The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare to the chances........
John Canal
Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
shot him.
Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
(and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
mislocated the entry wound.
In any case, if the entry was in the cowlick, where did the beveled out
bone go? It should have been seen on the lateral film near that alleged
entry (light bone fragments from the internal aspect of the entry defect
wouldn't have traveled very far from their orgin). And this might come as
a shocker: there was a trail of bone fragments seen on the lateral film
near the EOP.
Also, how could one associate an entry in the posterior parietal bone with
a longitudinal laceration of the brain that began at the tip of the
occipital lobe and 2.5 cm right of midline (yes, the same distance right
of midline that HB&F said the entry was)? Yes, folks, the tip of the
occipital lobe lies just inside the skull near the EOP. Surprised? Good
grief, I hope not.
And least we forget that several kinds of model skulls were used,
independently, by four individuals (3 LNers and a highly respected CTer)
who replicated F8 and determined that the semicircular, beveled defect
seen below the ruler in that photo (that defect was determined by the FPP,
using stereoscopic visualization, to be the entry) was positively near the
EOP.
Last point. Donahue should have known that, when the nose of even a
jacketed bullet is deformed like CE-567 is, the bullet will have an
excellent chance of breaking up. That's because, in layman's language, the
bullet's base tries to catch up with the deformed (and therefore slowed)
nose.....and this compression typically results in the bullet's
fragmentation.
That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
Now, the "blowing out" of several large pieces of bone into DP and the
limo, as well as the "bulging out" of at least one piece of right rear
skull, was undoubtedly caused by the tremendous pressure of the temporary
cavity created by the passing of the bullet through the previously highly
pressurized cranium........vs. being caused by the lead fragments pushing
out on those pieces.
Happy holidays.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
> shot him.
>
> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
>
No one made that mistake. The original story had a bullet entering near
the EOP and no one claimed that it was fired from near ground level.
You've created a strawman argument.
> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
>
Or it could be that they actually looked at the autopsy photos and found
that there is no bullet hole near the EOP so they went looking elsewhere.
> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
> mislocated the entry wound.
>
Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
they forensic pathologists?
> In any case, if the entry was in the cowlick, where did the beveled out
> bone go? It should have been seen on the lateral film near that alleged
> entry (light bone fragments from the internal aspect of the entry defect
> wouldn't have traveled very far from their orgin). And this might come as
> a shocker: there was a trail of bone fragments seen on the lateral film
> near the EOP.
>
Hmm, ever think there is no beveled bone in the rear of the head simply
because there was no entrance wound there?
> Also, how could one associate an entry in the posterior parietal bone with
> a longitudinal laceration of the brain that began at the tip of the
> occipital lobe and 2.5 cm right of midline (yes, the same distance right
> of midline that HB&F said the entry was)? Yes, folks, the tip of the
> occipital lobe lies just inside the skull near the EOP. Surprised? Good
> grief, I hope not.
>
> And least we forget that several kinds of model skulls were used,
> independently, by four individuals (3 LNers and a highly respected CTer)
> who replicated F8 and determined that the semicircular, beveled defect
> seen below the ruler in that photo (that defect was determined by the FPP,
> using stereoscopic visualization, to be the entry) was positively near the
> EOP.
>
4 Forensic pathologists? Or 4 janitors?
> Last point. Donahue should have known that, when the nose of even a
> jacketed bullet is deformed like CE-567 is, the bullet will have an
> excellent chance of breaking up. That's because, in layman's language, the
> bullet's base tries to catch up with the deformed (and therefore slowed)
> nose.....and this compression typically results in the bullet's
> fragmentation.
>
It is not the nose which breaks up. The nose stays intact. The bullet
usually breaks at the cannelure. Take a look at the two large fragments
found in the front seat. Which shot do you think they came from? If you
guess the head shot, then you can see for yourself that the nose did not
break, but the bullet broke at the cannelure.
> That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
> deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
>
There was no deformation of the nose, so your argument falls flat.
> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
> just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
> the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
> corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>
How many times are you going to repeat that fiction? There was no exit
along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
>> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
>> shot him.
>>
>> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
>> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
>> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
>> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
>> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
Ya know, Anthony, even though I think your theories are from outer space,
I sincerely appreciate your presence here....because you're just about the
only other poster here that replies to my posts. :-) Thank you.
>No one made that mistake.
Wrongo....they just didn't say it, Anthony. Look at CE-388...ya, the one
where Humes had Ryberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50 degrees. Don't
you think by the time that drawing was made Humes had seen the Zapruder
film which shows JFK leaning forward only about half that at the moment of
impact....or don't you think HB&F looked at that film before they
testified in March? Bottom line is they knew frickin well that their low
entry suggested a ground level shooter....all because they didn't think
the bullet deflected up upon penetration.
Now, as far as Donahue goes, he wrote that a bullet entering near the EOP
would have had to have been fired from the trunk of the limo.
>The original story had a bullet entering near
>the EOP and no one claimed that it was fired from near ground level.
Not too many here know what the record contains (re. the head shot) more
than I.
>You've created a strawman argument.
Ya, sure.
>> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
>> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
>>
>
>Or it could be that they actually looked at the autopsy photos and found
>that there is no bullet hole near the EOP so they went looking elsewhere.
You need glasses. The entry defect is so obvious, even in the published
copies of F8, that a fourth grader could pick it out. Besides the
autopsists and several others in the morgue, the FPP had no doubt that was
the entry. Sadly, an entry being there just doesn't fit with your
theory...and, even if a 100 hand picked forensic pathologists told you to
your face they were sure it was an entry, you'd disagree. Waht's your
problem, Anthony?
>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>
>
>Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>they forensic pathologists?
KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
know what more you want...an exhumation?
>> In any case, if the entry was in the cowlick, where did the beveled out
>> bone go? It should have been seen on the lateral film near that alleged
>> entry (light bone fragments from the internal aspect of the entry defect
>> wouldn't have traveled very far from their orgin). And this might come as
>> a shocker: there was a trail of bone fragments seen on the lateral film
>> near the EOP.
>>
>
>Hmm, ever think there is no beveled bone in the rear of the head simply
>because there was no entrance wound there?
No, I'm not on the booze.
>> Also, how could one associate an entry in the posterior parietal bone with
>> a longitudinal laceration of the brain that began at the tip of the
>> occipital lobe and 2.5 cm right of midline (yes, the same distance right
>> of midline that HB&F said the entry was)? Yes, folks, the tip of the
>> occipital lobe lies just inside the skull near the EOP. Surprised? Good
>> grief, I hope not.
>>
>> And least we forget that several kinds of model skulls were used,
>> independently, by four individuals (3 LNers and a highly respected CTer)
>> who replicated F8 and determined that the semicircular, beveled defect
>> seen below the ruler in that photo (that defect was determined by the FPP,
>> using stereoscopic visualization, to be the entry) was positively near the
>> EOP.
>>
>
>4 Forensic pathologists? Or 4 janitors?
Take some Ginko Biloba and listen up Anthony. It doesn't always take a
forensic pathologist to identify an entry in the skull. I've seen
several...in the lab of Anthony Falsetti, a forensic anthropologist.
>> Last point. Donahue should have known that, when the nose of even a
>> jacketed bullet is deformed like CE-567 is, the bullet will have an
>> excellent chance of breaking up. That's because, in layman's language, the
>> bullet's base tries to catch up with the deformed (and therefore slowed)
>> nose.....and this compression typically results in the bullet's
>> fragmentation.
>>
>
>It is not the nose which breaks up. The nose stays intact.
I just went back a re-read what I wrote...how did you grt confused. I
didn't say the nose bronke up...I said it deformed...and slowed, relative
to the speed of the base...that's why the bullet fragmented.
>The bullet
>usually breaks at the cannelure. Take a look at the two large fragments
>found in the front seat. Which shot do you think they came from? If you
>guess the head shot, then you can see for yourself that the nose did not
>break, but the bullet broke at the cannelure.
Gee, Anthony, I've been saying that for going on a decade. Problem is that
Donahue, mistakenly concluded that a 6.5 mm M/C round couldn't have
fragmented like as HB&F reported the round that hit JFK in the head did.
He wasn't much of an expert, IMO.
>> That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
>> deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
>>
>
>There was no deformation of the nose, so your argument falls flat.
Look at CE-567 wil ya....put down those coke bottle bottoms you're using
for glasses and use a magnifying glass to examine that photo. Now, see
what I mean....Oh, ya, you still think it's what...pristine?
>> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
>> just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
>> the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
>> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
>> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
>> corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
>> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
>> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
>> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>>
>
>How many times are you going to repeat that fiction?
It's how it happened..and I'll repaet it from time to time to try to keep
the newbies from being misled by folks like you and Harris.
>There was no exit
>along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
>semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
Does the autopy report say that defect was an exit, Anthony? How about,
for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
arrow pass through your defect?
Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
was on.
Bye.
John Canal
eca...@comcast.net
"strawman" as a rebuttal..
Variations could include, "HHhhmmm,
straw man" and so forth. We were
all getting bone tired of that lame
"WC defender" response..
Anyway on a more serious
subject, was there a wound on the
insurance shot you say the grassy
knoll shooter took? Not being cute,
but is there a CE number on that
round? Was it found? If your
grassy knoll shooter's bullet hit, who
and where or what did it hit?
And how in the hell did you find out
about this while the rest of us all
missed it? I know I sound sarcastic
here Tony, but there's a hint of sincereity
in this question.. But please refrain from
using "Straw Man" or "WC defender" as
an answer this time.
Regards & MC, Ed Cage
0205Dec2406
Anthony Marsh
> Tony I see you're back with
> "strawman" as a rebuttal..
> Variations could include, "HHhhmmm,
> straw man" and so forth. We were
> all getting bone tired of that lame
> "WC defender" response..
>
Well, thanks for the suggestion. I hadn't actually thought of adding
that many H's. Notice that I can tell the difference from what you
suggest that I can use in the future and a spurious quote of what I
purportedly said.
> Anyway on a more serious
> subject, was there a wound on the
> insurance shot you say the grassy
> knoll shooter took? Not being cute,
> but is there a CE number on that
> round? Was it found? If your
> grassy knoll shooter's bullet hit, who
> and where or what did it hit?
>
It hit Kennedy in the forehead and exploded. There was no CE number,
just as they did not think to put a CE number on their missed shot.
> And how in the hell did you find out
> about this while the rest of us all
> missed it? I know I sound sarcastic
Attention to detail. I was the first person to find the evidence that
they destroyed the original fragments. I was the first person to notice
that the back of the rearview mirror was dented. I was the first person
to correctly describe the mechanism of the ghost images on the Zapruder
film. I was the guy who found the error in the HSCA map.
> here Tony, but there's a hint of sincereity
> in this question.. But please refrain from
> using "Straw Man" or "WC defender" as
> an answer this time.
>
HHHHHmmmmmm, yet another strawman argument from a WC defender.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <QvGdneAwVd278BDY...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> John Canal wrote:
>>> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
>>> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
>>> shot him.
>>>
>>> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
>>> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
>>> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
>>> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
>>> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
>
> Ya know, Anthony, even though I think your theories are from outer space,
> I sincerely appreciate your presence here....because you're just about the
> only other poster here that replies to my posts. :-) Thank you.
>
>> No one made that mistake.
>
> Wrongo....they just didn't say it, Anthony. Look at CE-388...ya, the one
> where Humes had Ryberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50 degrees. Don't
> you think by the time that drawing was made Humes had seen the Zapruder
> film which shows JFK leaning forward only about half that at the moment of
> impact....or don't you think HB&F looked at that film before they
> testified in March? Bottom line is they knew frickin well that their low
No, I doubt it. And I doubt that they knew the difference. The Rydberg
drawing is pure fiction designed to explain away the unexplainable.
> entry suggested a ground level shooter....all because they didn't think
> the bullet deflected up upon penetration.
>
No, I don't think that anyone thought it was a problem of a ground level
shooter. Everything they said was inconsistent in their little limited
minds with a shooter in a building.
> Now, as far as Donahue goes, he wrote that a bullet entering near the EOP
> would have had to have been fired from the trunk of the limo.
>
Silly notion.
But Mortal Error does point out some problems with the HSCA analysis.
>> The original story had a bullet entering near
>> the EOP and no one claimed that it was fired from near ground level.
>
> Not too many here know what the record contains (re. the head shot) more
> than I.
>
>> You've created a strawman argument.
>
> Ya, sure.
>
>>> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
>>> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
>>>
>> Or it could be that they actually looked at the autopsy photos and found
>> that there is no bullet hole near the EOP so they went looking elsewhere.
>
> You need glasses. The entry defect is so obvious, even in the published
> copies of F8, that a fourth grader could pick it out. Besides the
Then show it to me. I am not talking about Dox's drawing. She was
ordered to "enhance" the cowlick entrance. Do you have any problem
seeing that on her cartoon?
> autopsists and several others in the morgue, the FPP had no doubt that was
> the entry. Sadly, an entry being there just doesn't fit with your
What they saw was probably the dab of fat on top of the hair near the
hairline. There is no hole near the EOP. All the forensic pathologists
agree on that.
> theory...and, even if a 100 hand picked forensic pathologists told you to
> your face they were sure it was an entry, you'd disagree. Waht's your
> problem, Anthony?
Find even one forensic pathologist who can see the entrance wound near
the EOP. Not a janitor. Not a corpsman. Not a doorman. A forensic
pathologist.
>
>>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>>
>> Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>> they forensic pathologists?
>
> KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
> seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
> of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
> Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
> know what more you want...an exhumation?
>
All of those are unqualified speculation.
Yes, an exhumation or an examination without exhumation.
Sure, and you can cite various TV documentaries which show entrance
wounds in the skull. So show me one in the Kennedy skull. I still have
yet to get you to admit that the semi-circular defect in the frontal
bone was a bullet wound of any type. Start there.
>>> Last point. Donahue should have known that, when the nose of even a
>>> jacketed bullet is deformed like CE-567 is, the bullet will have an
>>> excellent chance of breaking up. That's because, in layman's language, the
>>> bullet's base tries to catch up with the deformed (and therefore slowed)
>>> nose.....and this compression typically results in the bullet's
>>> fragmentation.
>>>
>> It is not the nose which breaks up. The nose stays intact.
>
> I just went back a re-read what I wrote...how did you grt confused. I
> didn't say the nose bronke up...I said it deformed...and slowed, relative
> to the speed of the base...that's why the bullet fragmented.
>
No, the nose did not deform if you are talking about the two large
fragments. You still have not specified which bullet you are talking
about. And that bullet broke up at the cannelure, not the nose.
>> The bullet
>> usually breaks at the cannelure. Take a look at the two large fragments
>> found in the front seat. Which shot do you think they came from? If you
>> guess the head shot, then you can see for yourself that the nose did not
>> break, but the bullet broke at the cannelure.
>
> Gee, Anthony, I've been saying that for going on a decade. Problem is that
> Donahue, mistakenly concluded that a 6.5 mm M/C round couldn't have
> fragmented like as HB&F reported the round that hit JFK in the head did.
> He wasn't much of an expert, IMO.
>
Where did HB&F specify how the bullet broke up?
>>> That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
>>> deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
>>>
>> There was no deformation of the nose, so your argument falls flat.
>
> Look at CE-567 wil ya....put down those coke bottle bottoms you're using
> for glasses and use a magnifying glass to examine that photo. Now, see
> what I mean....Oh, ya, you still think it's what...pristine?
>
What exactly are you looking at? Do you realize that CE 567 has changed
over the years? No, I thought not. That is why I am here, to clue you in
to things you never ran across. It was originally found intact.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/FBI43646.gif
What you've probably seen are pictures of what it looked like many years
later.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE567-b.JPG
What you may not have seen are photos of what it looked like in 1964.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/WC567.JPG
>>> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
>>> just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
>>> the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
>>> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
>>> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
>>> corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
>>> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
>>> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
>>> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>>>
>> How many times are you going to repeat that fiction?
>
> It's how it happened..and I'll repaet it from time to time to try to keep
> the newbies from being misled by folks like you and Harris.
>
>> There was no exit
>> along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
>> semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>
> Does the autopy report say that defect was an exit, Anthony? How about,
Forget the autopsy report. Did they ever properly document it? No.
I am asking you to at least admit that it is a bullet wound.
> for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
> they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
> arrow pass through your defect?
>
What do you mean by MY defect? You don't know what my defect is. Their
line does not pass through the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
Neither did the HSCA. Only Dr. Angel seemed to get it right and they
ignored him.
