Poor LNs ... all over the map on head wounds
Peter Fokes
Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
HistorianDetective
> Fun to watch though!
>
> Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>
Per Manchester...Death of a President
page 398...
Admiral Galloway lingered on the walk, detained by General McHugh.
"We're going to the morgue for the autopsy and the embalming," Godfrey
said, "Mrs Kennedy doesn't want an undertaker."
We don't have the facilities. I highly recommend a funeral parlor."
Godfrey pressed him. "these are the family's wishes. Isn't it
possible?"
"It's not impossible," said the Admiral frowning. "It's difficult,
though.
And it might be unsatisfactory."
JM
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Peter Fokes
<historian...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Generals and Admirals aside, the law stipulated that the forensic
autopsy should have been performed in Texas.
A very competent Dr. Earl Rose was prepared to carry out his assigned
duty.
He was threatened and intimidated by SS agents, and gave in because he
didn't have an "army."
Notice how LBJ ensured he took the OATH before he even left Dallas.
He and RFK debated that point IN LAW.
And yet, the law was simply tossed aside at an earlier moment, a
crucial moment, when a full, legal forensic autopsy could have been
performed at the earliest possible moment, and provide the necessary
evidence for the US Government to act if murder by conspiracy was the
conclusion.
YET, that vital need to know as soon as possible, was IGNORED, put in
abeyance, stalled, delayed (even though LBJ was heard to say something
about an "international communist conspiracy" at Parkland Hospital.
Ask Evelyn Wood. So while all was in flux, AIR FORCE ONE dawdled in
Dallas, waiting for someone to give the oath BEFORE the forensic(?
hard to call JFK's autopsy forensic) autopsy began many HOURS later.
Dr. Rose was still miffed as he sat with nothing to do ....
And the band played on.
And LeMay lit another cigar and refrained from shouting yet another
"Bombs Away" while he very very very very patiently waited for Humes
to START and FINISH (when was that second brain exam done --- a week
later? huh?) the autopsy of the late President.
"Might be unsatisfactory"?
Caesar might have said the same after the 22nd stab wound .....
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
davidemerling
All over the map?
I think quite the opposite can be claimed. In fact, I would say LNs
are remarkably consistent with regard to the head wound. I think most
ALL would agree with the following critical points:
1. There was a very distinct entrance would in the cowlick area of the
head, as plainly seen in the autopsy photos.
2. There was a massive exit wound in the right/frontal area.
3. The bone beveling and fragments clearly indicated a path from back-
to-front.
4. There was damage that extended along the right side into the
occipital region, but there was no major bone loss in that area - as
clearly indicated by the x-rays.
5. There left hemisphere of the head was totally intact.
6. There was no evidence of a more than one bullet impact to the head.
I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all 6 points above.
I challenge you to make such a list and have all your CT buddies agree
with each and every point.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
>
>Fun to watch though!
>
>Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
"All" of us?
>Regards,
>Peter Fokes,
>Toronto
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
davidemerling says...
>
>On Dec 22, 10:34=A0am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Fun to watch though!
>>
>> Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>All over the map?
>
>I think quite the opposite can be claimed. In fact, I would say LNs
>are remarkably consistent with regard to the head wound. I think most
>ALL
I hope not "most all".
>would agree with the following critical points:
>
>1. There was a very distinct entrance would in the cowlick area of the
>head, as plainly seen in the autopsy photos.
Is that the distinct entry we can see in the scalp? And you're talking about the
scalp that was reflected and then held back up long after the rear skull and
brain had been removed, right? And the question is begged, "Why do you turn to a
photo (F3) of the entry in a mobile scalp instead of a photo of the entry in the
skull (F8) to determine where the entry was in the skull?"
>2. There was a massive exit wound in the right/frontal area.
Bingo, you got something right.
>3. The bone beveling and fragments clearly indicated a path from back-
>to-front.
Two in a row.
>4. There was damage that extended along the right side into the
>occipital region,
Yup there sure was...but my oh my where's that damage in the photos you
mentioned in no. 1? The occipital looks undamaged to me.
>but there was no major bone loss in that area - as
>clearly indicated by the x-rays.
Right, but you might have added that the bone in that area was
fragmented....unless you think the autopsists were lying or hallucinating?
>5. There left hemisphere of the head was totally intact.
Except for at least the relatively huge piece of left parietal skull that was
loose, eh?
>6. There was no evidence of a more than one bullet impact to the head.
True.
>I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all 6 points above.
Geesh, I hope not.
John Canal
>I challenge you to make such a list and have all your CT buddies agree
>with each and every point.
>
>David Emerling
>Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 22, 10:34 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> Fun to watch though!
>>
>> Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> All over the map?
>
> I think quite the opposite can be claimed. In fact, I would say LNs
> are remarkably consistent with regard to the head wound. I think most
> ALL would agree with the following critical points:
>
> 1. There was a very distinct entrance would in the cowlick area of the
> head, as plainly seen in the autopsy photos.
> 2. There was a massive exit wound in the right/frontal area.
> 3. The bone beveling and fragments clearly indicated a path from back-
> to-front.
> 4. There was damage that extended along the right side into the
> occipital region, but there was no major bone loss in that area - as
> clearly indicated by the x-rays.
> 5. There left hemisphere of the head was totally intact.
> 6. There was no evidence of a more than one bullet impact to the head.
>
> I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all 6 points above.
>
You don't get around much, do you? Canal claims to be a WC defender and
he claims the real entrance wound was near the EOP, not the cowlick
area. Ditto Sturdivan and several others of his ilk.
And of course the autopsy doctors themselves.
> I challenge you to make such a list and have all your CT buddies agree
> with each and every point.
>
I challenge you to identify and explain all the different versions of
the SBT put forth by the WC defenders over the years. You can leave out
the HSCA version.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>
>
Bud
> On 22 Dec 2009 14:04:26 -0500, HistorianDetective
>
>
>
> <historiandetect...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 10:34 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >> Fun to watch though!
>
> >> Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>
> >Per Manchester...Death of a President
> >page 398...
>
> >Admiral Galloway lingered on the walk, detained by General McHugh.
> >"We're going to the morgue for the autopsy and the embalming," Godfrey
> >said, "Mrs Kennedy doesn't want an undertaker."
