Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Jackie Trunk. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Jackie Trunk. Sort by date Show all posts

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 94)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

When you say [Jackie] would leave her dying husband, and only worry about her own safety, that is basically what you are saying [that Jackie was a "coward"].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie. More stuff being mangled by a rabid conspiracist.

I never said that Jackie went to the trunk because she was worried about "her own safety". Never once did I even HINT about such a thing. In fact, that's just dumb. Because if she had been only concerned with her own "safety" at that moment, she would have cowered to the bottom of the limo's back seat, away from any more potential gunfire. But, instead, she did exactly the opposite....making herself a bigger target out on the trunk.

I said she probably went to the trunk to merely get out of the way of the falling (bloody) body of her husband....which is almost certainly the truth of the matter. She almost certainly did NOT have it in her mind at that point in time (2 seconds after the fatal shot, mind you) to go out on the trunk and get a hunk of JFK's head. That's just idiotic, IMO.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

She [Jackie] could have "jumped ship" when JFK brought his arms up and supposedly said, "I'm hit".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK never uttered a word. Only Kellerman made that claim. But the two women (Jackie and Nellie), who were closer to JFK than Kellerman was, testified that JFK said nothing at all after he was shot.


J. LEE RANKIN -- "Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the time of the shooting?"

JACQUELINE KENNEDY -- "No; there weren't any words. There was just Governor Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying and covering her husband. But I don't remember any words."



I wonder why you believe Kellerman, but won't believe Jackie (or Nellie) in this regard?

But, anyway, this "I'm hit" topic is just one more meaningless subject that goes nowhere for CTers. Because even if JFK did say those words...who cares? So what?

We can see via the Z-Film that Kennedy HAD, indeed, been "hit" by that point in time (i.e., by the time he reached toward his throat and mouth area, which is the point in time when Kellerman claimed the "I am hit" dialogue was being spoken). So it's a moot point anyway. It solves nothing.

BTW, if JFK had really uttered those five words ("My God, I am hit") that Roy Kellerman claims were said by the President, why can't we see JFK's lips moving and forming those words on the zoomed-in version of the Zapruder Film?

We can certainly SEE John Connally making his "Oh, no, no, no" statement on the Z-Film. But JFK's lips seem to be shut tight. Wonder why...if he was actually saying something after being hit by a bullet?


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Do you realize how close JFK's and Jackie's heads were when he was hit with the fatal shot? Very close. That is further proof to me that only a professional could have made that shot in a moving vehicle (albeit a very slow moving vehicle) and NOT hurt Jackie at all.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You believe that kind of stuff because you are a complete and utter nutcase/kook. No reasonable person, when confronted with the "LHO Did It" evidence on the table, would believe that ONLY a "professional" would have had the capability to hit JFK but not wound the person sitting next to him.

You're getting goofier by the minute.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Why did [Jackie] wait for the fatal shot before leaving?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well...um...uh...maybe because she didn't have a bloody body FALLING TOWARD HER IN THE CAR prior to Frame #313 of the Z-Film. (Could that be it?)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

You make her sound horrible. Like she said, "Oh well, he is dead, and I'm getting out of here".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie. More garbage out of the mouth of the kook that I need to set straight.

Your last statement is total bullshit and completely misrepresents what I said about Jackie's post-shooting movements.

Jackie starts to move toward the trunk within TWO SECONDS of the fatal head shot. Probably a little less than that even. Do you really think that I think that Jackie was thinking "Oh well, he is dead, and I'm getting out of here"?

If you do think that I think that, you're nuts. (Well, more nuts than you were an hour ago, I should say.)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I knew you wouldn't even attempt to answer how the Harper fragment was 25 FEET back and to the left of the car at the time of the shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Great! More chaff from a CTer, even though a barrel of wheat can be accessed regarding the Harper Fragment:

"The 'Harper fragment' was discovered around 5:30 p.m. on November 23, 1963, by Billy A. Harper. .... Dr. [J. Lawrence] Angel...declared the Harper fragment to be 'clearly parietal bone' that had come from 'roughly the middle of the right parietal' area (i.e., above the right ear)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 236-237 of the CD Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Also See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Why have people schooled in different disciplines then if a Vet and a Urologist can do forensic wound evaluations? Why spend and waste money on different programs at schools if one degree fits all, right? What a nut job.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, you are.

Since Dr. John K. Lattimer was a urologist, it means you get to ignore his definitive tests regarding human skulls and their reactions when hit by Oswald-like rifle bullets....right?


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

It is still not the same, since the head attached to a body is different from a skull by itself.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah...which (IMO) make the tests performed by Dr. Olivier and Dr. Lattimer even MORE effective (in a "JFK's Head Could Certainly Have Reacted This Way Too" kind of fashion), because an unattached skull is more likely to be blown FORWARD (i.e., away from the shooter), not BACKWARD (toward the gunman), because (duh!) it has NOT BEEN ATTACHED TO A HUMAN NECK.

And yet what happened virtually every time in those Olivier/Lattimer tests?

Answer -- The unattached skulls went BACKWARD toward the gunman anyway.

And yet, to CTers, this "Moved Toward The Gunman" fact is irrelevant.

~large shrug~


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Furthermore, when a man who has no experience in an area uses more people with no experience in the area to assist, it goes downhill even quicker.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why don't you get a rifle, and a test skull from the graveyard that's right next to your trailer park, and perform your own "Skull Test" like Lattimer's? Let's see how your test skulls behave.

Oh, no, wait. That won't work. Because you're only a garbage man. So that means that any skulls that you take a shot at with Oswald's exact ammunition won't count. You need to have some kind of "degree" in ballistics or forensics or something, in order for YOUR shots to count as "valid" shots into test skulls using Lee Harvey Oswald's ammunition and a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Sorry, forget it. When you get your "I'M ALLOWED TO SHOOT A TEST SKULL" degree, let me know.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I never mentioned ballistics, as that is not the point here. I said FORENSIC WOUND experience. You know what that is, don't you? It is what two-thirds of the doctors lacked during the autopsy of a man who was SHOT! It matters a lot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A "forensics" degree means zilch when you're simply performing a test to see which direction a test skull will move after being struck by a bullet. Why you think otherwise is the bigger mystery.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I guess you think a Proctologist could do open heart surgery too, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. But that proctologist could certainly take a rifle and shoot at a skull to see which way that skull will move after being shot by the gun being held by that proctologist.

Why you think a "forensics" degree is required to pull that trigger is yet another of the many mysteries that surrounds kooks like you.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

It makes me wonder how [Dr. Lattimer] had them tethered down in the first place.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He didn't. That was my whole point, idiot.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

This is all a side issue though, as Lattimer could NOT duplicate the wounds seen in JFK.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie! The kook's gonna change the subject completely. Nice.

BTW, some of the test skulls that were shot by Lattimer did, indeed, show a very similar pattern of wounds to those on JFK.

Of course, as Dr. Olivier explained to the Warren Commission (did you ignore him completely, as usual?), the SCALP on a living human head will certainly have an affect on the bullet wounds and their size.

But in the Lattimer and Olivier tests, obviously no such scalp was present on the dead test skulls. But this difference was noted and accounted for by Olivier.

Conspiracy kooks, naturally, won't be satisfied until a perfect JFK-like duplication with living, breathing human beings is performed. Even then, I'm sure the kooks would come up with some excuse to think that a perfect duplication was "fake" too.

