> > On Dec 9, 9:27 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/8/2011 10:09 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>> On Dec 7, 10:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/7/2011 3:36 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>>>> On Dec 4, 8:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/4/2011 10:09 AM, claviger wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/3/2011 2:44 PM, claviger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
> >>>>>>>>>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
> >>>>>>>>>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
> >>>>>>>>>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
> >>>>>>>>>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
> >>>>>>>>>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
> >>>>>>>>>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
> >>>>>>>>>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
> >>>>>>>>>> discussion and clarification.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
> >>>>>>>>>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
> >>>>>>>>>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
> >>>>>>>>>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
> >>>>>>>>>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
> >>>>>>>>>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
> >>>>>>>>>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
> >>>>>>>>>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
> >>>>>>>>>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
> >>>>>>>>>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
> >>>>>>>>>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
> >>>>>>>>>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
> >>>>>>>>>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
> >>>>>>>>>> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
> >>>>>>>>>> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
> >>>>>>>>>> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
> >>>>>>>>>> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
> >>>>>>>>>> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
> >>>>>>>>>> shoulder.'"
> >>>>>>>>>> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
> >>>>>>>>>> claim that?
> >>>>>>>>> Burgundy,
> >>>>>>>>> Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
> >>>>>>>>> tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
> >>>>>>>>> would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
> >>>>>>>> Not according to Humes. He said it fell out during cardiac massage.
> >>>>>>>>> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> >>>>>>>>> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
> >>>>>>>> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
> >>>>>>>> Parkland Hospital.
> >>>>>>>>> showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
> >>>>>>>>> of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
> >>>>>>>>> small puncture wounds in the face.
> >>>>>>>> There were no small puncture wounds in the face. If you claim there were
> >>>>>>>> then show them to me in the autopsy photos. Dead Silence.
> >>>>>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body
> >>>>>>> for a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a
> >>>>>>> closed casket ceremony instead. They saw the body up close. You
> >>>>>>> didn't.
> >>>>>> The family? Another false claim. Caroline and John John did not see the
> >>>>>> body. Jackie saw the body all the time in Dallas and she never said
> >>>>>> anything about small puncture wounds in the face. I have asked you about
> >>>>>> 10 times and you still can not show me these alleged small puncture wound
> >>>>>> in the autopsy photos. Let's hear your excuse that the autopsy photos are
> >>>>>> fake.
> >>>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
> >>>>> a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
> >>>>> casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
> >>>>> didn't.
> >>>> You said "they saw the body." No, THEY didn't.
> >>>> I notice that you keep refusing to show me the puncture wounds on the
> >>>> autopsy photos. Is that because you are such a conspiracy pusher that
> >>>> you think the autopsy photos are fake?
> >>> Are you saying the Gawler mortuary team did not see the body?!! There
> >> Not the same thing. YOU said the Kennedy family saw the body at the
> >> morgue. They did not.
> > "They" were the morticians. Because you confuse so easily I added this
> > clarifying answer:
> No, the sentence just before you used the word "they" specifically
> mentioned "the family." "They" refers back to "the family." That's how
> pronouns work in English.
No, I've already clarified what I meant. It doesn't matter if the family visited the mortuary or not, as to what the morticians noticed in preparing the body. Your argument is puerile and picayune.
> > I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
> > a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
> > casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
> > didn't.
> >>> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
> >>> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
> >>> applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
> >>> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
> >>> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
> >> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
I found a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy who testified on the record to what he saw. He was there. You weren't. You have no experience as a mortician. He does. So go blow your horn with all your hot air.
> > The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body. They have
> > testified to what they saw. You were not there to see the body. They
> > were. End of discussion.
> So you would believe whatever a janitor or technician said?
I might, depending on a situation pertaining to their expertise, such as morticians whose job it is to apply make-up over facial wounds.
> Last chance. Show me these pock marks on the autopsy photos.
Last chance, show me a photo of a sniper on the GK that proves the "acoustic evidence". No tree trunks or little blobs please. Show me a photo behind the fence of a sniper with a rifle.
> On Dec 9, 10:00 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2011 1:02 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 9:27 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2011 10:09 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 7, 10:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/7/2011 3:36 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 8:18 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2011 10:09 AM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:58 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2011 2:44 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
>>>>>>>>>>>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>>>>>>>>>>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
>>>>>>>>>>>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>>>>>>>>>>>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion and clarification.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
>>>>>>>>>>>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
>>>>>>>>>>>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
>>>>>>>>>>>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
>>>>>>>>>>>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
>>>>>>>>>>>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
>>>>>>>>>>>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
>>>>>>>>>>>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
>>>>>>>>>>>> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
>>>>>>>>>>>> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
>>>>>>>>>>>> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
>>>>>>>>>>>> shoulder.'"
>>>>>>>>>>>> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Burgundy,
>>>>>>>>>>> Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
>>>>>>>>>>> tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
>>>>>>>>>>> would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
>>>>>>>>>> Not according to Humes. He said it fell out during cardiac massage.
>>>>>>>>>>> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
>>>>>>>>>>> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
>>>>>>>>>> Not if they were removed. No X-rays were taken on President Kennedy at
>>>>>>>>>> Parkland Hospital.
