LNTers aren't even suspicious
charles wallace
Theorists claim a single shot was fired that went through the body of
JFK and caused all of the wounds in JBC. This same bullet it is claimed
broke a rib and shattered a dense wrist bone in JBC without any impact
deformity to the nose or the back end of the bullet.
At Zapruder frame Z200, JFK is seen bolt upright going behind the sign.
At Zapruder frame Z225, JFK is seen emerging from behind the sign again
bolt upright. Dr. Baden says that the wound in JFK's back was lower on
the body than the wound in the throat at JFK's front. The hole in the
back of JFK's tailor fitting shirt was 5 and 3/4 inches below the top of
the collar. The ripped looking hole in the front of the shirt was at
the top button hole. LNTers claim a bullet exited here. Conspiracy
Theorists claim this rip was made by medical personnel at Parkland
Hospital and that the same personnel said that the bullet wound in the
neck was just above JFK's tie knot.
Baden claims that the bullet from the TSBD sixth floor was on a downward
course and that if JFK leaned forward enough then the lower back wound
could rise above the front neck wound enough to agree with this downward
trajectory.
LNTers are not even suspicious that the bullet CE399 does not even
appear to be damaged. They are not even suspicious that JFK would have
to lean forward significantly and then back upright in about a second's
time while behind the sign and out of our view for the Single Bullet
Theory to be even remotely possible. Now what is really suspicious is
their claim to believe that the SBT really happened.
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
Anthony Marsh
> In the Zapruder film JFK goes behind a sign at which time the Lone Nut
> Theorists claim a single shot was fired that went through the body of
> JFK and caused all of the wounds in JBC. This same bullet it is claimed
> broke a rib and shattered a dense wrist bone in JBC without any impact
> deformity to the nose or the back end of the bullet.
>
> At Zapruder frame Z200, JFK is seen bolt upright going behind the sign.
> At Zapruder frame Z225, JFK is seen emerging from behind the sign again
> bolt upright. Dr. Baden says that the wound in JFK's back was lower on
> the body than the wound in the throat at JFK's front. The hole in the
Only at the time of autopsy if you imagine a perfectly anatomically
neutral position. At the time of the shot the back wound was slightly
higher than the throat wound.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24017-44C...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> In the Zapruder film JFK goes behind a sign at which time the Lone Nut
> Theorists claim a single shot was fired that went through the body of
> JFK and caused all of the wounds in JBC. This same bullet it is claimed
> broke a rib and shattered a dense wrist bone in JBC without any impact
> deformity to the nose or the back end of the bullet.
Charles, you do remember that the bullet is bent along its long axis,
flattened on one side and the base is flattened, too....right?
>
> At Zapruder frame Z200, JFK is seen bolt upright going behind the sign.
> At Zapruder frame Z225, JFK is seen emerging from behind the sign again
> bolt upright. Dr. Baden says that the wound in JFK's back was lower on
> the body than the wound in the throat at JFK's front.
And he's wrong.
The hole in the
> back of JFK's tailor fitting shirt was 5 and 3/4 inches below the top of
> the collar. The ripped looking hole in the front of the shirt was at
> the top button hole. LNTers claim a bullet exited here.
Uh-huh...but you have proof otherwise, right?
Conspiracy
> Theorists claim this rip was made by medical personnel at Parkland
> Hospital and that the same personnel said that the bullet wound in the
> neck was just above JFK's tie knot.
Uh, yeah...because sitting "bolt upright" and lying unconscious on your
back wouldn't change the position of a collar...right?
>
> Baden claims that the bullet from the TSBD sixth floor was on a downward
> course and that if JFK leaned forward enough then the lower back wound
> could rise above the front neck wound enough to agree with this downward
> trajectory.
Yeah, Baden was wrong. They didn't need to do that. I don't know if they
bothered to look at a lateral x-ray before analyzing that.
I think he did what the rest of the planet seems to do...look at the
bullet hole's position relative to the shoulder/trapezius...which
moves...and is obviously elevated if you look at the AP x-ray.
>
> LNTers are not even suspicious that the bullet CE399 does not even
> appear to be damaged.
That's because they know it is...;-)
They are not even suspicious that JFK would have
> to lean forward significantly and then back upright in about a second's
> time while behind the sign and out of our view for the Single Bullet
> Theory to be even remotely possible.