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce388.jpg
> Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
> along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
> was on.
>
Pure fiction.
> Bye.
>
> John Canal
Grizzlie Antagonist
> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
> shot him.
>
> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
>
> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
> mislocated the entry wound.
Highly inflammatory language, but I have a feeling that it wouldn't
have been the first time that an entry wound was have been "grossly
mislocated" during an autopsy of a gunfire homicide.
Donahue could not make the exit wounds "work" from Oswald's rifle no
matter which entry point he started with. He did indeed start with the
autopsy notes as his original point of reference for the entry wound.
He perceived an exit wound on the upper right portion of the skull and
could not make that "work" from a trajectory that started from above and
behind the target's right. He could not make that trajectory work from
Fisher's point of entry either -- and, by the way, I believe that this
point of entry is not "in the cowlick", but to its right.
Donahue ultimately concluded that an exit wound from the upper right
portion of the skull was more consistent with a shot from slightly above
and to the left than from sharply above and to the right.
You say, well this drastic change in direction was caused by the
deformation of the nose of the bullet as it entered the skull. I presume
that you would also argue that this is what would cause the trajectory of
the bullet to veer -- not only UPWARDS -- but sharply enough to the RIGHT
to blow out the upper right portion of the skull.
Donahue would say that this can't happen. On page 57 of Mortal Error, he
remarks, "bone and tissue can even cause a bullet to yaw. But to
understand yaw...picture a car skidding on ice. Sure, it's attitude can
be more or less out of line, but its direction perseveres forward."
And quite frankly, this makes far more sense to my lay perspective than
does your analysis.
And Donahue does not deny that a metal jacket bullet can "break up" when
entering the skull -- but he denies that it could "break up" to the extent
required by your analysis -- and he would point to the tensile strength
demonstrated by CE 399 (he accepts that CE 399 performed as the WC says it
did, wounding two men and remaining relatively undeformed) as an example.
A FMJ entering the skull would sustain more damage than that which was
caused to CE 399 -- but Donahue feels that the damage should not have been
any greater than two or three large pieces.
You're assuming that CE 567 was a fragment resulting from the head shot,
but Donahue notes the severity of the deformation and the apparent absence
of cranial residue that should have attached and concludes that this
resulted from a first missed shot which struck the pavement behind the
presidential limousine and landed in the limousine.
I'm not a ballistics or trajectory expert or a pathologist, by any means.
I certainly know nothing of coronal sutures and parietal bones and can't
possibly render any professional judgment.
I can only again remark that Donahue's scenario makes more sense to my lay
perspective than yours does. It's a straight line analysis -- so to speak
-- which follows the evidence trail where it leads and presupposes
nothing.
Notwithstanding the oft-repeated canard of the statistical unlikelihood
of an errant Hickey shot finding Oswald's presumed target, Donahue's
scenario actually -- to my mind -- requires MUCH LESS of a suspension of
disbelief than 1) an FMJ bullet veering sharply upward and to the right as
a result of entry into the sull and 2) CE 567 displaying far less tensile
strength than another bullet of identical manufacture (CE 399) fired from
the same weapon seconds apart.
John Canal
>
>John Canal wrote:
>>In article <QvGdneAwVd278BDY...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> John Canal wrote:
>>>> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
>>>> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
>>>> shot him.
>>>>
>>>> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
>>>> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
>>>> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
>>>> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
>>>> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
>>
>> Ya know, Anthony, even though I think your theories are from outer space,
>> I sincerely appreciate your presence here....because you're just about the
>> only other poster here that replies to my posts. :-) Thank you.
>>
>>> No one made that mistake.
>>
>> Wrongo....they just didn't say it, Anthony. Look at CE-388...ya, the one
>> where Humes had Ryberg draw JFK leaning forward about 50 degrees. Don't
>> you think by the time that drawing was made Humes had seen the Zapruder
>> film which shows JFK leaning forward only about half that at the moment of
>> impact....or don't you think HB&F looked at that film before they
>> testified in March? Bottom line is they knew frickin well that their low
>
>No, I doubt it. And I doubt that they knew the difference. The Rydberg
>drawing is pure fiction designed to explain away the unexplainable.
Exactly. They couldn't explain how a bullet fired from the SN could enter near
the EOP and exit where they showed it with JFK's lean correct...so they adjusted
his lean to fit their entry. Problem was, they could have explained their entry
and exit if they considered that the bullet deflected as it pierced the skull
near the eOP.
>> entry suggested a ground level shooter....all because they didn't think
>> the bullet deflected up upon penetration.
>>
>
>No, I don't think that anyone thought it was a problem of a ground level
>shooter. Everything they said was inconsistent in their little limited
>minds with a shooter in a building.
Yes, Anthony, you need for a lot of people to have "little minds" for your
threory to work.
>> Now, as far as Donahue goes, he wrote that a bullet entering near the EOP
>> would have had to have been fired from the trunk of the limo.
>>
>
>Silly notion.
>But Mortal Error does point out some problems with the HSCA analysis.
Remember what you just said.
>>> The original story had a bullet entering near
>>> the EOP and no one claimed that it was fired from near ground level.
>>
>> Not too many here know what the record contains (re. the head shot) more
>> than I.
>>
>>> You've created a strawman argument.
>>
>> Ya, sure.
>>
>>>> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
>>>> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
>>>>
>>> Or it could be that they actually looked at the autopsy photos and found
>>> that there is no bullet hole near the EOP so they went looking elsewhere.
>>
>> You need glasses. The entry defect is so obvious, even in the published
>> copies of F8, that a fourth grader could pick it out. Besides the
>
>Then show it to me. I am not talking about Dox's drawing. She was
>ordered to "enhance" the cowlick entrance. Do you have any problem
>seeing that on her cartoon?
I REFUSE TO TRY TO POINT OUT TO PERHAPS THE ONLY RESEARCHER HERE WHO CANNOT SEE
THE SEMICIRCULAR, BEVELED DEFECT BELOW THE RULER IN F8. I'VE GOT BETTER WAYS TO
WASTE MY TIME.
>> autopsists and several others in the morgue, the FPP had no doubt that was
>> the entry. Sadly, an entry being there just doesn't fit with your
>
>What they saw was probably the dab of fat on top of the hair near the
>hairline. There is no hole near the EOP. All the forensic pathologists
>agree on that.
Why do you refer to a picture that shows the rear scalp when we're talking about
where the bullet entered the skull? Look at F8 which shows the entry in the
skull....for Pete's sake. No wonder, J. Hunt has you on his kill file!
>> theory...and, even if a 100 hand picked forensic pathologists told you to
>> your face they were sure it was an entry, you'd disagree. Waht's your
>> problem, Anthony?
>
>Find even one forensic pathologist who can see the entrance wound near
>the EOP. Not a janitor. Not a corpsman. Not a doorman. A forensic
>pathologist.
Gee, I thought Finck was a forensic pathologist. You admit there were issues
with the HSCA's head shot conclusion....right? Now, you need them to be spot on
correct that the entry wasn't near they EOP....so they are correct....right?
LOL. Anyway, earth to Anthony: you've claim there was a cover-up of a shot from
the front...right? Then you ought to be open to the idea they didn't want there
to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>>>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>>>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>>>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>>>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>>>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>>>
>>> Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>>> they forensic pathologists?
>>
>> KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
>> seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
>> of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
>> Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
>> know what more you want...an exhumation?
>>
>
>All of those are unqualified speculation.
>Yes, an exhumation or an examination without exhumation.
An exhumation would result in you needing another hobby.
Start with the autopsy report. Where does it mention that defect in the forntal
bone being a wound of any type.
>>>> Last point. Donahue should have known that, when the nose of even a
>>>> jacketed bullet is deformed like CE-567 is, the bullet will have an
>>>> excellent chance of breaking up. That's because, in layman's language, the
>>>> bullet's base tries to catch up with the deformed (and therefore slowed)
>>>> nose.....and this compression typically results in the bullet's
>>>> fragmentation.
>>>>
>>> It is not the nose which breaks up. The nose stays intact.
>>
>> I just went back a re-read what I wrote...how did you grt confused. I
>> didn't say the nose bronke up...I said it deformed...and slowed, relative
>> to the speed of the base...that's why the bullet fragmented.
>>
>
>No, the nose did not deform if you are talking about the two large
>fragments. You still have not specified which bullet you are talking
>about. And that bullet broke up at the cannelure, not the nose.
Are you actually saying the nose fragment, CE-567, was/is undeformed?
>>> The bullet
>>> usually breaks at the cannelure. Take a look at the two large fragments
>>> found in the front seat. Which shot do you think they came from? If you
>>> guess the head shot, then you can see for yourself that the nose did not
>>> break, but the bullet broke at the cannelure.
>>
>> Gee, Anthony, I've been saying that for going on a decade. Problem is that
>> Donahue, mistakenly concluded that a 6.5 mm M/C round couldn't have
>> fragmented like as HB&F reported the round that hit JFK in the head did.
>> He wasn't much of an expert, IMO.
>>
>
>Where did HB&F specify how the bullet broke up?
In the autopsy report...instead of arguing with folks that have done their
homework, you ought to try reading that...and the Supplementary Report as well.
>>>> That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
>>>> deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
>>>>
>>> There was no deformation of the nose, so your argument falls flat.
>>
>> Look at CE-567 wil ya....put down those coke bottle bottoms you're using
>> for glasses and use a magnifying glass to examine that photo. Now, see
>> what I mean....Oh, ya, you still think it's what...pristine?
>>
>
>What exactly are you looking at? Do you realize that CE 567 has changed
>over the years? No, I thought not. That is why I am here, to clue you in
>to things you never ran across. It was originally found intact.
Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/FBI43646.gif
>
>What you've probably seen are pictures of what it looked like many years
>later.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE567-b.JPG
Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>What you may not have seen are photos of what it looked like in 1964.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/WC567.JPG
Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>>>> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
>>>> just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
>>>> the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
>>>> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
>>>> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
>>>> corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
>>>> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
>>>> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
>>>> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>>>>
>>> How many times are you going to repeat that fiction?
>>
>> It's how it happened..and I'll repaet it from time to time to try to keep
>> the newbies from being misled by folks like you and Harris.
>>
>>> There was no exit
>>> along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
>>> semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>>
>> Does the autopy report say that defect was an exit, Anthony? How about,
>
>Forget the autopsy report. Did they ever properly document it? No.
>I am asking you to at least admit that it is a bullet wound.
If it was an entry or exit they would have documented it!
>> for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
>> they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
>> arrow pass through your defect?
>>
>
>What do you mean by MY defect? You don't know what my defect is. Their
>line does not pass through the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>Neither did the HSCA. Only Dr. Angel seemed to get it right and they
>ignored him.
>http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce388.jpg
Dr. Angel, while capable, IMO, was, out of loyalty, parroting Baden, who also
misspoke saying your defect was the exit. Only one little problem with the
remarks of both Angel and Baden...they contridict themselves. I could explain
those contridiction, but I'd be taking to deaf ears.
>
>> Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
>> along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
>> was on.
>>
>
>Pure fiction.
They did show an x-ray of that bone piece, Anthony...LOL!
John Canal
>
>> Bye.
>>
>> John Canal
>
John Canal
Antagonist says...
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
>> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
>> shot him.
>>
>> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
>> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
>> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
>> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
>> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
>>
>> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
>> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
>
>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>> mislocated the entry wound.
>
>
>
>Highly inflammatory language, but I have a feeling that it wouldn't
>have been the first time that an entry wound was have been "grossly
>mislocated" during an autopsy of a gunfire homicide.
I sincerely apologize for the inflammatory language...very few reply to my posts
besides Anthony Marsh, who, IMO, would jump into quick sand if he thought it
would prove the dangers of quick sand were a myth, uses such language and I have
adapted...so to speak. You know, when in Rome and all that. Again, I apologize.
Grizz (I'm not sure what your first name is), when Mortal Error came out many
years ago, I also believed Donahue was correct. It was only after Barb J., about
six years ago, explained to me there was an ongoing controversy regarding "two"
reported entry locations (cowlick and near EOP)......and I studied the issue,
did I come to the conclusion that Donaue, and the Clark/HSCA were wrong about
the Cowlick entry. Even in a court of law it could be proven beyond any doubt
that the entry was near the EOP. The bedrock of the ev. for that conclusion is
the replications of the photo (F8) of the entry in the skull. I believe I was
the first to replicate F8 and then Paul Seaton and Larry Sturdivan followed with
their replications. John Hunt, who arguably has spent more time researching this
case than most of us put together (he's even built a scale model of the limo
with its occupants at about frame Z-224), also replicated F8. Those independent
replications are absolute proof the enrty was near the EOP. The testimony of the
autopsists and other eyewitnesses, the trail of opacities seen anterior to the
EOP on the lateral, the piercing of the brain beginning at the tip of the
occipital lobe, are just additional ev.
Most couldn't make either entry work. That said, about six years ago I convinced
Larry Sturdivan that the bullet, due to its deformed nose, changed directions as
it pierced the rear skull. Heck, Grizz, the man even had the courage to eat his
own HSCA testimony he was so sure I was right. Compare his HSCA deposition in
which he sated the bullet entered high in the head to what he wrote in "The JFK
Myths".
>He perceived an exit wound on the upper right portion of the skull and
>could not make that "work" from a trajectory that started from above and
>behind the target's right. He could not make that trajectory work from
>Fisher's point of entry either
Because he didn't factor in a deflection of the bullet.
>-- and, by the way, I believe that this
>point of entry is not "in the cowlick", but to its right.
>
>Donahue ultimately concluded that an exit wound from the upper right
>portion of the skull was more consistent with a shot from slightly above
>and to the left than from sharply above and to the right.
But inconsistent with a ton of other ev. And, as I wrote before, Donahue
exhibited some ballistic credibility issues, IMHO, when he concluded, besides
his notion that a bullet entering near the EOP would have had to have been fired
from the trunk, that the bullet didn't fragment like the ev. shows and that the
exit portal was as big as a small plate. The bone pieces that exploded out the
top right front of the President's head were pushed out, not by any lead pushing
against them, but by the force of the temporary cavity "explosion".
>You say, well this drastic change in direction was caused by the
>deformation of the nose of the bullet as it entered the skull. I presume
>that you would also argue that this is what would cause the trajectory of
>the bullet to veer -- not only UPWARDS -- but sharply enough to the RIGHT
>to blow out the upper right portion of the skull.
The skull piece went in, more or less, random directions...caused by an
explosion inside the man's head. The main portions of the bullet exited high
along the coronal suture. This was evident because the corner of one of the
pieces [bone] retrieved in DP and brought late to the autopsy (and X-rayed) had
a somewhat semicircular beveled out defect on its corner as well as metalic
residue on that same corner.
>Donahue would say that this can't happen. On page 57 of Mortal Error, he
>remarks, "bone and tissue can even cause a bullet to yaw. But to
>understand yaw...picture a car skidding on ice. Sure, it's attitude can
>be more or less out of line, but its direction perseveres forward."
> And quite frankly, this makes far more sense to my lay perspective than
>does your analysis.
And mine makes little sense to many besides you, and, quite frankly, that
doesn't bother me one iota. I post here to try to make sure the newbies have
different perspectives on this stuff so they have the best opportunity to make a
decision (conspiracy or no conspiracy..or whatever) that they are comfortable
with....before they invest a cazillion hours researching this case.
>And Donahue does not deny that a metal jacket bullet can "break up" when
>entering the skull -- but he denies that it could "break up" to the extent
>required by your analysis
What? I say that the bullet broke into two major pieces, CE 567 & 569, several
much smaller "recovered" pieces (CEs 840 & 843), and countless "unrecovered"
(but seen on x-ray) tiny pieces near the top of his head...not to mention others
that same size that went into DP and the lime along with the exploded brain
tissue. And, BTW, I'll take Larry Sturdivan's expert ballistics resume over
Donahue's any day....but I'm sure you wouldn't so you don't need to tell me
that.
-- and he would point to the tensile strength
>demonstrated by CE 399 (he accepts that CE 399 performed as the WC says it
>did, wounding two men and remaining relatively undeformed) as an example.
But CE-399 hit soft tissue, until it slowed down...that's why it didn't
fragment.
>A FMJ entering the skull would sustain more damage than that which was
>caused to CE 399 -- but Donahue feels that the damage should not have been
>any greater than two or three large pieces.
The countless, almost weightless, tiny pieces (seen near the top of his head on
the x-rays) were metalic debris from when the bullet broke apart into the larger
pieces (only two large pieces, BTW).
