The Headshots
Robert Harris
issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
the head. You can see the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
the autopsy photos.
As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
photos were taken.
When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
The larger particles that struck officer Hargis and stained his
uniform disproves your explanation.
Herbert
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
[...]
>[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
[...]
>As Boswell confirmed,
[...]
Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever he
says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but his
repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......well, that
goes ignored as if he was in on a cover-up or so blind or incompetent he didn't
realize there were two entrance and exit wounds.
:-)
John Canal
>Robert Harris
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
Bob Harris, in his latest video, doesn't even seem to realize that his
theory contradicts the Parkland witnesses entirely.
Unless I missed a portion of the video when I had to excuse myself
from the computer to take a quick barf break (like I have to do when
viewing all videos of this nature that are authored by CT-Kooks like
Bob who have decided what the real evidence is going to be in this
case, without a lick of proof to substantiate their bold assertions),
Bob doesn't really seem to be advocating an exit wound at the location
of JFK's head where (admittedly) virtually all of the Dallas doctors
placed the wound -- that is, in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the
head.
I say that because---
There's a section of Bob's video where he circles the fragmented,
displaced portion of skull at the VERY TOP of JFK's head as seen in
the lateral autopsy X-ray, and it's this same area that (I think) Bob
is saying caused the flap of head/scalp to protrude out the back of
the head at Z335/Z337.
But that's not at all where the Parkland people place ANY wound on
JFK's cranium. So, it seems to me Bob's still got a problem....because
in the video he seems to think his theory ALIGNS perfectly with the
"BOH" witnesses at Parkland, with Bob saying at one point
(paraphrasing): "This, of course, is why the doctors at Parkland all
saw a wound at the back of the head."
In any event, this "mythical BOH" ground has been trampled to death
over the years, but with each new sunrise, it seems to sprout new
legs, with some CTer eager to dredge it up yet again.
Also:
I find it interesting to note that Robert Harris, somewhat
surprisingly, even admits in his latest video incarnation that there
is no visible damage to the back of Kennedy's head at Z313 or in the
several Z-Film frames that follow Z313. Bob apparently thinks, then,
that a second gunshot from the front resulted in the so-called
"blowout" at the BOH.
Bob, of course, is forced to ignore (as all CTers must) the official
autopsy report, which states, in unambiguous language, that JFK was
hit in the head by just ONE bullet, with that bullet entering at the
back of the head and exiting at the right-front-top of the head
("chiefly parietal").
Now, if you're interested in much more entertaining and truth-based
YouTube video presentations, I invite everyone to flip channels, and
go from Bob's CT channel to my channel, which contains some rare JFK-
related documentaries and other radio and TV material:
thali...@hotmail.com
> On Sep 23, 7:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you the infamous "chiropractor" of the bunched up jacket fiasco?
Escuse me if I disregard everything you say.....
English
> The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
I presume that you mean the first boundary exit of the entrance wound.
I would conclude the same if I were considering inorganic material but
not bone. "Conclusively" sounds a bit strong in this case.
If you could please provide a link or citation to one of these experts
to get me started in studying this, I would be most grateful.
Thank you in advance.
Brokedad
> On Sep 23, 7:30�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right Road!
Wrong Turn!
JFK was hit in the back of the head by two bullets.
The one striking at/approximately Z313 which struck in the upper/
cowlick area of the head/aka Survey Stationing 4+65.3
(second shot fired)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
And then struck again by the last/third shot fired which impacted
approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. directly in front of the
James Altgens location at Survey Stationing 4+95 (what was actually
surveyed in for the SS as well as the FBI)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm
Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the
car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who
counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of
pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for
the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between.
There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the
head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree
of certainty.
Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.
There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
direction from where I was standing,
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which, by the way, was the EOP entry point impact.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
Ok. So does that also explain blood and tissue sprayed on the Connallys
and on the hood? Why is there not a spray of blood on the windshield?
Only a couple of drops. And whose blood are those drops?
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
Beveled? Show me. Prove it. They lied. And FYI all the experts did not
know that an entrance wound can have external beveling.
Robert Harris
<05cbb30f-22e2-4822...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very unconvincing-not one of your better efforts.
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...
I don't know how we could chuck since you obviously didn't watch the
entire video.
If you had, you would have had to make up an entirely different set of
unsupported assertions.
Watch it all, Chuck and discover that there REALLY was massive damage to
the BOH which did not happen at frame 313.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
> [...]
>
> >[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>
> [...]
>
> >As Boswell confirmed,
>
> [...]
>
> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
> he
> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but his
> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......
Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
of the damage on their own heads, you will see that many of them placed it
in the upper rear.
We now know that what these people actually saw was the head laid open
with a very large piece of scalp and connected pieces of skullbone hanging
out from a massive defect that extended well to the rear of the head.
In such a situation, trying to accurately pinpoint the location of the
damage, as they were asked to do, would be pretty much impossible. What
they were very consistent about though, was that it was massive.
But are you actually arguing that because some witnesses might have
misplaced the damage, we should dismiss what we see very clearly in
Zapruder frames and which was confirmed by Dr. Boswell - especially since
you have made of career out of claiming those same people were all full of
crap??
Robert Harris
John Canal
>Wrong Turn!
Wrong road, wrong turn.
>JFK was hit in the back of the head by two bullets.
Really.
Ok, We've been down this road before but it was so long ago I can't recall
if you think whether the three autopsy docs reported that there was only
one hit to his head because they were in on a cover-up, or were so
incompetent that they missed seeing a second entrance and exit wound.
Refresh my memory will ya--which was it.
In any case, if there was a hit to the cowlick where did the tiny pieces
of bone, beveled out from the inside of the skull around the entry wound,
go? There was a small trail of these bone chips extending from the EOP
entry, but none seen at your proposed upper entry--why? What happened to
that bone--did it go poof?
There was a base portion and a nose portion of the bullet found in the
front of the limo and the dent in the trim and impact point on the glass
track very nicely with an EOP entry and the longitudinal laceration
through the brain....so, if a bullet entered in the cowlick, where did the
major pieces of that bullet go? Poof, again?
Almost all of the bone from the anterior edge of the Harper fragment all
the way back (and that includes the cowlick area) was recovered or present
at autopsy and there was no entry wound, except for the one near the EOP,
seen on any of that bone...how would you exlain that?
Dr. David Mantick, who has examined the original photos and X-rays no less
than six times, used an Optical Density Scanner to look for a hole in the
skull at the level of the cowlick---guess what--even this hard core CT
said there was NO HOLE there, nada, zero, nothing. Care to explain that?
Maybe he believed in a conspiracy, but just not yours...and lied to
dismiss your "two-shot-to-the-head" entry conspiracy theory--is that it?
