Need single bullet theory diagram

[James R Gordon]

Thanks James.

I acknowledge that DVP has a wide encyclopedic knowledge of the evidence. However I sometimes find he does not always analyse the implications of evidence he cites - like CE 903.

He has yet to respond to my inital post about the SBT trajectory through JBC and I hold no hope that he will even though he will still argue that the SBT exited through JBC's chest. . He does not always think through the consequence of points he makes. Citing the damage to the tie, he comments that it was caused by the bullet as it passed on it way through. You and I both know it was the result of damage caused by nurses as they cut JFK clothing off him.

However accepting DVP's view of the SBT it suddently dawned on me that if DVP stands by his position he has some explaining. It is one thing to suggest that damage was caused by the bullet and quite another to explain how, Reflecting on DVP's statement I realised something I had not thought of before. The back wound is right of centre and the nick on the tie is left of center. At guess I would think the angle would be betwee 5-10º. That might actually miss JBC altogether or at best strike his left side. And that ignors the problems of the entrance wound being lower than the exit woind or how a bullet moving between these two points is able to avoid damaging the spine.

DVP is able to quickly cite all sorts of evidence but I am not sure he understand the implications of the points he sometimes makes. I had not - until now - realised the implication of the nick on the tie with regard to trajectory analysis. If DVP continues to stand by this aspect of the SBT I will be interested how this bullet was able to return to a left to right trajectory.

James.

[James DiEugenio]

Another good point Mr. Gordon.

For anyone to say that somehow Specter's pointer makes the Single Bullet Fantasy real, I mean 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

If you think Specter's rod is "3 inches" higher than the actual JFK back wound, I'd beg to differ. Looks just about right to me. [See pics below.]

And I guess you think the WC got Lyndal Shaneyfelt to lie through his teeth when he said....

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally."

You've run into a corner, David.

Here's Specter with Thomas Kelley.

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. (Edit) 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. ((Edit)

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. KELLEY. Yes. (Edit)

Mr. KELLEY. From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the shoulder, and----
Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the back of the President's neck, the base of his neck?

 

Note that Specter wants the record to show that the chalk mark was placed in accordance with the Rydberg drawings. Note that he introduces no photo of this chalk mark. Note also that he corrects Kelley, and makes sure the record reflects that the wound was on the neck, not the back. And this in spite of the fact Specter had previously described this wound as a back wound, and had recently been shown, by Kelley, a photo proving it was indeed a back wound.

And here's Specter with Shaneyfelt.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph… It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned? (Note that this string represents the trajectory of a bullet fired from the sniper’s nest into Kennedy’s back at frame 225 of the Zapruder film)

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.

 

Since Specter was pushing that the chalk mark marking the entrance location was made in accordance with the Rydberg drawings, he was thereby pushing that CE 903 supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings.

And here's Specter in the Warren Report.

(On the angle of a bullet from the sniper’s nest used in the re-enactment) “The angle…was approximately the angle of declination reproduced in an artist’s drawing. That drawing, made from data provided by the autopsy surgeons, could not reproduce the exact line of the bullet, since the exit wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy.” The Warren Report, 1964, page 107, FN refers to CE 385, the Rydberg drawing of the SBT.

 

So... did the angle in CE 903 "approximate" the entrance wound suggested by the autopsy photo (as you seem to believe) or the Rydberg drawings, which Specter, Kelley, and Shaneyfelt conspired to push on the public?

Most every medical professional (outside that cuckoo bird, Lattimer) agreed that the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings, most importantly, CE 385, was two inches or more higher on the back than the bullet wound shown in the back wound photos. Since you have denounced the Rydberg drawings, it appears you agree. But you can't turn around and state CE 903 is the shizz-nit, when it was purported to have supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. Not unless you are willing to admit Specter, Kelley and Shaneyfelt conspired to deceive the public...for no real reason...as the photo they said supported the Rydberg drawings really supported the autopsy photos...in which case you would be stating that the Warren Report was in error in that CE 903 fails to support the Rydberg drawings, because the back wound location suggested by CE 903 is at least two inches too low.

