THERE'S PROBABLY NO MORE HOTLY-CONTESTED AND DEBATED SUB-TOPIC WHEN IT COMES TO THE JOHN F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION THAN THE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY"; CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ["CTers"] ENJOY TRASHING THE "SBT", CLAIMING IT IS "IMPOSSIBLE" OR "MAKE BELIEVE"; BUT WHERE DOES THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (AND COMMON SENSE) ACTUALLY LEAD US? LET'S TAKE A LOOK:


Based on the official evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case, all of the following things are true:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.

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

#1 through #9 above add up to a logical, common-sense short explanation to the events in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963 (excluding the head shot that killed President Kennedy).

The nine points above, in my common-sense view, make the Single-Bullet Theory more than just a "theory" -- it's almost certainly the only conceivable way that President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were wounded on Elm Street in Dallas in 1963.

Any alternative theory that must replace the SBT would be a theory that is replete with far more guesswork and unexplainable occurrences than the Single-Bullet Theory possesses.

Such an alternative theory must include multiple disappearing bullets, plus several "SBT"-like coincidences at the same time. Is that very likely? Or logical? I say it is not.

The Single-Bullet Theory is based on the EVIDENCE in the actual John F. Kennedy murder case, as investigated by the Commission assigned to look into the assassination by President Lyndon Johnson.

And the SBT, in addition to being grounded in the known evidence surrounding the case, is also based on a whole lot of regular, ordinary common sense as well.

No "Anti-SBT" scenario has ever come close to matching the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Conclusion in the "Evidence" department. Nor has any alternate theory come close to equalling the SBT in the "Reasonable", "Workable", "Believable", and "Common Sense" categories as well.

The Single-Bullet Theory FITS.
The Single-Bullet Theory WORKS.
The Single-Bullet Theory is RIGHT.

David Von Pein
March 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE





BONUS QUOTES:

  • "Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of any separate bullet hitting Connally." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986

~~~~~~~~~~

  • "It's a straight line....it [the SBT] is the only way it COULD have
    happened."
    -- Dale K. Myers; 2004

~~~~~~~~~~

  • "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967

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


THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: A LOGICAL AND
COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO IT:


Here are some of my thoughts regarding the Single-Bullet Theory, and the likelihood that ANY conspiracy-oriented alternative could be MORE credible than the SBT (given the known wounds in the two victims [President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally, Jr.] and other known evidence surrounding the shooting event that occurred in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963):

If the Single-Bullet Theory is incorrect, then we are forced to believe that not just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate all the way through the neck and back of JFK, from probably high-powered weapons (because WHY would any plotters trying to kill the President--and no doubt wanting to MAKE SURE THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS--utilize anything BUT high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt)?

Logical? I say no, it is not.*

* = Mark Fuhrman's anti-SBT, pro-LN stance notwithstanding here. Because there are numerous reasons why I feel that Mr. Fuhrman is wrong when he asserts that a bullet went all the way through JFK, missed John Connally, and also failed to plunge into the seats or the floor of the limousine in front of Kennedy. Here is why Fuhrman is just flat-out wrong regarding his analysis.

If conspiracy theorists wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a "dum-dum" of some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and therefore the velocity entering Kennedy was severely reduced -- okay. But TWO such shots of this kind that do not transit the soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper back regions?

Odds please?

Even if CTers want to argue that the "angles" are not precisely dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or "align" properly back to the Oswald window in the Texas School Book Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, any theory that we're forced to substitute for the official SBT falls apart on many different levels.

For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT account) INSTEAD of the SBT:

1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT". There IS no way around this first point here. Because lacking the SBT to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two following things occurred......

A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way through him but, somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting right in front of him who was in direct line to receive this bullet and this bullet was then scooped up from inside the limo by plotters after the fact and disposed of AND the damage to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt caused by this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly. Especially in light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier of the FBI......

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

-- Or: --

B.) Lacking a shot that transits JFK, we're left to accept a three-shot scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims -- fired by THREE separate gunmen as well (two from the rear and one from the front). Given the very tight timeline (even per CTers, who have JFK hit in the throat with Shot #1 at Z195 to Z200 approx.), I'd like to know how there could have possibly been LESS than three gunmen utilized to inflict all these wounds in the allowable timeframe?

2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK and JBC line themselves up in such a fashion on the bodies to give the APPEARANCE that they could have ALL been "in line" so as to have been caused by just a single missile passing through both men simultaneously.

I have yet to hear any reasonable and believable conspiracy-oriented explanation that logically rationalizes and defends this amazing "wound placement" occurrence on TWO different victims. Even CTers must admit that the likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion on two victims is pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen managed to pull that shooting feat off with three different bullets, then it's a marksmanship accomplishment that should be featured prominently at Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Museum.

3.) The three bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's alternate theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by evil plotters! In either instance, all three bullets that peppered Kennedy and Connally are never entered into any kind of official record representing this murder case. Odds please? Is this a logical conclusion to come to?

For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico or Dr. Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet that only ventured part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It seems logical to me, given the HANDS-ON circumstances we're dealing with here re. Perry's having to make an actual incision into this VERY wound in the throat for tracheostomy purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did not exit, per this theory.

In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT LUCKY so that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies, were never recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so lucky to NOT have even ONE of these three bullets enter the official record at any time? Especially with regard to the Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet that enters a man who LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could not be "controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to JFK's autopsy at Bethesda).

This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot with respect to the bullets. This unexpected second victim of the assassination attempt (JBC), and yet another (third) bullet that is conveniently "missing", makes it FAR more difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and cover-up in this case (overall).

I ask -- What are the odds that the plotters could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO victims within such a covert plot, one of whom survived the shooting?

4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to transit the body of President Kennedy, I'll ask again the same recurring inquiry here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK? -- TWO non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a LITTLE BIT, and fail to kill him OR to penetrate the soft tissues of his neck and upper back? Doesn't this sound the slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?

But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would killers, bent on having a dead President by the end of November 22nd, have utilized such low-powered weaponry in a Presidential assassination attempt? Shouldn't they have wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower possible here? And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED to be fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?

When combined all together, don't ALL of these CT points that would have HAD to have occurred in order to explain the "SBT wounds" AND lack of bullets entering the official record seem just a tad far-fetched and unrealistic?

To me, they're more than just a "tad" far-fetched and unreasonable -- they're downright illogical from every point-of-view. It seems to me that any attempts to explain those wounds that were sustained at virtually an identical time by John Kennedy and John Connally in a "CT light" fail to hold up the least little bit when held up to the bright light of scrutiny.

If the only way to explain away the SBT to fit a conspiracy scenario is to come up with a plot that includes three different shooters, firing three bullets into two different victims, from three different locations, and incredibly have all three of these missiles pepper the victims in just such a pattern so that it looks like it COULD (even remotely so) be reconciled into a "SBT", and then (on top of this miracle bit of shooting by three different gunmen) to get ALL THREE of these separate bullets to vanish and to never enter the official record -- then, from where I sit, plain ol' common sense is telling me that something's just a bit screwy about this "CT" plot which perfectly worked out to appease the WC and its loyal followers.

And -- Any such "multi-shooter" scenario is also very unlikely (probability-wise alone) from the popular "Frame The Patsy Oswald" standpoint. Would these plotters have deliberately been so foolhardy and utterly reckless as to fire three separate shots into JFK's body (including the head shot), from varying angles (some of them non-"SN" angles), and yet still, incredibly, expect every last scrap of ballistic evidence to get traced back to ONLY Lee Oswald's rifle AND get traced back to only Oswald's "Sniper's Nest" window in the Depository?

They couldn't possibly have thought that this "Multi-Shooter Patsy Plan" could succeed on its BEST day! Could they? (I think not.)

Whereas, the lone-assassin scenario rests on the very logical and sound shoulders of the Single-Bullet Theory -- a theory in which all of the following is thoroughly explained......

1.) Every bullet (totalling 'one' in number) is recovered and enters the official record (Bullet #CE399). There are no mysteries as to any "missing" missiles.

2.) The fact that no bullets were found inside JFK or JBC is perfectly logical and to be expected via the SBT. Plus the very important fact that no bullet holes or similar missile damage was done to the limo's interior in the back seat areas of the automobile.

3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly consistent with the SBT. The downward, back-to-front and slightly right-to-left "alignment" of the wounds suffered by JFK and JBC are, IMO, wholly indicative of a single shot that passed through both men (esp. when factoring in the oblong wound in the back sustained by JBC, plus the lack of bullets found in the bodies, AND the fact that no one ELSE was hit by gunfire in the limousine, AND the fact that no damage was done to the car's rear or jump seats by any missiles during the shooting).

4.) Via the Zapruder Film, the SBT "holds up" under intense scrutiny as well (IMO), with both victims reacting to external (bullet) stimulus at virtually an identical time on the film. People will no doubt argue this point until the cows come home, but I still defy ANYONE to look at the Z-Film (running at regular, real-time speed) and tell me they can say with certainty that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are NOT reacting to being hit by a bullet at the very same point in time.

---------------------

Many CTers don't think it's necessary at all to come up with any kind of logical "alternative" scenario to explain all the wounds to JFK and JBC -- let alone a full, complete version of the pre-Head Shot event which would tie up all or most of the "loose ends" with regard to this event. They just seem to KNOW that the SBT is dead wrong based on the angles being slightly off or the reactions of the two victims being far enough apart to make the SBT an impossibility.

But any CT substitute answers to reconcile all these wounds in two victims (when such answers occasionally are provided, always in the form of pure out-and-out guesses by the CT community) are far less credible and less substantive and far less believable than is the official version of the event -- the SBT.

In fact, even the majority of CTers (from what I've seen anyway) cannot even agree with EACH OTHER on some of the most essential and basic things that occurred on Elm Street on 11/22/63.

The critics have done little to disprove the SBT. But, on the flip-side of that coin, there have been true-to-life and animated tests performed over the years that have backed up (concretely) the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. But these tests, too, have been ridiculed as being "inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and results, and incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely and fervently disagree.

Based on what I've seen of these "tests" (the FAA simulation, Dale Myers' project, and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation, which should, in my view, be VERY convincing to any critic of the theory, but, of course, is not), they've been conducted in an open and wholly above-board and honest manner, with re-creations that are as close to being as accurate as humanly possible (esp. given the "unknowns" regarding some measurements -- like the EXACT positioning of Mr. Connally's wrist at the moment the bullet hit him, plus the EXACT positioning of JFK and JBC to each other in the car during the shooting; these things can only be "guesses" to a certain extent, no matter which side of the debate you reside on, as I'm sure even all CTers will concur).

What I'd like to see are similar "Discovery Channel"-like tests done by the CT side, in order to PROVE once and for all their belief that the SBT is so full of holes you could drive the President's 1961 Lincoln Continental convertible through them! Thus far, I've seen no such tests that would prove that either Mr. Myers or The Discovery Channel got it completely wrong.

Until such proof can be reasonably demonstrated, I truly cannot see how anyone can totally dismiss the possibility (or probability, IMO) that the Single-Bullet Theory is the CORRECT THEORY in the JFK murder case.

I challenge anyone watching the Zapruder Film clip below to still maintain after watching it that the Single-Bullet Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild fantasy:



David Von Pein
May 2005
February 2007


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


THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:

The following toggling Zapruder Film clip of frames #225 and #226 speaks volumes (in favor of one bullet having struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally just an instant earlier):



The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously -- with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399.

Question.....

If what we're seeing there in Z225-Z226 ISN'T two men "reacting" to a single bullet hitting them both at the same time....then what IS causing the SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT ARMS OF BOTH VICTIMS IN THE LIMOUSINE BETWEEN Z225 AND Z226?

In addition to the Z225-Z226 visual evidence on the Zapruder Film which favors the likelihood of the Single-Bullet Theory being correct, there's also the excellent digital toggling two-frame Z-Film clip pictured below that shows what I believe is the precise moment of impact of Bullet CE399 striking Governor John Connally (at Z224).

At Z224, Connally's right shoulder is pushed slightly forward and downward by (IMO) the bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle impacting JBC's upper-right back.

This Z223-Z224 zoomed-in toggling clip also shows, of course, the large lapel/coat movement of Governor Connally's suit jacket at exactly the same time the bullet is passing through JBC's body (Z224):



Like it or not, Abraham Zapruder's home movie (plus lots of other evidence) shows the Single-Bullet Theory to be true. Now, and forever.

David Von Pein
July 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


BONUS QUOTES:

  • "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same bullet." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 482 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • "When you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence other than the [Zapruder] film, you necessarily know that the film itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 457-458 of "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • "In the final analysis, even if one were forced to rely only on the Zapruder film, we have seen that from the film alone, there is strong evidence of three, and ONLY three shots, fired during the assassination. This is completely consistent with all the physical evidence in the case, and flies in the face of over four decades of allegations made by conspiracy theorists that the film contains conclusive "proof" of two or more assassins." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 489 of "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • "With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • "At that angle, no matter WHERE it came from [the bullet that struck Governor Connally], it had to pass through the President's body first!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr. (Warren Commission Assistant Counsel); February 11, 1967

video





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


JOHN CONNALLY'S JACKET AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:


I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow (as some people have theorized).

Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing through JBC's body, I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over the years.

I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film.

Something appears to be happening with the right side of John Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip:



And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term) of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this is only a shadow, IMO:



In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.:

JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch" up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225.

This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the SBT. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just pierced him. Just look:



Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked) "hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that crosses his face at Z225:



And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which begins just an instant later, at Z226:



I challenge anyone to look at that last Zapruder Film clip above a few times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion:

There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet! No way!

Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone.

David Von Pein
April 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


A LITTLE ABOUT .... DR. FACKLER'S TEST AND THE WAY A MANNLICHER-CARCANO BULLET WILL BEHAVE:

The following snippet from Prof. John McAdams' website should be required reading for all anti-SBT conspiracy theorists. My guess is that very few people are aware of this important test that was done to simulate the condition of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet after if had struck a wrist bone at reduced velocity (just like with Governor Connally's wrist in Dallas):

Quoting from John McAdams' website:

"When a bullet just like Commission Exhibit 399 is fired through a human wrist bone at 2,000 [feet] per second, it is almost certain to be badly mangled. But when CE 399 hit Connally's wrist it had been slowed by transiting Kennedy's torso and tumbling through Connally's chest. When it finally hit the hard radius bone, it was traveling about 1,000 feet per second. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, fired a round identical to Oswald's bullet through a human wrist at 1,100 feet per second. Here is the resulting bullet:"



[End McAdams' Site Quote.]

As can be seen, the test bullet in the picture shown above looks absolutely perfect and pristine....and this is AFTER the bullet had been fired through a human wrist bone at a velocity of 1,100 feet per second.

Another good visual demonstration of how tough a Mannlicher-Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet is (like the ones Oswald fired into Kennedy and Connally on 11/22/63) can be seen in the 2004 Discovery Channel documentary "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET", when a MC/WCC bullet is fired into a large wooden log. The bullet penetrated several feet of the log before it stopped. The missile was then dug out of the log, and it looked perfect. It looked like it hadn't even been fired at all. Dr. John Lattimer performed a similar "wood" test using Carcano ammunition as well.

Now, when conspiracy theorists then come back with their usual kneejerk response to that test with this inquiry -- If CE399 could remain so undamaged, then why did the head-shot bullet act so differently?

That question might be puzzling to some people, but regardless of the fact that is has some theorists scratching their heads, that question was answered years ago via tests that had MC/WCC bullets being fired into actual human skulls to find out how such a bullet will behave.

Dr. Alfred Olivier did such a "skull" test in 1964 for the Warren Commission, and Dr. Lattimer performed similar independent tests of his own in the 1970s. And the results were strikingly similar to what happened in Dallas in 1963:



David Von Pein
July 2009

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


WHY WAS BULLET CE399 SO "CLEAN"? AND -- IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT BOTH THE WARREN COMMISSION AND THE HSCA WERE WRONG ABOUT CE399?:

A person interested in the JFK assassination asked me this question via e-mail in December 2009:

"The big question for me is: How did the pristine bullet pierce so many layers of clothing and flesh, bone, etc. and emerge so clean? If someone can answer this then I will be sure Oswald is the killer."

My response:

That question is one that nobody can really answer with 100% certainty. But one thing is a certainty: CE399 is a bullet that was fired in Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, and it is a bullet that was found inside the hospital where the two limo victims (JFK & John Connally) were taken on 11/22/63.*

* = Notwithstanding, of course, the continual claims by conspiracy theorists of bullet-planting or substituting with respect to Commission Exhibit 399. But please do consider this important fact: Both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA (comprised chiefly of lawyers) had no problem at all accepting CE399 as the bullet that went through the bodies of both Kennedy and Connally.