>You're assuming that CE 567 was a fragment resulting from the head shot,
>but Donahue notes the severity of the deformation and the apparent absence
>of cranial residue that should have attached and concludes that this
>resulted from a first missed shot which struck the pavement behind the
>presidential limousine and landed in the limousine.
Those piece struck the windshield with some degree of force...was Donahue
absolutely certain that any tissue would have stayed on those fragments
throughout the impact of metal and/or glass?
>I'm not a ballistics or trajectory expert or a pathologist, by any means.
>I certainly know nothing of coronal sutures and parietal bones and can't
>possibly render any professional judgment.
>
>I can only again remark that Donahue's scenario makes more sense to my lay
>perspective than yours does. It's a straight line analysis -- so to speak
>-- which follows the evidence trail where it leads and presupposes
>nothing.
>
> Notwithstanding the oft-repeated canard of the statistical unlikelihood
>of an errant Hickey shot finding Oswald's presumed target,
I didn't even mention that fact. Oh, but talking about statistical unliklihoods,
didn't Donahue say that the 6.5 mm roundish opacity was a ricochet? So, let me
get this right: A "wafer-shaped" piece of bullet, which just happened to be the
same diameter (6.5 mm), approximately, of a round that Oswald fired, and just
happend to land itself adjacent to where the CLark/HSCA claimed a bullet
entered, and just happened to land itself 2.5 cm right of midline (the same
distance right of midline as both proposed entries), and just happened not to be
seen on the lateral x-ray, and just happened not to be seen on the body or
reported during the autopsy.......was a ricochet??????
Sure, his theory makes a lot better sense than mine..or Sturdivan's.
>Donahue's
>scenario actually -- to my mind -- requires MUCH LESS of a suspension of
>disbelief than 1) an FMJ bullet veering sharply upward and to the right as
>a result of entry into the sull and 2) CE 567 displaying far less tensile
>strength than another bullet of identical manufacture (CE 399) fired from
>the same weapon seconds apart.
Whatever you want to believe...good luck.
John Canal
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
> In article <1166998731....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, Grizzlie
> Antagonist says...
> >
> >John Canal wrote:
> >> The chances that Hickey shot JFK compare well, IMHO, to the chances that
> >> Greer...or someone on the GK or anywhere else besides the SN in the TSBD,
> >> shot him.
> >>
> >> Donahue makes the same mistake that McAdams and so many other make/made,
> >> i.e. they assume a bullet that entered near the EOP would have had to have
> >> been fired from near ground level. Unfortunately, this myth would never
> >> have been started, IMHO, if HB&F had consulted with a bonafide
> >> wound-ballistics "expert" before they wrote their report.
> >>
> >> So then Donahue agreed with Fisher, et. al., as well as Baden and compay
> >> (and others), that the bullet entered in the cowlick.
> >
> >> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
> >> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
> >> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
> >> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
> >> mislocated the entry wound.
> >
> >
> >
> >Highly inflammatory language, but I have a feeling that it wouldn't
> >have been the first time that an entry wound was have been "grossly
> >mislocated" during an autopsy of a gunfire homicide.
>
> I sincerely apologize for the inflammatory language...
Oh, that's OK.
> very few reply to my posts
> besides Anthony Marsh, who, IMO, would jump into quick sand if he thought it
> would prove the dangers of quick sand were a myth,
Are you sure? That would require courage, wouldn't it?
> uses such language and I have
> adapted...so to speak. You know, when in Rome and all that. Again, I apologize.
I actually appreciate that you have engaged in an EMPIRICAL analysis. The
standard reaction is simply to laugh the idea off as "a priori" crazy. I
have never understood that. Perhaps at the end of the day, any scenario
might fall to empirical scrutiny, but given the commonality of accidental
homicides by gunfire, I have never understood the notion that this
particular scenario is "a priori" crazy.
An EMPIRICAL analysis is, at least, one that I can respect.
> Grizz (I'm not sure what your first name is),
Ha ha. There's a reason for that, and many people will tell you that it
is because I am a "coward". But "Grizz" or GA or whatever will certainly
do for now.
> when Mortal Error came out many
> years ago, I also believed Donahue was correct. It was only after Barb J., about
> six years ago, explained to me there was an ongoing controversy regarding "two"
> reported entry locations (cowlick and near EOP)......and I studied the issue,
> did I come to the conclusion that Donaue, and the Clark/HSCA were wrong about
> the Cowlick entry. Even in a court of law it could be proven beyond any doubt
> that the entry was near the EOP.
Oh, I see. Well then, it's too bad for Hickey that he actually settled
his lawsuit and settled it without receiving a retraction. I mean, if the
evidence of an EOP entry is SO obvious that it could be proven in a court
of law...
> The bedrock of the ev. for that conclusion is
> the replications of the photo (F8) of the entry in the skull. I believe I was
> the first to replicate F8 and then Paul Seaton and Larry Sturdivan followed with
> their replications. John Hunt, who arguably has spent more time researching this
> case than most of us put together (he's even built a scale model of the limo
> with its occupants at about frame Z-224), also replicated F8. Those independent
> replications are absolute proof the enrty was near the EOP. The testimony of the
> autopsists and other eyewitnesses, the trail of opacities seen anterior to the
> EOP on the lateral, the piercing of the brain beginning at the tip of the
> occipital lobe, are just additional ev.
Right. But the EOP/cowlick controversy is one of those controversies that
is so technical and where experts or self-styled experts who know more
about the technicalities than I could fathom line up on both sides.
How could an armchair lay juror make a decision? How could an armchair
lay juror do anything other than throw up his hands? When I said, just up
above, that I "see", I was being sarcastic, of course.
Just so that I am clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that
the bullet came out of the rifle with a deformed nose or are you saying
that the nose deformed as a result of its entry into the skull?
> >He perceived an exit wound on the upper right portion of the skull and
> >could not make that "work" from a trajectory that started from above and
> >behind the target's right. He could not make that trajectory work from
> >Fisher's point of entry either
>
> Because he didn't factor in a deflection of the bullet.
He says that the bullet cannot deflect to that extent. The "car
skidding on ice" analogy.
I appreciate that viewpoint as well. I am constantly reminded of how few
people "believe" in an errant Hickey shot as though this were the subject
of widespread and intensive analysis by the public and as though something
like this could ever be decided by a public opinion poll.
Actually, Donahue was doing quite well on the lecture circuit in the
immediate aftermath of publication of the Menninger book, and the Hickey
lawsuit has since had the effect of preventing futher publication of
"Mortal Error". So the public really hasn't been exposed to it for a
while.
But, in any event, I think that it is a sign of healthy integrity for one
to disdain majority opinion when one's guiding light leads him in a
different direction from that traveled by the hoi polloi.
> I post here to try to make sure the newbies have
> different perspectives on this stuff so they have the best opportunity to make a
> decision (conspiracy or no conspiracy..or whatever) that they are comfortable
> with....before they invest a cazillion hours researching this case.
>
> >And Donahue does not deny that a metal jacket bullet can "break up" when
> >entering the skull -- but he denies that it could "break up" to the extent
> >required by your analysis
>
> What? I say that the bullet broke into two major pieces, CE 567 & 569, several
> much smaller "recovered" pieces (CEs 840 & 843), and countless "unrecovered"
> (but seen on x-ray) tiny pieces near the top of his head...not to mention others
> that same size that went into DP and the lime along with the exploded brain
> tissue.
Right. Donahue says that a FMJ shouldn't disintegrate that way as a
result of impact against a human skull. The "much smaller recovered
pieces" and the "countless unrecovered pieces" are, to him, signs of an
exploding frangible bullet.
> And, BTW, I'll take Larry Sturdivan's expert ballistics resume over
> Donahue's any day....but I'm sure you wouldn't so you don't need to tell me
> that.
Sturdivan obviously got to present his scenario before HSCA. We will
never know how Donahue fared in the political world or in the court of
public opinion, on his own, or in relation to Sturdivan.
The Menninger book describes how Donahue's "wacky" theory interested HSCA
investigators enough to invite him to testify before the subcommittee and
how he was ultimately betrayed by committee members and staff and not
allowed to testify.
> -- and he would point to the tensile strength
> >demonstrated by CE 399 (he accepts that CE 399 performed as the WC says it
> >did, wounding two men and remaining relatively undeformed) as an example.
>
> But CE-399 hit soft tissue, until it slowed down...that's why it didn't
> fragment.
And so... -------------------> > >A FMJ entering the skull would
sustain more damage than that which was > >caused to CE 399 -- but
Donahue feels that the damage should not have been > >any greater than
two or three large pieces.
> The countless, almost weightless, tiny pieces (seen near the top of his head on
> the x-rays) were metalic debris from when the bullet broke apart into the larger
> pieces (only two large pieces, BTW).
Exploding frangible bullet, not an FMJ.
> >You're assuming that CE 567 was a fragment resulting from the head shot,
> >but Donahue notes the severity of the deformation and the apparent absence
> >of cranial residue that should have attached and concludes that this
> >resulted from a first missed shot which struck the pavement behind the
> >presidential limousine and landed in the limousine.
>
> Those piece struck the windshield with some degree of force...was Donahue
> absolutely certain that any tissue would have stayed on those fragments
> throughout the impact of metal and/or glass?
You feel that cranial residue settling in the cracks of the fragments
were COMPLETELY removed by this impact?
> >I'm not a ballistics or trajectory expert or a pathologist, by any means.
> >I certainly know nothing of coronal sutures and parietal bones and can't
> >possibly render any professional judgment.
> >
> >I can only again remark that Donahue's scenario makes more sense to my lay
> >perspective than yours does. It's a straight line analysis -- so to speak
> >-- which follows the evidence trail where it leads and presupposes
> >nothing.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the oft-repeated canard of the statistical unlikelihood
> >of an errant Hickey shot finding Oswald's presumed target,
>
> I didn't even mention that fact.
Others have. But again, that's to say that every accidental homicide
is statistically unlikely because it fullfills the purposes of the
victim's enemies. Every Joe Blow who has ever died of an accidental
gunshot wound probably had people in his life who didn't particularly
care for him and who might have benefitted in some sense from the
accident.
> Oh, but talking about statistical unliklihoods,
> didn't Donahue say that the 6.5 mm roundish opacity was a ricochet? So, let me
> get this right: A "wafer-shaped" piece of bullet, which just happened to be the
> same diameter (6.5 mm), approximately, of a round that Oswald fired,
I'm not sure that I understand the statistical unlikelihood here. The
wafer-shape was from a bullet fired by Oswald.
> and just
> happend to land itself adjacent to where the CLark/HSCA claimed a bullet
> entered, and just happened to land itself 2.5 cm right of midline (the same
> distance right of midline as both proposed entries), and just happened not to be
> seen on the lateral x-ray, and just happened not to be seen on the body or
> reported during the autopsy.......was a ricochet??????
It's on the outer table of the skull. The OUTER table. This is more
consistent with a ricochet than with a fragment resulting from a bullet
exploding inside the skull. Your scenario is no less statistically
unlikely because it requires the coincidence of a fragment from a bullet
exploding inside the skull somehow making its way outside the skull and
embedding itself in the area in question.
And how is it that this fragment was, in fact, NOT seen on the body or
reported during the autopsy?
I thought that the large number of witnesses at the autopsy GUARANTEED the
perfection of its results -- or, at any rate -- guaranteed that obvious
mistakes and/or omissions wouldn't take place. Were they as blind as
bats? Were they "liars"? Were they "doped up"?
Anthony Marsh
Nice to see that the moderators do not allow personal attacks here. One of
my messages was just rejected because they thought I was calling steve
Barber a Christian.
Anthony Marsh
What bullet? Show me the bullet you are talking about.
What deformed nose? You are starting with false premises. Maybe you saw
the Walker bullet some time and got confused and thought it was the one
that fell out of the President's head.
John Canal
:-)
Back then no one knew the ev. relating to the head shot like what is known
now. Does that sound unreasonable?
>> The bedrock of the ev. for that conclusion is
>> the replications of the photo (F8) of the entry in the skull. I believe I was
>>the first to replicate F8 and then Paul Seaton and Larry Sturdivan followed with
>>their replications. John Hunt, who arguably has spent more time researching this
>> case than most of us put together (he's even built a scale model of the limo
>>with its occupants at about frame Z-224), also replicated F8. Those independent
>>replications are absolute proof the enrty was near the EOP. The testimony of the
>>autopsists and other eyewitnesses, the trail of opacities seen anterior to the
>> EOP on the lateral, the piercing of the brain beginning at the tip of the
>> occipital lobe, are just additional ev.
>
>
>
>Right. But the EOP/cowlick controversy is one of those controversies that
>is so technical and where experts or self-styled experts who know more
>about the technicalities than I could fathom line up on both sides.
This may sound like B/S to you, but I consider myself as knowledgeable
about the headshot as anyone on this planet...and I don't have a
PhD...I've just been obsessed with this issue and studied it for six
years. Point is you don't have to be an expert to understand what happened
when the bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. Excuse me for getting
long-winded here, but take for example, Dr. Joe Davis' statements during
the FPP discussions...not too many researchers a few years ago realized
the importance of what he said. Basically, GA, while Baden and some of the
other FPP members had Humes and Boswell on the ropes, practically
interogating them, re. their low entry, Davis (apparently not in tune with
some of the other members) blurted out that he saw a trail of opacities
extending anteriorly from near the EOP. with this revelation he was trying
to support Humes' low entry conclusion....but as quick as you can say,
Anthony Marsh, they went off the record/ What was up with that......was it
lunch time? Well, if it was, Ok, but when they went back on the record,
not a peep from Davis. Well, when Larry Sturdivan and Chad got permission
to go to the archives, I was a pest to both of them asking that they look
for Davis' trail. Now, maybe they would have looked without me pestering
them, but the bottom line is that they confirmed the existance of Davis'
trail. GA, that trail is curiously (I spare you the reasons for that, but
it is related to why the aforementioned discussion was abruptly
stopped)cropped from view on the published copies of the lateral. Take a
breath...I didn't think I was going to get this long winded. Anyway, that
trail (they are little bone fragments) is powerful ev. that a bullet
entered exactly where
Humes said it did. It's important to realize that, normally, when a bullet
pierces the skull one will see inward beveling (on the inner aspect of the
skull around the entry....and that beveled out bone has to go inward from
the hole...but the bone fragments typically stay close to the entry
because they are so light. Now, if the entry was up high in the head one
would expect to see a trail of opacities not too far from that entry...but
there is nothing like that...at eith the HSCA's or Donahue's entry. BTW,
I've maintained communication (phone and email) with Davis (although not
very frequent)....and I've a strong feeling he wants to get something off
his chest. We'll see.
Whew! But that trail, while powerful ev., like I wrote earlier, is not the
proof...it's the cooberating replications of F8 (shows the photo of the
entry in the skull near the EOP).
>How could an armchair lay juror make a decision? How could an armchair
>lay juror do anything other than throw up his hands? When I said, just up
>above, that I "see", I was being sarcastic, of course.
Take this for example. When an expert explains to a layperson what a trail
of bone fragments looks like and why one is likely to see a such a trail
on a lateral x-ray inward from an entry defect...and then that layperson
sees that trail, well, that, IMO, carries some weight with the layperson.
But, one wouldn't depend on just a trail to absolutely convince the
layperson. Not hardly. The layperson, in this case, whould be shown
additional ev. such as the model skulls with the photo replications,
eyewitness testimony, and autopsy finding about the longitudinal
laceration. Wouldn't take an expert to read the ev. here, IMO.
Wow...have I been that unclear? The bullet's nose started deforming as it
penetrated the skull. If you could look at a skull sometime, note how
thick it is down near the EOP. BTW, even though Lattimer is on record as
being a cowlick entry guy, his diagram in his book shows the same degree
(roughly 20 deg. up) of "course change" that Sturdivan and I say the
bullet that hit JFK in the BOH had. And, asa matter of fact, he looked at
the photos documenting my replication of F8 and said I could be right. He
even offered to shoot some skulls near the EOP to help verify my theory. I
politely declined...but I didn't tell him why...which was that dried out
old skulls wouldn't affect a bullet like a live head would.
>> >He perceived an exit wound on the upper right portion of the skull and
>> >could not make that "work" from a trajectory that started from above and
>> >behind the target's right. He could not make that trajectory work from
>> >Fisher's point of entry either
>>
>> Because he didn't factor in a deflection of the bullet.
>
>
>
>He says that the bullet cannot deflect to that extent. The "car
>skidding on ice" analogy.