John Canal
>The one striking at/approximately Z313 which struck in the upper/
>cowlick area of the head/aka Survey Stationing 4+65.3
>(second shot fired)
[...]
>And then struck again by the last/third shot fired which impacted
>approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. directly in front of the
>James Altgens location at Survey Stationing 4+95 (what was actually
>surveyed in for the SS as well as the FBI)
[...]
Anthony Marsh
Finally!
Finally you spit out your wacky theory.
So, show me the two bullet holes in the back of his head.
Do not rely on eyewitnesses.
Anthony Marsh
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
>
>
> Bob Harris, in his latest video, doesn't even seem to realize that his
> theory contradicts the Parkland witnesses entirely.
>
Do not rely on those witnesses. If you try to do so then conspiracy
believers will point out that you MUST believe the throat wound was an
entrance because that is what those Parkland witnesses said. And they
would point to the photos of almost all of them placing their hands on the
back of their heads showing where they saw a massive wound.
Anthony Marsh
You are postulating two entrance and exit wounds or you think Harris is?
Did he say that? Why should you support a known liar like Boswell who
completely missed the throat wound and the semi-circular notch in the
forehead?
Anthony Marsh
How?
David Von Pein
>>> "There REALLY was massive damage to the BOH which did not happen at
frame 313." <<<
You're not purporting any such thing in your video, Bob. You're claiming
the nasty "protrusion" at Z335/337 is the result of a piece of "hinged"
skull/scalp that is coming from the VERY TOP of John Kennedy's head--not
the "BOH" at all.
In fact, your theory could conceivably have a tad bit of merit (although
it's far from being provable at all; it's mostly still subjective in
nature, by way of different people analyzing the blurry post-Z313 frames
of Mr. Zapruder's home movie and trying to decide what they're seeing), in
that any so-called "protrusion" that some researchers think is visible at
the back of Kennedy's head at Z337 could possibly have been caused by the
damage sustained to the TOP or RIGHT-FRONT portions of his head.
http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg
But any such damage to the top or right-front portions of JFK's head was,
of course, caused by the ONE and ONLY bullet that struck Mr. Kennedy in
the head -- and that was most certainly a bullet fired by Lee Harvey
Oswald and his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Book Depository Building.
In other words -- The so-called "protrusion" at Z337 is most certainly not
a massive "hole" caused by a bullet that struck JFK from the front of his
car after Z-frame 313 (as Bob Harris wants to believe). That scenario, of
course, is totally impossible, since we know that JFK was hit in the head
by only one bullet, which came from above and behind the President.
==========================
==========================
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not me.
Chuck Schuyler
Read the Warren Commission Report.
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
You wrote these statements:
1. "As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back
in place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
photos were taken."
2. "It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown out
and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of the
head".
My point is that, as shown above, you are clearly using statements made by
Boswell that you think are credible and support your theory....but when he
states repeatedly that only one bullet hit the President in the
BOH....evidently, you think he put on his liar's or dufus hat or
something, meaning he is suddenly no longer credible.
John Canal
Chuck Schuyler
> In article
> <05cbb30f-22e2-4822-9f30-7296d7cab...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob, I watched the whole thing. I think I've seen most of your videos.
There was only one shot in the head-from behind.
I'll bet you were the type of kid that could lay in a field and look up at
the summer sky, full of cumulus clouds, and see Unicorns and Spanish
Galleons and so on. I sometimes wish I had that kind of imagination.
But your not a kid, Bob...you're a grown man. Deal with the very simple
reality of the autopsy report. Quibble all you want on some of the
verbiage, drawings and so on, and whether the autopsy was as good as it
could've been, but the autopsy report is extremely simple and clear on the
larger matter of one head shot...fired from a position behind the POTUS.
Every investigation has concluded the same thing.
Please read the autopsy report.
Try to look past the Spanish Galleons and Unicorns in the clouds.
Herbert Blenner
The answer is blowing in the wind.
Herbert
Robert Harris
On 9/25/08 12:36 AM, in article gbf1h...@drn.newsguy.com, "John Canal"
<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-70C28...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>>
>> In article <gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>>> Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> [...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> As Boswell confirmed,
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
>>> he
>>> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
>>> his
>>> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......
>>
>>
>> Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?
I guess I wasn't clear.
Would you mind citing his verbatim statements, insisting that there was only
one head shot?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
On 9/25/08 12:38 AM, in article
40c6b46a-c8bd-4576...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Chuck
Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
Then how did you fail to comprehend that I said there were two shots fired,
one from the front and one from the rear?
In fact, how did you manage to forget that I have told you that numerous
times in the past??
>
> There was only one shot in the head-from behind.
That's a totally unsupported assertion.
>
> I'll bet you were the type of kid that could lay in a field and look up at
> the summer sky, full of cumulus clouds, and see Unicorns and Spanish
> Galleons and so on. I sometimes wish I had that kind of imagination.
Actually, I bought a telescope kit when I was a kid and my father helped me
build a stand to mount it on. Then I bought an ephemeris, and spent way too
much time at night studying the planets.
I never became an astronomer but Carl Sagan was one of my heroes and I read
every book he ever wrote. Scientists are my heroes Chuck. They are the
closest thing we have to gods, mainly because of their methodologies and
objectivity.
>
> But your not a kid, Bob
That's "you're" Chuck.
>...you're a grown man. Deal with the very simple
> reality of the autopsy report.
Why?
Even SA Hosty said in his book that the government covered up evidence of
potential conspiracy and we know that Hoover and Katzenbach declared the
government's agenda to be that "the public must be convinced" that there was
no more than one sniper.
So, given those facts, why would you be surprised that military doctors
deliberately covered up massive damage to the back of JFK's head? And how
hard do you suppose they looked for evidence of additional shots??
> Quibble all you want on some of the
> verbiage, drawings and so on, and whether the autopsy was as good as it
> could've been, but the autopsy report is extremely simple and clear on the
> larger matter of one head shot...fired from a position behind the POTUS.
> Every investigation has concluded the same thing.
Putting your money on the autopsy is just silly, Chuck. Even if you set
aside the obvious fact that they were told to hide evidence of conspiracy,
they were under enormous time pressure and didn't carry out anything even
close to being a thorough procedure.
We already know that they were unable to determine that a bullet passed
through JFK and apparently, exited the neck. How would you expect them to
figure out that another bullet passed through the already devastated brain
and countless metal fragments before it exited in the upper rear of the
head?
Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
More importantly Chuck, the autopsists didn't have the advantage we have, of
being able to not just see the massive damage to the BOH, but to be able to
determine that it happened well after the explosion at frame 313.
