David Von Pein

Fair enough, Ron. Bye.

Ron, Your previous comment sprinkled with sarcasm implied that you don't trust anything the DPD did. How could I possibly interpret this comment any other way?.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot."

Why do you ask stupid questions? That's not meant as an insult. I'm curious. It's not a stupid question. Esp. after you had just got through writing this sarcastic comment.... "I trust some of what the DPD said, such as its reports that JFK had been shot." Ergo, my follow-up question is far from stupid.

Yes, Ron, you're right about the policeman (J.C. White) who made the really strange comment about how a train on the overpass blocked his view of the rest of the Plaza to the east. One of the Altgens pictures proves that story to be a "crock" indeed. But that's a minor issue. You aren't willing to toss ALL of the DPD under the bus because of Officer White's weirdness, are you Ron?

The FBI isn't even needed to prove Oswald's guilt. The DPD, all by itself, proved LHO's (double) guilt on Day 1. Or don't you trust anything the DPD did (or said) either, Ron? Plus, Oswald's own actions serve as practically a confession, even without factoring in any of the physical evidence examined by either the DPD or FBI.

That's what I figured, Ron. That's why I quoted Belin. I know he's every CTer's favorite.

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"

The above is stated by Mark Knight as if Knight doesn't know that paraffin tests are essentially worthless (because of all the false positives and false negatives elicited by such tests). But Mark Knight will still pretend that the nitrate/GSR/paraffin test on Oswald's cheek is proof that Oswald was innocent. What a crock. And most conspiracy theorists know it's a crock, but they'll never admit it, because they seem to enjoy perpetuating the myth more than admitting the truth about paraffin tests being pretty much useless. Otherwise, Mark would have never brought up the "nitrates/GSR" test in his last post at all.

Before Robert P. gets started with the "whupping" that he promised to lash me with (which is a "whupping" that will, I can only assume, lead to an immediate re-opening of the JFK case by somebody in a position of authority somewhere on Earth, due to the rock-solid "anti-SBT" facts that Prudhomme will be unearthing before our eyes here at The Education Forum; right, Bob?), I'll provide some much-needed common sense (and raw facts) concerning the Single-Bullet Theory for any lurkers who might be lurking.... Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Where Is The SBT Alternative? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Arlen Specter's SBT Notebook If CE399 Didn't Hit Connally---What Bullet Did? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/SBT INDEX And.... I'd like to also point out this basic and simple observation.... Without digging up John F. Kennedy's body and using HIS BODY and ONLY HIS BODY when attempting to figure out whether or not a bullet could have traversed JFK's upper back and neck, this bold statement made today by Robert Prudhomme falls completely flat and is a promise that Prudhomme does not have a hope of fulfilling.... "I intend...to show DVP that it was physically impossible for a bullet to travel through JFK, as described by the WC, and strike Connally in the right armpit."

OK. Good. But you're going to come up with SOME type of excuse so that you don't have to call Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing". Right? CTers do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of video anomaly. It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?

Stabilized Zapruder Film (in slow motion), with Connally's "flinching" easily seen in this stabilized version here. (And don't tell me you can't see it here, James. It's quite visible.) ....

James, But the 225-226 clip isn't the one showing the flinching. It's the 224-225 clip that shows the flinch/shoulder-hunching, and quite clearly. And this two-frame GIF looks pretty "stabilized" to me. And look at Connally's necktie here. It's "bulging outward", perfectly consistent with the movement we would expect to see in a tie being worn by someone who has just FLINCHED, which we also see in the 224-225 clip. So what's causing the "tie bulge", James, if it's NOT also related to the flinching we see Connally doing here?....

Why are you bringing up Connally's shirt? I never said a thing about Connally's shirt. I was talking about JFK's shirt. Re: Kennedy's shirt fibers..... ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made." Also see CD205.... http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=157&tab=page Also see Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", pages 243-244 of Endnotes.

I'll be dipped. Healy got something right for once. It is Fetzer's site that I linked to in Post 58. I had never realized that before. Thanks, David. You're a peach. I'll correct my previous error where I called it the "Costella site".

You must be joking, James. You're coming up with lots of lame excuses to totally discount ALL of the obvious signs of distress on JBC in the Z-Film. You're now even denying that Connally raised his right arm quickly at Z226. But it took me three seconds to confirm you don't know what you're talking about. The following three frames are from Costella's Z-Film frames at James Fetzer's website. These are frames 224, 225, and 226. And every single thing you say is NOT in these frames, I can easily see. E.G., the hunching of JBC's shoulders is easily discernible when toggling between frames 224 and 225 here. And the white blob that appears in Z226 is also very visible, and that white blob is, of course, Connally's light-colored Stetson hat as he rapidly raises it in front of his face after Oswald's bullet has ripped through his wrist 2 frames earlier. All of this is easily seen if you line these three frames up in separate tabs in your browser and then toggle back and forth between them..... http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

BTW, James..... There's no way that Connally's flinching/shoulder shrugging is just "distortion" in the film. And the movement of Connally's NECKTIE at the exact same time as the flinching seals the deal, IMO. Or do you think Connally's tie movement is just distortion too?....

What about JBC's grimace at Z225? (Or don't you see that either, James?) What about JBC opening his mouth at exactly Z225? And what about that hat/arm flip starting at Z226? Is this another "distortion" in the film?....

Every single thing relating to JFK's wounds (and his clothing) indicates that ONE bullet, passing back to front, went through JFK's upper body. ...Bruising of pleura. ...Bruising of lung. ...Entry hole for a bullet in the upper back. ...Clothing fibers pointing OUTWARD in the front of the shirt. (I'd love to hear a reasonable excuse from the CTers to explain this one. And if the word "fake" could be avoided, it would be refreshing.) ...No bullets in President Kennedy's body. But let the "whupping" begin, Big Bad Bobby. You know it all, after all. So who WOULDN'T quiver in their boots at the sight of Robert Prudhomme coming after them with a C7 vertebra under his arm?

James, Where could the bullet have gone if it went through JFK but did NOT hit Connally?

I haven't the slightest idea. (Happy now?)

The WC said the SBT is correct. The HSCA said the SBT is correct. (Even Cyril Wecht thinks a bullet went clear through JFK.) Robert Prudhomme thinks the SBT is bunk. So, tell me how Bob Prudhomme has trumped the SBT conclusions of BOTH of the official Government inquiries? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Robert+Prudhomme

Okay, James. That's better. He's turning to his LEFT. Yes. I agree. But....so what? That's perfectly consistent with what Connally himself said he was doing (turning to his left) when he said he was hit by the bullet.

BTW, James, My in-motion version of Z223-224 is of much higher quality than the blurry still frames of 223 and 224 you provided.

James, Any JBC turn to his right has certainly stopped by Z226. He then is going to his left. But I don't see how anything relating to any "Connally turn" can be used to debunk the various Z-Film clips I have provided which clearly show indications of Connally flinching, grimacing, opening his mouth, and flipping his right arm up --- all beginning at Z225. Do you deny those things?

...