Jump to content
The Education Forum

DEBUNKING CONSPIRACY MYTHS -- Lt. J.C. Day And The Print On The Rifle

Recommended Posts


It looks like the string on the wall, as well as Arlen Specter's pointer/rod, are always being kept at the same angle (17.72 degrees) in the various "opposite angle" photos and in CE903. But the key is the positioning of the victims---particularly the JFK stand-in.

In the "opposite angle" photo below (on the right), the JFK stand-in is quite clearly NOT in the exact same posture that the real JFK was in on 11/22/63. The stand-in is leaning back hard on the car seat (his suit coat is even visibly overlapping onto the back seat). That doesn't match JFK's posture in the Croft picture at all.

So it would be my guess that Specter (for some reason) was just trying out different postures using the stand-ins and then having pictures taken of those INCORRECT postures.

But as we can see in the "Croft/CE903" comparison below, the posture of the stand-in for President Kennedy as depicted in CE903 looks very close to the actual posture of JFK in the Croft photo on Elm Street on November 22nd.




Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This opposite-angle pic shows the stand-in's posture to be closer to the real JFK's position at the time of the shooting. But Specter's rod still isn't SPOT ON perfect over the chalk mark. But it's awfully close. And, as I mentioned in one of my CE903 articles (repeated below), some amount of slack and margin-of-error needs to be applied here. (Or can any CTer find it in them to cut the Warren Commission ANY slack at all. Not even one inch or so, which is what we're talking about here? Or is utter 100% perfection in the re-enactments the only thing that will be tolerated by conspiracy believers?)


Excerpt from my webpage.....

Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.

If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either.

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you 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?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the trajectory isn't even close either!"

If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-bin crazy.

In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

I'll also ask this question:

If CE903 is such a "con", as Pat Speer said earlier, then I'm wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like this one to ever get released to the public? Why weren't those pictures destroyed?


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.

And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210.

But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.

Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16 or so degrees downward).

The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903.

And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in (click the picture for a larger view):


Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered

[at 5 H 133]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."

Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.

David Von Pein

December 22, 2011

May 17, 2013

December 9, 2014

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Your entire argument is a waste of time when one considers the fact it is impossible for a bullet to traverse through the neck, from an entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of a spinal mid-line to the right outer portion of the trachea, without running into the right transverse process of cervical vertebra C7.

Even IF the bullet could clear the outer tip of the right transverse process of C7, it would be travelling at a right to left angle of a minimum of 23°.

Two problems with this:

1. This would place the trajectory of the Magic Bullet FAR to the left of Connally's right armpit.

2. Investigators determined the Sniper's Nest on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD was only 9° laterally removed from a line drawn lengthwise through the limo at roughly z224. How did it travel through JFK's neck at an angle of 23°?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've been reading on this thread, it seems that the primary "evidence" Mr. Von Pein is using to "prove" his case is Bugliosi's book...which is NOT primary evidence, but merely a retelling of what Bugliosi interprets as to the actions and words of the persons involved.

In other words...in a court of law...this sort of testimony would be dismissed as heresay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really trying to pretend that those photos were not taken to depict the trajectory in relation to the back wound?

Well, Pat, this one below sure as hell wasn't taken with the intent to depict where the bullet entered or exited President Kennedy. It's not even close. And I don't think Specter ever thought the bullet entered this high on JFK or exited under his chin....


What? They lined up the chalk mark on Connally's jacket with the exit wound on "Kennedy's" throat--and found that it was consistent with the trajectory from the sniper's nest (the string in the background). They also found, however, that when they did this the trajectory passed INCHES away from the location of Kennedy's back wound.

Specter, one can only assume, then decided that this should not be told the public. He made sure that the photos showing the chalk mark were not entered into evidence. And instead presented the public with CE 903, which FAILED to show the location of the back wound.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, David, you just keep flailing about how mean I am to poor ole Arlen Specter. Have you watched ANY of my presentations on Specter and the SBT??? It would appear not, because you seem to think Specter deserves the benefit of the doubt--when the truth is he doomed himself with his actions subsequent to the development of the SBT.

1. He admitted seeing a photo of the back wound on the day of the re-enactment. As you readily acknowledge, this shows the wound to be on the back. As you well know, the drawings of the wound he'd already entered into evidence showed the wound to be at the very base of the neck. And yet he failed to mention this to anyone, or correct this "mistake".

2. But it's much worse than that. Here is ALL of Kelley's testimony about the chalk mark used in the re-enactment.

Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy?
Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that chalk mark represent?
Mr. KELLEY. That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?
Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval.
Mr. McCLOY. Not Parkland, as I understand it?
Mr. SPECTER No, sir; not Parkland, because as the record will show, the President was not turned over at Parkland.
Mr. KELLEY. I was shown a drawing of--that was prepared by some medical technicians indicating the point of entry.
Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck.


Mr. SPECTER. And the record will show, may it please the Commission, that this was made by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda.