Larty Sturdivan, Lattimer (sure, he's a uroligist, but has probably fired
more rounds with a MC than anyone since WWII), and the ev., IMO, say
otherwise.
BTW, GA, I'm too lazy to look, but what was Donahue's explanation for the
two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo? They were
exclusively matched to Oswald's MC...so didn't Donahue think those frags
came from the head shot?
I would have loved to debate Donahue.
>> I post here to try to make sure the newbies have
>>different perspectives on this stuff so they have the best opportunity to make a
>> decision (conspiracy or no conspiracy..or whatever) that they are comfortable
>> with....before they invest a cazillion hours researching this case.
>>
>> >And Donahue does not deny that a metal jacket bullet can "break up" when
>> >entering the skull -- but he denies that it could "break up" to the extent
>> >required by your analysis
>>
>>What? I say that the bullet broke into two major pieces, CE 567 & 569, several
>> much smaller "recovered" pieces (CEs 840 & 843), and countless "unrecovered"
>>(but seen on x-ray) tiny pieces near the top of his head...not to mention others
>> that same size that went into DP and the lime along with the exploded brain
>> tissue.
>
>
>
>Right. Donahue says that a FMJ shouldn't disintegrate that way as a
>result of impact against a human skull.
Interesting conclusion. Dr. Martin Fackler, a reknowned ballistics expert,
and Sturdivan say otherwise.
>The "much smaller recovered
>pieces" and the "countless unrecovered pieces" are, to him, signs of an
>exploding frangible bullet.
Many thought that.
>> And, BTW, I'll take Larry Sturdivan's expert ballistics resume over
>> Donahue's any day....but I'm sure you wouldn't so you don't need to tell me
>> that.
>
>
>
>Sturdivan obviously got to present his scenario before HSCA. We will
>never know how Donahue fared in the political world or in the court of
>public opinion, on his own, or in relation to Sturdivan.
>
>The Menninger book describes how Donahue's "wacky" theory interested HSCA
>investigators enough to invite him to testify before the subcommittee and
>how he was ultimately betrayed by committee members and staff and not
>allowed to testify.
The HSCA [FPP] covered their asses in more ways than you can shake a stick
at.
>> -- and he would point to the tensile strength
>> >demonstrated by CE 399 (he accepts that CE 399 performed as the WC says it
>> >did, wounding two men and remaining relatively undeformed) as an example.
>>
>> But CE-399 hit soft tissue, until it slowed down...that's why it didn't
>> fragment.
>
>
>
>And so... -------------------> > >A FMJ entering the skull would
>sustain more damage than that which was > >caused to CE 399 -- but
>Donahue feels that the damage should not have been > >any greater than
>two or three large pieces.
Too bad Donahue couldn't have seen someone like Osama Bin Laden shot in
the BOH, near the EOP, with a MC and then look at the x-rays. His expert
opinion is useful but not conclusive ev.
>>The countless, almost weightless, tiny pieces (seen near the top of his head on
>>the x-rays) were metalic debris from when the bullet broke apart into the larger
>> pieces (only two large pieces, BTW).
>
>
>
>
>Exploding frangible bullet, not an FMJ.
I think you have made up your mind on this issue.
>
>> >You're assuming that CE 567 was a fragment resulting from the head shot,
>> >but Donahue notes the severity of the deformation and the apparent absence
>> >of cranial residue that should have attached and concludes that this
>> >resulted from a first missed shot which struck the pavement behind the
>> >presidential limousine and landed in the limousine.
>>
>> Those piece struck the windshield with some degree of force...was Donahue
>> absolutely certain that any tissue would have stayed on those fragments
>> throughout the impact of metal and/or glass?
>
>
>
>You feel that cranial residue settling in the cracks of the fragments
>were COMPLETELY removed by this impact?
Now I remember...Donaue concluded, I think, that the large fragments found
in the front of the limo were'nt from the head shot. What can I say? I
don't recall anyone finding any tissue on the fragments...but tell me,
honestly, does that fact rule out the conclusion they were part of the
bullet that hit JFK in the BOH?
>
>
>> >I'm not a ballistics or trajectory expert or a pathologist, by any means.
>> >I certainly know nothing of coronal sutures and parietal bones and can't
>> >possibly render any professional judgment.
>> >
>> >I can only again remark that Donahue's scenario makes more sense to my lay
>> >perspective than yours does. It's a straight line analysis -- so to speak
>> >-- which follows the evidence trail where it leads and presupposes
>> >nothing.
>> >
>> > Notwithstanding the oft-repeated canard of the statistical unlikelihood
>> >of an errant Hickey shot finding Oswald's presumed target,
>>
>> I didn't even mention that fact.
>
>
>
>Others have. But again, that's to say that every accidental homicide
>is statistically unlikely because it fullfills the purposes of the
>victim's enemies. Every Joe Blow who has ever died of an accidental
>gunshot wound probably had people in his life who didn't particularly
>care for him and who might have benefitted in some sense from the
>accident.
>
>
>
>
>> Oh, but talking about statistical unliklihoods,
>>didn't Donahue say that the 6.5 mm roundish opacity was a ricochet? So, let me
>>get this right: A "wafer-shaped" piece of bullet, which just happened to be the
>> same diameter (6.5 mm), approximately, of a round that Oswald fired,
>
>
>
>I'm not sure that I understand the statistical unlikelihood here. The
>wafer-shape was from a bullet fired by Oswald.
Ok, Donahue assumed there was a bullet fragment shaped like a wafer with
the same size diameter as the round fired by LHO...that's unlikely, IMO.
>
>> and just
>> happend to land itself adjacent to where the CLark/HSCA claimed a bullet
>> entered, and just happened to land itself 2.5 cm right of midline (the same
>>distance right of midline as both proposed entries), and just happened not to be
>> seen on the lateral x-ray, and just happened not to be seen on the body or
>> reported during the autopsy.......was a ricochet??????
>
>
>
>It's on the outer table of the skull. The OUTER table.
I heard you. Fine, but they record shows it wasn't present during the
autopsy.
>This is more
>consistent with a ricochet than with a fragment resulting from a bullet
>exploding inside the skull.
Possibly, except the record shows it wasn't present during the autopsy.
>Your scenario is no less statistically
>unlikely because it requires the coincidence of a fragment from a bullet
>exploding inside the skull somehow making its way outside the skull and
>embedding itself in the area in question.
>
>And how is it that this fragment was, in fact, NOT seen on the body or
>reported during the autopsy?
It wasn't there until about a month or so after the autopsy, GA. I know
you don't read CT books...but I do, because sometimes they contain useful
and truthful information. Dr. Mantik raeds x-rays as part of his living
and has examined the original autopsy materials more than anyone, as far
as I know. That said read the chapter on the 6.5 mm "fragment". Also, I
don't believe Chad or Larry think it's a real bullet fragment, ricochet or
otherwise.
>I thought that the large number of witnesses at the autopsy GUARANTEED the
>perfection of its results -- or, at any rate -- guaranteed that obvious
>mistakes and/or omissions wouldn't take place. Were they as blind as
>bats? Were they "liars"? Were they "doped up"?
Reasonable conclusion. But, the problem, GA, the way I read the record, is
that when Humes reflected the rear scalp to look at the entry in the skull
and start the brain removal process, the rear shattered skull pieces, all
the way down to the EOP entry, either fell to the table or stuck to the
inside of the scalp (they testified to that event). Take a look at the
large transverse fracture emanating, from near the EOP around towards
JFK's right. I assure you that fracture split the entry into two
hemispheres....that's why the HSCA reported seeing a semicircular beveled
defect that they said was the entry. Also, look at Boswell's schematic
drawing done during the autopsy....see the pice of skull he drew on the
side? It has a half moon like defect. Later he testified that piece of
skull fit on the entry. Here's my point. None of the numerous witnesses in
the morgue saw a neat hole in the rear skull...and very few got to see
Boswell place that piece of skull back on top of the remaining skull that
included the bottom half of the entry. That's why all the conflicting
testimony from the witnesses...what most of them saw was a real
mess..again, no neat hole.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
But a deflecting bullet might not lead back to the sniper's nest.
>>> entry suggested a ground level shooter....all because they didn't think
>>> the bullet deflected up upon penetration.
>>>
>> No, I don't think that anyone thought it was a problem of a ground level
>> shooter. Everything they said was inconsistent in their little limited
>> minds with a shooter in a building.
>
> Yes, Anthony, you need for a lot of people to have "little minds" for your
> threory to work.
>
It takes a larger brain to comprehend the concept of conspiracy.
>>> Now, as far as Donahue goes, he wrote that a bullet entering near the EOP
>>> would have had to have been fired from the trunk of the limo.
>>>
>> Silly notion.
>> But Mortal Error does point out some problems with the HSCA analysis.
>
> Remember what you just said.
>
I said it a long time ago. And also that Mortal Error has excellent
photographs and diagrams.
The bullet can not enter the skull without first entering the scalp.
Show me the hole on the scalp.
>>> theory...and, even if a 100 hand picked forensic pathologists told you to
>>> your face they were sure it was an entry, you'd disagree. Waht's your
>>> problem, Anthony?
>> Find even one forensic pathologist who can see the entrance wound near
>> the EOP. Not a janitor. Not a corpsman. Not a doorman. A forensic
>> pathologist.
>
> Gee, I thought Finck was a forensic pathologist. You admit there were issues
Finck did not see a hole near the EOP.
> with the HSCA's head shot conclusion....right? Now, you need them to be spot on
> correct that the entry wasn't near they EOP....so they are correct....right?
> LOL. Anyway, earth to Anthony: you've claim there was a cover-up of a shot from
> the front...right? Then you ought to be open to the idea they didn't want there
No, I never said that. I did not say that the cover-up was of a shot from
the front by the autopsy doctors. They missed it. Just as they missed the
throat wound.
> to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
The autopsy doctors did not connect an EOP entrance wound with a
ground-level shooter. YOU can have that connection for YOUR theory.
> Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
> there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>
There is no right rear gaping hole. Show that to me. There is no hole in
the scalp in the back of the head.
>>>>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>>>>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>>>>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>>>>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>>>>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>>>>
>>>> Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>>>> they forensic pathologists?
>>> KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
>>> seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
>>> of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
>>> Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
>>> know what more you want...an exhumation?
>>>
>> All of those are unqualified speculation.
>> Yes, an exhumation or an examination without exhumation.
>
> An exhumation would result in you needing another hobby.
>
It would only solve part of the case. It does not tell you who pulled
the trigger. Why would you be opposed to examining evidence?
No, I am saying that the nose fragment, CE-567 was intact and not as
deformed when it was originally found. It has become more deformed and
broken apart as you see it now in the National Archives. You should
already have know this basic fact, especially if it is important to your
theory. But there is no proof that it hit the head.
>>>> The bullet
>>>> usually breaks at the cannelure. Take a look at the two large fragments
>>>> found in the front seat. Which shot do you think they came from? If you
>>>> guess the head shot, then you can see for yourself that the nose did not
>>>> break, but the bullet broke at the cannelure.
>>> Gee, Anthony, I've been saying that for going on a decade. Problem is that
>>> Donahue, mistakenly concluded that a 6.5 mm M/C round couldn't have
>>> fragmented like as HB&F reported the round that hit JFK in the head did.
>>> He wasn't much of an expert, IMO.
>>>
>> Where did HB&F specify how the bullet broke up?
>
> In the autopsy report...instead of arguing with folks that have done their
> homework, you ought to try reading that...and the Supplementary Report as well.
>
No, they did not specify in the autopsy report or supplemental report
how the bullet broke up or which fragment caused the head wound.
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
> Appendix IX - Autopsy Report and Supplemental Report
> Clinical Record - Autopsy Protocol
>
> Date 11/22/63 1300 (CST)
>
> Prosecter: CDR J.J. Humes, MC, USA (497831)
>
> Assistant: CDR "J" Thornton Boswell, MC, USN, (439878);
> LCOL, Pierre A. Finck, MC, USA (04 043 322)
>
> Full Autopsy
>
> Ht. - 72 1/2 inches Wt. - 170 pounds Eyes - blue Hair - Reddish
> brown
>
> Pathological diagnosis: Cause of Death: Gunshot wound, head.
>
> Signature: J.J. Humes, CDS, MC, USN
>
> Military organization: President, United States
>
> Age: 46 Sex: Male Race: Caucasian
>
> Autopsy No. A63-272
>
> Patient's Identification: Kennedy, John F., Naval Medical School
>
> Clinical Summary
>
> According to available information the deceased, President John F.
> Kennedy, was riding in an open car in a motorcade during an official
> visit to Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963. The President was
> sitting in the right rear seat with Mrs. Kennedy seated on the same
> seat to his left. Sitting directly in front of the President was Governor
> John B. Connally of Texas and directly in front of Mrs. Kennedy sat
> Mrs. Connally. The vehicle was moving at a slow rate of speed down
> an incline into an underpass that leads to a freeway route to the
> Dallas Trade Mart where the President was to deliver an address.
>
> Three shots were heard and the President fell forward bleeding from
> the head. (Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same
> gunfire.) According to newspaper reports ("Washington Post"
> November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas "Times Herald"
> Photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a
> rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the
> nearby Texas School Book Depository Building.
>
> Shortly following the wounding of the two men the car was driven to
> Parkland Hospital in Dallas. In the emergency room of that hospital
> the President was attended by Dr. Malcolm Perry. Telephone
> communication with Dr. Perry on November 23, 1963 develops the
> following information relative to the observations made by Dr. Perry
> and procedures performed there prior to death.
>
> Dr. Perry noted the massive wound of the head and a second much
> smaller wound of the low anterior neck in approximately the midline.
> A tracheostomy was performed by extending the latter wound. At this
> point bloody air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to
> the right lateral wall of the trachea was observed. Incisions were made
> in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat possible
> subcutaneous emphysema. Intravenous infusions of blood and saline
> were begun and oxygen was administered. Despite these measures
> cardiac arrest occurred and closed chest cardiac massage failed to
> re-establish cardiac action. The President was pronounced dead
> approximately thirty to forty minutes after receiving his wounds.
>
> The remains were transported via the Presidential plane to
> Washington, D.C. and subsequently to the Naval Medical School,
> National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland for postmortem
> examination.
>
>
>
> General Description of the Body
>
> The body is that of a muscular, well-developed and well nourished
> adult Caucasian male measuring 72 1/2 inches and weighing
> approximately 170 pounds. There is beginning rigor mortis, minimal
> dependent livor mortis of the dorsum, and early algor mortis. The
> hair is reddish brown and abundant, the eyes are blue, the right pupil
> measuring 8 mm. in diameter, the left 4 mm. There is edema and
> ecchymosis of the inner canthus region of the left eyelid measuring
> approximately 1.5 cm. in greatest diameter. There is edema and
> ecchymosis diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal
> mobility of the underlying bone. (The remainder of the scalp will be
> described with the skull.) There is clotted blood on the external ears
> but otherwise the ears, nares, and mouth are essentially unremarkable.
> The teeth are in excellent repair and there is some pallor of the oral
> mucous membrane.
>
> Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This
> wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion
> process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>
> Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the
> third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound
> with widely gaping irregular edges. (The depth and character of these
> wounds will be further described below.)
>
> Situated on the anterior chest wall in the nipple line are bilateral 2 cm.
> long recent transverse surgical incisions into the subcutaneous tissue.
> The one on the left is situated 11 cm. cephalad to the nipple and the
> one on the right 8 cm. cephalad to the nipple. There is no hemorrhage
> or ecchymosis associated with these wounds. A similar clean wound
> measuring 2 cm. in length is situated on the antero-lateral aspect of
> the left mid arm. Situated on the antero-lateral aspect of each ankle is
> a recent 2 cm. transverse incision into the subcutaneous tissue.
>
> There is an old well healed 8 cm. McBurney abdominal incision.
> Over the lumbar spine in the midline is an old, well healed 15 cm.
> scar. Situated on the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh is
> an old, well healed 8 cm. scar.
>
>
>
> Missile Wounds
>
> 1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
> stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:
>
> a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the right
> ear to a point slightly above the tragus.
>
> b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
> approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.
>
> c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
> antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.
>
> d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.
>
> Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the
> right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
> lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a
> corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of
> the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the
> skull.
>
> Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding
> from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to
> represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this
> point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with
> disruption of the superior saggital sinus.
>
> Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to
> radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound
> at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest
> measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of
> numerous fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10
> cm. in greatest diameter.
>
> The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced
> tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in
> photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared.