No, that's the Baden misdirection. It doesn't work. We all know that. He
made a mistake. Usually CT's are very good at pointing out LN's
mistakes...unless you think they support you...then they don't.
Now what is really suspicious is
> their claim to believe that the SBT really happened.
Actually, its not...but keep telling yourself that.
Chad
Gerry Simone (O)
doesn't jive with the lapel flip at Z224.
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24017-44C...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
Gerry Simone (O)
> flattened on one side and the base is flattened, too....right?"
The point is pristine and the base is slightly compressed with little
protrusion of the lead core.
Chad, so it only hit the body or bone on its side?
Did any doctor comment on the size of the bullet's channel inside JBC's
chest?
Does the latter, if known, correspond to the size of the bullet's exit
wound out of JBC's chest?
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44c97fe0$3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> "charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:24017-44C...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>> In the Zapruder film JFK goes behind a sign at which time the Lone Nut
>> Theorists claim a single shot was fired that went through the body of
>> JFK and caused all of the wounds in JBC. This same bullet it is claimed
>> broke a rib and shattered a dense wrist bone in JBC without any impact
>> deformity to the nose or the back end of the bullet.
>
> Charles, you do remember that the bullet is bent along its long axis,
> flattened on one side and the base is flattened, too....right?
>
That's what it looks like today. It may not have looked like that on
11/22/63.
David VP
doesn't jive with the lapel flip at Z224." <<<
It most certainly does. JFK was hidden (for the most part) by the sign
when shot at Z224 (or Z223.5 if you prefer). .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
charles wallace
If CE 399 got slightly flattened by hitting JBC's rib sideways, how did
it in a half of an inch distance turn 90 degrees and make a nice round
exit hole in the jacket?
Regards, Charles
charles wallace
On this one I think I'll go with the LNTer, forensic pathologist,
Michael Baden. The JFK back wound was lower on the body than the front
neck wound.
Regards, Charles
Backstreet Aftermath
ZOOM
Anthony Marsh
> Tony,
>
> On this one I think I'll go with the LNTer, forensic pathologist,
> Michael Baden. The JFK back wound was lower on the body than the front
> neck wound.
>
That's the one I go with. He did not say what you said he said.
Anthony Marsh
Show me this "nice round exit hole" in the jacket. You reach false
conclusions when you start with false assumptions.
charles wallace
If you look at Tomnin's last post he included a photograph of what looks
to be like a neat round hole in JBC's jacket about the size of the
bullet in question.
Okay, what is the exact qoute from Baden that makes you think that he
didn't use words that would lead a reader to believe that the back wound
was lower than the front neck wound?
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Gerry Simone (O)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ca3f68$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> "Charles, you do remember that the bullet is bent along its long axis,
>> flattened on one side and the base is flattened, too....right?"
>
> The point is pristine and the base is slightly compressed with little
> protrusion of the lead core.
>
> Chad, so it only hit the body or bone on its side?
Gerry, I'd think that you would've been here long enough to not actually
think that.
Bullets only deform when hitting objects of varying densities at specific
speeds, just like paper only tears when it is pulled with enough force. If
a bullet hits a bone at the correct speed, it will not deform but the bone
will break. If it exceeds that speed, it will deform. The speed at which
it deforms varies based upon how the bullet hit.
>
> Did any doctor comment on the size of the bullet's channel inside JBC's
> chest?
Not specifically.
>
> Does the latter, if known, correspond to the size of the bullet's exit
> wound out of JBC's chest?
Not known.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
It entered turned partially sideways and glanced a rib. Simply glancing
the rib could change its position.
Chad
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28348-44C...@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net...
pame...@mindspring.com
Pamela
On 29 Jul 2006 23:34:01 -0400, "Dr. Chad Zimmerman"
<doc...@netzero.net> wrote:
tomnln
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44cc1e1f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15415-44C...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
charles wallace
So the glancing blow was enough to flatten CE 399 and totally destroy a
4 inch section of JBC's rib. This is kind of like JFK being hit in the
back of the neck but it was below the shoulders because JFK had an
unusual body with high shoulders, right?
Anthony Marsh
> "Gerry Simone (O)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44ca3f68$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> "Charles, you do remember that the bullet is bent along its long axis,
>>> flattened on one side and the base is flattened, too....right?"
