David Von Pein

Vince [Palamara] is free to believe what he chooses.

And to hell with the evidence (as well as ordinary common sense), right Ken?

Do you believe the SS was culpable in JFK's murder? I do.

As long as they can pretend Oswald didn't fire a shot at anyone on 11/22, most Internet CTers are happy.

Kenneth Drew, therefore, is delirious with ecstasy.

I think there is some merit to the Lifton/ Horne studies, so to speak.

Only "some merit...so to speak", Vince?

Come now, my good man. You can surely do better than "some merit...so to speak", can't you?

Or does a book which has at its core a theory that only deserves "some merit" usually qualify for a Pulitzer Prize, which is an honor you said Doug Horne's five-volume tome was worthy of in 2009?....

Quoting Vince P.:

"Douglas P. Horne, the author of this latest masterpiece, "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board," has achieved a literary feat worthy of a Pulitzer Prize. .... I recently admonished people in the research community (of which I am one) to, quote, "get a life" (shades of William Shatner, huh?). Well, disregard that bit of advice: instead, GET DOUGLAS P. HORNE'S BOOKS...NOW! 5 PLUS STARS; THE HIGHEST RATING HUMANLY POSSIBLE." -- Vincent Palamara; December 16, 2009

Amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3

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

"Vince Palamara almost certainly now DOES think the body was altered. And that's because Vince P. thinks Doug Horne's book is worthy of a "Pulitzer Prize". And, guess what, Doug Horne firmly believes that JFK's body was altered before the autopsy. So, surely, Palamara must now believe the body was altered as well. .... But Doug Horne has a way of SEEMING to be "reasonable" when he tells his fantastic and utterly insane tales. And apparently Horne has been able to suck Mr. Palamara into his vacuum of silliness. And that's a shame, but it's not totally unexpected, given Palamara's track record on flip-flops, with Vincent's five-star review for Jim Douglass' 2008 book being a prime example of Palamara not knowing which direction to turn regarding the JFK murder case. The review linked above, btw, was written by Mr. Palamara almost a full year AFTER he had gone on record endorsing Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" as the book that delivered a "devastating knock-out blow" to all conspiracies connected with the Kennedy assassination; which, of course, would INCLUDE Doug Horne's theories about Z-Film alteration, "two brains", and body-altering surgery, because Horne's theories about these things certainly didn't just rise from the ashes in the last few days or weeks. Horne has touted such nonsense for YEARS, with Bugliosi even tackling Horne's theories in "Reclaiming History"." -- David Von Pein; December 17, 2009

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Search Results For "Vincent Palamara"

David,

There could have been 10 melons. Who knows? My point is that it's a TV show with entertainers. They don't care if they fake anything, in fact Penn & Teller are magicians -their trade is sleight of hand. With Final Cut Pro and a little time we could make those melons go in whatever direction you want. Let's retire that clip.

"Melon 2" isn't "sleight of hand", Chris. It's a continuous piece of video/film that proves the jet effect. A small entry hole on the left, and a huge blasted-out spray of melon juice on the right. And then the melon falls toward the gunman.

The "sleight of hand" comes in during the close-up of "Melon 1", which was evidently struck with the bullet in a place that wasn't dead center. It must have struck to the far left side of the melon. Maybe a tangential strike, resulting in no hole on the other side. Hence, no exit hole visible. And, hence, no "jet effect" would be produced by that melon, since there was no big spray of melon juice being blasted out the right side. I would think that's the reason that that particular melon fell AWAY from the gunman.

"Editing" of the video? Yes. Definitely. You are correct about that part, Chris. No doubt about that.

But I don't see any deception with respect to the thing that counts the most -- the slow motion footage showing the melon ("Melon 2") falling toward the person who fired the bullet into it. That is one continuous, unbroken piece of videotape (or film).

David G. Healy,

We don't know whether JFK "flinched"/"hunched" his shoulders or not when he was shot. How could we? His shoulders were totally hidden by the street sign when the bullet hit him at Z224.

In the Penn & Teller "melon test" video, they definitely shot two separate melons [see photos below]. The first one fell AWAY from the shooter (but it doesn't seem to have any "exit" hole at all, which seems very strange).

The second melon falls toward the gunman, and it exhibits a huge spray of melon juice exiting out the right side of the melon, and both the entry and exit holes in that second melon are clearly visible. Whereas, the first melon has only a visible entry hole, with no big explosion at the exit at all. ~big shrug~

So, yes, there's some sleight-of-hand regarding what SEEMS to be just ONE single melon test, even though it's quite obviously two different tests.

But the melon I labelled "Melon 2" most definitely exhibits the so-called "jet effect". There's a huge explosion on the exiting side of the melon, with the remaining (largest) portion of the melon moving toward the shooter.

Plus, if you look fast in the video, you can see the melon falling toward the shooter in the camera angle that is filmed over the gunman's shoulder.

Chris,

I'm just saying that the Penn & Teller clip essentially proves (to my satisfaction) that a "jet effect" can occur when a melon is hit with a rifle bullet.