>>>>>>>>>>> showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
>>>>>>>>>>> of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
>>>>>>>>>>> small puncture wounds in the face.
>>>>>>>>>> There were no small puncture wounds in the face. If you claim there were
>>>>>>>>>> then show them to me in the autopsy photos. Dead Silence.
>>>>>>>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body
>>>>>>>>> for a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a
>>>>>>>>> closed casket ceremony instead. They saw the body up close. You
>>>>>>>>> didn't.
>>>>>>>> The family? Another false claim. Caroline and John John did not see the
>>>>>>>> body. Jackie saw the body all the time in Dallas and she never said
>>>>>>>> anything about small puncture wounds in the face. I have asked you about
>>>>>>>> 10 times and you still can not show me these alleged small puncture wound
>>>>>>>> in the autopsy photos. Let's hear your excuse that the autopsy photos are
>>>>>>>> fake.
>>>>>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
>>>>>>> a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
>>>>>>> casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
>>>>>>> didn't.
>>>>>> You said "they saw the body." No, THEY didn't.
>>>>>> I notice that you keep refusing to show me the puncture wounds on the
>>>>>> autopsy photos. Is that because you are such a conspiracy pusher that
>>>>>> you think the autopsy photos are fake?
>>>>> Are you saying the Gawler mortuary team did not see the body?!! There
>>>> Not the same thing. YOU said the Kennedy family saw the body at the
>>>> morgue. They did not.
>>> "They" were the morticians. Because you confuse so easily I added this
>>> clarifying answer:
>> No, the sentence just before you used the word "they" specifically
>> mentioned "the family." "They" refers back to "the family." That's how
>> pronouns work in English.
> No, I've already clarified what I meant. It doesn't matter if the family
> visited the mortuary or not, as to what the morticians noticed in
> preparing the body. Your argument is puerile and picayune.
You made a simple mistake, but you aren't man enough to admit it. You said the FAMILY saw the body after the morticians had prepared the body. That is not true, so you are backpedaling.
>>> I've already quoted testimony by the morticians who prepared the body for
>>> a possible open casket lying in state. The family chose to have a closed
>>> casket ceremony instead. The morticians saw the body up close. You
>>> didn't.
>>>>> job was to clean and dress the body not knowing if it would be open or
>>>>> closed casket, or maybe did that anyway no matter what. They also
>>>>> applied make-up on the face. One employee is on the record testifying
>>>>> he saw minor puncture wounds on the face. The make-up guy mentioned
>>>>> grit on the face and thought it was cement particles.
>>>> You can find any witness to say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
> I found a mortician who worked on the body of President Kennedy who
> testified on the record to what he saw. He was there. You weren't. You
> have no experience as a mortician. He does. So go blow your horn with
> all your hot air.
Never rely on witnesses. It makes you look like a conspiracy buff.
>>> The witnesses were mortuary employees who prepared the body. They have
>>> testified to what they saw. You were not there to see the body. They
>>> were. End of discussion.
>> So you would believe whatever a janitor or technician said?
> I might, depending on a situation pertaining to their expertise, such as
> morticians whose job it is to apply make-up over facial wounds.
Nonsense. Never rely on witnesses.
>> Last chance. Show me these pock marks on the autopsy photos.
You lost. You can't show me the pock marks on the autopsy photos.
> Last chance, show me a photo of a sniper on the GK that proves the
> "acoustic evidence". No tree trunks or little blobs please. Show me a
> photo behind the fence of a sniper with a rifle.
Another phony challenge. I never claimed that the rifle can be seen. All I said was that there is a person in that spot. You can't even admit that.
I posted a very high resolution scan of that area many times, yet you claim you can't see anything.
> On Dec 10, 7:15 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2011 1:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Dec 9, 10:16 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 9, 4:15 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Anthony,
>>>>>>> Howard Donahue was a well trained ballistics expert with years of
>>>>>>> experience who carefully studied this case for over a decade. He had
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>> no problem with the SBT and supported that conclusion. He did have a
>>>>>> The HSCA also had a SBT and also conspiracy.
>>>>>> Donahue wanted to pretend that he was a WC defender.
>>>>> Actually he was critical of the WCR and HSCA. He conducted his own
>>>>> investigation to satisfy his professional curiosity about the case. The
>>>>> HSCA wanted nothing to do with him and he was very frustrated in their
>>>>> lack of curiosity. This lack of interest by the HSCA is completely
>>>>> understandable given their preconceived ideas the mob was responsible for
>>>>> this ambush. An accidental shot by a bodyguard is not something they
>>>>> wanted to hear, so they ignored Donahue.
>>>> So who shot JFK Hickey if that's his name?
>>> SSA Hickey was the designated agent to carry the AR-15 and he sat
>>> higher up than the other agents to give him a better view of the area
>>> around the Limousine. Donahue speculates Hickey was the only agent to
>>> figure out where the shots were coming from. Hickey grabbed the rifle
>>> and instinctively tried to stand and turn toward the TSBD so he could
>>> fire back at the sniper in the 6th floor window. When he did the
>>> driver either hit the brakes or accelerated or both, causing Hickey to
>>> lose his balance and accidently fire his weapon.
>> Silly drivel. The driver did not accelerate or hit the brakes before the
>> head shot. The SS car was maintaining its distance behind the limo.
