Jump to content
The Education Forum

IF & WHY?


Recommended Posts

Dr. Humes as well as the other autopsy surgeons testified on March 16, 1964:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol2_0178a.htm

During which CE388 was introduced into evidence:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

And:

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.

As most are aware, the WC conducted a "staged" reenactment on May 24, 1964. Which happens to be slightly in excess of

2-months after the testimony of the autopsy surgeons.

Then Why?

Does this re-enactment photo show an impact point location at the lower edge of the hairline, exactly as has been stated by multiple witnesses, yet, said location IS NOT where the WC drawings (CE388) demonstrates the entry wound to be located?

Answer Below:

Multiple Choice/and/or Fill in the blank:

a. No one informed the re-enactment group as to the wound entry location as shown in CE388?

b. The re-enactment group believed the witnesses as to the wound location?

c. It is another of those enigma's, somewhat like the lamp post location?

d. Someone within the WC was aware that a "lower edge of hairline" entry could not be made to correlate to

the Z313 impact due to relative firing angles and the position of JFK's head at time of impact.

e. All of the above?

f. Some of the above?

g. Some of the above as well as:________________________________________________?

h. All of the above as well as:___________________________________________________?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Humes as well as the other autopsy surgeons testified on March 16, 1964:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol2_0178a.htm

During which CE388 was introduced into evidence:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

And:

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.

As most are aware, the WC conducted a "staged" reenactment on May 24, 1964. Which happens to be slightly in excess of

2-months after the testimony of the autopsy surgeons.

Then Why?

Does this re-enactment photo show an impact point location at the lower edge of the hairline, exactly as has been stated by multiple witnesses, yet, said location IS NOT where the WC drawings (CE388) demonstrates the entry wound to be located?

Answer Below:

Multiple Choice/and/or Fill in the blank:

a. No one informed the re-enactment group as to the wound entry location as shown in CE388?

b. The re-enactment group believed the witnesses as to the wound location?

c. It is another of those enigma's, somewhat like the lamp post location?

d. Someone within the WC was aware that a "lower edge of hairline" entry could not be made to correlate to

the Z313 impact due to relative firing angles and the position of JFK's head at time of impact.

e. All of the above?

f. Some of the above?

g. Some of the above as well as:________________________________________________?

h. All of the above as well as:___________________________________________________?

Tom, a related question is why the back wound location used in the re-enactment failed to match the location seen in the medical drawings. (I originally thought this was the question you were asking.)

This question is answered in part 2 of my video series, here:

Specter saw an autopsy photo proving the back wound was on the back, tested this location, and found it didn't work. He then conspired with Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service to hide that he'd tested this location, and got Kelley to tell the commission that the back wound location used in the reconstruction came from the drawings created by the doctors. This was perjury.

Specter, a long-time member of the Senate Judiciary committee, should have been disbarred a long time ago, to say the least.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Humes as well as the other autopsy surgeons testified on March 16, 1964:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol2_0178a.htm

During which CE388 was introduced into evidence:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

And:

Mr. SPECTER. Were you present on May 24 in Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment.

As most are aware, the WC conducted a "staged" reenactment on May 24, 1964. Which happens to be slightly in excess of

2-months after the testimony of the autopsy surgeons.

Then Why?

Does this re-enactment photo show an impact point location at the lower edge of the hairline, exactly as has been stated by multiple witnesses, yet, said location IS NOT where the WC drawings (CE388) demonstrates the entry wound to be located?

Answer Below:

Multiple Choice/and/or Fill in the blank:

a. No one informed the re-enactment group as to the wound entry location as shown in CE388?

b. The re-enactment group believed the witnesses as to the wound location?

c. It is another of those enigma's, somewhat like the lamp post location?

d. Someone within the WC was aware that a "lower edge of hairline" entry could not be made to correlate to

the Z313 impact due to relative firing angles and the position of JFK's head at time of impact.

e. All of the above?

f. Some of the above?

g. Some of the above as well as:________________________________________________?

h. All of the above as well as:___________________________________________________?

Tom, a related question is why the back wound location used in the re-enactment failed to match the location seen in the medical drawings. (I originally thought this was the question you were asking.)

This question is answered in part 2 of my video series, here:

Specter saw an autopsy photo proving the back wound was on the back, tested this location, and found it didn't work. He then conspired with Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service to hide that he'd tested this location, and got Kelley to tell the commission that the back wound location used in the reconstruction came from the drawings created by the doctors. This was perjury.

