Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

“Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, indeed, he is ---- exactly 17.72 degrees downward (as measured by a surveyor out on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza).

David, I,m not talking about downward angle,  i wasn't talking about it in the post above where i mention Spectors left hand out over the right shoulder of the person in the car.......Im talking about the right to left trajectory of a bullet coming from the 6th floor shown in the SS scope close ups...and how its totally different from what Spector is showing reaching out into the car.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

I'm talking about the right to left trajectory of a bullet coming from the 6th floor shown in the SS scope close ups...and how it's totally different from what Spector [sic] is showing reaching out into the car.

You can't possibly tell what Specter's precise "right to left" angle is from that side-on view in the CE903 photo. Why pretend you can?

Zoomed-in view of CE903....

CE903-Zoomed.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.  You did not post it here.

What person with any brains would go to your site to see your phony discussions which you rig?

Or maybe some of the newbies like Adam do not know that?

See, what DVP does is he steals some stuff from this forum.  As  you can see, about 99 per cent of the time, he gets thumped here.  (The other 1 per cent no one pays any attention to him.)

So he then picks that stuff up from here and brings it over to his site. There he arranges it in such a way that it looks like he does much better than he actually did.  In other words its all a dog and pony show with him as the MC of DVP Follies.

One of the reasons he will not show the reverse angle here is because on that angle its actually shown that they placed the back wound too far down for the shot of Specter to be matched up with it.  As you can see from just the photo above, Lying Arlen has the rod on top of the guy' shoulder.  The top of one's shoulder is at the base of the neck.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the reasons he will not show the reverse angle here...

Why don't you just post it here yourself? Haven't you learned how to post a picture yet?

Come to think of it, have you EVER posted any photos here? I'm not being critical of you in this regard, it's just that I can't think of any posts where you've added any pictures, which seems kind of curious, since this crime is one that has so many "photographic" aspects to it.

But since you seem to refuse to post those "opposite angle" pictures for yourself, I'll do it for you....

Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

 

SBT-Reenactment-Photo-May-1964--02.png

 

SBT-Reenactment-Photo-May-1964.png

 

Specter-02.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/CE903 (Part 3) (Re: Angles)

Do CTers here REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

And even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely?

And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:drive

 

LOL, ROTF, LMAO

 

That look on Specter's face is priceless.  "Hmm, we have a problem here."

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, this also makes it harder to understand how DVP can say that if you lower the inshoot from the neck to the back, that makes the Single Bullet Fantasy more tenable.

 

From the look on Specter's face, i think he disagrees.

 

But there is also this point:  this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos.  They had to have them to get that dotted location.

Share this post


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

 

 

Why don't you just post it here yourself? Haven't you learned how to post a picture yet?

Come to think of it, have you EVER posted any photos here? I'm not being critical of you in this regard, it's just that I can't think of any posts where you've added any pictures, which seems kind of curious, since this crime is one that has so many "photographic" aspects to it.

But since you seem to refuse to post those "opposite angle" pictures for yourself, I'll do it for you....

Opposite-Angle-View-Of-CE903.gif

 

SBT-Reenactment-Photo-May-1964--02.png

 

SBT-Reenactment-Photo-May-1964.png

 

Specter-02.png

The car is flat not on a downslope.  You have to understand how bad this shows its not a scientific recreation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this also makes it harder to understand how DVP can say that if you lower the inshoot from the neck to the back, that makes the Single Bullet Fantasy more tenable.

 

From the look on Specter's face, i think he disagrees.

 

But there is also this point:  this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos.  They had to have them to get that dotted location.

Great point.  Unless we are in fantasyland.  Right fc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

The car is flat not on a downslope.  You have to understand how bad this shows its not a scientific recreation.

A quick point, Cory.

They took the slope into account when they tested the trajectory.

If they hadn't the Connally stand-in would be 3 degrees lower than the Kennedy stand-in (which would serve to lift the back wound against the throat wound), and the trajectory would almost work. 

P.S. A number of the photos posted by DVP came from my website, which is fine. I would like to point out, however, that 2 of them were first posted on this forum by a researcher named John Hunt, who actually got off his rear and traveled to the archives, and scanned hundreds of never-before published photos hidden away in the FBI's bulky files (which are not available on the Mary Ferrell or Harold Weinberg sites). I was informed recently that John died this past November. Here's to John...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no.  That is really too bad.

John Hunt, as Pat notes above, was one of the real work horses as opposed to a show horse in this case.  Like Malcolm Blunt, John really did research.  And he gave it out to anyone who was interested.  He was quite meticulous and he dug up stuff on the medical and ballistics angle that no one else did.  He will be missed.

Share this post


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

But there is also this point:  this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos.  They had to have them to get that dotted location.

Totally untrue. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission could have very easily determined the location of the back wound from the autopsy report ("14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"). And that's no doubt what they did. Even if they did look at the autopsy photo, they wouldn't have relied ONLY on that photo. They would have utilized the best measurement for the back wound---which was in the autopsy report.

Oddly, Thomas J. Kelley of the Secret Service testified that the chalk mark was determined by just looking at the crappy Rydberg drawing and the coat of JFK --- which is ridiculous, because if ONLY those two things were the source of the chalk mark, the mark would certainly NOT be in the location where we find it in CE903. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that the WC would have certainly gone to the best place for determining where on Kennedy's body the wound was located---and that's the autopsy report.

And, in fact, we find this info on Page 107 of the WCR, confirming what I just said above about the WC relying on the autopsy report itself....

"The wounds of entry and exit on the President were approximated based on information gained from the autopsy reports and photographs."

The above sentence could give the appearance that the Warren Commission was admitting that they had, in fact, looked at the autopsy photos. But when the WC used the word "photographs" on Page 107 of its Report, they appear (via the source note provided on Page 107) to only be referring to the crappy Rydberg drawings (see Thomas Kelley's testimony at 5 H 133-134).

But I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter and the WC were definitely relying on more than just JFK's jacket and the awful Rydberg drawing (seen in Commission Exhibit No. 386). They had easy access, of course, to Page 3 of JFK's autopsy report, which clearly indicates the precise location of where a bullet had entered President Kennedy's upper back.

So it is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion, to believe that the Commission would NOT have utilized Page 3 of that autopsy report when it came time to place that chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in during the Warren Commission's assassination reconstruction effort in Dallas, Texas, on Sunday, May 24, 1964.

 

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...