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 17, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 91)


RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:

>>> "David, let's get to the best witness, shall we? .... Jackie Kennedy's direct Warren Commission testimony, the testimony NOT redacted: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was NOTHING --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (My emphasis)" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. That's what Jackie said alright. I know that. And although her
testimony is far from being crystal-clear with respect to the
locations of JFK's wounds, it sounds to me like she's describing a
hole at the FRONT part of the head, not the rear.

Why would these words make anyone think that Jackie was describing a
huge hole at the BACK of her husband's cranium? --- "From the front
there was nothing."



>>> "Clearly, she was trying to hold his skull on IN THE BACK." <<<

At best, her words are muddled and ambiguous. The Warren Commission
wasted a golden opportunity with Jackie to get some things settled
with respect to JFK's head wounds.


>>> "When she climbed on to the back of the limo, she grabbed a piece of her husband's skull." <<<

There's no proof of that at all. Jackie never even remembered going
onto the trunk.

Yes, it was Clint Hill's opinion that Jackie was, indeed, reaching for
something on the trunk. But so what? We can see her doing her
"reaching" right on the Z-Film. Everybody can see that. But it looks
to me like she's trying to keep from losing her balance.




Plus, there are these two things to consider with respect to the
"Jackie On The Trunk" issue.....

1.) Even if she DID grab a piece of JFK's head on the trunk, it's
really another "So what?" type of thing. Why? Because we know that
JFK's head DOES, indeed, snap BACKWARD sharply immediately after
going FORWARD about 2 inches or so at the critical POINT OF IMPACT
from Z312 to Z313.

Therefore, since we know his head is snapping BACKWARD (i.e., TOWARD
THE TRUNK OF THE CAR), it's certainly possible (but not provable) that
a chunk of his just-blasted-open head was thrown onto the trunk lid as
a result of that BACKWARD head movement that is observed after his
head goes initially forward after being hit from BEHIND by Lee Harvey
Oswald's bullet.

So a shot from BEHIND Kennedy could certainly have resulted in a piece
of his head ending up BEHIND him as well, given the violent rearward
movement of his head after he was shot.

Plus, we know that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified that blood and
brain tissue was literally ALL OVER that car (inside and outside) when
it was examined at the White House garage on November 22-23, 1963.

2.) If Jackie really did pick up a piece of JFK's head on that trunk,
then WHAT DID SHE DO WITH IT during the 5-minute high-speed drive to
Parkland Hospital as she was ALSO using her hands to try to "hold his
hair on"?

Did she put the grisly piece of skull in her pocket or something? In
her pillbox hat? Or is it the contention of conspiracy theorists that
she grabbed the piece of skull off of the trunk lid and held onto it
in one hand all the way to Parkland, while she used that same hand
(and I can only assume that she was using BOTH of her hands here) to
try and "hold" the President's "skull on" during the drive to the
hospital?

A more reasonable explanation, IMO, is that while she was in the
process of attempting to hold the skull of JFK together, a piece of
loose skull or brain tissue came off in her hands...and it was this
piece of skull she gave to a Parkland doctor inside the hospital.

YMMV. But it really won't matter, because I've got the autopsy report
(which definitively states that JFK was shot just twice, and only from
"behind and above"), the proven-unaltered photos of JFK at autopsy,
and my #1 item above in this particular "Jackie On The Trunk" sub-
topic discussion, which can never be totally debunked by CTers either.
But good luck trying.


>>> "She [Jackie] held it and gave it [to] attendants at Parkland." <<<

She actually gave the skull fragment to Dr. Marion T. (Pepper)
Jenkins, not to "attendants".


>>> "DPD officer Bobby Hargis was hit with piece of the President's brain. He was back and to the left of JFK." <<<

So what? See above. The President's brain tissue and blood were
spraying out in virtually EVERY direction after he was shot. The spray
goes several feet up into the air, for Pete sake. Plus, there's the
likelihood that the wind blew some of this up-in-the-air debris right
directly toward Officer Hargis and Officer Martin (the wind was said
to have been blowing in such a direction that day).

Think up something else. This argument about Hargis and the "Jackie
Retrieves A Skull Piece" argument are moribund (at best).


>>> "Please explain to me how the cerebellum leaked onto the gurney at Parkland." <<<

It didn't. No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. During Dr. Boswell's
1996 ARRB session, we find this exchange taking place (CTers have to
believe that Boswell was lying through his teeth here):


DR. BOSWELL -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the
part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong,
because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and
in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around,
and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out.
And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral
hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very
simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."


>>> "David, if the bullet blew the front of JFKs head off, why no brain or tissue matter on Connally, Nellie, Greer or Kellerman?" <<<

~sigh~

Are you nuts? Nellie and John Connally always said in interviews that
they were covered with brain matter after the head shot.

JOHN CONNALLY SAID:

"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see
on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my
thumb."


NELLIE CONNALLY SAID:

"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot
falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was
the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the
car and both of us."

==========

Why aren't you aware of any of this basic stuff, Richard? John and
Nellie Connally, in probably dozens of interviews they gave after
1963, always said the very same thing about being showered with JFK's
head debris. You've actually never seen ANY of those many interviews
with either Nellie or JBC? Very curious.


>>> "Also, why doesn't the magic bullet, having caused all that damage and having gone through 17 pieces of clothing, have ZERO fabric striations on it?" <<<

"Fabric striations"?? And "17 pieces of clothing"?? WTF?? That must be
a new one pulled out of the "Conspiracy Kook" files, huh Richard? Never
heard that one before. (Just more chaff for the kooks to chew on, no doubt.)

But I did hear a brand-new theory just yesterday, which is being self-
promoted around the Internet here in December 2007 by the theory's
evidently very loony author (Brian David Andersen). And it's a theory
that Richard Van Noord (or Dean Jackson) might not even be able to
swallow (incredible as that might seem) ---

Andersen's new book "My God, I'm Hit!" purports that JFK wasn't shot
in the head AT ALL on 11/22/63. Instead, Kennedy faked his own demise
during the "incident" on Elm Street.

(Just when you thought the kooks couldn't sink any further into
absurdity, huh?)


>>> "A little wheat from the chaff, of course." <<<


As I've said for a long time, it's the CT-Kooks who are the experts at
latching onto the chaff and ignoring the wheat field right before
their orbs. Your "Jackie On Trunk" and "Hargis" chaff-like items above
are two prime examples of this.

You'd think that you kooks would start gagging on all that chaff after
44 years....but I guess conspiracists must think it's extremely tasty,
since they devour a steady diet of it daily. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 15, 2007)



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 442)


JAMES THOMPSON SAID:

When I first saw the Z-film many years ago, I wondered why Jackie jumped onto the trunk of the limo and then climbed back into the seat. I wondered if it was because she was trying to avoid being killed. I just didn't know and it always was a mystery to me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In my opinion, Jackie was merely trying to get away from the scene of horror in that back seat.

The bloody head of her husband was about to fall into her lap. She panicked. She was stunned. She was petrified. And those are all reasonable and logical immediate reactions on her part.

Good Lord, I'd have probably done the exact same thing if a bloody body was falling toward me -- I'd have gotten away from it the best I could.

That might seem callous, unfeeling, and uncaring to some. But it's a human reaction that I'm betting 9.9 out of 10 people would have had if they'd been in the back seat of that limousine instead of Jackie -- GET AWAY FROM THE HORROR.