The trajectory rod in CE 903 passes inches higher than the entry wound location used in the re-enactment. Those working on the re-enactment knew it, and sought to conceal this from the public. Period. If you believe they were wrong to do so, then say so, but please please please stop pretending that it's self-evident that the accuracy of CE 903 is supported by the autopsy photos, when the creator of CE 903 (Specter) CLEARLY believed it was not, and did everything he could to conceal this from the public.

[David Von Pein]

59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The trajectory rod in CE 903 passes inches higher than the entry wound location used in the re-enactment.

You don't know that for certain, Pat. We can't even see the chalk mark in CE903. It'd be nice if we could see it, but we can't.

And I want to stress the following points once again, as I said to you seven years ago....

"That particular measurement [the 17-degree angle depicted in CE903], 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? .... The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted. But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But CE903 is the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be placed up in the neck of JFK." -- DVP; 12/22/2011

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

Citing the damage to the tie, he [DVP] comments that it was caused by the bullet as it passed on [its] way through. You and I both know it was the result of damage caused by nurses as they cut [JFK's] clothing off him. 

We had a discussion about the necktie in April of 2017, James. (Did you forget?)

And it's very unlikely that the small "slit"-like tear in JFK's tie was caused by the nurses cutting off the tie at Parkland.

I archived last year's "necktie" discussion at my website below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

And given the way Governor Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the SBT bullet struck him, I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question ---

1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),

2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,

3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.

[Note --- This photo montage below is not an "official" photo of any kind. The blue circle was put there by me, DVP.]

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

DVP said:- I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question ---
1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),
2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,
3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.
See image above a frame from Myers Animation when the bullet struck JFK and JBC

Creating the red line from mid-point of tie to JBC is a very clear Right to Left trajectory.
You now admit that the SBT was acceptable even if it had a slight left to right trajectory. The top of the blue line -above the wound onJFK’s shoulder - is an approximate. You agree that the bullet must nick the left edge of the tie. That is now one of your criteria for the SBT.
You might ask why can the blue line not start at the same point as red, because I am trying to identify the slit. The red line is from the middle of the tie.

The difference between the angles is that with the red line I am lining up the tie exit with the point it struck JBC. I am not looking at any trajectories. It is a simple point to point line.

The Blue line is not trying to match these two point. The purpose of the blue line is to replicate the trajectory angle from back wound to nick on tie.The left to right trajectory.

You mention that JBC was turned to the right. Well Myers has done that.

You have accepted the bullet exited on a left to right trajectory. The difference between the end point - JBC’s back wound - and any bullet exiting on a left to right trajectory could not strike JBC’s back. Myers raises a serious issue that I had not previously considered. The angle from JFK’s throat is much larger than I had appreciated especially when you take the point of origin: the Oswald window.

I can see no possibility that a bullet leaving JFK’s on left to right trajectory - that you now accept - has any chance of striking JBC’s back.

James.

[David Von Pein]

Oh, for Pete sake, James G., you know you can't just draw lines on a 2D image and expect to extract 3D information. Why did you even try? Can't be done.

In short, the blue and red lines on your image above are pretty much worthless.

In addition, you don't have Connally turned to his right at all in that image. Your picture is depicting a point in time which is several frames AFTER the bullet struck both victims. Why on Earth did you choose that Z-frame for your worthless line-drawing demonstration? Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the bullet struck him, as the Z-Film shows....

Edited July 2, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You don't know that for certain, Pat. We can't even see the chalk mark in CE903. It'd be nice if we could see it, but we can't.

And I want to stress the following points once again, as I said to you seven years ago....

"That particular measurement [the 17-degree angle depicted in CE903], 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? .... The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted. But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But CE903 is the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be placed up in the neck of JFK." -- DVP; 12/22/2011

 

Nice one, David. Use the photos taken from behind with the stand-in leaning forward while trying to lift the chalk mark to the level of the rod...and failing...instead of the photo with Kennedy's stand-in sitting with his back on the seat.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

We had a discussion about the necktie in April of 2017, James. (Did you forget?)

And it's very unlikely that the small "slit"-like tear in JFK's tie was caused by the nurses cutting off the tie at Parkland.

I archived last year's "necktie" discussion at my website below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

And given the way Governor Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the SBT bullet struck him, I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question ---

1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),

2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,

3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.

[Note --- This photo montage below is not an "official" photo of any kind. The blue circle was put there by me, DVP.]