Shouldn't the above fact carry at least SOME weight with conspiracy theorists when it comes to the subject of: IS CE399 A LEGITIMATE BULLET IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION?

Or do most conspiracy theorists actually and truly believe that BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee on Assassinations (which existed 14 years apart from one another) were so evil and so corrupt (or were just plain stupid, in unison) that each of those official agencies would accept the very important piece of physical evidence known as CE399 as a REAL PIECE of evidence, even though (according to many conspiracy theorists) that bullet never touched even one of the victims on November 22, 1963?

That's food for CE399 thought...isn't it?


Let me add one more thing regarding Bullet CE399 and its "clean" status (this being a quote from lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi):

"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were removed by someone early on at the...crime lab or elsewhere almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. ....

"Interestingly, [the FBI's Robert] Frazier testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine [CE567 and CE569], "there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 425 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)


David Von Pein
December 2009

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY AND THE IMPORTANCE
OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT #903:


As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (shown below), the "Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine. In fact, it works absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually impossible if MULTIPLE bullets had actually done the damage to the two victims (JFK & John Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very likely caused by only one single bullet (CE399).

And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where this autopsy photo of John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound exactly at the "tie knot" via CE903, just exactly where JFK sustained damage from the flight of a bullet:



Below is another picture that was also taken on 5/24/64 in Dallas, showing another "SBT" view, similar to CE903 (taken from the other side of the car). Click on this image for a larger (and crystal-clear) view of the photo:



In the "opposite angle" photo above, Arlen Specter's pointer is positioned slightly above the chalk mark representing the bullet wound in JFK's upper back, but if the coat of the JFK stand-in had been "bunched-up" on his back (as President Kennedy's suit coat was when he was shot), then the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would have been slightly HIGHER in that photograph above, and would have likely merged perfectly with the position of Specter's pointer/rod.

And look at the angle -- DOWNWARD (17 DEGREES), FROM BACK TO FRONT. Without a doubt.

Also: Some conspiracists attempt to use this photo to discredit the SBT (which is a different "opposite angle" picture from the one shown above, but is a photo that also shows Arlen Specter holding his pointer a little above where he is holding it in CE903).

But the CTers who claim that there something is "fishy" or "misleading" about that photograph are doing so without ever having determined exactly WHAT THAT OTHER PHOTO IS, and for what exact purpose it was taken, etc.*

* = Oh, I know it was taken the same day as CE903....but it's unfair to say that it depicts the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory precisely, because it is NOT an official Warren Commission exhibit like CE903.

Let's listen to the testimony of the man who took the photo we see in CE903 (Lyndal Shaneyfelt).....

ARLEN 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?"

LYNDAL L. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; I took this photograph."

MR. SPECTER -- "When was that photograph taken?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964."

MR. SPECTER -- "Is there a white string which is apparent in the background of that photograph?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."

MR. SPECTER -- "What is the angle of declination of that string?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30''." ....



MR. SPECTER -- "Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "He did."

MR. SPECTER -- "Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder films?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "Yes; these positions were approximately the position of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they emerge from the signboard."

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?"

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."

MR. SPECTER -- "And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the position where the point of exit would have been below the right nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's doctors?"

MR. SHANEYFELT -- "That is correct."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

--------------------------------

Anti-SBT conspiracy theorists simply cannot fight the "SBT perfection" that exists in Commission Exhibit 903.

As mentioned by Shaneyfelt in his Warren Commission testimony, the stand-in representing Governor Connally is wearing the same jacket that Connally wore on 11/22/63....and that pointer being held by Mr. Specter, which is coming out of JFK's tie knot, is being placed right into the exact bullet hole in that jacket in CE903.

CE903 shows:

1.) Downward (back-to-front) angle of the bullet path (17 degrees) = Perfect.

2.) Upper-back JFK wound = Perfect.

3.) JFK exit wound at tie knot = Perfect.

4.) Entry wound on JBC's back = Perfect (with Specter's metal rod being jammed into the same hole on JBC's exact jacket where a bullet just happened to penetrate Connally's suit jacket on 11/22/63, by gosh!).

5.) Exit wound on JBC's chest (under right nipple) = Perfect via CE903 as well.

Sum Total.....

No "zig-zag" path.
No "magic" bullet.
No "SBT conspiracy".

In short: CE903 = S.B.T. PERFECTION!

--------------------------------

PAGE 107 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT

David Von Pein
March 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE





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


WHERE'S THE COHESIVE AND LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY? HAS ANYBODY SEEN IT YET? I SURE HAVEN'T:


The Warren Commission, in late 1964, issued its 888-page Final Report on the assassination of President John Kennedy. The Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had murdered JFK, and in so doing, had acted alone. Also within that report rests one of the most controversial so-called "theories" in history -- the "Single-Bullet Theory".

The "SBT" has been battered from proverbial pillar to post by conspiracy theorists for multiple decades now since JFK's tragic death in 1963. And it's been an undeserved bad rap, too, in my opinion. Because the SBT is almost certainly the only conceivable (accurate) scenario to explain the injuries sustained by victims JFK and John B. Connally in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Lacking the SBT, so many weird and incredible and, frankly, impossible, things would have had to have taken place in Dealey Plaza, it would make a Max Fleischer cartoon seem believable by comparison.

Many people ("CTers" by specific categorization) seem to think that the holes in JFK's clothing are rock-solid "proof" that the Single-Bullet Conclusion is worthy of only disdain. They'll claim the holes in Kennedy's coat and shirt were "too low" to accommodate the accuracy of the SBT scenario.

But, it must be remembered that the JFK jacket hole in dispute is a hole on the BACK side of President Kennedy's suit jacket, not the front side (with the front part of the jacket, of course, much more likely to move around with ease).

Therefore, since the portion of the coat/jacket on JFK's back isn't going to be moving around like a coat lapel at the front, the coat hole lining up with the hole in his shirt is understandable, IMO.

The bottom line of this argument is -- CTers have taken one single aspect of the "whole" that makes up the SBT scenario (JFK's clothing holes on his back) and then they have seemingly chosen to ignore all of the surrounding evidence that says the SBT is the ONLY way the shooting could have occurred.

Plus -- I'm thinking it's quite possible that JFK's back brace might have aided in keeping those two layers of clothing (shirt and jacket) TOGETHER to some extent...more so than if he wasn't wearing the back brace. I'll admit straight away, that this is just simply a wild guess on my part (but CTers do nothing BUT "guess" 24/7 re. many aspects of the JFK murder case; so I suppose an LNer can do it on occasion as well). But it seems within the bounds of reason. I've never worn a brace like that on my back, and don't know for sure how it might "bind" or affect the clothing of the wearer of such an item. But it might have had some effect on the clothing to a small, or not so small, degree.

But a discrepancy in the President's clothing holes pales in overall significance when compared to the things that are "out of whack" re. the pro-CT side of the SBT equation.

Things like:

Disappearing bullets.....Pictures that have to be faked.....Three autopsy doctors who have to be falsifying official documents.....And three gunmen performing the impossible at-the-same-time task of shooting JFK in such a way to even come remotely close to being able to say (later) that these THREE shots all "line up" to a "Single Bullet" possibility.

Even WITH clothing holes that cannot be completely reconciled to the square inch to align with JFK's back (skin) wound, the SBT is far, far ahead of ANY conspiracy-slanted substitute for it. In fact, I've yet to hear a good, sound, logical, based-on-the-evidence "CT substitute" for the Single-Bullet Theory. I wonder if we'll ever be treated to such a revelation by conspiracy authors/promoters? Unlikely to happen, IMO. Because no such "believable" CT version of the shooting exists.

CTers, IMO, still haven't a leg to wobble on with respect to the SBT. Because virtually everything "fits" re. the SBT for the Lone-Assassin side.

But CTers, in trying to debunk the Single-Bullet Theory, are attempting to do so, even though the conspiracists have......

1.) No bullets where there most certainly ought to be bullets found (and THREE of them at that, discounting CE399 of course, because no self-respecting CTer would dare think that that bullet was ACTUALLY part of the "real" shooting).

2.) No damage inside JFK's back/neck where there certainly should be some degree of damage if two whole bullets had just stopped inside the President as if they'd hit a brick wall.

3.) No good, rooted-in-logic explanation for why Governor Connally's back wound was "oblong" in shape if that wound had been caused by an unimpeded bullet in flight.

4.) No real good explanation (at all) as to why on Earth those two missiles just stopped inside Jack Kennedy's body without exiting. (Two "duds"? Or two "misfires"? TWO?? Come now. What are the odds?)

5.) Not a single witness saying they saw an additional non-Oswald shooter.

6.) No proof whatsoever that the Official Autopsy Report has been "faked" or "phonied up" by the autopsy doctors (all three of whom signed off on said document).

7.) No proof at all that the autopsy photos and X-rays have been "faked" in some manner to "hide" the true wounds.

8.) No proof at all to show that the 19 different HSCA panel members who authenticated the autopsy photos/X-rays all lied when they said this in 1978:

  • "From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
9.) And to repeat a variation of #1 just for amplification -- WHERE DID ALL THOSE BULLETS GO? WHERE? Can some conspiracy theorist please provide the waiting world with the answer to that very important question? I, for one, would certainly like to hear it. It should be an amusing answer, if nothing else.

David Von Pein
March 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S BACK WOUND -- WHERE EXACTLY WAS IT LOCATED? IN THE "NECK"? IN THE "BACK"? IN THE "BACK OF THE NECK"? WHERE?:


I think everyone would probably agree that part of the problem that exists with respect to lining up JFK's upper-back wound and JFK's throat wound is the fact that there is no specific autopsy photograph in existence that can readily illustrate the relationship between those two key wounds at the same time.

But I think that the (turned sideways) autopsy photo shown below of President Kennedy does a pretty good job of accomplishing that task (although, of course, we still can't physically see the hole in JFK's upper back here):



Via the above photo, it's very easy to illustrate the fact that the back wound was certainly well ABOVE the wound in the front of the neck/throat. Because if a line is drawn straight across from the throat wound toward JFK's back in the above photograph....where would that place a wound on the "back" portion of John Kennedy's body? Certainly not anywhere near the "neck". And also nowhere near where we find the actual upper-back wound via the autopsy photo of Kennedy's back.*

* = And if you want to buy the House Select Committee on Assassination's [HSCA] junk about the back wound being anatomically LOWER than the throat wound, there's even a bigger differential, which would place the back wound practically in the MIDDLE portion of JFK's back...which is just silly.

Just compare it to this autopsy picture:



The "crimp" in JFK's neck is a good guide to use in both of the above autopsy photographs. The "crimp" appears to me to be located approx. 3 inches above the wound. So we need to estimate approx. 3 inches below the "neck crimp" in this photo.

Where would the wound be located based on that crimp estimate? Certainly not anywhere NEAR the very BOTTOM of that picture (which is where the wound would have to be in order for it to be at throat wound level).

This is certainly not rocket science.

The SBT works. Period.



David Von Pein
January 2007


JULY 2009 EDIT --- As an addendum to the above pictures, the image below also serves as a useful photographic aid when discussing the locations of President Kennedy's upper-back and throat wounds, and it couldn't be more obvious (yet again) that the bullet hole in JFK's upper back was located above the bullet hole in his throat:




GERALD FORD, ARLEN SPECTER, JEAN DAVISON, AND THE BEAUTY OF THE S.B.T.


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


THE ODD (BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY TRUE) JOURNEY OF COMMISSION EXHIBIT 399:


The sum total of evidence surrounding Governor John B. Connally's wounds, and the amount of bullet lead that was deposited inside him on 11/22/63 (which was "microscopically" tiny in total weight), and Bullet CE399 and its condition all suggest that CE399 was inside Connally's body on November 22, and almost certainly was tumbling like an acrobat on steroids during its assault on JBC's rib and wrist and thigh.

It almost certainly struck the 5th rib sideways (hence, the flattening of the bullet) and went on to hit the wrist bone on its END (i.e., the exposed lead) portion of the bullet....hence, a small amount of lead was scraped off the bullet by JBC's wrist (which was lead/metal that was extruded out the open bottom of the missile AFTER striking the rib but BEFORE striking the wrist).

The bullet, now almost totally spent, travels its last few inches into Connally's left thigh, barely breaking the skin, but not hitting his femur beneath the skin.

The bullet is then jarred loose from the shallow thigh wound at some point, falling (probably) into his pants leg for a period of time...eventually ending up on his stretcher...where it rolls/slides under the stretcher's rubber mat (partially hiding it; hence, nobody sees the damn thing in the ER or in the OR).

It's quite possible that Connally's position on the stretcher at the time the bullet did its little dive under the mat was such that the weight of Connally's large frame possibly PUSHED UP a portion of the end of the rubber mat, leaving a gap between the metal stretcher and the mat. And when Connally was then removed from the stretcher, the mat (now free from the weight of Connally's body) falls flat and even again with the metal stretcher, covering (at least partially) Bullet #CE399.

Yes, that above scenario is just a guess on my part (quite obviously). But it seems like a fairly logical guess, given the sum total of evidence that indicates Bullet 399 DID, indeed, fall from Connally's thigh wound onto his stretcher while he was lying on that stretcher inside Parkland Hospital that Friday afternoon. And also given the fact that not a single person saw the bullet on the stretcher prior to Tomlinson (or heard the tinkling of metal rolling against the metal parts of the stretcher as it was being moved from the OR to the second-floor elevator area).

The stretcher (with bullet under mat) is pushed out of the 2nd-Floor Operating Room and into an elevator being operated that day by Parkland's Senior Engineer, Darrell C. Tomlinson.

Tomlinson takes the stretcher down to the first floor, where it's taken off the elevator and placed in the hallway next to young patient Ronnie Fuller's stretcher.

Tomlinson then returns to his elevator and hospital duties for a period of time....making at least 2 additional trips up to higher floors in the hospital before finally noticing that one of the two first-floor stretchers has been moved by someone who entered the men's room located off of that same hallway.

Tomlinson pushes the stretcher up against the wall again to clear it out of the middle of the aisle/hallway, and hears a metallic sound on the stretcher he's just pushed against the wall.

Out rolls Commission Exhibit #399, out from under the pad/mat on the stretcher, where it was partially hidden (or possibly completely out of viewable sight for a time)....

....And the never-ending controversy surrounding this little piece of metal and lead had begun.

David Von Pein
September 2007


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


MANY/MOST CONSPIRACY THEORISTS SEEM TO BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STRETCHER BULLET (CE399) COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY DEPOSITED ALL OF THE FRAGMENTS THAT WERE SEEN INSIDE GOVERNOR JOHN CONNALLY'S BODY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. ARE THOSE CONSPIRACISTS CORRECT? HARDLY:


Warren Commission Exhibit #CE399 (the "Stretcher Bullet" found by Darrell Tomlinson inside Parkland Hospital prior to 2:00 PM on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963) has been a major focus of controversy since JFK's murder in Dallas.

Conspiracy advocates claim that the bullet's missing grains of lead (which totalled approximately 2.2 grains, when an "average"/"median" weight of an unfired Western Cartridge Company/Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm bullet like CE399 is used as a comparison) are less than the weight of the bullet fragments that were discovered inside the body of Texas Governor John B. Connally on 11/22/63.

But is this a reasonable conclusion for anyone to come to? In other words, did Governor Connally really have MORE than approximately 2.2 grains of bullet lead/fragments inside his body prior to being operated on by Parkland physicians on November 22nd?

Well, let's examine the official record concerning that important question.....

With respect to Connally's wrist injury, there is the following Warren Commission testimony from the doctor at Dallas' Parkland Hospital who was in charge of that particular wound (Dr. Charles F. Gregory):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Will you describe, as specifically as you can, what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?"

DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in diameter. And each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes...flakes of metal."

MR. SPECTER -- "What would your estimate be as to their weight in total?"

DR. GREGORY -- "I would estimate that they would be weighed in micrograms, which is [a] very small amount of weight. I don't know how to reduce it to ordinary equivalents for you. It is the kind of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale; which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp."

MR. SPECTER (Later in Gregory's testimony session) -- "For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having virtually the entire 6.5-millimeter bullet emerge?"

DR. GREGORY -- "Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly."

~~~~~~

Regarding Governor Connally's chest injuries:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?"

DR. ROBERT SHAW -- "No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation."