Specter, a long-time member of the Senate Judiciary committee, should have been disbarred a long time ago, to say the least.

With little doubt, Specter saw the autopsy photographs, etc; which would have caused him considerable concern.

Too include even probably the 'back wound" photograph.

However, the autopsy report as well as Hume's testimony demonstrates the location of the back entry wound, even if

the WC exhibit is more of the same "cartoon character" drawings.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

"This wound was situated just above the upper border of the scapula,"

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0030a.htm

The testimonies and statements of three Surgeons "trumps" any vague autopsy photograph. And especially those amateur

photographs taken of the Kennedy autopsy.

This topic IS NOT about the back wound!

It is in relationship to THIS WOUND!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.

And, the apparant conflict between this drawing:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0504b.htm

Which does not serve to indicate an entry point which is at the edge of the hairline!

And the critical importance as to WHY! this re-enactment photograph demonstrates an entry wound located

exactly as stated by the autopsy surgeons as well as witnesses who observed this entry wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can rest assured that this photographs is one of the reasons that Specter & Company did not want anyone to see

the autopsy photographs!

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While one awaits any comments on the "lower edge of hairline" wound issue, and since this topic has already taken a "turn" to other items, then perhaps it would be of relevance to add as many "If & Why?" quetions as can be sufficiently documented.

Therefore:

IF?

As indicated by the below attachments, Mr. Robert West, during the WC assassination reenactment of May 24, 1964, also surveyed in the location of the "Tague curb strike", as well as indicating that this section of curbing was removed, and which is clearly demonstrated on the Survey Plat for the WC which was dated May 31, 1964.

Then, WHY????

Would that information entered into evidence by Lyndal Shaneyfelt indicate that this section of the curbing was not

removed until August 5, 1964?

In excess of two months after Mr. West had completed his survey work for the WC, and in which he identified the missing section of curbing on the WC's survey plat which West Survey prepared.

And, WHY??? would those falsfiied survey plats which the WC entered into evidence, have intentionally omitted the curb strike marking?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm

And, one might ask WHY? was this testimony "slipped" in on September 1, 1964, whereas the FINAL Warren Report was itself

presented to LBJ on September 24, 1964.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While one awaits any comments on the "lower edge of hairline" wound issue, and since this topic has already taken a "turn" to other items, then perhaps it would be of relevance to add as many "If & Why?" quetions as can be sufficiently documented.

Therefore:

IF?

As indicated by the below attachments, Mr. Robert West, during the WC assassination reenactment of May 24, 1964, also surveyed in the location of the "Tague curb strike", as well as indicating that this section of curbing was removed, and which is clearly demonstrated on the Survey Plat for the WC which was dated May 31, 1964.

Then, WHY????

Would that information entered into evidence by Lyndal Shaneyfelt indicate that this section of the curbing was not

removed until August 5, 1964?

In excess of two months after Mr. West had completed his survey work for the WC, and in which he identified the missing section of curbing on the WC's survey plat which West Survey prepared.

And, WHY??? would those falsfiied survey plats which the WC entered into evidence, have intentionally omitted the curb strike marking?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm

And, one might ask WHY? was this testimony "slipped" in on September 1, 1964, whereas the FINAL Warren Report was itself

presented to LBJ on September 24, 1964.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0254a.htm

OK!

Now, between the date of having testified (September 1, 1964) and the date of this letter (September 3, 1964), one could assume that:

A. Shaneyfelt caught a quick flight back to Dallas and measured the distance asked for?

B. Shaneyfelt called Mr. West and asked for the exact distance asked for?

C. Shaneyfelt "broke the seal" and obtained the approximate 260 foot distance by measuring the scale on the true

West survey plat which has that area of the curbing designated as having been removed, and which scaled distance

accurately approximates 260 feet?

Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. [i]Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.

[/i]Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.

Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.

As a "friendly reminder":

==============================================================

And now, one knows "The Rest of the Story". (or at least most of it anyway!)

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:

Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please.

A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t.

Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia.

Q: By whom are you employed?

A: As a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

===============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

And now, one knows "The Rest of the Story". (or at least most of it anyway!)

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:

Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please.

A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t.

Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia.

Q: By whom are you employed?

A: As a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

===============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

the Washington Post link is dead... surprise....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

And now, one knows "The Rest of the Story". (or at least most of it anyway!)

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:

Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please.

A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t.

Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia.

Q: By whom are you employed?

A: As a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

===============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

the Washington Post link is dead... surprise....