>
> >We don't have the facilities. I highly recommend a funeral parlor."
>
> >Godfrey pressed him. "these are the family's wishes. Isn't it
> >possible?"
>
> >"It's not impossible," said the Admiral frowning. "It's difficult,
> >though.
>
> >And it might be unsatisfactory."
>
> Generals and Admirals aside, the law stipulated that the forensic
> autopsy should have been performed in Texas.
>
> A very competent Dr. Earl Rose was prepared to carry out his assigned
> duty.
>
> He was threatened and intimidated by SS agents, and gave in because he
> didn't have an "army."
But isn`t it silly to think that the SS was motivated by a desire to
cover up a conspiracy in the President`s death?
> Notice how LBJ ensured he took the OATH before he even left Dallas.
>
> He and RFK debated that point IN LAW.
>
> And yet, the law was simply tossed aside at an earlier moment, a
> crucial moment, when a full, legal forensic autopsy could have been
> performed at the earliest possible moment, and provide the necessary
> evidence for the US Government to act if murder by conspiracy was the
> conclusion.
Luckily the autopsy that was performed showed none.
> YET, that vital need to know as soon as possible, was IGNORED, put in
> abeyance, stalled, delayed (even though LBJ was heard to say something
> about an "international communist conspiracy" at Parkland Hospital.
> Ask Evelyn Wood. So while all was in flux, AIR FORCE ONE dawdled in
> Dallas, waiting for someone to give the oath BEFORE the forensic(?
> hard to call JFK's autopsy forensic) autopsy began many HOURS later.
>
> Dr. Rose was still miffed as he sat with nothing to do ....
>
> And the band played on.
>
> And LeMay lit another cigar and refrained from shouting yet another
> "Bombs Away" while he very very very very patiently waited for Humes
> to START and FINISH (when was that second brain exam done --- a week
> later? huh?) the autopsy of the late President.
>
> "Might be unsatisfactory"?
>
> Caesar might have said the same after the 22nd stab wound .....
I`m dissatisfied with a lot of historical occurrences. It`s seems
unlikely they will ever change to something that suits me better.
WhiskyJoe
> David:
> 1. There was a very distinct entrance would in
> the cowlick area of the head, as plainly seen
> in the autopsy photos.
> I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all
> 6 points above.
Well, not quite. I believe all LNers agree with
all six points, except for Point 1.
John Canal, Larry Sturdivan and Chad Zimmerman
all believe the entry wound was near the EOP,
not the cowlick. And the three autopsy doctors
all said in their report to the Warren Commission
that the entry wound was near the EOP. So there is
perhaps a 4 inch difference between
But the majority of LNers and prominent LNers
believe the entry wound was near the cowlick.
That one photograph which seems to show a wound
in the scalp up high seems pretty convincing.
But John Canal believes the photograph is
misleading because the scalp is stretched.
Others believe that the photograph shows a clot
of blood, not a bullet wound.
On the other side of the coin, the photograph F8,
while harder for a layman to interpret, seems to
show decisively that the hole in the skull is
down low, near the EOP. I myself do not know
how to interpret F8.
Though the scalp photograph looks pretty convincing,
I'm inclined to go with the EOP entry. It's not that
I believe it's impossible for the three autopsy
doctors to get this wrong. They were working
fairly hurriedly. Even expert eyewitness
testimony can be wrong. And my basic philosophy
is to go with physical evidence, like a photograph
over eyewitness testimony, which what the autopsy
report really is.
But, a cowlick wound means the bullet would have
had to curve a lot, about three times the amount
of curvature a EOP wound would require. With a
cowlick wound, the bullet would have had to
sharply curve downward. About a third of the way
through it would have to start curving upward
sharply and continue to curve upward as it
exited the skull and continue on in fragments
to the windshield, the windshield frame and a
third fragment clearing the windshield frame
and continuing on toward Mr. Tague.
In contrast, while a EOP wound requires the bullet
to curve, without curvature the three fragments
would have hit the base of the windshield or even
below it, but a much gentler curve than the cowlick
requires. And it requires no reversal in direction
of the curving. The bullet fragments simply gently
curve upward through the head and continue on.
Larry Sturdivan, a ballistic expert, does not believe
the fragments would curve enough to make the cowlick
entry work. And he likely is correct. So while
Mr. Sturdivan is not an expert at interpreting
autopsy photographs and X-rays (I don't believe),
he is probably right about how the fragments would
likely curve, a field where he is an expert.
In any case, either the EOP or the cowlick are
possible. Maybe the EOP requires some unusual
curved paths for the fragments, but is still
possible.
If fragments traveled in a straight path, then
LNers would have some problem here. Indeed there
is no way the bullet from the sniper's nest could
hit the EOP, or the cowlick, or any part of the
head or body of JFK and have the fragments hit
and or clear the windshield, on a straight line
path. But since it is easily demonstrated with
bones and ballistic gel that fragments do curve
a lot, there is no real problem. The EOP location
and possibly the cowlick location do work. So
it doesn't matter if LNers disagree on this.
It is a tempest in a teapot.
>> Peter:
>> Poor LNs ... all over the map on head wounds
I would save your pity for the LNers and use all
your pity on your fellow CTers who are all over
the map on the number of shots, the locations
of the shooters, the frame numbers of the shots,
which shots were audible and which were not, etc.
CTers are way over the map compared to LNers who
generally only disagree over just a few inches on
one of the wounds and whether the SBT struck at
Z221, 222, 223 or 224 and whether the head shot
struck at Z312 or 313.
HistorianDetective
> On Dec 22, 10:34 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > Fun to watch though!
>
> > Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
Dave,
>
> All over the map?
>
> I think quite the opposite can be claimed. In fact, I would say LNs
> are remarkably consistent with regard to the head wound. I think most
> ALL would agree with the following critical points:
>
> 1. There was a very distinct entrance would in the cowlick area of the
> head, as plainly seen in the autopsy photos.
> 2. There was a massive exit wound in the right/frontal area.
> 3. The bone beveling and fragments clearly indicated a path from back-
> to-front.
> 4. There was damage that extended along the right side into the
> occipital region, but there was no major bone loss in that area - as
> clearly indicated by the x-rays.
> 5. There left hemisphere of the head was totally intact.
