David Von Pein

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

To this day, I do not understand why Blakey thought JBC had been struck with a tumbling bullet, when there is small round hole in the back of JBC's shirt.  Blakey has written he viewed JBC's scar on JBC's back and therefore concluded a bullet had been tumbling when it struck JBC.

Blakely therefore and erroneously concluded that nothing could make a bullet tumble unless it had first passed through JFK's neck. 

But Dr. Robert Shaw testified he enlarged, or debrided, the JBC wound to remove dead tissue, a standard procedure.  Shaw had operated on literally hundreds of wartime bullet wounds, and thought JBC had received a straight shot. 

[...]

I think you especially have a tough nut to crack on the "tumbling bullet."

From 2012.....

PAT SPEER SAID:

Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of alinement.

That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You are SLOW getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted [this one] shows that.

During Baden's testimony, this document was entered into evidence.

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said yes:

http://history-matters.com/HSCA Volume 7

So your essay gives the entirely FALSE impression that the judgment of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm. figure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is, indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence, result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck.

[...]

An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

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

The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:

The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't look that egg-shaped to me):



So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of Kennedy's head.

So the retort made by conspiracy theorists over the years has been --- Why are you so certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that was the exact same size?

It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer. Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:

"It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit. In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7 HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report, April 22, 1964, p.3)

However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the moment of impact.

Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat, which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

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

Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:

"As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86 of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391 of "Reclaiming History"

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

To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape. Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.

Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page 86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also cited above).

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr. Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I think.**

----------

* Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike. It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).


** And there's very likely something in the official Warren Commission and/or HSCA volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a 15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.

David Von Pein
October 21-22, 2012

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1147.html

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DVP's version requires that JBC after being shot through the chest from the rear, with a near mortal wound, from a very large slug, then turns around and does a 180-turn in his seat to look for JFK, and then JBC turns forward, and then imagines being shot in the back and pushed forward (a violent thrust forward captured in non-imaginary Z-film).  

I have to say, the DVP version just does not hold water: It does not conform with the clear testimony of JBC and his wife, or the indisputable record of the Z-film, or the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

I have no idea why you're labeling it "the DVP version", because the version of the SBT that you're talking about (as it relates specifically to Governor Connally having the ability to turn completely around in his seat AFTER being hit in the back, wrist, and leg by a bullet) is exactly the same as the Warren Commission's version and even the HSCA's version.....because both the WC and the HSCA also concluded that Gov. Connally definitely DID turn around in his seat and stare right at JFK at a point in time AFTER Connally had been hit by the one and only bullet that pierced his body.

But it's still okay with me if you want to call it the "DVP Version". I like being associated with something filled with so much common sense and logic (plus the number of whole bullets that are in evidence---one).

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's what I wonder: I wonder how anyone in 2022, after all we now know, can get on a public forum and defend the single-bullet theory, especially with such utterly erroneous, ridiculous material.

Given the alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting, plus the location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza, plus the fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body at all, plus the fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken, plus the fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to an external stimulus at precisely the same moment in time on the Zapruder Film....I wonder how anyone in 2022 (or any other year or millennium) can be so blind as to not accept the Single-Bullet Theory as fact.

~shrug~

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The back wound was shallow and had no exit point.

That must be why the three autopsy doctors signed an autopsy report which said this:

"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."

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The bullet that struck JFK's back was traveling at a slightly upward trajectory,

Which is an HSCA determination that (IMO) is proven to be erroneous by taking just a cursory glance at the two autopsy photographs on this webpage.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK and Connally were never aligned in a way that would make the SBT possible.

Talk about gushing forth "utterly erroneous, ridiculous material". The above statement made by Mr. Michael Griffith is definitely just that. The alignment of Kennedy and Connally at Zapruder frames Z220 to Z225 is just about perfect for the SBT to occur. And, of course, it did occur (at circa Z224)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/vince-bugliosi-dale-myers-and-sbt.html

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

There was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on the edge of the tie.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The holes in the front of JFK's shirt were slits made by one of the nurses.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1187.html#JFK-Shirt-Fibers

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Only by assuming a far-fetched bunching of both JFK's coat and his shirt in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence can one put the back wound where the WC placed it.

