David Von Pein

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

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?)

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.)

On 6/26/2018 at 6:41 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

David Von Pein in 2003:  the defects in JFK's shirt and jacket were both elevated 2 inches, so the bullet holes aligned with T1.

David Von Pein in 2014:  the defects in JFK's shirt and jacket weren't elevated much at all, so the bullet holes aligned with T1. 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The "Bunching Up" Of JFK's Clothing

That’s pretty lame David.

But oh so true (about a child being able to author the SBT).

PAT SPEER SAID:

So WHY did members of the Warren Commission's staff claim the wound was in the neck, after viewing photos proving it to have been in the back?

And WHY did the Johnson Justice Dept., after viewing the photos and knowing full well the wound was in the back, pressure the autopsy doctors into telling the media and the country they'd reviewed the autopsy photos and that this review had proved the wound was where it is shown in the Rydberg drawings, in the neck?

It's one thing to suspect Oswald acted alone, but it's another thing entirely to pretend there was no deliberate deception regarding the location of the back wound.


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

I don't "pretend," Pat, and I resent that implication.

I don't know what you're referring to that you're interpreting as "pressure," but that's your interpretation. I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse.

One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory.

This reminds me of the old claim that Z frames 314 and 315 were reversed in the WC exhibits deliberately. "They" were trying to make the backward head movement disappear, some writers said. Except that the reversal did no such thing, and it was immediately obvious that the two frames were simply out of order.

Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].")
 

PAT SPEER SAID:

When you study the history of the back wound, Jean, it's 100% clear to anyone not named Pollyanna that a number of people, from Humes and Boswell to Specter and Lattimer, have lied about the back wound location.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What you call "lies", I would classify as merely semantics. And I truly believe that, too.

Why?

Because there was simply no reason for anyone to want to start telling a bunch of lies regarding the true location of John F. Kennedy's upper-back wound. And CE903, once again, proves my point here....



Exhibit 903, like it or not, does NOT show the wound of entry to be in the "neck" of JFK. It is positively in the UPPER BACK. And as such, any future references made by people such as Arlen Specter or Gerald Ford (or anyone else) to a wound in the "neck" are merely careless misstatements when attempting to describe the location of where the wound was. It's a semantics problem, in my opinion, and nothing more.

We see it over and over again in the Warren Commission volumes and in the Warren Report itself---references to a wound in the "neck" of President Kennedy....

"During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck..."
-- WR; Page 87


"The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck..."
-- WR; Page 97


"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck..."
-- WR; Page 106


And it's fairly obvious that those references to "neck" in the Warren Report that I just cited above are references that were put on paper by the Commission AFTER the assassination reconstruction was performed in a Dallas garage on May 24, 1964, that resulted in Lyndal Shaneyfelt taking the picture seen in Commission Exhibit 903.

And since that photograph in CE903 does not indicate that there was a bullet wound of entrance in the "neck" of John Kennedy, where does that really leave any of the conspiracy theorists who want to still insist that the Warren Commission (and other people) "lied" about the true location of JFK's upper-back wound?

Do those conspiracists think Arlen Specter, et al, had a strong desire to look like idiots when they continued to refer to the "back" wound as a "neck" wound in various places within the WCR, even though Specter knows that CE903 is ALSO going to be part of the public record, which clearly shows the wound to be in the BACK of the JFK stand-in?

In other words, why would Specter (et al) lie when Commission Exhibit 903 proves forever and for always that there was absolutely NO NEED to lie about this matter at all?

It seems to me as if some of the people describing the location of that wound, including the person or persons who were responsible for writing the words we find on those three pages of the final Warren Commission Report that I quoted above, were in a bit of a quandary about how to precisely describe the part of the body where the bullet entered due to the fact that it entered at a place on JFK's body where the "neck" and the "back" are merging. So we sometimes got differing descriptions.

But it's pretty clear that even though CE903 is providing solid VISUAL confirmation that the bullet entered in the upper BACK of JFK, the people in charge of writing up the 888-page Warren Report still, for the most part, favored the use of the word "neck" instead. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2014


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Pat,

In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo.

I'm no Pollyanna, I'm a Doubting Thomas. Can you show me a SBT trajectory of c. 18 degrees that works when the wound is raised to the neck -- specifically, a trajectory from the SN [Sniper's Nest] exiting at the tie knot and hitting Connally where it did? Without that, there's no motive for anyone to lie about the wound's location.

As I recall, Boswell told a Baltimore newspaper that the wound was where the autopsy measurements placed it: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Isn't that in the upper back?

I think a part of the confusion came from "semantics," as David suggests. The bullet entered the upper back but since the throat extends below the shoulders on the front of the body, the bullet also passed through and exited a part of the neck. It was a "back/neck wound," literally.

IMO, the "Pollyanna" view of the assassination is thinking that Kennedy was killed by his political enemies. This gives his death significance and makes it understandable. It suggests an orderly universe where things happen for a reason. But if you're stuck with believing as I do that the assassination was a senseless random event with JFK and LHO arriving on Elm St. on the same day entirely by chance, that's a very bleak view. Pollyanna would curl up and die.
 

