David Von Pein
-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
6 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
The car is flat [when it was in the Dallas garage on 5/24/64], not on a downslope. You have to understand how bad this shows it's not a scientific recreation.
They subtracted the 3-degree, 9-minute slope of Elm when they went to the garage. Out on the street, the angle is 21+ degrees from the sixth-floor window to the inshoot wound on JFK's back. When the slope of Elm is taken off, the angle becomes 17.72 degrees (based, of course, on the "average" angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, which is the "range" of frames the WC was using for the SBT hit).
And so, as we can easily see, SOME slack MUST be given to the WC's tests....because their re-creation is being based on just an AVERAGE angle between Z210 and 225 in the first place. So unless JFK was hit at exactly Z217.5 (which is quite unlikely), then the angles and measurements ARE going to be slightly off.
But CTers can't permit any "slack" or "leeway" to be given to Mr. Specter & Company, can they? For a CTer, if it's not 100% exact to the millimeter, then we must toss the re-enactments in the trash can. Right? Come on! That's a ridiculously rigid mindset to have. Don't you agree?
-
55 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
Was this photo before or after Ford moved the location? Lol.
Doesn't really matter. Because, as I just outlined previously, the WC didn't really rely on the crappy Rydberg drawing at all. Because if they HAD relied on it, we wouldn't find the wound where it is in Commission Exhibit 903 and in all of those "opposite angle" photographs.
-
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
But there is also this point: this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos. They had to have them to get that dotted location.
Totally untrue. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission could have very easily determined the location of the back wound from the autopsy report ("14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"). And that's no doubt what they did. Even if they did look at the autopsy photo, they wouldn't have relied ONLY on that photo. They would have utilized the best measurement for the back wound---which was in the autopsy report.
Oddly, Thomas J. Kelley of the Secret Service testified that the chalk mark was determined by just looking at the crappy Rydberg drawing and the coat of JFK --- which is ridiculous, because if ONLY those two things were the source of the chalk mark, the mark would certainly NOT be in the location where we find it in CE903. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that the WC would have certainly gone to the best place for determining where on Kennedy's body the wound was located---and that's the autopsy report.
And, in fact, we find this info on Page 107 of the WCR, confirming what I just said above about the WC relying on the autopsy report itself....
"The wounds of entry and exit on the President were approximated based on information gained from the autopsy reports and photographs."
The above sentence could give the appearance that the Warren Commission was admitting that they had, in fact, looked at the autopsy photos. But when the WC used the word "photographs" on Page 107 of its Report, they appear (via the source note provided on Page 107) to only be referring to the crappy Rydberg drawings (see Thomas Kelley's testimony at 5 H 133-134).
But I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter and the WC were definitely relying on more than just JFK's jacket and the awful Rydberg drawing (seen in Commission Exhibit No. 386). They had easy access, of course, to Page 3 of JFK's autopsy report, which clearly indicates the precise location of where a bullet had entered President Kennedy's upper back.
So it is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion, to believe that the Commission would NOT have utilized Page 3 of that autopsy report when it came time to place that chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in during the Warren Commission's assassination reconstruction effort in Dallas, Texas, on Sunday, May 24, 1964.
-
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/CE903 (Part 3) (Re: Angles)
Do CTers here REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?
And even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely?
And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed. -
50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
One of the reasons he will not show the reverse angle here...
Why don't you just post it here yourself? Haven't you learned how to post a picture yet?
Come to think of it, have you EVER posted any photos here? I'm not being critical of you in this regard, it's just that I can't think of any posts where you've added any pictures, which seems kind of curious, since this crime is one that has so many "photographic" aspects to it.
But since you seem to refuse to post those "opposite angle" pictures for yourself, I'll do it for you....
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
(But note Davey never shows the reverse angle.)
Totally untrue, and you know it. I've posted it (and discussed it) on my site numerous times.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
-
2 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:
I'm talking about the right to left trajectory of a bullet coming from the 6th floor shown in the SS scope close ups...and how it's totally different from what Spector [sic] is showing reaching out into the car.
You can't possibly tell what Specter's precise "right to left" angle is from that side-on view in the CE903 photo. Why pretend you can?
Zoomed-in view of CE903....
-
2 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:
DVP , please mate you [can't] tell me you believe that Arlen Spector [sic] in the White House garage photo [sic; it was in Dallas, not at the White House] is holding this metal rod at the same direction shown by the cross hairs in the Secet Service reenactment from the 6th floor window.
Yes, indeed, he is ---- exactly 17.72 degrees downward (as measured by a surveyor out on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza).
-
Rich Pope said:
Bugliosi verified there was a Dr. Pepper machine on the 1st floor.
7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:How did Bugliosi verify this?
Vincent Bugliosi verified it by looking at an FBI photo that appears in Commission Document No. 496, which shows the Dr. Pepper machine near the stairs on the first floor. This picture, available to the public for many years (although not in the 26 volumes), had apparently never been noticed by any researcher prior to Bugliosi, not even the very thorough Gary Mack....
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc/Dr. Pepper Machine On First Floor Of Book Depository Building
Plus....
Bugliosi also confirmed the existence of the first-floor Dr. Pepper machine when he talked with Buell Wesley Frazier on the telephone on March 24, 2004. Here are the excerpts from Vince's book concerning that topic....
"Indeed there was a Coca-Cola machine in the [second-floor lunch] room. But to my knowledge, there is no direct reference in the assassination literature to a second soft drink machine in the Book Depository Building.
[...]
