Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

[David Von Pein]

3 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Maybe the EOP wound and large head wound were created by different projectiles.

Then why don't we see a second explosion of JFK's head in the Zapruder Film?

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Then why don't we see a second explosion of JFK's head in the Zapruder Film?

As Vincent Bugliosi may have said, gunshots to the head don't always look like the movies. Maybe it could have even occurred at frame 190-224, causing slight enough brain damage to impair Kennedy's motor skills.

 

[Jake Hammond]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Please show me just ONE post that I have written where I refer to ANY of the Parkland/Bethesda "BOH Wound" witnesses as "crackpots".

You won't find such a post, of course, because I've never said any such thing.

No, that was Lance, I apologise. 

[Jake Hammond]

51 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Then why don't we see a second explosion of JFK's head in the Zapruder Film?

A - we do , there is an expulsion of matter rearwards at 316 and a deformity at the rear of the head tallying with the parkland doctors. 

b - it’s not an ‘ explosion ‘ because the pressure and blood was gone by 316.

its hard to prove this but also Jackie’s reactions, she suddenly looks rearward and dives over the trunk , well after 313 . Bob Harris, who I know you are fond of, points this out. 

Im not 100% on this myself but it would reconcile the evidence. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jake Hammond

[Jake Hammond]

11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Intuitively, of course, I would agree with you.  You might want to watch a Carcano bullet penetrate 36" of pine boards and emerge in pristine condition:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=167&v=a-imJWUcMso.  There is another documentary where, as I recall, a Carcano bullet penetrated 42" into a solid pine log and was likewise in pristine condition when removed.

 

Lance, explain to me these two issues. 

1- if the ‘ carcano bullet ‘can pass through 36” of wood and not even get a scratch , then what happened to the headshot when up entering a human skull it fragmented ( one fragment of which must have caused the dent in the chrome if there were three shots). Also there were fragments both in the car and in the head. If the fragments were fake or planted then you’re a CTer,  if they aren’t we have two weapons. 

2- Please explain the two closely bunched final shots. Most witnesses describe the two shots as being too close than is physically possible with the  Carcano . But it gets better....the final shot was a ( difficult) perfect headshot so he would have had to aim , acquire the target and track the head . Alternatively, he saw the head explode then decided to reload and fire at James Tague. 

In all honestly ..... explain this and I’ll take you seriously. 

 

[David Von Pein]

32 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

No, that was Lance, I apologise. 

Oh, OK. No problem.

But did Lance imply that he thinks all of the BOH witnesses are "crackpots"? I find that hard to believe. Do you have his quote to that effect? Just curious.

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[François Carlier]

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Not really. All of the physical evidence and most of the circumstantial evidence points right at Lee Oswald and nobody else.

However, when it comes to the subject of those Parkland and Bethesda "Back Of The Head" witnesses....

"Those "BOH" witnesses do still bother me to a large degree. It's still the #1 "mystery" (in my mind) in the entire case. I still wonder how so many medical professionals could ALL get it totally wrong. But there is BETTER evidence that proves (beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO) that those "BOH wound" witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect when they claimed the only large wound on the head of John F. Kennedy was located in the occipital area (far-right-rear) of his head. And that "better evidence" is the photographic record of JFK's head wounds, including the autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, and the Zapruder Film." -- DVP; May 21, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. Always has been. It's weird. It's incredible. It's inexplicable. But it happened. Dozens of trained medical professionals were wrong about the locality of JFK's large head wound. And the X-rays and photos prove they were wrong. Seemingly incredible? Yes. But true just the same. Can I fully explain why? No. Sure can't. But I give it a shot HERE and HERE." -- DVP; January 31, 2016

 

👍

[Jake Hammond]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, OK. No problem.

But did Lance imply that he thinks all of the BOH witnesses are "crackpots"? I find that hard to believe. Do you have his quote to that effect? Just curious.

