David Von Pein

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations. Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film. [...] Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is on frame 207, Commission Exhibit No. 892. Mr. SPECTER. Was an adjustment made on that position for the heights of the automobiles? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207.

I really do think regular ol' common sense and logic is the way to look at the SBT and the wounding of the two victims, who were each struck in their UPPER BACKS at the same time (or, at the very least, VIRTUALLY the same time, via a study of the Zapruder Film). All of your trajectory analysis and placement of the wounds are fine for you to want to get right and precise and perfect. But CAN you accomplish that "precise and perfect" task with the data we have available from the official records? I'm not too sure you (or anyone) can fine-tune the double-man wounding of Kennedy and Connally to the level you seem to think can be accomplished. And one of the biggest reasons I say that is because it is virtually impossible for anyone to say with 100% confidence and certainty what the precise and exact positions of the two victims were in relation to each other. And it's also virtually impossible, via any reconstruction, to pinpoint with absolute precision the exact position of JFK and Connally individually when they were shot. Dale Myers' computer reconstruction is, IMO, the best such re-creation ever made (to date). But even Dale's model has a 3- to 6-degree margin of error built into it (and it's Key Framed right to the Zapruder Film itself). So an EXACT replication is just about impossible given the subtle variables involved in the positioning of the victims. Plus, an added problem, of course, is the fact that President Kennedy is actually hidden by the Stemmons sign at the exact moment when he is struck in the upper back by a bullet, which makes fine-tuning his precise position even a more futile task. Mr. Myers has, however, been able to interpolate the position of JFK while behind the sign, but I think that even Dale will tell you that the interpolation of Kennedy's position while behind the sign is, indeed, just a best guess position determined by a computer. But when combining the best guesses of various re-creations of the SBT event -- such as: the Warren Commission's detailed reconstruction done right there at the scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza on 5/24/64, and Dale Myers' computer work, and the real-life shooting test performed in 2004 in Australia by the Discovery Channel people (which is not perfect, I'll admit that fact; but, as mentioned, I doubt any re-creation ever could be "perfect") -- what I have concluded is this: The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the best and most logical explanation for the double-man wounding of JFK and Governor Connally, far outdistancing any theory that could be used to replace it. And the two bullets entered JFK but neither exited and then got lost or stolen explanation that is believed to be true by many conspiracy theorists is a scenario that only deserves scorn (and a few laughs), because such a two-disappearing-bullets explanation is, frankly, just silly. Yes, I do insist that they were wounded at the same time. And I cannot see how anyone can possibly watch the following four toggling clips a few times and still continue to insist that JFK and Connally were positively not hit at the same time (as many conspiracists do insist). Such firm denial by the conspiracy crowd on this issue (after watching these Z-Film clips) is, in my view, mindbogglingly stubborn: Then why is the Governor making the herky-jerky movements he is making from frames Z225 to about Z230? The shoulder "hunch"? The arm/hat "flip"? The facial distortion/grimace? The open mouth at exactly Z225? All of this stuff is being done by Connally BEFORE Z230. If Connally has not yet been shot, then how can you, James, logically and reasonably explain these obviously involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally which are happening prior to Zapruder frame #230? Let's watch again (and refer again also to the Z225-Z226 clip above, which shows the "arm/hat flip"): And yet, amazingly, several witnesses saw a gunman firing a rifle out of the EAST-end window, with NOBODY seeing any gunman firing any weapon from the west end of the Book Depository. Nor did anybody see any gunman anywhere PERIOD except in the southeast corner window on the TSBD's sixth floor, which perfectly matches where the "Sniper's Nest" was discovered and where three spent bullet shells from Oswald's rifle were also found. Any claim that a gunman was firing from the WEST side of the Depository is derived purely from the imagination of the person purporting it. Because we know that any such theory is certainly not being based on the totality of known evidence in the case. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