> 6. There was no evidence of a more than one bullet impact to the head.
>
> I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all 6 points above.
>
Uh! Regarding the first point?
There's still about a 4 inch difference of opinion the last time I
checked.
JM
John Canal
>to curve, without curvature the three fragments
>would have hit the base of the windshield or even
>below it, but a much gentler curve than the cowlick
>requires. And it requires no reversal in direction
>of the curving. The bullet fragments simply gently
>curve upward through the head and continue on.
Here we go again. First let me remind you that my good friend Larry is not
immune to making errors..big ones. If you don't believe me read his deposition
to the HSCA. Add to that he says there's no beveling around the entry in the
skull as seen in F8. The HSCA and Zimmerman used stereoscopic visualization to
see beveling, as one would expect, around the entry.
In any case, I won't bother to ask you to post a diagram showing how the large
fragments curved and exited the same point and continued, after exiting that
point, to the windshield damage....because such a diagram would reveal the holes
in yours and Larry's curved theory.
But let's talk about the through and through laceration in the brain. Joe, put
down "The JFK Myths" for a minute and get out a MRI (side view) of an adult's
brain in its skull (easy to obtain on the internet) and mark three points: 1)
just above the EOP, 2) just above the Thalamus, and 3) the exit forward of the
coronal suture. If you do, which would be a miracle, you'd see that those points
pretty much form a straight line. Also, you cannot prove that line dosn't point
in the direction of the windshield damage..just as I can't prove it
does....that's why I'm trying to get Dale Myers to plott a 3D track from the EOP
through the principal exit to determine if it [that track] is in fact consistent
with the windshield damage. Of course he won't because he's a die hard cowlick
entry believer even though he says a bullet that entered the cowlick and exited
(large fragments) would have had to have been fired from several floors above
the roof line of the Dal-Tex building.
Also, look at CE-567...see its deformed nose? Good. Do you really think a bullet
could hit something traveling at very roughly 2,000 fps that would cause such
damage and NOT change course? Of course it deflected as it penetrated the skull,
just like Lattimer's experiments showed the bullet undoubtedly did.
Ballistic gel isn't a human head....but I know, Larry is the expert and you're
certain he's right. Fine, leave it there.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
HistorianDetective
>
> > Fun to watch though!
>
> > Humes and Boswell snookered all of them though!
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> All over the map?
>
> I think quite the opposite can be claimed. In fact, I would say LNs
> are remarkably consistent with regard to the head wound. I think most
> ALL would agree with the following critical points:
>
David,
> 1. There was a very distinct entrance would in the cowlick area of the
> head, as plainly seen in the autopsy photos.
> 2. There was a massive exit wound in the right/frontal area.
> 3. The bone beveling and fragments clearly indicated a path from back-
> to-front.
> 4. There was damage that extended along the right side into the
> occipital region, but there was no major bone loss in that area - as
> clearly indicated by the x-rays.
> 5. There left hemisphere of the head was totally intact.
> 6. There was no evidence of a more than one bullet impact to the head.
>
> I'll venture to say all LNs agree wth all 6 points above.
>
Regarding Point 1....Per Manchester
Death of a President
Chapter Three
MARKET
page159
... The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the
lower part
of his brain.....
JM
John Canal
HistorianDetective says...
>
>On Dec 22, 1:54=A0pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
I know there were 11 "cerebellum eyewitnesses" but I'd like to know if he
tells us what his source was for that statement.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
That's how we know that Manchester is not a reliable source.
He used the Harris approach to research.
davidemerling
> You don't get around much, do you?
If you mean spend all my time reading this forum and keeping meticulous
track of each individual's personal theory ... no! Then I guess I "don't
get around much." I just respond to the points being made without much
concern about what the person's theory happens to be. On the other hand, I
am very well versed in Tom Rossley's "theory". That's easy! He basically
has no theory but believes in EVERY and ALL conspiratorial points,
seemingly unaware that they do not all fit into any discernible pattern.
In fact, some of them are actually contradictory.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> > David:
> > 1. There was a very distinct entrance would in
> > the cowlick area of the head, as plainly seen
> > in the autopsy photos.
> > I'll venture to say all LNs agree with all
> > 6 points above.
>
> Well, not quite. I believe all LNers agree with
> all six points, except for Point 1.
>
> John Canal, Larry Sturdivan and Chad Zimmerman
> all believe the entry wound was near the EOP,
> not the cowlick. And the three autopsy doctors
> all said in their report to the Warren Commission
> that the entry wound was near the EOP. So there is
> perhaps a 4 inch difference between
This is why I said "MOST LNers". I would say that the three you cite above
represent a minority in the LN camp. I'm not saying they could not
possibly be correct, however. They make good points. However, whether they
are right or wrong hardly changes the debate as to whether there was a
conspiracy or not. Both interpretations of the precise location of the
rear head entry wound are consistent with ONE shot from BEHIND.
> But the majority of LNers and prominent LNers
> believe the entry wound was near the cowlick.
Exactly!
And I think the reason THAT is the best interpretation is because the
wound in the photograph is shown near that classic swirl in the hair where
the cowlick is located. That is typically very high on the head. No matter
how much the scalp may be reflected and stretched - it is not going to
move the entry hole to the proximity of that "swirl" that we all seem to
have in the cowlick area of our hair ... unless you're bald, of course.
Kennedy was far from bald.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Tom
.
> You don't get around much, do you? Canal claims to be a WC defender and
> he claims the real entrance wound was near the EOP, not the cowlick
> area. Ditto Sturdivan and several others of his ilk.
> And of course the autopsy doctors themselves.
Tony,
I don't get around much here, but I do get around. I'll stand with
"Canal's ilk" as well since the EOP entrance is a much better fit with the
subsequent evidence than the cowlick as entry. I'll not waste the groups
time going on and on about this but after having considered this issue the
evidence supports our view, not yours. My rule is that you follow the
evidence and then come to a conclusion. You may not like the conclusion
but you can live it and form a better frame of reference for any
additional efforts. The converse of forming a rigid opinion and cherry
picking the evidence to suit ones desires is neither productive or
scientific, but it is too much in use here.