Simply look at the above photo and the position of the blue circle and it's so obvious that it is simply amazing anyone would try to argue a passing bullet nicked the tie - but how does the supposed bullet not put a corresponding hole in JFK's shirt?  It necessarily must pass through the shirt. The shirt in evidence does not feature such damage, therefore a bullet did not nick the tie.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

Well then, Jeff, how did the bullet that CTers think came from the FRONT manage to get into Kennedy's throat without going through the same shirt and tie? Do you think the alleged "bullet from the front" completely missed the entire shirt and tie? How did that happen?

And, btw, the bullet did very likely leave behind a bullet hole in the front of the shirt. [WR; p.92]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Jeff Carter]

42 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well then, Jeff, how did the bullet that CTers think came from the FRONT manage to get into Kennedy's throat without going through the same shirt and tie? Do you think the alleged "bullet from the front" completely missed the entire shirt and tie? How did that happen?

And, btw, the bullet did very likely leave behind a bullet hole in the front of the shirt. [WR; p.92]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm

 

The alleged bullet hole was created by a nurse's scalpel. As is clearly seen, this defect is directly below the top button of the shirt. The position of the top button of the shirt, between the right and left collar, can be located in the photo you posted with the blue circle. Not only does this not correspond with the defect on the tie, but if it was a bullet it would have carried forth directly through the centre of the knot in the tie. The tie does not have that damage. 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Well then, Jeff, how did the bullet that CTers think came from the FRONT manage to get into Kennedy's throat without going through the same shirt and tie? Do you think the alleged "bullet from the front" completely missed the entire shirt and tie? How did that happen?

And, btw, the bullet did very likely leave behind a bullet hole in the front of the shirt. [WR; p.92]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm

Vertical slits in the shirt? Tiny exit wound in the skin? Let's see the experimental evidence.

 

Close but no cigar.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The alleged bullet hole was created by a nurse's scalpel.

I disagree. But even if you're correct, I don't see where conspiracy theorists can go with that conclusion, because CTers are still in the same boat that I (as an LNer) am in --- that is, LNers and CTers alike think there WAS, indeed, a bullet hole in the lower portion of JFK's throat. And apparently you, Jeff, must believe the bullet (regardless of where it came from) completely missed both JFK's shirt and tie. (Correct?) Therefore, from my LN POV, why couldn't the bullet have also missed the shirt and tie if the wound had been an EXIT wound as well?

Let's have a look (below) at a photo montage I created. Do you think a bullet (regardless of directionality) could have possibly missed the entire shirt and necktie of John F. Kennedy given the location of the wound seen on the right? My answer to that question would be --- No, it could not have. ....

Edited July 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Jeff Carter]

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I disagree. But even if you're correct, I don't see where conspiracy theorists can go with that conclusion, because CTers are still in the same boat that I (as an LNer) am in --- that is, LNers and CTers alike think there WAS, indeed, a bullet hole in the lower portion of JFK's throat. And apparently you, Jeff, must believe the bullet (regardless of where it came from) completely missed both JFK's shirt and tie. (Correct?) Therefore, from my LN POV, why couldn't the bullet have also missed the shirt and tie if the wound had been an EXIT wound as well?

Let's have a look (below) at a photo montage I created. Do you think a bullet (regardless of directionality) could have possibly missed the entire shirt and necktie of John F. Kennedy given the location of the wound seen on the right? My answer to that question would be, No, it could not have. ....

It is impossible for a presumed bullet to exit directly below the top button of the shirt and then only nick the outside edge of the tie knot. That is the physical evidence, and therefore a bullet did not pass through the front of the shirt or nick the tie. Whatever Dr Perry observed was therefore above the upper edge of JFK’s shirt. No matter how “magic”, a bullet passing through clothing must leave a corresponding track, and what you think you see in a photograph does not cancel that out.

The alleged correspondence of defects in the shirt and tie was a piece of semantic trickery by Hoover, bought into by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA because it allowed a better argument for the trajectory of the SBT. This demonstrates that the need to construct a particular argument overwhelmed the observable features of the physical evidence. 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

That is the photo I was looking for from behind.

Nice catch.  

When Davey starts chattering about the "average angle"  we can now see what he means.

Take your pick Arlen.