After she regained her composure and had time to think a little clearer, Jackie did indeed hold that same bloody head in her lap. But at the time the shooting occurred, human nature took over (IMO). And if I had been in that back seat in the seconds immediately after Zapruder Frame 313, I think I probably would have made tracks for the trunk too. After all, where else COULD she have "escaped" to in that stretch limousine? She couldn't have used the doors of the car to get out (the Connallys and the jump seats blocked the rear doors):





About the only place she could have gone to get away from the falling, bloody body at the critical moment just after the fatal shot was the trunk of the vehicle.

But to think (as some people do) that Jackie Kennedy had it in her mind, in those frantic, confusing, and horrifying moments just after her husband had his head blown off, to go and get a piece of his head on the trunk lid is, in my opinion, just simply crazy.

Try to put yourself in the same situation and mindset -- Do you actually think that you'd want to get a grisly hunk of brain tissue on the trunk?

In two words -- What for? It's just silly.

There's no proof that Jackie retrieved any brain tissue on the trunk of the car. She very likely obtained the piece of JFK's head that she gave to Dr. Jenkins while she was cradling the President's head in her hands on the drive to Parkland (as she was trying to "hold his hair on and his skull on" [from Jackie's Warren Commission testimony]).

David Von Pein
February 9, 2009




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 93)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Explain Jackie's comments about this incident and the fact that she did crawl out onto the trunk lid. I want you to repeat the comment about her being a coward for all to read." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When did I ever call Jackie a "coward", Mr. Mega-Kook?

Jacqueline Kennedy was far from being a coward. She is (was) a woman
I hold in the highest of regards. She had more courage and strength in
November 1963 than 10,000 other people put together. She was incredible.

But in that car at 12:30, she obviously was in a panicked state....and
she was trying to get the hell out of the way of the falling, bloody
body in the back seat. It was a perfectly natural reaction to climb up
on that trunk. Mainly because there was NOPLACE ELSE SHE COULD HAVE
GONE. She had no other immediate "escape" hatch (except, of course,
for the heretofore-unknown "secret compartment" in the back of the
limo, per Brian Andersen; but maybe even Jackie didn't know about this
"compartment"; anyway, it was already occupied with JFK's "double",
remember).

But, in the final analysis, Jackie's trunk excursion is a lot to-do about
absolutely nothing. It means nothing. It solves nothing. It's a complete
non-issue, and always was. It's only meaningful to a conspiracy-thirsty
kook. So....drink up.


>>> "So before the "Urologist's" test we had the Veterinarian run test on skulls for us. This is the respect a dead president gets." <<<

What DIFFERENCE does it make WHO conducted the tests?? Those tests
(with HUMAN SKULLS, not only "melons") verified that a skull will travel
TOWARD THE SHOOTER after being struck with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.

Why does it matter WHO did the shooting in these tests? It could have
been Jerry Lewis or Shirley Temple or Beaver Cleaver who fired those
test shots...point is: the test skulls DID travel toward the shooter.

And, as I pointed out to you previously (but you will ignore this
powerful evidence just because you don't like the profession the
gunman who did the tests was in), every single one of Dr. Lattimer's
test skulls moved TOWARD THE GUNMAN. Every one.

"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." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"

But, since Lattimer wasn't an "official ballistics expert", it means his
FILMED TESTS are to be tossed in the trash by kooks like Dr. Caprio.

Right, Super-Kook?

You can watch (and totally ignore or skew) one of Lattimer's tests HERE.
The skull moves toward the shooter.


>>> "It is easier to explain a duplicate/faked X-ray than to explain the Nix film, Z-film, Jackie, Dr. Jenkins, all the doctors/nurses at Parkland, the mortician, the embalmer, the men who photographed and X-rayed JFK, the attendants who put JFK in the casket at Parkland, Hill, Kellerman and the Chief Pathologist at Methodist are all wrong." <<<

No, not really. But you, embracing the nutty "Anybody But Oswald" scenario
that you seemingly love so much, cannot see how your argument above is
patently weak from a bona fide scientific standpoint. And that's because
you can't just merely say the X-ray shown below is "fake".



You've got to travel deeper into CT-ville and now contend that all of the
various photographic experts who looked at that X-ray after 11/22/63
and deemed it an "unaltered" non-faked X-ray picture of John F. Kennedy's
head are also liars (or that they all were totally incompetent when it came
to their skills at determining whether a particular image is "unaltered" or not).

You REALLY want to travel that far down Conspiracy Avenue, Robert?
Really?*

* = Silly question. Of course you want to travel that far down that
road. Because if you kooks were to actually admit that the above X-ray
of the right side of President Kennedy's head is real and authentic
and not faked in any way (which is the case, of course, per every
expert who looked at the X-ray for the HSCA)....you would then have to
admit the obvious -- which is: JFK did not have a great-big hole at
the far-right-rear portion of his head on November 22, 1963.

And what CT-Kook worth his salary would EVER want to admit to the
accuracy of that last sentence...I ask you?


>>> "Melons? Like melons act the same as a head attached to a human, please." <<<

It's my opinion that it's even MORE impressive and definitive to see a
NON-TETHERED object (melon or human skull) move toward the gunman
after being shot.

Why?

Because an object that isn't attached to a "neck" is probably going to
be even MORE LIKELY to move AWAY from the shooter when shot with a
high-speed bullet. Stands to reason, IMO.

But what happened in those many tests to UNTETHERED objects? They all
moved BACKWARD, toward the shooter, even though none of them was
attached to anything (like a human neck) that would have further
prohibited their FORWARD motion AWAY from the shooter.

So, the fact that none of these test skulls and melons were "attached"
to anything at all...and the fact that they STILL traveled toward the
shooter is even BETTER for the overall "Lone Assassin" position, in my view.

And no, I'm not a "ballistics expert" in this departmart...not even a
urologist or a vet. It's just a garden-variety observation on DVP's part,
coupled with what I think is just ordinary common sense as well.


>>> "To boot we throw in a Urologist to do the testing. Real sound stuff there. Penn & Teller, please." <<<

Yeah....Wyatt Earp and John Wayne would have been much better choices
to perform those skull and melon tests. Because I'm sure that a skull hit
from behind by "The Duke" would have acted MUCH differently than one that
was hit by just some worthless/useless "urologist". Right, Mr. Mega-Kook?

David Von Pein
December 17, 2007







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 92)


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
closer.

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
when shot.

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)

http://www.Amazon.com/DVP Review

========

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."

========

INSTANT REPLAY.....

>>> "If the skull is blown backwards, then the shot came from the
front." <<<


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
"across-the-kook-board" occurrence.

And your arguments above about the direction a skull will positively
move after being shot only further entrench you in the "ignorant"
category. Congrats.

David Von Pein
December 16, 2007




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 619)


ED CAGE SAID:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

Matt Douthit just now brought it to my attention that according to the above link z157, then z223-224, then z313 might be better than the z160 I've been using for the first shot. I agree.

Any other thoughts out there?


STEVE BARBER SAID:

Ed, I would venture to guess: 1st shot fired circa Zapruder frame 150-152, and the reason I believe this is because of the sudden turn from left to right of President Kennedy's head and the odd expression on his face, immediately followed by Governor Connally's sudden head turn from left to right by frames 163-168.

Please make note of agent Hickey in the follow-up car, look out over the left side of the follow-up car and then look down below him, in the direction of the street pavement. I've always been curious as to what that is all about.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My best guess is still approx. Z160. But I almost always preface that belief with that word "approximately". And since Z157 is very close to Z160 (just 3/18ths of one second in real time), it seems to me that arguing over a "Z157" shot vs. a "Z160" shot is a relatively minor point. I usually reserve that type of Z-Film micro-analysis for the SBT timeline.

