Pat Speer Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 The 23° angle, from right to left through JFK's neck, is measured from a line running lengthwise through the limo at z224 Robert, Thanks for elaborating. As a devout reader of your posts I was certain you had it all calculated down to the size of a gnat's arse...but I wanted to be sure that both angles were measured relative to the same reference plane, as I had assumed. I feel the accuracy of my measurements to be within at least a couple of degrees. Considering the vast difference between 9° and 23-28°, I would say there is room for a very broad margin of error here.Isn't it interesting how someone like Dale Myers can calculate the coordinates of the bullet entrance and exit with such a high degree of precision that according to him, the trajectory line through JFK's head wounds "passed right through the open window" in the sniper's nest? I wonder if a 0.1 degree error in roll, pitch and yaw would cause the trajectory to miss the entire window...Tom While Myers is overly precise about the SBT, Tom, I'm pretty sure he acknowledges that you can't rear-project the head wounds with any accuracy, and that Tom Canning's work for the HSCA was dog rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Re: Bennett.... Once again..... I was merely stating an obvious fact --- i.e., the only way that Glen Bennett could KNOW for certain that a bullet hit the President "about four inches down from the right shoulder" would be to either see the bullet in flight (which, of course, is humanly impossible) or to see the bullet hole in Kennedy's body or clothing or to see the blood oozing from a wound in the President's back. Other than these methods, tell me HOW a witness could state for certain exactly where on JFK's back the bullet entered? Main point being --- Bennett GUESSED. And his GUESS wasn't too far afield, I will say that. And he also GUESSED about the head entry wound too, which, interestingly enough, is a guess that is completely at odds with the LOW head entry found in the autopsy report, but is consistent with the autopsy photos.... "A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." -- Glen A. Bennett; 11/23/63 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-benne.htm And as a side note here .... you can bet your last greenback that you'll never ever hear a conspiracy theorist quoting the above Bennett quote concerning the head shot that Bennett said came FROM BEHIND. But the CTers sure love Glen Bennett when it comes to his amazing ability to pinpoint the location of President Kennedy's back wound. So, Bennett's guesswork was fairly accurate as things turned out. But there's no way he could have known with any certainty precisely how many inches below the shoulder JFK was struck. Once again, I reiterate, No amount of your rubbishy explanations will alter the facts. He saw the bullet hole in JFK's back. Is that really too hard for you to understand? "He guessed". How the hell do you know he guessed? Did you ask him? Or is it just your assumption? Or he had to have guessed because it doesn't suit you theory? As I previously said, no matter what rubbish you keep coming up with your position is untenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) You're getting more hilarious by the minute, Ray. Do you think Glen Bennett whipped out a ruler and dashed up to JFK's car and started measuring distances? OF COURSE Bennett's "four inches" statement was a guess. How could it possibly be anything else BUT a "guess"? Also.... If Bennett saw the bullet hole in "JFK's back", he would have been looking at this wound (with the President's bunched-up jacket over the top of it, of course), and this wound isn't four inches below the shoulder. And no amount of rubbish spouted by Ray Mitcham (or Glen Bennett) will alter the truth that resides within this photograph.... Edited May 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 BTW, Ray, do you think Bennett was right when he said this?.... "A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 BTW, Ray, do you think Bennett was right when he said this?.... "A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." You're getting more hilarious by the minute, Ray. Do you think Glen Bennett whipped out a ruler and dashed up to JFK's car and started measuring distances? OF COURSE Bennett's "four inches" statement was a guess. How could it possibly be anything else BUT a "guess"? Also.... If Bennett saw the bullet hole in "JFK's back", he would have been looking at this wound (with the President's bunched-up jacket over the top of it, of course), and this wound isn't four inches below the shoulder. And no amount of rubbish spouted by Ray Mitcham (or Glen Bennett) will alter the truth that resides within this photograph.... Even you could estimate the position of a hole in somebody's jacket if you saw it. (Come to think of it, maybe from your past utterances, you couldn't.) Tell me why Bennett would say that the shot hit four inches below the shoulder if he didn't see it. Oh, I forgot, Special Agent Bennett spouted rubbish. This from DVP!! Regarding the head wound, he saw a huge wound at the back of the President's head. He was quite right. But he didn't say it was an entrance wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Bennett said the fatal bullet "HIT THE RIGHT REAR HIGH" of JFK's head. Does that sound like he thinks the shot entered from the front? Of course not. But Bennett's "four inches" guess was just that--an estimate/guess. So we have a choice here--- We can believe the BEST evidence for JFK's back wound (which is the above autopsy photo). Or: We can believe Glen Bennett's guesswork as he witnessed the shooting from the Queen Mary SS car. Gee, that's a tough choice, isn't it? (But guess what choice Ray Mitcham is going to make?) Edited May 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Bennett said the fatal bullet "HIT THE RIGHT REAR HIGH" of JFK's head. Does that sound like he thinks the shot entered from the front? Of course not. But Bennett's "four inches" guess was just that--an estimate/guess. So we have a choice here---believe the BEST evidence for JFK's back wound (which is the above autopsy photo). Or: Believe Glen Bennett's guesswork as he witnessed the shooting from the Queen Mary SS car. Gee, that's a tough