And since we know there was only ONE hole in JFK's shirt and only ONE hole in JFK's jacket and only ONE hole in JFK's upper back [this hole], then where can CTers possibly hope to go with their arguments concerning this topic?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK is clearly, clearly, clearly reacting to severe external stimulus before Connally even begins to turn to his right--anyone who denies this is either blind or is dissembling.

Actually, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are clearly (clearly, clearly) reacting to the SBT bullet at precisely the same moment in time just after coming out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Anyone who denies the obvious simultaneous reaction of the two limo victims in the above Z-Film clip must be either blind or related to the conspiracy theorists who participated in this 2015 SBT discussion at The Education Forum.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

There is no path from the back wound to the throat wound that would not have done severe damage to the spine, as Dr. Mantik has proved.

Yeah, that must be why those three autopsy doctors discussed earlier said all this:

"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."

And then there's the Clark Panel, consisting of four more people you get to call either li@rs or totally incompetent boobs, who said the following in their 1968 report:

"The possibility that this bullet [the SBT 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."

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

CE 399 was planted and looked nothing like the bullet that was "found" at Parkland Hospital.

Yeah, that must be why O.P. Wright told the FBI in June 1964 that the CE399 bullet "looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital".

Let me guess: You think the FBI was lying out their ass in CE2011, right?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Etc., etc., etc.

If those "etc." items are anything like your other points, you're in major trouble.

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Dr. Robert Shaw (Chief Of Thoracic Surgery) at Parkland never stated that the bullet that went into Connally's thigh fell out and was found on a stretcher in his national news interview on 11,22,1963.

I would think he would have mentioned that the thigh bullet dislodged itself so they didn't have to remove it.

Via the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles F. Gregory (one of Governor Connally's physicians at Parkland). Emphasis added by DVP:

DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very
well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of
its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never
have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was
dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we
were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient
with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient
magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought
to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if
it could be identified or found, rather."

[Source: 4 H 125.]

59 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

You can show them a picture of a test bullet fired into a cadaver wrist and compare it to CE 399, and they don't care at all that they look nothing alike.

That's because the cadaver bullet was fired DIRECTLY into the cadaver's wrist, which doesn't in any way simulate the double-man wounding of the SBT. So it's a mystery to me why CTers keep pretending--year after year--that test bullet CE856 mirrors the situation that existed in Dealey Plaza with the SBT.

~big shrug~

39 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

What happened to the bullet found on the stretcher?

Versus the bullet that was removed from Connally's thigh?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28179-the-laughable-sbt/?do=findComment&comment=472801

21 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

So it comes out that DVP believes that John and Nellie Connally were both being untruthful in their testimony.

I hope your utilization of the word "untruthful" doesn't mean you think that I think that either John Connally or Nellie Connally were lying when they always insisted that the SBT was not correct. Because I do not think that either of the Connallys were "lying" about anything.

If by "untruthful" you mean "incorrect".....then yes, they were both incorrect about their anti-SBT opinions (IMO). But they certainly weren't deliberately telling lies about anything. They each truly thought that the SBT was not a correct scenario. And they were wrong.*

* IMHO.

18 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Dave, you’re quoting the bible to an atheist 

Oh yes, I know that. That's a given. If I ever come across a conspiracy theorist who believes more than two words of the 888-page Warren Report, I'll faint dead away from the shock. But my last response to you was mainly to correct this wholly inaccurate statement you made at 11:39 AM EDT today....

"...one of the bullets was found to have missed completely and injured J. Tague." -- S. Coleman

But, given your above "bible/atheist" analogy, I guess you must think the WC was lying (yet again) on Page 117 of their Final Report.