~~~~~~

Regarding Connally's superficial thigh wound:

DR. CHARLES GREGORY -- "A fragment of metal, again microscopic, measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by two millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half-inch on the medial aspect of the thigh."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?"

DR. GREGORY -- "This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts. Not much more than that."

~~~~~~

In addition, we have this very interesting comment from Dr. Gregory:

DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

~~~~~~

Therefore, in total, we have the following "Connally Bullet Fragments Inventory":

1.) The very small fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist (of microscopic "postage stamp" weight). The preoperative X-ray of Connally's wrist (CE690) shows the fragments and reflects the very small nature of all the fragments that were deposited by the bullet in the wrist (remember, that X-ray is PREoperative, so all TOTAL fragments are visible in the wrist).

CE691 (another preoperative X-ray) shows the wrist fragments from a different angle. Again, the fragments are very small in size.

2.) Zero metallic fragments discovered in Governor Connally's chest/thorax. CE681 is the 11/22/63 chest X-ray of JBC.

3.) One extremely-tiny bullet fragment in JBC's thigh (again "postage stamp" type of weight). CE694 shows the thigh (preoperative).

~~~~~~

In Addition:

Dr. John Lattimer did an experiment with a WCC/MC bullet (just like CE399), whereby he squeezed the bullet in a vise to extrude 2 grains of lead from the base of the missile (to match the approximate amount of lead that was missing from CE399, which, in point of fact, was slightly more than 2 grains).

Lattimer's two grains of Mannlicher-Carcano bullet lead yielded 41 separate small, sliced fragments (any one of which looks larger than ANY of the fragments that were deposited in John Connally's body by the bullet that struck him on November 22, 1963).

Have a look:



Via Dr. Lattimer's book:

  • "Some critics have contended that the four bullet fragments in Governor Connally are too many to be accounted for by the two grains of lead missing from bullet 399. In our experiments we were able to make forty-one such fragments from the two-grain piece of lead that extruded from our test bullet. It can safely be said, therefore, that four fragments are by no means too many to be accounted for by the two grains missing from bullet 399." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 276-277 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

David Von Pein's review of "Kennedy And Lincoln"

~~~~~~

Given the above evidence, which verifies beyond all reasonable doubt that the total amount of bullet fragments that existed in all of John Connally's body on 11/22/63 most certainly did not (and COULD NOT) have exceeded the missing 2.2 grains of Bullet CE399, I cannot understand why so many JFK conspiracy proponents continue to soldier on in their efforts to prove that Bullet CE399 is a missile that could not possibly have been inside Governor Connally based on the "Amount Of Missing Lead" factor.

But, then too, I've never been able to figure out the (il)logic of CTers as a whole either. So, there's nothing new there I guess. ;)

David Von Pein
January 2007

--------------------------------

ADDENDUM TO THE ABOVE ARTICLE (directly related to the discussion concerning the Connally metal fragments; the following text comes from a portion of my full-length review of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book on the JFK assassination, "Reclaiming History"):

[Quoting Bugliosi]:

  • "In support of his position, which I concur with, that the bullet fragments removed from Connally's wrist did not weigh more than the 2.4 grains lost from the stretcher bullet [CE399], Gerald Posner writes in "Case Closed" that Dr. Charles Gregory testified before the Warren Commission that the bullet fragments he removed from Connally's wrist were "flakes of metal" weighing "something less than the weight of a postage stamp." But Dr. Gregory was not referring to the bullet fragments he removed from Connally's wrist, which definitely were not flakes of metal, but to the bullet fragments left in Connally's wrist, which were never removed yet show up on X-rays." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 441 of "Reclaiming History's" endnotes

DVP: I'm very nearly certain that Mr. Bugliosi is incorrect re. the above statement. Because when we look at Dr. Gregory's WC testimony there is no question at all that when Gregory said this to WC counsel Arlen Specter --- "I would estimate that they [the metal fragments] would be weighed in micrograms, which is [a] very small amount of weight. .... It is the kind of weighing that requires a micro-adjustable scale, which means that it is something less than the weight of a postage stamp" --- Gregory was specifically referring to the fragments which are visible on two PRE-operative X-rays taken of Governor Connally's wrist (CE690 and CE691).

Which means that Gregory was referring to ALL of the metal fragments (or "flakes") that were in Connally's wrist BEFORE Gregory ever operated on the Governor to retrieve any bullet fragments.

Via comparison, when looking at CE692 and CE693 (which are POST-operative wrist X-rays which were taken after Connally was operated on), it can easily be determined that Exhibits 692 and 693 depict FEWER fragments within the X-ray than are shown in 690 and 691.

It's possible that Dr. Gregory misspoke when he said that ALL of the fragments visible in Exhibits 690 and 691 represented only "flakes of metal", which is positively what he said, and, as I mentioned, he was definitely referring to the PRE-operative wrist X-rays, even though Gregory said that he, himself, removed "two or three" of the largest fragments from Connally's wrist, and had a chance to determine at that time whether the term "flakes of metal" really applied to those removed fragments.

In any event, that is what the official Warren Commission record reveals with respect Dr. Gregory's testimony in 1964 when he was looking directly at CE690 and CE691.

And to my (layperson's) eyes, the visible hunks of metal that can be seen in 690 and 691 certainly don't look very big at all. Perhaps the word "flakes" would, indeed, describe them fairly well (at least when looking at the X-rays only).

Later in Gregory's WC testimony -- after Arlen Specter asked, "Approximately how large were those fragments {that were removed from Connally's wrist}, Dr. Gregory?" -- we find these words being spoken by Gregory:

"Rather thin...their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of an inch. They were very small."

Another semi-important point to all of this talk about the size of Governor Connally's wrist fragments (which is a point I don't think Mr. Bugliosi mentions anywhere in his book) refers to a portion of Dr. Gregory's testimony where he, in effect, is saying that ALL of the fragments that were seen in Connally's wrist (INCLUDING THE TWO OR THREE FRAGMENTS THAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE GOVERNOR'S WRIST) were located during surgery "by chance", and ALL of these metal fragments could have been left inside Connally's body without causing the Governor further physical problems in the future.

Here is exactly what Dr. Gregory said to the Warren Commission regarding this matter:

"We know from experience that small flakes of metal of this kind do not ordinarily produce difficulty in the future, but that the extensive dissection required to find them may produce...consequences and so we choose to leave them inside unless we chance upon them. And on this occasion, those bits of metal recovered were simply found by chance in the course of removing necrotized material [i.e., dead bodily tissue]."

David Von Pein
July 2007


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


IF CE399 DIDN'T WOUND JOHN CONNALLY, DO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS THINK THE "REAL" STRETCHER BULLET DID?:


Conspiracy theorists have absolutely no place to go (via logic and common sense, that is) with ANY of their arguments regarding CE399, or regarding their arguments about a purported "pointy-nosed" bullet, etc.

Because if CTers want to say that CE399 was actually the bullet found at Parkland by [Darrell] Tomlinson (whether it was a "planted" bullet or not), then those same CTers are forced to jettison one of their favorite arguments -- i.e., that Tomlinson, et al, failed to identify CE399 as the stretcher bullet DUE TO THE FACT THAT CE399 WASN'T THE REAL STRETCHER BULLET FOUND BY TOMLINSON.

And if conspiracists wish to say (as many of them do) that a "pointy"-tipped bullet was actually seen by Tomlinson and [O.P.] Wright, et al, on November 22 at Parkland Hospital...then where does that argument take the CTers?

Answer -- Deep into "Absurdville"! That's where.

Why?

Because: If a "pointy" bullet WAS the "real" stretcher bullet found by Tomlinson, then that means one of the following three things must certainly be correct and true....

1.) The "pointy" bullet was the one and only bullet that did the damage to John B. Connally (and the best evidence, by far, is that just ONE single bullet struck Connally, causing all of his wounds).

But if #1 here is true...then the CTers must abandon one of their very favorite gripes: i.e., ANY bullet that did that much damage to John Connally must have been pretty banged up by the end of the day.

But if Tomlinson and Wright saw a "pointy"-nosed bullet, then that bullet was certainly in pretty decent shape, right? And the POINTY NOSE of the bullet wasn't even crushed! (Otherwise, how did Tomlinson, et al, see any "pointy" nose on the missile?)

Also: It's fairly obvious that the discrepancy surrounding the stretcher bullet noted by O.P. Wright is NOT a discrepancy with respect to the GENERAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGE that was done to the bullet.

It's obvious from everyone's testimony on this matter that the bullet Tomlinson found on a Parkland stretcher was an INTACT bullet; that is, a bullet that wasn't banged up very much at all.

Or do some conspiracy promoters want to now purport that the people who later failed to positively identify CE399 REALLY saw a banged-all-to-hell, mushroomed, and very damaged bullet...but they failed to mention that fact to anyone, ever?!

2.) The bullet Darrell Tomlinson picked up was a "PLANTED" bullet, but was not CE399, and then 399 was inserted into the record to replace the "real" stretcher bullet.

#2 here is totally crazy...because: WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANY PLOTTERS (BENT ON FRAMING LEE OSWALD) WANT TO PLANT A BULLET THAT COULD NEVER BE TRACED TO THE PATSY?

And if some CTers want to think the bullet was planted, but Oswald WASN'T really being set up as a lone patsy....I'd then ask: Huh? (Because if Oswald wasn't being framed, then why was there any need to plant ANY bullet at all inside Parkland?)

This whole #2 option is just too kooky for even most conspiracy-giddy kooks of the world. (Isn't it?)

3.) The bullet Darrell Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland wasn't even connected (in ANY fashion; "planted" or otherwise) to the JFK assassination or to Governor Connally's wounds. Perhaps it really did come from the little boy's stretcher (Ronny Fuller's). But, then again, was young Ronald Fuller SHOT BY A RIFLE BULLET on November 22nd? I don't think he was. Which means there's a problem here too.

But the logical observation associated with option #3 that needs to be uttered aloud is -- If it had been later learned that the stretcher bullet had really been connected to Fuller (or some other case, totally unconnected to the JFK/JBC case), then it would turn into a "So what?" situation. Because why would the authorities feel it necessary to tie in a bullet to the JFK case that legitimately was not connected to the Kennedy case in any way? That's just....dumb.

So, any way things are sliced, many conspiracy theorists are forced to abandon at least one of their favorite theories with respect to Bullet CE399. Because when a little ordinary common sense is applied to the conversation surrounding the stretcher bullet, CTers don't have a leg to stand on.

In short, conspiracy theorists are, by necessity, forced to either accept the obvious truth about the stretcher bullet (which is: CE399 came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63 and wounded both Kennedy and Connally)....or they are forced to look like total idiots by purporting theories that don't make much sense at all.

And many of those conspiracists are also forced to spout theories that completely CONTRADICT other theories they have been married to for decades.

Accepting the truth surrounding Bullet CE399 is easy. But accepting ANY of the conspiracy-tinged replacement theories revolving around that bullet is virtually impossible.

David Von Pein
September 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY, JOHN CONNALLY'S REACTIONS, AND THE
ZAPRUDER FILM:


[Governor John] Connally's right arm [which was attached to the same wrist that was wounded during the Dealey Plaza shooting] starts flying aimlessly UP then DOWN at Zapruder Film frame #226, just an instant after it was struck at Z224, indicating an involuntary movement of that right arm (wrist) at that point.

Or do [conspiracy theorists] think Connally had a desire to willfully jerk his right arm around in such an odd way just an instant BEFORE that SAME WRIST was hit by a bullet? That's just...frankly...nuts.

And the "arm/hat flip", which begins at Z226, is one of the primary reasons I can say with a good deal of certainty that Connally was struck at precisely Z224 by the ONE AND ONLY BULLET that hit him on November 22, which is just an eyeblink ahead of the involuntary "arm/hat flip" movement.

And a victim's involuntary reaction to a gunshot wound can occur, according to many doctors, "almost simultaneously with the injuries". [Via 7 HSCA 179; excerpt provided below.]

And that's what we find with respect to both JFK's and Governor Connally's visible reactions at Z225.*

* = Bearing in mind, of course, that President Kennedy is technically hidden by that damn Stemmons Freeway sign at the precise moment when I believe the SBT bullet is going through him at Z224. But such an "almost simultaneous" involuntary reaction with respect to Governor Connally specifically is, IMO, being demonstrated very clearly, and in full living color, on Abraham Zapruder's home movie between frames 224 and 226.

  • "The [HSCA's forensic pathology] panel notes the interval between the observable reactions of the President and the Governor at the time of their injuries, as seen in the Zapruder film. Some observers have contended that the interval is too long to permit the conclusion that a single bullet struck both men. The majority of the panel believes that the interval is consistent with the single-bullet theory. At issue is the time delay between bullet impact and the observable reactions of each man to his injury, which in turn is determined by many factors, including whether or not their reactions were voluntary or involuntary. If involuntary, they would have occurred almost simultaneously with the injuries. If voluntary, there is often a slight delay in reacting." -- HSCA Volume 7; Page 179

To the people who think that Governor Connally was hit EARLIER than Zapruder frame 224 (such as Vincent Bugliosi), I'd have to ask -- What are the odds of Connally's wrist performing its little "Hat Dance" just two frames AFTER Z224 if he had really been hit back at approximately Z210 (Mr. Bugliosi's favored timeline) or Z190 (the HSCA's SBT frame number)?

Again, the odds are incredibly low (IMO) that Connally would have been hit as early as Z190 or Z210 and then (via an obvious INVOLUNTARY reaction) start performing that "hat flip" as late as Z226. Such an early SBT hit does not fit Connally's reactions at all.



The same thing applies to Governor Connally's "open-mouthed grimace", which I see occurring at Z225 exactly [seen in the toggling Z-Film clip shown above], with no signs of ANY distress on his face at Z223 or Z224 at all (although I could argue that the BEGINNINGS of the "distressed" look are starting to form on Connally's face at Z224)...with this lack of any kind of discernible look of "distress" as late as Z223 being absolutely incredible, in my opinion, IF he had, in fact, been hit many frames EARLIER than Z224.





Plus: there's the "shoulder hunching" and the "shoulder drop" of Connally's right shoulder at Z224-Z226. All of these physical movements (which are obviously INvoluntary movements occurring on the part of Mr. Connally; that fact couldn't BE more obvious, in my opinion) are occurring within 1 to 3 frames of a Z224 SBT hit.

If Governor Connally had been hit as early as Z190 or Z210, these "Z224 to Z226" involuntary reactions we're seeing on the Zapruder Film would be happening a full second (or close to TWO full seconds per the HSCA) after Connally had actually been struck by Bullet CE399. Which, in my opinion, is too long.

Also -- Connally's reactions that we see occurring at Z224 to Z226 would be off the "incredible" scale (in favor of "Too Incredible Of A Coincidence To Be Believed For Even One Second!") if Governor Connally had actually been hit by a bullet much LATER than Z224, which is what most conspiracy theorists seem to believe, with many CTers thinking that JBC wasn't hit until Z236 or Z238.

And some of the wackier kooks even want to believe that Connally wasn't hit by any bullet until AFTER the fatal shot struck President Kennedy in the head!

I guess, per those crazy CTers, the Governor DID decide to VOLUNTARILY jerk that right arm up and down very rapidly (in the space of only 3 or 4 Z-Film frames) just PRIOR to that same arm being struck by a bullet.

Go figure. ~shrug~

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


CE399 IS A MOUNTAIN CLIMBER'S NIGHTMARE (IF YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST):


The huge controversy surrounding Warren Commission Exhibit Number 399 [aka "The Stretcher Bullet"] is only "huge" because of the conspiracy advocates of the world who want to think that somebody placed that bullet into the official record of the murder case of an assassinated U.S. President in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for that murder.

But such a notion is just plain silly. It's also a notion that is very extraordinary in nature. And is there really and truly a good reason in this case to believe in any type of "extraordinary" theory with respect to Bullet CE399 (i.e., a conspiracy theory that has some unknown person or persons placing CE399 into the official record of the JFK case in a desire to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the President's murder), when so many additional, corroborative pieces of physical and circumstantial evidence ALSO lead down that same "IT WAS OSWALD" path?

Given this "corroboration" regarding the evidence in the case, the theory that has Bullet 399 being "tainted" in some fashion is highly improbable (even if the bullet did, indeed, have a very weak "chain of custody" or "chain of possession") -- Because CE399 is a bullet which FITS TOGETHER WITH A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE CONNECTED WITH PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION.