I challenged him on the ‘ evidence ‘ ( as I see it ) of people running up the hill after the shooting and he said that witnesses who reported shots from that area were crackpots. He may have inferred that the people running were crackpots also but that’s not a quote. My point is, that he takes the high road about only using ‘ evidence’ yet does ignore some stuff which does at least seem to be evidence. Rather than reconcile that evidence into a timeline, which is what I try to do. More annoyingly, when someone makes a suggestion about reconciliation he ridicules it. 

[Adam Johnson]

Hi All,

Thanks David for this gif of the Z Frames 311..312..313..314..315..316

I have believed for a long time that a strong possibility existed that JFK was struck in the back of the head at frames 310/311/312 before receiving a hit to the temple coming from in front and slightly to his Right Hand Side at Z313.

When viewing JFK in a close up i always saw that forward head movement for just 1 or 2 frames before the explosive 313 impact. I had never seen a close up slow mo  of the limo with all occupants on display...

Please look at the DVP gif again and focus your attention on John Connally and Roy Kellerman's head movements from 311 to 316.     Their heads start a similar forward movement but only JFK's is rocked backward and too the left after 313 while Connally and Kellerman's continue in that forward motion......the only logical explanation for all three people in the vehicles heads moving forward at the same time is that the brakes were applied..........so if inertia takes all three forward what would cause only one persons head to stop moving forward and move back rapidly and to the left???????????

"You cannot change the laws of physics Jim" someone once said somewhere!!!

Inertia is the resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object's speed, or direction of motion. An aspect of this property is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at a constant speed, when no forces are upon them—and this aspect in particular is also called inertia.

Game.  Set.  BINGO

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Adam Johnson

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/26/2018 at 7:39 AM, Lance Payette said:

Sandy, I truly derive no pleasure from embarrassing you.  Your documents were ones that I discovered early in the PMO discussion.  They do not say what you insist they say, THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE POSTAL SERVICE AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE, and this will be my final word on the silly PMO non-issue.

Footnote 2 to Operating Circular No. 4, which deals in general terms with the collection of cash items:

(b) Government checks, postal money orders, and food stamp coupons.2
2. Provisions governing the collection of the foregoing cash items are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C, respectively, of this operating circular. 

Appendix B:

1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; domestic-international postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters not covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders.
 

The AGREEMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE is the governing document.  Regulation J and the Operating Circular, including Appendix B, govern WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT.

Please, stop playing lawyer and go back to playing dentist.

 

To summarize, I told Lance that the Agreement between the Federal Reserve and Postmaster General regarding the processing of postal money orders [PMOs] was in Appendix B of this document. He said no it wasn't.

Then when quoting Appendix B in his response, Lance conveniently left off the Agreement part!

Following is the complete appendix. The part I've highlighted in red has to do with that Agreement, and item #3 specifically IS the agreement.

(No need to read the whole thing... just read the bold parts.)

 

                                            APPENDIX B
                                 POSTAL MONEY ORDERS

1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders;
United States international postal money orders; domestic-international
postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in
accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in
behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as
depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization
of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters not
covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J
applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time
schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders.

2. We will give immediate credit for postal money orders received
from a sender maintaining or using an account with us as provided
in our time schedules. Simultaneously with such credit, we will debit
the amount of such money orders against the general account of the
Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may
be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States; and such credit
to the account of the sender shall then become final as between us and
the sender.

3. The agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal
Reserve Banks provides [the following,] in effect, that no claim for refund or otherwise
with respect to any postal money order debited against the general
account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to
the representative of the Post Office Department as provided in said
agreement (other than a claim based upon the negligence of a Federal
Reserve Bank) shall be made against or through any Federal Reserve
Bank; that, if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with
respect to any such money order, such money order will not be returned
or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department
will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such
claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the
Post Office Department in asserting such claim, including making
their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available
to the Post Office Department. Section 210.12 of Regulation J, relating
to the return of cash items by the paying banks, is not applicable
to postal money orders.

 

Item #2 is also part of the agreement, of course. It just says that the Federal Reserve will process postal money orders the way it does all other cash items, which is the intent of the agreement. Item #3 is singled out because it stipulates exceptions in the the way PMOs are to be  handled.