Robert Harris
John Canal
>
>
>
>
>On 9/25/08 12:36 AM, in article gbf1h...@drn.newsguy.com, "John Canal"
><John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <reharris1-70C28...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>> In article <gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>>>> Robert Harris says...
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> [...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> As Boswell confirmed,
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
>>>> he
>>>> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
>>>> his
>>>> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?
>
>
>I guess I wasn't clear.
>
>Would you mind citing his verbatim statements, insisting that there was only
>one head shot?
You're being downright silly now. He signed the autopsy
report....hopefully, that should be sufficient for you.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
How do you think it disproves his explanation?
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
The autopsy report is a lie.
John Canal
Robert wrote:
>Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
>1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
where they said it was.
>More importantly Chuck, the autopsists didn't have the advantage we have,=
> of
>being able to not just see the massive damage to the BOH, but to be able =
>to
>determine that it happened well after the explosion at frame 313.
Tell me the truth, Robert, do you really expect anyone but CTs desperate
for any ev. whatsoever to support a conclusion there was a conspiracy to
believe that? Seriously, don't you think the autopsists had the
"advantage" over you and all their other doubters---after all they
examined the body---and don't forget, Finck was a board certified forensic
pathologist.
John Canal
David Von Pein
>>> "We already know that they [the autopsists] were unable to determine
that a bullet passed through JFK and apparently, exited the neck. How
would you expect them to figure out that another bullet passed through the
already devastated brain and countless metal fragments before it exited in
the upper rear of the head?" <<<
LOL.
Bob can't REALLY believe this shit....can he?
David Von Pein
>>> "...Trying to accurately pinpoint the location of the damage, as they
[the Parkland witnesses] were asked to do, would be pretty much
impossible. What they were very consistent about though, was that it was
massive. But are you actually arguing that because some witnesses might
have misplaced the damage..." <<<
Therefore, in your opinion, Bob, all of the Parkland Hospital people GOT
IT WRONG with respect to where the wound truly was located. Right?
In other words, that's pretty much the exact same boat that LNers are in
-- i.e., for some inexplicable reason, the Parkland witnesses did not
accurately describe the location of the large exit wound on JFK's head.
Thanks, Bob, for confirming the fact that a conspiracy theorist can also
believe that all of the Parkland personnel could have made an in- unison
mistake with respect to the precise location of the exit wound on the
President's head.
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
David Von Pein
CHUCK SAID:
>>> "There was only one shot in the head-from behind." <<<
ROBERT HARRIS THEN SAID:
>>> "That's a totally unsupported assertion." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
And yet Bob Harris thinks that his "2 Head Shots" theory is totally
"supported" (and supportable)....despite the fact that there isn't a
stitch of evidence ANYWHERE to substantiate Robert's claims.
Right, Bob?
Incredible.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
robcap...@netscape.com
> [....]
>
> Robert wrote:
> >Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
> >1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>
> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
> the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
> mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
> in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
> old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
> cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
> cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
> entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
> replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
> plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
> replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
> sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
> where they said it was.
Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
Injuries,” The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1–15), and of course I
believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
well.
Thanks!
John McAdams
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote:
>On Sep 25, 2:22 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> [....]
>>
>> Robert wrote:
>> >Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
>> >1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>>
>> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
>> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
>> the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
>> mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
>> in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
>> old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
>> cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
>> cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
>> entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
>> replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
>> plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
>> replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
>> sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
>> where they said it was.
>
>Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
>man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>
He wasn't his at the EOP level.
He was hit in the cowlick area.
And the trail is a bit above the path of the bullet. Baden explained
in his HSCA testimony that tissues can shift around as a body is
moved.
>Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
>“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
>Injuries,” The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1–15), and of course I
>believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
>in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
>entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
>us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
>well.
>
FMJ bullets are designed not to break up, and they usually don't in
flesh.
But both Olivier (for the WC) and Lattimer (his own experiments) found
that bullets hitting the very hard bone of the skull will break up.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
.john wrote:
>He wasn't his at the EOP level.
>
>He was hit in the cowlick area.
But John, you've already admitted that the semicircular beveled defect
seen in F8 (yes, the one that the HSCA, Fiorentino, Dunavich and just
about everyone else familiar with this case agrees is the entry) was deep
in the cranial cavity. I think I made three hard copies of that post. LOL.
>And the trail is a bit above the path of the bullet.
Cripes, look at the AP film...while the fragments appear in the lateral
film to be grouped in the vertical plane like they might be if they were
part of a "trail", the AP view shows they are widely spread out in
horizontal plane. IOW, the fragments were not part of a trail. They
actually represent very tiny and light metallic debris that was created
when the bullet fragmented--this debris was carried upwards along with the
brain tissue that also exploded up. The heavier fragments were not
affected by the flow of brain matter and basically continued on their
course towards the exit wound, and subsequenty to the windshield area.
>Baden explained
>in his HSCA testimony that tissues can shift around as a body is
>moved.
Is he the one that said there was no evidence of any low entry seen on the
lateral x-ray or reported in the autopsy report? That's right, he was the
one, and he's also the one that missed seeing (on the lateral) the trail
(yes, a trail) of tiny opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP
and aso missed reading about the longitudinal laceration through the brain
that began at the tip of the occipital lobe (that's near the EOP, BTW, and
hardly near the cowlick).
Oh yes, let me add that besides Sturdivan and Zimmerman, one of the FPP
members also saw that trail on the original lateral.
Someday history will show that Baden deceived you, Posner, Buglosi and
many many others on at least the entry location...I'd like nothing more
than to see that happen while we're still alive. We'll see.
John Canal
John McAdams
wrote:
>[....]
>
>.john wrote:
>
>>He wasn't his at the EOP level.
>>
>>He was hit in the cowlick area.
>
>But John, you've already admitted that the semicircular beveled defect
>seen in F8 (yes, the one that the HSCA, Fiorentino, Dunavich and just
>about everyone else familiar with this case agrees is the entry) was deep
>in the cranial cavity. I think I made three hard copies of that post. LOL.
>
Please quit misrepresenting what I "admitted."
The thing you *think* is an entrance defect is deep in the cranial
cavity.
And your concealing the fact that people who think there is in entry
defect deep in the cranial cavity have pointed to *two different*
things.
>>And the trail is a bit above the path of the bullet.
>
>Cripes, look at the AP film...while the fragments appear in the lateral
>film to be grouped in the vertical plane like they might be if they were
>part of a "trail", the AP view shows they are widely spread out in
>horizontal plane. IOW, the fragments were not part of a trail. They
>actually represent very tiny and light metallic debris that was created
>when the bullet fragmented--this debris was carried upwards along with the
>brain tissue that also exploded up. The heavier fragments were not
>affected by the flow of brain matter and basically continued on their
>course towards the exit wound, and subsequenty to the windshield area.