CE399 is a bullet that came out of the VERY SAME GUN that is also positively linked to the bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine and the very same gun that is also positively linked to the three cartridge cases found on the Book Depository's sixth floor (the same floor where the weapon that was linked to all of these pieces of ballistics evidence was also found).

If CE399 had been the ONLY piece of ballistics evidence that was found after the shooting, then the CTers would have a much better argument for that bullet being "planted", or "substituted", or whatever.

But even in such a make-believe scenario, those conspiracy believers could still never in a million years PROVE that the bullet had been planted (or placed into evidence by one or more evil "conspirators"), but at least the suspicious conspiracists would have had a better argument, because in such a hypothetical instance, CE399 would have been the ONLY piece of bullet-related evidence connected with Oswald's rifle.

But since there's so much OTHER stuff (bullet-wise and shell-wise) that links Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano to the assassination, CTers who continue to want to believe that CE399 didn't really come out of Oswald's rifle when JFK's car passed through Dealey Plaza on November 22nd have a very large mountain to climb in order to advance the "399 Is A Fraud" conspiracy theory.

Because if CE567 and CE569 (the two front-seat bullet fragments linked conclusively to Oswald's rifle) are the Real McCoy (i.e., genuine evidence that wasn't tampered with in some manner)....

And: if the three bullet shells that were found by the police underneath the sniper's window on the sixth floor are also genuine....

Then common sense (plus the overall ODDS) would certainly indicate that it's very, very likely that Bullet #399 was ALSO a "genuine" article as well, with that whole bullet exiting Lee Harvey Oswald's gun at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza.

And if the CTers wish to travel down the "ALL OF THE CARCANO (C2766) BULLET EVIDENCE IS TAINTED" road, then they've got THREE "This Evidence Is Tainted" mountains to climb -- the "CE567/569" mountain; the "Shells In The Window" mountain; and the large hill marked "CE399" too.

I hope those CTers are in good shape and are really good mountain climbers. Because getting to the top of just ONE of those three Mount Everests is likely to give an average (and reasoned-thinking) person a coronary.

But that hasn't stopped certain conspiracy theorists from heading up that unclimbable series of peaks. Has it?

David Von Pein
October 2007


BONUS QUOTE FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI (RE: "CHAIN OF CUSTODY" ISSUES):

  • "There is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine. .... And most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL'S "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET" IS THE CLOSEST WE'RE LIKELY TO EVER GET TO A PERFECT DUPLICATION OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:


The cable television network "The Discovery Channel" aired the documentary program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet" in November 2004, a very impressive John F. Kennedy assassination-related program which set out to attempt to duplicate (with all possible accuracy) the controversial "Single-Bullet Theory"; and it's a program which hammered one or two more nails into the "conspiracy" coffin.

The more and more time that passes, the firmer and more solidified the "Lone Assassin" position becomes with respect to JFK's murder in Dallas on November 22, 1963; while the "It Was A Conspiracy" side makes no headway whatsoever, with zero tests like that of The Discovery Channel's "SBT" test being performed to prove the conspiracy buffs are correct. Nor do we ever see any computer simulations for the "CT" side to "prove" their case for conspiracy (a la Dale Myers' exacting animation project, which, like the "Magic Bullet" program, goes a long way toward proving the SBT is a truism).

Several impressive things supporting the overall doability of the SBT scenario came out of the "Beyond The Magic Bullet" program.....such as the "log" test (with a bullet being fired into a solid block of wood). The test bullet looked absolutely perfect after being dug out of several feet of wood.

And, of course, the actual SBT re-creation itself....which proved beyond any doubt that a Western Cartridge Company, 6.5-millimeter, full-metal-jacketed, Mannlicher-Carcano bullet exactly like CE399 (the actual bullet from the JFK case in 1963) could, indeed, take a very similar path through two "bodies", and then emerge in pretty decent shape....as we can see here:



The Discovery Channel test bullet was more damaged than CE399, but IMO the test proved a very important thing -- it proved that a bullet like Oswald's 399 could go through two bodies, do a lot of damage, and NOT BE BROKEN UP AT ALL.

The test bullet, just like 399, emerged PERFECTLY WHOLE (i.e., not fragmented at all). It's all in ONE PIECE. It's flattened more than 399, sure....but certainly not banged all to hell like Dr. Cyril Wecht seems to think a bullet like 399 would HAVE to have been if it went through the bodies of both Jack Kennedy and John Connally and caused seven wounds; and the "test" bullet caused an extra (2nd) rib fracture within the John Connally mock-up "body" during the re-creation as well.

The nose portion of the test bullet wasn't flattened at all either, which is an important factor, indicating almost certainly it took a similar path through John Connally's "mock" torso in the test, just as CE399 most-likely took through JBC's real torso in 1963 -- indicating a bullet that smashed into most of the hard objects that it hit in a BACKWARD, END-FIRST manner, thereby keeping the nose undamaged.

And another impressive part of the "Magic Bullet" broadcast was the ending sequence which had a doctor giving his erroneous opinion that the damage he had just seen in the X-rays from the re-creation almost certainly must have been caused "by more than just one bullet".

When proven wrong in this multi-bullet belief, the Los Angeles doctor was genuinely surprised. (Do CTers think that he's a "CT plant" too...only feigning "surprise" when confronted with the test results to further the notion of the SBT?)

Another point I'd like to make regarding the "Beyond The Magic Bullet" re-creation (with respect to Connally's thigh wound)......

Many CTers like to point out (with some glee) that the "test" bullet in the Discovery Channel re-creation/simulation didn't penetrate the surrogate "thigh wound" of JBC. Instead, the test bullet struck the simulated thigh and then immediately bounced off into the grass.

But it's very, very possible that a similar occurrence DID happen with the real John Connally on 11/22/63 -- that is to say:

It's quite possible (given the nearly-"spent" condition of Bullet CE399 at the time it struck Connally's leg) that CE399 did not remain in his thigh for any length of time at all. Perhaps it immediately came out of that shallow leg wound and then simply fell down into Connally's pants leg....where it remained until later falling out of the clothing onto his stretcher inside Parkland Hospital.

But the main point I want to make about the "bouncing off the thigh" test bullet vs. the real bullet that struck Connally on November 22nd is.....

If CE399 did, in fact, pop out of JBC's thigh just after entering his leg, it would have had virtually NO CHOICE but to remain in Connally's pants leg (unless CTers want to theorize that the bullet miraculously exited JBC's leg by way of the very same small hole in his pants where it entered).

Sure, the bullet could have conceivably found its way down to the bottom of JBC's pants-leg opening and dropped out into the car immediately. But a reasonable person researching the case knows that that scenario did not happen....because if it had occurred, a bullet would have been found in the car that could equate to Connally's wounds.

In my opinion, it's very likely that that bullet (CE399) almost immediately fell out of JBC's leg after striking the thigh, and it remained in his pants leg until after he was wheeled into the hospital.

Such a scenario would also (in a small way at the very least) explain why there was no trace evidence left on 399....due to the fact that it was never "buried" in a victim for any length of time whatsoever....thereby making it less likely for trace evidence to have accumulated on the missile.

All-in-all....that Discovery Channel broadcast did an amazing job at replicating the damage path and general characteristics of CE399. The test bullet exited the JFK mock body much lower than the real 399 did in '63, true. I certainly cannot deny this obvious difference. But we must keep in mind that a PERFECT re-creation can never be fully achieved, with every single "human" nuance accounted for (since only mock torsos were utilized in the re-creation).

With some unavoidable limitations in mind, the SBT re-creation done by the Australian team of JFK researchers in early October of 2004 is as close to the real event that I believe we're likely to ever see. And the results most certainly do not debunk the likelihood of the Single-Bullet Conclusion. To the contrary -- the results of that re-creation enhance the viability of the Warren Commission's one-bullet conclusion greatly.

A "BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET" ADDENDUM:

Prominent JFK assassination researchers Vincent Bugliosi and Dale Myers both put in appearances in the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet" documentary.

Myers convincingly demonstrates the rock-solid validity of the Single-Bullet Theory, via portions of his Emmy Award-winning 3D computer animation of the assassination ("Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination").

"It's a straight line....it's the only way it COULD have happened." -- Dale K. Myers ....


video


Bugliosi, in his only appearance in a JFK documentary of this nature (that I am aware of; not taking into account his appearance as the prosecuting attorney in the 1986 TV Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), provides a few tidbits of general information throughout the early stages of the program.

I would have enjoyed hearing a lot more from Vince and Dale during this documentary program, but their on-screen time is not very prolonged...but intriguing nonetheless.

Here are some verbatim quotes spoken by Vincent Bugliosi during the "Beyond The Magic Bullet" program:

  • "The American people are simply misinformed. They think they know what happened; but there's an enormous amount of material in this case they have no idea about." -- VB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  • "If, in fact, the bullet that passed through Kennedy did NOT go on and hit Connally, then the bullet that DID hit Connally, by definition, would have had to have been a separate bullet from a second gunman. Why? Because Kennedy and Connally were hit virtually at the same time. And with Oswald's single-shot, bolt-action rifle, it would have been absolutely impossible for him to squeeze off two rounds within a split-second of each other." -- VB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That last Vince Bugliosi quote above goes a long way, in my opinion, toward debunking the "Anti-SBT/Pro-Lone Gunman" theory put forth by Mark Fuhrman in his 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder", which is a theory of Mr. Fuhrman's that DOES indeed have Oswald performing a non-SBT solo act and doing what Vince has said (via the above quote) is "absolutely impossible".

I agree 100% with Mr. Bugliosi -- it was "absolutely impossible" for Lee Harvey Oswald to wound JFK and John Connally with separate bullets, given the Zapruder Film timeline of the event.

The Single-Bullet Theory is still fully intact....and always will be in my opinion. It's the "best evidence" in the case for what actually happened to President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
December 2004
October 2006
November 2006
March 2007


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


VINCE BUGLIOSI, DALE MYERS, 3-D DIAGRAMS, AND THE S.B.T.:


About the only thing wrong with [Vincent] Bugliosi's 3D diagram depicting the Single-Bullet Theory [which is an illustration that appears in the photo section of Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History"] is that he's got JFK turned a little to his right when Bullet CE399 hit Kennedy in the back...which I don't think is the correct posture for President Kennedy at that time. And Dale Myers doesn't think it's the correct position to have Kennedy in when he's shot by the SBT bullet either, per Dale's third picture from the top HERE.

Bugliosi has JFK turned a little to the right, which is making the bullet enter his upper back slightly too far to the RIGHT of its actual entry location. But if we were to "straighten out" Kennedy in VB's chart and make his shoulders almost perfectly parallel with the back seat (which is the exact "parallel to the back seat" position Dale Myers has used for his 3D animation, which, of course, is keyed to the Zapruder Film itself, making Dale's version the most accurate version we could possibly hope for here in the real world), then the bullet would strike Kennedy in the upper back in exactly the correct location (IMO):





Addendum regarding Bugliosi's SBT chart and VB's general SBT timeline (taken from my review of "Reclaiming History"):


Mr. Bugliosi's Single-Bullet Theory timeline has me puzzled a little bit. The artist rendering pictured [above] appears in the photo section of VB's book, and shows the path of the "SBT" bullet from an overhead viewpoint. And while I believe that Vince is 100% correct about the SBT being an ironclad fact (as opposed to a mere "theory"), this illustration must also be viewed with a grain of salt, given the fact that VB is of the opinion that the SBT bullet struck the two victims "somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222" of the Zapruder Film, which is a 13-frame span on the film when both victims are completely hidden from Zapruder's camera lens by a freeway sign on Elm Street (except for frame 222, when Connally [but not Kennedy] can be seen just after emerging from behind the sign).

Therefore, we can't possibly know for sure the exact positions that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were in at Frame 210 (or even in the following dozen or so frames that follow 210, for that matter), because the darn sign is in the way.

Any specific Zapruder Film-based speculation about the SBT shot occurring at (or just after) Z210 is also strange in another way too, because frames 208 through 211 don't even exist on any high-quality versions of the Zapruder Film, due to the fact that those four frames were damaged by Life Magazine and removed from the film. Only poor-quality first-generation copies include frames 208-211.

I, myself, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the specific "SBT" point-of-impact Zapruder Film frame can be established....and that frame is almost certainly Z224 (and not "somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222", as Bugliosi says in his book on page 463).

Although, VB says in an endnote (on page 25 of the notes) that the SBT shot occurs at "Z223-224"; so I'm not quite sure which exact Z-Film frame Vince totally endorses, if any.

Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge" tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and Connally at Z224.

Vince actually mentions a 3-frame range of Zapruder frames in this "lapel" regard, which seems a little strange to me; but at least VB admits the possibility of the bullet striking at the correct frame (IMO) of Z224, when he says this on endnote page 325: "A bulging of the right lapel of the governor's suit coat may pinpoint the moment Governor Connally is hit to be at Z222–224".

Another oddity is that even though Vince supports a "Z223-Z224" and/or a "Z222-Z224" SBT hit at various stages in the book's endnotes, in other portions of the main text he also seems to be endorsing the notion that Connally was reacting to already having been hit by a gunshot as early as Z222, which I totally disagree with.

I can't detect any such Connally "reaction" at Z222 at all. The first firm "reaction" on Connally's behalf comes later, at Z225, just after having been struck at Z224. Again, that's in my own personal opinion on the matter.

However, there's another indication in the book that VB advocates the exact same frame for the SBT that I, too, endorse (Z224). That occurs on page 40, when Vince says the second shot (the SBT shot) occurs "3.5 seconds" after the first shot which missed the limousine, a first shot which, elsewhere in the book, VB says comes at Z-Film frame 160.*

And the only frame that is precisely "3.5" seconds after Z160 is Z224 (given the "round-off" mathematics that VB is utilizing on pages 40 and 41 and Zapruder's camera speed of 18.3 frames-per-second).

* = A "First-Shot Footnote" -- I completely agree with VB's "Z160 first shot" timing. However, I disagree with him on the exact scenario of how bystander James Tague was wounded by this first bullet.

Vince thinks the probability is high that the Z160 missed shot hit the concrete on Elm Street and then the bullet (or a portion thereof) went on to strike yet another hunk of street pavement over on Main Street, which resulted in a bullet fragment or concrete fragment slightly injuring Tague's cheek. (See page 471.)

I just cannot quite believe such a scenario myself. I think it's much more likely that Oswald's first shot struck a portion of the nearby oak tree, with the bullet then probably fragmenting (at least partially), sending the majority of the lead portion of the bullet out to Main Street, resulting in Tague's wounding, while the metal jacket of the missile possibly struck the pavement on Elm near JFK's car, resulting in the "sparks" that a few witnesses reported observing.

But, of course, realistically, the only thing that can be done with respect to any "missed" shot is to simply guess about what happened, since no physical bullet was recovered with regard to the shot that missed the limousine's victims.

Another possibility concerning Tague's injury is that he was struck by a fragment of the bullet that hit JFK in the head. I, however, don't like that theory much either, since that bullet would have probably been pretty much spent and out of gas by the time it travelled the many additional yards from the limousine to Main Street to meet Tague. ....

Obviously, Bugliosi is simply placing on the table all potential "SBT" possibilities throughout his immense publication. I, however, would have preferred more consistency in this book with regard to the timing of the SBT bullet strike.

But VB evidently feels that the precise "impact" frame cannot be definitively established on the Zapruder Film for the SBT shot. But I believe it can be established on the film, via the downward and forward movement of Connally's right shoulder at exactly Z224. ....

But even with a bit of ambiguity in his SBT timeline, at least Mr. Bugliosi knows (as do I) that a "Single-Bullet Theory" Z-Film frame positively DOES exist somewhere within Zapruder's 26-second home movie. ....

The exact moment when the controversial "SBT" bullet struck Kennedy and Connally has been debated for many years, of course. Even the two major inquiries into the assassination had differing views on this matter, with the Warren Commission offering up a 15-frame range of Z-Film frames when they said the single bullet struck the victims (Z210-Z225).

But the HSCA placed the SBT at approx. Z190, which, by the way, is the timing that was seemingly endorsed by Bugliosi at the TV Docu-Trial in which he served as prosecutor in 1986; although I strongly suspect that the reason for such a VB endorsement in '86 was due to the fact that Bugliosi's main "SBT" witness/expert at the London trial (Cecil Kirk) was a member of the HSCA, which itself endorsed the absurdly-early Z190 SBT timeline.

So, as we can see from the pages of this book ["Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"], VB has gotten closer to the Z224 SBT hit in the intervening years.