[RELATED ARTICLES HERE and HERE.]


JIMMY ORR SAID:

I personally find Max Holland's research into the Lost Bullet to be very compelling. I lean toward the idea that after the missed shot, Oswald took time to reposition himself within the sniper's nest where he found the ideal vantage, free of obstructions. The array of the spent hulls would also seem to indicate two firing positions.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Read my "Lost Bullet" link above, Jimmy. Something's not kosher there.


JIMMY ORR SAID:

Wow, thanks for pointing out the Lost Bullet review DVP. I was unaware of controversy with the film.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Re: the spent bullet shells on the floor.....

The hulls can bounce around like a pinball machine, Jimmy. The boxes were very close to the wall and to Oswald's rifle. I've never thought the shell location really told us very much, and I was a little surprised that the FBI actually conducted such a detailed test on the "Shell Dropping Patterns" for the Warren Commission. But they did. Which, once again, shows the high level of detail the FBI and WC went to in order to touch every base concerning this crime.

Quoting the Warren Commission testimony of Robert A. Frazier of the FBI:

"I made two studies in connection with the ejection pattern--one to determine distance and one to determine the angle at which the cartridge cases leave the ejection port."

[...]

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these diagrams as Commission Exhibits Nos. 546 and 547?"


ED CAGE SAID:

I agree on the shell casings bouncing around like a pinball machine DVP...and God knows I have see a MILLION of them!!!


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

If what [conspiracy theorists] are saying about the fist-size hole in the upper right portion of the back of JFK's head/skull is right, then where was the gunman positioned to fire that shot that would have hit JFK's head in the left front?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

CTers don't like that "WHERE WAS THE GUNMAN?" question, Howard. They'd rather believe all the autopsy X-rays and pictures are fakes. But as we can all see quite plainly, the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull IS STILL THERE in the autopsy X-ray---




HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

The front wound is definitely NOT an entrance wound.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

I refer you to Sherry Fiester's book, which explains how these flaps are formed and what she found in the autopsy x-rays.




HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

The skull flap over JFK's right portion of his head is caused from the exploding bullet exiting the right top front of the head.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

No, it is connected to an entry point.


ED CAGE SAID:

With all due respect, Sherry Fiester has not been a reliable source, in my view. She is welcome to post her take on the issue however.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

Well, her credentials certainly exceed those of anyone posting here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sherry thinks there was a shooter on the SOUTH Knoll (the Commerce St. side)! And I know of this many witnesses who think any shots came from there --- ZERO.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

She does not say the South Knoll. She says to the right front of JFK. This would be somewhere near the right side of the top of the triple underpass over to the area around the end of the picket fence.


STEVE BARBER SAID:

With all due respect, there are those in the conspiracy crowd who believe that everything photographically regarding the assassination, i.e. films of the assassination, autopsy photos, x-rays, are "fake" because they all clearly show the front, top portion of the President's head blown off.

They would rather take the words of people who *briefly* saw the President as he lay on the stretcher at Parkland hospital, face-up--therefore, back of the head against the stretcher with his brain all over the place--claiming they saw a "hole" in the back of the head, rather than believe what the photographic evidence reveals, because they have to have a hole in the back of the head to free Oswald from guilt. It's pathetic!

The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, and the right lateral x-ray all fit hand in glove, and they can't/will not accept that!

Do you guys all know about the large skull fragment that I discovered that flies off the head, strikes the seat of Mrs. Connally and falls towards the floor, in the Zapruder film? Paul Seaton made a GIF of it on his website.

Also, the large piece of brain that flies past Roy Kellerman in the Zapruder film, frames 320 and 321? Matter that size doesn't fly forward at that speed if a shot is coming FROM the front! Sherry whatever her name is is out of her mind!


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

Then his whole head wouldn't fly backward!


STEVE BARBER SAID:

His whole head didn't "fly backward". His entire upper body, from the waist up, flew backwards, and bullets do not cause this to happen.

President Kennedy suffered a neuromuscular reaction, which caused his body to stiffen, and he suffered a type of seizure. I was told that President Kennedy's feet had to be pulled out from under Connally's seat when the people were removing him from the limousine. He must have slammed them up under it during that last shot. I am trying to remember where I read this, and as soon as I find it, I will post the name of the person who said it.

[Later...]

I found out who it was who said this. It was Sam Kinney testifying before the HSCA, June 1977, document 9442.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

You guys should probably read Sherry's book, but my take is that she says the bullet entered toward the front, along the flap, stayed in that line along the right side and exited the right rear.


JIMMY ORR SAID:

Sherry is obviously quite mistaken, Mr. Mitchell. And I don't read conspiracy books.


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

Again, a bullet would have exited the left back portion of the head if the shot was fired from the grassy knoll.


JIMMY ORR SAID:

Mr. Mitchell, regardless of where you stand on the matter of conspiracy or no, I recommend that you buy a copy of Larry Sturdivan's excellent book: The JFK Myths. You will enjoy the informative reading as well as the illustrations. You are always entitled to your own opinion, sir.


STEVE BARBER SAID:

I don't believe that Mrs. Kennedy went after a piece of head matter. I am trying to get some help with a GIF focusing on her actions in the Zapruder film while she is on the trunk lid, to show everyone that she doesn't "reach" for anything.

She slid across the trunk lid when her gloved hand made contact with the highly polished surface of the lid. It's an easy experiment anyone who has a convertible car can try for themselves, as long as the vehicle is well waxed like the limousine was.


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

Steve, if you watch in slow motion, a very small piece of JFK's skull flies up and back and when Jackie climbs out onto the truck lid of the limo, she puts her hand on it, grasping it, and begins crawling back in her seat a few seconds before the Secret Service guy reaches for her because he at first thought that she was climbing out from hysteria until he noticed that she had indeed grabbed the piece of the skull.


STEVE BARBER SAID:

Howard, I have examined the film with a fine-toothed comb, and there is no piece of skull that lands on the trunk lid.

Also, she never looks behind her before beginning to climb out of the seat, and gives no indication that she saw anything.

Mrs. Kennedy could have picked that piece of head matter up from anywhere in the car. It was all over it. There is zero proof that what she handed Dr. Jenkins came from the trunk lid. I am afraid that that is wishful thinking of some people.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Jackie picked up a piece of JFK's head on the trunk, then I'm just wondering how she managed to try and "hold his hair on" after she got back into the back seat? Was she using just ONE hand to do this (while holding onto the skull piece with her other hand)? Just curious about that.


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

David, Jackie held his head on the way to Parkland and used both hands, even as she held the small fragment. I believe she wrapped the piece in her glove after taking it off.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even if Jackie DID pick up a piece of skull/brain on the trunk (which I doubt she did)--it proves nothing. Why? Because all LNers acknowledge the fact that JFK's head DOES, indeed, fly BACKWARD after the fatal blow. (Who could possibly deny that fact?)

So why on Earth is it impossible for a loose piece of his head to fly BACK onto the trunk? We all know the jet effect has been proven--over and over again---from Lattimer to Penn & Teller.

So finding some head debris on the trunk does not prove conspiracy in the slightest way, since we all know that JFK's head did fly backward after OSWALD hit him in the head from BEHIND (with the head initially going FORWARD, keep in mind)....




HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

Exactly David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Richard Mitchell is wrong when he said that Sherry Fiester does not think the fatal shot came from the SOUTH side of the Plaza. In fact, Fiester specifically EXCLUDES the traditional (north side) Grassy Knoll as a shooting location for the fatal shot:

"The shooter is conclusively proven to be near the south end of the triple overpass or the parking lot adjacent to that portion of the overpass. The unprecedented application of those current forensic crime reconstruction techniques excludes the Grassy Knoll."

That quote above comes from this article.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

David, the quote you referenced does not match my understanding of Fiester's position, so I cannot explain it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Richard --- To be perfectly fair to Sherry Fiester, that quote I cited above is probably not a DIRECT quote from Fiester. But it is connected to a long article which features Fiester's work.

Plus, I'm nearly certain I heard Fiester herself say on a Black Op Radio appearance a year or two ago that she does think the head shot came from the SOUTH (Commerce) side of the street.

I probably can even dig up a post I wrote on the acj newsgroup where I talk about the silly notion of a SOUTH KNOLL gunshot (that not a single witness heard). If I find the post, I'll link it here.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

The primary thing I know is that Fiester's position is that the shot came from directly in front and I am sure she knows the South Knoll is not in front. So, I don't know if that was a misquote or she had a directionally challenged moment or what, but I don't find that the quote matches the analysis.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a post I wrote in 2010, which concerns a 2008 radio appearance by Fiester (the link doesn't work now, but maybe I can find the program in Brent Holland's Night Fright radio archives [which I later did; Click Here]).


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Here's a video interview with Sherry Fiester (go to the 25:00 mark)....




JIMMY ORR SAID:

Jesus DVP, [that was] my first exposure to Fiester. What a loon. Hard to believe that she is actually a criminal investigator. That is scary.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Jimmy. As I listen to Sherry, I keep saying --- Well, sure, Sherry. It's easy to come up with ANY trajectory you want if you want to just MAKE UP the entry and exit wounds--which is precisely what she has done.

She's just INVENTED an entry hole in the front of JFK's head and she literally ignores all of the REAL (i.e., BEST) evidence, which shows Kennedy was shot just once in the head, with a bevelled-in entry wound in the back of the head.

It must be great being a CTer--you don't have to follow ANY of the evidence or the photos or the autopsy doctors. You can just make shit up all you want. What freedom!


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

I guess the discussion ends for now with the facts that this Sherry Lady is off her rocker and that Oswald acted alone and the fatal head shot was fired from the sixth floor as the Warren Report said.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

David, I listened to the clip. The only reference to direction for Z313 is that [Dale] Myers' analysis indicated JFK's head was facing toward the south end of the triple underpass and that the shot came from directly in front of JFK.

She told me there was a margin of 35 degrees of possibility.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which, Richard, is about the wackiest theory yet. A shooter on top of the Triple Underpass, where the various railroad workers were located--plus TWO COPS??? Yeah, right. And she certainly doesn't rule out the South Knoll area, as we can see from that 11/21/13 article I linked earlier.

Why not face it, Richard, Fiester is just making up stuff as she sees fit. She's doing what nearly all conspiracy theorists do---she's ignoring the scientific evidence (autopsy, photos, X-rays, AND the autopsists themselves) and has decided ALL of that stuff is wrong (and/or fake).

Then she's free to speculate about ANY trajectory. She can put a shooter in Jim Tague's pants if she wants, since she's wiped the "official" slate clean.


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

David, you beat me to it. LOL.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

David, Feister does use the x-rays. You need to learn more about what she says before you dismiss her outright.

And, do keep in mind that you are ignoring the fact that the doctors and nurses at Parkland, the Secret Service and the autopsy room personnel all say there was a massive wound in the back of the head.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Richard, read this article and then come back in here and tell me I'm "ignoring" those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.


RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

I am rather concerned that so many people consider themselves more qualified in CSI work than Ms. Fiester.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm sure Ms. Fiester is a qualified CSI investigator. But in THIS (JFK) case, there is plenty of HARD evidence that trumps her analysis.

And if she USES the X-rays (which is to say: she doesn't think they are fakes or forgeries), she's got no choice but to conclude there is NO big exit wound in the right-rear portion of the head.




RICHARD MITCHELL SAID:

David, I read your article and it indicates quite clearly exactly what I said, that you ignore the statements of the Secret Service, Parkland doctors and nurses and Bethesda staff.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't ignore the "back of the head" witnesses, Richard. I evaluated their statements and observations and concluded they were wrong. They HAVE to be wrong, because these autopsy pictures PROVE they were wrong:



We've got a "SOMEBODY'S WRONG" situation here. Either the "BOH" witnesses were incorrect about where they said the large hole was located in President Kennedy's head -- or those photos shown above that were taken at JFK's autopsy are wrong.

And since the HSCA said this in 1978....

"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." -- 7 HSCA 41

....the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: the "BOH" witnesses were not correct.

David Von Pein
February 7, 2014




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 79)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> [Quoting Jacqueline Kennedy:] "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the *front there was nothing.* I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." [Close Quote.] A little different when you read the parts that were censored with (reference to wounds deleted), huh?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Kinda sounds to me like Jackie's describing a hole at the FRONT of
JFK's head, via these words (which I have seen before, btw) -- "FROM
THE FRONT THERE WAS NOTHING".

But Jackie's very few comments about the wounds are a bit muddled and
are far from conclusive. The Warren Commission missed a golden
opportunity to prove that the large exit wound in the President's head
was at the right-front instead of in the rear of the head when the WC
didn't ask Jackie more questions about the precise location of the
wound.

Jackie was certainly one of the very best witnesses to JFK's wounds,
but we lost the chance to get more info out of her because the WC
refused to ask her the proper questions about the wounds, out of
deference to her personal feelings. A pity.


>>> "I don't see a grief-stricken wife rearranging the head of her nearly-dead husband." <<<

Even though that's exactly what she said she did, huh? So I guess Rob
must think Jackie was a liar too when she said the following to the
Warren Commission on June 5, 1964:

"I was trying to hold his hair on. You [meaning Jackie herself] were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." -- Jacqueline Kennedy


REPRISE:

>>> "I don't see a grief-stricken wife rearranging the head of her nearly-dead husband." <<<

But most conspiracy theorists have no problem whatsoever believing
that that same person (Jackie Kennedy), who just saw her husband's
head split wide open by a rifle bullet a few inches from her very own
face, had the wherewithal and the desire to climb onto the trunk of
the moving limousine in order to retrieve a grisly piece of her
husband's head. Right?


>>> "All the personnel at Parkland, the photographer, the men who prepared JFK for the trip to D.C. and the embalmer all disagree with your assessment. Are they all lying?" <<<

No. Merely all mistaken. These authenticated-as-"unaltered" photos [and X-ray]
prove that fact:










DVP SAID EARLIER:

"And Rosemary Willis' actions--and later words--are valuable too. "I stopped when I heard the shot." -- Rosemary Willis"


ROB THEN SAID:

>>> "Cite this source please." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:

Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" (1994 paperback edition); Page 321; Plus
Footnote #18 for Chapter 14, which leads to Page 546 (the "Notes"
section of "Case Closed"). Footnote #18 reads: "David Lui, "The Little
Girl Must Have Heard," The Dallas Times Herald, June 3, 1979, H-3."


>>> "It was simply a miss and the trajectory matches the Dal-Tex building as much as it does the west window of the TSBD." <<<

Cite the source for this please.


>>> "It has been shown that the first shot fired sounded like a firecracker and hit the street short of the car, not all the way down by Tague. Explain this if you can." <<<

Sure thing:

Bullet #1 of 3 (at approx. Z160) comes out of Lee Harvey Oswald's
#C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at about 2,200fps....the missile
strikes a portion of the oak tree in front of the Book Depository,
causing the bullet to break into at least two separate sections.

