBT" fashion (forgetting for the moment the precise "back wound" location seen in CE903) strike you as being rather amazing and incredible IF, as you assert, the Single-Bullet Theory is a pure fairy tale INVENTION of the Warren Commission?

How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his METAL ROD (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket?

You must admit that those THREE "SBT"-like things I just talked about are impressively duplicated in CE903....wouldn't you agree, Pat?

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his METAL ROD (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket?

<emphasis added>

Yes, David, we all know that the bullet hole in Connally's jacket matched the bullet hole in Connally.

Same with JFK.

Specter's METAL ROD missed the bullet hole in JFK's jacket by 3 inches, or so.

...No further questions, Mr. Von Pein.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But the long and short of it is....

It doesn't really matter what the awful Rydberg drawings depict, and it doesn't really matter whether Arlen Specter said "neck" 3000 times in his lifetime, because the Rydberg drawings are trumped (and always will be) by the "live action" scene demonstrated in CE903 that you hate so much, which PROVES that Specter & Co. did NOT raise the back wound into JFK's "neck".

And I don't see how anyone can say the CE903 photo is rigged or "phony" in some fashion. It shows the angle that leads back to the 6th floor (17d 43m 30s), and it shows the bullet exiting exactly where everyone agrees a bullet wound was located on JFK's body (the tie knot/trach wound area), and it shows the rod being placed into the known bullet hole in JBC's jacket.

Pat, don't those THREE things lining up perfectly in an "SBT" fashion (forgetting for the moment the precise "back wound" location seen in CE903) strike you as being rather amazing and incredible IF, as you assert, the Single-Bullet Theory is a pure fairy tale INVENTION of the Warren Commission?

How did Specter manage that amazing SBT-like trickery and how did he manage to manipulate his METAL ROD (which has no "zig-zag" attachment on it that I can see) so that it could be placed in a 17.72-degree downward angle and have it go straight from Kennedy's throat wound directly into Connally's bullet hole in his jacket?

You must admit that those THREE "SBT"-like things I just talked about are impressively duplicated in CE903....wouldn't you agree, Pat?

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

So you believe that in 903, the pointer that Specter is holding is placed at the neck, David? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

    Cliff’s criticism of your image is quite right. Put simply it tells us nothing. I am happy to admit that I do not believe or agree with the WC’s position. However lets look at this theory.
    Serious debate cannot be carried out in 2D. We cannot verify what any person has to say if our reference is CE 903. Although I do not agree with some of his data manipulation, Dale Myers 3D model is – in my view – as close to reality as it is possible to create.
    I know there have been discussions about Myers models of JFK and JBC, but for the sake of this discussion I am going to accept them as portrayed by Myers.
    What I want to discuss is the accuracy and consequence of his representation.  So using Myers images lets look at his theory.

Image 1:- Bullet Entry point on John Connally’s back:-
SBT%201_zpsn6msyrlt.jpg

To be fair to Myers I believe his placing of the entry wound to Connally is reasonable. Because I cannot get a high res close up I cannot be precise. What I can say is that the wound placement is certainly in the correct area.

Image 2:- SBT Trajectory from JFK to JBC:-
SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg

In this image Myers creates a direct line from JFK’s exit point. Later in the video he is able to extend this line back to the Oswald window. There are all sorts of assumptions that Myers has made.
He assumes the throat wound is an exit wound.
He assumes that the shirt tear is an exit point.
He assumes the bullet went through the knot in the tie.
All three of these points I disagree with, however for the sake of discussion I will accept these points.

For me the main problem with this image is that we do not see the exit point on Connally’s chest. Agreeing that Myers has a reasonable entry point on JBC’s back and the position of the exit on JFK’s throat is in keeping with what the WC have argued it is important to see what the consequence of Myers trajectory would have on this theory.

Image 3:- Continuing Dale Myers SBT Trajectory Line:-
SBT%20Theory_zps2w2oficb.jpg

The red line is my underline of Myers own line. The direction of that line is Myers, I have just emphasised it. I have not changed it.

The blue line is mine. I have extended Myer trajectory.