>
>>Baden explained
>>in his HSCA testimony that tissues can shift around as a body is
>>moved.
>
>Is he the one that said there was no evidence of any low entry seen on the
>lateral x-ray or reported in the autopsy report? That's right, he was the
>one, and he's also the one that missed seeing (on the lateral) the trail
>(yes, a trail) of tiny opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP
Well, if he "missed" that, so did Lattimer and Wecht, both of whom got
to see the x-rays long before the HSCA did.
I think you and your buddies are seeing things that don't exist. Oh,
there may be "something" there, but you don't know how to interpret
it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
>=93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
>Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I
>believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
>in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
>entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
>us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
>well.
Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment. Tiny debris resulting
from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual. Larry
Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
when the bullet ruptured.
I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
John Canal
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
You said he made "repeated insistances that there was only one shot to
the head".
Why can't you produce even a single verbatim citation in which he said
such a thing??
But OK, let's make it easy for you then. Cite the autopsy report saying
there was no more than one head shot.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<d4c41072-62b4-4f9a...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...Trying to accurately pinpoint the location of the damage, as they
> [the Parkland witnesses] were asked to do, would be pretty much
> impossible. What they were very consistent about though, was that it was
> massive. But are you actually arguing that because some witnesses might
> have misplaced the damage..." <<<
>
>
>
> Therefore, in your opinion, Bob, all of the Parkland Hospital people GOT
> IT WRONG with respect to where the wound truly was located. Right?
This is really wierd. You decided to snip my statement that, "if you
look at photos of the doctors who illustrated the location of the damage
on their own heads, you will see that many of them placed it
in the upper rear."
and then pretend that I said exactly the opposite.
David, have you noticed that the things you pretend I said are much
easier to refute than that I actually did??
>
> In other words, that's pretty much the exact same boat that LNers are in
Not at all. LNers are dead wrong. The doctors and nurses who actually
saw the damage were right.
But we don't have to rely on them, David. We can see for ourselves. Look
at the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [....]
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> >Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
> >1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>
> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
> the background.
I don't understand the analogy.
How were the studies of Riley, Mantik and Robertson like those
commercials?
The bottom line is, that the upper BOH was blown out. We don't NEED anyone
to tell us that, though most of the doctors and nurses who examined the
damage, confirmed it, as did Boswell in that very candid interview with
the ARRB.
All we have to do, is look at it ourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
And we can see very easily, that this damage did not happen during the 313
explosion.
Robert Harris
John Canal
>
>On 26 Sep 2008 01:24:07 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>[....]
>>
>>.john wrote:
>>
>>>He wasn't his at the EOP level.
>>>
>>>He was hit in the cowlick area.
>>
>>But John, you've already admitted that the semicircular beveled defect
>>seen in F8 (yes, the one that the HSCA, Fiorentino, Dunavich and just
>>about everyone else familiar with this case agrees is the entry) was deep
>>in the cranial cavity. I think I made three hard copies of that post. LOL.
>>
>
>Please quit misrepresenting what I "admitted."
Right after I posted a copy of F8 with the semicircular beveled defect
highlighted (for your attention), you wrote back, "That's very deep in the
cranial vault, not anywhere near the cowlick area."
You were 100% correct, that defect is very deep in the cranium--and it's
actally near the EOP. Four independent replications of F8 have proven
that. The problem for you is that Fiorentino, Durnavich, the HSCA, and
just about everyone else familiar with this issue agree that same
semicircular beveled defect that I highlighted in F8 is in fact, the
entry.
>The thing you *think* is an entrance defect is deep in the cranial
>cavity.
Not only me--see above.
>And your concealing the fact that people who think there is in entry
>defect deep in the cranial cavity have pointed to *two different*
>things.
Now you're misrepresenting what I've said--I've never denied that there is
a slight (and reasonable, IMO) difference of opinion between myself,
Zimmerman and Sturdivan regarding the precise location of the entry. That
difference in opinion on "precisely" where the entrance was is less than
an inch and represents a reasonable margin of error due mainly to the
different models used to replicate F8....and also because the autopsy docs
unfortunately didn't record the "precise" distance above the EOP--just
using the phrase, "slightly above".
My replication has the entry approximately 3 mm above the EOP. Hunt agreed
with me. Zimmerman and Sturdivan had it one inch above while Paul Seaton
said "Humes' entry" was near the EOP.
>>>And the trail is a bit above the path of the bullet.
>>
>>Cripes, look at the AP film...while the fragments appear in the lateral
>>film to be grouped in the vertical plane like they might be if they were
>>part of a "trail", the AP view shows they are widely spread out in
>>horizontal plane. IOW, the fragments were not part of a trail. They
>>actually represent very tiny and light metallic debris that was created
>>when the bullet fragmented--this debris was carried upwards along with the
>>brain tissue that also exploded up. The heavier fragments were not
>>affected by the flow of brain matter and basically continued on their
>>course towards the exit wound, and subsequenty to the windshield area.
>>
>>>Baden explained
>>>in his HSCA testimony that tissues can shift around as a body is
>>>moved.
>>
>>Is he the one that said there was no evidence of any low entry seen on the
>>lateral x-ray or reported in the autopsy report? That's right, he was the
>>one, and he's also the one that missed seeing (on the lateral) the trail
>>(yes, a trail) of tiny opacities extending anteriorly from near the EOP
>
>
>Well, if he "missed" that, so did Lattimer and Wecht, both of whom got
>to see the x-rays long before the HSCA did.
What makes you think they were looking for a trail of opacities near the
EOP? Before he passed, Lattimer looked over the material I sent him making
a case for a low entry. He was so supportive of my work he offered to help
me perform some test firings. I respectfully declined but didn't
disrespect him by telling him I didn't think the test firings were
necessary because the photo replications already proved the entry was near
the EOP.
Wecht told me during a phone conversation that he was always suspicious
about the roundish 6.5 mm opacity on the AP film. That opacity is not
metal, BTW. In any case, because it is an artifact, then the erroneous
"movement" up of the entry location (from near the EOP to the cowlick) by
the Clark/Rockefeller Commission/HSCA experts, whose basis for a high
entry conclusion included that opacity, can be explained.
>I think you and your buddies are seeing things that don't exist. Oh,
>there may be "something" there, but you don't know how to interpret
>it.
My "buddies" include Doctors Zimmerman and Joseph Davis and Larry
Sturdivan. And, if you're questioning credentials, Davis was, for decades,
the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida and, with the drug
capital of the USA, Miami, being in Dade County, he probably has more
experience performing autopsies on gunshot victims than 99% of his peers.