So you think Buell Frazier is a xxxx now, too, eh Jim? Did somebody put the word "stocky" into Buell's mouth at the 1986 mock trial? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAFbJ5fTEG8 Yes, they are the same. Billy Lovelady HIMSELF confirmed he was Doorway Man. I still don't really know why that verification by the person in the doorway himself isn't enough to convince you it is Lovelady. The explanation for any perceived visual differences in the Lovelady footage has simply got to be accounted for via the angles of the photos and films. A different camera angle can sometimes make a lot of difference. Wouldn't you agree, Jim? You, Jim, have got a bunch of people lying and running around creating fake films and fake Loveladys. Don't tell me THAT type of scenario of yours is MORE reasonable than to just accept Lovelady's OWN WORD that it was he (Billy L.) in that doorway.

Has it ever occurred to Jim Fetzer that Billy Lovelady could have lost some weight between 11/22/63 and March of 1964? I guess such a "weight loss" possibility is just impossible in Dr. Fetzer's world. And apparently the notion that a shirt can be buttoned and then unbuttoned in very short order is another impossible-to-conceive concept in the daffy "Everything And Everybody Is Fake" world that James H. Fetzer resides in. (Although others in this discussion have proven via films and photos, besides just the Altgens picture, that Lovelady's shirt was unbuttoned at the exact time of the assassination. Heck, I even provided some proof of that in one of my posts, where I showed a frame from the Wiegman film.) BTW/FYI -- In 1986, Lovelady's co-worker, Wesley Frazier, described Lovelady as being "stocky". Go to approximately the 9-minute mark in this video to hear him say that word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=604Fr5t198A

I totally agree with you, Pat. And I want to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Gary Mack for stirring up this "Mack/Dunkel" pot here at the Education Forum. (Although it was mentioned by others in this thread prior to my bringing it up.) But I dredged it up in an attempt to put a stop to what I thought at the time was another of the many myths that conspiracy theorists believe in. But apparently most people here already knew that Gary had changed his name from Dunkel years ago. I, however, had no knowledge of that name change whatsoever. I always thought the CTers were accusing Gary of creating a fake name from whole cloth. But I see I was wrong. But now I see that Jim DiEugenio has taken the opportunity to further ridicule Mr. Mack, with Jimbo scolding Gary and wondering why he doesn't go back to using his real name of Larry Dunkel since his days as a radio disc jockey are far behind him. I think I can speak for Mr. Mack when I type my next sentence, which seems most appropriate at this point: Mind your own freakin' business, DiEugenio! The Dallas Morning News article is quite clear about the reason for Gary's name change: "In 1969, Mack had earned his degree in journalism. He was Lawrence Alan Dunkel then, and after graduation, he went into broadcasting. During his time as a disc jockey, he changed his name to Gary Mack at the request of his boss, who thought it would be catchier." http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130302-gary-mack-and-the-evolution-of-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist.ece So, we can see it wasn't even Gary's/Larry's own idea to change his name. His boss encouraged it.

Says the man named Randy who said this (about nothing) earlier today: Pot/Kettle Alert.

Of course, Jimbo. Yet another "cover-up" by those scumbag Dallas cops. Right?

Ahh, that explains why I was in the dark. Who in their right mind would ever buy that book?

I can't recall if the stuff about Slack came up in the Frazier/Mack interview or not. But it is interesting. I've always held out hope that Oswald's presence at the Sports Drome Rifle Range could be positively proven in some way. (Although at this point, I don't think that's possible.) Because if it could be proven that Oswald (the REAL Oswald, not some make-believe "Oswald imposter" invented by conspiracists) really did take his rifle to the rifle range shortly before Nov. 22, it should forever silence the critics who love to say this: There's never been any proof that Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano at all. Therefore, how are we supposed to believe he killed JFK if he never practiced with his gun in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9G5kVXC8i4

Okay. Thanks, Pat. You could be 100% right about this. But I had the impression that some CTers thought "Larry D." was a made-up name used by Gary to hide his true identity. But maybe I'm wrong. (There's a first time for everything, right?)