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

Arlen Specter...dreamt up the SBT as one of the bullets was found to have missed completely and injured J. Tague. Phew! I bet he sweated when JT came forward.

Sean,

The Warren Commission definitely was NOT forcing itself into accepting the Single-Bullet Theory at all costs due to the existence of James Tague. How do we know what I just said is true? Because of Page #117 of the Warren Report itself, which states quite clearly and directly that the Commission was readily acknowledging the possibility that the damage to the Main Street curb (and, hence, the wounding of bystander James T. Tague) could have very well been caused by a fragment from the HEAD SHOT.

Therefore, via a possible scenario of Tague being wounded by a head-shot fragment, the SBT is not a MANDATORY conclusion to reach to still arrive at a final conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.

I, myself, DO think that the SBT is mandatory in order for Oswald to be the lone assassin of President Kennedy. But the Warren Commission's collective opinion was not as strict and restrictive as my own on the SBT matter....and Page 117 of the Warren Report (seen below) proves that fact.

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

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

Related Link:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The "5.6 Seconds" Myth

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Is the "pristine" bullet the one found on a stretcher at Parkland?

Or is it the one that lodged in Governor John Connally's left thigh?

The answer is "Yes" to both of your questions. Same bullet. It lodged only temporarily in Connally's thigh, then fell out onto the stretcher where it was recovered by Darrell C. Tomlinson in a corridor at Parkland. But that bullet (CE399) wasn't really "pristine" at all. It's been flattened on one side and the base of the bullet is damaged (i.e., oozing lead). So the "pristine" description of CE399 is a complete myth.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

David, thanks.

Perhaps I am [not?] understanding.  Are you meaning by ". . . even WITH the Single-Bullet theory intact", as you proffer it and believe to be?

Yes. But even an alternate version of the SBT would make much more sense than what most CTers seem to believe---which is that JFK & Connally were struck by at least THREE different bullets instead of just the one CE399 missile.

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

Apparently, I'm not "firing on all cylinders" because if the CTers believed the SBT was intact, they could not be such and therefore could not pretend there was a Badge Man - or am I missing something?

My point was: You can still very much be a conspiracy believer ("CTer") and yet still believe the SBT is true as well.

There's nothing in the JFK Assassination Manual (that I'm aware of) that prohibits a conspiracy advocate from endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory (whether it be the Warren Commission's version of the SBT or another version of a "single-bullet" conclusion).

And, frankly, it's always puzzled me as to why there aren't far more conspiracy believers endorsing the SBT. Because, in my opinion, Vincent Bugliosi was 100% correct when he said that "a child could author it" [the SBT]. [The full Bugliosi quote is below.]

"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"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-303 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

1 hour ago, Ron Ege said:

Could a CTer be that much "out of it" - really?

I guess so.

13 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

But there is the issue regarding JFKs movements just before he goes behind the sign. JFK seems to raise his hands and make an odd facial expression. Maybe he was coughing, sneezing, or maybe he realized that that firecracker sound he just heard was not a firecracker but a rifle shot and his sudden odd expression before he goes behind the sign is a display of the realization that someone is shooting at them. I don't know.

In your years studying this case David, have you been able to come up with a theory to explain JFKs odd movement just before he goes behind the sign?

Frankly, Gerry, I don't think there's anything particularly "odd" about JFK's movements just prior to the time he disappears behind the sign. And I can't see any odd facial expression being exhibited by JFK at that time either. But it is very difficult to discern any facial details at that point in the film, since the limousine is further away from Mr. Zapruder's camera than it is just a few seconds later.

https://drive.google.com / DVP Video File / The Zapruder Film

When comparing the Z-Film's "pre-sign" frames with the "post-sign" frames, it looks to me as if Kennedy's right arm is in pretty much the very same position AFTER he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign as it was before going behind the sign. And Dale Myers pretty much confirmed this fact years ago when he did his "interpolation" work to study the movements of both Kennedy and Connally in the Zapruder Film.

