Citation for John Canal
Herbert Blenner
It has been reported that you have posted without signaling. — Only
kidding.
You have asked me to cite the description of the entry hole in
President Kennedy's skull as elliptical.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/Image02.htm
See the lower portion of the second column.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>
>It has been reported that you have posted without signaling. =97 Only
>kidding.
>
>You have asked me to cite the description of the entry hole in
>President Kennedy's skull as elliptical.
>
>.htm
>
>See the lower portion of the second column.
<g> Herbert, come on please. So Humes says nothing about an eliptical
entry wound in the skull in the autopsy report, his WC testimony, his HSCA
testimony nor his ARRB testimony, but drops this revelation on Dennis
Breo....and you buy the later?
Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement that
relied on nearly a 30 year old memory, can I trump that mentioning this:
The FPP using stereoscopic visualization saw (in F8) a beveled
semicircular defect.....stop. I'll repeat, "semicircular"....hmmmm,
Herbert doen't semicircular mean half of a circle?
Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull entry
in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or HSCA
deposition...do you?
One more thing---if you want visual evidence do I need to show you the
enhanced blow-up of the entry in F8 to support, if not prove, the
conclusion the entry was circular? All that I did to enhance the blow-up
was to add a little contrast and brightness? Do you want to look at it
yourself? If so, I'll post it again. Let me know.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
> In article <dd98c165-b644-43e3-b35c-3e570f4c9...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Herbert Blenner says...
>
>
>
> >It has been reported that you have posted without signaling. =97 Only
> >kidding.
>
> >You have asked me to cite the description of the entry hole in
> >President Kennedy's skull as elliptical.
>
> >.htm
>
> >See the lower portion of the second column.
>
> <g> Herbert, come on please. So Humes says nothing about an eliptical
> entry wound in the skull in the autopsy report, his WC testimony, his HSCA
> testimony nor his ARRB testimony, but drops this revelation on Dennis
> Breo....and you buy the later?
Commander Humes said that the margin of the wound in the skull were
similar in all aspects to the margin surrounding the oval/elliptical wound
in the back.
Source: WC testimony of Cmdr. James J. Humes
Commander HUMES - . . . This missile, to the best of our ability to
ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as
it traversed the President's body. But it was a sharply delineated wound.
It was quite regular in its outline. It measured, as I mentioned, 7 by 4
mm. Its margins were similar in all respects when viewed with the naked
eye to the wound in the skull, which we feel incontrovertibly was a wound
of entrance. End of source.
So tell us, John, does the category of all aspects include the particular
aspect of an oval/elliptical perimeter?
>
> Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement that
> relied on nearly a 30 year old memory, can I trump that mentioning this:
> The FPP using stereoscopic visualization saw (in F8) a beveled
> semicircular defect.....stop. I'll repeat, "semicircular"....hmmmm,
> Herbert doen't semicircular mean half of a circle?
The photographs would show the proper surface shape of the bevel only when
the line of sight of the camera is parallel to the axis of the bevel. As a
matter of fact the graphics that I have posted in connection with "My
boring experiment" show this effect. When the line of sight is
perpendicular to the surface of the wood the bored hole has an elliptical
perimeter.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/surfacehole.jpg
Alternately viewing the wood with the line of sight parallel to the axis
of the bored hole reveals a circular perimeter on the surface and of
course we see the through the hole.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/bulkhole.jpg
Now look at the autopsy photograph of the scalp wound. The picture shows
an elliptical wound with its shallower portion farther from the top of the
head. Despite the thinness of the scalp and skull we do not see a through
hole. Further the FPP noted a suggestion of undermining of tissues on
portions of the wound closer to the head. These features are overwhelming
strong evidence of the tangential entry by the bullet.
>
> Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull entry
> in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or HSCA
> deposition...do you?
I don't recall Finck using any adjective in his WC or HSCA testimonies to
describe the shape of any hole or wound of entry. Perhaps you can quote
Finck to offset the appearance of grasping for straws.
>
> One more thing---if you want visual evidence do I need to show you the
> enhanced blow-up of the entry in F8 to support, if not prove, the
> conclusion the entry was circular? All that I did to enhance the blow-up
> was to add a little contrast and brightness? Do you want to look at it
> yourself? If so, I'll post it again. Let me know.
I suggest that you draw the trajectory of the head shot and show the
angles of incidence of the bullet at the entry and exit sites. I find that
curvature of the skull above the frontal hairline prohibits anything but a
highly tangential exit by a bullet that entered the rear of the head.
So post F8 again, John, so that everyone may see the angle made by the
camera's line of sight with the perpendicular to the skull at the wound
sites. I am dusting off my protractor to measure the logical consistency
of various aspects of the medical evidence.
Herbert
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On May 15, 1:07=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <dd98c165-b644-43e3-b35c-3e570f4c9...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Herbert Blenner says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >kidding.
>>
>> >You have asked me to cite the description of the entry hole in
>> >President Kennedy's skull as elliptical.
>>
>> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md22/html/...
>> >.htm
>>
>> >See the lower portion of the second column.
>>
>> <g> Herbert, come on please. So Humes says nothing about an eliptical
>
>> testimony nor his ARRB testimony, but drops this revelation on Dennis
>> Breo....and you buy the later?
>
>Commander Humes said that the margin of the wound in the skull were
>similar in all aspects to the margin surrounding the oval/elliptical wound
>in the back.
>
>Source: WC testimony of Cmdr. James J. Humes
>
>Commander HUMES - . . . This missile, to the best of our ability to
>ascertain, struck no bone protuberances, no bony prominences, no bones as
>it traversed the President's body. But it was a sharply delineated wound.
>It was quite regular in its outline. It measured, as I mentioned, 7 by 4
>mm. Its margins were similar in all respects when viewed with the naked
>eye to the wound in the skull, which we feel incontrovertibly was a wound
>of entrance. End of source.