> There has been much debate on whether Greer came to a full stop, slowed
> down, or simply took his foot off the peddle, any of which would cause
> Kinney to slow down too. Since the the two cars were only 6 feet apart
> Kinney would need to apply pressure on the brake pedal to keep from
> ramming the Presidential Limousine.
Fine. Show me the brake lights coming on.
>> If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
>> out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
>> limo. Not a good idea.
> Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
> report.
Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.
>> The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
> The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents is standing up and you still claim that has nothing to do with your theory about Hickey standing up?
Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.
>> Out there in someone's
>> attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
>> the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
>> the head shot.
> Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
> head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
> is in any hurry to make it public.
If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it. Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big butt and find it.
>> How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
>> grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
>> take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
>> 3 seconds?
> 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
> can't tell for sure.
We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.
>> Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
>> the TSBD?
> The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?
>> Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
> No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
> It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
> and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper
Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do you claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?
> out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
> GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
> SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
> of the official who made this decision?
On Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:35:23 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
> On Dec 3, 1:44 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
> > > things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
> > > Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
> > > Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
> > > What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
> > > day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
> > > dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
> > > There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
> > > discussion and clarification.
> > > Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
> > > the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
> > > appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
> > > to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
> > > "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
> > > was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
> > > had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
> > > determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
> > > inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
> > > Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
> > > Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
> > > end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
> > > doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
> > > knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
> > > Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
> > > the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
> > > shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
> > > said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
> > > shoulder.'"
> > > On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
> > > claim that?
> > Burgundy,
> > Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
> > tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
> > would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
> > in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> > wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
> > showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
> > of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
> > small puncture wounds in the face.
> > The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
> > penetration through-and-through wounds. It was a highly stable bullet
> > by design. If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
> > it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle. It had ample
> > velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
> > expansion of the wound cavity. It's length-to-width ratio prevented
> > tumbling. The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
> > enemy soldiers. It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm". For
> > this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
> > this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President. Not
> > impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
> > wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.
> The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
> Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
> up.
connellys back wound was elongated because it tumbled......
On Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:08:22 AM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 3, 10:35 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 1:44 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
> > > > things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
> > > > Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
> > > > Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
> > > > What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
> > > > day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
> > > > dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
> > > > There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
> > > > discussion and clarification.
> > > > Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
> > > > the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
> > > > appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
> > > > to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
> > > > "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
> > > > was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
> > > > had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
> > > > determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
> > > > inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
> > > > Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
> > > > Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
> > > > end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
> > > > doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
> > > > knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
> > > > Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
> > > > the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
> > > > shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
> > > > said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
> > > > shoulder.'"
> > > > On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
> > > > claim that?
> > > Burgundy,
> > > Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
> > > tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
> > > would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
> > > in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
> > > wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
> > > showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
> > > of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
> > > small puncture wounds in the face.
> > > The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
> > > penetration through-and-through wounds. It was a highly stable bullet
> > > by design. If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
> > > it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle. It had ample
> > > velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
> > > expansion of the wound cavity. It's length-to-width ratio prevented
> > > tumbling. The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
> > > enemy soldiers. It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm". For
> > > this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
> > > this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President. Not
> > > impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
> > > wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.
> > The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
> > Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
> > up.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> On Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:35:23 PM UTC-5, burgundy wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 1:44 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
>>>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
>>>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
>>>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
>>>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>>>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
>>>> discussion and clarification.
>>>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
>>>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
>>>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
>>>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
>>>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
>>>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
>>>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
>>>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
>>>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
>>>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
>>>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
>>>> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
>>>> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
>>>> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
>>>> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
>>>> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
>>>> shoulder.'"
>>>> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
>>>> claim that?
>>> Burgundy,
>>> Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
>>> tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
>>> would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
>>> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
>>> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
>>> showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
>>> of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
>>> small puncture wounds in the face.
>>> The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
>>> penetration through-and-through wounds. It was a highly stable bullet
>>> by design. If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
>>> it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle. It had ample
>>> velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
>>> expansion of the wound cavity. It's length-to-width ratio prevented
>>> tumbling. The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
>>> enemy soldiers. It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm". For
>>> this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
>>> this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President. Not
>>> impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
>>> wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.
>> The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
>> Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
>> up.
> connellys back wound was elongated because it tumbled......
Connally's back wound was elongated because the bullet hit a curved surface. And it was only elongated to 15 mm. Why was Kennedy's head wound supposedly elongated to the same 15 mm. Do you claim that bullet went through someone else first before hitting Kennedy's head?
> > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> On Sunday, December 4, 2011 9:08:22 AM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 10:35 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 1:44 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 2, 11:17 pm, burgundy<WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other
>>>>> things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening
>>>>> Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's
>>>>> Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
>>>>> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the
>>>>> day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who
>>>>> dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
>>>>> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major
>>>>> discussion and clarification.
>>>>> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During
>>>>> the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
>>>>> appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches
>>>>> to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
>>>>> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it
>>>>> was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
>>>>> had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing
>>>>> determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance
>>>>> inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
>>>>> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton
>>>>> Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its
>>>>> end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three
>>>>> doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second
>>>>> knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent
>>>>> Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of
>>>>> the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the
>>>>> shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He
>>>>> said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's
>>>>> shoulder.'"
>>>>> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone
>>>>> claim that?