>> The point is pristine and the base is slightly compressed with little
>> protrusion of the lead core.
>>
>> Chad, so it only hit the body or bone on its side?
>
> Gerry, I'd think that you would've been here long enough to not actually
> think that.
>
> Bullets only deform when hitting objects of varying densities at specific
> speeds, just like paper only tears when it is pulled with enough force. If
> a bullet hits a bone at the correct speed, it will not deform but the bone
> will break. If it exceeds that speed, it will deform. The speed at which
> it deforms varies based upon how the bullet hit.
>
And also the angle at which it hits. You can fire a bullet perpendicular
to a rock and it will break up. But the same shot will simply ricochet
intact if it hits at a shallow angle. Also, the density of the object is
important. A bullet going through soft tissue will not be deflected much
if at all. A bullet hitting dense material like metal or bone will be
deflected.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony,
>
> If you look at Tomnin's last post he included a photograph of what looks
> to be like a neat round hole in JBC's jacket about the size of the
> bullet in question.
>
That's nice. Do you really believe that is the extent of the exit wound?
> Okay, what is the exact qoute from Baden that makes you think that he
> didn't use words that would lead a reader to believe that the back wound
> was lower than the front neck wound?
>
"Well, you have to remember that the back wound was slightly higher on
the body than the throat wound at the exact moment that he was hit, due
to his seated position."
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
charles wallace
I know there was like a 2 inch diameter exit hole in JBC's chest where
the rib pieces came out.
I thought your theory was that the bullet that hit JFK in the back
nicked a bone in the spinal column which deflected it UPWARD and out his
throat. And this upward path allowed the bullet to go above the
windshield and be lost. You've decided to go over to the dark side?
Anthony Marsh
> Tony,
> I know there was like a 2 inch diameter exit hole in JBC's chest where
> the rib pieces came out.
>
> I thought your theory was that the bullet that hit JFK in the back
> nicked a bone in the spinal column which deflected it UPWARD and out his
> throat. And this upward path allowed the bullet to go above the
> windshield and be lost. You've decided to go over to the dark side?
>
Never. I don't know what gave you the false impression that I had
changed my mind.
Gerry Simone (O)
question if you haven't elsewhere herein.
Where do you get 'half of an inch distance turn 90 degrees'?
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28348-44C...@storefull-3174.bay.webtv.net...
Gerry Simone (O)
"charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21348-44C...@storefull-3175.bay.webtv.net...
Gerry Simone (O)
The WCR says it exited JFK at a speed of 1771 to 1779 fps, enough to go
thru the windshield or tear a whole thru the chrome.
Therefore, it was going fast enough to flatten at the bottom end and later
leave fragments in Connally's wrist too, so it only hit him on its side or
the bottom because if the front point hit either the rib or the wrist, you
must have deformation or metal loss, but we don't see it this.
BTW, when you say 'bent along its long axis', do you mean just flattened
or actually bent from the vertical axis (not 90 degrees pointing up if you
can stand the bullet on its end on a very flat surface).
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44cc...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
The bullet hit the lateral portion of the rib. The deposition of the
kinetic energy to the rib caused it to fracture. The linear length of the
fracture doesn't describe the type of impact. Ribs are not very dense
bones and are quite commonly fractured, thus you are probably making too
hazardous an inference by looking at the length of the fracturing.
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MIWyg.949$W01.799@dukeread08...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Chad,
>
> So the glancing blow was enough to flatten CE 399 and totally destroy a
> 4 inch section of JBC's rib.
Yeah, in fact that's EXACTLY what happened when a test bullet glanced a
goat rib. I saw the x-ray at the National Archives. It most closely
resembled JBC's rib. However, that bullet was traveling faster and thus it
deformed more readily due to its velocity, which is the key to
understanding the deformation.
This is kind of like JFK being hit in the
> back of the neck but it was below the shoulders because JFK had an
> unusual body with high shoulders, right?
"Unusual build"? No, he had quite a common build. I see it quite often in
the clinic where peoples shoulders are elevated in their posture. However,
as you must also remember, JFK was going through rigor mortis at the time
of autopsy, which causes muscular contraction. His AP x-ray of the chest
clearly shows the elevation of his shoulders.
Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
normal, neutral anatomical level?
No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
relative to the spine?
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> How can I not think that?
>
> The WCR says it exited JFK at a speed of 1771 to 1779 fps, enough to go
> thru the windshield or tear a whole thru the chrome.
None of which happened.
> Therefore, it was going fast enough to flatten at the bottom end and later
> leave fragments in Connally's wrist too, so it only hit him on its side or
> the bottom because if the front point hit either the rib or the wrist, you
> must have deformation or metal loss, but we don't see it this.
Right, so it was slightly turned so the middle and lower portions deformed.
>
> BTW, when you say 'bent along its long axis', do you mean just flattened
> or actually bent from the vertical axis (not 90 degrees pointing up if you
> can stand the bullet on its end on a very flat surface).
It was actually slightly bent along its long axis, which can be seen with
photographs taken at the proper angle. IOW, the center of the tip was not
directly above the center of the base. However, this was very slight.
Chad
tomnln
The official Records Prove the SBT to be Impossible.
see http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44ceb21c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
In order for you to accept the SBT you must Disavow the official records
found here......
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44ceb311$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone (O)
So then you'll agree that it always ended hitting things on its side or
base to deform or leave metal behind.
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44ceb3f1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone (O)
the sign
But I have a problem with that because:
1. JFK reacts instantaneously to a non-fatal wound whereas Connally
doesn't react to his fatal wound that breaks a rib.
2. Before the lapel flips, Jackie notices JFK's already hit in Z
223....how can that be? She looks at him the same way in Z224.
3. There are other reasons why I think JFK's hit before Z224.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154126839.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>> "Don't think LNTs say that JFK was shot behind the sign because that
> doesn't jive with the lapel flip at Z224." <<<
>
> It most certainly does. JFK was hidden (for the most part) by the sign
> when shot at Z224 (or Z223.5 if you prefer). .....
>
> http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
To comment though on it, if the bullet exits low in the jacket away from
the lapel, remember that it's on a right to left trajectory. Does that
mean that it would 'pull' the jacket over to the left momentarily? Is
that what we actually see? I believe Robert Harris commented in the NG
that we also see the JBC's tie 'blow' to the left if I'm not mistaken.
Sometimes I wonder if that 'lapel flip' is nothing but JBC's arm coming up
or other body movement.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9Nxyg.847$W01.436@dukeread08...
> The lapel flip had Nothing to do with any bullet.
>
> See JBC's location of bullet hole in JBC's jacket attached.
>
>
> "Gerry Simone (O)" <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44ca3d61$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Don't think LNTs say that JFK was shot behind the sign because that
> > doesn't jive with the lapel flip at Z224.
> >
> > "charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:24017-44C...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
> >> In the Zapruder film JFK goes behind a sign at which time the Lone Nut
> >> Theorists claim a single shot was fired that went through the body of
> >> JFK and caused all of the wounds in JBC. This same bullet it is
claimed
> >> broke a rib and shattered a dense wrist bone in JBC without any impact
> >> deformity to the nose or the back end of the bullet.
> >>
> >> At Zapruder frame Z200, JFK is seen bolt upright going behind the sign.
> >> At Zapruder frame Z225, JFK is seen emerging from behind the sign again
> >> bolt upright. Dr. Baden says that the wound in JFK's back was lower on
> >> the body than the wound in the throat at JFK's front. The hole in the
> >> back of JFK's tailor fitting shirt was 5 and 3/4 inches below the top
of
> >> the collar. The ripped looking hole in the front of the shirt was at
> >> the top button hole. LNTers claim a bullet exited here. Conspiracy
> >> Theorists claim this rip was made by medical personnel at Parkland
> >> Hospital and that the same personnel said that the bullet wound in the
> >> neck was just above JFK's tie knot.
> >>
> >> Baden claims that the bullet from the TSBD sixth floor was on a
downward
> >> course and that if JFK leaned forward enough then the lower back wound
> >> could rise above the front neck wound enough to agree with this
downward
> >> trajectory.
> >>
> >> LNTers are not even suspicious that the bullet CE399 does not even
> >> appear to be damaged. They are not even suspicious that JFK would have
> >> to lean forward significantly and then back upright in about a second's
> >> time while behind the sign and out of our view for the Single Bullet
> >> Theory to be even remotely possible. Now what is really suspicious is
> >> their claim to believe that the SBT really happened.