>
>So tell us, John, does the category of all aspects include the particular
>aspect of an oval/elliptical perimeter?
I would say that all aspects would include whether the hole was eliptical
or not, yes. But he did say "similar" and he could have said the wound in
the skull was 15 x 6 mm, but he didn't...he just said the wound in the
scalp was 15 x 6...and said the same thing in the autopsy report.
Here's the thing: the best evidence of a circular hole is F8...again, do
you want me to post the enhanced blow-up of the bottom half of the
entry....if you think and tell me it looks like half an eliptical defect,
then I agree the hole in the skull might have been eliptical...not that it
makes any difference as far as where the bullet was fired from, where it
entered the skull, where the two largest fragments exited, and where those
two fragments ended up....your "striking angles" aside.
>> Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement that=
>
>> relied on nearly a 30 year old memory, can I trump that mentioning this:
>> The FPP using stereoscopic visualization saw (in F8) a beveled
>> semicircular defect.....stop. I'll repeat, "semicircular"....hmmmm,
>> Herbert doen't semicircular mean half of a circle?
>
>The photographs would show the proper surface shape of the bevel only when
>the line of sight of the camera is parallel to the axis of the bevel.
The camera LOS is nearly straight on to the entry...and you can see the
hole was not eliptical. The FPP used stereoscopic visualization to
determine it was SEMI-CIRCULAR...NOT SEMI-ELIPTICAL.
>As a
>matter of fact the graphics that I have posted in connection with "My
>boring experiment" show this effect. When the line of sight is
>perpendicular to the surface of the wood the bored hole has an elliptical
>perimeter.
I like the stereoscopic visualization of the originals as proof regarding
the shape of the hole, over your demonstrations, no disrespect intended to
your scientifc accomplishments intended, of course.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/surfacehole.jpg
>
>Alternately viewing the wood with the line of sight parallel to the axis
>of the bored hole reveals a circular perimeter on the surface and of
>course we see the through the hole.
I wonder why didn't those forensic pathologists think of trying that
experiment...ya think they didn't need to in order to see the shape of the
defect in the skull?
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/bulkhole.jpg
>
>Now look at the autopsy photograph of the scalp wound. The picture shows
>an elliptical wound with its shallower portion farther from the top of the
>head. Despite the thinness of the scalp and skull we do not see a through
>hole.
Do you mean a through hole through the scalp or through the skull too?
If the later, Herbert, where have you been? The wound in the scalp was
photographed undoubtedly after some BOH reconstruction was done, but
certainly after the scalp was reflected, pieces of rear skull removed (or
allowed to come out), the brain removed, and the scalp held back up...with
who knows what degree of concern for where it was origially. And if you
don't that, the dead give away is the fact that the entry was accepted by
all the forensic pathologiss to be one inch right of midline and you can
see, I'm sure that the photos of the wound in the scalp is midline t best,
and probably a little left of midline. Bottom line Herbert, is that
there's no chance in Hades that the hole in the scalp was over the entry
defect in the skull...and, as a matter of fact, the top halp of the entry
was surely on the table in a piece of the skull that came out earlier when
the photo of the scalp wound was taken.
>Further the FPP noted a suggestion of undermining of tissues on
>portions of the wound closer to the head. These features are overwhelming
>strong evidence of the tangential entry by the bullet.
Well, it's obvious that the bullet was on a downward path of roughly -16
deg (rel. to horiz) when it nose touched the outer table of the skull, but
by the time that deformed nose cleared the inner table of the skull it was
on a path of roughly +4 degrees. If you want to say that constitutes a
tangential stike, I agree.
>> Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull entry
>> in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or HSCA
>> deposition...do you?
>
>I don't recall Finck using any adjective in his WC or HSCA testimonies to
>describe the shape of any hole or wound of entry. Perhaps you can quote
>Finck to offset the appearance of grasping for straws.
I simply think that if the hole in the skull was eliptical, and that meant
something as far as the forensic examination went, he would have said it was
eliptical...don't you?
>> One more thing---if you want visual evidence do I need to show you the
>> enhanced blow-up of the entry in F8 to support, if not prove, the
>> conclusion the entry was circular? All that I did to enhance the blow-up
>> was to add a little contrast and brightness? Do you want to look at it
>> yourself? If so, I'll post it again. Let me know.
I'll take that as a "NO"...I wonder why?
>I suggest that you draw the trajectory of the head shot and show the
>angles of incidence of the bullet at the entry and exit sites. I find that
>curvature of the skull above the frontal hairline prohibits anything but a
>highly tangential exit by a bullet that entered the rear of the head.
I have posted graphics, ad nausem, showing the trjectory of the bullet.
That said, I have asked you before to post a graphic showing the
trajectory of the head shot/s as you percieved they were, and you have
never done that per my request. If they are on your website, spare me the
trouble of finding it and please simply post it...will you do that?
>So post F8 again, John, so that everyone may see the angle made by the
>camera's line of sight with the perpendicular to the skull at the wound
>sites. I am dusting off my protractor to measure the logical consistency
>of various aspects of the medical evidence.
I suggest you put away your protractor and sarcasm and just tell me if you
think the hole looks even close to being eliptical.
I can't do it from this webtv, so I'll post it just for you from my PC
when I finish this.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner
> In article <84e7ea6a-1127-4d55-8a6f-fe4e0fbcf...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Humes could not have said the wound in the skull was x by y since beveling
caused the shape of the hole in the bulk of the bone to deviate from a
simple cylinder. The shape would have consisted of a cylindrical portion
attached to a conical part. However, the shape of the hole in the skull is
not the point of contention. Instead the shapes of the perimeters of the
holes on the inner and outer surfaces of the skull when viewed
perpendicularly to these surfaces are paramount to forensic analysis.