>
> The brain is removed and preserved for further study following
> formalin fixation.
>
> Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three
> fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the
> dimensions of the large defect described above. At one angle of the
> largest of these fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly
> circular wound presumably of exit which exhibits beveling of the
> outer aspect of the bone and is estimated to measure approximately
> 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter. Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal
> minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin. Roentgenograms
> of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line
> corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital
> wound and the right supra-orbital ridge. From the surface of the
> disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped
> fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm. and 3 x
> 1 mm. These are placed in the custody of Agents Francis X. O'Neill,
> Jr. and James W. Sibert, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who
> executed a receipt therefor (attached).
>
> 2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in
> the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis
> of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through
> the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound
> presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of
> Dallas in the low anterior cervical region. When observed by Dr.
> Perry the wound measured "a few millimeters in diameter", however
> it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus its character is
> distorted at the time of autopsy. However there is considerable
> eccymosis of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck and of
> the fascia about the trachea adjacent to the line of the tracheostomy
> wound. The third point of reference in connecting these two wounds
> is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of the right pleural cavity. In
> this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme
> apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances
> the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
> involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are
> intact overlying these areas of trauma.
>
>
>
> Incisions
>
> The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the
> cranial content and the customary (Y) shaped incision is used to
> examine the body cavities.
>
>
>
> Thoracic Cavity
>
> The bony cage is unremarkable. The thoracic organs are in their
> normal positions are relationships and there is no increase in free
> pleural fluid. The above described area of contusion in the apical
> portion of the right pleural cavity is noted.
>
>
>
> Lungs
>
> The lungs are of essentially similar appearance the right weighing
> 320 Gm., the left 290 Gm. The lungs are well aerated with smooth
> glistening pleural surfaces and gray-pink color. A 5 cm. diameter
> area of purplish red discoloration and increased firmness to palpation
> is situated in the apical portion of the right upper lobe. This
> corresponds to the similar area described in the overlying parietal
> pleura. Incision in this region reveals recent hemorrhage into
> pulmonary parenchyma.
>
>
>
> Heart
>
> The pericardial cavity is smooth walled and contains approximately
> 10 cc. of straw-colored fluid. The heart is of essentially normal
> external contour and weighs 350 Gm. The pulmonary artery is
> opened in situ and no abnormalities are noted. The cardiac chambers
> contain moderate amounts of postmortem clotted blood. There are no
> gross abnormalities of the leaflets of any of the cardiac valves. The
> following are the circumferences of the cardiac valves: aortic 7.5 cm.,
> pulmonic 7 cm., tricuspid 12 cm., mitral 11 cm. The myocardium is
> firm and reddish brown. The left ventricular myocardium averages
> 1.2 cm. in thickness, the right ventricular myocardium 0.4 cm. The
> coronary arteries are dissected and are of normal distribution and
> smooth walled and elastic throughout.
>
>
>
> Abdominal Cavity
>
> The abdominal organs are in their normal positions and relationships
> and there is no increase in free peritoneal fluid. The vermiform
> appendix is surgically absent and there are a few adhesions joining
> the region of the cecum to the ventral abdominal wall at the above
> described old abdominal incisional scar.
>
>
>
> Skeletal System
>
> Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant
> gross skeletal abnormalities.
>
>
>
> Photography
>
> Black and white and color photographs depicting significant findings
> are exposed but not developed. These photographs were placed in the
> custody of Agent Roy E. Kellerman of the U.S. Secret Service, who
> executed a receipt therefore (attached).
>
>
>
> Roentgenograms
>
> Roentgenograms are made of the entire body and of the separately
> submitted three fragments of skull bone. These are developed are
> were placed in the custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of the U.S.
> Secret Service, who executed a receipt therefor (attached).
>
>
>
> Summary
>
> Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
> projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
> level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> wounds.
>
> The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
> the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
> of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
> wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
> saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.
>
> The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
> the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
> the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.
> This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
> and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
> missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
> damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
> the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
> structures in its path through the body.
>
> In addition, it is our opinion that the wound of the skull produced
> such extensive damage to the brain as to preclude the possibility of
> the deceased surviving this injury.
>
> A supplementary report will be submitted following more detailed
> examination of the brain and of microscopic sections. However, it is
> not anticipated that these examinations will materially alter the
> findings.
>
> /s/
>
> J. J. HUMES
>
> CDR, MC, USN (497831)
>
> /s/
>
> "J" THORNTON BOSWELL
>
> CDR, MC, USN (489878)
>
> /s/
>
> PIERRE A. FINCK
>
> LT COL, MC, USA
>
> (04-043-322)
>
>
>
>
>
> Supplementary Report of Autopsy Number A63-272 President
> John F. Kennedy
>
> Pathological Examination Report No. A63-272
>
> Gross Description of the Brain
>
> Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms. The right
> cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted. There is a
> longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
> in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the of the midline
> which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the tip
> of the frontal lobe anteriorly. The base of the laceration is situated
> approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. There is
> considerable loss of cortical substance above the base of the
> laceration, particularly in the parietal lobe. The margins of this
> laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional
> lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances
> from the main laceration. In addition, there is a laceration of the
> corpus callosum extending from the genu to the tail. Exposed in this
> latter laceration are the interiors of the right lateral and third
> ventricles.
>
> When viewed from the vertex the left cerebral hemisphere is intact.
> There is marked engorgement of meningeal blood vessels of the left
> temporal and frontal regions with considerable associated
> sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. The gyri and sulci over the left
> hemisphere are of essentially normal size and distribution. Those on
> the right are too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
>
> When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right
> cortex is again obvious. There is a longitudinal laceration of the
> mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle just behind the optic
> chiasm and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially
> communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral
> peduncle. There are irregular superficial lacerations over the basilar
> aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes.
>
> In the interest of preserving the specimen coronal sections are not
> made. The following sections are taken for microscopic examination:
>
>
>
> a. From the margin of the laceration in the right parietal lobe.
>
> b. From the margin of the laceration in the corpus callosum.
>
> c. From the anterior portion of the laceration in the right frontal lobe.
>
> d. From the contused left fronto-parietal cortex.
>
> e. From the line of transection of the spinal cord.
>
> f. From the right cerebellar cortex.
>
> g. From the superficial laceration of the basilar aspect of the left
> temporal lobe.
>
>
>
> During the course of this examination seven (7) black and white and
> six (6) color 4x5 inch negatives are exposed but not developed (the
> cassettes containing these negatives have been delivered by hand to
> Rear Admiral George W. Burkley, MC, USN, White House
> Physician).
>
>
>
> Microscopic Examination
>
> Brain
>
> Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are
> examined. All sections are essentially similar and show extensive
> disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage. In none of the
> sections examined are there significant abnormalities other than those
> directly related to the recent trauma.
>
>
>
> Heart
>
> Sections show a moderate amount of sub-epicardial fat. The coronary
> arteries, myocardial fibers, and endocardium are unremarkable.
>
>
>
> Lungs
>
> Sections through the grossly described area of contusion in the right
> upper lobe exhibit disruption of alveolar walls and recent hemorrhage
> into alveoli. Sections are otherwise essentially unremarkable.
>
>
>
> Liver
>
> Sections show the normal hepatic architecture to be well preserved.
> The parenchymal cells exhibit markedly granular cytoplasm
> indicating high glycogen content which is characteristic of the "liver
> biopsy pattern" of sudden death.
>
>
>
> Spleen
>
> Sections show no significant abnormalities.
>
>
>
> Kidneys
>
> Sections show no significant abnormalities aside from dilatation and
> engorgement of blood vessels of all calibers.
>
>
>
> Skin Wounds
>
> Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right
> posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In each there is loss
> of continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the tissues
> at the wound margins. The scalp wound exhibits several small
> fragments of bone at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue.
>
>
>
> Final Summary
>
> This supplementary report covers in more detail the extensive degree
> of cerebral trauma in this case. However neither this portion of the
> examination nor the microscopic examinations alter the previously
> submitted report or add significant details to the cause of death.
>
> /s/
>
> J. J. HUMES
>
> CDR, MC, USN, 497831
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: 6 December 1963
>
> From: Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Medical School
>
> To: The White House Physician
>
> Via: Commanding Officer, National Naval Medical Center
>
> Subj: Supplementary report of Naval Medical School autopsy No.
> A63-272, John F. Kennedy; forwarding of
>
>
>
> 1. All copies of the above subject final supplementary report are
> forwarded herewith.
>
> /s/
>
> J. H. STOVER, JR.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 December 1963
>
> First Endorsement
>
> From: Commanding Officer, National Naval Medical Center
>
> To: The White House Physician
>
> 1. Forwarded.
>
> /s/
>
> 1.B. GALLOWAY
The word semi-circular is nowhere in that.
>>>>> That deformation of the nose, BTW, is also what caused the bullet to
>>>>> deflect up as it penetrated the skull near the EOP.
>>>>>
>>>> There was no deformation of the nose, so your argument falls flat.
>>> Look at CE-567 wil ya....put down those coke bottle bottoms you're using
>>> for glasses and use a magnifying glass to examine that photo. Now, see
>>> what I mean....Oh, ya, you still think it's what...pristine?
>>>
>> What exactly are you looking at? Do you realize that CE 567 has changed
>> over the years? No, I thought not. That is why I am here, to clue you in
>> to things you never ran across. It was originally found intact.
>
> Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
> 11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>
Not what I said. You are attempting to put words into my mouth to create a
strawman argument. I did not specify the mechanism, only the result. I
asked you to look at the two photos and compare them and also look at the
drawing made of the fragment that night.
>> http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/FBI43646.gif
>>
>> What you've probably seen are pictures of what it looked like many years
>> later.
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/CE567-b.JPG
>
> Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
> 11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>
You asked that already. That is a false claim.
>> What you may not have seen are photos of what it looked like in 1964.
>>
>> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/CE/WC567.JPG
>
> Where is your proof that CE-567 has been so mishandled they deformed it....after
> 11-22-63? Write your proof here________________________.
>
False claim.
Just admit the fact that it changed.
>>>>> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
>>>>> just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
>>>>> the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
>>>>> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
>>>>> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
>>>>> corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
>>>>> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
>>>>> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
>>>>> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>>>>>
>>>> How many times are you going to repeat that fiction?
>>> It's how it happened..and I'll repaet it from time to time to try to keep
>>> the newbies from being misled by folks like you and Harris.
>>>
>>>> There was no exit
>>>> along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
>>>> semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>>> Does the autopy report say that defect was an exit, Anthony? How about,
>> Forget the autopsy report. Did they ever properly document it? No.
>> I am asking you to at least admit that it is a bullet wound.
>
> If it was an entry or exit they would have documented it!
>
No. They didn't document the throat wound. They missed that. They were
incompetent. They did not shave around the supposed entrance wound. They
did not even SEE the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone. Can you see
it?
>>> for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
>>> they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
>>> arrow pass through your defect?
>>>
>> What do you mean by MY defect? You don't know what my defect is. Their
>> line does not pass through the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>> Neither did the HSCA. Only Dr. Angel seemed to get it right and they
>> ignored him.
>> http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce388.jpg
>
> Dr. Angel, while capable, IMO, was, out of loyalty, parroting Baden, who also
> misspoke saying your defect was the exit. Only one little problem with the
> remarks of both Angel and Baden...they contridict themselves. I could explain
> those contridiction, but I'd be taking to deaf ears.
>
Again, what do you mean by MY defect? As if I am seeing something that
does not exist? Can you admit that there is a semi-circular defect in
the frontal bone?
>>> Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
>>> along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
>>> was on.
>>>
>> Pure fiction.
>
> They did show an x-ray of that bone piece, Anthony...LOL!
>
No one proved that the bone fit on the coronal suture. I don't think
anyone proved that it fit the semi-circular defect either, which was in
the frontal bone where Dr. Angel put it, not on the coronal suture where
Baden et al put it.
John Canal
My point was that they wouldn't have had to lie about JFK's lean if they
realized the bullet deflected up about 20 deg.
Rediculous. Look at F3, duh! There's your hole in the scalp...but what good does
that pic of a scalp, that is obviously mobile, do for you when you're trying to
determine where the entry was in the SKULL?
>>>> theory...and, even if a 100 hand picked forensic pathologists told you to
>>>> your face they were sure it was an entry, you'd disagree. Waht's your
>>>> problem, Anthony?
>>> Find even one forensic pathologist who can see the entrance wound near
>>> the EOP. Not a janitor. Not a corpsman. Not a doorman. A forensic
>>> pathologist.
>>
>> Gee, I thought Finck was a forensic pathologist. You admit there were issues
>
>Finck did not see a hole near the EOP.
He said he did. Do I have to give you a cite? If so, let's make a bet...I say I
can give you citations for Finck saying he saw the entry and that it was
slightly above the EOP...So, if I can, you admit you've not done as much
homework on this issue as perhaps you should have and if I can't I'll admit I
haven't done my homework well. How about it? Or, would you rather bet money?
>>with the HSCA's head shot conclusion....right? Now, you need them to be spot on
>> correct that the entry wasn't near they EOP....so they are correct....right?
>>LOL. Anyway, earth to Anthony: you've claim there was a cover-up of a shot from
>>the front...right? Then you ought to be open to the idea they didn't want there
>
>No, I never said that. I did not say that the cover-up was of a shot from
>the front by the autopsy doctors. They missed it. Just as they missed the
>throat wound.
They didn't track the upper back wound because it was the President...not some
poor hobo. Then, the other circumstance that contributed to them not realizing
the bullet exited the throat was the tracheostomy. There was nothing to prevent
them from noting a semicircular bullet wound in the frontal bone if one existed.
>> to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
>
>The autopsy doctors did not connect an EOP entrance wound with a
>ground-level shooter. YOU can have that connection for YOUR theory.
>
>>Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
>> there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>>
>
>There is no right rear gaping hole. Show that to me. There is no hole in
>the scalp in the back of the head.
You sound like McAdams. Clint Hill was only a foot or so from the back of the
President and saw a right rear gaping hole. In addition there were 20 something
eyewitnesses at Parkland who aslo spoke of a wound there.
>>>>>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>>>>>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>>>>>>Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>>>>>>possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>>>>>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>>>>> they forensic pathologists?
>>>> KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
>>>> seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
>>>> of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
>>>> Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
>>>> know what more you want...an exhumation?
>>>>
>>> All of those are unqualified speculation.
>>> Yes, an exhumation or an examination without exhumation.
>>
>> An exhumation would result in you needing another hobby.
>>
>
>It would only solve part of the case. It does not tell you who pulled
>the trigger. Why would you be opposed to examining evidence?
The case is closed...it's not necessary to exhume the body.
********************
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." (Autopsy Report)
Humes was saying the bullet entered near the EOP and two different portions of
that bullet made tracks through his head.
>The word semi-circular is nowhere in that.
Did I say the autopsy report said there was a sewmicircular defect somewhere? If
so, tell me where I said that so I know where I made my mistake.
Prove to me that it became significantly more deformed later on than it was on
11-22-63. Write that citation here_________________________
>>>>>> Oops...not the last point re. Donahue's "curious" conclusions after all.
>>>>>>just one more. He, (again mistakenly, IMO) wrote that the "exit portal was
>>>>>>the size of a small plate", but evidently didn't study the ev. that close.
>>>>>> That ev., IMO, shows that the two largest pieces of the bullet exited
>>>>>> along the coronal suture where a large bone piece (with a beveled out
>>>>>>corner with metalic residue on that corner) fit. Remember, the two large
>>>>>> fragments found in the front of the limo had to have traveled nearly the
>>>>>> same course (diverging only a few degrees from each other) as they made
>>>>>> their way from JFK's head to the windshield area.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How many times are you going to repeat that fiction?
>>>> It's how it happened..and I'll repaet it from time to time to try to keep
>>>> the newbies from being misled by folks like you and Harris.
>>>>
>>>>> There was no exit
>>>>> along the coronal suture. You keep refusing the explain the
>>>>> semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>>>> Does the autopy report say that defect was an exit, Anthony? How about,
>>> Forget the autopsy report. Did they ever properly document it? No.
>>> I am asking you to at least admit that it is a bullet wound.
>>
>> If it was an entry or exit they would have documented it!
>>
>
>No. They didn't document the throat wound. They missed that. They were
>incompetent. They did not shave around the supposed entrance wound. They
>did not even SEE the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone. Can you see
>it?