Tom Pinkston
davidemerling
The problem is that the entry hole, as seen in the autopsy photo, shows
the entry wound near that very distinctive area in the hairline, known as
the cowlick, that just about everybody has. No amount of stretching and
reflecting is going to make that hole move to that area.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Von Pein
>>> "The problem is that the entry hole, as seen in the autopsy photo,
shows the entry wound near that very distinctive area in the hairline,
known as the cowlick, that just about everybody has. No amount of
stretching and reflecting is going to make that hole move to that area."
<<<
Exactly.
And that's just exactly what I said to John A. Canal on April 1, 2009:
"The red spot might not be TO-THE-MILLIMETER over the area of the
skull that contains the entry hole. Yes, it's possible (or even probable)
that the scalp was in a somewhat-"loose" state/condition at the time when
Stringer took the "red spot" picture of the President's head.
"But this is really largely immaterial and a moot point for the most
part....because you, John [Canal], still require a crazy, mobile, and
freely-moving BULLET HOLE (an independent MOVEMENT of the bullet hole
ONLY, that is, in relation to the rest of JFK's scalp, including the
underlying cowlick), in order for your "stretching scalp" and "BOH/ LN"
theories to be looked upon as accurate.
"Bottom Line -- The "red spot" (the bullet hole itself) is going
THROUGH THE COWLICK OF JOHN KENNEDY in the autopsy picture. .... Nothing
you could say or theorize can change the above immutable fact regarding
the perfect LINING UP of these two things---1.) The physical bullet
(entry) hole in JFK's head, and 2.) The cowlick in JFK's head." -- DVP;
April 1, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
John Canal
davidemerling says...
>
>On Dec 26, 3:13=A0pm, Tom <thomaspinks...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 8:42=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:> O=
>n 12/22/2009 2:54 PM, davidemerling wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>> > You don't get around much, do you? Canal claims to be a WC defender and
>> > he claims the real entrance wound was near the EOP, not the cowlick
>> > area. Ditto Sturdivan and several others of his ilk.
>> > And of course the autopsy doctors themselves.
>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> I don't get around much here, but I do get around. I'll stand with
>> "Canal's ilk" as well since the EOP entrance is a much better fit with the
>> subsequent evidence than the cowlick as entry. I'll not waste the groups
>> time going on and on about this but after having considered this issue the
>> evidence supports our view, not yours. My rule is that you follow the
>> evidence and then come to a conclusion. You may not like the conclusion
>> but you can live it and form a better frame of reference for any
>> additional efforts. The converse of forming a rigid opinion and cherry
>> picking the evidence to suit ones desires is neither productive or
>> scientific, but it is too much in use here.
>>
>> Tom Pinkston
>
>The problem is that the entry hole, as seen in the autopsy photo, shows
>the entry wound near that very distinctive area in the hairline, known as
>the cowlick, that just about everybody has. No amount of stretching and
>reflecting is going to make that hole move to that area.
Let me guess....you're one of those "researchers" who doesn't understand
F8 (the photo that shows the entry in the skull near the EOP)......but
still doesn't hesitate to offer his opinion on the entry location of the
entry in the skull....based on their analysis of a picture of the entry in
the scalp.......a scalp, BTW, that was reflected, stretched, and then held
back up for the photo (unless of course you think the autopsists and
morticians were liars)? Is that close?
Let me ask you something--do you think the only channel-like laceration
through his brain that the autopsists described that went from the tip of
the occipital lobe to the tip of the frontal lobe (passing just over the
Thalamus along the way) is consistent with a bullet entering in the
cowlick and exiting (main fragments) forward of the coronal suture?
Another question please--what do you think caused the trail of tiny bone
fragments extending anteriorl from near the EOP as seen on the original
lateral x-rays by the FPP's Dr. Joseph Davis as well as by
author/researcher, Larry Sturdivan and researcher, Chad Zimmerman.
Oh, one more question while your offering your highly regarded
opinion....what do you make of Dale Myer's conclusion that the cowlick
entry trajectory (large fragments exiting just forward of the coronal
suture) points back about 125 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex
building?
Okay, I lied...two more....first, looking at the HSCA's diagram, F-66, on
page 1HSCA, 252 (if applied to Z-312), what do you make of the fact that
the exit trajectory (based on their cowlick entry) points down near where
JBC would have been sitting and not even close to the windshield damage?
And second, setting aside what Myers said, what do you make of the fact
that the NASA engineer, Thomas Canning, had to "cheat" juuuuust a tiny bit
on JFK's forward lean (at Z-312) to show that the cowlick entry trajectory
pointed back near the sniper's nest? Oh, about that tiny bit of cheating
on the lean...for his trajectory analysis of the head shot he used a lean
of about 11 degrees when JFK was leaning forward over 27 degrees when he
was hit.
While Canning later admitted his "error"...some, who believe it's
ridiculous to think the autopsists didn't know the EOP from the cowlick,
believe he adjusted the lean intentionally just to keep the cowlick entry
trajectory from being more consistent with a shot from a blimp than one
from the SN.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
<TOP POST>
Below is how I replied to Emerling....and my comments apply to you. So, be my
guest and do your usual thing and cut out all the points you don't have an
answer or explanation for that makes any sense and paste in any point you think
you have a reasonable answer for...and add your usual rhetoric.
BTW, once upon a time Larry Sturdivan testified (HSCA) that the entry was in the
cowlick...as soon as he examined F8, which he didn't do before he testified, he
reversed his opinion and now is adamant that Humes was corect about the entry
location.
Then there's Chad Zimmerman, who obviously has forgotten more about the head
wounds than you'll ever know....he was an EOP entry skeptic UNTIL he examined
the original F8 in the NA....now he's also adamant that Humes was correct about
the entry location.
I might also add that Dr. Rahn agrees the entry was near the EOP...would you
dare debate him on that?
Anyway, here are those comments I made to Emerling...I'd like you to respond to
them...thanks.
Let me guess....you're one of those "researchers" who doesn't understand F8 (the
photo that shows the entry in the skull near the EOP)......but still doesn't
hesitate to offer his opinion on the entry location of the entry in the
skull....based on their analysis of a picture of the entry in the scalp.......a
scalp, BTW, that was reflected, stretched, and then held back up for the photo
(unless of course you think the autopsists and morticians were liars)? Is that
close?