Myers said this (on his FAQ page at his "Secrets Of A Homicide" website):

"When the sequence is viewed without the sign's interference, it is clear that the interpolated motion forms a contiguous bridge between the known actions of the two men as seen both before and after the Stemmons freeway sign. In short, Kennedy and Connally made no large, dramatic movements while hidden from Zapruder's camera." -- Dale K. Myers

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

I believe that a shot at frame 190, and reaction two seconds later, isn't as ridiculous as you wish to make it.

If JFK had been hit as early as Z190, we would not have him waiting until Z226 to jerk his arms upward toward his throat. No way. No how. If that arm movement was involuntary (and I certainly think it was involuntary), then such a reaction would be as immediate as humanly possible....which is precisely what we see in Z225-Z230. In a gunshot wound incident like this, a two-second delay is practically forever.

And when speaking about Jackie's reactions, I'll remind you that I did say this in my previous post regarding that matter....

"...we ARE only talking about 1.86 seconds in real time--between Z190 and Z224..."

Some related SBT talk....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-615.html

3 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

If one were not convinced there was some "chicanery" afoot already, then CE 856 should remove all doubt.

I wonder how many conspiracy theorists endorse Dr. Cyril Wecht when he continually goes on TV and radio and tries to sell his bucket of anti-SBT crap to the world, armed with his silly argument about the test bullet seen in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 856, with Wecht acting as though the CE856 test bullet took the very same path through TWO bodies that CE399 took through the bodies of JFK and John Connally in Dallas.

Conspiracy theorists can't (or won't) see that JFK and Governor Connally are reacting to their bullet wounds at the exact same time in the Zapruder Film clip below. No matter how many times the anti-SBTers watch this clip, they will never admit to themselves what they are obviously seeing--two men being hit by the same bullet:



And take note of Jackie Kennedy's reactions in the above Z-Film clip too. She kind of "springs" up in her seat and then puts both of her hands on JFK's left arm. But Jackie only STARTS TO REACT (as she moves her arms and her body toward JFK) AFTER Z226 or so.

But if we're to believe the HSCA's timing for the SBT, JFK was struck by a bullet back at about Z190. But Jackie doesn't react and try to aid her husband until after approximately Z226. Just a coincidence? Did Jackie have a "delayed reaction" too?

In reality, Jackie Kennedy's reactions (and her reaching out with both of her hands to aid her husband shortly after Z225) are reactions that are perfectly consistent with a bullet striking President Kennedy at around Z224. She is "reacting" at almost the exact same time as the two victims.

Here's a slow motion version:



IMO, Jackie's movements are somewhat difficult to explain and reconcile if JFK had been struck as early as Z190 or so. She doesn't move toward her injured husband until AFTER the men reappear from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I suppose that could conceivably just be a coincidence (because we ARE only talking about 1.86 seconds in real time--between Z190 and Z224), but there's no question in my mind that Jackie Kennedy's movements and reactions as she MOVES TOWARD JFK after Z225-Z226 are certainly not INCONSISTENT with the SBT occurring at Z224.

In fact, the more I focus on JUST JACKIE in the above Zapruder Film clips, the more I think her reactions and movements fully buttress the "Z224 SBT Hit" even more solidly than ever.

David Von Pein
August 26, 2010
Revised September 13, 2015


 

On 9/24/2022 at 5:00 AM, Joseph McBride said:

Thanks for continuing to post these valuable clips and shows, David.

Unfortunately, it seems at the moment that they won't play.

At least the ones I tried did not play.

Yes, there's been a problem playing the embedded Google Drive videos on several of my websites (blogs) for the better part of 2022 when using the Firefox browser. (The videos seem to play okay when using other browsers, however.)

And this video playback glitch has been driving me crazing for months too, because I can't stand to have things broken on any of my sites. I've repeatedly contacted Google about the problem, but so far they've done nothing to fix it.