Oh, come now, Randy. He gave his WC testimony in 1964. He was talking to Gary Mack in June of 2002! Can't you cut the guy a LITTLE slack? Geez.

Well, yes, I suppose that's true. But do you remember the exact dates when you were hired for every job you've ever had in your life? (And I'm sure at least a few of those jobs of yours involved a situation where you had to serve as personal chauffeur to a future Presidential assassin. Right? ) BTW, what's the point of bringing up Wesley Frazier's bad memory anyway? Are you suggesting he was LYING when he was vague about his TSBD hiring date? If so, please answer this for me: What possible reason would Buell Frazier have had to lie, or become deliberately vague, about something so incredibly mundane and innocuous?

Some people just don't remember dates very well, Randy. Apparently Wesley Frazier is one of those people. It couldn't be more common among human beings. And I cannot understand why you're elevating his hiring date to a level of such significance. Yes, it's significant that he was hired AT ALL at the Depository. But why is the EXACT DATE so important for Wesley to remember?

You think Frazier became famous and a part of history in September of 1963, eh? That's weird.

Oh, for Pete sake, why in the world would anyone consider Frazier's HIRING DATE to be the most important and unforgettable date in his life? How silly. Do you think his hiring date in Sept. '63 was MORE memorable than 11/22/63 itself? And we know that Wesley misremembered a few things relating to 11/22: 1.) He told Gary Mack that the first time he heard the name "Lee Oswald" after the assassination was on the radio BEFORE Oswald was even arrested. (Which is dead wrong and never happened.) 2.) Wesley told Gary he saw Oswald walking on Houston St. about 5-10 minutes after the assassination. (Which is in direct opposition to Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, where he plainly states, in his own words, that he never saw Oswald again on November 22 "after about 11:00 AM".) So why should the date of Wesley's being hired at the TSBD be emblazoned in his memory?

But by the same token, Randy, he also had 39 years for that information to escape his memory. That's a long time.

I wonder why Frazier doesn't mention a single word about being hooked up to a lie detector in this 2002 interview with Gary Mack? http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/178017 Yes, it's true that Gary didn't ask Wesley this question -- Were you given a lie detector test? And if so, were you pissing your pants with fright as you were being used as leverage by the DPD as they were naming you as a co-conspirator in the President's murder? -- but Gary gave Wesley ample room for telling everything that occurred at City Hall when Frazier was being questioned for many hours on Nov. 22. In short -- the DPD probably SHOULD have considered Frazier to be a possible co-conspirator of Oswald's. Heck, I would have thought the same thing. After all, Wesley drove the assassin (and the gun) to work on the day Kennedy was killed from his workplace. But he cleared himself of any conspiratorial conduct. Only rabid conspiracy clowns try to implicate 19-year-old Buell Frazier.

Another common-sense reason to know that Lee Oswald is not Doorway Man (besides the fact that Billy Lovelady verified that he, himself, was Doorway Man in Commission Exhibit No. 369) is that we'd have to swallow the following preposterous notion if Oswald really was standing in front of the TSBD in the Altgens photo: Oswald was watching the motorcade from the steps of the Depository Building....he sees JFK get shot....he sees all the commotion that follows....and then what does he decide to do IMMEDIATELY after seeing this catastrophic event take place right before his very eyes? He decides he wants to go inside the building and get himself a Coca-Cola from the second-floor lunchroom. And the above scenario would have been unfolding involving a man (Oswald) who certainly was involved in some way in the plot to murder the President. And even most hardline conspiracy theorists will admit to Oswald having been knowingly "involved" in at least some peripheral way in the assassination plot on 11/22/63. Which would mean (when factoring in my last paragraph) that Oswald, if he was Doorway Man, incredibly, still had that desire to walk back inside the TSBD Building and buy that Coke from the second-floor vending machine immediately after watching the President get killed -- vs. getting the heck out of Dodge and high-tailing it away from the scene of an assassination that he, himself, helped orchestrate. Anybody here think that tall tale would sway any of the jurors at Mr. Oswald's murder trial? Footnote #1 --- Yes, it's true that Buell Wesley Frazier did something almost as unbelievable and incredible very shortly after watching JFK get killed from the TSBD steps, with Frazier going back into the building and down to the basement (no less) to eat his lunch. But the key difference between Frazier's actions and Oswald's (via the scenario laid out above) would be: Buell Frazier wasn't a conspirator and had no reason to want to flee the murder scene after JFK was killed. Footnote #2 --- Of course, the mere fact that Oswald was anywhere near the scene of the assassination if he really wasn't the triggerman is a preposterous thing to believe as well (via the widely-accepted scenario of Oswald being "involved" in some way in the assassination plot beforehand, but not as a gunman). But, quite obviously, many many CTers do believe that Oswald was "involved" in the plot but not as a gunman, but he still (for some unknown reason) needed to be right there at the scene of the murder anyway--even though he really did NOTHING at all to help out his co-conspirators at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63. David Von Pein May 2012 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/doorway-man.html