Let me ask you something--do you think the only channel-like laceration through
his brain that the autopsists described that went from the tip of the occipital
lobe to the tip of the frontal lobe (passing just over the Thalamus along the
way) is consistent with a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting (main
fragments) forward of the coronal suture?
Another question please--what do you think caused the trail of tiny bone
fragments extending anteriorly from near the EOP as seen on the original lateral
x-rays by the FPP's Dr. Joseph Davis as well as by author/researcher, Larry
Sturdivan and researcher, Chad Zimmerman.
Oh, one more question while your offering your highly regarded opinion....what
do you make of Dale Myer's conclusion that the cowlick entry trajectory (large
fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture) points back about 125 feet
above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building?
Okay, I lied...two more....first, looking at the HSCA's diagram, F-66, on page
1HSCA, 252 (if applied to Z-312), what do you make of the fact that the exit
trajectory (based on their cowlick entry) points down near where JBC would have
been sitting and not even close to the windshield damage?
And second, setting aside what Myers said, what do you make of the fact that the
NASA engineer, Thomas Canning, had to "cheat" juuuuust a tiny bit on JFK's
forward lean (at Z-312) to show that the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back
near the sniper's nest? Oh, about that tiny bit of cheating on the lean...for
his trajectory analysis of the head shot he used a lean of about 11 degrees when
JFK was leaning forward over 27 degrees when he was hit.
While Canning later admitted his "error"...some, who believe it's ridiculous to
think the autopsists didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, believe he adjusted
the lean intentionally just to keep the cowlick entry trajectory from being more
consistent with a shot from a blimp than one from the SN.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>In article <1c7bf906-0436-49ac...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>
><TOP POST>
>
>Below is how I replied to Emerling....and my comments apply to you. So, be my
>guest and do your usual thing and cut out all the points you don't have an
>answer or explanation for that makes any sense and paste in any point you think
>you have a reasonable answer for...and add your usual rhetoric.
How refreshing to hear an LN tell it like it is!
Carry on .... avoid blugeons though!
I prefer Disney scenarios to Kill Bill 1 or 2!
By the way, in December 1963, Disneyland presented an action adventure
mini-series entitled The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh starring Patrick
McGoohan as Dr. Christopher Syn. Walt, as usual, gave a brief
introduction as the beginning of each episode. Very calming.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055929/
Recently added to my collection of movies from 1963.
>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
>>
PF
David Von Pein
To John Canal:
F8 is useless. Why anyone relies on it for anything definitive is a
mystery to me.
I've tackled all of your other points--multiple times. But just
pretend you've never seen these posts before:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5856e761c980873
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a94f08867e7542e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/206d901e1d772b00
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bd2d6afd533d2c63
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed6f679852c2c6b4
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3068cd0dca637ae6
HistorianDetective
> In article <c29b6e3a-8fa4-4291-96af-5c14ead31...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
John,
> I know there were 11 "cerebellum eyewitnesses" but I'd like to know if he
> tells us what his source was for that statement.
>
Looks like you and me both would like to know his source or sources.
Could you post the names of the "Cerebellum 11' ?
back to Manchester...
Not quite sure how to explain Manchester's descriptive remarks. That
short
quip is part of the Introductory to Chapter 3 MARKET. It is
Italicized. No other
part of the book is italicized.
I think it's more prose than anything else, with his audience more
familiar with
Cerebellum than say the EOP.
Somehow it just doesn't write well.....
"The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's External Occitipal
Protuberance."
Be that as it may, Manchester is not the source for the medical
stuff .
JM
John Canal
HistorianDetective says...
>
>On Dec 23, 1:52=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <c29b6e3a-8fa4-4291-96af-5c14ead31...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> HistorianDetective says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 22, 1:54=3DA0pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi JM,
>Could you post the names of the "Cerebellum 11' ?
Well, I can help on that.
Under "Head Wounds" .john has a list of 8 of them on his website...he once
credited me for provding that list, but...I don't see that credit anymore.
Hmmmm, what does that mean? :-)
Add to that list:
1. Crenshaw [Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86]
2. Williams, a PH intern [taped interview with Livingtone, HT2, p. 294]
3. Humes--"we saw a severely lacerated flocculus" (part of the cerebellum).
[2WCH, p. 355]
>back to Manchester...
>
>Not quite sure how to explain Manchester's descriptive remarks. That
>short
>quip is part of the Introductory to Chapter 3 MARKET. It is
>Italicized. No other
>part of the book is italicized.
>
>I think it's more prose than anything else, with his audience more
>familiar with
>Cerebellum than say the EOP.
>
>Somehow it just doesn't write well.....
>
>"The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's External Occitipal
>Protuberance."
He was close at least. The evidence shows the bullet skirted along the top
of the tentorium...with the explosionary/concussionary forces somewhat
disrupting it [the cerebellum]. The cerebellum was, however, undoubtedly
exposed through a tear in the BOH scalp and a gap or gaps between one or
more loose pieces of skull that remained attached to the scalp (and were
never blown out as they would have been had a bullet exited the BOH).
>Be that as it may, Manchester is not the source for the medical
>stuff .
Regards,
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Canal
David Von Pein says...
>
>
>To John Canal:
>
>F8 is useless. Why anyone relies on it for anything definitive is a
>mystery to me.
Some pretty smart individuals as well as some serious and credible
researchers (I'm not saying that includes me) have deciphered and now
understand F8 and have gleaned much useful information from that photo.
But, to each his own.
>I've tackled all of your other points--multiple times. But just
>pretend you've never seen these posts before:
I'm sure I've read your "replies" and I'm sure you think they're reasonabe
answers or explanations...but, honestly, I wouldn't have asked you those
questions if I thought you had already "really" answered them.
John Canal
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5856e761c980873
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30dd9469c00f35
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ccc185e2cdb425e2
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a94f08867e7542e3
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5d68a02c4b61717
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/206d901e1d772b00
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bd2d6afd533d2c63
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed6f679852c2c6b4
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7abea215a6270e24
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3068cd0dca637ae6
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
davidemerling
> >The problem is that the entry hole, as seen in the autopsy photo, shows
> >the entry wound near that very distinctive area in the hairline, known as
> >the cowlick, that just about everybody has. No amount of stretching and
> >reflecting is going to make that hole move to that area.