Anthony Marsh
> "charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:15416-44...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
>> Chad,
>>
>> So the glancing blow was enough to flatten CE 399 and totally destroy a
>> 4 inch section of JBC's rib.
>
> Yeah, in fact that's EXACTLY what happened when a test bullet glanced a
> goat rib. I saw the x-ray at the National Archives. It most closely
> resembled JBC's rib. However, that bullet was traveling faster and thus it
> deformed more readily due to its velocity, which is the key to
> understanding the deformation.
>
Do you mean the test where they hit the goat rib at a perpendicular angle?
> This is kind of like JFK being hit in the
>> back of the neck but it was below the shoulders because JFK had an
>> unusual body with high shoulders, right?
>
> "Unusual build"? No, he had quite a common build. I see it quite often in
> the clinic where peoples shoulders are elevated in their posture. However,
No, you have not looked at hundreds of photos of the President. His
shoulders were unusually high.
> as you must also remember, JFK was going through rigor mortis at the time
> of autopsy, which causes muscular contraction. His AP x-ray of the chest
> clearly shows the elevation of his shoulders.
>
No, this is just your typical double speak to move the wound up. I don't
care how sloppy a dresser you think JFK was, a hole 6 inches below the
top of the collar can not be above his shoulders.
> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>
> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
> relative to the spine?
>
Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before the
autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too soon
for rigor to take effect. Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW the
top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top of the
shoulders as WC defenders place it.
> Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MMAzg.1455$W01.475@dukeread08...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
isn't there.
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OOAzg.1456$W01.599@dukeread08...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dMudnZ3vXpspHVLZ...@comcast.com...
> Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "charles wallace" <ccwa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:15416-44...@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
>>> Chad,
>>>
>>> So the glancing blow was enough to flatten CE 399 and totally destroy a
>>> 4 inch section of JBC's rib.
>>
>> Yeah, in fact that's EXACTLY what happened when a test bullet glanced a
>> goat rib. I saw the x-ray at the National Archives. It most closely
>> resembled JBC's rib. However, that bullet was traveling faster and thus
>> it deformed more readily due to its velocity, which is the key to
>> understanding the deformation.
>>
>
> Do you mean the test where they hit the goat rib at a perpendicular angle?
No, and I suspect you know what I mean.
>
>> This is kind of like JFK being hit in the
>>> back of the neck but it was below the shoulders because JFK had an
>>> unusual body with high shoulders, right?
>>
>> "Unusual build"? No, he had quite a common build. I see it quite often in
>> the clinic where peoples shoulders are elevated in their posture.
>> However,
>
> No, you have not looked at hundreds of photos of the President. His
> shoulders were unusually high.
No, many people have that, Tony. They might be considered apart from the
norm, but others have it as well.
>
>> as you must also remember, JFK was going through rigor mortis at the time
>> of autopsy, which causes muscular contraction. His AP x-ray of the chest
>> clearly shows the elevation of his shoulders.
>>
>
> No, this is just your typical double speak to move the wound up.
You mean the wound that you and I place in almost the same spot?
I don't
> care how sloppy a dresser you think JFK was, a hole 6 inches below the top
> of the collar can not be above his shoulders.
Yeah, it can.
If you have proof otherwise please post it.
>
>> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
>> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>>
>> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
>> relative to the spine?
>>
>
> Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before the
> autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too soon
> for rigor to take effect.
No, it wasn't. I've posted this before and it was noted at autopsy. Rigor
can certainly be well in progress within just a few hours.
What time was he shot? 12:30. What time did the autopsy begin? A few hours
later....3:00pm? Or several hours later?
The onset is largely due to the surrounding temperature. Do you think he
was on ice?
Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
> manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW the
> top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top of the
> shoulders as WC defenders place it.
As I've said before and you've appreciably truncated, IN THE PHOTO, the
wound is below the shoulders. HOWEVER, the shoulders are elevated. You
think the bullet hit in the same area that I do, so stop trying to make
others think that you actually have an argument here. You're just popping
in as usual to moan about something that need not be moaned about.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Who refuted the WCR with respect to the speed of the bullet out of JFK?
