David Von Pein

It's "Magic", Roberto. What else would you expect from an LNer's bullet? (Geez.) But you've got TWO Magic Bullets, Bob. Each one enters JFK, fails to exit, and they both disappear. For some silly reason, the "real" killers decided to shoot JFK with two of these things instead of using real guns:

I don't think anything is specifically being measured there. The ruler is probably in the picture to provide scale. Similar to the "red spot" autopsy photo of JFK's head, which also includes a ruler being placed fairly close to the wound in the photograph. N/A. See previous reply. Probably Humes and Boswell. Or Finck. Or any combination thereof. (Is this important?) I haven't the foggiest. (Is this also important?) Footnote -- It's kind of hard to tell if the lower hand has a glove on it or not. I think the hand might be gloved after all. If not, he has exposed his bare hand to a lot of JFK's blood. And that seems rather unlikely.

And remember to keep ignoring Post #31, Bob. Never ever answer that question, whatever you do.

The bullet did pass very close to the spine, as we can see here:

Wrong. The trim around Jackie's jacket isn't black at all. It's navy blue. The dark blue color of her suit jacket's trim is easily discernible in the bright sunlight....

What about Connally's RIGHT shoulder, Ian? Another "illusion"?

Jon, We all know that even if Bullet CE399 was somehow captured in flight on Zapruder's movie as it sliced through both Kennedy and Connally, there would be many conspiracy theorists who would still deny the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. This discussion revolving around what people see in the Z-Film is a prime example of CTer denial in action. Even when there is fairly firm proof of John Connally reacting to the bullet striking him prior to Z225, it's still not nearly good enough "proof" for CTers who (for some odd reason) continue to deny the SBT. (I mean, even WITH the SBT in place, those CTers can still believe in the make-believe Grassy Knoll shooter and, hence, a conspiracy.) And so what we get is one excuse after another for dismissing the visual signs of the SBT in the Z-Film. It's quite humorous to see all the lame excuses the CTers have for tossing the SBT in the gutter. And this simultaneous movement of both JFK's and Connally's right arms is merely a "coincidence" too. Right?....

Ian, And you think the shadow on Jackie just disappears after a few frames? And it just HAPPENS to look exactly like Connally's shoulder rising and falling. Because in the gif below, we can certainly see no shadow being cast on the left side of Jackie's suit jacket in the frames immediately after Z230.... And what about John Connally's RIGHT shoulder? It's rising slightly at exactly Z225 too. Is that just a "shadow" as well? Governor Connally is flinching at Z225, Ian. The Z-Film proves it. And I think you just don't want to accept that reality. Nor does any other CTer in the world.

If anyone wants to suggest that John Connally's body could possibly be casting a shadow onto Jackie in the Zapruder Film, that is impossible. The shadows in Dealey Plaza were falling toward the NORTH, not the SOUTH. We can easily see that fact in the Altgens picture [below]. Any shadow being cast by John Connally would have fallen in JFK's direction, not Jackie's.... Governor Connally's very brief shoulder flinch is no shadow. It's Connally's body tensing up and involuntarily flinching after Oswald's bullet just pierced him in the back. If it were a shadow being cast by Nellie Connally's head onto Mrs. Kennedy's pink jacket, then it sure came and went incredibly fast, didn't it? .....

James, But it's not just Connally's left shoulder that hunches up at Z225. His right shoulder rises slightly too. How can there be any doubt of it? I think the frames you used are too small and not zoomed in enough to show the very quick rise then fall of both of Connally's shoulders. You really think this apparent shoulder movement is ALL just shadows or some other photo anomaly? Come now....

Ian, And do you think it's also just a coincidence that Mr. Connally's necktie starts to do a dance and starts RISING and curling up at the exact same instant we see the so-called "shadow" being cast on Jackie? (His "twisting" in his seat caused the necktie to do its dance too, is that correct?) And what about Connally's facial expressions at this exact same instant too? His mouth opens at exactly Z225. It looks to me like he's grimacing. And that grimace starts at precisely the same instant we see his shoulders flinch and his necktie rise and curl up. Conspiracy theorists like to say that I am the one in denial when discussing the JFK case. I think I can turn the tables on the CTers in this particular discussion. Because it takes a large amount of "SBT denial" in order to be able to dismiss all of these things we see happening to Governor Connally in Z-frames 224 and 225: Shoulders hunch up (flinch). Right shoulder is pushed very slightly downward and forward. Mouth opens. Distressed look on face. Suit coat bulges outward (aka: the lapel flip). Necktie rises. And then when we go up one more frame--to frame number 226--we see Connally's right arm start to rise (at the exact same instant when President Kennedy's arms begin to rise as well). And it was, indeed, Mr. Connally's right arm (wrist) that was struck by a bullet in Dealey Plaza. ....

James, You're wrong, as proven by the comparison Z-Film frames below which I culled from my in-motion gif clip. Connally's left shoulder is unquestionably higher in Z225 than it was in Z222 (and the last frame in my gif clip is, indeed, Z225, not Z227, as you have incorrectly labeled it in your photo, James): ======================================================= Plus, there is this toggling clip of Z224 and Z225. Nobody can possibly deny that Connally's shoulders are RISING between these two Zapruder frames. You aren't going to deny that, are you James? And look at the movement of Connally's necktie in this clip too. That's also very significant. He's flinching without a doubt. Now what do you suppose could have caused this kind of a reflex action in Mr. Connally at this particular time in Mr. Zapruder's home movie? ....