As far as interpreting that trail of opacities, it's clear that they
represent the bone from the inner table of the skull that was beveled out
around the entry. The key here is that, because the little pieces of bone
were so light in weight, they didn't travel very far from where they
originated. The bottom line is that, wherever the entry was, common sense
says the beveled out bone should be seen on the x-rays---and it was--near
the EOP, with none being seen at the proposed high entry location.
I assure you that if there ever is an official inquiry into this matter,
one of the former FPP members will testify that much of the information
relating to the entry issue was not shared among all the panel members and
this resulted in a mistake being made endorsing the Clark Panel's high
entry location.
Hopefully there will be another inquiry---if so, we'll see who will dine
on crow.
John Canal
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry John:
He was hit in the "Cowlick" area at the Z313 impact, which was the
SECOND SHOT fired in the assassination shot sequence.
-------------------------------------
He was then hit again in the lower edge of the hairline at the rear of the
head/neck (after the bullet had passed through the coat) and this bullet
then "tunnelled" through the soft tissue of the neck to strike in the EOP
region of the skull at a point which was higher (as one sits erect) than
the point of entry into the scalp. This bullet also left it's pathway
directly through the mid-brain region of the brain.
This, was the third/last/final shot impact which struck some 30-feet
farther down Elm St. directly in front of James Altgens position, at the
SS & FBI surveyed in Station 4+95.
---------------------------------------
"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that
evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand
the evidence"
Tom Purvis
Anthony Marsh
> [....]
>
> .john wrote:
>
>> He wasn't his at the EOP level.
>>
>> He was hit in the cowlick area.
>
> But John, you've already admitted that the semicircular beveled defect
> seen in F8 (yes, the one that the HSCA, Fiorentino, Dunavich and just
> about everyone else familiar with this case agrees is the entry) was deep
> in the cranial cavity. I think I made three hard copies of that post. LOL.
>
Funny that you claim to see a semi-circular defect where none exists and
yet you can't see the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>> And the trail is a bit above the path of the bullet.
>
> Cripes, look at the AP film...while the fragments appear in the lateral
> film to be grouped in the vertical plane like they might be if they were
> part of a "trail", the AP view shows they are widely spread out in
> horizontal plane. IOW, the fragments were not part of a trail. They
> actually represent very tiny and light metallic debris that was created
> when the bullet fragmented--this debris was carried upwards along with the
Ridiculous theory. And you can't show any experimental evidence that
such a thing ever happens.
> brain tissue that also exploded up. The heavier fragments were not
There was no hole in the back of the brain and no disruption of the
brain near the EOP.
> affected by the flow of brain matter and basically continued on their
> course towards the exit wound, and subsequenty to the windshield area.
>
Show me this brain matter on the windshield. You don't even know whose
blood is on the windshield.
Anthony Marsh
Funny that you never say things like that about John Canal. Just
hypocritical I guess. Funny how you never complain that Bugliosi can't
figure out if the SBT is at 210 or 224.
Anthony Marsh
> [....]
>
> Robert wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
>> 1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>
> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
> the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
> mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
> in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
> old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
Oh really. Then show it to me on the back of the head photos.
> cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
> cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
> entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
> replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
> plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
> replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
> sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
> where they said it was.
>
>> More importantly Chuck, the autopsists didn't have the advantage we have,=
>> of
>> being able to not just see the massive damage to the BOH, but to be able =
>> to
>> determine that it happened well after the explosion at frame 313.
>
> Tell me the truth, Robert, do you really expect anyone but CTs desperate
You are the CTer with a wacky theory unsupported by any evidence. And
you think it was a massive conspiracy to get us to think that there was
an entrance wound near the cowlick.
Herbert Blenner
Chuck wrote:
"There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain matter
settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery."
The described situation would arise if air slowed the fine spray of
ejected matter. This slowing effect of the air would decrease as the sizes
of the droplets increase. So finding larger droplets that forcefully
struck Hargis shows ejection at a substantially different speed and
direction than the initial velocity of the fine spray.
Now do you understand why I said the answer is blowing in the wind?
Herbert
robcap...@netscape.com
> >Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
> >man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
> >of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>
> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>
> >Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
> >=93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
> >Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I
> >believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
> >in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
> >entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
> >us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
> >well.
>
> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
> the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>
> The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick bullet"
there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense bone in the
rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?
> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
> Tiny debris resulting
> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
area as they ordered tissue samples).
> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
explain a "horizontal" trail of debris. See if the bullet deflected up it
would have hit the top of the head and came downward again, there is NO
way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there? Try
shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
it will NOT go horizontal after this.
The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
change, but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
this dubious stuff going on?
Thanks for your reply.
John Canal
I didn't try because I don't have time to play your silly games. IMHO, to
even suggest that Boswell believed there were two shots to the head takes
an imagination that is consistent with one possesed by someone who was
capable of conjuring up a theory like yours.
I doubt the lurkers will blame me for not responding to your posts any
more. BTW, I know a practically life-long, highly respected and
intelligent CT who has forgotten more about this case than most here will
ever know about it......who has killfiled you--and now I know why.
John Canal
John Canal
Robert Harris says...
Just when you think you've heard everything, I read this nonsense. Do you
actually think you can get anyone over the age of six to believe, after millions
of people have seen the Z-film and hundreds have closely examined it, that you,
Robert Harris, can see eneough "proof" in that film to make the astounding
charge that the three autopsy doctors have been disengenous all their
professional lives regarding their adamant assertion there was only one shot to
the head of President Kennedy?
And don't bother to ask me where and when they said that, because, I won't be
reading your posts any more....I'm going to follow the lead of that CT whom I
highly respect and add you to my killfile along with Marsh.
John Canal
>Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Funny that you never say things like that about John Canal." <<<
Dead wrong. I've had plenty of heated battles with John.
>>> "Funny how you never complain that Bugliosi can't figure out if the SBT is at 210 or 224." <<<
Wrong (again):
"Obviously, Bugliosi is simply placing on the table ALL
potential "SBT" possibilities throughout his immense publication. I,
however, would have preferred more consistency in this book ["RH"]
with regard to the timing of the SBT bullet strike." -- DVP; June 2007
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
John Canal
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 25, 10:28=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how=
> a
>> >man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>> >of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>>
>> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
>> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>>
>> >Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
>he
>> >Injuries,=3D94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=3D9615), and of cour=
>se I
>> >believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believ=
>e
>> >in one shot from behind. =A0So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD a=
>nd
>> >entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head f=
>or
>> >us. =A0Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris =
>as
>> >well.