Try this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Fairfax Home Sales

Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page VA23

The following home sales were recently recorded for Fairfax County and supplied to The Washington Post by the Real Estate Division of the Fairfax County Department of Tax Administration. To find sale and assessment records for homes in Fairfax and elsewhere in the Washington area, visit www.washingtonpost.com/realestate.

Alexandria-Belle View Area

CAVALIER DR., 6415-Susan J. Weaver to Kate B. and Robert L. Connolly, $389,000.

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

==================================================

The name: "Jennifer O. Rooney" will usually pull it up if all else fails.

That is why I long ago copied it.

Perhaps someone who still has a vested interest in continuation of the "misguided", does not like for someone to actually point to the correct road which one should follow.

Certainly glad that I got US Senator David Boren and a few others on "my side" prior to opening this can of worms.

Which may ultimately turn into a can of snakes for someone.

Which should be little if any problem for an old has-been "snake-eater".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

And now, one knows "The Rest of the Story". (or at least most of it anyway!)

http://www.jfk-online.com/shaneyfeltshaw.html

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OSER:

Q: Would you state your full name for the record, please.

A: My name is Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, L-y-n-d-a-l, middle initial L, S-h-a-n-e-y-f-e-l-t.

Q: Where do you reside, Mr. Shaneyfelt?

A: I reside at 6125 Vernon Terrace, Alexandria, Virginia.

Q: By whom are you employed?

A: As a Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

===============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

the Washington Post link is dead... surprise....

Try this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Fairfax Home Sales

Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page VA23

The following home sales were recently recorded for Fairfax County and supplied to The Washington Post by the Real Estate Division of the Fairfax County Department of Tax Administration. To find sale and assessment records for homes in Fairfax and elsewhere in the Washington area, visit www.washingtonpost.com/realestate.

Alexandria-Belle View Area

CAVALIER DR., 6415-Susan J. Weaver to Kate B. and Robert L. Connolly, $389,000.

VERNON TER., 6125-Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt to James H. and Jennifer O. Rooney, $1.4 million.

==================================================

The name: "Jennifer O. Rooney" will usually pull it up if all else fails.

That is why I long ago copied it.

Perhaps someone who still has a vested interest in continuation of the "misguided", does not like for someone to actually point to the correct road which one should follow.

Certainly glad that I got US Senator David Boren and a few others on "my side" prior to opening this can of worms.

Which may ultimately turn into a can of snakes for someone.

Which should be little if any problem for an old has-been "snake-eater".

ohhh, it all tastes like chicken anyway..... but tnx for the re-link :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHY???

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0144b.htm

Did the WC attempt to pass off CE585 as being related to the US Secret Service assassination reenactment

when in fact this is a survey plat for the FBI assassination reenactment of 2/7/64?

Mr. SIMMONS. These distances were the values given on the survey map which were given to us.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you sure they were not the values I gave to you myself?

Mr. SIMMONS. I stand corrected. These are values--we were informed that the numbers on the survey map were possibly in error. The distances are very close, however

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain your reference to a map? You have made several references to that.

Mr. SIMMONS. I refer to the survey plat which is dated December 5, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. And how were you supplied with that?

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, you gave it to one of the employees in my office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a plat made by a licensed surveyor of the area immediately adjoining the Texas School Book Depository. I would like to introduce it into evidence solely to show the basis which Mr. Simmons was using in his test, and not for the truth, of the measurements which are shown in here.

Mr. McCLOY. It may be received.

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be Commission 585.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 585 and received in evidence.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah! It do say December 5, 1963 in the primary data block.

However, down below in the legend where it says "revision", it also says 2/7/64. which makes it the FBI Survey Plat which was generated as a result of their assassination reenactment.

Sort of makes one curious as to whether or not the FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt may have been hanging around Dallas on 2/7/64.

Surely the FBI would not attempt such a photographic feat without him??

And lastly in regards to the "Map" issue.

WHY???? Did someone go to the troubles of planting a copy of the FBI survey plat from the 2/7/64 assassination reenactment in the Dallas Police files under the name of the Secret Service assassination reenactment which actually took place on December 2, 3, & 4th, with the Survey Plat being dated December 5, 1963.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4074-001.gif

========================================

Now, to make this simple, the answer to:

Post #1

Post #5

And this posting

All have virtually the same answer.

And no David! The correct answer is not that they did all of this just to make David Von Pein appear stupid.

He appears as stupid, apparantly due to the fact that he is stupid.

Anyone who would fall for and believe the WC, along with the SBT, and "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", is bonehead stupid!

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...