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

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Please, David, Specter was the worst kind of fibber. .... HE changed the description of the back wound from a wound on the back to a wound on the back of the neck AFTER studying a photo you know shows the wound to be on the back. And then fibbed his face off for forty years hoping no one would notice.

The bottom-line FACT is....Specter didn't need the wound to be raised up into the "NECK" --- and CE903 proves that fact for all time.

I, too, have wondered why Specter constantly said the word "neck" when referring to the place on JFK's body where Oswald's CE399 bullet entered. But, as CE903 shows, the bullet doesn't enter through the "neck"; it enters the upper back.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

But Specter arranged the Rydberg drawings to be drawn up without those materials, and without even the pathologists' notes. Why? Maybe because Specter knew that the real pics showed the entrance in the back, and not the neck?  

And the CE903 picture---with Specter right there in the photo!---shows the entry wound where again??

Answer:

In the BACK (not the neck).

Therefore, Specter obviously didn't need the wound to be raised up into JFK's neck, did he? (When will that myth ever croak?)

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you buy Specter, Humes and Boswell and their Single Bullet Fantasy that means you also buy the Rydberg drawings.  

Not at all, as I talk about HERE and HERE and HERE.

"The Rydberg drawings are awful. I've said that for years. The biggest mistake made by the Warren Commission was their failure to examine (in detail) the autopsy photographs and X-rays. That was a huge blunder on their part, no doubt about it. And that's why we have to be satisfied (as far as the Warren Report and the 26 volumes are concerned anyway) with those awful Rydberg drawings, which have caused more harm than good for decades, prompting even more people to scream "Cover Up" at the top of their lungs. But when the autopsy photos did finally become available to the masses (albeit in bootleg form), we can see that the WC was right anyway --- i.e., JFK was shot only from BEHIND --- just as the autopsy said." -- DVP; July 2017

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

"It's silly to rely too heavily on only the drawings....either Dox's or the ultra-crappy Rydberg ones done for the WC, which only serve to confuse more than clarify. And Dox's, while much better than Rydberg's are still off a little, and the Dox drawings weren't even necessary at all. The HSCA had full access to the actual pictures of JFK....why they needed some drawings on top of the pics I have never understood. I guess to supposedly provide better clarity of the inshoots/outshoots...but, as mentioned, all they did was muddy waters that would have been much less muddy if the WC and HSCA had kept the damn artist renderings out of the official record (IMHO)." -- DVP; July 2008

Quote

Do you take notice of the fact that the autopsy report was written in its final draft by Humes AFTER Oswald was killed? Do you also note that Humes lied about the destruction of the first draft and where and why it happened? Do you note that the final draft appears to have been done in Admiral Galloway's office?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-78.html#Dr-Humes

Over the years, 16 different doctors (mostly forensic pathologists, not counting the Rockefeller Commission physicians) have said the bullet transited JFK's body. That includes the 3 autopsy doctors, plus the 4 Clark Panel physicians, and all 9 members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (including, incredibly, even Cyril Wecht).

If you, James DiEugenio, want to ignore all 16 of those doctors and sweep their "transiting bullet" conclusion into the gutter, go ahead. (You already have, many times, of course.) But pardon me if I don't join you.

Another interesting part of the 1968 Clark Panel Report is the portion of the report in which the Clark Panel concludes that the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the President's upper back....

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. .... The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." -- From Clark Panel Report

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

8 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

...could you point me to evidence that either shows the damage to the neck bones caused by a bullet fired from the TBSD, or provide an alternative explanation for the bullet path if it didn't pass through the neck bones.

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

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You've admitted JFK's clothing wasn't elevated, David.

I never said any such thing, and you know it.

Stop putting (false) claims in my mouth, OK?

18 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Most of us don't really know for sure what happened. We are trying to figure it out. There is no story to be wedded to. We are looking for that story.

If you can't figure out that the Single-Bullet Theory is the truth, I feel sorry for your poor investigative skills.

As Vincent Bugliosi said in his book, the SBT is "so obvious that a child could author it".

(How very true, Vince.)

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

"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it. .... Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it? .... When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." .... I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team player only interested in doing his job well. .... If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to respond to this issue [via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005], and he declined." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
 

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How is treating a redundancy like a revelation helpful?

Seriously, I don't get it.

Because JFK conspiracy theorists need to regularly reinforce (in their own minds) their anti-SBT beliefs, as they continue to pretend (year after year) that the Single-Bullet Theory is "impossible", a "fantasy", and the "wet dream" of Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter.

Deep down, though, all veteran CTers (including Cliff Varnell and virtually all other Education Forum members) have got to know, of course, that the SBT is the only possible scenario that fits the sum total of evidence in the JFK case (how could they possibly not know that fact after studying the evidence for umpteen years?), but they've been aboard the "SBT Is Impossible" train for so long now, they can't ever disembark from it.

FYI ---- The Ultimate In SBT Denial can be found here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This SB "perfection" never happened. And Specter knew it. Which is why he could not explain it to Fonzi. It exists in DVP's mind.

The SBT bullet path is pretty much "explained" right there within CE903. It's right there in the picture. All you have to do is look at it and comprehend what it's telling you.