>>>> Burgundy,
>>>> Large muscles have an elasticity factor. A wound tunnel through soft
>>>> tissue will expand and contract. If there was a shallow wound there
>>>> would be a bullet still inside the wound track. No missile showed up
>>>> in the X-rays. By the same token if the throat wound was an entrance
>>>> wound that bullet would also be obvious in X-rays. Again no bullets
>>>> showed up on any X-ray of the thorax region of the anatomy. The body
>>>> of President Kennedy revealed wounds to the back, throat, skull, and
>>>> small puncture wounds in the face.
>>>> The ammunition used by the Carcano rifle was developed for deep
>>>> penetration through-and-through wounds. It was a highly stable bullet
>>>> by design. If any missile could penetrate two human beings in tandem
>>>> it was the 6.5 FMJ used in the military Carcano rifle. It had ample
>>>> velocity and a thick jacket to prevent the mushroom effect causing
>>>> expansion of the wound cavity. It's length-to-width ratio prevented
>>>> tumbling. The bullet was designed to drill small neat holes through
>>>> enemy soldiers. It rarely disintegrated into a "lead snowstorm". For
>>>> this reason ballistics expert Howard Donahue had forensic doubts if
>>>> this stable bullet caused the head wound on the President. Not
>>>> impossible, just unlikely given the history of this bullet through two
>>>> wars and similar bullets used in hunting big game.
>>> The "wound" that went nowhere is too low to transit the throat and hit
>>> Connally. If you believe that than there has to be another wound higher
>>> up.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
You are not allowing for any bunch up.
> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
5-3/8 inches from WHERE?
In general the back is lower than the neck. Except for one particular African tribe.
> On Apr 25, 9:25 pm, homeinspecto...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> umm,
>> connellys back wound was elongated because it tumbled......
> Correct. This was proved in Australian field testing experiments where
> bullets tumbled every time after passing through the first surrogate
> dummy.
>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
Where do you get that angle? Show us your proof. And again you are assuming no deflection.
BTW, don't you remember that the Washington Beltway sniper fired from the trunk unseen?
Greer claims he never hit the breaks, only took his foot off the
pedal. If true it would still cause SA Kinney, who maintained a tight
6’ gap behind the Limousine, to apply brakes suddenly since he didn’t
see any tail lights come on and realized they were about to ram the
Limousine. This would be enough to throw SA Hickey off balance if he
tried to handle the AR-15 while standing.
> > > If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
> > > out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
> > > limo. Not a good idea.
> > Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
> > report.
> Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.
After all the years studing this case I can’t believe you would ask
this question.
> > > The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
> > The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
> So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents
> is standing up and you still claim that has nothing to do with
> your theory about Hickey standing up?
> Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/mortal_error_bronson.jpg
Is this a trick question or just a dumb question? There were 4 SS
agents standing up on Halfback during the parade. One left his
position and ran to the Limousine. The Bronson film does not show the
backseat. In the last frame there is movement of someone falling
forward. Are you saying SA Hickey never stood up during the parade
down Elm Street?
> > > > Out there in someone's
> > > > attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
> > > > the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
> > > > the head shot.
> > > Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
> > > head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
> > > is in any hurry to make it public.
> > If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it.
> Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big
> butt and find it.
What’s holding you back? Stop being so lazy and get to work!
> > > How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
> > > grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
> > > take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
> > > 3 seconds?
> > 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
> > can't tell for sure.
> We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach
> down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot
> you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.
Go for it.
> > > Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
> > > the TSBD?
> > The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
> Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he
> going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?
How can you tell where his eyes are looking from the backside of his
head?!!
> > > Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
> > No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
> > It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
> > and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper
> Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do
> you claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is
> ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/JFK-M16.gif
That would be a very sad irony.
> > out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
> > GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
> > SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
> > of the official who made this decision?
> Of course you look for a conspiratorial answer.
It was a policy decision by someone higher up the COC and Rowley was
not happy with that decision. Why would his wishes be overruled and
why would a Cabinet member get involved with this kind of decision?
President Kennedy made the final choice to adopt the AR-15 for the
military, and it would also be useful to the SS because of its light
weight and short barrel. It could be set on semi-auto or full-auto.
If this weapon was not involved with the shooting in Dealey Plaza why
would anyone overrule the Director of the SS and ban it from further
use? This weapon was a big step forward in technology so why prevent
them from using the best available technology in protecting both the
POTUS and LOTFW? Only a deadly accident with this weapon would
justify that decision.
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Clubking,
> > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Clubking,
> > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
>> Fine. Show me the brake lights coming on.
> Greer claims he never hit the breaks, only took his foot off the
> pedal. If true it would still cause SA Kinney, who maintained a tight
Well, I don't think Greer hit the brakes and the photographic evidence indicates that he didn't. But where do you see him saying all he did was take his foot off the pedal? Please cite and quote that for me. But of course you can't because you are just making up crap again. Your game is to pretend that I said something which I never said and then pretend to correct me. Only you are just saying the same thing I have said thousands of times.
> 6? gap behind the Limousine, to apply brakes suddenly since he didn?t
> see any tail lights come on and realized they were about to ram the
> Limousine. This would be enough to throw SA Hickey off balance if he
> tried to handle the AR-15 while standing.