One section of the broken bullet strikes the concrete on Elm Street,
just behind the Presidential limousine, while another portion of
Oswald's fragmented missile deflects upward slightly (and to the
right), causing that section of the bullet to hit the curb on Main
Street, sending either bullet fragments or concrete fragments up into
the air and into the face of bystander James Tague, who was standing
near the Underpass.


Footnote:

If Oswald was using the telescopic sight for this first (missed) shot,
due to the scope's "High And To The Right" mis-alignment, this could be
a possible reason for the first shot having missed the limousine and
striking the tree, with the upper branches of that tree being located,
indeed, "high and to the right" of Oswald's aiming point at the time
he would have fired that shot (as can be seen in CE875, HERE and HERE).

For more about the "missed shot" controversy, CLICK HERE.

David Von Pein
December 5, 2007




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 40)


A CONSPIRACY THEORIST WROTE THIS TO ME:

"DETAIL IN ZAPRUDER FILM UNNOTICED FOR 43 YEARS: Flying Skull
Fragment, Clearly Seen; Reflected in Trunk Lid. ....

The "Harper Fragment"...of skull bone is visible in the
Zapruder film. It becomes visible in frame 313 and flies through the
air before going out of view around frame 337. ....

In frame 313, we see an odd curiosity known to researchers as
the "white spot", or "white blob". .... It looks to be a foot or two
in front of the windshield. It is an elongated oval shape and blurred.
It is not visible in frame 312, although it could be to the right, or
ahead of Zapruder's aim. ....

[An "LOL Break" is required at this point.]

It is a skull fragment flying and spinning through the air,
not, as Dr. David Mantik suggests, a sloppily painted-in object. In
frame 314, the object is just above the windshield, still blurred, and
more of a square shape in this frame. It looks like what it has been
called for more than four decades: "...something in the grass...";
[or] "a spot in the grass.".

In frame 315, the object has moved the same relative distance
that every other object on the screen has moved, allowing for
Zapruder's natural movements. The "white spot" is just above driver
Greer's head. A little less blurred than frames 313 and 314, but now
starting to show a motion all its own. ....

Frame 318. Zapruder's big move. .... In 318, the entire frame
blurs. .... The skull fragment blurs to exactly the same extent all
the other objects in the frame do. This blurred motion, from
Zapruder's movement, verifies the unchanged authenticity of the film
itself; at least in these critical frames. As far as this part of the
film, I see no discrepancies in the continuity of motion. And that
continuity is verified by Zapruder's jump. ....

Frame 326. Jackie's hand and arm are now a bit more in view
(she is just beginning to reach out). The fragment, being propelled
through the air, is disk-like and spinning. A slight change of angle
has occurred.

Frame 327. That white object...is a piece of the President's
skull, blown off by his assassin. We have traced its flight through
the air. In frame 327, it is undoubtedly being reflected in the trunk
lid of the car. .... In frame 327, the triangular shape of the skull
fragment is plainly visible. And because it is moving through the air,
not lying in the grass, its reflection can be seen in the trunk lid.

It is impossible for an object lying in the grass to be
reflected in the trunk lid of the car. I'll say it again. It is
impossible for an object lying in the grass to be reflected in the
trunk lid of the car.

Frame 328. Our second frame where the reflection is clearly
visible. .... The car is moving under the fragment. The fragment is
winging its way toward the center lawn area where it will somehow be
overlooked by investigators and bystanders for more than sixteen
hours.

Frame 329. Another frame forward, another reflection. This one
intersecting with the antenna on the rear deck of the car and possibly
the most important frame as far as reflection goes. There is a slight
distortion in the reflection itself. Not the fragment, but the
reflection. This proves the skull fragment to be above and slightlyedit
south of the car. This is only possible because the fragment is flying
through the air. If it were on the lawn, we would not see a
reflection.

Frame 332. A white smear barely in front of the motorcycle
windscreen of Bobby Hargis. Hargis stated he was hit with bone, blood,
and brain matter, as a result of the shooting.

Frame 333. Just past Hargis's windscreen. Did the fragment hit
the edge of the windscreen? In the sprocket area, agent Hill can be
seen running toward the car. ....

To summarize -- It is patently impossible for an object lying
on the grass to be reflected in the trunk lid of the car. Whatever
that white spot is, it is flying through the air! Even if you choose
to believe it is a tissue paper that just happened to float by at this
instant, it is not on the lawn, it is not stationary.

The object is a large piece of the President's skull. It is far
too coincidental that it appears at the same instant as the fatal head
shot, frame 313. Watching the film at regular speed, you see the
fragment flying and spinning through the air. In frames 320-326, it
elevates a bit, showing the same flight properties of a mostly-flat,
slightly-cupped, triangular-shaped object.

What is the significance of this? A piece of JFK's head flying
out the back of the car.

[DVP interjection at this point --- HUH?? The skull fragment is
supposedly flying out the BACK of the car, and yet it is first visible
many feet to the FRONT of the car at Z313?? Reprise: Huh???? And
WTF????]

Eyewitnesses have mentioned "debris" flying from the
president's head; indeed, Jackie was probably trying to retrieve a
skull fragment.

Ike Altgens told the Warren Commission he saw debris flying out
the "right side of the car". It was noticed; but until now, not
identified in the Zapruder film, and I have only been able to do so
because of the reflection. I would like to reiterate the fact that
something lying in the grass cannot be reflected in the trunk lid.

Does this change the parameters of information on the
assassination? I would like to think so. First off, it is a very good
indication of the veracity of the Zapruder film itself. This is
probably the most important fact of my finding and something that can
be incorporated into works that entail other aspects of the
assassination.

Over the years, the Zapruder film has been attacked as
falsified in many ways; actually I have my own problems with it. But
for these 24 very important frames I have analyzed, I offer my
expertise as a video technician, photographer, and editor.

Those twenty-four frames, the first full second after the fatal
head shot, are real. No alteration. No missing frames. No within-frame
changes; at least not any that pertain to the flight of the skull
fragment.

Actually, the flight of the fragment proves there are no frames
missing between 313 and 337. The continuity of motion remains perfect
if one tracks the flight of the skull fragment. In a sense we are
fortunate the fragment is there. In my opinion the Zapruder film is
intact and unaltered for this full second, perhaps the most important
second, immediately following the fatal head shot.

What has been altered, we now know, were the frames initially
published in Life magazine. How altered? The "white spot", the flying
skull fragment, was removed from the frames. Maybe the photo editors
speculated that it could well be a skull fragment. Very gory; and may
have given rise, just days after the assassination, to a more detailed
public discussion of the direction of shots. For whatever reasons, the
actions of the Life editors gave rise to speculation and a resulting
spread of misinformation.

The fragment itself. It is almost undoubtedly the "Harper
Fragment", or a larger piece which contained the Harper Fragment.

The angle, direction, and origin of the shots. The fragment is
blown forward in frame 313. Those in the research community who
ascribe to shots from behind will put this forth as proof. I'm not
sure it is, I can offer only video expertise, not gunshot, bullet,
trajectory or anatomy expertise.

But the fragment doesn't just fly forward; it floats backward.
My eye tells me that is because it is spinning. .... So the force of a
bullet hitting from behind was not absolute, and did not send the
fragment forward, at a distance, into the street. Perhaps a shot from
behind was mitigated by another shot. Or the flight of the fragment
was caused by the physical reaction of the president.