Neither [Bonnie Ray] Williams nor [Wesley] Frazier expressly said what floor this [second soda] machine was on. .... Through a few phone calls I was able to reach Wesley Frazier, whom I hadn't talked to since 1986, when he testified for me at the London trial. Still living in Dallas, he told me that "there was a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor." Where, specifically, was it? [Frazier:] "It was located by the double freight elevator near the back of the building."
[...]
And indeed, I subsequently found proof of the existence of the machine, with the words "Dr. Pepper" near the top front of it, in an FBI photo taken for the Warren Commission of the northwest corner of the first floor, and it is located right next to the refrigerator.
[...]
So we see that apart from all the conclusive evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and therefore had to have descended from there to the second floor, his story about going up to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft drink machine on the first floor, the floor you say you are already on, particularly when the apparent drink of your choice [Dr. Pepper by all accounts] is on this first floor, not the second floor?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 957-958 of "Reclaiming History"
More....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Dr. Pepper Talk
-
24 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:
But [it's] not the same limo. You cannot [recreate] an accident of a Mercedes driving a BMW because they are similar.
The seating layouts of the JFK limo and the SS car were very similar. And any differences were taken into account (as confirmed, again, by Shaneyfelt's WC testimony)....
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. -
1 hour ago, Adam Johnson said:
Go put the limo at Z220 on Elm St and tell me if you stood beside JFK and placed this rod over his right shoulder it would be pointing at the TSBD 6th floor......
Yes, it definitely would have pointed back to the sixth floor. The "17-43-30" angle was determined while the car was out on Elm Street (prior to being taken to the enclosed garage for the CE903 photo). That fact was confirmed in the testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt....
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The average angle, allowing for the 3'9" street grade, results in an average angle between frame 210 and frame 225 of 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. And that is the average angle from the muzzle to President Kennedy as he sat in the car or President Kennedy's stand-in as he sat in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. To the wound entrance.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the average angle of 17-43-30 measured from the muzzle to the President's body as the President would be seated in the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is out on the street in those frame positions, yes. It is measured to the point of the wound on the back of the President.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm
-
On 1/11/2019 at 2:54 AM, Cory Santos said:
Was this the same limo JFK was in?
No, it's the Secret Service follow-up car (the "Queen Mary"), which is a Cadillac, not a Lincoln.
But the inner seat configuration is very similar to JFK's SS-100-X limo.
-
Jim,
The bottom line is....
The WC got it right in CE903.
You'll never admit that fact, though, of course (even though you can SEE it in the photo published as Commission Exhibit No. 903).
There was no wound depicted as being in the back of the "neck" in CE903. It's in the UPPER BACK, just like the autopsy photo shows.
Period.
No "baloney". Just facts----in ILLUSTRATED form, via this photo....
[Cue Pat Speer's anti-CE903 retorts here.]
-
33 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Does the photo showing Arlen Specter and his bullet angle mean that Kennedy was shot twice in the back?
No, John. It's just that the Rydberg drawings suck. (Yes, even an LNer like myself can admit that fact.)
But fortunately, Arlen Specter didn't actually rely at all (quite obviously) on the awful Rydberg drawings when he put that metal rod up against JFK's stand-in, because the wound is placed in the BACK, not in the NECK, in Commission Exhibit No. 903.
-
You'd better take another gander at CE903. No "11-degree upwards" crap needed at all.
-
-
-
You can stop posting stupid 9/11 conspiracy crap now, Micah. I'm done with the 9/11 stuff now. (And my apologies for sidetracking this thread. But, as we can see, it's been far afield from the original "George Bush" topic for a long time now anyway.)
-
Just now, Micah Mileto said:
But Dave, in your universe wouldn't the engineer man prove the official story? In which case, we would both like to see him identified. Anot
I couldn't care less who your "engineer man" was. I don't need him in order to "prove" anything. I know (as do all sensible people) what caused those buildings to go down. And it certainly wasn't due to pre-set explosives.
-
22 minutes ago, Robert Card said:
David, why didn't the 911 Commission test for explosives in the wreckage? Don't you think that would be important?
Not at all.
Why?
Because it was obvious what caused ALL of the WTC buildings to collapse.
And that cause was:
Those two huge Boeing 767-200 jetliners filled with jet fuel that slammed into WTC 1 & 2.
-
4 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Had to mention engineer man because [of] how reminiscent he is of several other mysterious figures in JFK.
Proving my point (below) yet again....
"You CTers are proving, yet again, how very similar your 9/11 beliefs are to some of your JFK beliefs. It's almost spooky. (And, of course, hilarious.)" -- DVP; 1/8/2019
-
2 minutes ago, Robert Card said:
"Nothing ever uttered by a 9/11 CTer has EVER been accurate" is just another example of the 25 Rules of Disinformation.
But my quote is oh so right.
-
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:
Well, I mean, they were actually measuring the distance of the impending dust cloud that would be created for WTC 7. The first responders on 9/11 appears to have been under the impression that WTC 7 would totally collapse like the Twin Towers did. That's how accurate the foreknowledge was.
So what? They did a good (and accurate) job of predicting the WTC 7 collapse. Hence, they kept all humans away from there until it did come down.
Nothing conspiratorial there at all. Just basic common sense and logic based on what they saw just happen with WTC 1 and 2.
-
6 minutes ago, Robert Card said:
Afraid not, David. No steel building, that's structural steel, has fallen completely because of a fire, and that's since 1905.
I hope you'll forgive me, Robert, if I don't believe a single word coming from the mouth of a 9/11 Conspiracy Fantasist.
Nothing ever uttered by a 9/11 CTer has EVER been accurate. And I certainly can't expect Robert Card to break that perfect record.
“Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
I think you're confused. And your little markings on the CE903 picture are totally meaningless. You can't just start drawing lines on a 2D picture and get 3-dimensional results. It's impossible.