Another thing that is worth mentioning here is the false accusation made by various people over the years concerning Warren Commission member Gerald Ford. Many conspiracists seem to think that Ford attempted to "move" JFK's back wound up into the "neck" in order to better accommodate the flight path of the SBT bullet.

But a person need only look at the picture shown below to easily see that any "moving" of JFK's upper-back wound up into the "neck" would only serve to DESTROY the path and trajectory of the SBT.

Such a move certainly would not enhance the SBT's path at all, because moving the wound up to the neck would result in the bullet exiting the front of JFK's body in much too high of a location (rather than at the tie knot, where the bullet did exit):



It turns out that I disagree (for the most part) with Vince Bugliosi with respect to the exact timing of the SBT, but certainly not by very much; so I'm not inclined to call a 0.77-second difference of opinion (the time interval between Z210 and Z224) a major or all-important disagreement.

And, as I mentioned, there are references in this book that seem to indicate VB's possible belief in a "Z223-Z224-Z225" SBT hit too (which will no doubt have conspiracists attacking Bugliosi's credibility and lack of consistency throughout the book on this "SBT timing" point, which, indeed, appears to be warranted criticism when you read the whole tome, plus the endnotes).

However, in my opinion, as stated previously, the most important point is the fact that Bugliosi supports the SBT, regardless of exactly when on the Z-Film the SBT is occurring. And this SBT support is due in large part to plain common sense....because the sum total of all the evidence in this case makes the Single-Bullet Theory a virtual certainty.

Or, to use VB's own words (from page 482 of "Reclaiming History") -- "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same bullet."



David Von Pein
May 2008


BONUS QUOTE:

  • "Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the totality of the evidence with respect to the initial wounding of both victims." -- David Von Pein; May 23, 2005

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


YEP, HERE'S ANOTHER PRO-SBT ESSAY (YOU CAN NEVER HAVE TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE WHEN DISCUSSING THE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY"):


President John Kennedy was murdered in 1963 by an assassin's bullets, and Texas Governor John Connally was also badly wounded in this attack on the President.

In my opinion, one man was responsible for those tragic events in Dallas, Texas. And that one man was Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired three shots at the President's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street, killing the President and injuring the Governor of Texas.

The controversial "Single-Bullet Theory" (SBT) has been debated by historians, researchers, and critics ever since the release of the official Warren Commission Report in September of 1964.

But when one evaluates the probabilities of any OTHER explanation being the correct version of events surrounding the simultaneous wounding of both JFK and Governor Connally (especially when weighed against the strong evidence favoring the "SBT" version of the event), the Single-Bullet Theory's "likelihood" level rises considerably.

The Abraham Zapruder film of JFK's assassination has aided researchers the world over in attempting to re-construct the murder of the President and the wounding of Governor Connally. And there are many indications within that amateur movie that show the SBT to be an accurate scenario.

One such controversial "indication" of the initial bullet strike to Connally's body is the so-called "lapel flip", when the Governor's suit jacket bulges or "flips" at Zapruder Frame #224.

However, I haven't totally abandoned the idea (purported by some conspiracy theorists and possibly some lone-assassin believers as well) of "the wind" causing the lapel flip/bulge. BUT, I will say, if it WAS "the wind", it sure was an amazing coincidence that that gust of wind moved that lapel at the EXACT same 1/18th of a second when a bullet was probably going through the same general area of Governor Connally's body. Almost TOO much of a "coincidence" to be believed.

However, to be fair-minded on this topic -- it is true, I suppose, that CTers could lash back at the above statement of mine with -- "What the heck are you talkin' about! The lapel flip is the ONLY thing you LNers are relying on to indicate a definitive 'SBT' bullet strike at Z224! So without your 'flip', you've got nada!"

OK...fair enough argument. BUT, just AFTER the lapel flip (in the frames immediately following Z224) there are several things that occur to Gov. Connally that indicate a bullet had just passed through him -- e.g., Connally's "open-mouthed grimace" at precisely Z225. And JFK's mouth is "open" at this exact moment as well, which is BEFORE the President has distinctly moved his arms upward to his throat area.*

* = And, btw, although it can NEVER be "proven", due to that darn Stemmons Freeway road sign being in the way, it is quite possible that Z225 might very well be the VERY FIRST moment in time when JFK's mouth opened too....which, if it could be PROVEN (which it can never be, unfortunately), would be an absolutely-overwhelming indication that a single bullet was piercing both men at the exact same time.

For, I ask: What would be the odds of having BOTH President Kennedy and John Connally having their mouths closed at Z224, but then, at Z225, opening their mouths in that exact same frame? If that road sign could be removed from the Z-Film, we'd know a great deal more, via the visual medium of Mr. Zapruder's film of the event.

Other post-Z224 "reactions" by Connally include a downward movement of his right shoulder, and the biggie for me -- that "Hat Flip", where his cowboy hat goes flying upward in a very quick space of a few Z-Film frames (and remember, it was the RIGHT hand flying upwards there, and it was the RIGHT wrist which was hit by a bullet that day).

However, the Zapruder Film (as good a piece of SBT-revealing evidence as it is) is really totally unneeded to prove the viability of the SBT. Because even without the existence of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second slice of tragic history in the making, there's so much OTHER evidence that tells a reasonable person with common sense that the Single-Bullet Theory is practically the ONLY way the shooting could have occurred back in '63.

Such evidence as:

1.) The Official JFK Autopsy Report (which was signed by all three autopsy doctors who attended President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda), which states without reservation that the bullet that entered JFK's upper back "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

2.) The seated positions in the car of the two shooting victims, one right in front of the other (with JBC just a little lower and a little left of JFK, consistent with SBT-dom).

3.) The physical locations of the two victims' wounds, which are definitely consistent with one bullet having travelled through both JFK and JBC.

4.) The oblong-shaped entry wound on Governor Connally's back, perfectly consistent with the SBT....because this wound certainly indicates that the bullet which entered JBC's back hit something else prior to striking the Governor's back. And the only physical "something" that was between John Connally and the rifle which fired that bullet was the person of John F. Kennedy.

5.) "Stretcher Bullet CE399" being found IN THE HOSPITAL where the victims were taken.

6.) CE399 being scientifically linked to Lee Oswald's rifle and to Connally's wrist fragments. (With a good deal of probability, that bullet traversed John Connally's body that day in Dallas.)

7.) The incredibly-important fact of NO OTHER BULLETS being found anywhere that can be "connected" with these "SBT"-like wounds on the two victims (not a bullet in Connally and not a single whole bullet in Kennedy's back or neck either). This little item here is a KEY to proving the validity of the SBT, and the CTers need to go out on a very shaky limb to get around this not-so-insignificant "No Bullets In Kennedy" item; they'll need either divine intervention to further the conspiracy "plot", which would include BOTH bullets that went into JFK just vanishing ON THEIR OWN (somehow); or the conspiracists need an after-the-fact cover-up, which has plotters digging TWO whole bullets out of JFK's body without a single non-conspirator getting wise. (Not to mention the silliness in the first place of having to purport that TWO bullets just STOPPED DEAD in the soft flesh of the President, both failing to exit the body. That's nutty unto itself.)

8.) No back-seat limo damage that would indicate a bullet struck those seats. And no bullets there either (save very small fragments, plus the two larger fragments in the front seat, which perfectly conform to the Lone-Assassin head-shot scenario).

And the Zapruder Film isn't required to prove the existence of any of the above evidence. Therefore, sans the Z-Film, the SBT is still rock-solid.

Getting back to the lapel flip specifically for a moment more ---

The following motion clip covers Zapruder Frames 222 and 223. Via this Z-Film clip, it does seem that the jacket lapel of Mr. Connally might very well have been moving around even prior to Z224, thus casting some doubt on the idea that the "flip" at Z224 was being caused exclusively by a bullet:



In the final analysis.....

After all the chips have fallen (and considering all of the evidence favoring the SBT, while being forced via common sense and logical thinking to reject the incredible amount of hocus-pocus and conspiratorial hijinks that would have been required in order for the SBT to not be true) -- the Single-Bullet Theory, in my opinion, is by far the most-likely-to-be-correct version to explain the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22nd, 1963.

David Von Pein
January 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


A QUESTION NO CONSPIRACY THEORIST HAS EVER ANSWERED (IN A BELIEVABLE AND NON-LAUGHABLE WAY) --- IF THE "SINGLE-BULLET THEORY" ISN'T CORRECT, THEN WHAT IS THE ACCURATE SHOOTING SCENARIO TO EXPLAIN THE VIRTUALLY-SIMULTANEOUS WOUNDING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY ON 11/22/63?:


On November 22nd, 1963, when President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was hit in the upper back with a 6.5-millimeter full-metal-jacketed bullet fired by assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (from Oswald's own bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle), it marked the beginning of what many, many people around the world deem to be an "absolutely-impossible occurrence" -- for that wound on John Kennedy's back was the first "link" in what is now known as the "Single-Bullet Theory" (with some conspiracists referring to it as the "Magic-Bullet Theory").

But, in reality, there is no "magic" to this "theory" at all. The "SBT" bullet that was fired by Oswald from his sixth-floor Sniper's Perch in the Texas School Book Depository Building did not have to "zig" and "zag" all over God's Creation in order to strike both JFK and Texas Governor John Connally that day in Dallas. That is a provably wrong "CT myth".

Connally was seated "inboard" of Kennedy and was seated a few inches lower in his jump seat than was the President on the back seat.

And the bullet in question did not have to "stop in mid-air" for XX number of seconds, per what many pro-conspiracy people seem to want to think. The reactions of the two victims in the Presidential limousine are completely consistent with one bullet having struck both men at the very same point in time. Just watch this real-time video clip (below) from Abraham Zapruder's home movie a few times back-to-back. After doing so, it's nearly impossible (IMO) to totally discount the idea that the two victims are reacting to being hit by gunfire at precisely the same time. .....



Via my own personal common-sense view of the subject, the long and short of this decades-long debate over the accuracy of the "SBT" is simply this -- It doesn't really matter, in the long run, whether anybody "believes" the SBT is true and/or doable or not.

Why not? -- Because the hard, physical evidence that exists is telling us beyond much doubt whatsoever that JFK and Governor Connally WERE, indeed, wounded simultaneously by way of Bullet "CE399".

Moreover, the current LACK of any other evidence existing to suggest that the SBT is totally wrong only enhances the likelihood that the SBT is probably right.

That is to say, if the SBT is filled with as many holes as most CTers claim it is, and if JFK and JBC had been hit by other bullets to explain their "SBT"-like wounds -- then I have a valid question for CTers .... Where is the evidence for this? Where are these bullets? Why were none of these "other bullets" recovered in (or near) EITHER victim? And THREE disappearing bullets, to boot?!! All going AWOL! Just...silly.*

* = And some people even go one bullet better than that, theorizing that Connally was hit twice, rather than just once. So, that theory would increase the count of "vanishing missiles" to four; which also boosts such a theory to practically immeasurable levels of improbability, not to mention "absurdity".

No anti-SBT theorist has come even remotely close to believably answering those reasonable inquiries I asked above.

As difficult as it is for some people to believe, the sum total of the evidence (plus just ordinary common sense) is telling us that the Single-Bullet Conclusion is, indeed, almost certainly the correct conclusion.

Also -- As hinted previously, by NOT believing the SBT is even vaguely possible, conspiracy theorists are, by default, believing in an alternate scenario (ANY alternate scenario; and it doesn't really matter which "what if?" theory is being postulated) which could ONLY have been much more bizarre and highly-improbable than that of the SBT. So much so, in fact, that only a moron could possibly place any faith in such pro-conspiracy malarkey over and above the logicality of the Single-Bullet Theory.

Conspiracists do realize that fact...right? (Or do they? I wonder.)

Why do I say such a bold thing about the anti-SBT stance?

Because.....

Lacking the SBT, all of this incredible stuff (somehow) must have occurred in Dallas in '63:

1.) Three different gunmen sprayed Kennedy and Connally with three bullets in a way to make it seem like the three bullet holes in the two victims could be (falsely) "connected" in such a perfect fashion so that these wounds could be "explained away" as being caused by one bullet. (The word "remarkable", alone, can't do justice to this type of shooting feat. Terms like "phenomenal", "extraordinary", and "miraculous" should be added here, too. Not to mention "laughable".)

2.) Two bullets go into JFK and never come out again (despite no hard substances being hit inside Kennedy's neck or back at all). (All the X-rays are fakes too...right?)

3.) A separate bullet hit John Connally in his back, even though Kennedy is situated directly between the shooter and Connally.

4.) Bullet CE399 was "planted" by some unidentified conspirator inside Parkland Hospital prior to 2:00 PM on 11/22/63....a time which is simply crazy for the plotters to want to plant any bullets. (Because they could not possibly have known for certain at that time whether or not the planted missile would turn out to be superfluous.)

5.) All three "real" bullets (which "fake" a nice "SBT" scenario later on) magically disappear, never entering the record in the murder case, and are never seen by anyone (other than "plotters", naturally).

6.) The three gunmen who caused the three wounds (wounds that would later be turned into the "SBT" by the Warren Commission) all fired their weapons in perfect synchronization to one another, making it look beautiful on the Zapruder Film. Because these THREE separate shots ALL LOOK LIKE JUST ONE HIT on the Z-Film.

A truly amazing job by those three assassins indeed.

And, somehow, per CTers, believing in all of the above nonsense is supposedly MORE rational, well-thought-out, fact-based, and (above all) reasonable than sticking with the known-to-exist evidence of the Single-Bullet Theory??

If anyone really believes that this "SBT Alternative" is a more "reasonable" conclusion than the SBT, medical treatment should be sought asap.

Footnote -- BTW, it was, in truth, actually the autopsy doctors who sowed the first seeds of the "SBT", not Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission. The first hint of the SBT is right there in JFK's Official Autopsy Report, which states, unambiguously, that the same bullet that went into President Kennedy's back exited from the front of his throat.

Therefore, via the autopsy doctors, that bullet is now hanging in mid-air after coming out of JFK's neck. So -- where could it have gone? There are only two possible answers to that question:

1.) The bullet went into John B. Connally's body.

-- Or: --

2.) It struck the interior of the automobile without injuring anyone in the car (which would, of course, have caused obvious damage to the vehicle interior).

Number 2 did not occur (per Robert Frazier of the FBI, who examined the limo and found no signs of such bullet damage to the back seats). Therefore, the ONLY possible answer to the mystery is: the bullet went into the body of Governor Connally.

How is ANY other scenario possible (without having to use the words "Everything Was Fixed, Faked, And/Or Fabricated By Unknown Conspirators")?

~~MARK VII~~

David Von Pein
February 2006

LINK TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE


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


DAVID VON PEIN VS. VARIOUS CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WHO JUST
DON'T THINK TOO HIGHLY OF THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:



ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

There is no doubt now that the CE 399 in the photo above [this photo] was not fired from a 6.5mm Carcano rifle, nor any other 6.5mm calibre rifle.


PAT SPEER SAID:

It seems apparent you [Robert] think these bullets were all fired in a .25 caliber rifle, and that the FBI and Army shooters pretended these bullets had been fired in the rifle found in the building.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Robert Prudhomme, therefore, also has no choice but to believe one of the following two things....

1.) The "real killer" shot JFK with a .25 caliber weapon, even though a large part of the "plot" was to frame a patsy named Oswald who owned a 6.5mm. Carcano weapon.

or...

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't being "set up" as a patsy IN ADVANCE of the assassination.

I'm quite confident that either option above is very unpalatable to a prolific rewriter of history (and the facts) like Robert Prudhomme.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I did a careful measurement on paper of the bullet designated in the photo as CE 399.

I drew a straight line parallel to the sides of the bullet...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nobody can simply draw lines on a picture of a bullet (or on any picture) and expect perfect, exacting information. It's impossible to extract three-dimensional measurements from a two-dimensional object without applying photogrammetry skills. But perhaps Bob P. doesn't realize this fact....

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image and extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

"I don't know how many ways to say it, but let me try it this way -- no one can deduce a three dimensional angle in space by holding a ruler or protractor against a two dimensional photograph or computer monitor. The principles of photogrammetry explain why this methodology leads to false results." -- Dale K. Myers; August 20, 2008

-----------------

Did you apply photogrammetry to your detailed measurements of the CE399 photo(s), Robert? If not, your calculations are pretty much worthless.