I see what looks like a semicircular defect in the frontal bone, but they had
the body and did not note any bullet wound there. We can see that wound in
copies of the photos...so how can you imagine they didn't see it when they had
the body? You're taking a tremendous leap here...like your frontal shot
scenario.
>>>> for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
>>>> they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
>>>> arrow pass through your defect?
>>>>
>>> What do you mean by MY defect? You don't know what my defect is. Their
>>> line does not pass through the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>>> Neither did the HSCA. Only Dr. Angel seemed to get it right and they
>>> ignored him.
>>> http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce388.jpg
>>
>> Dr. Angel, while capable, IMO, was, out of loyalty, parroting Baden, who also
>> misspoke saying your defect was the exit. Only one little problem with the
>> remarks of both Angel and Baden...they contridict themselves. I could explain
>> those contridiction, but I'd be taking to deaf ears.
>>
>
>Again, what do you mean by MY defect? As if I am seeing something that
>does not exist? Can you admit that there is a semi-circular defect in
>the frontal bone?
>
>>>> Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
>>>> along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
>>>> was on.
>>>>
>>> Pure fiction.
>>
>> They did show an x-ray of that bone piece, Anthony...LOL!
>>
>
>No one proved that the bone fit on the coronal suture.
I guess that the forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Angel's placement of that bone
piece along the coronal suture doesn't suit you...right?
>I don't think
>anyone proved that it fit the semi-circular defect either,
Of course they didn't because the bone with the beveled corner with the metallic
residue on that corner was not even close to the semicircular defect in the
frontal bone that you think is an entry and that the autopsists missed seeing on
the body.
>which was in
>the frontal bone where Dr. Angel put it, not on the coronal suture where
>Baden et al put it.
The key is that Dr. Angel's work showed that the bone piece WITH THE BEVELED OUT
CORNER AND METALLIC RESIDUE ON THAT CORNER FIT ALONG THE CORONAL
SUTURE...PERIOD..END OF ISSUE ON WHERE THE EXIT DEFECT WAS (for most of us,
anyway).
John Canal
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
> In article <1167084832....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Grizzlie
> Antagonist says...
<snip>
> >> when Mortal Error came out many
> >>years ago, I also believed Donahue was correct. It was only after Barb J., about
> >>six years ago, explained to me there was an ongoing controversy regarding "two"
> >> reported entry locations (cowlick and near EOP)......and I studied the issue,
> >> did I come to the conclusion that Donaue, and the Clark/HSCA were wrong about
> >> the Cowlick entry. Even in a court of law it could be proven beyond any doubt
> >> that the entry was near the EOP.
> >
> >
> >
> >Oh, I see. Well then, it's too bad for Hickey that he actually settled
> >his lawsuit and settled it without receiving a retraction. I mean, if the
> >evidence of an EOP entry is SO obvious that it could be proven in a court
> >of law...
>
> :-)
>
> Back then no one knew the ev. relating to the head shot like what is known
> now. Does that sound unreasonable?
I don't know. When is "back then"? "Mortal Error" was published in
1992, but I think that Hickey's lawsuit was filed much later and was
settled in 1998 or therabouts.
When did the evidence that you are talking about come to light and what
exactly was the nature of the revelation and its source?
> >> The bedrock of the ev. for that conclusion is
> >> the replications of the photo (F8) of the entry in the skull. I believe I was
> >>the first to replicate F8 and then Paul Seaton and Larry Sturdivan followed with
> >>their replications. John Hunt, who arguably has spent more time researching this
> >> case than most of us put together (he's even built a scale model of the limo
> >>with its occupants at about frame Z-224), also replicated F8. Those independent
> >>replications are absolute proof the enrty was near the EOP. The testimony of the
> >>autopsists and other eyewitnesses, the trail of opacities seen anterior to the
> >> EOP on the lateral, the piercing of the brain beginning at the tip of the
> >> occipital lobe, are just additional ev.
> >
> >
> >
> >Right. But the EOP/cowlick controversy is one of those controversies that
> >is so technical and where experts or self-styled experts who know more
> >about the technicalities than I could fathom line up on both sides.
>
> This may sound like B/S to you, but I consider myself as knowledgeable
> about the headshot as anyone on this planet...and I don't have a
> PhD...I've just been obsessed with this issue and studied it for six
> years.
Donahue studied it for at least as long. He was one of the original
gunmen that CBS used back in 1967 to prove that Oswald's reputed
performance was possible. I think in 1977 for some sort of tenth
anniversary thing, he was commissioned by some magazine to write an
article supporting the WC's conclusions.
He did his own research, came to his own conclusions, and was involved,
on and off, with a study of this issue until he died in 2000 -- so he
spent a good portion of a quarter century on this issue. What can I
say?
No, I don't doubt that you are as knowledgeable about the head shot as
you say you are, and I don't regard your contention as B/S.
But what does it mean? There are others who would boast similar
credentials.
And how important are credentials anyway? Obviously, they have to be
respected. Perhaps yours and Sturdivan's are greater than Donahue's
credentials were.
But Clyde Tombaugh discovered the former planet Pluto and several
asteroids as a tyro 20-something researcher. He must have had some
insight that better-qualified and older astronomers didn't have.
History is replete with examples like these.
Sometimes a different person with lesser credentials can bring a
fresher insight into an established discipline.
A good analysis and a not unpersuasive one. You made me, a layperson,
SEE the trail that you are talking about.
And yet expert opinion remains divided, even though others can
presumably see that same trail.
> Whew! But that trail, while powerful ev., like I wrote earlier, is not the
> proof...it's the cooberating replications of F8 (shows the photo of the
> entry in the skull near the EOP).
>
>
>
> >How could an armchair lay juror make a decision? How could an armchair
> >lay juror do anything other than throw up his hands? When I said, just up
> >above, that I "see", I was being sarcastic, of course.
>
> Take this for example. When an expert explains to a layperson what a trail
> of bone fragments looks like and why one is likely to see a such a trail
> on a lateral x-ray inward from an entry defect...and then that layperson
> sees that trail, well, that, IMO, carries some weight with the layperson.
> But, one wouldn't depend on just a trail to absolutely convince the
> layperson. Not hardly. The layperson, in this case, whould be shown
> additional ev. such as the model skulls with the photo replications,
> eyewitness testimony, and autopsy finding about the longitudinal
> laceration. Wouldn't take an expert to read the ev. here, IMO.
And yet expert opinion remains divided.
You have given me somewhat of an education on "EOP vs. cowlick". I
didn't realize until today how crucial the issue is -- and indeed how
crucial it was to Donahue's scenario.
But I don't feel equipped to judge it -- at least not based on a
bulletin board exchange w/o visual aids. The portions of Donahue's
scenario that I found most intriguing exist outside the boundaries of
this particular issue. I punt on this issue.
What was obvious to you -- so obvious that you could draw a mental
picture of an evidentiary "trail" was not obvious to the Rockefeller
Commission panel, the Clark Commission panel, and the HSCA panel.
<snip>
> >>Most couldn't make either entry work. That said, about six years ago I convinced
> >>Larry Sturdivan that the bullet, due to its deformed nose, changed directions as
> >>it pierced the rear skull. Heck, Grizz, the man even had the courage to eat his
> >> own HSCA testimony he was so sure I was right. Compare his HSCA deposition in
> >>which he sated the bullet entered high in the head to what he wrote in "The JFK
> >> Myths".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Just so that I am clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that
> >the bullet came out of the rifle with a deformed nose or are you saying
> >that the nose deformed as a result of its entry into the skull?
>
> Wow...have I been that unclear?
Not really, but I wanted to proceed carefully before responding.
> The bullet's nose started deforming as it
> penetrated the skull.
Just as I thought you meant. But I wanted to be sure before
responding. Well again, Donahue says that this can't happen.
Donahue describes a fully-jacketed MC round as being capable of passing
through three or four people and killing a fifth.
Do you agree with this assessment of an MC's capabilities? If you do,
do you still think that it's plausible that contact with one
individual's skull can deform the nose of an MC round to such an
extent?
> If you could look at a skull sometime, note how
> thick it is down near the EOP. BTW, even though Lattimer is on record as
> being a cowlick entry guy, his diagram in his book shows the same degree
> (roughly 20 deg. up) of "course change" that Sturdivan and I say the
> bullet that hit JFK in the BOH had. And, asa matter of fact, he looked at
> the photos documenting my replication of F8 and said I could be right. He
> even offered to shoot some skulls near the EOP to help verify my theory. I
> politely declined...but I didn't tell him why...which was that dried out
> old skulls wouldn't affect a bullet like a live head would.
> >> >He perceived an exit wound on the upper right portion of the skull and
> >> >could not make that "work" from a trajectory that started from above and
> >> >behind the target's right. He could not make that trajectory work from
> >> >Fisher's point of entry either
> >>
> >> Because he didn't factor in a deflection of the bullet.
> >
> >
> >
> >He says that the bullet cannot deflect to that extent. The "car
> >skidding on ice" analogy.
>
> Larty Sturdivan, Lattimer (sure, he's a uroligist, but has probably fired
> more rounds with a MC than anyone since WWII), and the ev., IMO, say
> otherwise.
>
> BTW, GA, I'm too lazy to look, but what was Donahue's explanation for the
> two large bullet fragments found in the front of the limo? They were
> exclusively matched to Oswald's MC...so didn't Donahue think those frags
> came from the head shot?
No. Now, I'm the one wondering how clear I made myself earlier. The
frags come from the first missed shot which struck Elm Street and
rebounded into the limousine. Donahue bases this on the severity of
their deformations and the absence of cranial residue.
See my above discussion re credentials.
> >Sturdivan obviously got to present his scenario before HSCA. We will
> >never know how Donahue fared in the political world or in the court of
> >public opinion, on his own, or in relation to Sturdivan.
> >
> >The Menninger book describes how Donahue's "wacky" theory interested HSCA
> >investigators enough to invite him to testify before the subcommittee and
> >how he was ultimately betrayed by committee members and staff and not
> >allowed to testify.
>
> The HSCA [FPP] covered their asses in more ways than you can shake a stick
> at.
>
> >> -- and he would point to the tensile strength
> >> >demonstrated by CE 399 (he accepts that CE 399 performed as the WC says it
> >> >did, wounding two men and remaining relatively undeformed) as an example.
> >>
> >> But CE-399 hit soft tissue, until it slowed down...that's why it didn't
> >> fragment.
> >
> >
> >
> >And so... -------------------> > >A FMJ entering the skull would
> >sustain more damage than that which was > >caused to CE 399 -- but
> >Donahue feels that the damage should not have been > >any greater than
> >two or three large pieces.
>
> Too bad Donahue couldn't have seen someone like Osama Bin Laden shot in
> the BOH, near the EOP, with a MC and then look at the x-rays. His expert
> opinion is useful but not conclusive ev.
The same might be said for anyone's opinion. It still strikes me as
persuasive.
> >>The countless, almost weightless, tiny pieces (seen near the top of his head on
> >>the x-rays) were metalic debris from when the bullet broke apart into the larger
> >> pieces (only two large pieces, BTW).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Exploding frangible bullet, not an FMJ.
>
> I think you have made up your mind on this issue.
Maybe yes and maybe no, but again, I'm simply reciting Donahue's
argument.
> >> >You're assuming that CE 567 was a fragment resulting from the head shot,
> >> >but Donahue notes the severity of the deformation and the apparent absence
> >> >of cranial residue that should have attached and concludes that this
> >> >resulted from a first missed shot which struck the pavement behind the
> >> >presidential limousine and landed in the limousine.
> >>
> >> Those piece struck the windshield with some degree of force...was Donahue
> >> absolutely certain that any tissue would have stayed on those fragments
> >> throughout the impact of metal and/or glass?
> >
> >
> >
> >You feel that cranial residue settling in the cracks of the fragments
> >were COMPLETELY removed by this impact?
>
> Now I remember...Donaue concluded, I think, that the large fragments found
> in the front of the limo were'nt from the head shot.
Correct. They were ricochet fragments.
> What can I say? I
> don't recall anyone finding any tissue on the fragments...but tell me,
> honestly, does that fact rule out the conclusion they were part of the
> bullet that hit JFK in the BOH?
You're asking me? Aren't you the one with the credentials and the
answers? I feel flattered to be asked, but I'm waiting for you to tell
me -- do you really think that ALL cranial residue, including that
which would have settled in the cracks of the fragments could have
disappeared so readily if these fragments had resulted from the head
shot?
I said earlier that I "punted" on the issue of EOP vs. cowlick and
found other portions of Donahue's scenario to be the deciding factors.
This is one of those other portions. It seems to me to be extremely
dubious that these fragments would be entirely without cranial residue
if they had resulted from the head shot.
Now I'm really confused.You say that the fact that the fragment was not
discussed or mentioned at the autopsy results NOT from carelessness on
the part of those conducting the autopsy but because the fragment
simply wasn't there at the time.
Then where did it come from?
John Canal
Antagonist says...
>
>John Canal wrote:
>> In article <1167084832....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Grizzlie
>> Antagonist says...
>
>
><snip>
>
>
>> >> when Mortal Error came out many
>>>>years ago, I also believed Donahue was correct. It was only after Barb J.,
>>about
>>>>six years ago, explained to me there was an ongoing controversy regarding
>>"two"
>>>> reported entry locations (cowlick and near EOP)......and I studied the issue,
>>>> did I come to the conclusion that Donaue, and the Clark/HSCA were wrong about
>>>> the Cowlick entry. Even in a court of law it could be proven beyond any doubt
>> >> that the entry was near the EOP.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Oh, I see. Well then, it's too bad for Hickey that he actually settled
>> >his lawsuit and settled it without receiving a retraction. I mean, if the
>> >evidence of an EOP entry is SO obvious that it could be proven in a court
>> >of law...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Back then no one knew the ev. relating to the head shot like what is known
>> now. Does that sound unreasonable?
>
>
>
>
>I don't know. When is "back then"? "Mortal Error" was published in
>1992, but I think that Hickey's lawsuit was filed much later and was
>settled in 1998 or therabouts.
But Donahue came up with his "Hickey-did-it" theory much much earlier than 1992,
did he not?
>When did the evidence that you are talking about come to light and what
>exactly was the nature of the revelation and its source?
I'm not going to list it all, but here are a few important revelations re. the
headshot that came to light after Donahue had completed his research.
The ARRB testimony by Boswell in which he admitted replacing rear bone pieces
BEFORE the X-rays. If rear bone was shattered and came loose when they reflected
the rear scalp, that bone would have included the area of bone that included
both the Clark/HSCA and Donahue proposed entry locations....meaning those
proposed entry defects would have been either on the table or stuck to the
reflected scalp. But here's the rub: F8 shows the entry in the intact skull
BELOW all the loose bone that came out. Translation, the entry couldn't have
been in the posterior parietal bone.
About six years ago I recreated F8, which you know shows the entry in the skull.
I documented that recreation and showed it to Dr. Henry Lee. He was taken aback,
IMO, and ended up using it as part of his presentation at the Wecht Symposium.
Wound-ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, after examining a high quality copy of
F8 that I sent him, also recreated (used a human skull) that photo. His results
cooberated mine--that the entry was near the EOP. Paul Seaton and John Hunt also
recreated F8, Paul using a computer generated 3D model skull and Hunt an
anatomically correct model skull. Their results also cooberated mine.
I interviewed several key witnesses, some by phone and some in person. O'Neill
told both Barb J. and myself in seperate conversations that he felt, with his
finger, the beveled out inner aspect of the skull around the entry near the EOP.
I visited John Stringer, the autopsy photographer. He is/was a photographic
expert and endorsed in writing my photo recreation of F8. He also signed a
statement for me in which he said the entry was near the EOP.
I interviewed Chester Boyers, who later put it in writing for me that he saw,
with his own eyes, during the autopsy, an entry near the EOP. What's interesting
is that his statement to the HSCA about that entry location was edited with the
later version leaving out Boyers' recollection that the entry was low. When I
showed him both versions of that statement, he was furious.
Then you have the visists to the NA by Sturdivan and Chad. First of all they
clearly saw on the original lateral x-ray a trail of opacities with the density
of bone fragments. GA, these represent that beveled out bone from the inner
aspect of the skull. They both also said the entry, as seen in the color photos
nos. 44 & 45 (F8), was fairly close to the EOP.
GA, there's more but I'll stop here....you're probably tired of rolling your
eyes by now. Anyway, the bottom line is that, IMHO, if Donahue had had thae
opportunity to discuss this issue with me and see the photo recreations before
he died, he would have changed his mind and agreed the fatal bullet was fired by
LHO and entered near the EOP.