So, there it is. Specter COACHED Kelley into claiming they'd used a drawing showing the wound to be ON THE NECK during the re-enactment, even though they both knew this to be untrue. (Kelley was the one who showed Specter the autopsy photo.) Specter flat-out LIED, moreover, by saying they used this drawing to mark the wound on the back of the President's neck. That's a slam-dunk, Dave. While one might ask "Well, why would they have lied about the back wound location used during the re-enactment when they had photos showing they'd placed the wound on the back?" one should then realize... "WHAT photos?" I mean, seriously, Dave, do you think it's a coincidence that Specter and Kelley lied about the chalk mark AND that no photos of the chalk mark were entered into evidence?

It was around this point of my Bethesda presentation, by the way, that former Warren Commission counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room. He knew I'd nailed Specter, and he couldn't handle it. He may have even left the room to puke.


Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, David, I fully realize that the SBT could STILL have some validity, even if Specter lied.

But it is absolutely bizarre to me that some, including yourself, find themselves unable to admit that Specter lied, when it's 100% clear. I mean, this is a man who continued to claim the back wound was a wound on the back of the neck in his autobiography, published in 2000. This was but a year after he'd viewed the back wound photo a second time...and 22 years after the HSCA published a tracing of the photo, PROVING it to have been on the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this is a man [specter] who continued to claim the back wound was a wound on the back of the neck in his autobiography, published in 2000.

Which is nothing but semantics....and provably so, because of what we see in CE903, which places the entry in the BACK, not the neck. So the fact that Specter continued to incorrectly use the word "neck" is meaningless and is debunked by the very exhibit with Specter in the picture -- CE903.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this is a man [specter] who continued to claim the back wound was a wound on the back of the neck in his autobiography, published in 2000.

Which is nothing but semantics....and provably so, because of what we see in CE903, which places the entry in the BACK, not the neck. So the fact that Specter continued to incorrectly use the word "neck" is meaningless and is debunked by the very exhibit with Specter in the picture -- CE903.

No, it's not semantics. It's lying. As demonstrated on my website and in my presentations, Specter ALWAYS called it a back wound until he saw the autopsy photo proving it was both a back wound and that the Rydberg drawing had been inaccurate. He then and only then began calling it a neck wound, and continued calling it a neck wound for the rest of his life.

Below are his references to the wound in his autobio, Passion for Truth.

He first mentioned the wound in relation to his work for the commission.

  • "To nail down both the direction and the location of the bullet that struck the president's back, we wanted all possible indicators." p.68

Notice how he calls it a back wound. He then discussed his meeting with the autopsy doctors in preparation for their testimony.

  • "At Bethesda, Ball and I tried to clear up some confusion over how far the bullet that struck Kennedy's neck had traveled through his body." p.79
  • "they surmised that the bullet on the stretcher might have been pushed out the back of Kennedy's neck by the massage." p.79
  • "As the autopsy progressed, the surgeons realized that the bullet had passed farther through the president's neck." p.79

Now this last bit was just strange. The official story, of which Specter was presumably aware, was that the doctors didn't realize a bullet passed through Kennedy's neck until the morning after the autopsy, after Dr. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry and discovered that the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound. So what does Specter cite as evidence for them learning of this the night before?

Read on and be amazed:

  • "They saw that the muscles in the front of the neck had been damaged at about the same time the wound was inflicted on the top of the chest cavity."

Yes, truth is truly stranger than fiction. Here, in Specter's own book, was an accurate representation of Dr. Humes' testimony--that is, that the bruises on the strap muscles at the front of the neck had led him to suspect the neck wound pre-dated the tracheostomy. This, then, was as much as an admission he'd misled the public in his chapter in the Warren Report, and numerous interviews and articles, when he'd claimed the bullet slipped between these muscles upon entrance on the back of Kennedy's neck.

Or was it? Specter had a co-writer on his memoirs, Charles Robbins. Perhaps Robbins had caught Specter's mistake, and had added this bit into the book for the sake of accuracy.

This mystery only gets more curious, however, as we progress through Specter's book.

  • "When all the facts came in, it became clear that the neck shot had exited Kennedy's throat." p.80

Notice how what was formerly a back wound has now become a neck wound. Specter then discussed his being shown the back wound photo by Agent Kelley in 1964. As discussed, he presents this photo as:

  • "a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” p.88

He then describes a second viewing of the photo by him in 1999 in the company of Dr. Boswell.

  • "The entrance wound on the neck was about an inch below the shoulder line in the president's back . The exit wound at the site of the tracheotomy in his throat, was lower." p.88

Well, how can a wound be "on the neck below...the shoulder line in the...back? Does that make any sense? Was he trying to have it both ways? And have the wound be on the back where everyone who's seen the back wound photo knows it to be? Whilst simultaneously being on the neck, where his single-bullet theory needs it to be?

Not surprisingly, Specter then insisted that he and Boswell had convinced themselves the President’s back and neck wounds were “consistent with the Single Bullet Conclusion.” As if at this point we should take their word on anything...

Unfortunately, it seems the closest thing to an acknowledgment of error we’ll ever get from Specter is his related acknowledgement that the Rydberg drawings were “rough” and that he would never have had them created if he knew that people would credit them “with more precision than was intended.”

