David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
-
28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
...the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound...
The WC and the HSCA didn't see it quite that way, did they?
But we should just ignore the conclusions of the official investigations in favor of the conclusions of Cliff "Only The Clothes Matter" Varnell. Right?
Pfffttt.
-
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:
The frontal throat wound is real history...
No, it isn't. It was merely a GUESS by one of the first doctors who treated JFK at Parkland (Dr. Perry). And Perry later admitted that the throat wound could have been "either" and entry or an exit wound.
Also....
From Page 6 of JFK's autopsy report:
"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."
From the Clark Panel report:
"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."
Also....
It's kind of interesting to see---despite Dr. Perry's initial guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY---the media was (on Saturday, November 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound as well....
"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." -- The Boston Globe; 11/23/63 [article pictured below]http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1287.html
https://drive.google.com/file/video/Interviews With Dr. Malcolm Perry In 1963 & 1967
Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh
-
-
33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
I jump in quoting David Von Pein describing the jacket fold in Croft 3 as "a little bit."
So what? We've been over this a dozen times previously. Somehow, though, Cliff thinks that my "little bit" statement means I have no choice but to totally abandon all the other indications of the SBT being true.
As Pat said ---- creepy. (Not to mention silly.)
-
-
18 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:
...two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination. The same destination being the 5th rib.
Do you now understand my point?
Okay, James. I thought by "same destination", you were talking about the exit wound in the front of Connally's chest. But you weren't talking about the exit wound, you were talking about the rib as the "destination". Sorry.
But, James, your own diagram (below) disproves this statement of yours....
"Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination."
And yet that EXACT thing DOES happen in the chart/diagram that you created yesterday. Your "two angles" (one of them angled at 17 degrees and the other at 27 degrees) ARE, indeed, "reaching the same destination [rib]" ---- i.e., they are BOTH hitting ("reaching") the fourth rib.
So, if (as you admit is possible) your chart is slightly off in some way (like, say, the entry wound in the back being a little bit off?), why couldn't those same two lines "reach the same destination" of the FIFTH rib, versus hitting the fourth?
-
16 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:
David,
It has nothing to do with my diagram which may or may not be incorrect, It has everything to do with Maths and Trigonometry. Two angles each of a different value cannot reach the same destination.
I (truly) have no idea why you're saying such a thing, James. I really don't. The bullet simply struck an object (a rib) on its path through John Connally's body, and thusly the bullet changed trajectory from a 17-degree downward angle to a steeper 27-degree downward angle prior to exiting Connally's chest below the right nipple. No "math"-defying antics at all here. Merely a rib that changed the bullet path.
-
I edited my last post to include this....
(But I do want to say "Thanks" for the diagram you [James R. Gordon] produced. After all, I did ask you to provide a chart of some kind, and you did the best you could. But I truly believe you've got something incorrect in your diagram, because the sum total of the evidence indicates that ONE GUNMAN---firing from the 6th floor of the Depository---caused all of the wounds to Governor Connally's body.)
-
James G.,
And you think you've somehow PROVEN (via your makeshift diagram) that the 17-degree and 27-degree angles cannot co-exist in this case?
Pardon me if I disagree with you.
(But I do want to say "Thanks" for the diagram you produced. After all, I did ask you to provide a chart of some kind, and you did the best you could. But I truly believe you've got something incorrect in your diagram, because the sum total of the evidence indicates that ONE GUNMAN---firing from the 6th floor of the Depository---caused all of the wounds to Governor Connally's body.)
-
James R Gordon said:
YOU say that until it strikes the rib, the bullet trajectory is 17.72º. As I pointed out, that might work, but the rib is likely to be the 4th rib rather than the 5th.
As always with CTers, everything is Oh so close....but never quite close enough to even consider the POSSIBILITY that the LNer's conclusions could be true.
Quoting a fellow LNer....
"When [conspiracy theorists] look at the evidence, anything involving [Oswald's] culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006
And Bud could have added this one too....
The trajectory angle of the bullet depicted in CE903 is almost correct, but not quite. Specter's rod almost intersects Kennedy's upper-back wound, but not quite. And the angle through Connally's chest is almost correct if JBC's fifth rib was struck by the bullet, but not quite. It's so very close, but never close enough, per the "Never Say Approximately" conspiracy theorists.
~sigh~
https://quoting-common-sense.blogspot.com
-
14 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
David, your "sic" inserted into a quote from me, a few posts ago, when I misspelled "Commission" was noted. So, I accept the compliment. You can't take it back....
But I wasn't mocking your spelling in the "non sequitur" post, even though you think I was.