Hickey was not standing up then. The Bronson film makes that clear.
>>>> If the SS car had suddenly slowed down Hickey would have been thrown
>>>> out of the seat. If it suddenly accelerated it would have smashed into the
>>>> limo. Not a good idea.
>>> Witnesses saw Hickey fall over, yet he never mentioned this in his
>>> report.
>> Who saw Hickey fall over WHEN? Not on Elm.
> After all the years studing this case I can?t believe you would ask
> this question.
This sounds like a Harris argument. "There can no longer be any doubt..." You know that the Hickey shot has been thoroughly debunked and you are the only being in this universe who believes it.
>>>> The Bronson film shows no SS agent standing up.
>>> The Bronson film doesn't prove anything.
>> So you admit that the Bronson film shows that no SS agents
>> is standing up and you still claim that has nothing to do with
>> your theory about Hickey standing up?
>> Maybe some lurkers still do not know exactly what you are claiming.
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/mortal_error_bronson.jpg > Is this a trick question or just a dumb question? There were 4 SS
> agents standing up on Halfback during the parade. One left his
> position and ran to the Limousine. The Bronson film does not show the
> backseat. In the last frame there is movement of someone falling
> forward. Are you saying SA Hickey never stood up during the parade
> down Elm Street?
Yes, Hickey never stood up BEFORE the head shot.
There is not movement in the last frame of someone falling forward and as usual you contradict yourself because in the previous sentence you claimed that the Bronson film does not even show Hickey.
>>>>> Out there in someone's
>>>>> attic are the missing photos from the unknown photographer taken from
>>>>> the north sidewalk which show that Hickey was still sitting at the time of
>>>>> the head shot.
>>>> Or maybe it shows Hickey standing and falling at the same moment as the
>>>> head shot. If such a film already exists I doubt the Federal Government
>>>> is in any hurry to make it public.
>>> If it's in someone's attic I doubt the Federal government already has it.
>> Maybe if certain people around here were no so lazy he'd get off his big
>> butt and find it.
> What?s holding you back? Stop being so lazy and get to work!
>>>> How many seconds do you give him to reach down to the floor and
>>>> grab the AR-15 and then stand up on the back seat and cock the weapon or
>>>> take off the safety? Is there even time from the Altgens photo to Z-313?
>>>> 3 seconds?
>>> 2-3 seconds, unless he is already holding it in the Altgens photo. We
>>> can't tell for sure.
>> We CAN tell for sure. It was on the floor and we never see Hickey reach
>> down to pick it up. Maybe if you analyzed other films AFTER the head shot
>> you could see Hickey reaching down to pick it up.
> Go for it.
It's not my damn theory.
>>>> Where is he going to shoot when the photos show Hickey not looking up at
>>>> the TSBD?
>>> The Altgens photo shows him turned to the right staring at the TSBD.
>> Nope and he is certainly not looking UP at the six floor. Where is he
>> going to shoot? Oswald in the doorway?
> How can you tell where his eyes are looking from the backside of his
> head?!!
The angle of his head.
>>>> Are the SS agents trained just to spray the crowd on full automatic?
>>> No, which is why the AR-15 was the perfect weapon to carry in a parade.
>>> It had a 3-way selector switch, was lightweight, short, easy to operate,
>>> and accurate with very little kick. It had the range to take the sniper
>> Maybe that's why it was better for motorcades than the Tommy gun. Do
>> you claim that the photo of JFK examining the AR-15 in the oval office is
>> ironically him authorizing the very weapon which killed him?
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/JFK-M16.gif > That would be a very sad irony.
The AR-15 was specifically designed for the South Vietnamese troops.
>>> out in the 6th floor window or pepper any snipers behind a fence on the
>>> GK. So why was this weapon deleted from the list of approved weapons the
>>> SS could use for parades after the trip to Dallas? What changed the mind
>>> of the official who made this decision?
>> Of course you look for a conspiratorial answer.
> It was a policy decision by someone higher up the COC and Rowley was
> not happy with that decision. Why would his wishes be overruled and
> why would a Cabinet member get involved with this kind of decision?
You have an overactive imagination.
> President Kennedy made the final choice to adopt the AR-15 for the
> military, and it would also be useful to the SS because of its light
> weight and short barrel. It could be set on semi-auto or full-auto.
> If this weapon was not involved with the shooting in Dealey Plaza why
> would anyone overrule the Director of the SS and ban it from further
> use? This weapon was a big step forward in technology so why prevent
You don't know any of that to be true. You just assume it to make it justify your pet theory.
> them from using the best available technology in protecting both the
> POTUS and LOTFW? Only a deadly accident with this weapon would
> justify that decision.
Nonsense. If any decision was made there should be a memo. Find the memo.
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > Clubking,
> > > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> > So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > Clubking,
> > > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> > So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
For reasons I will never understand, those arguing the back wound was lower than the throat wound seem to think that the top of the collar in the back of a man's shirt is at the same level as it is in the front of the shirt. Of course this is ridiculous, but it's the part of the equation the CTs seem to always leave out. The bullet exited at the level of the top button, nicking the knot in JFK's tie. That exit point is lower than the entrance point. The base of a man's neck is lower in the front than it is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of that pressure.
We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.
1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no bullets in the body?