>
> So then you'll agree that it always ended hitting things on its side or
> base to deform or leave metal behind.
No. If it hit something with the tip at a velocity BELOW that which is
needed to deform it, then it could've hit something that way.
Chad
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44cf...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Chad Disagrees with the Official Records. (GREAT)
I quote Official Records.....Chad Doesn't
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:44cff329$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
No, it can't.
> If you have proof otherwise please post it.
>
I have looked at thousands of photos of President Kennedy and in none of
them is the location of the hole on his coat ABOVE the top of his
shoulders. It is physically impossible to get it up that high. And I will
cite your reply as indicating that you really do think the entrance wound
was ABOVE the top of his shoulders.
>>> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
>>> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>>>
>>> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
>>> relative to the spine?
>>>
>> Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before the
>> autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too soon
>> for rigor to take effect.
>
> No, it wasn't. I've posted this before and it was noted at autopsy. Rigor
> can certainly be well in progress within just a few hours.
>
Nonsense.
> What time was he shot? 12:30. What time did the autopsy begin? A few hours
> later....3:00pm? Or several hours later?
>
You don't know when the X-rays were taken? I did not say 3:00 PM. Look
it up.
> The onset is largely due to the surrounding temperature. Do you think he
> was on ice?
>
Ice prevents the onset of rigor mortis?
>
> Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
>> manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW the
>> top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top of the
>> shoulders as WC defenders place it.
>
> As I've said before and you've appreciably truncated, IN THE PHOTO, the
> wound is below the shoulders. HOWEVER, the shoulders are elevated. You
> think the bullet hit in the same area that I do, so stop trying to make
> others think that you actually have an argument here. You're just popping
> in as usual to moan about something that need not be moaned about.
>
> Chad
No, you along with Boswell falsely claim that the wound was ABOVE the top
of the shoulders. The rest of us can see that the wound was BELOW the top
of the shoulders.
Anthony Marsh
> Who refuted the WCR with respect to the speed of the bullet out of JFK?
>
> So then you'll agree that it always ended hitting things on its side or
> base to deform or leave metal behind.
>
Yes, Jean Davison speculated that it hit the bottom of the barrel of water.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
> Translation;
> Chad Disagrees with the Official Records. (GREAT)
>
> I quote Official Records.....Chad Doesn't
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Let me get this straight: You think that there was a cover-up that the US
government perpetuated on the citizens of this country, but you limit your
study to the 'Official Records', eh, Tom?
Good luck solving the case.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
We've been through your lists of things before. I've responded. If you'd
like to discuss something specific, or one of my points, I'd be happy to
do so. That way it is a one point per discussion thing. So, pick a point
and let's discuss it. Otherwise, you're simply dodging.
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pT3Ag.1597$W01.86@dukeread08...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Tony, why don't you Google up just how many times that I have stated that
his shoulders are above the entry wound in that picture? I've said it
numerous times. You either ignore it or simply like to provide arguments
that are disingenuous.
His coat was bunched. Not every bunch is the same.
Glad to know you have x-ray vision.
>
>>>> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
>>>> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>>>>
>>>> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
>>>> relative to the spine?
>>>>
>>> Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before the
>>> autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too soon
>>> for rigor to take effect.
>>
>> No, it wasn't. I've posted this before and it was noted at autopsy. Rigor
>> can certainly be well in progress within just a few hours.
>>
>
> Nonsense.
Care for some goat's milk with your crow?
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/rigormor.asp
Care for some more? There are plenty of resources regarding that.
I can't believe that you think people are so stupid as to believe your
comments sometimes.
>
>> What time was he shot? 12:30. What time did the autopsy begin? A few
>> hours later....3:00pm? Or several hours later?
>>
>
> You don't know when the X-rays were taken? I did not say 3:00 PM. Look it
> up.
Tony, refresh yourself. Take a shower. Reread what I wrote. I was asking
YOU if YOU knew when the autopsy began.
>
>> The onset is largely due to the surrounding temperature. Do you think he
>> was on ice?
>>
>
> Ice prevents the onset of rigor mortis?
Don't know, do ya?
>
>>
>> Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
>>> manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW
>>> the top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top
>>> of the shoulders as WC defenders place it.