>>
>> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
>s
>> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>>
>d
>> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
>
>Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick bullet"
>there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense bone in the
>rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?
First the bullet was traveling at max speed when it hit the skull...when it hit
JBC's rib it had slowed dramatically. Fackler's tests showed that the higher the
bullet's velocity the more it will fragment when it hits something hard enough
to break it up (and also hits at an angle that will cause the break up).
>> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
>> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
>This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
>according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
>bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
>when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
questions like yours very well.
>> Tiny debris resulting
>> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
>In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
>in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
>the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
>area as they ordered tissue samples).
Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
fragmentation, no metallic debris.
>> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
>> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
>> when the bullet ruptured.
>>
>> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
>John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
>premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
>explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?
>See if the bullet deflected up it
>would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.
>there is NO
>way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
prove that the bullet deflected up.
>Try
>shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
>it will NOT go horizontal after this.
Can I pass on that?
>The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
>wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
>change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
>support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
>change,
We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
obvious reasons.
>but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
>back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
>this dubious stuff going on?
Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
put it all together.
>Thanks for your reply.
I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.
John Canal
Robert Harris
<a7c51e42-1444-4d13...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> CHUCK SAID:
>
> >>> "There was only one shot in the head-from behind." <<<
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "That's a totally unsupported assertion." <<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> And yet Bob Harris thinks that his "2 Head Shots" theory is totally
> "supported" (and supportable)....despite the fact that there isn't a
> stitch of evidence ANYWHERE to substantiate Robert's claims.
ROFLMAO!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response
Robert Harris
Brokedad
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sorry John:
>
> He was hit in the "Cowlick" area at the Z313 impact, which was the
> SECOND SHOT fired in the assassination shot sequence.
> -------------------------------------
>
> He was then hit again in the lower edge of the hairline at the rear of the
> head/neck (after the bullet had passed through the coat) and this bullet
> then "tunnelled" through the soft tissue of the neck to strike in the EOP
> region of the skull at a point which was higher (as one sits erect) than
> the point of entry into the scalp. This bullet also left it's pathway
> directly through the mid-brain region of the brain.
>
> This, was the third/last/final shot impact which struck some 30-feet
> farther down Elm St. directly in front of James Altgens position, at the
> SS & FBI surveyed in Station 4+95.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> "Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that
> evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand
> the evidence"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
1. F8, the great "mystery photograph"* was taken after removal of the
brain. It was taken to demonstrate the small one-half of the
remaining portion of the EOP entry wound (small hole) and beveling on
the inner table of the bone of the skull as well as a comparative
demonstration of the 2.5 cm to 3 cm exit wound which was in the
parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull and which was contained in
a bone fragment which was brought in during the latter course of the
autopsy.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0032b.htm
*It is a "mystery photograph" to those such as Pat Speer who have been
studying a "reverse image" print of this photograph and have been
under the erroneous impression that the photo was taken from the rear
of the skull.
When in fact, it was taken from the front, and have thereafter
launched into entire scenario's of frontal shooters, etc;, based on
what is merely a "reverse image" photograph.
2. And, Dr. Boswell insists that there was only "One" entry into the
skull. That being the EOP entry, as found; examined; and measured by
all three of those present who were engaged in the autopsy.
3. P.S. This is the Survey Station 4+95/aka second shot impact to
the head of JFK which occurred directly in front of James Altgens
position.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <8bda3ef0-b4ce-4485-a776-92eeff15c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Has Fackler proven this in any real-life scenarios? I ask because we see
to see one set of "standards" for the JFK case and then one for the rest
of the cases in the country.
John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through flesh?
> >> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> >> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> >This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> >according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
> >bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> >when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.
I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic
wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as they
agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could ever
happen) in time of war.
A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a FMJ
can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out practically
intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far less dense) and
shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain this for us? Even if
you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.
> >> Tiny debris resulting
> >> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> >In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> >in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> >the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> >area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.
But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it
virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit the
spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there? There
should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick" in the
spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the throat
level.
> >> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> >> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> >> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> >> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> >John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> >premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> >explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?
Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail" of
debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a thin
skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the possiblility of
what could actually happen. Especially, when we compare this bullet to
the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read all of Dr. Mantik's work and
this is an issue for your side, again, that is WHY the Clark Panel changed
the location of the entry site.
> >See if the bullet deflected up it
> >would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.
You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK was
leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you conclude he
was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why could NO
witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was forward "26
degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention here his back
brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible, and that is why he
was such a "sitting duck."
Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning "26
degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?
> >there is NO
> >way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.
No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy
prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
part.
> >Try
> >shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
> >it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?
Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot
something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.
> >The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> >wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> >change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
> >support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
> >change,
>
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.
What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location of
the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a wound
without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you have to
"change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their reasons, they
had NO right to change the wound, now did they?
> >but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
> >back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
> >this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.
LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder
case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?
> >Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.
I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me
more sure of a conspiracy every time I hear it.
robcap...@netscape.com
Has Fackler proven this in any real-life scenarios? I ask because we see
to see one set of "standards" for the JFK case and then one for the rest
of the cases in the country.
John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through flesh?
> >> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> >> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> >This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> >according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
> >bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> >when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.
I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic
wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as they
agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could ever
happen) in time of war.
A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a FMJ
can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out practically
intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far less dense) and
shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain this for us? Even if
you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.
> >> Tiny debris resulting
> >> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> >In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> >in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> >the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> >area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.
But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it
virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit the
spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there? There
should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick" in the
spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the throat
level.
> >> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> >> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> >> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> >> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> >John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> >premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> >explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?
Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail" of
debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a thin
skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the possiblility of
what could actually happen. Especially, when we compare this bullet to
the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read all of Dr. Mantik's work and
this is an issue for your side, again, that is WHY the Clark Panel changed
the location of the entry site.
> >See if the bullet deflected up it
> >would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.
You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK was
leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you conclude he
was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why could NO
witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was forward "26
degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention here his back
brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible, and that is why he
was such a "sitting duck."
Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning "26
degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?
> >there is NO
> >way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.
No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy
prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
part.
> >Try
> >shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
> >it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?
Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot
something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.
> >The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> >wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> >change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
> >support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
> >change,
>
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.
What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location of
the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a wound
without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you have to
"change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their reasons, they
had NO right to change the wound, now did they?
> >but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
> >back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
> >this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.
LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder
case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?
> >Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.
I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me
Anthony Marsh
Ridiculous. What do you claim would account for the bullet hitting the
rib having slowly dramatically? If you mean supposedly going through
Kennedy first, that idea was tested and they found that such a bullet
would be slowed down by about 132 fps.