Shots from behind would not necessarily indicate the blasting
of skull pieces forward. Those in the research community who endorse
the idea of frangible bullets being used may find evidence here. Those
who've put forth "jet effect" theories may find evidence here, or a
new contradiction of evidence. Multiple shots, hitting simultaneously,
should also be considered.

Previously I mentioned my problems with the Zapruder film and I
would like to address them now. Bear in mind these observations are
based on visual evidence, and I have not examined the film itself, or
attempted any measurements of any kind.

Point one. There is no leader on the film. We won't know
exactly when Zapruder started rolling unless the leader can be found
and proven to fit with what we now know as frame one. Even if Zapruder
started rolling only, say, four frames earlier, those frames could be
very telling.

Point two. The "splice", at frame 207. It's not a splice at
all, it's a tear; and it accounts for at least a frame-and-a-half
lost, forever it seems. It points at least to carelessness in the
handling of the film, if not an outright change designed to hide
something. ....

In my opinion, this break at frame 207 is deliberate, and meant
to hide something. If a bullet hits the freeway sign at that frame, a
lone-gunman theory is rendered impossible.

Point three. The real frame 313. If frame 313 can be proven to
be frame 313, that would be nice. The problem is, too much is
happening in that one frame. Kennedy has moved slightly forward. And
the reasons for that are as numerous as writers on the assassination.

The spray of blood is quite large and one cannot altogether
rule out alteration and/or a missing frame. Or two frames combined,
one laid over the other. This would hide evidence, though not disturb
the continuity of motion.

There is not, however, a problem with the continuity of motion
from 313 forward. That leads me to believe a frame before what we know
as 313 may have been removed or combined. This does lead to a huge
discussion of any alteration occurring.

The two parameters of this issue are this: The film remained, except
for a break as a result of being dropped, intact from November 22, 1963,
to the present.

The other side of that coin is the fact that the film was successfully
held from public viewing for a good twelve years. And during that time,
the technology certainly existed for a wholesale re-figuring of the film.
I would defer to David Wrone as to the 'why' and 'why nots' of these
scenarios, and I agree with his school of thought on the possession
and possibility of any changes.

In reference to the Costella/White/Mantik school of thought, I
would say this. Raising the possibility that changes may have been
made to the film is a good thing. We may someday see, through advances
in technology, that indeed some change may have occurred and should
those missing frames (at 207+) ever turn up, we will rely on the
latest technology to restore them. But the "faked" school of
researchers have been mitigated, partly by proofs set forth by others,
and certainly due to the outrageousness of their claims. ....

I agree with those who say the film survived largely intact;
yet, we cannot ignore the missing frames at 207+. I would hold open
the possibility that it has been further altered in some way. It would
little change the way the film has been perceived so far.

In my opinion this is what you are seeing: A nearly unsuccessful
assassination attempt. The goal of the assassins was not to have the
president driving down the street clutching at his throat for five or
six seconds. The first shot did not find its mark. Maybe that is what
umbrella man is doing; signaling the back-up team, as he realizes
the president was not squarely hit.

[LOL INTERMISSION!!]

The most damning thing I see in the film [is] the inaction of
the Secret Service. Slowly gazing back at the book depository. And
notice this in the famed Altgens photograph: the two agents on the
running board, looking back at the depository, are not looking up!
They are looking straight. Straight at Lee Harvey Oswald! Yes, it is
Oswald on the front steps of the depository. The match is the shirt,
another aspect of the assassination covered effectively in Wrone's
book.

[Additional LOL needed here.]

Summing up. .... It is a fact that a portion of JFK's head was
ejected at frame 313 and flew through the air before landing on the
lawn. I'll say it for about the tenth time: something lying on the
lawn cannot be reflected in the trunk lid. ....

I'm not sure my finding will actually change the way anybody
looks at the assassination. I think the "acted alone" school and the
"vast conspiracy" people will continue with their set views. But it is
imperative that all the facts come out. It is obvious that the more
facts, the better, for all researchers and all those wanting knowledge
of the assassination.

[Quoting Beverly Oliver:] "The whole back of his head went
flying out the back of the car." .... Have a look at frames 327 and
328. The back of the President's head. Flying out the back of the car.
Reflected in the trunk lid."

(Copyright: Frank Caramelli Jr. 2007)
(Re-printed here with the author's permission.)


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


DAVID VON PEIN RESPONDED:

Thanks for the lengthy e-mail and the "White Spot" report.

The ending paragraph of your article, of course, is coming from a
woman (Beverly Oliver) who didn't come forward for SEVEN YEARS to tell
her tale about what she supposedly saw. There's not a speck of
definitive proof that Beverly Oliver is "Babushka Lady".

Plus, the above statement by Oliver would seem to contradict your own
theory about the so-called skull fragment which begins to be visible
in Frame 313 of the Zapruder Film....i.e., Oliver is saying that the
back of the President's head went flying out the BACK of the
car....but you're pretty much saying just the opposite, i.e., the
Harper fragment is flying out the FRONT of the car at the critical
impact point at Z313.

To be perfectly blunt and truthful with you, your whole theory about
the "white blob" is patently absurd from various points-of-view. And
here's why, IMO:

#1.) Per your theory of the white spot being the "Harper Fragment"
from Kennedy's head....WHY does this skull fragment STAY THE EXACT
SAME HEIGHT ABOVE THE CAR (from Zapruder's POV) during the entire time
it is visible on the Z-Film?

Didn't a thing called GRAVITY exist for those few Z-Film frames from
Z313 through approx. Z330? How is it physically POSSIBLE for that
"skull" piece to remain the exact same physical distance above the
limo from Mr. Zapruder's point-of-view if that fragment is actually in
mid-air and subject to the natural forces and laws of gravity?



When watching a stabilized version of the Zapruder Film, like the one
above, and when focusing your attention only on the "white blob" while
watching the key Z-Film frames in question, you can see that the
"white spot/blob" NEVER FALLS (OR RISES), from Zapruder's vantage
point. How is this possible if the "object" is in mid-air?

And I've also checked a non-stabilized version of the film as well
(the 1998 MPI Home Video digital version of the film on DVD)....and in
the MPI version, it's even MORE obvious to me that Zapruder is filming
a scrap of white paper that is lying on the south side of Elm Street.

Also -- Per your theory of the white spot actually being a piece of
JFK's head, are we to believe that a piece of his skull could have
made it out to the front part of the limo AS THE BULLET HIT HIM
IN THE HEAD?

At the EXACT same frame Kennedy is being hit (Z313), you're contending
that a piece of skull has been blown FORWARD several yards....at the
EXACT INSTANT OF IMPACT. I'd say that is another impossibility (or, at
the very least, highly improbable).

#2.) Are we to also believe that this skull fragment is being
propelled forward at tremendous speed at precisely Z-Frame #313 (which
you are obviously advocating, since you think the skull piece is many
feet FORWARD of Kennedy's head at the exact impact frame of
Z313)...but then, after Z313, it suddenly COMPLETELY STOPS that
tremendous forward and UPWARD motion that it obtained between frame
312 and the impact frame of 313, and then it seems to travel BACKWARD
toward the rear of the car.*

* = It's either that explanation, or you must be advocating that the
object, after moving forward very fast at 313, simply stopped ALL
motion altogether (including its UPWARD motion, because it never gets
any HIGHER from Zapruder's viewpoint either), and this fragment was
then hanging in mid-air for several Z-Film frames, and is moving from
right-to-left (from Mr. Z's POV) only due to Zapruder's panning rate
of his camera. Just crazy, IMO.