>
> Let me guess....you're one of those "researchers" who doesn't understand
> F8 (the photo that shows the entry in the skull near the EOP)......but
> still doesn't hesitate to offer his opinion on the entry location of the
> entry in the skull....based on their analysis of a picture of the entry in
> the scalp.......a scalp, BTW, that was reflected, stretched, and then held
> back up for the photo (unless of course you think the autopsists and
> morticians were liars)? Is that close?
Know, I'm one of those "researchers" who can look at a photograph of the
back of somebody's head ... clearly see the cowlick area ... and see a
hole in the immediate vicinity.
I'm one of those "researchers" who agrees with the Clark Panel and HSCA
with regards to that wound's location.
What proof do you have that the photographer was still snapping
photographs after the autopsy was complete and reconstruction was
underway? It really doesn't make sense, either.
Even *IF* the scalp is reflected and stretched - I don't see how that can
cause the entry wound to appear to be right next to the cowlick. How do
you explain that?
I'm wondering what the significance of your theory is - anyway.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
davidemerling says...
>
>On Dec 27, 10:57=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> >The problem is that the entry hole, as seen in the autopsy photo, shows
>> >the entry wound near that very distinctive area in the hairline, known as
>> >the cowlick, that just about everybody has. No amount of stretching and
>> >reflecting is going to make that hole move to that area.
>>
>> Let me guess....you're one of those "researchers" who doesn't understand
>> F8 (the photo that shows the entry in the skull near the EOP)......but
>> still doesn't hesitate to offer his opinion on the entry location of the
>> entry in the skull....based on their analysis of a picture of the entry in
>> the scalp.......a scalp, BTW, that was reflected, stretched, and then held
>> back up for the photo (unless of course you think the autopsists and
>> morticians were liars)? Is that close?
>
>Know, I'm one of those "researchers" who can look at a photograph of the
>back of somebody's head ... clearly see the cowlick area ... and see a
>hole in the immediate vicinity.
I was asking you if you understand F8, which is a photograph of the inside of
the rear skull with the entry...I suspect you don't...which is why you reply
only on the photograph of the entry in the SCALP.
>I'm one of those "researchers" who agrees with the Clark Panel and HSCA
>with regards to that wound's location.
Fisher of the Clark Panel discarded F8 and used the phto of the entry in the
scalp. Then his associates on the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA, naturally
agreed with him and not Humes.
Have you read Dale Myer's analysis of the cowlick entry trajectory?
My guess is no.
Have you read about the trail of tiny opacities extending anteriorly from the
EOP?
My guess is no.
Have you plotted the longitudinal laceration through the brain that started at
the tip of the occipital lobe, passed just over the Thalamus, and ended at the
tip of the frontal lobe?
My guess is no.
>What proof do you have that the photographer was still snapping
>photographs after the autopsy was complete and reconstruction was
>underway? It really doesn't make sense, either.
I interviewed the autopsy photographer, John Stringer at his home. They were
taking photos throughout the night. You try to understand F8 and I'll dig up the
citation/s that says they did. My color coded visual aid for deciphering F8 is
also under "Head Wounds" on .john's site. But if this issue is insignificant to
you, I doubt you'll bother and I won't bother to find that citation [or those
citations]
>Even *IF* the scalp is reflected and stretched - I don't see how that can
>cause the entry wound to appear to be right next to the cowlick. How do
>you explain that?
I have. See my article under "Head Wounds" on McAdams' site.
>I'm wondering what the significance of your theory is - anyway.
No wonder you think like this. MY THEORY? Many highly credible authors and
researchers have argued for the near-EOP entry before me...I've just added some
points.
You ought to read "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan....a 45-year government
wound-ballistics expert. He testified for the HSCA that the entry was in the
cowlick, but after seeing a good copy of F8, he reversed his position...and is
now adamant the entry was where Humes and every other human who said they saw it
said it was....NEAR THE EOP!
And if you don't think the Clark Panel, Roickefeller Commission, and HSCA
falsely accusing the autopsists of being wrong by four inches on the entry to
JFK's head is "significant", why are you even writing posts like this?...Why not
just ignore me and the controversy as insignificant ramblings?
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
He has this bizarre theory that the entrance wound was actually next to
the EOP, but Humes stretched the scalp up 4 inches to make the wound
LOOK like it was in the cowlick area. That is physically impossible, but
he believes that's what happened. That's why he is a WC defender.
davidemerling
> He has this bizarre theory that the entrance wound was actually next to
> the EOP, but Humes stretched the scalp up 4 inches to make the wound
> LOOK like it was in the cowlick area. That is physically impossible, but
> he believes that's what happened. That's why he is a WC defender.
Substantively, amongst "WC defenders", it matters very little whether
the entrance wound in the back of the head was at the EOP or cowlick.
A bullet going over 2000 fps that hits something hard like a human
skull and comes apart is going to be deflected. Hell, bullets fired
into ballistic gel, without hitting anything of substance and
maintaining its structural integrity, often curve. Neither entry wound
location precludes the the exit wound being where it was, in the right/
frontal area.
Although I disagree with Canal's theory regarding the rear head wound
location - if he were correct - it wouldn't change things much.
I just do not see how you can see the cowlick area adjacent to the
entry wound and attribute it to the stretching/reflecting of the
scalp.
Imagine you had a sheet of rubber and, prior to stretching it, you
marked a spot on it with a black marker. Next to the marker spot, you
put a hole in the rubber. No matter how much you stretch that sheet of
rubber, the hole is always going to be relatively close to the market
spot. It's doubtful you will be able to make it appear 4-inches
further away. And that's with a RUBBER SHEET!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
davidemerling says...
If you would spend less time posting your opinions and spend some time
trying to understand F8, which shows the entry in the skull to be a little
above the EOP, you wouldn't be comparing the scalp to a rubber sheet.
The fact is that four replications of F8 were done independently and all
four agreed (within less than an inch of one another) that the entry was a
little above the EOP. THIS MEANS THAT THE BULLET PUNCTURED THE SCALP ABOUT
2.5 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE AND THE PHOTO SHOWS THE HOLE IN THE SACLP TO
BE ABOUT 5.5 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE.....####SEE THE PROBLEM????????????