Thank you for that.
>But what does it mean? There are others who would boast similar
>credentials.
My research re. the head shot is documented pretty well with dates...that would
be hard to duplicate.
The Clark/HSCA inquiries did not want to acknowledge a low entry That's the
reason they, among other little actions:
1. Changed Boyers' statement
2. Cropped off the EOP from the published copies of the lateral x-ray.
3. Tried top sell their trajectory (see their F-66 drawing by Dox) when it's
pretty obvious that the exiting fragments/bullet in their drawing could not have
reached anywhere near the windshield.
4. Stopped Dr. Joe Davis from continuing with his discussion about the trail of
opacities he saw on the lateral x-ray.
5. Lied (actually Baden) repeatedly under oath about the head wounds.
>
>
>
>> Whew! But that trail, while powerful ev., like I wrote earlier, is not the
>> proof...it's the cooberating replications of F8 (shows the photo of the
>> entry in the skull near the EOP).
>>
>>
>>
>> >How could an armchair lay juror make a decision? How could an armchair
>> >lay juror do anything other than throw up his hands? When I said, just up
>> >above, that I "see", I was being sarcastic, of course.
>>
>> Take this for example. When an expert explains to a layperson what a trail
>> of bone fragments looks like and why one is likely to see a such a trail
>> on a lateral x-ray inward from an entry defect...and then that layperson
>> sees that trail, well, that, IMO, carries some weight with the layperson.
>> But, one wouldn't depend on just a trail to absolutely convince the
>> layperson. Not hardly. The layperson, in this case, whould be shown
>> additional ev. such as the model skulls with the photo replications,
>> eyewitness testimony, and autopsy finding about the longitudinal
>> laceration. Wouldn't take an expert to read the ev. here, IMO.
>
>
>
>
>And yet expert opinion remains divided.
Different agendas. :-)
>You have given me somewhat of an education on "EOP vs. cowlick". I
>didn't realize until today how crucial the issue is -- and indeed how
>crucial it was to Donahue's scenario.
>
>But I don't feel equipped to judge it
Are you saying you couldn't follow along the documentation of a photo recreation
of F8? Don't sell yourself so short.
>-- at least not based on a
>bulletin board exchange w/o visual aids.
Ok, that's better. :-)
>The portions of Donahue's
>scenario that I found most intriguing exist outside the boundaries of
>this particular issue. I punt on this issue.
>
>What was obvious to you -- so obvious that you could draw a mental
>picture of an evidentiary "trail" was not obvious to the Rockefeller
>Commission panel, the Clark Commission panel, and the HSCA panel.
See above. IMHO, the Clark Panel "bit" on the fake 6.5 mm "fragment"...IOW, they
assumed the entry had to be near that "frag". They also copped out on arguably
the most important autopsy photo (F8) saying the contrast was too poor to use
it. I think also they were afraid of agreeing with Humes on his low entry
because the "apparent" trajectory, using that low entry, wasn't consistent (like
Donahue thought as well) with a shot from the SN...meaning that low entry
suggested another shooter and a conspiracy. Simply speaking the Clark Panel
didn't want to go there.
The Rockefeller recognized Fisher's impressive credentials and, IMO, rubber
stamped the Clark Panel's take on the enrty.
Baden et. al had two choices. One, agree with HB&F and resurrect the conspiracy
demons (see above) and also embarass the eminent Dr. Fisher while doing so.
Choice two was to reject the conclusions of three relatively unknown military
pathologists and avert the conspiracy suggesting low entry at the same time. It
was an easy choice, but, if I able, the gig will be up..for all to acknowledge.
This is a work in progress.
><snip>
>
>
>>>>Most couldn't make either entry work. That said, about six years ago I
>>convinced
>>>>Larry Sturdivan that the bullet, due to its deformed nose, changed directions
>>as
>>>>it pierced the rear skull. Heck, Grizz, the man even had the courage to eat
>>his
>>>> own HSCA testimony he was so sure I was right. Compare his HSCA deposition in
>>>>which he sated the bullet entered high in the head to what he wrote in "The
>>JFK
>> >> Myths".
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Just so that I am clear on what you are saying here, are you saying that
>> >the bullet came out of the rifle with a deformed nose or are you saying
>> >that the nose deformed as a result of its entry into the skull?
>>
>> Wow...have I been that unclear?
>
>
>
>Not really, but I wanted to proceed carefully before responding.
>
>
>> The bullet's nose started deforming as it
>> penetrated the skull.
>
>
>
>
>Just as I thought you meant. But I wanted to be sure before
>responding. Well again, Donahue says that this can't happen.
>
>Donahue describes a fully-jacketed MC round as being capable of passing
>through three or four people and killing a fifth.
Hmmm, I wonder if he's ever fired a 6.5 mm Carcano round into the back of
someones head down near the EOP? Of course not, so he's speculating. But the
evidence of the entry and exit locations is clear...and other ballistics experts
agree that the bullet deflected (or shanged course upwards) as it penetrated the
skull.
>Do you agree with this assessment of an MC's capabilities? If you do,
>do you still think that it's plausible that contact with one
>individual's skull can deform the nose of an MC round to such an
>extent?
I have to...the evidence speaks for itself....and other ballistics experts
agree. Also, add Dr. Martin Fackler, whom I've interviewed, to that group...he
has photos of MC rounds that fragmented similarly to what the ev. shows the
bullet that hit JFK near the EOP did. I have a copy of that photo somewhere,
maybe I'll try to dig it out.
Oh that's right...sorry. It's been a while since I even discussed the Donahue
theory.
I know this won't impress you but I'd like you to try a little experiment.
Get a good still of Z-312. Bear in mind that while there are 2d-3D issues on
this experiment, Zapruder's camer was alomost perfectly perpindicular to the
limo when JFK was hit in the head. Ok, then take a straight edge and lay one end
near the EOP of JFK's head and the mid-point of the straight edge on the exit
point (it's high along the coronal suture...if that's no help, refer to CE-388,
the colorized Rydberg drawing...the exit arrow isn't too far off). Now look at
the other end of your staight edge....points to near the windshield doesn't it?
Coincidence, you say? Ok, fine. :-)
I've researched this issue with a fine tooth comb...and, while I may have missed
some pertinent information, I didn't find any experts explaining why there
should or shouldn't be tissue on those fragments...that's why I'm lost on an
explanation. But, do you think I'm going to reject the conclusion the bullet
fired by LHO hit JFK near the EOP because I can't explain the absence of tissue
on those fragments.
That said, those fragments were sent for Spectographic Analysis on 11-23-63 and
later (May, 64) for NAA testing at the Oak Ridge Lab. I wonder if they had to
remove "all" the contaminating foreign matter on those fragments...even though
they just took sample to test. Note also, that those fragments were also NAA
tested by Dr. Guinn in 1977.
>I said earlier that I "punted" on the issue of EOP vs. cowlick and
>found other portions of Donahue's scenario to be the deciding factors.
>This is one of those other portions. It seems to me to be extremely
>dubious that these fragments would be entirely without cranial residue
>if they had resulted from the head shot.
I don't think the absence of tissue, while interesting, is critical to this
discussion. Let's just flat disagree on that.
This is almost getting sidetracked too much. Do you have "Assassination
Science"? But here's a tidbit of related info. It's not in the autopsy record,
period....but it's discussed during Humes WC testimony in March, 64. In fact
Humes (he saw the x-rays before he testified, regardless of what he claimed),
seeing the 6.5 mm opacity sticking out like a sore thumb on the AP x-ray, but
not being able to find it on the lateral, thought it was behind the right
eye....and had Rydberg draw it there on CE-388. Humes could not concieve that he
missed seeing it on 11-22-63 (it wasn't there thenbut he didn't know that), so
he and Specter knew they had to get it into the record...that's why they
discussed it during Humes' testimony.
Now, you should know that Dr. John Ebersole (the Navy X-ray specialist) finally
admitted to the HSCA having possession of the x-rays about ONE MONTH AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION. He said he needed them to take measurements for a project to make
a bronze bust of JFK. If you believe that then I've got some beach front
property down here in Florida...but, if your interested in buying it, I need to
show it to you at low tide. back to Ebersole...believe it or not but a code name
was assigned to his project with the x-rays...yup, "Aunt Margret Skirts". LOL.
Bisarre story isn't it. Anyway, IMO, some individuals close to the
investigation, early on, feared Humes' entry translated to another shooter (they
mistakenly theorized a straight line trajectory), and, with the cold war alive
and well, they added the 6.5 mm in diameter opacity onto the AP flim to try to
convince whoever that the entry was in the cowlick and more consistent with a
shot from the SN.
Now, if you don't think they weren't aware that the low entry presented
conspiracy implications for them, look again at CE-388. See JFK's lean? It's
about 50 deg., but JFK was only leaning forward about 26 deg. (see Z-312). IOW,
they falsely adjusted his lean to make the EOP trajectory work for a shot by
LHO.
Clear as mud? I thought so. I've rambled on long enough...read Mantik's chapter
on the 6.5 mm opacity.
Oh, one other little bit of info. The Clark Panel thought the 6.5 mm opacity on
the AP film was embedded in the outter table of the skull in the
cowlick...because they saw a couple of opacities there on the lateral film...but
optical density readings show those opacities to be only bone chips, probably
associated with the nearby large depressed fracture. Humes, on the other hand,
also not seeing it on the lateral film, assumed it was behind the right eye.
Humes wasn't thinking too clearly, though, on that...because a fragment that
size that ended up behind the right eye (see CE-388) would have torn smack dab
through the cerebellum....and the brain images show no such damage.
Quit rolling your eyes will ya. Anyway, I'm outa here.
John Canal
>
Anthony Marsh
If you claim to have such a high quality copy of F8, then why don't you
upload it to demonstrate what you are talking about?
> I interviewed several key witnesses, some by phone and some in person. O'Neill
> told both Barb J. and myself in seperate conversations that he felt, with his
> finger, the beveled out inner aspect of the skull around the entry near the EOP.
>
Did he say it was only a semi circle then?
> I visited John Stringer, the autopsy photographer. He is/was a photographic
> expert and endorsed in writing my photo recreation of F8. He also signed a
> statement for me in which he said the entry was near the EOP.
>
Is this the same guy who claims the autopsy photos are fakes?
> I interviewed Chester Boyers, who later put it in writing for me that he saw,
> with his own eyes, during the autopsy, an entry near the EOP. What's interesting
> is that his statement to the HSCA about that entry location was edited with the
> later version leaving out Boyers' recollection that the entry was low. When I
> showed him both versions of that statement, he was furious.
>
You are saying that the HSCA altered his statement?
> Then you have the visists to the NA by Sturdivan and Chad. First of all they
> clearly saw on the original lateral x-ray a trail of opacities with the density
> of bone fragments. GA, these represent that beveled out bone from the inner
They saw something. I've heard people claim that they saw bullet
fragments. How do they know the dots they saw were in the brain near the
EOP?
And you claim that you can see the entrance wound near the EOP in the
lateral X-rays?
> 3. Tried top sell their trajectory (see their F-66 drawing by Dox) when it's
> pretty obvious that the exiting fragments/bullet in their drawing could not have
> reached anywhere near the windshield.
>
Didn't I say that in 1979?
Neither does your trajectory.
> 4. Stopped Dr. Joe Davis from continuing with his discussion about the trail of
> opacities he saw on the lateral x-ray.
>
> 5. Lied (actually Baden) repeatedly under oath about the head wounds.
>
Do you consider all of that as evidence of a cover-up by the HSCA? If
so, that makes you a conspiracy theorist.
What would prevent you from uploading to alt.binaries.pictures so that
everyone can see what you are talking about? Or use Tinypics as so many
people here do. I would even be willing to put your F8 on my own Web site.
>> The portions of Donahue's
>> scenario that I found most intriguing exist outside the boundaries of
>> this particular issue. I punt on this issue.
>>
>> What was obvious to you -- so obvious that you could draw a mental
>> picture of an evidentiary "trail" was not obvious to the Rockefeller
>> Commission panel, the Clark Commission panel, and the HSCA panel.
>
> See above. IMHO, the Clark Panel "bit" on the fake 6.5 mm "fragment"...IOW, they
> assumed the entry had to be near that "frag". They also copped out on arguably
> the most important autopsy photo (F8) saying the contrast was too poor to use
> it. I think also they were afraid of agreeing with Humes on his low entry
> because the "apparent" trajectory, using that low entry, wasn't consistent (like
> Donahue thought as well) with a shot from the SN...meaning that low entry
> suggested another shooter and a conspiracy. Simply speaking the Clark Panel
> didn't want to go there.
>
> The Rockefeller recognized Fisher's impressive credentials and, IMO, rubber
> stamped the Clark Panel's take on the enrty.
>
> Baden et. al had two choices. One, agree with HB&F and resurrect the conspiracy
> demons (see above) and also embarass the eminent Dr. Fisher while doing so.
> Choice two was to reject the conclusions of three relatively unknown military
> pathologists and avert the conspiracy suggesting low entry at the same time. It
> was an easy choice, but, if I able, the gig will be up..for all to acknowledge.
> This is a work in progress.
>
All of the work on the head wound took place when the HSCA was preparing
to endorse the WC's lone nut theory.
Please upload it if you can't cite the URL.
False assumption. You are assuming only one discrete exit point and then
placing it in the wrong place, ala the HSCA. Use the semi-circular
defect in the frontal bone.
> the colorized Rydberg drawing...the exit arrow isn't too far off). Now look at
> the other end of your staight edge....points to near the windshield doesn't it?
> Coincidence, you say? Ok, fine. :-)
>
Use the Dox drawing and tell me where their line would end up. Not the
windshield.
Of course they cleaned the fragments before testing them.
Anthony Marsh
That's true, but they would not be able to sell deflection to the public.
Gary Aguilar has written about this before.
24) PIERRE A. FINCK, MD - the forensics specialist called in to assist
Humes and Boswell with JFK's autopsy. In 1963 Finck was an Army
lieutenant colonel and the chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology
Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. As reported in
JAMA, Finck testified to the Warren Commission: "Rep. Ford: 'There has
been complete unanimity (with Humes and Boswell who had just
testified) on what you saw, what you did, and what you have reported?'
Col. Finck: 'Yes.'" (Warren Commission, V.2:383, in: Breo D. JFK's
death, part III. JAMA. 268:1752, October 7, 1992.) It is unfortunate
for JAMA's reputation for scientific objectivity that while Breo was
able to track down Finck's testimony from the Warren Commission
volumes, he was unable to find any one of the five citations in the
volumes that confirmed Crenshaw's participation - see above.) Finck
was also asked by Arlan Specter, "Were you present here today and did
you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?" Finck; "Yes; I did."
Specter: " And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions
regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D (referring to
diagrams), and general angle on the flight of the missile?" Finck: "I
certainly do." (Warren Commission. Vol 2:380) Finck, of course, also
signed the autopsy report as well. Finck will be further explored
below.
In JAMA, Finck, in a written response to Breo's question, reported,
"The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external
occipital protuberance and slightly above. After removal of the
brain, the beveling of the internal table (of the skull) (sic)
indicates this was a wound of entry." (Breo D. JFK's death, part III.
JAMA. 268:1749. October 7, 1992)
Finck denied to the HSCA Boswell's claim that only a portion of the
entrance wound was visible on JFK's skull, and that the remainder of
the entrance wound was found on a late- arriving fragment. Finck
stated that the entire entrance wound was in the skull bone. However,
by the time Finck arrived, the autopsy had been underway for
approximately 30 minutes. By then some manipulations had been
done to JFK's skull and the brain had been removed. So Finck did not
see what Boswell and Humes saw before the skull manipulations.
Nevertheless, Finck's notes on JFK's autopsy, later sent to his
superior, General Joe Blumberg, suggested that Finck then shared
Boswell's recollection of the entrance wound. He wrote, "Corresponding
to that wound (the scalp wound), the skull shows the portion of a
crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the
bone..." ("Finck's notes of the November 22, 1963, autopsy." In: Breo
DL. JFK's death, part III - Dr. Finck speaks out: 'two bullets, from
the rear'. JAMA. 268:1752 - emphasis added) Confusingly, Finck wrote
Blumberg on 2/1/65 suggesting the crater in occipital bone was not
incomplete. He wrote, "I examined (JFK's) wounds. The scalp of the
back of he head shows a small laceration, 15X6mm. Corresponding to
this lesion, I found a through-and through wound of the occipital
bone, with a crater visible from the inside of he cranial cavity..."