But just ignore that fact about not being able to derive perfect data from two-dimensional objects, Bobby. It'll be better for your constant attacks on Robert Frazier if you do. And there will probably still be at least two or three misguided souls on the Internet who will be foolish enough to believe your crackpot ".25 caliber" theories. After all, never underestimate the type of crap the public will buy. Even David Lifton's book got up to #5 on the best-sellers list. So there's hope for your outlandish rantings too.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Of course, Dale, David and the WC know everything there is to know about the SBT from watching the Z film, which just happens to be two dimensional, but that's different, right? :)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dale Myers applied photogrammetry techniques before finalizing his work on his Z-Film computer model. Therefore, the computer was able to accurately extract 3D info from the 2D film.

Did you apply those techniques, Bob?

Footnote/Addendum....

Pat Speer has very likely made the very same mistake of not applying photogrammetry when he attempts to prove that the paper bag Detective L.D. Montgomery is holding in these pictures is not the same paper bag that appears in the National Archives today as Commission Exhibit No. 142.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

No kidding, Dave? He went right to town on it with all the high tech equipment, did he? Is that how he made the following mistakes in his cartoon?

1. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet going straight through the neck, almost at midline. This course would have taken the MB through the cervical vertebrae. Yet, autopsy x-rays show pristine cervical vertebrae, requiring the MB to pass completely outside of the C7 vertebrae, yet still manage to tear up the right side of JFK's trachea. It is estimated the MB had to be travelling from right to left through JFK's neck at a minimum angle of 23° to accomplish this, yet Dale's cartoon shows the bullet going almost straight through.

2. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering John Connally's back and exiting his chest, implying a through and through wound that pierced Connally's right lung. According to the medical report, the MB did not penetrate Connally's right lung but, rather, stayed on the OUTSIDE of Connally's rib cage, following the outside of the 5th rib for 10 cm.

3. Dale Myers shows the Magic Bullet entering the palm side of Connally's wrist, and exiting the back side of his wrist. Once again, the medical report contradicts this and tells us the MB entered the back side of the wrist, and exited the palm or bottom side.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All of Dale Myers' work is excellent (of course). But I certainly don't need Dale's computer model to demonstrate what the Zapruder Film has vividly shown since the day of the assassination---and that is one bullet going through the two victims at Z224.

If you, Bob P., can't see the SBT in action in the following Z-Film clips, it's not my fault. But I sure can see it. And so can most people who aren't visually impaired....

















ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Dave,

One question, and one question only. Answer this question to my satisfaction, and I will join the Lone Nuts.

Dale Myers' cartoon shows the Magic Bullet entering JFK's back very close to the spinal mid line, even though many reports place the back entrance wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't think 1.5 or 2 inches is "very close to the spinal mid line"?

The JFK entry point in Myers' model looks fine to me....



http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.htm


Here's a question for you, Bob....

What do you see here? Why is John Connally flinching his shoulders here? And what is causing the look we're seeing on his face? This clip ends at Z225....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Sorry, Dave, you're ignoring my question. I really want to hear your answer on this, and I will hound you on this forever, if need be.

Let's look at the still from Myers' cartoon you posted:



Does it look like the bullet is entering JFK's back 1.5-2 inches to the right of his spine? Hardly. Dale pretty much shows the bullet going through the spine. Not only that but, if the sniper's nest is 9 degrees laterally separated from the midline of the limo, why does Myers show the path of the bullet almost parallel to the limo?

And, finally, how did the Magic Bullet go straight through JFK's neck, as shown by Myers, without hitting any cervical vertebrae?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dale Myers' model works fine, Bob. Here are some additional images from his computer animation, plus JFK's autopsy photo on the right. The back wound is just where we find it in the autopsy picture, slightly to the right of the spinal column. Click to enlarge.....





Now, Bob, how about answering my last question from a little bit earlier regarding Connally. Is all of this shrugging and flinching and mouth-opening and grimacing and lapel-flipping being caused by something OTHER than a bullet?

Let us hear your anti-SBT explanation with respect to the things we can see happening to Governor John B. Connally in the following Zapruder Film clip which ends at Z225.

I await your astute and stellar observations. ....




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

What you are seeing is a film sequence that has not been compensated for camera movement.

I agree looking at the sequence it does indeed suggest that Connally's left shoulder is rising.

However - and this is important - the individual frames do not show that. Taking the last frame in your sequence, there is a large rise in the left shoulder and it is very close to the bottom of Jackie's hair.

However, the individual last frame in your sequence does not show that.



Forgetting the contribution that frame sequences make to the observable image - i.e. a film strip and an individual frame is not the same - there is no similarity between the last frame in your sequence and what is suggested by the last frame in your gif.

If what your gif suggests is reality, then that last frame should also demonstrate this lifting of the left shoulder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

You're wrong, as proven by the comparison Z-Film frames below which I culled from my in-motion gif clip. Connally's left shoulder is unquestionably higher in Z225 than it was in Z222 (and the last frame in my gif clip is, indeed, Z225, not Z227, as you have incorrectly labeled it in your photo, James):




Plus, there is this toggling clip below of Z224 and Z225. Nobody can possibly deny that Connally's shoulders are RISING between these two Zapruder frames. You aren't going to deny that, are you James? And look at the movement of Connally's necktie in this clip too. That's also very significant. He's flinching without a doubt. Now what do you suppose could have caused this kind of a reflex action in Mr. Connally at this particular time in Mr. Zapruder's home movie?....




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Also note, the area where your gif suggests Connally's left shoulder is rising coincides with the area of Jackie's jacket which happens to be black!!!!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong. The trim around Jackie's jacket isn't black at all. It's navy blue. The dark blue color of her suit jacket's trim is easily discernible in the bright sunlight....




IAN LLOYD SAID:

I think that what you are seeing is not JBC's shoulder rising but is actually a shadow cast on to Jackie's jacket, probably by Nellie Connally's head, as the car moves forward and she herself moves. I think that JBC is just twisting in the seat.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And do you think it's also just a coincidence that Mr. Connally's necktie starts to do a dance and starts RISING and curling up at the exact same instant we see the so-called "shadow" being cast on Jackie? (His "twisting" in his seat caused the necktie to do its dance too, is that correct?)

And what about Connally's facial expressions at this exact same instant too? His mouth opens at exactly Z225. It looks to me like he's grimacing. And that grimace starts at precisely the same instant we see his shoulders flinch and his necktie rise and curl up.

Conspiracy theorists like to say that I am the one in denial when discussing the JFK case. I think I can turn the tables on the CTers in this particular discussion. Because it takes a large amount of "SBT denial" in order to be able to dismiss all of these things we see happening to Governor Connally in Z-frames 224 and 225:

Shoulders hunch up (flinch).
Right shoulder is pushed very slightly downward and forward.
Mouth opens.
Distressed look on face.
Suit coat bulges outward (aka: the lapel flip).
Necktie rises.

And then when we go up one more frame--to frame number 226--we see Connally's right arm start to rise (at the exact same instant when President Kennedy's arms begin to rise as well). And it was, indeed, Mr. Connally's right arm (wrist) that was struck by a bullet in Dealey Plaza.




JAMES R. GORDON SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

But it's not just Connally's left shoulder that hunches up at Z225. His right shoulder rises slightly too. How can there be any doubt of it? I think the frames you used are too small and not zoomed in enough to show the very quick rise then fall of both of Connally's shoulders.

You really think this apparent shoulder movement is ALL just shadows or some other photo anomaly? Come now....



Also....

If anyone wants to suggest that John Connally's body could possibly be casting a shadow onto Jackie in the Zapruder Film, that is impossible. The shadows in Dealey Plaza were falling toward the NORTH, not the SOUTH. We can easily see that fact in the Altgens picture [below]. Any shadow being cast by John Connally would have fallen in JFK's direction, not Jackie's....



Governor Connally's very brief shoulder flinch is no shadow. It's Connally's body tensing up and involuntarily flinching after Oswald's bullet just pierced him in the back.

If it were a shadow being cast by Nellie Connally's head onto Mrs. Kennedy's pink jacket, then it sure came and went incredibly fast, didn't it?




IAN LLOYD SAID:

As the limo turns towards its left as it proceeds down the street, I would imagine it is eminently possible for a shadow to have been cast from Nellie's head onto Jackie's jacket.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you think the shadow on Jackie just disappears after a few frames? And it just HAPPENS to look exactly like Connally's shoulder rising and falling. Because in the gif below, we can certainly see no shadow being cast on the left side of Jackie's suit jacket in the frames immediately after Z230....



And what about John Connally's RIGHT shoulder? It's rising slightly at exactly Z225 too. Is that just a "shadow" as well?

Governor Connally is flinching at Z225, Ian. The Z-Film proves it. And I think you just don't want to accept that reality. Nor does any other CTer in the world.


JON G. TIDD SAID:

Anyone who bases a narrowly focused argument on a portion of the Z-film is building a structure on an unreliable foundation, IMO.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jon,

We all know that even if Bullet CE399 was somehow captured in flight on Zapruder's movie as it sliced through both Kennedy and Connally, there would be many conspiracy theorists who would still deny the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

This discussion revolving around what people see in the Z-Film is a prime example of CTer denial in action. Even when there is fairly firm proof of John Connally reacting to the bullet striking him prior to Z225, it's still not nearly good enough "proof" for CTers who (for some odd reason) continue to deny the SBT. (I mean, even WITH the SBT in place, those CTers can still believe in the make-believe Grassy Knoll shooter and, hence, a conspiracy.)

And so what we get is one excuse after another for dismissing the visual signs of the SBT in the Z-Film. It's quite humorous to see all the lame excuses the CTers have for tossing the SBT in the gutter.

And this simultaneous movement of both JFK's and Connally's right arms is merely a "coincidence" too. Right?....




MARK KNIGHT SAID:

The WC Report is Mr. Von Pein's "bible."

His faith is unshakable: "They said it, I believe it, end of story."

Even if the facts don't line up well. Notice how many of his replies rely on "must have" or "could only have" type responses...or which ones cause him to bring forth "straw man" arguments.

Now, I'm NOT a CTer. I'm not sure WHO killed JFK. But there are so many of the Warren Report conclusions that are either demonstrably false or which are extended speculation that I no longer believe the report.

I hope we discover who killed JFK. Since even Jesse Curry couldn't place Oswald "at that window, with that rifle" at the moment the fatal shots were fired, I think the case is basically unsolved. Now, if evidence is someday uncovered that it definitely was Oswald at that window, firing a rifle, to the exclusion of any other human being, at the moment the fatal shots were fired, THEN the Oswald-did-it story becomes irrefutable. Until then, it's simply speculation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Oswald-Did-It story is reasonable and rational speculation based on the EVIDENCE.

It's the conspiracy theorists who seem to possess the silly desire to make Lee Harvey Oswald blameless for all three attempted murders he committed in the year 1963 (Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit; and it's four if we count the attempted murder of Dallas policeman M.N. McDonald). But the evidence surrounding those murder attempts does just the opposite. And isn't it the evidence that's normally utilized to solve crimes?

Now, if someone could some day prove to me that the large amount of evidence that points to Oswald in the Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit crimes was all fake, then I'd have no choice but to turn in my "Lone Assassin" badge. To date, however, nobody has come close to proving to me that any of the evidence in those cases was fake.

To use Mark Knight's own words:

"Until then, it's simply speculation" that the evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald is not legitimate.


IN A LATER DISCUSSION, DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What about John Connally's grimace at Z225? (Or don't you see that either, James [Gordon]?)

What about Connally opening his mouth at exactly Z225?

And what about that hat/arm flip starting at Z226? Is this another "distortion" in the film?....



BTW, James.....

There's no way that Connally's flinching/shoulder shrugging is just "distortion" in the film [as James Gordon suggested in this post]. And the movement of Connally's NECKTIE at the exact same time as the flinching seals the deal, IMO. Or do you think Connally's tie movement is just "video distortion" too?....




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

You are making my point for me.

This arm movement you talk about is not in the individual slides. If it is a factual element of data, it has to be in the individual slides. If it is not on the individual slides but it is on the movie, then is is a result of distortion of some sort.

Movies do not create changes in the data, they reflect the changes in data. Put another way, the arm/shoulder cannot be seen to move in the movie if that movement cannot be seen in the individual frames.

Now, I agree in your clip the right arm/shoulder [of John Connally] does indeed appear to move. But that change is not on frame 224 — therefore it has to be some kind of distortion on the film.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You must be joking, James.

You're coming up with lots of lame excuses to totally discount ALL of the obvious signs of distress on JBC in the Z-Film. You're now even denying that Connally raised his right arm quickly at Z226.

But it took me three seconds to confirm you don't know what you're talking about. The following three frames are from Costella's Z-Film frames at James Fetzer's website. These are frames 224, 225, and 226. And every single thing you say is NOT in these frames, I can easily see.

E.G., the hunching of JBC's shoulders is easily discernible when toggling between frames 224 and 225 here. And the white blob that appears in Z226 is also very visible, and that white blob is, of course, Connally's light-colored Stetson hat as he rapidly raises it in front of his face after Oswald's bullet has ripped through his wrist 2 frames earlier.

All of this is easily seen if you line these three frames up in separate tabs in your browser and then toggle back and forth between them.....

FRAME 224 .... FRAME 225 .... FRAME 226


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

I have no idea what you are talking about when in Z224/225 gif you mention John Connally's tie? What point are you making?

At the moment I am just working on your Z225/226 gif. Were you aware that between these two frames Zapruder lowered his camera? That is why you see such movement that suggests to you that Connally has been injured and is flinching. When these frames are stabilised, all we see is Connally turning to his left.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the 225-226 clip isn't the one showing the flinching. It's the 224-225 clip that shows the flinch/shoulder-hunching, and quite clearly. And this two-frame GIF below looks pretty "stabilized" to me.

And look at Connally's necktie here. It's "bulging outward", perfectly consistent with the movement we would expect to see in a tie being worn by someone who has just FLINCHED, which we also see in the 224-225 clip.

So what's causing the "tie bulge", James, if it's NOT also related to the flinching we see Connally doing here?....




DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

James Gordon seems to want to come up with SOME type of excuse so that he won't have to call Governor Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing".

Conspiracy theorists do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of "video anomaly". It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say.

But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these frames - especially from 225 to 228 - demonstrate that Connally has been struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is going on - but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is doing.

Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224 and 225 Connally turns around 20º to his left. That is what you are seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet -- it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is turning his body left.

As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left. What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames is:

a) that 20º turn between 224 and 225

b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226 - 228

That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when actually Connally is turning to his left.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.

It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real.

And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth? Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?

And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?







JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about!!

It is perfectly evident to me that you have no IT skills. You have made no attempt to discover whether the gif, you are using yet again, has corrupt frames…….which indeed it has. Tomorrow I will show you the quality of the frames you are basing this nonsense on. You have made no attempt to determine whether the gifs you are showing to this forum actually show what you say they show.

[...]

I need to point out that your poor research of the gifs you are presenting on this forum really angers me. This tie evidence is only part of this present gif, but until I look at it tomorrow I will not be able to say why the tie does what it is doing. Go back to the movie I described earlier and you will see the tie’s movement does not happen there. Whatever is making you think the tie is moving or what, is only part of this very poor gif.

That should bother you that one gif shows this tie movement, whereas the other one does not. If the tie is doing what you suggest, then both movies should show it. In addition, the actual slides do not support this point about the tie. The only evidence that shows this tie movement is a gif that has corrupt frames.

How you are able to tell expression of such poor--and indeed even distorted frames--is beyond me! Some of these frames are really distorted, yet you can tell expression.

I note you are now saying that Connally’s right shoulder is rising. It is turning to its left as Connally turns his body. That is what you are seeing. It is clear to me that you are basing everything on a very poor gif and are not verifying your findings with the frames themselves. I find it of some interest that you are clearly not interested that the frames on which this gif is based do not agree with what the gif is suggesting to you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incredible. What a pack of deniers we've got here. You guys win the 2015 prize in the category of....

"Failure To See The Obvious".

Congratulations.

For the record, I have several other versions of the Z-Film (collected from various online sources, that is), and I just checked each one, and every single version I have shows exactly the same reactions on the part of John Connally. I'll post them all again below.

So, I guess James Gordon's next move is to tell me that ALL of these clips (which have come from different Internet sources over the years) are filled with nothing but "corrupt" frames too. ....