OK?
Let's move on.
-
I wasn't pointing out your misspellings, Michael. I used the word "non sequitur" as a playful reference to describe what you did in this post of yours, which was, indeed, a "non sequitur". I wasn't mocking the fact that you misspelled the same word (although I can certainly see why you might think I was). But I was using that word on my own to describe your actions, not your spelling.
-
New nickname....
Michael "Non Sequitur" Clark.
-
27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
No, I equated the Warren Commission's requirements for their forthcoming fiction with the nonsense that you and Myers maintain.
And what the heck has any of that got to do with this comment of mine that you were responding to?....
"And what better VISUAL source for the assassination could you possibly get?"
-
5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
How about one that takes into consideration the fact that The Warren Comission's [sic] fantasy should not determine the output of the investigation or those of latter-day apologists, such as Myers, or David Von Pein.
Boy, what a silly comment that was. As if the ZAPRUDER FILM has anything whatsoever to do with the Warren Commission. (Or maybe Michael thinks Arlen Specter HIMSELF altered the Z-Film. Is that how you equate The Warren Commission with Visual Evidence Contained Within The Zapruder Film?)
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
So why is it, then, that you assume Myers, working at home, and presenting no corroborating photos taken from the sniper's nest, got it right years later? Because...? He told you his work was precise and exact?
And you believed him?
In one very important and key way, Dale Myers' computer model is much BETTER than the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment in Dealey Plaza itself.
Why?
Because Myers' model is locked in (frame by frame) to the actual film of JFK's assassination---the Zapruder Film. And what better VISUAL source for the assassination could you possibly get? (Notwithstanding, of course, the alterationists who continue to believe the silly theory about the Z-Film being a fake.)
Dale Myers explains the "Key Framing" process here....
-
I don't know why I bother to post this Dale Myers photo here (since you, Pat Speer, don't believe a thing in Dale's computer animation), but here it is anyway....and this Z223 image (per Dale Myers) was Key Framed to the Z-Film itself (not just made up by Myers). The trajectory is perfect for the SBT at Z223....
-
Pat,
Just take a good look at these two pictures below (in tandem). Now are you really going to continue to maintain that Specter's pointer/rod in CE903 is situated ABOVE the entry wound location in John F. Kennedy's upper back. If anything, I'd say the rod is situated a little bit too LOW, not too HIGH (but you've been saying it's too HIGH for years now). But does the autopsy photo on the right REALLY bear out your theory about the rod being "INCHES above the back wound location in the FBI's photos"? I don't think so....
-
I want to thank Pat Speer for the following two photos from the 5/24/64 garage re-enactment. Based on the file names that Pat has placed on these pictures, it appears that Pat added them to this lengthy page of his website fairly recently (in January and February of 2018). I'm glad I scrolled down his page to find them. Very nice clarity in the CE903 blow-up in the first image (which I've added to one of my CE903 webpages, with credit being given to Pat). While I don't adhere to the same conclusions regarding Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission that Pat Speer does, I must acknowledge the tremendous amount of time and effort that Pat has put into just that one page ("Chapter 10") of his PatSpeer.com website.
Can you tell me where you got these photos, Pat?....
-
From an April 2012 discussion....
PAT SPEER SAID:
They [Arlen Specter and Lyndal Shaneyfelt] gave the illusion the trajectory passed close to the back wound [in Commission Exhibit No. 903], when they both KNEW it passed inches above it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bullxxxx.
Some things had to be approximated, and the Warren Commission was forthright about such approximations. And the trajectory the WC ultimately used (which was for the equivalent of Z217.5) is obviously not going to be the EXACT trajectory for the single bullet that struck JFK and Connally--unless, by some incredibly good fortune, the Commission did, indeed, just happen to choose the EXACT half of a Zapruder frame (Z217.5) when the SBT bullet did strike the victims, which is very unlikely. (The SBT actually occurs, of course, at precisely Z224, and there are many reasons why this is so.)
Therefore, Shaneyfelt's and Specter's "approximately" language does come into play...and rightly so.
In fact, that's probably the reason why Specter's rod is above the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in in some of the re-enactment photos taken in the garage near Dealey Plaza. Because, I assume, that the angle being used for all of those photos is identical (17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds). And since a 17-43-30 angle is only the average angle between Z210 and Z225, then (quite obviously) the REAL angle of descent for the SBT at Z224 (per my opinion about when the bullet struck) is going to be a little less than 17-43-30 because the car has travelled further down Elm Street between Z217.5 and Z224, decreasing the angle from Oswald's window.
But the CE903 reconstruction is so incredibly close to being spot-on perfect (angle-wise and wound location-wise) that only the hardcore conspiracy buffs who refuse to "approximate" anything relating to this case will be unconvinced by it. With those conspiracists also, of course, ignoring the undeniable common sense elements that exist in the 6 points I'm going to talk about below too.
When we factor in the basic garden-variety common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory (coupled with the Warren Commission's May 24, 1964, re-creation of the shooting in Dealey Plaza), the SBT becomes crystal clear as the probable truth:
1.) At Zapruder Film frames 210-225, when looking through the scope of Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest window in the Book Depository, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are lined up--one in front of the other.
2.) JFK was hit in the back by a bullet.
3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his throat.
4.) Governor Connally was hit in the back by a bullet at just about the exact same time that JFK was being struck by a bullet.
5.) No bullets were inside JFK's throat/neck/upper back.
6.) The only physical evidence of any shooter in Dealey Plaza was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
Now, just add up #1 thru #6 above and tell me the Single-Bullet Theory is a load of xxxx.
Based on just the above basic facts in this case ALONE (and each one is definitely a proven fact, without a speck of a doubt), the SBT is the best explanation for the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
RE: THE LIMOUSINE'S JUMP SEAT MEASUREMENTS....
The more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am becoming that the U.S. Secret Service (Thomas J. Kelley) merely measured the "inboard" distance of John Connally's jump seat from a different place from that which appears on the official Hess & Eisenhardt body draft of the 1961 Lincoln limousine, just as I speculated the other day when I said this:
"I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct. And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for the jump seat location. Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't. I think that measurement must have been different because they were measuring from a different starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing point" was different than H&E's." -- DVP; 4/12/12
Now, when we look at the two pictures below, I can easily envision the Secret Service's measurement for the jump seat being calculated from a different starting point on the car to account for the 3.5-inch difference in the measurements when compared to Hess & Eisenhardt.
If the Secret Service measurement also included the area between the arrows in the second picture, it looks to me as though that would add up to just about six inches when the 2.50-inch measurement in the H&E diagram is included too:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the HSCA also used the six-inch [approx. 15 cm.] figure, when it said this:
"Connally...was seated well within the car on the jump seat ahead of Kennedy; a gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated this seat from the car door."
-- HSCA Volume 6; Page 49
Moreover, the HSCA's "slightly less than 15 centimeters" figure was obviously NOT being derived solely from Thomas Kelley's testimony, because just after citing the "15 centimeters" measurement at 6 HSCA 49, the HSCA gives a source for the 15-cm. measurement—Figure II-19, at 6 HSCA 50—which is the H&E body draft of the limo, which says the jump seat is 2.50 inches inboard. Which makes me think the HSCA was also using a measurement that included the 2.50-inch measurement we see specified in the H&E body draft PLUS an additional 3.5 inches of space that I've outlined with arrows in my photo above.
I'll also add this:
At one point in the endnotes in his JFK book, when Vincent Bugliosi cited his source for a "six-inch gap" between the jump seat and the limo door, Vince cited the HSCA and not Thomas Kelley's Warren Commission testimony:
"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right door [6 HSCA 49]." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 of Endnotes
Final Thought:
In my opinion, BOTH Thomas Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt measurements are accurate. It's just that each of those figures was calculated in a different manner, utilizing a different starting point on the SS-100-X limousine. That's all.
2008 "JUMP SEAT" DISCUSSION:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Dale Myers And The SBT
David Von Pein
April 13, 2012
April 14, 2012
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html
-
42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
You did not use them here [i.e., the "opposite angle" photos relating to CE903].
Dead wrong. I embedded one of those other photos in a post I wrote 4 days ago (on Page 6 of this very thread)....
(....And be sure to check the "Edit" time in the above post, so you can know that I didn't just this minute add the photo to my July 2nd post. You probably DO think I am THAT dishonest, but I am not.)
-
18 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
Congratulations to Professor McAdams. I, for one, will be glad to see him back teaching some common sense about the assassination.
Hear, hear!
-
33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
without the other two pics that Speer produced--and DVP will not--
I guess there's no chance that DiEugenio will EVER stop telling this lie, is there Jim?
As I told you previously, I've used the other pictures multiple times on my site.
A question to David Lifton
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Of course, I wasn't implying that the Globe was correct when they said the bullet went from JFK's HEAD to his THROAT. That theory is, of course, absurd. But at the time the Globe published its article on 11/23, they had no idea that JFK had a wound in his upper back. They thought (at the time) that Kennedy had just TWO wounds---the head wound and a bullet hole in his throat.