JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "You obviously have not read about or seen the Nix film." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Rob actually thinks I've never seen Orville Nix's film. ~chuckle~
>>> "[The Nix Film] shows very clearly that [Jackie Kennedy] is reaching for a piece of skull on the back portion of the automobile." <<<
The Nix Film shows the exact same thing that the Zapruder Film shows.
Except that the Z-Film shows it much, much better and clearer and
But, again...so what? Who really cares? It's a complete non-issue when
the "sum total" of evidence that CTers refuse to face is placed next
to Jackie's "trunk" action (alone).
(Didn't you even read why I wrote about this earlier, and why it's a
total non-issue, like most of the silly things propped up as
meaningful by you conspiracy mongers?)
>>> "Clint Hill saw this as well and told the WC that it appeared to him that Mrs. Kennedy was, "reaching for something" (II, 138) flying over the rear of the automobile." <<<
Yep. And I fully acknowledged Hill's statement along those lines in my
earlier post on this matter.
Again, so what?
>>> "What else do you think would make Mrs. Kennedy get up and crawl to the back of a moving car with shots being fired? I can't think of anything, how about you?" <<<
Yeah, I can think of one tiny little thing that might make Jacqueline
Bouvier Kennedy react in such a manner --- THE BLOODY HEAD OF HER
HUSBAND WAS FALLING DIRECTLY TOWARD HER IN THE BACK SEAT!
Think that MIGHT make a person want to initially GET THE HELL OUT OF
THE WAY OF THE FALLING BODY? I do.
But evidently, per you kooks, within literally TWO SECONDS of seeing
her husband shot in the head a few inches from her own body, Jackie's
ONLY thought during those horrifying seconds was to retrieve a chunk
of skull on the trunk.
>>> "The blowout occurs with the EXIT area of the wound." <<<
Yep. (And "Duh!" too.)
And the EXIT wound on John Kennedy's head was just where the official
autopsy X-ray (shown below) suggests it is -- at the RIGHT-FRONT
portion of the head.
And just look at the BACK part of JFK's head in the X-ray below (which
would be the area of the head on the LEFT side of the X-ray picture).
Not a sign of a hole anywhere.
In fact, the fracture lines that radiate from the larger wound in the
right-front of the head are not even all that extensive at the RIGHT-
REAR portion of the head at all (at least any such radiating "fracture
lines" are certainly not very noticeable in this "Right Side Of The
Head" X-ray at any rate).
Which is pretty doggone amazing if the BACK part of Kennedy's skull
had been totally BLASTED AWAY, as most of you conspiracy kooks believe
was the case. And this X-ray has not been "faked":
"The [House Select] committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII
>>> "In other words, the force of the bullet leaving causes the skull, blood, tissue and matter to go in the SAME direction as the exit direction. If the skull is blown backwards, then the shot came from the front." <<<
Tell that to all of the many people who have conducted tests with
rifle bullets being shot into human skulls who have proved EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE of what you just said about the direction a skull will move
The test skulls of John Lattimer's ALL moved toward the direction of
the shooter. Every single one (of many). .....
"Combinations of human skull tops and melons were tested, and, again, all fell backward off the stand toward the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell AWAY from the shooter. .... I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN" (c.1980)
And prior to Lattimer's skull tests, there were Dr. Olivier's tests
done for the Warren Commission in '64, which produced results very
similar to Lattimer's and closely resembled JFK's actual head wound
after a test skull was shot from behind. Let's listen:
DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER -- "This is the [test] skull in question [CE861]..."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away."
MR. SPECTER -- "How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on President Kennedy?"
DR. OLIVIER -- "Very similar. I think they stated the length of the defect, the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember correctly. .... In this [test] case, it is greater, but you don't have the limiting scalp holding the pieces in, so you would expect it to fly a little more; but it is essentially a similar type wound."
>>> "If the skull is blown backwards, then the shot came from the
Again, tell that to the late Dr. Lattimer, who proved just the opposite. Or,
you can call up Penn & Teller and call them liars too. They conducted
an on-camera rifle test (with a melon, since neither Rob nor Jim Fetzer would
volunteer to get into the line of fire for the test, darn-it!)...and guess which
direction the melon fell? [See video below.]
"Second gunman?....my achin' ass."
>>> "Anything is possible, but this is not very likely." <<<
Especially if a man named "Oswald" is suspected of anything more than
jaywalking on 11/22/63...right Mr. Conspiracy?
>>> "There is no way [JFK] could have been shot from behind, and yet have a piece of skull from the front of his head go back that far against the force of the exit area pressure." <<<
Even though we KNOW (and can SEE) that his head is thrown violently to
the REAR just after the head shot, huh? (After the initial FORWARD head
movement, of course, which indicates the shot struck him from BEHIND.)
But, Dr. Caprio has spoken! So I guess we must yield to his superior
knowledge as an expert in this field.
>>> "[Jackie] could have put [a skull fragment imagined by kooks to have been retrieved by Jackie off of the trunk] on her lap. This is not real hard to imagine." <<<
Nor is the much-more-likely-to-be-true (and much-more-sensible)
scenario of Jackie gaining possession of a skull fragment while trying
to hold JFK's head together.
>>> "You need to think up better rebuttals." <<<
Why? Mine work just fine. They totally destroy your conspiracy-
flavored nonsense each and every time. Why on Earth would I need
anything "better" to embarrass you with?
You, OTOH, should think about coming up with some better kook
arguments. Your current crop only displays your utter lack of
knowledge in virtually all aspects of this case (and, of course,
displays your lack of ordinary common sense, to boot).
But, then too, almost all CT-Kooks jettison their common sense once
they start talking about this assassination. That's a very curious
And your arguments above about the direction a skull will positively
move after being shot only further entrench you in the "ignorant"
David Von Pein
December 16, 2007
Posted By: David Von Pein