Specter then discusses the Parkland witnesses, and repeats much of his nonsense.

  • "They never saw the bullet entrance wounds in the back of his head and the back of his neck." p.100
  • "The Parkland doctors saw the clean, round, quarter-inch hole in the front of the president's neck but didn't know about the wound in the back of his neck." p.101
  • "Once the Parkland doctors were informed of the wound on the back of the president's head and neck..." p.101

Specter then slips up again (at least presumably).

  • "...before the doctors there knew about the entrance wounds on Kennedy's back and head..." p.103

The strangeness of Specter's book reaches a climax, however, when he discusses a conversation he had with Chief Justice Earl Warren, in which he convinced Warren of the soundness of the single-bullet theory. He claims he explained to Warren that:

  • "The autopsy showed that a bullet had struck Kennedy near the base of his neck on the right side and passed between two large strap muscles in his neck, striking only soft tissue as it continued in a slightly right-to-left, downward, and forward path..." p.109
  • "The president's garment had holes and tears showing that a missile entered the back in the vicinity of his lower neck..." p.110
  • "The wounds on the president and governor supported the Single-Bullet Conclusion. The first bullet would retain most of its high velocity after passing through the two large strap muscles in the back of the president's neck, slicing the pleural cavity, striking nothing solid, and then exiting from the front of his neck, nicking the left side of his tie." p.111

Yes, you read that right. While on page 79 of his book Specter acknowledged that the bruised strap muscles described by Dr. Humes in his testimony were at the front of Kennedy's neck, 30 pages later he asserted that while selling the single-bullet theory to Warren he'd told him they'd been on the back of Kennedy's neck. He failed to explain that what he'd told Warren was inaccurate. Now, was this "gaffe" an accidental slip-up by Specter, and an indication that he'd long known or at least now knew that the strap muscles were on the throat, and not the back of the neck? Or was his presenting the same muscles in two different locations within one book the responsibility of his co-writer?

It's really hard to tell. Towards the end of his life, it became fairly clear that Specter's memory had faded.

When interviewed for a Fox News program in 2003, for example, Specter related that the early reports of the FBI and Secret Service said the first shot hit Kennedy on “the back of the neck,” when, in fact, they said the first shot hit Kennedy “below the shoulders.”

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's remarkable that your "evidence manufacturers", who certainly "weren't the brightest" people in the world, were able to pull off the alleged frame-up of Oswald---what with them being idiots and all. How did they manage it, Ray?


They didn't. That was brought about by the Warren Commission believing everything the FBI and the CIA told them.

The Warren Commission didn't "collect" any of the evidence. Nor did the FBI or CIA. The DPD did.

Where did I say the Warren Commission "collected" any of the evidence? You obviously can't read. I said they "believed everything the FBI and the CIA told them."

Too many CTers wrongfully claim that it was "the Warren Commission's evidence". Total nonsense. The WC didn't collect or test the evidence. The WC merely evaluated it.

They evaluated tainted evidence.

I notice no reply from you about about the shoulder wound.

The wound IS where it is, as anyone can see via the autopsy photograph. The wound is in the UPPER BACK. Not the NECK. Perfectly consistent with what we see in CE903 (within the "margin of error" leeway that MUST be afforded the WC regarding that exhibit, as I discuss HERE).



Special Agent Bennnett said he saw the bullet hit the President four inches down from the shoulder.

Was he lying, as well, David?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As demonstrated on my website and in my presentations, Specter ALWAYS called it a back wound until he saw the autopsy photo proving it was both a back wound and that the Rydberg drawing had been inaccurate. He then and only then began calling it a neck wound, and continued calling it a neck wound for the rest of his life.

I don't care WHAT Specter called it, Pat. The more important point is, IMO, where did he place the wound in the re-enactment demonstration we find in CE903?

And the answer is --- IN THE UPPER BACK.

Do you really think Specter is placing the wound in the NECK of the JFK stand-in here, Pat? ....


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the bullet get through JFK without hitting any of his vertebrae?

Oh, come on, Bob. You know the pat answer to that one....it was a "magic" projectile.

(What else?)

Now, a question for you, Bob...

How did TWO bullets---which are the TWO separate missiles that you and many other conspiracy theorists quite obviously believe went into JFK's body but never exited---manage to make their way into the President's body without EITHER of those bullets striking the President's vertebrae?

Were slingshots being used by the assassins, Bob? Is that why neither of those two bullets exited the other side of JFK's body? And BOTH bullets somehow put on the brakes before reaching the vertebrae of President Kennedy? (Yeah, right.)

Looks like you've got double the problems. You've got TWO "magic" bullets. And they're also "vanishing" bullets too. So that just adds to your miseries, doesn't it?

But I'm not allowed to ever ask the "WHERE DID THE BULLETS GO?" question, am I Bob? And, of course, no CTer will ever be able to reasonably answer that important question anyway. So why bother asking it, right?

Edited by David Von Pein
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

  • Create New...