The Yellow line is the trajectory of the wound that Connally suffered. The angle of the line is based on the position JBC is at this point: Z 223/24. If Connally had been sitting forward at this point the line would be more close to the SBT. Because he is not seated facing forward that is why the line is angled that way.

Extending Myers line introduces two consequences that are not in keeping with the evidence.
That exit makes very clear that this bullet exits around the middle of JBC’s chest. Because the line has the bullet exit at this point the bullet would pass very close to Connally’s heart. Such a wound would probably be fatal.
This trajectory contradicts the medical evidence. The bullet never entered Connaly’s chest. Rib fragments did, but the bullet did not. Myers representation of this trajectory passage breaches everything we know about the medical history of Connally’s treatment

Going back to CE 903 that David produced – and which is a legitimate piece of evidence - because it is in 2D anyone and everyone can argue as they wish without the fear of serious contradiction. However looking at Myers 3D images – and Myers is a serious and respected WC supporter – we can see the weaknesses in the SBT. Only when we extend Myers trajectory do we see the weakness which collapses the SBT. CE 903’s exit point on John Connally is fairly accurate. But then – as cliff has pointed out – the entrance is wrong. Correct the entrance point and the resulting trajectory would have the bullet exit on John Connally right side and not just under the right nipple.

James

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

 

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg

See how Dale K. Myers depicted the top of JFK's jacket collar an inch above the bottom of his hairline.

But on Elm St. the jacket collar was in a normal position .

These Lone Nutters always destroy their own claims.

15c.%2BCroft%2BPhoto%2BShowing%2BJFK%27s%2BCar%2BOn%2BElm%2BStreet.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

You are quite right. As I recollect there were many examples of Myers misinterpretation of the data.

My argument was to point out the weaknee of using CE 903. In 2D anyone can claim anything. For Dale Myres SBT it has to be a straighr line - which indeed he proves from his position of JFK's back wound to the Oswald window. It is even possible - if you accept all Myers says about the throat wound - which you and I do not accept -that Myers is able to get a straight line from the Oswald window to JBC's back wounf. However when Myers attempts to contine the trajectory through JBC's chest he has to ignore completely JBC's medical evidence. Were he to record JBC's wounding as the record records then he would not only no longer have a straight line his line wuld have to swerve to the right and then to the left to strike the corect locattion.

I do not know what is worse, continuing the trajectory line and have the bullet strike JBC's heart or creating a trajectory that zigs and zags and then strikes the correct location on JBC's back

James

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:41 PM, David Von Pein said:

Hi Eddy,

If the bullet that entered JFK's upper back truly had no possible way of exiting the front of his body without hitting some bones (as most conspiracy theorists believe), then I kind of doubt the three autopsy surgeons would have said this in their final report....do you? ....

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body." -- JFK's Autopsy Report (Page 6); Warren Report, Page 543

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

There is also this conclusion reached by the Clark Panel in 1968....

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." -- From Clark Panel Report

Replay (for emphasis)....

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

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

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

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-812.html

Thankyou very much for your reply Mr Von Pein. As I said, you're comments are based on evidence which is very helpful.

Your response does not appear to answer my question. You have responded by stating that, in effect experts have confirmed it happened. Put another way; people with medical expertise say a bullet passed on the trajectory (there is absolutely no doubt as to the required trajectory, a line can be drawn from the 'snipers nest' to the front of Kennedy's throat) required through the bones in JFK's neck/back. I urge anyone to seek out an anatomically correct neck/back model and see the problem, no gap. 

I have asked this question on the JFK facts website and received the reply 'JFK had an obnormality ' (from another poster, no support for this provided). That's a shame because it is incredibly implausible, but at least possible. If Oswald had aimed badly and his bullet had struck something (a branch?) then again implausible , but possible.

You have chosen one line of argument, your argument lends weight to the premise, about the weight of a grain of sand. Do you have anything else to add to your reply to me?, I would again be grateful.

To me, the inability to explain this simple fault with the suggestion Oswald caused the throat wound makes me look at the other options. The possibility he was shot from the front and the bullet ricocheted  into to his chest cavity matches the evidence best.

Edited by Eddy Bainbridge

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

×