PAT SPEER SAID:
The FBI took a series of photos showing the trajectory rod in comparison to the back wound location. NONE of these were published by the commission or entered into evidence. Now, why do you think that was, Dave? Because they supported the SBT? Well, how could that be, when the photo that became CE903, with the rod INCHES above the back wound location in the FBI's photos, also supports the SBT?
Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works in both photos?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted. But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But CE903 is the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be placed up in the neck of JFK.
Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.
If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.
Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.
So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.
Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?
But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either.
Let me ask this of the CTers:
Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?
If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.
And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the trajectory isn't even close either!"
If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-bin crazy.
In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).
I'll also ask this question:
If CE903 is such a "con", as Pat Speer said earlier, then I'm wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like this one to ever get released to the public? Why weren't those pictures destroyed?
Also:
Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely?
And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed.
And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210.
But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.
Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been about 17 degrees downward).
The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903.
And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory.
In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.
And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in (click the picture for a larger view):
Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered
[at 5 H 133]:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"
THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."
MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"
MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."
MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"
MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."
Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).
Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.
That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.
David Von Pein
December 22, 2011
May 17, 2013
December 9, 2014