To answer your questions specifically....

A. I have no reason to believe the "jet effect" portion of the video was edited in order to fool anybody. Do you have reason to believe it was?

B. It was a Carcano. Not Oswald's exact rifle, of course. So if you want to throw out the 3.45-second dry-firing demonstration, go ahead. But this point is immaterial when it comes to the "jet effect" experiment.

C. No. But Oswald's target (Kennedy's head) was essentially a still target too (from LHO's POV on the sixth floor). Very little lateral movement of the target at all. The shots were easy ones. Only CTers disagree (of course).

D. It was simplified, yes. But "shameful"? Well....not very much. The video proved the points it was attempting to prove.

E. The pink hat didn't offend me. Were you offended by it?

And Connely's [sic] left shoulder, why has it grown over 3-4 frames? If not shoulder growth[,] perhaps a shadow? If so, what is creating that shadow that appears cast on Jackie[?]

He's flinching his shoulders, David.

That's kinda the whole point. (Duh.)

Governor Connally is involuntarily reacting to having just been shot.

Well, Pat, what do YOU think happened---if not the SBT?

Do you think TWO separate bullets (or maybe three) struck JFK and Connally? (Silly question, I know. If you don't believe in the SBT, you OF COURSE think at least 2 bullets hit the men.)

If so, why didn't the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat hit the limo and cause some seat or upholstery damage?

Or was JFK's throat wound an entry wound?

If so, how could both bullets that struck Kennedy's back and neck just vanish? And why would TWO bullets only penetrate JFK's body such a short distance and cause very minimal damage in his body?

And did merely a bullet fragment hit Connally's thigh, versus a slowed-down CE399?

And what is John Connally doing in this Z-Film clip, if he's NOT reacting to the bullet that just hit him in the back?....

I don't know WHOSE velocity estimates are off, Pat. But ALL of the various estimates for the bullet velocities obviously cannot be 100% accurate. They're all over the map.

But we also know that a bullet travelling at 1100 feet per second can break a human wrist bone and emerge in perfect condition. Dr. Martin Fackler proved that in 1992 at the ABA mock trial. Fackler's test bullet is below. Was Fackler a l-i-a-r too, Pat? ....

Yes, Pat, I've always thought the velocity estimates in Larry Sturdivan's book seemed a bit on the low side for Connally's wounds. But, unlike Sturdivan, I'm not an expert in wound ballistics.

However, with or without relying on anything uttered by Larry M. Sturdivan, the Single-Bullet Theory is by far the most logical and reasonable conclusion to reach regarding the wounding at circa Z224 of President Kennedy and Governor Connally. No other theory comes even remotely close to the SBT. And there's certainly no physical evidence that a second (separate) bullet struck John Connally at all.

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

BTW, the Edgewood Arsenal "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" report is very interesting reading too. More conspiracy theorists should look at it. Here it is:

http://MaryFerrell.org/documentID=62296

Every single test performed between April 1964 and October 1964 by Dr. Olivier and Dr. Dziemian at Edgewood Arsenal is consistent with the Warren Commission's ultimate conclusions. For example:

Per the Edgewood Arsenal ballistics tests with Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, that exact rifle was capable of causing all of the wounds that were inflicted on President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Quoting from the Edgewood report:

"Experiments were performed with the 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano assassination rifle, serial no. C2766, and 6.5-mm Western Cartridge Company, lot WCC 6000, Mannlicher-Carcano ball ammunition to reproduce the conditions occurring at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1963. The results indicated that the wounds sustained by the President and by Governor Connally, including the massive head wound of the President, could be produced by the above type of bullet and rifle."

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

And Dr. Lattimer's experiments produced results very similar to those of Olivier's 1964 tests.

Quoting Lattimer:

• "Combinations of human skull tops and melons were tested, and, again, all fell backward off the stand toward the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell AWAY from the shooter. Human skulls were then packed with solid melon contents and taped and sewed tightly together with strong tape and thread to simulate the scalp. We fired into these at the same point and at the same angle as the President was struck. The skull wounds produced were strikingly similar to Kennedy's [see illustration below]. Again, the skulls fell or jumped off the stand toward the shooter, and large fragments of the top of the skulls flew upward and forward for distances of forty feet or more, just as fragments of Kennedy's skull can be seen to have done in frames 313 through 318 of the Zapruder movie." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"

Thank you, Pat and Ramon, for the information about Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony.

Allow me to add the following quotes from Sturdivan's book, "The JFK Myths":

"The calculations show that no bullet of reasonable size can possibly throw a person in any direction. So, if the laws of physics prove that a bullet could not have "thrown" him [JFK], why did he move backward into the car seat just after the shot that killed him?

[...]

The question is: Did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material from Kennedy's head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.

[...]