And even though a little "margin of error" must be granted Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission with respect to what we see in CE903 (because the 17.72-degree downward angle is, indeed, just the AVERAGE angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, plus there's the fact that the car being used in CE903 is not the SS-100-X limo), there are two things seen in CE903 that don't require any "margin of error" --- the "tie knot" exit wound location in JFK's throat and the entry hole in John Connally's back (with Specter's metal rod being inserted directly into the bullet hole in Connally's jacket---a jacket which the stand-in is wearing in CE903).

So, via the CE903 visual demonstration, if a bullet proceeding downward at an angle of 17.72 degrees (aligning perfectly with a "Z210-Z225" angle from the "Oswald window") were to exit JFK's throat at the tie knot, it would then proceed on that same angle directly into the back of Governor Connally in exactly the place where we know a bullet DID enter Connally's upper right back.

That's a pretty impressive demonstration if you ask me. I wonder what the odds are of the WC being able to re-create such a nearly perfect SBT demonstration and yet NOT have such a demonstration represent the truth of what actually happened---even though the angle from the known sniper's window was right where it should be if the shot occurred at around Z217.5 AND the re-created bullet path travelled exactly where a bullet really did strike President Kennedy and John Connally on 11/22/63?

I wouldn't want to take those odds to Vegas if I was an anti-SBT conspiracy believer.

And yet I'm supposed to believe the CTers who tell me that two (or probably THREE) different bullets lined themselves up beautifully so that Arlen Specter could later present this impressive "one bullet" exhibit to the world. Talk about incredibly good luck for Mr. Specter & Company! ....

-----

PAT SPEER SAID:

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post [THIS POST].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the Single-Bullet Theory? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the SBT.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the Warren Commission was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.


PAT SPEER SAID:

You continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)....

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened.

And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
June 22, 2015
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html

21 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

You forgot to add the part on your SBT blog about how the Discovery Channel bullet experiment was garbage.

Oh, yeah! I did forget to mention that, didn't I? Sorry.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html

On 6/26/2018 at 11:14 PM, Ron Bulman said:

The "single" bullet, a single lone nut shooter. How can anyone believe this if they study the issue? 

Because the evidence clearly indicates that a "lone nut shooter" (Oswald) committed the crime with Carcano Rifle C2766.

And the evidence certainly indicates the high probability that three shots were fired by that lone nut shooter, with two of those bullets striking the two victims.

And I've never been able to figure out how the anti-SBT CTers manage to reasonably reconcile their theory that has a separate bullet hitting John Connally in his back, even though JFK is situated directly between the shooter and the wounded portion of Connally's upper right back. And then (per CTers) this separate, unimpeded bullet apparently somehow starts to tumble while in flight, having hit nothing during its flight to Governor Connally's back, causing an elongated wound.

Given all the conditions, circumstances, and the victims' positions in the car during the shooting, plus the total lack of ANY non-C2766 bullets or fragments in this murder case, it's virtually impossible for the SBT to not be true.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory.html

2 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

DVP, this view from the rear showing the entry point of the pointer as significantly above the hole in JFK's suit coat. 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

David Von Pein in 2003:  the defects in JFK's shirt and jacket were both elevated 2 inches, so the bullet holes aligned with T1.

~sigh~ Despite what Cliff says above, I have never once said anything---ever!---about Kennedy's clothes being "elevated 2 inches".

I've never talked about specific measurements (like "2 inches") with regard to JFK's jacket and shirt, because it's impossible for anybody (including Cliff "Everything In This Case Revolves Around The Clothing" Varnell) to know exactly how far the clothing was "bunched up" on JFK's back when the shooting occurred in Dealey Plaza.

10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Right to left shot leaving JFK's throat traveling 20 degree off center ... even if possible, a shot would hit JC on the left side of his body... not the right armpit...

But hey, nice try at confusing the issue...

Nice try, DJ, at pretending to know with 100% certainty the EXACT, TO-THE-MILLIMETER body position of Governor Connally when he was shot (which is something NOBODY knows with 100% certainty).

And, of course, the WC didn't need a curving or "magical" metal rod to get the bullet to proceed straight from JFK's throat wound to the bullet hole in Governor Connally's jacket. So, obviously, that bullet path was a DOABLE one without any need for any zigging or zagging at all.

But just do what almost all other CTers do, DJ --- ignore CE903.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

6/26/2018 Update ---

After a three-day outage, HM is back online and working again. Yay!

(Looks like I didn't need to buy that sword after all. Whew.)

https://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm

Fred Litwin said:

I am looking for a diagram of the single-bullet theory that I can legally use in my new non-conspiracy book. Can anybody help?

Hi Fred,

IMO, the best diagram to demonstrate the viability and workability of the SBT is the "live action" diagram (photo) that became Warren Commission Exhibit No. 903.

CE903 shows the path of the SBT bullet and also forever destroys the idea that the Warren Commission wanted (or needed!) to raise JFK's upper-back wound into his neck (which is a notion that conspiracy theorists still have in their heads today, even with CE903 staring them in the face to prove them 100% wrong on that point).

More SBT common sense....

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com