Also -- Incredibly, you even seem to be suggesting that the piece of
Kennedy's skull could have actually been hanging in mid-air as early
as Z312, which was PRIOR to the President's head exploding at Z313.
You suggested that very thing when you said this in your article --
"It is not visible in frame 312, although it could be to the right, or
ahead of Zapruder's aim."

How on Earth could a piece of JFK's skull be hanging in the air (many
feet to the FRONT of the limousine) 1/18th of a second BEFORE the
President was visibly struck in the head by a bullet? This makes no
logical sense whatsoever.

#3.) The "reflection" theory is new to me. And it is interesting, I'll
admit. But I don't think that it can be proven that the reflection in
the trunk lid is positively coming from an object hanging in mid-air
at that precise point on the film.

Frankly, I don't know what the "reflection" is that can be seen on the
trunk of the limousine. I'd have to do a little more studying on the
subjects of: "The way shadows fall" and "How things will reflect on
metal surfaces on bright sunny days when the sun is in XX position in
the sky", etc. I'll admit, I'm no expert on those kinds of things.

But from the preponderance of evidence that is telling me that the
"white blob" is nothing more than a piece of loose scrap paper on the
south side of Elm Street (see #4 below), I'd be willing to bet some
serious cash that whatever that "reflection" is on the limo's
trunk...it is NOT being caused by a piece of John F. Kennedy's head
which is hanging in mid-air over Dealey Plaza.

Two thoughts I have on the reflection (which are only sheer guesses, I
will fully admit) -- I'm thinking it could possibly be a reflection
from Mrs. Kennedy's white glove on her right hand. But even more
likely (IMO), it could conceivably be a reflection (or glare) from a
portion of the windscreen/windshield on Officer Hargis' motorcycle,
which is heavily reflecting the sunlight, as we can easily see in this
Zapruder Film frame (Z328):



I'll again readily confess that these are only guesses on my
part....and I'll again stress my lack of "official" knowledge
regarding "sunlight reflections", etc.

And I'll also admit that my theory re. Hargis' windscreen would be
totally invalid and shot down in flames if I were to learn that it's
impossible for something to be reflected in the OPPOSITE direction
from which that same object would leave its shadow on the ground;
i.e., Hargis' SHADOW would be falling on the ground in the opposite
direction--to his rear--than would the "reflection" that appears on
the trunk--which is to the FRONT--if my Hargis theory were true. So,
I'm just not sure what to make of the "reflection theory".

#4.) There are photos taken of the south lawn of Elm Street shortly
after the shooting which show a white piece of paper lying on the
grass in the approximate place where the "white blob" would equate to
via the Z-Film.



In the picture above (taken by Richard Bothun), a piece of white paper
of some kind is easily visible on the south side of Elm Street. Some
people have speculated that the paper could very well be a torn-off
portion of one of Mary Moorman's Polaroid photographs that she took
on November 22nd.

Moorman did take one picture of the lead motorcycles coming down the
street prior to the President's car making its appearance on Elm Street.
That piece of paper could be the discarded "backing" from that earlier
Moorman Polaroid.



And then there's also the photograph above (snapped by Frank Cancellare),
wherein I can see what appears to be a white piece of paper located just
behind the left leg of eyewitness Charles Brehm. And the white paper in
that picture looks to be about the same size of the "spot/blob" seen in
the Zapruder Film, and it is resting in about the same general location
as depicted in the Z-Film as well. [Larger Image.]

So, there's certainly some after-the-assassination photographic
evidence that suggests that the "white spot" that is seen in Abraham
Zapruder's famous home movie could very well be (and probably is)
merely a piece of paper on the south lawn of Elm Street.

BTW, as a sidebar note, the Harper Fragment is almost assuredly NOT
"occipital bone" from the REAR of Kennedy's head. It's very likely
parietal bone from the right-front-top portion of JFK's cranium,
perfectly consistent with the "LN/LHO" scenario.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

Here's a portion of what Vince Bugliosi had to say with respect to the
Harper Fragment in his JFK book:

"Dr. [J. Lawrence] Angel...declared the Harper fragment to be "clearly parietal bone" that had come from "roughly the middle of the right parietal" area (i.e., above the right ear)." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 236 and 237 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

And as far as your personal thoughts about the Zapruder Film having
possibly been "altered in some way", I will just say this --- If the
Zapruder Film was "altered" or "faked" in some manner by one or more
persons who had the desire to cover up a multi-gun conspiracy in JFK's
murder, I'd then logically ask: Why in the world didn't these film-
fakers remove the #1 thing that spells out "CONSPIRACY" to most
Americans even to this day....with that #1 thing being the HEAD SNAP
TO THE REAR?

It makes no sense to me to even BEGIN believing in some kind of crazy
"Z-Film Hoax" or "Z-Film Alteration" theory until we can figure out
what kind of film-altering morons would have been in charge of
altering the film and then (after the supposedly-conspiracy-removing
alterations were complete) the head snap to the rear STILL REMAINS
INTACT in the final version of the film which was faked or altered by
those always-unknown and always-unnamed conspirators.

That's just plain nuts. There's no skirting around that fact.

And then there's your belief that Lee Oswald was on the steps of the
TSBD (and was photographed by James Altgens). Well, Frank, that theory
was forever debunked just a few short months after the assassination,
on April 7, 1964, when Billy Lovelady drew an arrow on the Altgens
photo to the person you claim is Oswald in the Depository doorway,
with Lovelady telling the Warren Commission that it was he, himself
(Billy N. Lovelady), on the steps. [See Commission Exhibit 369.]

Do you really believe Lovelady was lying when he said it was him (and
not Oswald) standing there on those steps at 12:30 PM on November
22nd?

To believe that Lovelady was lying or that he was coerced by the
Government into saying it was him and not Oswald on the steps is to
believe in something quite extraordinary and, frankly, pretty stupid-
sounding.

[EDIT: There is also Lovelady's original 11/22/63 affidavit that was written by Lovelady himself within hours of the assassination, wherein Lovelady says that he watched the motorcade while "standing on the steps in front of the building where I work". And that affidavit was written by Mr. Lovelady long before the "Doorway Man" controversy had ever surfaced.]

Also: Any idea WHY Lee Oswald didn't use his perfect "I WAS ON THE
DEPOSITORY STEPS" alibi after he was arrested? Per your beliefs, LHO
was, indeed, standing in the doorway, but instead of using that as his
TRUTHFUL alibi, he decides he'll tell a lie to the police about having
been INSIDE the building (eating lunch with "Junior") at the time JFK
was shot.

Now THAT'S really crazy, Frank. Was Oswald trying to frame HIMSELF?

In the final analysis, even if your theory about the "white spot"
being a skull fragment is 100% correct, it does absolutely no harm
whatsoever to the "Lone Gunman" scenario put forth by the Warren
Commission.

Why?

Because your theory has a piece of the President's skull travelling
very rapidly FORWARD toward the front of the limousine at the moment
of the fatal shot....which is perfectly consistent with a bullet
hitting JFK in the head as a result of a gunshot coming from Lee
Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. And that rifle and that man
named Oswald were located in the Texas School Book Depository, to the
REAR of President Kennedy, at the time JFK was killed.

So your theory about the "white spot" in Mr. Zapruder's film really
amounts to a lot of talk and theorizing about....nothing.

Regards,
David R. Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 9, 2007)