Yes, James, it would have been better if JFK's SS-100-X limo could have been used on 5/24/64 for the re-enactment. But, as previously stated, the Warren Commission was very clear to point out in the Warren Report that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between JFK's limo and the Queen Mary car that subbed for it during the reconstruction. Is that just a lie, James? I think now might be a good time to put forth a little bit of ordinary common sense and logic (apart from the topic of the WC's re-enactment): 1.) JFK was hit by a bullet in his upper back. 2.) John Connally was hit by a bullet is his upper back too. 3.) No bullets were found in JFK's back and neck regions. 4.) The Zapruder Film makes it clear that JFK & JBC are reacting at the same time to bullet injuries or (at the very least) they are reacting within a short enough time period that would prohibit a gunman using Oswald's Carcano rifle from firing two separate bullets into the two victims within that short timeframe. Don't any conspiracy theorists think the above 4 points of absolute fact are mighty strange if the Single-Bullet Theory is not true? IOW -- Wasn't it amazing for TWO separate gunmen to be able to perform that incredible "SBT"-like magic on TWO different victims in Dealey Plaza? The fact that the SBT could be proposed at all if it is truly the impossible fairy tale theory that almost all conspiracy theorists believe it to be is possibly the most amazing "miracle" of this whole murder case. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Why not? Shaneyfelt's position as he's holding the camera gun is pretty close to what a real gunman's posture would be when firing on a car on the street below -- i.e., rifle muzzle aimed at the car below; gunman looking through the telescope or looking down the barrel through the open iron sights (which is quite possibly how Oswald shot Kennedy after missing with his first shot and then switching to the iron sights for shots 2 and 3). How much different would you expect ANY gunman's posture and positioning of the rifle to be when compared with Shaneyfelt's position? Oswald's exact posture and position in the Sniper's Nest when he shot the President can never be known with 100% certainty, of course. But it seems to me that the key aspect on this point is this one--- Is the muzzle of the gun in a position where a shot from that gun could have struck JFK at the various Z-Film frames that were re-enacted (Z207, Z225, Z313, etc.)? And the answer to that question is Yes, unless you want to call the WC and FBI complete and outright liars, as many conspiracy theorists do, of course (but I'm not travelling down that path). BTW, yes, I did misinterpret your previous post, James. It sounded to me like you were suggesting that Shaneyfelt was standing on Zapruder's pedestal while making his trajectory calculations. My error. Sorry. Give or take a very small degree of angularity, yes, I think Shaneyfelt's position is just about right. Again, I think it's pretty much GOT to be right just based on the simple fact that if it wasn't right, then the muzzle of Shaneyfelt's camera gun would not be fixed on the proper targets of JFK's upper back and head at the proper times (Z210-225 and Z313). And how could ANY gunman (Oswald or otherwise) have been in a substantially different posture while also making sure the muzzle of the gun was in line to hit his target on the street below? Can you see what I'm driving at? And you surely have got to admit that at least ONE bullet fired from that sixth-floor window (from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) did, indeed, find its way into JFK's car on 11/22/63. Right, James? I mean, CE567/569 provide the proof of that fact beyond all possible doubt, wouldn't you agree? Plus there are the three bullet shells from Oswald's gun right underneath the window. Therefore, somebody was firing Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle from that Sniper's Nest window on Nov. 22. That's a virtual certainty. And that "somebody" must have had that gun pointed in a very similar manner (toward the car with JFK in it) to what we see in the Shaneyfelt photograph. I wouldn't say the window is open "far higher" in the Shaneyfelt picture than it was on November 22. In the montage I prepared below, it seems that the window heights are pretty close to being the same, with the Shaneyfelt window being open perhaps a tad more than in the Dillard photo taken on 11/22. But keep in mind the severe angle of the Dillard picture is quite possibly making the window look not quite as high as it really was. The other photo is a still from Mark Bell's film, where the angle isn't as steep. It's kind of hard to tell whether Shaneyfelt has got the window open too far or not. But I will say this: we can easily see that even if the Shaneyfelt window is open too far, there is still ample space between the camera gun and the bottom of the open window pane. That is to say, even if the window were to be lowered by a few more inches, there would still have been enough open window space for Oswald to shoot from without the window hindering his shooting:

Thank you. Huh? You surely aren't suggesting that the WC's "Sniper's Nest To Street" angles were derived while standing on Zapruder's pedestal, are you?

Which means that any trimming done to the tree was done AFTER the Warren Commission and FBI had already taken all of their pictures from the TSBD window (such as CE889 and 890 shown below). Because those pictures were taken on May 24th, not 25th. So, if your dates are accurate, James, it turns into a "so what?" situation entirely (with respect to the 5/24 photos that were taken). Or do you contend the pictures we see in CE888 and the following exhibits were actually taken on May 25th? I wasn't even aware the WC was still doing any "re-enactment" work in DP on Monday, May 25th. They chose May 24 due to the fact it was a Sunday and would therefore disrupt normal Dallas traffic the least. BTW, who is Robert West? Let me just add this: Unless you, James Gordon, are prepared to perform the kind of detailed ON-SITE reconstruction of the shooting angles and measurements that was performed by the Warren Commission and FBI from the exact window from which shots were fired at President Kennedy, then your calculations and measurements are always going to take a back seat to the WC's conclusions about the angles and measurements, in my opinion. James, what methods are you utilizing to try and prove the WC wrong? I hope photogrammetry is involved. Otherwise, you've got major problems (if, that is, you're attempting to extract 3D information from two-dimensional photographs, which cannot be accomplished without photogrammetry being used). There is also this (from page 97 of the Warren Report): "On May 24, 1964, agents of the FBI and Secret Service conducted a series of tests to determine as precisely as possible what happened on November 22, 1963. Since the Presidential limousine was being remodeled and was therefore unavailable, it was simulated by using the Secret Service followup car, which is similar in design. ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." [DVP's emphasis.]

I wonder why the plotters were so stupid as to place an "Imposter Lovelady" into film footage who, per Fetzer, looked NOTHING like the person he was supposed to be impersonating. Why did they do that, James F.?

Any idea how much the branches of a Texas live oak would have grown in the six months between 11/22/63 and 5/24/64? That's a possible explanation for any tree-trimming seen by Robert West. Wouldn't you agree, James? And could the tire thing be related to the fact that the Queen Mary car sat higher than SS-100-X? I know the WC/FBI had to account for a 10-inch difference in height between the two vehicles when figuring the angles from Oswald's window to the victims. You suspect foul play on the part of the WC though, don't you James?

Looks like a 5/24/64 image to me. That was the date of the WC/FBI re-enactment in DP. The guy in the street with the tripod sure matches this image, which is confirmed to be May 24: http://eMuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:26797 More: http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html What was done in Feb. '64?