Dr. John Lattimer conducted some skull shots that resembled the Biophysics Division's simulations, but for which the skulls were filled with animal brain tissue. In his shots, all skulls fell back from the table [actually a ladder] in the direction of the shooter. Evidently, the lack of a jet effect from the stiff gelatin in the Biophysics Lab's simulation was a bit misleading and there was enough of a jet effect to move Kennedy's head back after its forward surge." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Pages 162 and 164 of "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of The Kennedy Assassination" (©2005)

IN 2013, JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That has been fully explained--by Ruth Paine herself--in her Warren Commission testimony. Naturally, Jimbo D. thinks this is just one more lie (among hundreds) told by "Ruthy" [as DiEugenio sarcastically calls her]....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#Ruth-Paine-Calendar

Prediction: Pat Speer will now change his "pool" analogy to this....

The bullet (in Dr. Lattimer's tests) becomes the cue stick.

The skull on the ladder becomes the cue ball.

And the ladder becomes the object ball which is being struck by the cue ball (skull).

But that's still a bit of a stretch for the conspiracy theorists, unless they can invent a way for the cue stick (the bullet) to impart reverse english onto the cue ball (the skull).

Let's chalk up and play a game or two.

I would be humbly delighted for someone to show me one instance of an object pool ball striking a second object ball and reversing direction.

I would love to see that too, because from my experience as a billiards players, I don't think it's possible.

Like Glenn Nall, I'm a fairly decent pool player myself, and as far as I am aware, the only way to get a pool ball to move backwards (toward the pool player) is to utilize reverse english while striking the cue ball (which is something I became pretty good at doing in my younger days). The cue ball will then travel backwards (or a little left or right, depending on where the player strikes the cue ball).

But the OBJECT ball(s)--i.e., the balls the cue ball is hitting--will not travel backwards. Those balls always travel forward--away from the shooter/billiards player.

But, maybe Pat Speer thinks that John Lattimer had a special kind of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle---one that fired bullets with reverse english attached to them.

However, even if that scenario were possible, it's still not a good "pool" analogy. Because, as mentioned, from my experience as a pool player, it's only the CUE BALL--or in Pat's analogy, THE BULLET ITSELF--that would be subject to any REVERSAL of direction--not the "13 ball" or any of the "object" balls (or in Dr. Lattimer's experiments--the skulls).

What I'd really like to know is if Dr. Alfred Olivier's test skulls that he shot for his assassination tests at Edgewood Arsenal moved TOWARD the shooter after the skulls were shot with rifle bullets. I don't think that information ever came out in Olivier's Warren Commission testimony, mainly because the Commission wasn't concerned a single bit about the rear head snap exhibited by President Kennedy after he was shot. It was a complete non-issue to the Warren Commission (since they had conclusive proof via the autopsy report and the autopsy doctors that JFK had been hit in the head by just a single bullet, which entered from BEHIND). But it would still be nice to know which direction Dr. Olivier's test skulls traveled--forward or backward.

Thanks, Bob. So nice to see you too.

Absolute nonsense, Pat. Lattimer's test skulls were long gone off the ladder before there was any "recoil" (i.e., backward movement) of the ladder.

Yes, Pat. But the melon jumps off the table after being shot, moves BACKWARDS (toward the shooter), then (of course) falls off the table. But regardless of how small the table was, that hunk of fruit did move toward the gunman after it was struck with a Carcano rifle bullet. I see nothing phony or fraudulent about that melon test.

Plus, Dr. Lattimer filmed his skull tests too. And the skulls were propelled TOWARD the gunman as well. (And, no, the ladder did not cause the skulls to move backward, as many CTers like to use as a convenient excuse. That ladder doesn't even *start* to tip backward until well *after* the skulls have started their journey to the rear.)

The Penn & Teller melon literally *jumps* backward off of the table. Yes, the table is a small table, but the melon definitely moved toward the gunman. And if a "jet effect" didn't cause that movement, what did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7TbB4uxJEk

I'm glad you post that x-ray and that photo so often. Each time you do hammers home for me what fakes they are.

Jon,

What makes you believe the autopsy photographs and X-rays are "fakes"?

This Jet Effect is a sham. Go shoot something, even something attached to something else, with a high velocity bullet. Then let's talk about this jet effect.

OK, let's do that....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

Another "fake" video, Glenn?

Are you really claiming the x-rays and autopsy photos prove that nobody hit JFK in the back of the head? Did you slip up? Or are we officially through the looking glass?

Oops! I made a boo-boo, didn't I? So sorry.

Previous post edited.....to this:

"Let's see you debunk the photos and X-rays, which prove that nobody in Dealey Plaza hit John F. Kennedy in the front of the head with a bullet."

So God has a special rule for Kennedy (perhaps for Catholics?) and the opposite for criminals and Muslims?

Exactly.

Let's see you debunk the photos and X-rays, which prove that nobody in Dealey Plaza hit John F. Kennedy in the front of the head with a bullet. Good luck, RFH. ....

"Our experiments verified that the backward movement of the President's head was compatible with his being struck from the rear, and that it was certainly not necessary to hit the head from the front in order to make the head move toward the gun." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 255 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

Kennedy-And-Lincoln.blogspot.com