(In: Breo DL. JFK's death, part III - Dr. Finck speaks out: 'two
bullets, from the rear'. JAMA. 268:1754.)
>>> with the HSCA's head shot conclusion....right? Now, you need them to be spot on
>>> correct that the entry wasn't near they EOP....so they are correct....right?
>>> LOL. Anyway, earth to Anthony: you've claim there was a cover-up of a shot from
>>> the front...right? Then you ought to be open to the idea they didn't want there
>> No, I never said that. I did not say that the cover-up was of a shot from
>> the front by the autopsy doctors. They missed it. Just as they missed the
>> throat wound.
>
> They didn't track the upper back wound because it was the President...not some
> poor hobo. Then, the other circumstance that contributed to them not realizing
What you said makes no sense. You think a hobo deserves a better autopsy
than the President of the United States? They were given orders by an
unnamed General to not document the back wound.
They made a half-assed attempt with a probe.
> the bullet exited the throat was the tracheostomy. There was nothing to prevent
> them from noting a semicircular bullet wound in the frontal bone if one existed.
>
If one existed? Are you claiming it does not? Are you claiming you can't
see it for yourself?
>>> to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
>> The autopsy doctors did not connect an EOP entrance wound with a
>> ground-level shooter. YOU can have that connection for YOUR theory.
>>
>>> Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
>>> there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>>>
>> There is no right rear gaping hole. Show that to me. There is no hole in
>> the scalp in the back of the head.
>
> You sound like McAdams. Clint Hill was only a foot or so from the back of the
> President and saw a right rear gaping hole. In addition there were 20 something
> eyewitnesses at Parkland who aslo spoke of a wound there.
>
That means nothing to me. They did not get a clear view of the specific
area because it was resting flat on the table.
>>>>>>> In the first place, this laughable conclusion requires HB&F and other
>>>>>>> witnesses present during the autopsy, such as Kellerman, O'Neill, and
>>>>>>> Boyers, to have been either blind as a bat or liars. Oh, I forgot another
>>>>>>> possibility....yup, if they had all been doped up they could have grossly
>>>>>>> mislocated the entry wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did the SS agents and FBI agents see a bullet hole near the EOP? Were
>>>>>> they forensic pathologists?
>>>>> KellerMan drew the entry near the EOP. O'Neill told both Barb and I in
>>>>> seperate phone conversations that he felt the beveling on the inner aspect
>>>>> of the skull around the entry with his finger and it was near the EOP.
>>>>> Boyers told me and wrote that he saw the entry near the EOP. I just don't
>>>>> know what more you want...an exhumation?
>>>>>
>>>> All of those are unqualified speculation.
>>>> Yes, an exhumation or an examination without exhumation.
>>> An exhumation would result in you needing another hobby.
>>>
>> It would only solve part of the case. It does not tell you who pulled
>> the trigger. Why would you be opposed to examining evidence?
>
> The case is closed...it's not necessary to exhume the body.
>
You don't want evidence to be found.
Humes never specified that the bullet broke up and when.
"Its" meaning an intact bullet. He did not say one piece of several.
>> The word semi-circular is nowhere in that.
>
> Did I say the autopsy report said there was a sewmicircular defect somewhere? If
> so, tell me where I said that so I know where I made my mistake.
>
The point is that they overlooked the semi-circular defect that night.
Just look at the two photographs and the drawing that night.
That is my point. They did not recognize what it was. Can you see the
semi-circular defect? You seem to be able to. Yet you may not recognize
it as a bullet wound.
>>>>> for a change, answering that "yes" or "no"? Now look at CE-388...see where
>>>>> they drew the arrow leaving his head...now tell me, yes or no, does that
>>>>> arrow pass through your defect?
>>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by MY defect? You don't know what my defect is. Their
>>>> line does not pass through the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>>>> Neither did the HSCA. Only Dr. Angel seemed to get it right and they
>>>> ignored him.
>>>> http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/ce388.jpg
>>> Dr. Angel, while capable, IMO, was, out of loyalty, parroting Baden, who also
>>> misspoke saying your defect was the exit. Only one little problem with the
>>> remarks of both Angel and Baden...they contridict themselves. I could explain
>>> those contridiction, but I'd be taking to deaf ears.
>>>
>> Again, what do you mean by MY defect? As if I am seeing something that
>> does not exist? Can you admit that there is a semi-circular defect in
>> the frontal bone?
>>
>>>>> Ok, now you explain the beveled out corner of the piece of bone that fit
>>>>> along the coronal suture...you know the corner that the metalic residue
>>>>> was on.
>>>>>
>>>> Pure fiction.
>>> They did show an x-ray of that bone piece, Anthony...LOL!
>>>
>> No one proved that the bone fit on the coronal suture.
>
> I guess that the forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Angel's placement of that bone
> piece along the coronal suture doesn't suit you...right?
>
I am talking about the semi-circular defect. Dr. Angel did not put it on
the coronal suture. You are misrepresenting historical facts for
political gain. He placed it in the frontal bone.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/hsca_exit/hsca_exit.htm
>> I don't think
>> anyone proved that it fit the semi-circular defect either,
>
> Of course they didn't because the bone with the beveled corner with the metallic
> residue on that corner was not even close to the semicircular defect in the
> frontal bone that you think is an entry and that the autopsists missed seeing on
> the body.
>
>> which was in
>> the frontal bone where Dr. Angel put it, not on the coronal suture where
>> Baden et al put it.
>
> The key is that Dr. Angel's work showed that the bone piece WITH THE BEVELED OUT
> CORNER AND METALLIC RESIDUE ON THAT CORNER FIT ALONG THE CORONAL
> SUTURE...PERIOD..END OF ISSUE ON WHERE THE EXIT DEFECT WAS (for most of us,
> anyway).
>
So you say. That could be another exit point of another fragment. Such a
shot would not exit as one intact bullet, but several large fragments.
> John Canal
>
>
John Canal
>>> Finck did not see a hole near the EOP.
J. Canal wrote:
>>He said he did. Do I have to give you a cite? If so, let's make a bet...I say I
>> can give you citations for Finck saying he saw the entry and that it was
>> slightly above the EOP...So, if I can, you admit you've not done as much
>> homework on this issue as perhaps you should have and if I can't I'll admit I
>> haven't done my homework well. How about it? Or, would you rather bet money?
A. Marsh wrote:
>Gary Aguilar has written about this before.>>
So, I take it you decline the bet?
[...]
>>They didn't track the upper back wound because it was the President...not some
>>poor hobo. Then, the other circumstance that contributed to them not realizing
>
>What you said makes no sense. You think a hobo deserves a better autopsy
>than the President of the United States? They were given orders by an
>unnamed General to not document the back wound.
>They made a half-assed attempt with a probe.
They were in the real world...not your imaginary ideal world where
everyone is treated the same.
>>the bullet exited the throat was the tracheostomy. There was nothing to prevent
>>them from noting a semicircular bullet wound in the frontal bone if one existed.
>>
>
>If one existed? Are you claiming it does not? Are you claiming you can't
>see it for yourself?
I see a defect, but the autopsy doctors did not identify it as a bullet
wound...and for that matter didn't mention it, period. The only omnes who
have blabbered about it saw it on photos, never seeing the body.
>>>>to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
>>> The autopsy doctors did not connect an EOP entrance wound with a
>>> ground-level shooter. YOU can have that connection for YOUR theory.
>>>
>>>>Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
>>>> there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>>>>
>>> There is no right rear gaping hole. Show that to me. There is no hole in
>>> the scalp in the back of the head.
>>
>> You sound like McAdams. Clint Hill was only a foot or so from the back of the
>>President and saw a right rear gaping hole. In addition there were 20 something
>> eyewitnesses at Parkland who aslo spoke of a wound there.
>>
>
>That means nothing to me. They did not get a clear view of the specific
>area because it was resting flat on the table.
Again, Clint Hill had a point blank view of the back of the President's
head. And you're saying twenty-something Parkland witnesses made up that
story? Why, pray tell? Also, there were ten eyewitnesses, including two
neurosurgeons, who said they saw cerebellum...did they make that up too?
Why would they?
>>
>> The case is closed...it's not necessary to exhume the body.
>>
>
>You don't want evidence to be found.
There's been more than enough evidence from this case brought to light to
close it.
>>>>>>>> In any case, if the entry was in the cowlick, where did the beveled
>> "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
>> external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
>> the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
>> roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
>> of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
>> carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." (Autopsy Report)
>>
>>Humes was saying the bullet entered near the EOP and two different portions of
>> that bullet made tracks through his head.
>>
>
>Humes never specified that the bullet broke up and when.
>"Its" meaning an intact bullet. He did not say one piece of several.
Can you read? Try reading the excerpt from the autopsy report that I just
cited for you AGAIN. He's talking about a portion of the bullet taking one
path and a portion of the bullet taking another path....THAT ADDS UP TO
TWO PORTIONS MEANING HE KNEW THE BULLET BROKE APART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> The word semi-circular is nowhere in that.
>>
>>Did I say the autopsy report said there was a sewmicircular defect somewhere? If
>> so, tell me where I said that so I know where I made my mistake.
>>
>
>The point is that they overlooked the semi-circular defect that night.
OIC...they had the body and missed seeing an important defect that you see
on copies of photos...now that makes sense....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>Prove to me that it became significantly more deformed later on than it was on
>> 11-22-63. Write that citation here_________________________
>>
>
>Just look at the two photographs and the drawing that night.
CE-567 looks mangled...in all the photos I've seen of it.
>>I guess that the forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Angel's placement of that bone
>> piece along the coronal suture doesn't suit you...right?
>>
>
>I am talking about the semi-circular defect. Dr. Angel did not put it on
>the coronal suture. You are misrepresenting historical facts for
>political gain. He placed it in the frontal bone.
Do your homework. I'm not going to continue to correct you on your
misconceptions about what the record reflects. Now, of course he didn't
put that semicircular defect above JFK's right eye along the coronal
suture....WHY...BECAUSE IT WAS FRICKIN MEDICAL MILES FROM THE CORONAL
SUTURE, THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> A. Marsh wrote:
>>>> Finck did not see a hole near the EOP.
> [...]
>
> J. Canal wrote:
>>> He said he did. Do I have to give you a cite? If so, let's make a bet...I say I
>>> can give you citations for Finck saying he saw the entry and that it was
>>> slightly above the EOP...So, if I can, you admit you've not done as much
>>> homework on this issue as perhaps you should have and if I can't I'll admit I
>>> haven't done my homework well. How about it? Or, would you rather bet money?
>
> A. Marsh wrote:
>> Gary Aguilar has written about this before.>>
>
> So, I take it you decline the bet?
>
> [...]
>
>>> They didn't track the upper back wound because it was the President...not some
>>> poor hobo. Then, the other circumstance that contributed to them not realizing
>> What you said makes no sense. You think a hobo deserves a better autopsy
>> than the President of the United States? They were given orders by an
>> unnamed General to not document the back wound.
>> They made a half-assed attempt with a probe.
>
> They were in the real world...not your imaginary ideal world where
> everyone is treated the same.
>
Treated the same? You miss the point. You have things backwards. We'd
expect the hobo to get a sloppy autopsy. But in the most important
murder of the century with the fate of the world resting on the outcome
of the autopsy, we'd expect the most competent autopsy in world, which
is what he did not get. Under military orders. Under threat of court
martial.
>>> the bullet exited the throat was the tracheostomy. There was nothing to prevent
>>> them from noting a semicircular bullet wound in the frontal bone if one existed.
>>>
>> If one existed? Are you claiming it does not? Are you claiming you can't
>> see it for yourself?
>
> I see a defect, but the autopsy doctors did not identify it as a bullet
> wound...and for that matter didn't mention it, period. The only omnes who
> have blabbered about it saw it on photos, never seeing the body.
>
Well, that only took about 10 years to get you to admit that even you
can see the semi-circular defect. In another 10 years you will admit
that it was the bottom half of a bullet hole. 10 years after that you'll
admit that it was the entrance wound.
Are you claiming that YOU saw it on the body in person? Otherwise we are
ALL talking about the autopsy photographs. And of course the autopsy
doctors saw it. Why did they not mention it?
>>>>> to be an entry near the EOP...because that suggested a ground-level shooter.
>>>> The autopsy doctors did not connect an EOP entrance wound with a
>>>> ground-level shooter. YOU can have that connection for YOUR theory.
>>>>
>>>>> Their fear there was another shooter also cause them to deny the obvious: that
>>>>> there was indeed a right rear gaping hole in his head.
>>>>>
>>>> There is no right rear gaping hole. Show that to me. There is no hole in
>>>> the scalp in the back of the head.
>>> You sound like McAdams. Clint Hill was only a foot or so from the back of the
>>> President and saw a right rear gaping hole. In addition there were 20 something
>>> eyewitnesses at Parkland who aslo spoke of a wound there.
>>>
>> That means nothing to me. They did not get a clear view of the specific
>> area because it was resting flat on the table.
>
> Again, Clint Hill had a point blank view of the back of the President's
> head. And you're saying twenty-something Parkland witnesses made up that
> story? Why, pray tell? Also, there were ten eyewitnesses, including two
> neurosurgeons, who said they saw cerebellum...did they make that up too?
> Why would they?
>
Yes, they made it up. They admitted that they were wrong.
No one saw the back of the head.
>>> The case is closed...it's not necessary to exhume the body.
>>>
>> You don't want evidence to be found.
>
> There's been more than enough evidence from this case brought to light to
> close it.
>
Oh, I see. So you are really opposed to finding more evidence.
>>>>>>>>> In any case, if the entry was in the cowlick, where did the beveled
>
>>> "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
>>> external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
>>> the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
>>> roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
>>> of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
>>> carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp." (Autopsy Report)
>>>
>>> Humes was saying the bullet entered near the EOP and two different portions of
>>> that bullet made tracks through his head.
>>>
>> Humes never specified that the bullet broke up and when.
>> "Its" meaning an intact bullet. He did not say one piece of several.
>
> Can you read? Try reading the excerpt from the autopsy report that I just
> cited for you AGAIN. He's talking about a portion of the bullet taking one
> path and a portion of the bullet taking another path....THAT ADDS UP TO
> TWO PORTIONS MEANING HE KNEW THE BULLET BROKE APART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
You mean the COMPLETE autopsy protocol which I quoted for you?
No, nowhere does he imply or specify the bullet breaking up into two
portions.
>>>> The word semi-circular is nowhere in that.
>>> Did I say the autopsy report said there was a sewmicircular defect somewhere? If
>>> so, tell me where I said that so I know where I made my mistake.
>>>
>> The point is that they overlooked the semi-circular defect that night.
>
> OIC...they had the body and missed seeing an important defect that you see
> on copies of photos...now that makes sense....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
>
I never said that they did not see it. Of course they saw it. They did
not mention it. They did not document it. They did not measure it. Sloppy.
>
>>> Prove to me that it became significantly more deformed later on than it was on
>>> 11-22-63. Write that citation here_________________________
>>>
>> Just look at the two photographs and the drawing that night.
>
> CE-567 looks mangled...in all the photos I've seen of it.
>
That's the whole point. In the photos you've seen. Because you refuse to
look at all the evidence.
Like 5 blind men describing an elephant.
>
>
>>> I guess that the forensic pathologist, Dr. Larry Angel's placement of that bone
>>> piece along the coronal suture doesn't suit you...right?
>>>
>> I am talking about the semi-circular defect. Dr. Angel did not put it on
>> the coronal suture. You are misrepresenting historical facts for
>> political gain. He placed it in the frontal bone.
>
> Do your homework. I'm not going to continue to correct you on your
> misconceptions about what the record reflects. Now, of course he didn't
> put that semicircular defect above JFK's right eye along the coronal
> suture....WHY...BECAUSE IT WAS FRICKIN MEDICAL MILES FROM THE CORONAL
> SUTURE, THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
You are misstating the physical evidence for political gain. Dr. Angel's
diagram places the semi-circular defect above the right eye.
Here for the benefit of lurkers is his diagram:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angel3.gif
And here for your benefit is a direct quotation from Dr. Lawrence
Angel's report:
The exit area through the right frontal above the boss can account for
the small semicircular notch 35 mm above the right orbit, the radiopaque
mark near this, and at the upper right part of the track can explain the
radiopaque markings on the triangular frontal fragment just in front of
the coronal suture above stephanion.
> John Canal
>
>
PS. in case the technical wording is too complicated for you, let me
boil it down to a few words.
EXIT THROUGH THE FRONTAL BONE.