2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street level. Where would you like to put that shooter?
3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet? If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.
4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could have ended up.
If you reject the WC explaination that the bullet went through JFK on a downward back-to-front trajectory, these are the choices you are left with. So which one are you going with, Clubking01?
On Friday, April 27, 2012 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:01 pm, Clubking01 <trsau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > Clubking,
> > > > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > > > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > > > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> > > So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> > Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> > All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> > JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> > So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> > A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> > I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
> > On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > Clubking,
> > > > > Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
> > > > The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
> > > > How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
> > > So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> > Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> > All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> > JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> > So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> > A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> > I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
> For reasons I will never understand, those arguing the back wound was
> lower than the throat wound seem to think that the top of the collar in
> the back of a man's shirt is at the same level as it is in the front of
> the shirt. Of course this is ridiculous, but it's the part of the equation
> the CTs seem to always leave out. The bullet exited at the level of the
> top button, nicking the knot in JFK's tie. That exit point is lower than
> the entrance point. The base of a man's neck is lower in the front than it
> is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base
> of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on
> a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward
> for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was
> slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad
> back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing
> the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of
> that pressure.
> We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday
> and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the
> throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to
> front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.
> 1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that
> were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no
> bullets in the body?
> 2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward
> trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street
> level. Where would you like to put that shooter?
> 3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward
> trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is
> explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet
> have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the
> windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the
> ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it
> were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the
> overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of
> JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet?
> If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield
> in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.
> 4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please
> explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could
> have ended up.
> If you reject the WC explaination that the bullet went through JFK on a
> downward back-to-front trajectory, these are the choices you are left
> with. So which one are you going with, Clubking01?
So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 % decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie knot in the front.
But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal neck wound. That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged that the back wound was below the front wound. So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in such a manner.
Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation. I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work. The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.
Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD. I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and, by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.
> On Apr 27, 1:01 pm, Clubking01<trsau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>> Clubking,
>>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
>> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
>> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
>> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
>> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
>> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
>> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
>> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>> Clubking,
>>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
>> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
>> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
>> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
>> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
>> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
>> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
> For reasons I will never understand, those arguing the back wound was
> lower than the throat wound seem to think that the top of the collar in
> the back of a man's shirt is at the same level as it is in the front of
> the shirt. Of course this is ridiculous, but it's the part of the equation
> the CTs seem to always leave out. The bullet exited at the level of the
> top button, nicking the knot in JFK's tie. That exit point is lower than
> the entrance point. The base of a man's neck is lower in the front than it
I think you MAY have a point there, but it is so hard to tell because you are so inarticulate.
> is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base
> of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on
That is heresy. You are talking kooky conspiracy talk. The WC has the bullet entering in the NECK, above the top of the shoulder.
> a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward
> for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was
The WC did not need JFK to lean abnormally forward because they simply lied and move the wound up a couple of inches. The HSCA could not lie about the location so they had to lie about JFK's position and said he was leaning abnormally forward. Their problem was that they were stuck with frame 190 for their SBT due to the acoustical evidence, and any idiot (except a WC defender) can see for themselves that JFK was not leaning forward by 18 degrees at frame 190.
That's why I have suggested that the WC defenders pick a SBT frame when both men are hidden behind the sign and they can claim that JFK was leaning forward by 25 degrees if they want and no one can disprove them.
> slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad
> back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing
> the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of
> that pressure.
Silly. You forget that he was wearing a back brace.
> We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday
> and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the
Nah, you don't want to quibble. You want to dictate.
> throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to
> front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.
> 1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that
> were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no
> bullets in the body?
Is this a contest to see how simplistic you can get? Connally had an entrance wound in his thigh. Why were no there no bullets found in his body? There was no corresponding exit wound.
> 2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward
> trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street
> level. Where would you like to put that shooter?
Silly. You are assuming the bullet has to stay on the same trajectory. Bullets are often deflected when they hit bone. Humes did not know so the WC did not know that the bullet hit the T-1 vertebra.
> 3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward
> trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is
> explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet
There are lots of possible angles which COULD hit the throat.
But the damage inside the body shows that it was an exit wound.
> have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the
> windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the
> ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it
The windshield is not in the way for all angles, just some.
And you overlooked the kook theory that there was a hole in the windshield caused by a shot from the front.
> were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the
> overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of
> JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet?
> If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield
> in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.
In fact to clear the windshield from the overpass the rifle would have to be about 16 feet in the air.
> 4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please
> explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could
> have ended up.
4. Explain exactly where the WC's missed shot went and prove it.
5. Explain what hit the curb near Tague and prove it.
> If you reject the WC explaination that the bullet went through JFK on a
> downward back-to-front trajectory, these are the choices you are left
> with. So which one are you going with, Clubking01?
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> Clubking,
>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
The problem was that the HSCA was stuck with frame 190 from the acoustical evidence. Now if they had lined up the head shot with the grassy knoll shot that would move their SBT up to Z-210 and they might get away with their deception.
> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> Clubking,
>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
> On Friday, April 27, 2012 7:34:27 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Apr 27, 1:01 pm, Clubking01<trsau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>> Clubking,
>>>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>>>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
>>> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
>>> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
>>> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
>>> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
>>> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
>>> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
>>> On Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:55:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>> Clubking,
>>>>>> Wrong again. The back wound was higher than the throat wound
>>>>> The back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Look at JFK's jacket and shirt if you refuse to believe the autopsy drawing and Siebert and O'Neill's report.
>>>>> How hard is it for you to measure down 5-3/8 inches down your back and see it is LOWER than your neck?
>>>> So the sniper was hiding inside the trunk of the Limousine?
>>> Any bunching was minimal. The proof of that is that the holes in the shirt and the jacket match up almost exactly. When you consider he was sitting against the back seat of the limo and his shirt was secured by a belt, there could only have been slight bunching at the time of the bullet strike.
>>> All I can say is try a test. Put on a dress shirt and secure the collar with a tie. Measure down 5-3/8 inches from your collar line and place a marker there. Sit in a chair so that your back is comfortably resting against the back of it and have someone else lightly place a finger on the marker. Next, raise your right arm perpendicular to your body. You will find hardly ANY change in the marker from its original position. Now add a suit coat on top of that and place a marker 5-3/8 inches below the collar line and raise your arm as before. You may see a slight bunching along the crease between the shoulder blades, but in no way does it bunch up the nearly six inches to raise the marker to the neckline so it is higher than the throat. In fact, raise your arm straight up and point at the ceiling and check how little the marker moves up.
>>> JFK was wearing a tailored suit with the lower portion held against the back seat of the limo. It is nearly impossible for the suit, or any kind of clothing to bunch up significantly.
>>> So now the only way to line up a trajectory into Connally would be for JFK to be leaning forward significantly.
>>> A while ago, I sent Tony a slide of Dr. Baden demonstrating how far forward JFK had to be leaning and he has published it here in different threads a few times. Even Baden conceded that the back wound was lower than the neck wound.
>>> I ask any LNer to show me a frame in the Zapruder film where JFK is leaning forward in that manner when he was supposed to be hit.
>> For reasons I will never understand, those arguing the back wound was
>> lower than the throat wound seem to think that the top of the collar in
>> the back of a man's shirt is at the same level as it is in the front of
>> the shirt. Of course this is ridiculous, but it's the part of the equation
>> the CTs seem to always leave out. The bullet exited at the level of the
>> top button, nicking the knot in JFK's tie. That exit point is lower than
>> the entrance point. The base of a man's neck is lower in the front than it
>> is in the back. That is why a bullet could enter JFK's back below the base
>> of his neck and exit at the base of his neck in the front and still be on
>> a downward trajectory. JFK did not have to be leaning abnormally forward
>> for this to happen. The downward slope of Elm St. was 3 degrees. JFK was
>> slightly hunched over as well, a normal position for a guy with a bad
>> back. If one sits upright, it tends to compress the vertbrae, increasing
>> the pressure on the back. By hunching over slightly he relieved some of
>> that pressure.
>> We could quibble about the angles and trajectories from now until Doomsday
>> and get nowhere. For those who doubt that the back wound was above the
>> throat wound and that the bullet passed through JFK's body from back to
>> front on a downward trajectory, they left with the following alternatives.
>> 1. Both the back wound and throat wound were both entrance wounds. If that
>> were the case, there is no exit wound for either. So why where there no
>> bullets in the body?
>> 2. The bullet transited from back to front on a level or upward
>> trajectory. That would require the bullet to have been fired from street
>> level. Where would you like to put that shooter?
>> 3. The bullet transited from front to back on a level or downward
>> trajectory. There are numerous problems with that, the least of which is
>> explaining why that bullet didn't hit the trunk. Where could such a bullet
>> have been fired from . If it was fired on a level trajectory, the
>> windshield would have been in the way unless you want to opt for the
>> ridiculous theory that the bullet was fired from inside the limo. If it
>> were fired from above, the possibilities seem to be the GK or the
>> overpass. How does a bullet fired from the GK enter near the center of
>> JFK's throat and exit to the right of his spine. Can you say magic bullet?
>> If fired from the overpass, you again have the problem of the windshield
>> in the way, not to mention Connally and Kellerman.
>> 4. An explaination of your own choosing. If this is your choice please
>> explain in detail where such a bullet was fired from and where it could
>> have ended up.
>> If you reject the WC explaination that the bullet went through JFK on a
>> downward back-to-front trajectory, these are the choices you are left
>> with. So which one are you going with, Clubking01?
> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 % decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie knot in the front.
When was JFK slightly hunched? Out at Love Field?
When did the bullet hit his back? What frame? If you can pick a frame when he is behind the sign you can claim JFK was standing on his head.
> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal neck wound. That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged that the back wound was below the front wound. So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in such a manner.
> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation. I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work. The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.
> Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD. I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and, by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.
> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
> knot in the front.
Actually quite a bit above.
> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
> neck wound.
Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
> that the back wound was below the front wound.
Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
position.
> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
> such a manner.
JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.
You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
mechanically inclined CT.
> The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.
Not ridiculous to experienced hunters. They've seen it happen with
unjacketed hunting bullets.
> Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald
> used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD.
> I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what
> I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and,
> by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.
So was the shooter inside the trunk or at street level?
>> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
>> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
>> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
>> knot in the front.
> Actually quite a bit above.
Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot. Otherwise you are just guessing.
>> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
>> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
>> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
>> neck wound.
> Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
>> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
>> that the back wound was below the front wound.
> Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
> position.
>> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
>> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
>> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
>> such a manner.
> JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?
>> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
>> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
>> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.
> You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
> options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
> device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
> shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
> mechanically inclined CT.
>> The ridiculousness of the theory stands entirely on its own.
> Not ridiculous to experienced hunters. They've seen it happen with
> unjacketed hunting bullets.
>> Last, I also agree with you on other aspects. I believe Oswald
>> used his own rifle and fired at JFK from the Sixth floor of TSBD.
>> I believe Oswald used his revolver to shoot J.D. Tippit. But what
>> I don’t believe in is the validity of the Single Bullet nonsense and,
>> by definition then, believe there had to be another shooter.
> So was the shooter inside the trunk or at street level?
On Apr 30, 8:50 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/2012 8:31 PM, claviger wrote:
> > Clubking,
> >> So let’s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
> >> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
> >> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
> >> knot in the front.
> > Actually quite a bit above.
> Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot.
> Otherwise you are just guessing.
> >> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
> >> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
> >> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
> >> neck wound.
> > Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
> >> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
> >> that the back wound was below the front wound.
> > Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
> > position.
> >> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
> >> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
> >> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
> >> such a manner.
> > JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
> All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?
One sketch for the HSCA assumes he was leaning over at the time of the
second shot. Maybe, but not necessary for the SBT to be correct.
> >> Second, do not try to trap me into some “either/ or” situation.
> >> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
> >> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn’t work.
> > You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
> > options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
> > device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
> > shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
> > mechanically inclined CT.
On Friday, December 2, 2011 11:17:44 PM UTC-6, burgundy wrote:
> This is an offshoot from the other long string regarding wounds and other > things. I stated I had recently come in possession of the Saturday Evening > Post of 12/2/67 which is basically a sectional reprint of part of Josiah's > Thompson "Six Seconds in Dallas."
> What struck me is that this "early evidence" in a sense; not evidence the > day of the shooting but early evidence from a scholarly writer who > dissected the problems of the Warren Report.
> There's many things to focus on and here's one thing I think needs major > discussion and clarification.
> Thompson quotes the following, from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "During > the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which > appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches > to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
> "This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it > was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point > had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing > determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance > inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger."
> Thompson writes, "I asked Commander's Humes assistant, Cmdr. J. Thronton > Boswell about Humes inserting his finger in the back wound and feeling its > end. Boswell told me that this was correct and that, in fact, three > doctors had probed this wound with their fingers up to the first or second > knuckle -- a penetration of one to two inches. Secret Service agent > Kellerman gave this description of the doctors' additional exploration of > the wound with a metal probe: "'A Colonel Finck (was) probing inside the > shoulder with his instrument, and I said, 'Colonel, where did it go?' He > said, 'There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's > shoulder.'"
> On this forum, it has been said this wound never existed. How can anyone > claim that?
> On Apr 30, 8:50 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2012 8:31 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> Clubking,
>>>> So let?s agree on a few things first. I agree there was a 3 %
>>>> decline down Elm St. I agree JFK was slightly hunched. I
>>>> even agree that the back collar may be slightly above the tie
>>>> knot in the front.
>>> Actually quite a bit above.
>> Prove it. Show me a picture of it taken at the exact moment of the shot.
>> Otherwise you are just guessing.
Excuse me? You claim that you can see JFK being shot in the back during each of those photos? That's a groundbreaking revelation. That he was shot in the back so many times and no one reported it. You can't even pick a frame and show me JFK at that frame.
>>>> But all of this is just minimal. The back wound was over five
>>>> inches below the collar line. There is no way that even given
>>>> what we agree on could this wound be higher than the frontal
>>>> neck wound.
>>> Guess again. Basic human anatomy.
>>>> That is why even the HSCA's Michael Baden acknowledged
>>>> that the back wound was below the front wound.
>>> Only in the anatomical position. JFK was not sitting in that
>>> position.
>>>> So his only explanation then becomes that JFK had to be
>>>> leaning forward significantly to line up a single bullet exit
>>>> into JBC. There is no visual evidence of JFK leaning in
>>>> such a manner.
>>> JFK was sitting in a normal position waving at the crowd.
>> All the time? Never brushing back his hair? Never leaning over ever?
> One sketch for the HSCA assumes he was leaning over at the time of the
> second shot. Maybe, but not necessary for the SBT to be correct.
One sketch? One sketch shows several POSSIBLE positions.
Did Canning show JFK leaning over by 18 degrees?
Baden tried to demonstrate what that would look like.
But his demonstration did not look anything like frame 190 which is what the HSCA was stuck with. Now if they could only have been able to pick a frame between 210 and 224 they might have a chance.
>>>> Second, do not try to trap me into some ?either/ or? situation.
>>>> I do not need to pick one of your scenarios to explain my
>>>> reasons why I believe the SBT doesn?t work.
>>> You do need a source for the trajectory from below the target. Your
>>> options are a storm sewer drain, a ricochet off the trunk, or a hidden
>>> device inside the trunk of the Limousine that automatically fired a
>>> shot. Don't laugh, the last one was seriously proposed by a
>>> mechanically inclined CT.