Shoulders rising (and tie bulging outward):



Different version---with the shoulders also rising and the tie moving in the exact same manner as in the clip above this one (just an illusion, Jim?):



And here's another, again showing the very distinct rise of Connally's shoulders, plus the hat flip, plus the tie movement:



And here's yet another source for the same Z-Film scene, again showing JBC's shoulders hiking up at Z225 (also "corrupt", James?):



If James Gordon comes up with more lame excuses to deny what his eyes are seeing in all of the above versions of the Z-Film, he'll win a new trophy --- the "Robert Groden Award" --- in memory of Mr. Groden's fiasco at the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where Groden was shown 30 different pictures of Simpson wearing the very same shoes, but Groden still insisted one of the photos showing the same shoes was a fake.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

Maybe you should not be scolding fellow forum members until you have done some homework.

You say to Robert [in this post], “Don’t tell me YOU can't see the tie moving in the various clips I provided earlier, Bob. You aren't going to deny that John Connally's tie IS moving around at Z225, are you? Take a look again…”

In doing so, you are suggesting that he ought to see what is evident if only he looked.

What you are seeing is a consequence that between Z 223 and Z 224, the colour as well as the position of the tie and the silver roof support clash.

In Z224, the roof support cuts through the tie so that we only see the upper and lower parts of the tie. In-between is the roof support.

These frames shown through a gif suggest the tie is moving when actually it is not. The shape of the tie has changes because of this clash.

You really ought to do your homework.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is getting more hysterical with each passing hour.

James Gordon provides further proof that he's lost in the woods. James now seems to think that I think Connally's tie is moving between 223 and 224. I never claimed any such thing. The tie isn't moving (or "bulging") between 223 and 224, and I have never said it was. The tie is bulging outward, without a doubt, between Z224 and Z225, just like I've been saying all along. Why James is moving the time period up to 223-224 is anyone's guess. ~shrug~



The way things are going now, it looks like it will only be a few days more before James Gordon will be denying the existence of John B. Connally in the car at all.

And once again I want to point out to James my previous posts in this thread [Posts 104 and 105] which feature SIX different "versions" of the Z-Film and Z-Film GIF clips, which I collected over the years from multiple different sources. They are not from the exact same source that James thinks contains "corrupt" frames. And one of those six sources is the 1998 MPI digital version of the Zapruder Film. And surely James isn't going to say that MPI's version consists of "corrupt" frames. Are you, Jim?

And in all six of those Zapruder Film examples that I provided, Governor Connally's reactions between Z224 and Z227 can be seen. Every single one. So Jim will have to call ALL SIX sources "corrupt" in order for Connally's tie NOT to be moving at Z224-Z225 and for Connally's shoulders NOT to be flinching at Z224-Z225 and for Connally's right arm NOT to be jerked skyward at Z225-Z226.

Good luck with all that, Jim.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

If you applaud John Connally's support for the Warren Commission [such as in THIS POST], then I assume you also support his emphatic claim that he was not injured with the first shot. That he was in the process of turning to his left when he was shot. That is exactly what he is doing between Z 222 and 230.

Why do you feel Connally is right to support the Commission but wrong about when he was injured?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He's not wrong about when he was injured, James.

John Connally's testimony and his other comments in interviews are in perfect harmony with the SBT and the overall "Lone Assassin Fired Three Shots" scenario.

Connally ALWAYS said he was not hit by the first shot, but was hit by Shot #2. That's exactly what I think happened too. So I don't think JBC is "wrong" at all. He's 100% right. And he was in the process of turning to his left when he was hit by the SBT bullet at Z224.

As for JBC's anti-SBT stance, that is something he HAD to have gotten mostly from his wife Nellie. We certainly know that JBC himself couldn't know if JFK was hit by the first bullet or the second bullet, because JBC always said he never physically SAW Kennedy after the shooting began....

"I never saw either one of them [JFK or Jackie] after the firing started." -- John B. Connally; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

To see my thoughts about Governor Connally's "The President had slumped" remark in the bedside interview with Martin Agronsky, GO HERE.


PAT SPEER SAID:

While it would be most convenient for your position, David, to believe Nellie was the only obstacle between big John and the single-bullet theory, this is a puff of smoke burped out by those refusing to look at the record.

1. Connally's initial belief was that the first two shots--the ones he was later told were fired by Oswald using a bolt-action rifle--were extremely close together--and were fired by an automatic weapon.

2. At the request of the Warren Commission, he studied the Zapruder film, and came to believe Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign, while he was hit just after coming out from behind the sign.

3. He trusted his doctor Robert Shaw, who told him the bullet hitting him had not hit Kennedy first.

So it wasn't just Nellie that told him the SBT was incorrect--it was everything he trusted...his ears, his eyes, his doctor, AND his wife.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

And yet, despite all that information being gathered by John Connally, he was still all wrong about the SBT.

But Connally did say he thought the SBT was "possible" when asked about it by CBS News in 1967....

JOHN CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is .... it had to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?"