Sturdivan testified that, “this bullet if only encountering a few inches
of soft tissue [in traversing Kennedy’s neck] would go through losing
almost no velocity, 100 feet per second or thereabouts.”[14] In this
instance, it would seem that Sturdivan erred against the official
version, for there is evidence on the record of a greater loss of
velocity through JFK’s neck. That evidence comes from another wound
ballistics expert who worked at the Edgewood Arsenal laboratory, Dr.
Alfred Olivier.
Olivier conducted tests for the Warren Commission in 1964 where a round
was fired from the CE-139 rifle through 14 centimeters of various types
of tissue simulant: [15]
Mr. SPECTER. What measurement was obtained as to the entrance velocity
of the bullet at the distance of 60 yards which you described?
Dr. OLIVIER. The striking velocity at an average of three shots was
1,904 feet per second.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was the average exit velocity on each of the
substances used?
Dr. OLIVIER. For the gelatin the average exit velocity was 1,779 feet
per second. The horsemeat, the average exit velocity was 1,798 feet per
second. And the goatmeat the average exit velocity was 1,772 feet per
second. [5H77]
Using the largest loss of velocity as stated by Olivier, an impact of
1,904 f/s and an exit of 1,772 f/s exit reveals a loss of 132 f/s as the
bullet traveled through Kennedy’s neck. This is greater than the 100 f/s
quoted by Sturdivan. Therefore, if the bullet entered Kennedy’s back at
1,896 f/s and lost 132 f/s, the exit velocity would be 1,764 f/s.
So, you seem to think that the loss of 132 fps is "dramatic."
Yet the fact that the head shot would be at 265 feet rather than the
shot at 210 being 177 feet means that the difference in loss of velocity
from a bullet hitting at 210 and one hitting at 313 would be at least
137 fps, more than the loss which you call "dramatic." In other words,
you know nothing about ballistics and bandy about terms like
"dramatically" just for dramatic effect.
> bullet's velocity the more it will fragment when it hits something hard enough
> to break it up (and also hits at an angle that will cause the break up).
>
Ridiculous.
>>> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
>>> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>> This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
>> according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
>> bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
>> when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.
>
Nonsense. I cut him to shreds.
>>> Tiny debris resulting
>>> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>> In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
>> in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
>> the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
>> area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.
>
Because it only glanced off the vertebra and went through only soft tissue.
>>> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
>>> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
>>> when the bullet ruptured.
>>>
>>> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>> John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
>> premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
>> explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
He said horizontal. That's what we see in the lateral film.
A trail can be wide.
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?
>
What kind of bullet? An explosive bullet. Like the one which hit James
Brady in the forehead and sent fragments into the brain.
>> See if the bullet deflected up it
>> would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.
>
Except that your trajectory does not take into account anything exiting
the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone.
>> there is NO
>> way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.
That is called supposition.
>
>> Try
>> shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
>> it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?
>
I am not sure what his point is. A bullet can and does ricochet off a
ceiling and come down at a small angle.
Look at the Trey Cooley case.
>> The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
>> wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
>> change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
>> support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
>> change,
>
The Clark Panel knew the WC trajectory did not work as a perfectly
straight line. Like the WC they made the mistake of assuming the bullet
remained intact and exited on a perfectly straight line.
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.
>
Nonsense. No one postulated a ground-level shooter.
They wanted a perfectly straight line pointing back to the sniper's nest.
>> but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
>> back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
>> this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.
>
OK, great, so you are postulating a POSITIVE conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Funny that you never say things like that about John Canal." <<<
>
> Dead wrong. I've had plenty of heated battles with John.
>
Again, I have never seen you say "things like that" about John Canal.
>
>>>> "Funny how you never complain that Bugliosi can't figure out if the SBT is at 210 or 224." <<<
>
> Wrong (again):
>
>
> "Obviously, Bugliosi is simply placing on the table ALL
> potential "SBT" possibilities throughout his immense publication. I,
> however, would have preferred more consistency in this book ["RH"]
> with regard to the timing of the SBT bullet strike." -- DVP; June 2007
>
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200860-post.html
>
>
That is not what Bugliosi said and you can't quote him saying that. What
you will never admit is that his book was written by a committee and that
accounts for the difference. He did not produce 5 different diagrams each
showing a different SBT. He farmed out only one SBT and told them to show
it at Z-210. In the meantime he farmed out the text to Dale Myers who
chose to describe a SBT at Z-224. THAT accounts for the difference.
Bugliosi did not present alternative SBTs.
Anthony Marsh
You are talking about the three autopsy doctors who missed the throat
wound?
> And don't bother to ask me where and when they said that, because, I won't be
> reading your posts any more....I'm going to follow the lead of that CT whom I
> highly respect and add you to my killfile along with Marsh.
>
That is your only answer to criticism. Just ignore it.
> John Canal
>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 25, 10:28 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
>>> man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>>> of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
>> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>>
>>> Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
>>> =93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
>>> Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I
>>> believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
>>> in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
>>> entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
>>> us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
>>> well.
>> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
>> the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
>> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>>
>> The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
>> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
>
> Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick bullet"
> there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense bone in the
> rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?
>
Whose SBT does not have any deflection of the bullet? You are talking
about someone's theory, not a fact. Other SBTs may allow deflection.
>
>> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
>> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
It was not the Geneva Convention. It was the Hague Convention. And almost
any FMJ can break up under the right conditions. The agreement says that
the bullet not be designed to break up or mushroom.
Laws of War :
Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the
Human Body; July 29, 1899
The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers represented at the
International Peace Conference at The Hague, duly authorized to that
effect by their Governments,
Inspired by the sentiments which found expression in the Declaration of
St. Petersburg of the 29th November (11th December), 1868,
Declare as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which
expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard
envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with
incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in
the case of a war between two or more of them.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the
Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a
non-Contracting Power.
The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.
A proces-verbal shall be drawn up on the receipt of each ratification, a
copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic
channel to all the Contracting Powers.
The non-Signatory Powers may adhere to the present Declaration. For this
purpose they must make their adhesion known to the Contracting Powers by
means of a written notification addressed to the Netherlands Government,
and by it communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present
Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after
the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and
forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
This denunciation shall only affect the notifying Power.
In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Declaration, and have affixed their seals thereto.
Done at The Hague the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which shall be
kept in the archives of the Netherlands Government, and of which copies,
duly certified, shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the
Contracting Powers.
[Signatures]
> bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
>
>> Tiny debris resulting
>> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
Hmm, could be because a different type of bullet hit the head. An
explosive bullet.