Humes said twice that they undermined the scalp...this doesn't simply mean
"stretching" the scalp. No, Undermining is a special process used by
morticians (I've interviewd many of them) and even by hair restoration
professionals, to maximize the "stretchability" of the scalp. It calls for
seperating the top layer of the scalp (there are FIVE layers, BTW) from
the other four. The four layers beneath the top layer include tissue and
muscle and are difficult to strtch...., however, once the top layer is
seperated it can be stretched a lot more than one would think.
The scalp (top layer) was stretched in the area from the EOp (about 2.5
inches above the hairline) down to the hairline...and that's why:
1) the hair appears to be thinner in the photos below that point down to
the hairline.
2) the white spot was reated because they slightly breached the top layer
when they performed the delicate task of sepeating that top layer from the
other for and this caused some of the underlying tissue of the saclp to
exude through the breach in the top layer.
As far fetched as it sounds, if one agrees with every human (and there
were several, including the autopsists) who ever saw the entry near the
EOP "on the body", there is no other explanation for why the entry is
about 5.5 inches above the hairline in the photos, OTHER THAN THE
EXPLANATION THAT THE TOP LAYER OF THE SCALP FROM THE EOP TO THE HAIRLINE
WAS STRETCHED ABOUT 2.5 INCHES. Google up "undermining" and learn
something and then interview some morticianBut, that's right, this
controversy doesn't matter enough to you to do that, let alone try to
understand F8....but if it doesn't matter then maybe you ought to not
bother to post your opinions about this issue?
John Canal
If you would spend less time posting your opinions and spend some time
trying to understand F8, which shows the entry in the skull to be a little
above the EOP, you wouldn't be comparing the scalp to a rubber sheet.
The fact is that four replications of F8 were done independently and all
four agreed (within less than an inch of one another) that the entry was a
little above the EOP. THIS MEANS THAT THE BULLET PUNCTURED THE SCALP ABOUT
2.5 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE AND THE PHOTO SHOWS THE HOLE IN THE SCALP TO
BE ABOUT 5.5 INCHES ABOVE THE HAIRLINE.....####SEE THE PROBLEM????????????
Humes said twice that they "undermined" the scalp...this doesn't simply
mean "stretching" the scalp. No, "undermining" is a special process used
by morticians (I've interviewd many of them) and even by hair restoration
professionals, to "maximize" the "stretchability" of the scalp. It calls
for separating the top layer of the scalp (there are FIVE layers, BTW)
from the other four. The four layers beneath the top layer include tissue
and muscle and they are difficult to stretch...., however, once the top
layer is seperated it can be stretched a lot more than one would think.
The scalp (top layer) was stretched in the area from the EOP (about 2.5
inches above the hairline) down to the hairline...and that's why:
1) the hair appears to be thinner in the photos below that point down to
the hairline.
2) the white spot was created because they slightly breached the top layer
when they performed the delicate task of separating that top layer from
the other four and this caused some of the underlying tissue of the scalp
to exude through the breach in the top layer.
Let me add that they ### HAD ### to stretch the relatively undamaged
(except for a tear and a puncture) occipital scalp (again, the top layer)
to be able to cover (for an open-casket funeral) the top/right/front area
of his head that the skull and scalp were blown out from.
As far fetched as it sounds, if one agrees with every human (and there
were several, including the autopsists) who ever saw the entry near the
EOP "on the body", there is no other logical explanation for why the entry
is about 5.5 inches above the hairline in the photos, OTHER THAN THE
EXPLANATION THAT THE TOP LAYER OF THE SCALP FROM THE EOP TO THE HAIRLINE
WAS STRETCHED ABOUT 2.5 INCHES.
Google up "undermining" and learn something and then interview some
morticians. But, that's right, this controversy doesn't matter enough to
you to do that, let alone matter enough to you to try to understand
F8....but, if it doesn't matter that much to you, then maybe you ought to
not bother to post your opinions about this issue?
John Canal
>David Emerling
>Memphis, TN
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 30, 6:24 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> He has this bizarre theory that the entrance wound was actually next to
>> the EOP, but Humes stretched the scalp up 4 inches to make the wound
>> LOOK like it was in the cowlick area. That is physically impossible, but
>> he believes that's what happened. That's why he is a WC defender.
>
> Substantively, amongst "WC defenders", it matters very little whether
> the entrance wound in the back of the head was at the EOP or cowlick.
> A bullet going over 2000 fps that hits something hard like a human
> skull and comes apart is going to be deflected. Hell, bullets fired
> into ballistic gel, without hitting anything of substance and
> maintaining its structural integrity, often curve. Neither entry wound
> location precludes the the exit wound being where it was, in the right/
> frontal area.
So far you are only talking about DEFLECTION of the bullet and one
discrete exit wound. So show me this one exit wound. Many WC defenders
have become much more sophisticated over the years and now believe that
the bullet broke up while inside the head and produced several exits.
>
> Although I disagree with Canal's theory regarding the rear head wound
> location - if he were correct - it wouldn't change things much.
>
Spoken like a true dunderhead. You can't see that the 4 inch difference
means anything at all. Then you might also claim that the entrance wound
in the frontal bone doesn't matter at all either? Where will you stop in
your nuttiness quest?
davidemerling
wrote:
> > Substantively, amongst "WC defenders", it matters very little whether
> > the entrance wound in the back of the head was at the EOP or cowlick.
> > A bullet going over 2000 fps that hits something hard like a human
> > skull and comes apart is going to be deflected. Hell, bullets fired
> > into ballistic gel, without hitting anything of substance and
> > maintaining its structural integrity, often curve. Neither entry wound
> > location precludes the the exit wound being where it was, in the right/
> > frontal area.
>
> So far you are only talking about DEFLECTION of the bullet and one
> discrete exit wound. So show me this one exit wound. Many WC defenders
> have become much more sophisticated over the years and now believe that
> the bullet broke up while inside the head and produced several exits.
The exit wound was huge. That is evident with just a casual viewing of
the Zapruder film. There were many tiny flecks of metal from the
disintegrated bullet inside Kennedy's head - those could be seen in
the x-rays. But those flecks do not come close to comprising a
majority of the bullet. Most of the bullet transited Kennedy's head.