>>
>> As I've said before and you've appreciably truncated, IN THE PHOTO, the
>> wound is below the shoulders. HOWEVER, the shoulders are elevated. You
>> think the bullet hit in the same area that I do, so stop trying to make
>> others think that you actually have an argument here. You're just popping
>> in as usual to moan about something that need not be moaned about.
>>
>> Chad
>
>
>
> No, you along with Boswell falsely claim that the wound was ABOVE the top
> of the shoulders.
Keep saying it, Tony. Some day it just might become a reality for you.
Read closely:
THE WOUND WAS BELOW THE SHOULDERS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
The rest of us can see that the wound was BELOW the top
> of the shoulders.
You never cease to amaze me. It amazes me that you don't have a Ph.D.
Chad
Anthony Marsh
It doesn't matter how many times you change your story, you just said
that the entrance wound was above the top of his shoulders. Deal with it.
> His coat was bunched. Not every bunch is the same.
>
You can't even show me ANY bunch at the moment he was shot. This comes
only from your imagination in a desperate attempt to move the wound up,
to allow for a SBT. Because you are smart enough to realize that if
there is no SBT, it spells conspiracy.
> Glad to know you have x-ray vision.
>
Anyone can figure this out if he just takes the time to examine all the
photographs.
>>>>> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
>>>>> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet was
>>>>> relative to the spine?
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before the
>>>> autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too soon
>>>> for rigor to take effect.
>>> No, it wasn't. I've posted this before and it was noted at autopsy. Rigor
>>> can certainly be well in progress within just a few hours.
>>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Care for some goat's milk with your crow?
>
> http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm
>
You never bother to read what you cite.
Maximum stiffness is reached around 12-24 hours post mortem. Facial
muscles are affected first, with the rigor then spreading to other parts
of the body. The joints are stiff for 1-3 days, but after this time
general tissue decay and leaking of lysosomal intracellular digestive
enzymes will cause the muscles to relax.
2 PM to 7 PM is only 5 hours, not 12.
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/rigormor.asp
>
> Care for some more? There are plenty of resources regarding that.
>
Any chance you'll actually read the sources you cite?
> I can't believe that you think people are so stupid as to believe your
> comments sometimes.
>
>>> What time was he shot? 12:30. What time did the autopsy begin? A few
>>> hours later....3:00pm? Or several hours later?
>>>
>> You don't know when the X-rays were taken? I did not say 3:00 PM. Look it
>> up.
>
> Tony, refresh yourself. Take a shower. Reread what I wrote. I was asking
> YOU if YOU knew when the autopsy began.
>
Yes. Do you know exactly when the X-rays were taken?
>>> The onset is largely due to the surrounding temperature. Do you think he
>>> was on ice?
>>>
>> Ice prevents the onset of rigor mortis?
>
> Don't know, do ya?
>
>>> Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
>>>> manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW
>>>> the top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top
>>>> of the shoulders as WC defenders place it.
>>> As I've said before and you've appreciably truncated, IN THE PHOTO, the
>>> wound is below the shoulders. HOWEVER, the shoulders are elevated. You
>>> think the bullet hit in the same area that I do, so stop trying to make
>>> others think that you actually have an argument here. You're just popping
>>> in as usual to moan about something that need not be moaned about.
>>>
>>> Chad
>>
>>
>> No, you along with Boswell falsely claim that the wound was ABOVE the top
>> of the shoulders.
>
>
> Keep saying it, Tony. Some day it just might become a reality for you.
>
> Read closely:
>
> THE WOUND WAS BELOW THE SHOULDERS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
>
>
And your follow-up argument is that the photo is misleading and you
really think the wound was ABOVE the top of his shoulders. Tell the good
people your WHOLE theory.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
I can, if you'd properly attribute my comments, which you absolutely
refuse to do because you have some moronic complaint with who I think was
responsible for shooting JFK. YOU think that was his NORMAL posture, but
have only your redudant opinions from looking at pictures of him. You
don't have x-ray vision, so you don't really know how much of the
elevation seen in the photograph is natural or artificially produced via
rigor mortis- which was noted at autopsy and fits the physical parameters
of that process. You'd much rather simply disagree with me and twist the
words. You have a pointless agenda in this NG, which is to try and insult
or argue with anyone that doesn't think you're right.
>
>> His coat was bunched. Not every bunch is the same.