>
> Here's the thing: the best evidence of a circular hole is F8...again, do
> you want me to post the enhanced blow-up of the bottom half of the
> entry....if you think and tell me it looks like half an eliptical defect,
> then I agree the hole in the skull might have been eliptical...not that it
> makes any difference as far as where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered the skull, where the two largest fragments exited, and where those
> two fragments ended up....your "striking angles" aside.
>
F8 does not present the whole picture of the transiting head shot.
According to the HSCA , the bullet exited the right front side of the head
and reportedly made a neat bevel on the outer table of the skull that had
a reasonably circular perimeter. This situation requires a bullet exiting
the skull close to a right angle to the surface. Difficulties arise
because the direction of the perpendicular to the exit site is nearly at a
right angle to the perpendicular at the entry hole. So unless the bullet
made a right angle turn during transit the pair of bevels at the inner
table of the entry site and the outer table of the exit location cannot
stand together as a true pair.
I suggest you correct the following graphic of the HSCA version of the
head shot and relocate the entry and exit sites so that the trajectory
that crosses them at close to right angles to the surface of the skull.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/jfkf66.jpg
> >> Well, if you want to go by the JAMA article and a stale old statement that=
>
> >> relied on nearly a 30 year old memory, can I trump that mentioning this:
> >> The FPP using stereoscopic visualization saw (in F8) a beveled
> >> semicircular defect.....stop. I'll repeat, "semicircular"....hmmmm,
> >> Herbert doen't semicircular mean half of a circle?
>
> >The photographs would show the proper surface shape of the bevel only when
> >the line of sight of the camera is parallel to the axis of the bevel.
>
> The camera LOS is nearly straight on to the entry...and you can see the
> hole was not eliptical. The FPP used stereoscopic visualization to
> determine it was SEMI-CIRCULAR...NOT SEMI-ELIPTICAL.
Stereoscopic visualization produces a virtual three-dimensional view that
is irrelevant to determining the shape of a two-dimensional perimeter,
which resides on the surface of the skull. So if your claim of the LOS
being "nearly straight on to the entry" means perpendicular to the surface
at the entry then the oval/elliptical shape of the exterior would
invalidate the association with the bevel. This situation arises since the
bevel of the interior surface at close to normal incidence requires a
deflection of the bullet that would have altered its displacement or
striking area from circular to rectangular with slight rounding of
corners.
>
> >As a
> >matter of fact the graphics that I have posted in connection with "My
> >boring experiment" show this effect. When the line of sight is
> >perpendicular to the surface of the wood the bored hole has an elliptical
> >perimeter.
>
> I like the stereoscopic visualization of the originals as proof regarding
> the shape of the hole, over your demonstrations, no disrespect intended to
> your scientifc accomplishments intended, of course.
As I have shown above, a bullet acquires a passive yaw during deflection.
So the finding of a bevel with a circular perimeter and a hole with an
oval/elliptical perimeter on the opposite side of the skull requires
nonparallel surfaces, just as on the block used in my experiment.
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/surfacehole.jpg
>
> >Alternately viewing the wood with the line of sight parallel to the axis
> >of the bored hole reveals a circular perimeter on the surface and of
> >course we see the through the hole.
>
> I wonder why didn't those forensic pathologists think of trying that
> experiment...ya think they didn't need to in order to see the shape of the
> defect in the skull?
I wonder why Arlen Specter or other inquisitors did not ask the Parkland
doctors or the prosectors to describe their viewing angles when they
reported surface wounds of various shapes?
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/bulkhole.jpg
>
> >Now look at the autopsy photograph of the scalp wound. The picture shows
> >an elliptical wound with its shallower portion farther from the top of the
> >head. Despite the thinness of the scalp and skull we do not see a through
> >hole.
>
> Do you mean a through hole through the scalp or through the skull too?
I meant to say, despite the thinness of the scalp and periosteum, we
do not see a through hole.
>
> If the later, Herbert, where have you been? The wound in the scalp was
> photographed undoubtedly after some BOH reconstruction was done, but
> certainly after the scalp was reflected, pieces of rear skull removed (or
> allowed to come out), the brain removed, and the scalp held back up...with
> who knows what degree of concern for where it was origially. And if you
> don't that, the dead give away is the fact that the entry was accepted by
> all the forensic pathologiss to be one inch right of midline and you can
> see, I'm sure that the photos of the wound in the scalp is midline t best,
> and probably a little left of midline. Bottom line Herbert, is that
> there's no chance in Hades that the hole in the scalp was over the entry
> defect in the skull...and, as a matter of fact, the top halp of the entry
> was surely on the table in a piece of the skull that came out earlier when
> the photo of the scalp wound was taken.
I wonder how you explain the failure back wound photographs to show a
bullet hole? In these photos were see enough of the back to ascertain that
the LOS from the camera is nearly roughly perpendicular to photographed
surface.
>
> >Further the FPP noted a suggestion of undermining of tissues on
> >portions of the wound closer to the head. These features are overwhelming
> >strong evidence of the tangential entry by the bullet.
>
> Well, it's obvious that the bullet was on a downward path of roughly -16
> deg (rel. to horiz) when it nose touched the outer table of the skull, but
> by the time that deformed nose cleared the inner table of the skull it was
> on a path of roughly +4 degrees. If you want to say that constitutes a
> tangential stike, I agree.
Apart for the unphysical assertion that a thin skull deflected a medium or
a high speed bullet by about 20 degree, the passive yaw that must
accompany a deflection disallows a circular or elliptical perimeter on the
inner surface of the skull. Instead the yawed bullet would produce a
surface hole whose perimeter resembled a rectangular with rounded corners.
For a deflection of 20 degree the length of the linear portions of the
rectangle would be the length of the bullet multiplied by the sine of the
angle or about 10 mm.