Lance didn't quote items #2 and #3 and instead focused on the sentence I have in blue. It says that anything not covered by the Agreement (as laid out in #2 & #3) will be treated the same as all other "cash items" processed by the Federal Reserve. Lance tried to make it sound as though the sole purpose of the appendix was to say that.

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/26/2018 at 7:39 AM, Lance Payette said:

Please, stop playing lawyer and go back to playing dentist.

One doesn't need to be a lawyer to read and understand a legal document, just like one doesn't need to be a dentist to read and understand a dental chart.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Intuitively, of course, I would agree with you.  You might want to watch a Carcano bullet penetrate 36" of pine boards and emerge in pristine condition:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=167&v=a-imJWUcMso.  There is another documentary where, as I recall, a Carcano bullet penetrated 42" into a solid pine log and was likewise in pristine condition when removed.

 

 

That demonstration is a parlor trick. Of course the bullet remains in it's original shape... why would it mushroom or otherwise become deformed when it has wood surrounding it keeping it from doing so?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

14 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about EOP wound? All ten autopsy attendants who reported a small wound on the back of the head specified that it was in the lower head area. Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Stringer, Kellerman, Boyers, Lipsey, O'Neill, Robinson.

Which, when you think about it, is kind of odd. Because that precise area of JFK's head where the bullet supposedly entered --- the "occipital" area --- was ALSO allegedly the very same area (or pretty close to being the same area) that was allegedly BLASTED OUT of JFK's head, according to dozens of other witnesses.

So, which was it --- was it completely BLOWN OUT? Or was there just a small entry wound in that part of his head? Or both? Did the alleged entry hole just miss merging with the huge blown-out area of the occipital?

The EOP bullet was said to have created a 6 by 15 mm hole in the scalp (not skull). It was said to have skidded a little on the skull, thus creating the 15 mm length. It was said to have entered into the skull as signified by a beveling of the inside surface of the skull (typical for a bullet entry). It was said that the beveling was seen on the margin of the skull bone... that is to say, on the edge of the skull bone where a fragment had broken off. Funny thing, though... that fragment was at first missing and arrived later. Which begs the question:

How did that fragment at the EOP site escape if there wasn't a large hole on the back of the head? Nobody at the HSCA seemed to care... they asked no follow-up questions as far as I've seen.

 

Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the EOP entrance wound ]  "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound.

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"

 

Can anybody say "Harper fragment?"

Sure, I knew you could.

 

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Please look at the DVP gif again and focus your attention on John Connally and Roy Kellerman's head movements from 311 to 316. Their heads start a similar forward movement but only JFK's is rocked backward and to the left after 313 while Connally and Kellerman's continue in that forward motion......the only logical explanation for all three people in the vehicles heads moving forward at the same time is that the brakes were applied......

I see a distinct forward SNAP of JFK's head. I don't see such a sudden and quick SNAP-like movement of anyone else's head in the limousine. And I think Kellerman's forward movement is almost certainly a VOLUNTARY movement (vs. the INVOLUNTARY forward movement exhibited by President Kennedy). And that movement forward by Kellerman is because he's starting to DUCK immediately after the fatal head shot. I see no forward movement of Connally's head at 313-315 at all. I see some BLURRING of those frames, but that's all.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The EOP bullet was said to have created a 6 by 15 mm hole in the scalp (not skull). It was said to have skidded a little on the skull, thus creating the 15 mm length. It was said to have entered into the skull as signified by a beveling of the inside surface of the skull (typical for a bullet entry). It was said that the beveling was seen on the margin of the skull bone... that is to say, on the edge of the skull bone where a fragment had broken off. Funny thing, though... that fragment was at first missing and arrived later. Which begs the question:

How did that fragment at the EOP site escape if there wasn't a large hole on the back of the head? Nobody at the HSCA seemed to care... they asked no follow-up questions as far as I've seen.

 

Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the EOP entrance wound ]  "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound.

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"

 

Can anybody say "Harper fragment?"

Sure, I knew you could.

 

Dr. Finck seemed to say the opposite - that he could examine the EOP wound in the skull as an undisturbed perforation in the bone. And he arrived after the top of the skull had been opened up to remove the brain.