JOHN CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."


~~~~~

So, unlike nearly all "Internet CTers", at least the Texas Governor was a reasonable critic of the single-bullet conclusion.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Having studied these frames - Z 222 to Z 230 - it is clear that what is happening is that John Connally is turning his body to the left so that by Z 230 he is actually facing forward. These frames in a gif would demonstrate that - were Z 226 and Z 227 and Z 228 not partially or wholly blurred. Unfortunately they are blurred and when incorporated into a gif these same frames throw up extraordinary results. It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you [David Von Pein] to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck.

Aside from your statement about the tie, nothing you say about these frames stands up to serious scrutiny. That leads me to wonder who is it, that is actually in “total denial.”


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me try this approach....

1.) James R. Gordon knows for a fact that John B. Connally was shot by a rifle bullet on 11/22/63 at a point in time which James also knows is very close in "real time" to Zapruder frames 224-230 (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND).

2.) Therefore, since #1 is so obviously true, there is probably a point in the Zapruder home movie that shows Connally's initial reaction(s) to being hit by the bullet that injured him.

3.) As I have illustrated about 99 times now, Zapruder frames 224 to 227 indicate some definite changes in Governor Connally's appearance that could very easily be said to be "involuntary startle reactions" to some kind of external stimulus.

4.) When factoring in #2 and #3, in tandem, what do you suppose the odds are that the movements by John Connally seen in Zapruder frames 224-227 are movements that have nothing whatsoever to do with the injuries sustained by John Connally at almost that exact same time (give or take a FRACTION OF A SECOND)?

5.) There are no frames in the Zapruder movie AFTER approx. Z230 in which any kind of "jerky" or "startle" type reactions can be seen with respect to Governor Connally's movements.

With the above five things in mind, James, do you still want to stick with this conclusion?....

"It is these same extraordinary results that allow members like you to suggest that these very frames actually suggest that John Connally is reacting to being struck by a bullet when - in fact - he has not been struck." -- J. Gordon


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

You agreed that between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is indeed seen to be turning left. And this is critical to this whole story. Between Z 222 and Z 230 John Connally is turning left to face forward. The dispute here is that in making this turn you are interpreting moments in this turn as demonstrating evidence that John Connally has been wounded when in fact all that is happening is that John Connally is turning to his left.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me repeat my earlier question that I asked you a day or two ago....

"It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging", James? Get real."


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Nor does John Connally’s hat begin to flip at Z 226 forwards.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an astonishing statement, James, in light of the fact that I've already provided you with SIX different versions of the Z-Film (collected by me from various Internet sources, including the MPI "Image Of An Assassination" digital version), which ALL show the hat flip beginning at the exact same moment--Z226.

Here once again is one of those six versions produced earlier, and this is a good quality version, which positively proves you are wrong regarding the hat flip. It's occurring at Z226, just like in all of my other versions. Deny it if you desire, but it's here just the same:




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

These “jerky” and “startled” reactions that you talk about only occur between Z 226 and Z 228. And these are blurred frames. These reactions have nothing to do with John Connally, they are a consequence of Zapruder moving his camera...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incredible, Jim. Simply incredible. Your denial has reached a new zenith. It's not an easy task to totally dismiss so many VISUAL clues about John Connally's reactions that everybody can easily see right before their own eyes. But you have managed to accomplish it. My congratulations go out to you.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

BTW, another thing that is happening with John Connally in the clip below is that his head moves DOWNWARD just slightly at Z225....



This can be "measured" (at least in part) by looking at Jackie and then comparing the level of Connally's head to Jackie's in Z225. JBC's head moves a little LOWER than Jackie's head behind him. This type of head movement (akin to a "ducking" motion) is also in perfect harmony with all of Connally's other movements at Z225 --- the flinching shoulders, the opening of his mouth, the startled look (which is not there on his face at Z224, at least as far as I can tell; but, I'll grant you, the frames aren't super clear, but they are clear enough to make these basic determinations, IMO). And I also detect Connally's eyes closing shut for one frame at Z225 too. Again, perfectly consistent with an involuntary flinch right after he was shot.

So, we've got....

Flinching of the shoulders.
Scrunching of the head downward.
Mouth opening.
Eyes closing.
Lapel flipping.

All in just Z224 and Z225 alone.

Then, just one frame later, that hat flip---which James says is just a figment of my imagination too....



And yet, even with all of the above, according to CTers, Connally HASN'T been hit by a bullet yet. The bullet's going to hit him in another one second or so (probably even less than that). And his RIGHT WRIST is going to get smashed by that bullet---which, per CTers, HASN'T yet hit him as of Z226, even though the same RIGHT ARM/WRIST goes flying upward at 226. Go figure that. I sure can't.

That's a lot of stuff for me to be fooled by, don't you think? It's a whole array of things in Z224-227 that James Gordon is filing in his folder labelled....

Things that appear to be happening to John B. Connally in the Z-Film, but aren't really happening at all. It's all due to either "corrupt" video frames, Mr. Zapruder's camera movement, and/or the simple fact that Governor Connally is merely turning to his left in his seat.

Yeah, sure James. And I'm going to win TWO lotteries next week.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Let's have a look at the private message I received on the morning of May 16, 2015, from Education Forum administrator and moderator James R. Gordon....


[Quote On:]

Posting privileges removed

David,

I know this should not happen, but you have really got under my skin.

I am really very angry with your sarcastic mockery of myself and your arrogant self conceit.

I understand this is not the way I should behave, but I am just so angry at the way you have treated me that I have resorted to something I would not normally do.

Sorry.

James

[End Quote.]


Here is my reply to James at 12:37 PM EDT on May 16, 2015....


[Quote On:]

That's okay, James. I was halfway expecting something like this to occur, what with you being the head man at The Education Forum.

But to be totally clear, James, you DO realize, of course, that I have not broken a single forum rule during our discussion about John Connally and the Single-Bullet Theory. Right? And if "sarcastic mockery" were truly legitimate grounds for having posting privileges suspended at your forum, then I dare say that more than half of your current members would have long ago suffered the same penalty that you just imposed upon me.

Regards,
David Von Pein

[End Quote.]


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

You misunderstand the present administration: I am not the head man. When this administration [at The Education Forum] came together, the leader then and now is Kathy [Becket]. We do allow each member to act independently and that is what you saw today [5/16/15]. And if truth be told, I am aware I really did act before thinking. I was very angry and it was maybe intemperate to act as I did.

However, this situation has raised issues that I had not thought about which may - and stress may - not be fully covered by our guidance to members. However, the administration see this guidance as more a work in progress than fixed statutes.

I accept that you have a very firm understanding of the assassination, and I do not expect that to change. However, the way you treat members - like you have done with me - and humiliate and insult them has raised a serious question. The thread on the SBT is one where members really do want an open discussion. However, although members raised questions for you, you simply brushed them away. One member of the admin team said to me that you “will always make light of any "inconvenient" [to you] facts, and will then ridicule anyone who supports those facts.” I would hope that - even if that is the case now - it would not always remain the case and that you could be more positively involved in debate.

This forum needs someone with your grounding in and understanding of the Warren Commission - but I have been wondering since I suspended your privileges whether the EF needs someone who looks down on those who hold a different opinion to the assassination that you hold. If you are just going to inform fellow members of your opinion and those of the Commission, as opposed to openly discussing issues that members really want to discuss, then I am not sure what the EF benefits from this - let alone what you benefit from it.

I would be interested in hearing your thinking on this issue.

James.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

I think I have been "openly discussing" various issues at the EF forum. Yes, my opinion is pretty firm on the "LN" and "WC" side of things, but that's because I believe ALL of the physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and supports the SBT as well).

And when someone decides to (IMO) misrepresent things--as I firmly believe you have done when examining Connally's reactions in the Z-Film--then I think I should call them on it and point out those misrepresentations (and/or errors in their thinking). And most of the "LNer vs. CTer" debates, IMO, really DO come down to pointing out and correcting the misrepresentations made over and over again by the CTers on forums. I see it all the time---on Edu. Forum, on Facebook, on Duncan MacRae's forum, on McAdams' newsgroup, on IMDB---everywhere. CTers perpetuate myth after myth, year after year, and that's a big reason I post on forums today---to give the other side to anyone who cares to absorb it.

Most CTers, of course, think that it's I who "misrepresent" the facts. I feel strongly otherwise. So there's the perpetual stalemate --- Who's right? Who's wrong? That debate will likely never end.

But, James, you are just not seeing things properly if you really think that all we're seeing in John Connally's movements in Z224-Z228 is merely a man turning to his left in his seat to face forward. I see LOTS more than that. And I think--deep down--you do too.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

BTW, here's yet another GIF clip showing Zapruder frames 224 and 225. This one appears to be a little better in overall quality than the darker Z224-225 clip that I've posted a million times previously. And in this version, we see all of the exact same things that we see in the other 224-225 clip --- Connally's shoulders rising, his mouth opening, his head moving downward slightly, and his necktie bulging outward:




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

I acknowledge that my suspension of David Von Pein’s posting privileges was hasty and wrong. I apologise to members for making such a hasty decision and will endeavour not to act again in such a way in the future.

David Von Pein’s posting privileges have been restored [as of 9:44 PM EDT, May 16, 2015].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, James.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

This frame 273 shows Connally turning around to look at JFK. David, do you really think he did this nearly three seconds after being shot in the back?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What makes you think Connally should have instantly collapsed into a heap in the car after he was shot?

I know that there have been some conspiracists over the years who have advocated the notion that John Connally was not hit by ANY bullet until AFTER President Kennedy was shot in the head. But it's fairly obvious (to me) that when looking at the Zapruder Film in motion, Connally has been injured well prior to Z313. It's very clear (to me) that he is exhibiting a considerable amount of distress just after Z-Film frame 224 and in the frames that immediately follow....



Plus, we know from Governor Connally's own testimony and his many public interviews after the assassination (four of which can be found below) that he didn't say "My God, they're going to kill us all" until AFTER he was hit by the bullet....

"I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all"." -- John Connally; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

"Then I said right after I was hit, I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all"." -- John Connally; 1978 HSCA Testimony

And we can easily see in the above Z-Film excerpt that Mr. Connally's mouth is moving and he is most certainly SAYING SOMETHING as he turns around in his seat.

Now, conspiracy theorists can always argue that we really can't KNOW for a fact WHAT the Texas Governor was uttering as we see his mouth moving in the above pre-Z313 frames, but that argument is not a very strong one in light of the testimony of both John and Nellie Connally, who testified that the ONLY words being uttered by the Governor immediately after he was shot were "Oh, no, no, no" and "My God, they're going to kill us all".

Perhaps what we need is a really good lip reader to examine the Zapruder Film to nail down exactly what words Governor Connally is saying in the silent film.

Plus, the theory about Connally not being hit by a bullet until after the JFK head shot is defeated by the additional testimony of John Connally, who always said the third shot (the head shot to JFK) occurred AFTER Connally himself had already been hit. That fact is very plain whenever listening to Mr. Connally recount the events of 11/22/63.


video


video


video


video


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

So you believe some of what Connally says but not all? 'Cos it doesn't suit your theory. Got it!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And by that, can I assume that you DO believe ALL of John Connally's testimony and statements? Including this statement?....

"All of the shots came from the same place--from back over my right shoulder. They weren't in front of us. They weren't at the side of us. There were no sounds like that emanating from those directions." -- John Connally; 1967; CBS-TV


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Nice dodge, Dave. So you agree that he was right when he said he wasn't hit by the first shot. He knew when he was shot, but, as far as where the shots came from, how would he know?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well....uh....let me think....

Maybe he could tell by the sound of the shots?

Could that possibly have been it?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Yeah...because no one else was fooled by the acoustic qualities of Dealey Plaza, why should Connally be any different?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark Knight, of course, will just ignore the fact that John Connally's "ALL OF THE SHOTS CAME FROM BACK OVER MY RIGHT SHOULDER" testimony is buttressed by all of the physical evidence that was found in a building that was located BACK OVER CONNALLY'S RIGHT SHOULDER.

Funny coincidence there, huh?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

You just don't get it, do you, Dave? Connally actually felt the shot hit him, so he should know when it did. He heard the shots and thought they came from behind him. Vast difference, but then you wouldn't understand that as it doesn't fit your scenario.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You must be joking this time, Ray. The things you mentioned above regarding Governor Connally fit the "Lone Assassin" and "SBT" scenarios beautifully. In fact, it's perfect.

Everything John Connally has said over the years regarding the things he had first-hand knowledge of has been perfectly consistent with the Single-Bullet Theory and the overall "Oswald Did All The Shooting From The Sixth Floor Of The Book Depository" scenario.

Connally was hit in the back by the shot that was directly IN-BETWEEN the two shots he heard coming from "back over my right shoulder".

Ergo, the shot he felt hit him (but did not hear) obviously ALSO had to have come from the same general direction as the two shots he did hear—i.e., from behind him.

There's nothing inconsistent or unbelievable about any of John Connally's testimony whatsoever. And it fits the SBT to a tee.

As for JBC's belief that he and JFK were struck by different bullets --- that belief almost certainly stemmed in large part from his wife's belief that JFK reacted first and then JBC reacted after Kennedy.

But Nellie certainly wasn't aware of all of these ultra-fast reactions that took place an instant after Z224. No way she saw all this flinching and lapel movement and grimacing and arm raising and tie displacement. What Nellie saw, instead, were her husband's SECONDARY and VOLUNTARY reactions, which began just a short time later. And in her mind, she thought the reactions of the two victims were separated by a lengthier period of time than they really were. And who could blame her? I think any of us probably would have thought the same thing Nellie thought, given the circumstances.

But if I had a chance to show the late Mrs. Connally and the late Governor Connally the in-motion GIF clips presented below, I'm confident that I could make SBT believers out of both of them in less than 15 minutes....












RAY MITCHAM SAID:

No "ergo" about it. It is your assumption.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think it's more reasonable to believe that the shots that Connally said he heard coming FROM BEHIND really came from the FRONT (or at least one of those shots anyway), even though we KNOW that at least one of the shots that was fired that day definitely DID come from behind Connally (based on the fact Connally was physically hit by that bullet IN THE BACK, which means it HAD to have come "from behind")?

Is that about the size of your argument, Ray?

If so, you need to re-think a few things. Because that theory is really bizarre and unreasonable (from virtually every perspective).


MARK VALENTI SAID:

I realize that members [of The Education Forum] have a decided antipathy toward DVP, but for anyone to claim that these men are not being hit at the same time, well it's ludicrous....




RON ECKER SAID:

They could have been hit at virtually the same time but not by the same bullet. Just like JFK could have been hit in the head by two virtually simultaneous shots.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I doubt either thing was possible (given the Z-Film evidence). Dale Myers' exacting "key framing" of his computer 3D model to the Zapruder Film itself makes it fairly evident that Ron's first suggestion couldn't have occurred ("They could have been hit at virtually the same time but not by the same bullet").

It's pretty clear that Kennedy is in the bullet path during the critical Z-Film period in question when Connally was most likely hit by a bullet. So it looks like that bullet had NO CHOICE but to go through Kennedy first in order to get to Connally's upper back....




As for the two simultaneous head shots --- If that were the case, why is there just ONE explosion of JFK's head? Why don't we see MULTIPLE explosions of blood and brain matter if JFK had been hit two times in the head?

In other words, how could TWO separate shots to the head look so much like just ONE?....




And I think a similar "In other words" question can be asked of the conspiracy theorists who detest the Single-Bullet Theory so much ---

In other words, how could TWO (or more!) bullets have caused the damage to both President Kennedy and Governor Connally....and yet have those multiple bullets look so much like a SINGLE-BULLET EVENT in Abraham Zapruder's home movie AND in Commission Exhibit No. 903, to boot?




PAMELA BROWN SAID:

BTW, it is illogical to jump on the concept of a 'lapel flip'. In fact, there may well have been no 'lapel flip'. That was probably just a Posner invention, as part of his SB [Single Bullet] scenario in CC ["Case Closed"]. There is a shadow coming through the side window of the limo. That's all...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I disagree, Pam. As do many others ----> CLICK HERE.

You really think this is merely a "shadow", Pam? ....



In addition, I could also make a pretty fair argument that, at least in part, Connally's necktie is bulging outward as a result of the lapel physically touching the tie and causing it to move too. It's hard to tell, but I think what I just said about the lapel hitting the tie could possibly have some merit.


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

Dave, I revisited your page and am reminded of some excellent points, especially in the micro-analysis of Connally's movements during his wounding.

However, you do not seem to allow for a scenario in which the JFK back entry shot exits the neck and flies out the limo and is lost and a separate shot hits JC [John Connally], increasing the tally by one and not two [bullets]? Rather, you focus on the neck entry and two non-transiting bullets in JFK, which of course is a poor counter argument to the SBT (I agree it's ludicrous).

I do not support this scenario, but a single shot to JFK that exits his neck is a more appropriate alternative despite the issues with angles over the bullet exiting the car to be "lost"...hence, not two extra shots, but one. Again, not an alternative I support, but it's at least a better alternative than the two extra shots.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Patrick,

The reason I concentrate more attention on the "Two Bullets Entered Kennedy And Didn't Exit And Then Both Got Lost" anti-SBT scenario is because THAT is precisely what 99% of "Internet CTers" believe. Just ask any CTer on the forums. They'll invariably say they believe the JFK throat wound was an ENTRY wound. They almost ALWAYS say that.

Ergo, those CTers believe in the "3 Bullets To Replace The SBT" scenario. (Except for Fetzer, who has at least four bullets to replace CE399---with all four vanishing without a trace.)

So, yes, a thru-and-thru JFK wound that somehow misses Connally is a much more reasonable CTer alternative (which is what Dr. Cyril Wecht believes, as you can see and hear for yourself here and here), but since nearly all conspiracy theorists that I've ever talked to online believe that JFK's throat wound was an entry, I usually bring up the "3 Bullet" substitute when discussing the anti-SBT alternative scenarios.


PATRICK COLLINS SAID:

David,

Thanks for the response. I find it incredible and nigh on unfathomable as to how such a high % of so-called JFK assassination buffs believe the bullet did not transit (did not exit) and that the anterior neck wound was an entry. It's quite astonishing.

The consequences of two non-transiting bullets are obvious in terms of cover-up and chicanery - and stretches the imagination to the limit. Not to mention the chances of two bullets just stopping in "soft" tissue - it beggars belief.


HENRY SIENZANT SAID:

What many conspiracists also currently believe about CE399 is that it was swapped out later after a bullet, unrelated to the assassination, was discovered in Parkland Hospital shortly after President Kennedy and Governor Connally were brought there. They claim this is a simpler explanation than a single-bullet theory.

Ask them to explain the issues with their swapped bullet scenario and they go mute. They like to pick apart the Warren Commission reconstruction of the event but never offer anything in its place that doesn't come with even bigger issues.

The swapping argument leads to these huge issues:

1. Somehow a shooting victim of another crime -- of which there is no record -- arrives at Parkland Hospital and it's his bullet, not one from the Governor, that is recovered. Ask for the evidence of this separate shooting, and it turns out there is none. They are simply assuming it.

2. The Governor's bullet is recovered in the operating room, but conspiracy personnel take possession of it and discard it later. Ask for the evidence of this extra bullet, and it is sparse. Ask why the conspirators didn't retain this bullet and use it to frame Oswald, they argue it must have been from another weapon, so it would expose the conspiracy (another assumption on their part). Ask then why the conspirators couldn't swap this real bullet from the shooting for one traceable to Oswald's weapon, and they go mute.

3. Ask why this other shooting victim's bullet was found nearby a stretcher that was provably either Governor Connally's or a five-year-old's (Ronald Fuller, who had a bloody nose from a fall, and was NOT A SHOOTING VICTIM), and not this supposed other shooting victim's stretcher, and they have no good evidence, nor any good answer. They conjecture the shooting victim, and they likewise conjecture an unrelated bullet being found, and they conjecture a swapping (as they previously conjectured a planting - which is still argued as valid by many conspiracists).

4. The swapping conjecture is based solely on a claim by the man who originally found the bullet that he remembered the bullet having a different shape -- years after the assassination. He remembered the bullet he found having a more pointy nose, as opposed to CE399, which has a rounded nose. Asked why his memory should be trusted, years later, in lieu of the actual hard evidence of CE399, and they have no good answer. Like they conjectured the shooting victim, like they previously conjectured the planting, they conjecture the swapping merely because it conforms to their belief in a conspiracy.

AND BEST OF ALL:
5. Their argument that the bullet emerged nearly intact from another shooting victim, was found later in the hospital, emerged nearly intact and still retained its pointy nose, and swapped later for a bullet traceable to Oswald's weapon eviscerates their own claim that bullets can't do that, and didn't do that in the Kennedy assassination. For if they are correct in their argument that a bullet struck a shooting victim, did emerge nearly intact (still with its nose in good condition), and was found in a hospital later on a stretcher, why couldn't the shooting victim be named John Connally?





JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

There has been no debate on the SBT and John Connally's lapel. David Von Pein's posts - throughout these pages - have drowned [out] any chance for fellow members discussing this issue.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? Why on Earth would you say such a thing, James?

How is it that my posts regarding various other issues connected with the SBT and John Connally's reactions in the Z-Film --- which are issues that YOU yourself have commented on repeatedly in this thread --- are prohibiting other members from steering the conversation back to my thread-starting title -- "John Connally's Lapel"?

Are all other Education Forum members now somehow gagged? And are they somehow forced to keep quiet about the "lapel" even though this thread (like all forum threads almost always do) drifted away from the "lapel" topic and focused more on Connally's other reactions as seen in the Zapruder Film?

I'm afraid I'm forced to do another one of these (and it's almost as noticeable as the one John Connally can be seen doing in the Zapruder movie) ----> ~shrug~


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

This thread is focusing my interest on [an] issue that - at the moment - I do not have an answer to. The issue is this: at what point does a member's right to post and discuss limit the rights of other members to also discuss? Is there a point where the rights of other members override the rights of any individual member?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Time for another one ----> ~shrug~


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Although this thread has reached 14 pages [as of the morning of May 19, 2015], there has been no serious debate on the issues. And what I do not know is where is the line between every member having his/her right to post and the point where an individual's right to post in [is???] limiting fellow members right to debate and discuss.

I do not have an answer to this problem at the moment.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think a better question is:

Why is James Gordon inventing a "problem" where none seems to exist at all?

Fellow members are still free to post anything they want. (Aren't they, Jim?)

And fellow posters can steer the debate back to ONLY the topic of "John Connally's Lapel" if they want to. Right?

So what IS the "problem"? I see none--other than a "problem" being manufactured by an administrator named James Gordon who seems to have a desire to FIND some kind of "problem" with an Education Forum member he vehemently disagrees with named David R. Von Pein.

And, btw, even though I gave this thread the title of "John Connally's Lapel", everybody can easily see that in the thread-starting post, I talk about a whole lot of OTHER stuff besides just the "lapel". So, in reality, this thread HAS remained pretty much on course and on the rails when the TOTALITY of everything I discuss in my thread-starter is taken into account (the actual title of the thread notwithstanding).

Everyone is free to disagree with my next comment if they so desire, but....

Based on the comments I just quoted above by James Gordon, it sounds to me like James is trying his hardest to steer the topic back to ONLY the area of "John Connally's Lapel" and keep the discussion AWAY from some of Connally's other reactions seen in the Z-Film (e.g., the flinching, the grimace, the arm raising, etc.). And the only reason I can envision James wanting to do that is because he knows--deep down--that his posts in this thread have been totally defeated and flattened by my counter-arguments and various GIF clips proving that James is 100% wrong about his interpretations concerning Governor Connally's movements in frames 224 to 227 of the Zapruder Film. (IMHO.)


MARK VALENTI SAID:

James, he [John Connally] is obviously wincing in pain. His right hand flips quickly, his mouth opens in agony, his eyes shut in pain. I don't know what blurred frames have to do with changing that truth. I'm trying to understand your point, but I am not able to do so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen, Mark.

And this slo-mo GIF shows Connally's initial involuntary reactions even better (this clip ends at Z225, before the arm/hat flip starts).....



And then, just one frame later, the arm/hat flip at Z226, which just happens to be the EXACT same frame when President Kennedy starts raising his right arm too. The right arms of the two victims who were shot that day are jerking upward simultaneously. If this isn't a good solid indication that both Kennedy and Connally were hit by the very same bullet, then what is?....




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Mark,

Z 224 + 225 are reasonably clear frames. Therefore, running them in a gif will give an accurate account of the content of the frames translated into movement.

However, Z 226 is a little blurred. When the gif comes to translate that, it may well include errors because the image is not very clear. That said, I expect a reasonable proportion of the data in the image will still be translated.

Now Z 227 is totally blurred. What can the gif make of that image? However, it has to be translated into movement and that is why you get that massive reaction that you earlier say that if members don't see what is going on there, then there is nothing to say.

However, what is going on is the gif trying to analyse and make sense of a frame that is extremely blurred and whose data points - like Connally's head - are difficult to describe and is also in a radically different position. That is the reason you get that massive movement. It is not Connally moving, it is the gif trying to analyse very blurred frames and make sense of them.

That is what I mean.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But James....

Once we get to the blurry frame 227, it's all over with anyway. I.E., Connally's already been hit and he has ALREADY reacted back there in the clearer frames (Z224-225-226).

So what makes the difference whether Z227 is clear or not? The cat's already out of the bag (so to speak). Connally's already been wounded prior to Z227, and he is visibly reacting to being hit by the bullet in the clearer frames (Z224-226).

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

I was not talking to you. My post was trying to answer a question of Mark's.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I know that. I answered anyway. Is that against forum rules now?


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

As far as I know, it is not against the rules. The conversation I was having was with Mark.

I am not interested in your views.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's been blatantly obvious for days now.


MARK VALENTI SAID:

James, not to belabor the obvious, but still photos and moving images can't be compared like that. The mind accepts and adjusts for things like blurs when watching a moving image. Our brains organically grasp the kinetic congruity of the filmed motion, even when individual frames may be indistinct. We subconsciously understand fluidity, spatial logic and 'movie time' vs. real life.

There's all kinds of data contained in a still frame that has no bearing on what can be gleaned from a moving image.

I understand your argument now, I believe, but I have to disagree. JBC's movements are entirely consistent with those of a man who is being shot and then reacting. Both men are reacting at the same time. Whether or not that means one bullet or two, that's another discussion.


BUD SAID [HERE AND HERE]:

Just read this and saw that DVP had his posting privileges returned.

It was great to read DVP forcing those dolts to shove their heads up their own asses to avoid acknowledging the clear indications of the SBT.

[...]

[James Gordon] got angry because DVP was challenging his core beliefs. [Gordon] needs the SBT to be false because he needs Oswald to be a patsy.

Actually DVP was hammering these clowns with facts. They were getting destroyed in the debate so they had to make it into something DVP is doing wrong.

These conspiracy hobbyists can't wrap their heads around the notion that their ideas are not worthy of respect.

And you can go to the discussion on the SBT on Education Forum and see the number of snide remarks and put downs DVP had to endure. The difference being he didn't cry about it. He made his bones in the nuthouse, and you'll develop a tough skin in that place.

See, this hobbyist [James Gordon] is completely out of touch with reality. DVP was not parroting the WC or just throwing out unsupported opinions. He was backing up his contentions using the evidence. He was showing why he was right and these folks were wrong. And man did they hate that.

[...]

Some assclown named Robert Prudhomme keeps threatening to provide a "thrashing" on the issue but never seems to have anything to contribute. James Gordon is desperately trying to find justifications to ignore the clear indications that Connally was shot, and some other mental midget keeps popping in to say he doesn't bother arguing with LNers (and it's clear to see why not, he might be forced to think and defend his cherished fantasies).

But they will never give in on this point as it would take them one step closer to the truth, and that is where they fear to tread.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Amen, Bud. Thank you. Always great to read your posts [many of which can be found here]. You always hit the bull's-eye with your first shot.

David Von Pein
January 2015
May 2015


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


STILL MORE "SBT" STUFF:


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/index/The Single-Bullet Theory

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/index/Commission Exhibit 399

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Debating The Single-Bullet Theory

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The SBT In Action (Zapruder Film Clips)

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/The Single-Bullet Theory

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/The Single-Bullet Theory

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/284975f119fe13c0

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de1c41667a7635b0

http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea87c6963644d0c0

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