>>
>
> You can't even show me ANY bunch at the moment he was shot.
No kidding, nor can you utilize x-ray and see where his shoulders normally
were relative to the spine.
This comes
> only from your imagination in a desperate attempt to move the wound up,
You mean the C7-T1 wound that you also believe was at that location?
Idiocy.
> to allow for a SBT. Because you are smart enough to realize that if there
> is no SBT, it spells conspiracy.
Do you believe the wound was at C7-T1?
If yes, then we agree and your comments are moronic.
>
>> Glad to know you have x-ray vision.
>>
>
> Anyone can figure this out if he just takes the time to examine all the
> photographs.
Show us, dearest Tony. Do show us how you've made this determination.
>
>>>>>> Can you look at that x-ray and tell me if his shoulders were at the
>>>>>> normal, neutral anatomical level?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you can't. So why use them as an indicator of where the bullet
>>>>>> was relative to the spine?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, then ignore the X-ray, despite the fact that it was taken before
>>>>> the autopsy began and thus only a few hours after the shooting and too
>>>>> soon for rigor to take effect.
>>>> No, it wasn't. I've posted this before and it was noted at autopsy.
>>>> Rigor can certainly be well in progress within just a few hours.
>>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Care for some goat's milk with your crow?
>>
>> http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm
>>
>
> You never bother to read what you cite.
>
> Maximum
Yes, I do. Can you tell me the difference between maximum and medium and
how that affects posture?
No. Carry on with your opinions.
stiffness is reached around 12-24 hours post mortem. Facial
> muscles are affected first,
After how long?
with the rigor then spreading to other parts
> of the body.
Taking how long?
The joints are stiff for 1-3 days, but after this time
> general tissue decay and leaking of lysosomal intracellular digestive
> enzymes will cause the muscles to relax.
>
> 2 PM to 7 PM is only 5 hours, not 12.
No kidding. Apparently things only move after the maximum time period
is met, right? Can you provide a citation for that, Tony?
Nope.
>
>> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/r/rigormor.asp
>>
>> Care for some more? There are plenty of resources regarding that.
>>
>
> Any chance you'll actually read the sources you cite?
Any chance you'll stop thinking that movement occurs the very instant that
one is at maximum rigor?
Doubtful.
>
>> I can't believe that you think people are so stupid as to believe your
>> comments sometimes.
>>
>>>> What time was he shot? 12:30. What time did the autopsy begin? A few
>>>> hours later....3:00pm? Or several hours later?
>>>>
>>> You don't know when the X-rays were taken? I did not say 3:00 PM. Look
>>> it up.
>>
>> Tony, refresh yourself. Take a shower. Reread what I wrote. I was asking
>> YOU if YOU knew when the autopsy began.
>>
>
> Yes. Do you know exactly when the X-rays were taken?
Exactly? No. Do you know EXACTLY?
>
>>>> The onset is largely due to the surrounding temperature. Do you think
>>>> he was on ice?
>>>>
>>> Ice prevents the onset of rigor mortis?
>>
>> Don't know, do ya?
>>
>>>> Look at the autopsy photos. No amount of
>>>>> manipulation of the body can change the bullet wound from being BELOW
>>>>> the top of the shoulders as we can see for ourselves, to ABOVE the top
>>>>> of the shoulders as WC defenders place it.
>>>> As I've said before and you've appreciably truncated, IN THE PHOTO, the
>>>> wound is below the shoulders. HOWEVER, the shoulders are elevated. You
>>>> think the bullet hit in the same area that I do, so stop trying to make
>>>> others think that you actually have an argument here. You're just
>>>> popping in as usual to moan about something that need not be moaned
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> Chad
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you along with Boswell falsely claim that the wound was ABOVE the
>>> top of the shoulders.
>>
>>
>> Keep saying it, Tony. Some day it just might become a reality for you.
>>
>> Read closely:
>>
>> THE WOUND WAS BELOW THE SHOULDERS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.
>>
>>
>
> And your follow-up argument is that the photo is misleading and you really
> think the wound was ABOVE the top of his shoulders. Tell the good people
> your WHOLE theory.
I actually think it is probably a combination of rigor and his normal
position. You think it was just his normal position. Fine. Care to bitch
about something of real substance?
Chad