>
> >> Also, I don't recall Finck saying anything about an eliptical skull entry
> >> in his letter to Bloomberg or during either his Shaw Trial test. or HSCA
> >> deposition...do you?
>
> >I don't recall Finck using any adjective in his WC or HSCA testimonies to
> >describe the shape of any hole or wound of entry. Perhaps you can quote
> >Finck to offset the appearance of grasping for straws.
>
> I simply think that if the hole in the skull was eliptical, and that meant
> something as far as the forensic examination went, he would have said it was
> eliptical...don't you?
I think you know that I am talking about the shape of the hole on the
surface of the skull.
>
> >> One more thing---if you want visual evidence do I need to show you the
> >> enhanced blow-up of the entry in F8 to support, if not prove, the
> >> conclusion the entry was circular? All that I did to enhance the blow-up
> >> was to add a little contrast and brightness? Do you want to look at it
> >> yourself? If so, I'll post it again. Let me know.
>
> I'll take that as a "NO"...I wonder why?
Failure to remember what you wrote a few paragraphs earlier is a sign of
old age. For proof of the pudding see your reply to the following
paragraph that said "So post F8 again, John . . . ."
>
> >I suggest that you draw the trajectory of the head shot and show the
> >angles of incidence of the bullet at the entry and exit sites. I find that
> >curvature of the skull above the frontal hairline prohibits anything but a
> >highly tangential exit by a bullet that entered the rear of the head.
>
> I have posted graphics, ad nausem, showing the trjectory of the bullet.
> That said, I have asked you before to post a graphic showing the
> trajectory of the head shot/s as you percieved they were, and you have
> never done that per my request. If they are on your website, spare me the
> trouble of finding it and please simply post it...will you do that?
I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the
forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull. I have posted the
relevant text from Punching Holes in response to your earlier request. So
does your knowledge that I have not drawn a graphic showing the
trajectories motivate your "ad nausem" requests for the diagram? This and
other threads containing the same sickening request answers my question
affirmatively.
>
> >So post F8 again, John, so that everyone may see the angle made by the
> >camera's line of sight with the perpendicular to the skull at the wound
> >sites. I am dusting off my protractor to measure the logical consistency
> >of various aspects of the medical evidence.
>
> I suggest you put away your protractor and sarcasm and just tell me if you
> think the hole looks even close to being eliptical.
>
> I can't do it from this webtv, so I'll post it just for you from my PC
> when I finish this.
I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
Herbert
John Canal
Smoke and mirrors deleted.
IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
but futile. In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
the EOP. The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two major
fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cause the
damage to the windshield trim and glass.
Here are the key components of that evidence.
1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth floor.
2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same rifle.
3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by the
autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near the EOP and
exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit defect on
the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path which
extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to the
windsheld area.
That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was fired
from the SN.
>I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the
>forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
>trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull.
Two bullets that exited the skull????????????? How is that possible when only
one [head] entrance and one exit wound were found during the autopsy and the
bain damage is consistent with the bullet [major frags] transisting his head
along a path connecting those two wounds?
Are you saying you have hard evidence that the autopsists lied?
>I have posted the
>relevant text from Punching Holes in response to your earlier request. So
>does your knowledge that I have not drawn a graphic showing the
>trajectories motivate your "ad nausem" requests for the diagram?
Here's why I think you prefer to post verbiage to explain your position rather
than a graphic demonstrating it: You have a better chance at confusing the
reader by employing your highy technical terms than you would by showing where
you think the firing point(s?) and bullet path(s?) were via a graphic. That's
what I think and I'll bet that's what others who have followed these threads
think as well.
>This and
>other threads containing the same sickening request answers my question
>affirmatively.
I think then if my requests sicken you we are done.
>I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
It posted, a day or so ago....you must have missed it.
John Canal
>Herbert
Andrew Mason
> [...]
>
> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>
> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
> but futile. In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
> the EOP. The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two major
> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cause the
> damage to the windshield trim and glass.
>
> Here are the key components of that evidence.
>
> 1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
> ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth floor.
>
> 2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same rifle.
>
> 3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by the
> autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near the EOP and
> exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit defect on
> the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path which
> extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to the
> windsheld area.
>
> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was fired
> from the SN.
I am not sure that is enough. But the evidence of witnesses who saw a man
with a rifle in the SN and/or heard the shots from there (eg Amos Euins,
Howard Brennan, Mrs. Cabell, Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, James
Jarman, Robert Jackson); that Oswald's rifle was found in the boxes and it
was matched to CE399. The fact that Oswald confessed to his wife that he
had shot at Gen. Walker is also powerful similar-fact evidence that Oswald
did it.
Andrew Mason
Herbert Blenner
> [...]
>
> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>
> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
> but futile.
You are opening an argument with a falsehood. My analysis at Punching
Holes develops a general theory of forensic analysis and applies it only
to the shots with declinations angles that match shoots fired from the
sniper's nest of the TSBD.
> In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
> the EOP.
The medical evidence played no role in showing that a shooter fired at
least two shots from the sniper's nest. In fact the opening paragraph of
Punching Holes - Part Two states:
"Finding an abandoned rifle scientifically linked to the fragments
recovered from the limousine and a whole bullet in the former vicinity of
Governor Connally placed the shooter at the southeast corner on the sixth
floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
I invite you to post the basis for your opinion that I am attempting "to
build a case for the head shot being fired from other than the sniper's
nest."
> The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two major
> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cause the
> damage to the windshield trim and glass.
A spinning bullet cannot undergo a deflection and maintain the alignment
of its long axis with its altered direction of motion. For this reason
your deflection speculation cannot stand with the curved arcs of the
partial hole and bevel found on the outer table of the late arriving skull
fragment. Further the smoothness of the arcs are evidence of transit by a
well formed missile that retained its circular cross section.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/figure26.jpg
The small radiopaque particles near the hole was evidence of transit by a
bullet and the bevel specified the direction as from inner to outer table.