I've put in hundreds of hours of work in collecting, editing, rendering, and uploading hundreds of videos into the Google Drive platform, and I do not relish having to completely switch video-sharing sites. That would be immensely inconvenient and time-consuming. So I need Google (and/or Mozilla Firefox) to fix the problem.

Note --- The video playback problem doesn't affect any of my videos that I have on any of my three YouTube channels. The videos at YouTube.com have no playback issues whatsoever. The only problems are with videos uploaded via the Google Drive file-hosting service.

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S.  That was some nice cherry-picking you did with that FBI report. You left out that AFTER they were shown the original bag and said maybe (or at least were reported to have said maybe), Bardwell Odum performed two tests to help them make up their minds--and the original bag FAILED both tests.

But if Frazier and Randle were correct about the length of the bag they saw Oswald carrying (24 to 27 inches), there really should have been no "maybe" about it at all in the minds of either Frazier or Randle. And yet, on Dec. 1st, there was a "maybe" being uttered by BOTH of those witnesses.

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

So no, you can't take one statement in one report and pretend the problem just goes away. Frazier has maintained since the night of the shooting that the bag placed in evidence was not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. 

Oh yes, that's very true. Frazier has always strongly suggested that the bag he saw Oswald carrying into the Book Depository on 11/22 was way too short to be the bag that was found by the police in the Sniper's Nest (CE142).

But those FBI reports in CD7 have got to make you scratch your head just a little bit, though. Because if LHO's bag had really been only 24 to 27 inches in length, why would BOTH Frazier AND Randle have told the FBI that CE142 could have been the bag they saw Oswald carrying---regardless of the color?!

Plus, there's another FBI report from 11/22/63, in which Linnie Randle told James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that was her very first approximation of the bag's size.

1 minute ago, Tony Krome said:

Thanks for that Dave, for me, that proves that Oswald was not the shooter. 

Wonderful logic there.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Frazier has long said Ball repeatedly tried to trick him into saying the bag he saw was the size of the bag in evidence.

Actually, Pat, Joe Ball didn't need to "trick" Buell Frazier into saying any such thing.....because Frazier himself had already admitted to the FBI---months earlier, on December 1, 1963---that the bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) "could have been" the same bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination. That "could have been" information was brought out in Bardwell Odum's 12/1/63 interview with Frazier, which can be found here in Commission Document No. 7....

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.

The two 12/1/63 FBI interviews with Frazier and Randle that I just linked to are quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when both Frazier and Randle were shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), they both told Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one they saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would they both have said something like that to the FBI if the bag they each saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag they were shown by the FBI?

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

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Wesley Frazier saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag they were both later shown on December 1st, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in either Randle's mind or Frazier's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag that Frazier and Randle saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....both Frazier and Randle, per Commission Document No. 7, tell two FBI agents that the "original" bag they were shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when they each said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one they saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Were both Frazier and Randle only concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in their FBI interviews?

In other words, both Buell & Linnie Mae knew the original bag was much too long, but neither one of them was able to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so they each said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of their eyes was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

Or maybe some CTers think that FBI agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeely were merely putting words into the mouths of both Buell and Linnie Mae that neither of them actually uttered at all during their 12/1/63 interviews --- namely these words: "Could have been the sack".

More:

http://DVP's JFK Archives/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275

4 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

So he [LHO] obviously told them during his interrogation that's where he was during the shooting.

Obviously not. Because if Oswald had said to Fritz (et al) that he was outside on the steps at the time of the shooting, that key information would most certainly have shown up in the official reports of multiple people who were present to hear Oswald's statements during the interrogations (e.g., the reports of Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, Kelley, and Holmes).

Instead, we have this:

"I [Captain Fritz] asked him [LHO] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600]

And this:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Hosty/Bookhout 11/22/63 joint report; WCR, Page 613]