choice, isn't it? (But guess what choice Ray Mitcham is going to make?) But it's not just Bennett's "guess" is it? The jacket - hole 5" down from the collar Shirt- hole 5" down from collar, Burkley- Wound at third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy sheet- hole shown approx 5" down from shoulder. (see below) Special Agent Clinton L. Hill saw the President's body being worked on at the morgue in Bethesda during the course of the autopsy. He stated to the Commission that just before the body was placed into a casket "I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" Special Agent Roy H. Kellerman -" the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we--were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go?" He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." The Embalmers Sheet. What you got, David? Edited May 5, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) We need not rely on eyewitnesses to determine the SBT is a no-go, Ray. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel came to the same conclusion, until they "doctored" their findings.. Edited May 5, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) What you got, David? I've got the best evidence of all, which is evidence that forever trumps any and all witnesses --- this photograph that you apparently want to ignore.... Edited May 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) What you got, David? I've got the best evidence of all, which is evidence that forever trumps any and all witnesses --- this photograph that you apparently want to ignore.... Really. What caused the complete blackout at the lower part of the back of the head,just above the ruler, David? Photoshop? Photos can't be faked in your world, can they? Try telling the above witnesses that they were wrong. Edited May 5, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) What caused the complete blackout at the lower part of the back of the head, just above the ruler, David? Photoshop? Photos can't be faked in your world, can they? Ray, In 2009, researcher John Fiorentino sent me a digital copy of a very high-quality version of one of the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head. It's the B&W equivalent to the "red spot" color picture seen below. And that photo which was sent to me by Fiorentino clearly shows each and every hair on the back of President Kennedy's head. There is a version of that B&W photo on the Internet right now, but the version John sent me appears to be a better one, displaying higher resolution and greater detail. So, Ray, do you want to suggest that somebody PAINTED IN the individual hairs on JFK's head in that black-and-white picture that I currently have on my computer's hard drive? BTW, I would post that photo right here on this forum, but I promised John Fiorentino that I would not post it anywhere on the Internet. I cannot remember if John told me how he obtained a copy of that autopsy picture. But the slightly lower-quality version of that B&W pic also seems to show some of the individual hairs on JFK's head in the occipital area too. And for that matter, the red-spot picture below also seems to depict some of JFK's individual hairs in the occipital as well. Edited May 6, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Ray, In 2009, researcher John Fiorentino sent me a digital copy of a very high-quality version of one of the autopsy photos showing the back of JFK's head. It's the B&W equivalent to the color "red spot" picture seen below. And that photo which was sent to me by Fiorentino clearly shows each and every hair on the back of President Kennedy's head. There is a version of the B&W photo that I am referring to on the Internet right now, but the version John sent me appears to be a better one, displaying higher resolution and greater detail. So, Ray, do you want to suggest that somebody PAINTED IN the individual hairs on JFK's head in that picture that I currently have on my computer's hard drive? (BTW, I would post a picture of it right here on this forum, but I promised John Fiorentino that I would not post that photo anywhere on the Internet. Where John got the picture from, I cannot remember. But the slightly lower-quality version of that B&W pic also seems to show some of the individual hairs on JFK's head in the occipital area too.) That's a different photo, David. Mind discussing what colored the back of the head of the photo I posted? Photos can't be altered can they, David? They can't be faked, can they, David? They can't be substituted , can they, David. I prefer evidence from people who were there and physical evidence which can't be denied. Seems you are desperate to support the Warren Commission. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 (edited) Just a minute here, Ray.... I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head. So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone? Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before? Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.) Edited May 5, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 Just a minute here, Ray.... I just talked about seeing a high-quality "back of the head" autopsy photo which positively depicts EACH HAIR on the President's head. So are you now suggesting that some photo-fakers "blacked out" just ONE photo, but left the other photos alone? Or, as I asked previously, do you think the evil plotters and cover-uppers decided to DRAW IN the hairs that I can see on the back of JFK's head in that HQ pic I talked about before? Which is it? Or would you rather not talk about such silliness? (I couldn't blame you. Because what you seem to be suggesting is awfully silly.) Prove any of the photos are genuine. Should be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 (edited) Prove any of the photos are genuine. Should be easy. The HSCA already did. I suppose they're all liars too, huh? Even though that same HSCA said that a conspiracy likely existed to kill Kennedy. That's the quandary a CTer has to overcome when discussing the HSCA. Must be agony for you guys, Ray. You love 'em for the (bogus) acoustics; but you hate 'em for saying all the photos are genuine (both the "backyard" variety and all of the autopsy pictures too). Edited May 6, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now