Dale Myers' model works fine, Bob. Here are some additional images from his computer animation, plus JFK's autopsy photo on the right. The back wound is just where we find it in the autopsy picture, slightly to the right of the spinal column. ..... ============================================================ [--- CLICK HERE TO ENLARGE ---] ============================================================ Now, Bob, how about answering my last question from Post #31 re: Connally. Is all of this shrugging and flinching and mouth-opening and grimacing and lapel-flipping being caused by something OTHER than a bullet? Let us hear your anti-SBT explanation with respect to the things we can see happening to Governor John B. Connally in the following Zapruder Film clip which ends at Z225. I await your astute and stellar observations.

Here's a question for you, Bob.... What do you see here? Why is John Connally flinching his shoulders here? And what is causing the look we're seeing on his face? This clip ends at Z225....

You don't think 1.5 or 2 inches is "very close to the spinal mid line"? The JFK entry point in Myers' model looks fine to me.... http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm

All of Dale Myers' work is excellent (of course). But I certainly don't need Dale's computer model to demonstrate what the Zapruder Film has vividly shown since the day of the assassination---and that is one bullet going through the two victims at Z224. If you, Bob P., can't see the SBT in action in the following Z-Film clips, it's not my fault. But I sure can see it. And so can most people who aren't visually impaired.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film. Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

....

Nobody can simply draw lines on a picture of a bullet (or on any picture) and expect perfect, exacting information. It's impossible to extract three-dimensional measurements from a two-dimensional object without applying photogrammetry skills. But perhaps Bob P. doesn't realize this fact.... "Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm "I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008 ------------------- Did you apply photogrammetry to your detailed measurements of the CE399 photo(s), Robert? If not, your calculations are pretty much worthless. But just ignore that fact about not being able to derive perfect data from two-dimensional objects, Bobby. It'll be better for your constant attacks on Robert Frazier if you do. And there will probably still be at least two or three misguided souls on the Internet who will be foolish enough to believe your crackpot ".25 caliber" theories. After all, never underestimate the type of crap the public will buy. Even David Lifton's book got up to #5 on the best-sellers list. So there's hope for your outlandish rantings too. Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film. Did you apply those techniques, Bob? Footnote/Addendum.... Pat Speer has very likely made the very same mistake of not applying photogrammetry when he attempts to prove that the paper bag Detective L.D. Montgomery is holding in the pictures below is not the same paper bag that appears in the National Archives today as Commission Exhibit No. 142.

And Robert Prudhomme, therefore, also has no choice but to believe one of the following two things.... 1.) The "real killer" shot JFK with a .25 caliber weapon, even though a large part of the "plot" was to frame a patsy named Oswald who owned a 6.5mm. Carcano weapon. or... 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't being "set up" as a patsy IN ADVANCE of the assassination. I'm quite confident that either option above is very unpalatable to a prolific rewriter of history (and the facts) like Robert Prudhomme.

Bob Prudhomme now has another problem..... If Bob Frazier was a xxxx and CE399 really DIDN'T come from Rifle C2766, then why on Earth would someone want to PLANT a bullet from some OTHER non-Oswald gun in order to frame Lee Oswald? (And we all know, of course, that Bob Prudhomme thinks that CE399 was, indeed, a "planted" and/or "substituted" bullet. Right, Bob? Because no CTer worth his salt would even begin to think that CE399 actually wounded anyone on 11/22/63.) So many patsy-framers. So few brains did they possess. But luckily for the sinister plotters, they had Robert A. Frazier to come to their rescue and say that 399 was fired in OSWALD'S gun "to the exclusion", even though, per Prudhomme, it really was fired in some other gun altogether. What amazing good fortune for "them".

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html -------------- J. Edgar Hoover and his boys should have been dying to FIND A CONSPIRACY surrounding JFK's murder, rather than running around trying to cover one up; and Hoover should have been even more anxious to get Oswald completely OFF the murdering hook, not ONTO that hook. But many conspiracists actually think that Hoover and his crew were trying to frame a completely INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, even though such a frame-up was bound to bring even MORE heat down on Hoover and his FBI boys, for not having kept a better eye on Oswald on Assassination Day. I guess Hoover must have liked the idea of being on the hot seat, huh? So instead of going out and trying to find President Kennedy's "real killers", evidently many conspiracy theorists think Mr. Hoover was deliberately putting himself (and his entire Bureau, in a sense) right into the frying pan by wanting to FRAME a totally innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald....i.e., a man who tried to defect to Russia just four years earlier and a man whom the FBI knew about in the weeks leading up to November 22, 1963. Crazy. David Von Pein September 2007 February 2014

3. Given the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew of Lee Harvey Oswald's presence in the Dallas area in the weeks leading up to November 22, 1963, and knowing full well that the FBI would be cast in a very negative light by many people after the assassination due to the FBI having been in possession of that knowledge about Mr. Oswald prior to the President's visit to Texas, then why would FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (of ALL people on the planet) have had even the slightest desire to want to frame and falsely implicate an INNOCENT man named Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both John Fitzgerald Kennedy and J.D. Tippit? Did Mr. Hoover relish the idea of having many people say this after the assassination? ---- Why didn't Hoover's FBI keep better tabs on Lee Oswald when JFK went to Dallas?

But why would Bob Frazier's intentions (good or bad) have had any effect whatsoever on the determinations of the other firearms identification experts who have said over the years that CE399 was fired in Rifle C2766? All of the other WC and HSCA firearms people were in cahoots with Mr. Frazier? Is that the idea?

And the prints of Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, Hoover, LBJ, Wallace, Marcello, Tippit, Ruby, Frank Sinatra, and Captain Fritz are on the note too. After all, we all know that November 1963 was "The World Vs. The Patsy" month in Dallas, Texas, USA. :-)