>
> Here are the key components of that evidence.
>
> 1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
> ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth floor.
>
> 2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same rifle.
>
> 3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by the
> autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near the EOP and
> exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit defect on
> the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path which
> extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to the
> windsheld area.
The coronal suture joins the parietal and frontal bones. This junction
extends from one side of the head, over the top and continues along the
opposite side.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/cstopview.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/csleftside.jpg
So the slightly elliptical arcs on the late arriving piece place an
exiting bullet closer to a left-to-right than a rear-to-front trajectory
or closer to a down-to-up than a level trajectory. Again the directions
left, right, down, up and level refer to body planes.
>
> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was fired
> from the SN.
Indeed, now it the time for all honest investigators to "cut to the chase"
and confront the contradiction between the highly tangential strike near
the coronal suture as required by both official trajectories and the
slightly elliptical arc and bevel on the late arriving skull fragment.
>
> >I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the
> >forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
> >trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull.
>
> Two bullets that exited the skull????????????? How is that possible when only
> one [head] entrance and one exit wound were found during the autopsy and the
> bain damage is consistent with the bullet [major frags] transisting his head
> along a path connecting those two wounds?
The head is connected to other parts of the body. So a bullet can exit the
head without having entered the same part just as a bullet exited Governor
Connally's chest without having entered the chest. As for the damage,
attributing the reported injuries to one missile requires physically
impossible treks by deflected fragment or fragments.
By contrast, the alternative scenario based upon the hard forensic
evidence provided by Bethesda resolves the failings of the official
trajectories and solves at least a few problems with the reported damage
to the brain.
I quote from Punching Holes - Part Three.
"The first shot missed and alerted President Kennedy to an assassination
attempt. He ducked but was struck in the back by a bullet with an
approximate 45-degree angle of incidence. The bullet traveled up the neck,
possibly inflicted minor damage upon the first thoracic vertebra, entered
the cranial cavity from below, passed behind the right eye and exited the
front right side of the head at a moderate incidence angle. This bullet
produced the elliptical arc described as the semicircular bevel. Another
and not necessarily a later bullet hit the rear of the head with an
incidence angle of approximately 65 degree and exited to the right and
rear of the vertex. The proximity of these exit wounds allowed the later
bullet to produce and knock out skull fragments as secondary missiles."
>
> Are you saying you have hard evidence that the autopsists lied?
What part of this alternative trajectory is not based upon hard evidence
presented by the prosectors? In fact the testimony of SA Kelleman shows
that on Friday night the prosectors were thinking that a bullet entered
near the EOP and exited through the right-top portion of the large defect.
This scenario requires that President Kennedy was leaning forward at an
extreme angle to have been shot from any reasonable location.
Surprisingly the prosecutors did not apply these thoughts to resolve the
earlier mystery of the back wound. The obvious solution being one flew out
of the large defect.
>
> >I have posted the
> >relevant text from Punching Holes in response to your earlier request. So
> >does your knowledge that I have not drawn a graphic showing the
> >trajectories motivate your "ad nausem" requests for the diagram?
>
> Here's why I think you prefer to post verbiage to explain your position rather
> than a graphic demonstrating it: You have a better chance at confusing the
> reader by employing your highy technical terms than you would by showing where
> you think the firing point(s?) and bullet path(s?) were via a graphic. That's
> what I think and I'll bet that's what others who have followed these threads
> think as well.
Pardon my bluntness but are you prepared to purchase CAD software for my
Win98 machine that would enable me to draw the head at various
orientations with respect to the torso in order to show the diverse
orientations consistent with a bullet entering the back and exiting from
some unknown location within the perimeter of the large defect?
I have no use for a CAD package that would merely use the geometric
relationships that I have derived at Punching Holes. In fact, replacement
of my geometric diagrams by CAD generated drawings would weaken Punching
Holes by preventing readers from "seeing my work."
Unfortunately your scientific illiteracy prevents seeing the lucidness of
my geometric diagrams or comprehending their verbal descriptions.
Personally I hold no grudge for your labeling my work as mumbo jumbo and
only feel pity for one who has the intelligence to fill these gaps in your
knowledge.
>
> >This and
> >other threads containing the same sickening request answers my question
> >affirmatively.
>
> I think then if my requests sicken you we are done.
>
> >I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
>
> It posted, a day or so ago....you must have missed it.
Google has failed to pick up the graphic and text. Early this morning I
found the post by using Outlook Express. I thank you for the graphics.
For starters what evidence do you have that the circular object is a hole
of any origin? I asked because a round through hole would have been
visible on an AP X- ray. Perhaps you care to comment of the following
testimony.
Mr. SPECTER - Precisely what X-rays or photographs were taken before the
dissection started?
Commander HUMES - Some of these X-rays were taken before and some during
the examination which, also maintains for the photographs, which were made
as the need became apparent to make such. However, before the postmortem
examination was begun, anterior, posterior and lateral X-rays of the head,
and of the torso were made, and identification type photographs, I recall
having been made of the full face of the late President. A photograph
showing the massive head wound with the large defect that was associated
with it. To my recollection all of these were made before the proceedings
began. End of quotation.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On May 20, 9:22 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>>
>> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
>> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
>> but futile.
>
> You are opening an argument with a falsehood. My analysis at Punching
> Holes develops a general theory of forensic analysis and applies it only
> to the shots with declinations angles that match shoots fired from the
> sniper's nest of the TSBD.
>
You start with false premises.
>
>> In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
>> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
>> the EOP.
>
> The medical evidence played no role in showing that a shooter fired at
> least two shots from the sniper's nest. In fact the opening paragraph of
> Punching Holes - Part Two states:
>
> "Finding an abandoned rifle scientifically linked to the fragments
> recovered from the limousine and a whole bullet in the former vicinity of
> Governor Connally placed the shooter at the southeast corner on the sixth
> floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
There was no whole bullet in the former vicinity of Governor Connally,
whatever you think that means.
> I invite you to post the basis for your opinion that I am attempting "to
> build a case for the head shot being fired from other than the sniper's
> nest."
>
>> The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
>> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two major
>> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cause the
>> damage to the windshield trim and glass.
>
> A spinning bullet cannot undergo a deflection and maintain the alignment
> of its long axis with its altered direction of motion. For this reason
You know nothing about ballistics.
> your deflection speculation cannot stand with the curved arcs of the
> partial hole and bevel found on the outer table of the late arriving skull
> fragment. Further the smoothness of the arcs are evidence of transit by a
> well formed missile that retained its circular cross section.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/figure26.jpg
>
> The small radiopaque particles near the hole was evidence of transit by a
> bullet and the bevel specified the direction as from inner to outer table.
>
What hole? What particles? You are seeing artifacts. Maybe cigarette
ashes or something.
Herbert Blenner
> Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > On May 20, 9:22 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>
> >> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
> >> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
> >> but futile.
>
> > You are opening an argument with a falsehood. My analysis at Punching
> > Holes develops a general theory of forensic analysis and applies it only
> > to the shots with declinations angles that match shoots fired from the
> > sniper's nest of the TSBD.
>
> You start with false premises.
You are wasting your time, Marsh. The usual diversionary tactics will
not get Canal out of hot water this time. He wrote:
"Here's the thing: the best evidence of a circular hole is F8...again,
do
you want me to post the enhanced blow-up of the bottom half of the
entry....if you think and tell me it looks like half an eliptical
defect,
then I agree the hole in the skull might have been eliptical...not
that it
makes any difference as far as where the bullet was fired from, where
it
entered the skull, where the two largest fragments exited, and where
those
two fragments ended up....your "striking angles" aside."
Then he posted the following graphic.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/f8andblowup.jpg
The green arrow points to the roughly circular image on the blow-up
that Canal claims in the entry wound. However, the same unenlarged
graphic show an elliptical arc that mates neatly with an ellipse.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/fittedellipticalarc.jpg
Perhaps John Canal will call upon the other John to bail him out of
this one.
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have a nice day.
Herbert
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On May 20, 9:22=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>>
>om
>> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is intere=
>sting
>> but futile.
>
>You are opening an argument with a falsehood. My analysis at Punching
>Holes develops a general theory of forensic analysis and applies it only
>to the shots with declinations angles that match shoots fired from the
>sniper's nest of the TSBD.
Pardon me then for not being able to decipher from all your scientific mumbo
jumbo what your theory was.
>> In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
>> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
>> the EOP.
>
>The medical evidence played no role in showing that a shooter fired at
>least two shots from the sniper's nest.
It certainly does play a role in determining the paths of the two bullets that
struck the President...and fourth grader can figure that out.
>In fact the opening paragraph of
>Punching Holes - Part Two states:
Ah, ha, you sound as if Punching Holes was some sort of authoritive
source....too bad you've convinced yourself it is.
>"Finding an abandoned rifle scientifically linked to the fragments
>recovered from the limousine and a whole bullet in the former vicinity of
>Governor Connally placed the shooter at the southeast corner on the sixth
>floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
>
>I invite you to post the basis for your opinion that I am attempting "to
>build a case for the head shot being fired from other than the sniper's
>nest."
I can see now that you're not...sorry, it took me so long to filter out the B/S
in your posts to figure out what your theory is. My error.
>> The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
>> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two=
> major
>> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cau=
>se the
>> damage to the windshield trim and glass.
>
>A spinning bullet cannot undergo a deflection and maintain the alignment
>of its long axis with its altered direction of motion. For this reason
>your deflection speculation cannot stand with the curved arcs of the
>partial hole and bevel found on the outer table of the late arriving skull
>fragment.
More B/S. The entry was near the EOP as seen in F8. The exit was just forward of
the coronal suture as shown in the drawing by Dr. Angel. The longitudinal
laceration connects those two points. That aforementioned path, extends to the
windshield damage. That was the path of the head shot...period. Most can see
that...you just can't admit it, though....too bad.
>Further the smoothness of the arcs are evidence of transit by a
>well formed missile that retained its circular cross section.
More crap intended to mask the obvious irrefutable evidence that the bullet
entered near the EOP, caused the longitudinal laceration through the brain,
exited forward of the coronal suture (see Angel's drawing for the specific exit
location), and then caused the windshield glass/trim damage.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/figure26.jpg
>
>The small radiopaque particles near the hole was evidence of transit by a
>bullet and the bevel specified the direction as from inner to outer table.
What? Have you been living in a cave or something? Surdivan and Zimmerman agreed
that the trail of opacities extending anteriorly from the entry near the EOP
represented the little bone pieces from the beveled out inner table around the
entry and was conmsistent with the bullet exiting the aforementioned location.
>> Here are the key components of that evidence.
>>
>> 1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
>> ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth floor.
>>
>> 2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same rifle.
>>
>> 3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by the
>> autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near the E=
>OP and
>> exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit defect=
> on
>> the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path whi=
>ch
>> extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to th=
>e
>> windsheld area.
>
>The coronal suture joins the parietal and frontal bones. This junction
>extends from one side of the head, over the top and continues along the
>opposite side.
Good for you..you know where the coronal suture is.
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/cstopview.jpg
>
>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/csleftside.jpg
>
>So the slightly elliptical arcs on the late arriving piece place an
>exiting bullet closer to a left-to-right than a rear-to-front trajectory
>or closer to a down-to-up than a level trajectory.
LOL. We sould learn where the bullet exited by reading Punching Holes rather
than looking at Dr. Angels diagram which shows precisely where it
exited??????????? You've confused yourself badly..and I just hope not too many
newbies as well.
>Again the directions
>left, right, down, up and level refer to body planes.
This gets funnier and funnier. The Greer shot JFK theory makes more sense than
yours.
>> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was=
> fired
>> from the SN.
>
>Indeed, now it the time for all honest investigators to "cut to the chase"
>and confront the contradiction between the highly tangential strike near
>the coronal suture as required by both official trajectories and the
>slightly elliptical arc and bevel on the late arriving skull fragment.
You can take your tangential stike as well as your oval and elliptical shape
evidence and toss them into the trash can where they belong because they are
trumped easily by the evidence I described above.
>> >I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the=
>
>> >forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
>> >trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull.
>>
>> Two bullets that exited the skull????????????? How is that possible when o=
>nly
>> one [head] entrance and one exit wound were found during the autopsy and t=
>he
>> bain damage is consistent with the bullet [major frags] transisting his he=
>ad
>> along a path connecting those two wounds?
>
>The head is connected to other parts of the body. So a bullet can exit the
>head without having entered the same part just as a bullet exited Governor
>Connally's chest without having entered the chest. As for the damage,
>attributing the reported injuries to one missile requires physically
>impossible treks by deflected fragment or fragments.
More B/S...the longitudial laceration connected the entry and the principal exit
wound...It doesn't take a rocket scientist or reading Punching Holes to figure
out the path of the bullet/major frags from that. And I'll get to your
"impossible treks" below.
>By contrast, the alternative scenario based upon the hard forensic
>evidence provided by Bethesda resolves the failings of the official
>trajectories and solves at least a few problems with the reported damage
>to the brain.
Sooo, you've been able to determine based on your examination of the published
copies of the autopsy photos and x-rays and from the testimony that the three
autopsy doctors were wrong about the path of the head shot bullet...EVEN THOUGH
THEY LITERALLY HELD THE BODY IN THEIR HANDS????????????? Herbert, read that last
sentance a few times and it might sink in just how ridiculous your theory really
is.
>I quote from Punching Holes - Part Three.
Ah ha, the final authority on the head shot. LOL!
>"The first shot missed and alerted President Kennedy to an assassination
>attempt. He ducked but was struck in the back by a bullet with an
>approximate 45-degree angle of incidence. The bullet traveled up the neck,
Up the neck? Not out the front of the neck? This is getting more and more
ridiculous as we go on.
>possibly inflicted minor damage upon the first thoracic vertebra, entered
>the cranial cavity from below, passed behind the right eye and exited the
>front right side of the head at a moderate incidence angle.
Ridiculous. Such a path would have caused a massive laceration to the brain
under and forward of the cerebellum and there was no such damage reported.
>This bullet
>produced the elliptical arc described as the semicircular bevel.
What about the brain damage being totally inconsistent with your theory?
>Another
I'm bracing myself for a real bombshell of a theory now.
>and not necessarily a later bullet
Ah ha, two bullets fired at the same time (but not necessarily so) probably
caused the damage to the head??????????
I'd almost be tempted to remove Marsh from my killfile to read his opinion of
your theory. You notice none of the other LNs have, at least recently, argued
with you about this...and the sad truth is that you think that's because your
arguments are sound. Sorry Herbert...they don't argue with Marsh or the "Greer
did it" theorist either...for obvious reasons.
>hit the rear of the head with an
>incidence angle of approximately 65 degree and exited to the right and
>rear of the vertex. The proximity of these exit wounds allowed the later
>bullet to produce and knock out skull fragments as secondary missiles."
You'ce come up with all that without ever seeing the body or the
originals?????????.....I can just imagine the theories you would be coming up
with if you had. :-(
>> Are you saying you have hard evidence that the autopsists lied?
>
>What part of this alternative trajectory is not based upon hard evidence
>presented by the prosectors?
For starters, the brain damage...duh!
>In fact the testimony of SA Kelleman shows
>that on Friday night the prosectors were thinking that a bullet entered
>near the EOP and exited through the right-top portion of the large defect.
>This scenario requires that President Kennedy was leaning forward at an
>extreme angle to have been shot from any reasonable location.
Good grief...was that the forensic pathologist, Kellerman? Earth to Herbert:
They weren't sure exactly where the bullet exited because they didn't know where
the late-arriving skull piece fit. That wasn't determined until years later when
Dr. Angel placed it as frontal bone (see his drawing).
>Surprisingly the prosecutors did not apply these thoughts to resolve the
>earlier mystery of the back wound. The obvious solution being one flew out
>of the large defect.
Yikes!
[...]
In fact, replacement
>of my geometric diagrams by CAD generated drawings would weaken Punching
>Holes by preventing readers from "seeing my work."
It's better they didn't "see your work", IMO.
>Unfortunately your scientific illiteracy
I've been waiting for this.
Let's go back in tme and examine one of your conclusions to determine YOUR
scientific literacy or illiteracy, OK, Herbert?
Once upon a time you wrote: "High speed bullets do not make abrupt turns.."
Remember that statement, genius?
In response, I asked you, if that were true, what would happen if a high speed
FMJ round hit a 20 inch steel plate angled 20 degrees away from its path.
Remember that question, Herbert?
And your answer is one that gives us some incite as to how you have been able to
twist the evidence and arrive at this silly theory that has a bullet entering
JFK's back and exiting somewhere out the top of his head.
Indeed your answer was: "My experience has shown that the described situation
would stop the bullet."
Even to this scientifically illiterate, that's one of the the stupidest remarks
(the bullet would stop?) I've ever heard..
>prevents seeing the lucidness of
>my geometric diagrams or comprehending their verbal descriptions.
>Personally I hold no grudge for your labeling my work as mumbo jumbo and
>only feel pity for one who has the intelligence to fill these gaps in your
>knowledge.
Well, your credibiliy has taken a hit (the bullet would STOP????)and some of us
don't give a hoot what your geometric diagrams look like nor whether you think
there are gaps in my knowledge!!!!!!!!
>> >This and
>> >other threads containing the same sickening request answers my question
>> >affirmatively.
>>
>> I think then if my requests sicken you we are done.
>>
>> >I am waiting since May 16 for you to post the link to F8.
>>
>> It posted, a day or so ago....you must have missed it.
>
>Google has failed to pick up the graphic and text. Early this morning I
>found the post by using Outlook Express. I thank you for the graphics.
>
>For starters what evidence do you have that the circular object is a hole
>of any origin?
What do you think caused that circular looking defect...a hammer?
>I asked because a round through hole would have been
>visible on an AP X- ray. Perhaps you care to comment of the following
>testimony.
Nope, because with that revelation you demonstrate once again how solid your
knowledge about this case is....yup, that same degree of knowledge that implies
the autopsists were morons...and provides us further understanding of how you
were able to concoct your silly theory.
[...]
EARTH TO HERBERT...AGAIN...PLEASE ADD THIS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE: "A
HOLE NEAR THE EOP WOULDN'T SHOW ON THE AP FILM BECAUSE (DRUM ROLL PLEASE) THE
EOP AREA IS NOT VISIBLE ON THAT VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Congratulations, Herbert, you've made it onto my killfile...with Marsh.
John Canal
>Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> [...]
>
> Smoke and mirrors deleted.
>
> IMO, your attempts to build a case for the head shot bullet being fired from
> other than the sniper's nest based on the shape of the wound(s?) is interesting
> but futile. In contrast, the physical and medical evidence is overwhelming that
> proves the bullet was fired from the SN and hit the President in the BOH near
> the EOP. The evidence further proves that he bullet deformed and then deflected
> up as it penetrated his rear skull (subsequently fragmenting) with the two major
> fragments exiting just forward of the coronal suture and continuing to cause the
> damage to the windshield trim and glass.
>
There was no exit near the coronal suture.
> Here are the key components of that evidence.
>
> 1) two large bullet fragments were found in the front of the limo and
> ballistically matched (exclusively) to the M/C found on the sixth floor.
>
There is nothing to prove that the two large fragments came from the
head shot.
> 2) three spent hulls were found in the SN and matched to that same rifle.
>
Just proves that three shots were fired. Not what they hit.
> 3) a longitudinal laceration through the President's brain, noted by the
> autopsists, is highly consistent with the bullet having entered near the EOP and
> exiting just forward of the coronal suture (precisely where an exit defect on
> the large, late-arriving skull piece would have placed it)......a path which
> extends forward (using Z-312 to project it with reasonable accuracy) to the
> windsheld area.
>
> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was fired
> from the SN.
>
>> I have responded to your request to post a graphic by explaining that the
>> forensic information permitted no more than a verbal description of the
>> trajectories of the two bullets that exited the skull.
>
> Two bullets that exited the skull????????????? How is that possible when only
> one [head] entrance and one exit wound were found during the autopsy and the
> bain damage is consistent with the bullet [major frags] transisting his head
> along a path connecting those two wounds?
>
> Are you saying you have hard evidence that the autopsists lied?
>
They did several times. Never trust a liar.
Anthony Marsh
Ridiculous. No one else in the world still says that, not even the
autopsy doctors.
> the coronal suture as shown in the drawing by Dr. Angel. The longitudinal
You are misrepresenting historical facts for political gain. Dr. Angel
does not place the exit near the coronal suture. He said the exit is the
semi-circular defect, which apparently you are the only person in the
universe can not see, which is in the frontal bone over the right eye.
> laceration connects those two points. That aforementioned path, extends to the
> windshield damage. That was the path of the head shot...period. Most can see
> that...you just can't admit it, though....too bad.
>
You are the only person in this universe postulating that.
>> Further the smoothness of the arcs are evidence of transit by a
>> well formed missile that retained its circular cross section.
>
> More crap intended to mask the obvious irrefutable evidence that the bullet
> entered near the EOP, caused the longitudinal laceration through the brain,
> exited forward of the coronal suture (see Angel's drawing for the specific exit
> location), and then caused the windshield glass/trim damage.
>
Ridiculous.
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/figure26.jpg
>>
>> The small radiopaque particles near the hole was evidence of transit by a
>> bullet and the bevel specified the direction as from inner to outer table.
>
> What? Have you been living in a cave or something? Surdivan and Zimmerman agreed
> that the trail of opacities extending anteriorly from the entry near the EOP
> represented the little bone pieces from the beveled out inner table around the
> entry and was conmsistent with the bullet exiting the aforementioned location.
>
There is something there, probably artifacts. No proof it is bone
pieces. You are guessing.
So, now you try to stipulate to Dr. Angel's exit, but he said the exit
was the semi-circular defect, which you can't even see.
>> Again the directions
>> left, right, down, up and level refer to body planes.
>
> This gets funnier and funnier. The Greer shot JFK theory makes more sense than
> yours.
>
>>> That evidence is indisputable, Herbert, and it proves the fatal bullet was=
>> fired
>>> from the SN.
>> Indeed, now it the time for all honest investigators to "cut to the chase"
>> and confront the contradiction between the highly tangential strike near
>> the coronal suture as required by both official trajectories and the
>> slightly elliptical arc and bevel on the late arriving skull fragment.
>
> You can take your tangential stike as well as your oval and elliptical shape
> evidence and toss them into the trash can where they belong because they are
> trumped easily by the evidence I described above.
>
You did not cite any evidence. You just postulated a theory which only
you believe.
What about the trail of bullet fragment being totally inconsistent with
YOUR theory?
What do you think caused the semi-circular defect which Dr. Angel said
was the exit wound . . . a hammer?