Two very large fragments were found on the floor of the presidential
limousine. In fact, they were so large, ballistic analysis was
possible. They were definitely linked to Oswald's rifle. Hell, we
don't even need NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) to make that
determination.
It was a sloppy exit wound, no doubt. In all likelihood, several
exiting fragments were the cause of this exit wound. I'm not sure what
your point is. Is it necessary to know the precise method by which
this exit wound obtained it's character? No! There was bone beveling
around the wound which conclusively determines the direction of the
bullet. This is a very elementary determination.
> > Although I disagree with Canal's theory regarding the rear head wound
> > location - if he were correct - it wouldn't change things much.
>
> Spoken like a true dunderhead. You can't see that the 4 inch difference
> means anything at all. Then you might also claim that the entrance wound
> in the frontal bone doesn't matter at all either? Where will you stop in
> your nuttiness quest?
Entrance wound in the frontal bone? Huh? Where did you get that?
The precise location of the head wound is not as important, for
instance, than the precise location of Kennedy's back wound because
you cannot reliably derive a trajectory by connecting the dots with
the head wound. Almost certainly, the bullet was deflected while it
was disintegrating. It could have exited where it did whether it
struck in the cowlick area or, 4 inches lower, at the EOP.
More importantly, with regards to the debate regarding Kennedy
sustaining a head wound from a shot fired from the grassy knoll - the
entry wound was on the BACK OF HIS HEAD.
So - no - I don't see how this seeming 4-inch discrepancy changes the
nature of the debate very much.
Tell me more about this "entrance wound" in the "frontal bone". I just
gotta hear this.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 31 2009, 5:57 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Substantively, amongst "WC defenders", it matters very little whether
>>> the entrance wound in the back of the head was at the EOP or cowlick.
>>> A bullet going over 2000 fps that hits something hard like a human
>>> skull and comes apart is going to be deflected. Hell, bullets fired
>>> into ballistic gel, without hitting anything of substance and
>>> maintaining its structural integrity, often curve. Neither entry wound
>>> location precludes the the exit wound being where it was, in the right/
>>> frontal area.
>>
>> So far you are only talking about DEFLECTION of the bullet and one
>> discrete exit wound. So show me this one exit wound. Many WC defenders
>> have become much more sophisticated over the years and now believe that
>> the bullet broke up while inside the head and produced several exits.
>
> The exit wound was huge. That is evident with just a casual viewing of
> the Zapruder film. There were many tiny flecks of metal from the
> disintegrated bullet inside Kennedy's head - those could be seen in
> the x-rays. But those flecks do not come close to comprising a
The X-rays were not good enough. You can't see the path of the bullet. The
resolution is not good enough to see the scores of dustlike bullet
fragments which the autopsy doctors saw in person.
> majority of the bullet. Most of the bullet transited Kennedy's head.
> Two very large fragments were found on the floor of the presidential
> limousine. In fact, they were so large, ballistic analysis was
> possible. They were definitely linked to Oswald's rifle. Hell, we
Being large is not the only thing that makes it possible to do a
ballistics match. The fact that they had the jacket intact is what makes
that possible. Remember that the base fragment was small because all the
lead core was gone, but there was enough jacket intact to make a
ballistics match. If the corresponding lead core had been found they could
not do a ballistics match on that. You can ONLY do a ballistics match on
the jacket.
> don't even need NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) to make that
> determination.
>
But that doesn't tell us what they hit.
> It was a sloppy exit wound, no doubt. In all likelihood, several
> exiting fragments were the cause of this exit wound. I'm not sure what
> your point is. Is it necessary to know the precise method by which
Gee, you figure that out all on your own? Brilliant. But many WC
defenders could not and the HSCA could not.
> this exit wound obtained it's character? No! There was bone beveling
> around the wound which conclusively determines the direction of the
> bullet. This is a very elementary determination.
>
Which wound? Show me.
>>> Although I disagree with Canal's theory regarding the rear head wound
>>> location - if he were correct - it wouldn't change things much.
>>
>> Spoken like a true dunderhead. You can't see that the 4 inch difference
>> means anything at all. Then you might also claim that the entrance wound
>> in the frontal bone doesn't matter at all either? Where will you stop in
>> your nuttiness quest?
>
> Entrance wound in the frontal bone? Huh? Where did you get that?
>
The wound which Dr. Angel thought was an exit wound.
> The precise location of the head wound is not as important, for
> instance, than the precise location of Kennedy's back wound because
> you cannot reliably derive a trajectory by connecting the dots with
> the head wound. Almost certainly, the bullet was deflected while it
You can not use the wounds to derive a trajectory when they lie about
the location of the wounds.
> was disintegrating. It could have exited where it did whether it
> struck in the cowlick area or, 4 inches lower, at the EOP.
>
Now, that's the best explanation I've heard and I wonder why more WC
defenders haven't adopted it. It doesn't matter where the bullet entered
because it still could have disintegrated, broken up, deflected to produce
the massive exit wound on the top of the head. Perhaps you overlooked the
danger that the conspiracy believers could borrow that explanation for how
the bullet could hit the front of the head and not exit the back of the
head.
> More importantly, with regards to the debate regarding Kennedy
> sustaining a head wound from a shot fired from the grassy knoll - the
> entry wound was on the BACK OF HIS HEAD.
>
> So - no - I don't see how this seeming 4-inch discrepancy changes the
> nature of the debate very much.
>
> Tell me more about this "entrance wound" in the "frontal bone". I just
> gotta hear this.
>
You refuse to look.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
davidemerling
No, I don't think the "conspiracy believers" could adopt such an
explanation. Even though I believe you cannot derive a precise trajectory
for the head wound, nonetheless, the entry is in the back and the exit is
in the front. It may not line up with the 6th floor of the TSBD but, like
I said, no precision is possible here. About the best you can say is he
was shot from behind and the bullet exit the front. I'm not claiming the
bullet made a 90 or 180 turn.
If the "conspiracy believers" want to use this logic for a bullet that
entered from a shot originating from the grassy knoll, they are going to
need much more than a "deflection". They are going to need the bullet to
do some extreme gyrations in the head. I disagree that they could "borrow"
this explanation because they would have to magnify the deflection to an
unreasonable extent.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN