David Von Pein

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sprague was actually heading toward that kind of analysis of this so called evidence when he was terminated.  I think that is a major reason why he was removed.  

That's right, Jim. It was The World Vs. The Patsy all the way through the HSCA even (despite the fact the HSCA said there WAS a conspiracy).

Go figure that.

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I believe that the angle of declination is much more attuned to the second floor Dal Tex building.

Does this mean you're in bed with Weisberg and believe that NO SHOTS came from the 6th Floor? (Please say yes, Jim. It'll make my day if you do.)

https://app.box.com/embed/preview/3rrtvmfia343qhdiihcn

3 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

So David if we are in agreement here what does that say about the SBT and the 17-27º trajectory?

It says that Oswald's bullet hit the two victims at a 17-degree angle, and then the bullet changed course to a 27-degree angle after striking JBC's fifth rib....just as WCR Page 107 says. But I'm supposed to merely think that Page 107 is nothing but a rotten evil LIE, right Jim?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066a.htm

4 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Yeah, that’s funny. They took measurements to a point from which a gun was never fired....😂

And yet a gun was seen in that exact window by numerous witnesses at the precise time when a gun was being fired at JFK on Nov. 22. (Funny co-inky, huh?)  Did they all lie? Or were they seeing just a "prop gun"?

(You must be related to Harold Weisberg, Michael. He believed in that same silly junk too.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It is simply not possible.  The true angle is much closer to what Frazier marks above, and also to what the Sibert-O'Neill report says was the angle in JFK's back bullet channel.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just spitting out theories about steeper angles just to hear yourself talk.

The exact angle measurements were taken by surveyors in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964, when the WC and FBI performed their assassination re-enactments. The exacting measurements are revealed on page 106 of the WCR....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0065b.htm

But Jim D. thinks all those detailed measurements about the angles are nothing but LIES spouted by the WC, right Jim?

And Jim must think that Dale Myers just made up his own set of figures too (via Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" project). All of these figures are just lies too, right Jim?....

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

In short, DiEugenio (as usual) is blowing smoke (and a lot of hot air).

10 hours ago, François Carlier said:

...this thread will go nowhere, because science has already resolved the issue. The single bullet is a valid point.

Amen, Francois. And it's good to see you posting again. I see that you had not posted here since September of 2010. That's a long dry spell. Please post more often. You always make good solid points.

24 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

Even if Connally was seated the first time, when he is seated correctly we get the TRUE trajectory angle of 27º.

Yes, after reading the pertinent Shaw testimony again the other day, I concur with you on that point. The correct angle is 27 degrees, not 25.

5 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

2. Robert Frazier who had full access to John Connolly’s [sic] clothes and made measurements on them and calculated based on the holes in the jacket the angle of trajectory was 40º.  

But why would anyone use ONLY the CLOTHING holes to try and determine the bullet's trajectory? We KNOW the HOLES IN CONNALLY'S BODY (SKIN) resulted in a measured angle of 25 to 27 degrees, not 30 to 40 degrees. And the BODY (SKIN) wounds are obviously the BEST EVIDENCE to use, right?

So why, James, did you even bring up the clothing angles? Just to bolster your very weak "The SBT Was Impossible" claim?

We all know that the hole in the front of Connally's jacket was much lower than the hole in his chest. But, just like with the holes in JFK's clothing, since there's only ONE hole in the front of JBC's jacket and only ONE hole in the front of his chest.....it must mean what? That ONE bullet went through BOTH of those holes.

So, again, what was your point in emphasizing the low hole in Connally's suit coat, James G.? You don't think there were TWO bullets involved in John Connally's chest injury....do you?

10 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

The actual conversation before the WC is below.
Mr Dulles: Doctor, would the angle be the same if the Governor were seated now the way he [was in] the chair?
That means that the 25º degree angle that has just been taken was when Connally was standing That is why Dulles asks what would the angle be if he were seated.

Yes, I read that testimony too. But it doesn't specifically say that Connally was STANDING when the 25d measurement was taken. It could mean that JBC was seated but just not "the way he was" when he was shot. (See what I mean?) Anyway, it's a very small difference either way, as Dr. Shaw noted at 4 H 138 --- "That didn't make much difference" [R. Shaw].

34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

Yes 25º is a smaller angle but that was the angle when he was standing.

What's your source for that "standing" conclusion? Because I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony about a "standing" measurement being taken. I looked for it too, and I didn't see anything in Shaw's testimony that confirmed what position JBC was in when the 25-degree angle was taken. Did I miss it? Can you cite it for me?

34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

The chart you used does not describe 17.72º it is based on 27º.

Yes, I know that's not the 17-degree angle. I just posted it as an "FYI" bonus.

34 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

However let's look at your proposition. The trajectory angle begins at 17.72º and when the bullet strikes the rib changes to 27º. 17.72º trajectory is a 9.28º shallower trajectory. That trajectory would miss the rib, because with that trajectory the bullet is further away from the ribs. The bullet would only not strike the ribs and allow the change in trajectory angle. It also would mean that the bullet wouldn’t exit where we know it did.

I disagree (again). Maybe you can create a chart to illustrate your point about how JBC's rib couldn't possibly have been hit if the bullet enters his back at 17+ degrees....then continues on that same 17+-degree trajectory until it gets to the area of JBC's fifth rib....then the bullet hits the rib and changes to a steeper angle....and then the missile exits under the right nipple....with the OVERALL angle between the entry and exit wounds being the steeper-than-17 angle (whether it be 25 or 27 degrees).

Can the "impossibility" of such a bullet journey be visually demonstrated via a schematic/chart? That'd be nice to see, if possible.

49 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Funny you should mention that. That illustration proves Bugliosi's incompetence. He went around the country claiming CT's were dishonest because they failed to acknowledge the jump seat was 6 inches inboard from the door, while at the same time the illustration in his book showed that the jump seat was not 6 inches inboard from the door...

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-217.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt-part-2.html

1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:

The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout, and you are saying it only becomes 27º once it strikes the rib.

No, the trajectory is not "27 degrees throughout". The TOTAL DECLINATION ANGLE between the two wounds in Connally was said to be approx. 25 degrees (again see WCR, p.107 please; plus, as you cited previously, 4 H 137-138 indicates two different measurements made by Dr. Shaw on Connally's body---the first one was 25 degrees, the second was 27 degrees).

So, for a brief period after entering Connally's upper back, the trajectory probably remained at about 17.72 degrees. The bullet then hit the rib, causing the steeper deflection. But I don't know why you would insist that the steeper (25 to 27º) angle had to necessarily START at the instant the bullet struck Connally's upper back. The steeper trajectory angle very likely began when the missile hit the fifth rib, with the angle being measured between the two bullet holes (which seems logical to me).

What source do you have to prove this statement of yours, James?....

"The bullet can only strike the rib if its trajectory angle is 27º throughout."

Also see Dr. Shaw's testimony at 4 H 105.

And also see CE680, showing the trajectory of the bullet through Connally's body (with the solid line, initialed by Shaw [R.R.S.], being drawn in by Shaw during his testimony to correct the steeper dotted line, which Shaw said was incorrect)....

27 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

It is an embarrassing joke to believe that until the 5th rib the angle of trajectory was 17.92º [sic] and once the bullet hit the 5th rib it changed to 27º. Only in your mind and that of the WC was the trajectory through Connally part 17.92º [sic; it's really 17.72º, via the trajectory seen in CE903] and part 27º. And you believe such a preposterous explanation!!! “Nothing new about that.”

There's absolutely nothing "preposterous" about it in the least. The bullet struck the rib and changed its trajectory. It's to be expected. Why on Earth you think such a thing is "preposterous" is preposterous. The same "deflection" thing happened with the head shot too ----> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

You actually think those two "Skeptic" diagrams are miles apart, Pat?

They're virtually identical. Very little difference.

Here's another one....

7 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

2. It had to come from somewhere else - however inconvenient that is for the WC

Bull. The extra 8 degrees of deflection (from 17 to 25) BEGINS after the bullet struck the rib. It's right there on page 107. You just don't like the explanation. Nothing new about that, of course.

24 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

There is only one explanation why the trajectory angle changed by 9.28º: that shot was taken from a different location.

So, was there an airplane or helicopter or hot-air balloon hovering above Dealey Plaza that day? Because lacking such an "aerial" explanation, then where could any assassin have been located in order to cause a 27-degree downward angle through Connally's chest at circa Z224 of the Zapruder home movie?

Could any make-believe shooter on top of ANY of the rooftops in the area have created a 27-degree angle at circa Z224? That's the question James R. Gordon now needs to answer (as he continues to ignore Warren Commission Report Page 107).

Also See....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/single-bullet-theory.html

8 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

So please explain why does this SBT change its trajectory angle by 9.28º after it enters Connally’s back??

It was deflected by Connally's 5th rib. (Just as explained in the WCR on Page 107.)

Why you think this was impossible is beyond me.

.......

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...and therefore you are stuck with the ludicrous CE 399 and its magical flight path. Complete BS.

There's nothing "magical" about the bullet's flight path in the least. And, again, CE903 proves that fact (regardless of the objections put forth by Pat Speer and James DiEugenio).

CE903 proves that no "zig-zagging" of the bullet needed to occur.

CE903 proves that the bullet's entry definitely did NOT need to be elevated up into the NECK of John Kennedy's body.

And, unless you want to call Lyndal Shaneyfelt a l-i-a-r, CE903 proves that there was a straight-line trajectory path at circa Z210-Z225 that leads straight back to the only known source of gunfire that day---the 6th-floor Sniper's Nest.

Yes, the "Z210-225" angle was just an average angle between those two Z-Film frames, but can a CTer really think that Specter & Company could get THAT CLOSE to mimicking the Single-Bullet Theory and yet still believe the SBT is totally and completely impossible and not worthy of even the tiniest bit of consideration?

Given what we can see in Commission Exhibit 903, I cannot fathom how the above CTer mindset is even remotely possible (or desirable).

Hi Micah....

It's my opinion that there was only ONE bullet wound of entry in JFK's head....and that wound was located where the Clark Panel (and HSCA) said it was --- 100mm. above the EOP....

"On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

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

"It is the firm conclusion of the [HSCA's FPP] panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden

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

And since the lone entry hole in the head obviously caused the large EXIT wound to the right/front/top part of JFK's head too, then that wound could not have occurred as early as Z190. Impossible.

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

How do you know the EOP wound in the head wasn't created around z190-224?

This is getting sillier by the minute.

Oh, brother.

Thanks for the "paralysis" laugh, Cliff.

Addendum for Cliff....

I guess, therefore, Cliff, that you must think the assassins who fired the "high tech" shots into JFK's throat and upper back were not even intending to kill President Kennedy with those two rifle shots, correct? And that's why they didn't aim at JFK's head with either of those shots, right? They merely wanted to wing him with TWO separate non-fatal blows to the upper body (and, as a bonus, they wanted to give the Secret Service a little bit of a heads-up about what was to come a few seconds later), is that it?

That was mighty nice of the "high tech" assassins to give Mr. Kennedy and the Secret Service a fighting chance that way.

18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Settle down, David.  I mentioned "conventional weapon" -- there are conventional rifles other than a Mannlicher (somehow it seems strange to have to point that out...)

Yeah, that's what I thought, Cliff. I knew you didn't believe the fatal shot came from LHO's gun. Very few (if any) Internet CTers actually accept the truth about Oswald firing the fatal head shot. I was just playin' with your make-believe theories.

But it's nice to see a post from you, Cliff, that DOESN'T revolve around the shirt and coat. That's kinda refreshing.

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

...perhaps that's why they shot JFK in the head with a conventional weapon -- in order to frame the patsy. 

Don't tell me you actually believe the head shot WAS caused by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano????!!!! I didn't think ANY Internet CTer believed such a thing!

(I'm going to faint.)