Show me debris in the throat. Ordering tissue samples does not mean they
saw debris. Show me metallic debris on the X-rays.
>
>> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
>> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
>> when the bullet ruptured.
>>
>> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> explain a "horizontal" trail of debris. See if the bullet deflected up it
> would have hit the top of the head and came downward again, there is NO
> way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there? Try
> shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
> it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
Of course it depends on the incoming angle. A shot can hit the ceiling
tiles and ricochet down at a very slight angle.
See the case of Trey Cooley.
> The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
That was not the problem they faced and why they changed the entrance
wound. The EOP entrance wound does not create a perfectly straight line
trajectory pointing back to the sniper's nest, i.e. Oswald. In order to
create one they had to move the wound up. And the HSCA had to lie and
place their exit wound on the coronal suture. When that still did not
work, the HSCA then had to fudge their exit wound by an additional 5
degrees. The conclusion drives the data.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. False assumption. Why do you think they call it a windshield?
The fine mist rises quickly ABOVE the level of the windshield and then
is blown back by the wind of about 15-25 MPH.
> ejected matter. This slowing effect of the air would decrease as the sizes
> of the droplets increase. So finding larger droplets that forcefully
> struck Hargis shows ejection at a substantially different speed and
> direction than the initial velocity of the fine spray.
>
And who said anything or proved anything about "larger droplets" hitting
Hargis?
> Now do you understand why I said the answer is blowing in the wind?
>
How does your theory account for their finding blood, brain and bone
fragments on the HOOD and on the visors?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/limoexam.gif
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> In article <kgsod45q571uh7uej...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>> On 26 Sep 2008 01:24:07 -0400, John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>> .john wrote:
>>>
>>>> He wasn't his at the EOP level.
>>>>
>>>> He was hit in the cowlick area.
>>> But John, you've already admitted that the semicircular beveled defect
>>> seen in F8 (yes, the one that the HSCA, Fiorentino, Dunavich and just
>>> about everyone else familiar with this case agrees is the entry) was deep
>>> in the cranial cavity. I think I made three hard copies of that post. LOL.
>>>
>> Please quit misrepresenting what I "admitted."
>
> Right after I posted a copy of F8 with the semicircular beveled defect
> highlighted (for your attention), you wrote back, "That's very deep in the
> cranial vault, not anywhere near the cowlick area."
>
> You were 100% correct, that defect is very deep in the cranium--and it's
> actally near the EOP. Four independent replications of F8 have proven
Four independent? And that proves what? Zilch.
Not a very reliable group.
> the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida and, with the drug
> capital of the USA, Miami, being in Dade County, he probably has more
> experience performing autopsies on gunshot victims than 99% of his peers.
>
Show us any evidence that Davis agrees with anything you say.
Anthony Marsh
Silly. The autopsy report lists only two shots hitting Kennedy, one in
the back and one in the head.
>
>
> Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Anthony Marsh
>
> Dr. Charles S. Petty of the HSCA:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkMnSla7E20&fmt=18
>
>
Again DVP tooting his own horn.
And what exactly does Dr. Petty's testimony clarify for us?
Well, for one thing it squashes John Canal's EOP entrance just as I have
pointed out before that the pattern of damage to the brain is
inconsistent with an EOP entrance. So Canal needs to claim that Petty
was part of the conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
Fackler has done several tests, but you have to observe them carefully.
In one test he fired a bullet into ballistic gel to prove one point and
no one noticed that the ballistics gel was thrust forward by the impact
of the bullet a couple of inches. This destroys the WC fiction that the
impact of a bullet could not move JFK's head.
> John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
> dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
> bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
> concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through flesh?
>
The official theory? Whose official story? Baden says the bullet grazed
the T-1 vertebra. John Canal can not prove his theory, so he uses
dramatic license to try to argue his way out of the problem by just
SAYING that the bullet slowed dramatically. He thinks he needs that
difference. He just doesn't know how to prove it.
>
>>>> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
>>>> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>>> This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
>>> according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
>>> bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
>>> when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
>> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
>> questions like yours very well.
>
> I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic
> wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
> Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as they
> agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could ever
> happen) in time of war.
>
The Geneva Convention reference is 100% wrong. It was not the Geneva
Convention. It was the Hague Convention. And you still fail to
understand the historical context.
> A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a FMJ
> can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out practically
> intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far less dense) and
> shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain this for us? Even if
> you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.
>
You are not allowed to tell a bullet what it MUST do. Under slightly
different conditions the same bullet might do different things.
Hunters have made head shots into big game with the same type of FMJ
bullet and it comes out intact. Mythbusters fired FMJ bullets into water
and they disintegrated.
>
>>>> Tiny debris resulting
>>>> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>>> In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
>>> in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
>>> the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
>>> area as they ordered tissue samples).
>> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
>> fragmentation, no metallic debris.
>
> But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it
> virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit the
> spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there? There
> should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick" in the
> spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the throat
> level.
>
Not quite accurate. It depends on the angle, the point of entry to the
point of exit. Mantik's objection is based on an angle which might hit
the tip of T-1 or T-3, especially T-3. But the bullet could hit the TOP
of the transverse process of T-1 and just miss C-7.
Show me the nick Mantik is talking about and the angles he is postulating.
>
>>>> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
>>>> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
>>>> when the bullet ruptured.
>>>> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>>> John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
>>> premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
>>> explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
>> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
>> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
>> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?
>
> Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail" of
> debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a thin
> skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the possiblility of
Thin? Thick and very strong. And indeed the skull is quite capable of
deflecting a bullet. A bullet can enter one side of the head and bounce
off the inside of the skull on the other side.
> what could actually happen. Especially, when we compare this bullet to
> the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read all of Dr. Mantik's work and
> this is an issue for your side, again, that is WHY the Clark Panel changed
> the location of the entry site.
>
>
>>> See if the bullet deflected up it
>>> would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
>> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
>> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
>> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
>> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
>> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
>> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
>> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
>> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
>> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.
>
> You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK was
> leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you conclude he
I don't get your point. All you are saying is that YOU have not done
your homework. The Zapruder film shows JFK leaning forward and Zapruder
demonstrated the position live on TV within minutes of the shooting.
> was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why could NO
> witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was forward "26
> degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention here his back
> brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible, and that is why he
> was such a "sitting duck."
>
You will never find any witness in Dealey Plaza who gets so specific as
to state exactly 26 degrees. That's just stupid. Leaning over is the
best you'll get. And who says it was exactly 26 degrees and needs to be
exactly 26 degrees?
> Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning "26
> degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?
>
FYI, the Zapruder film is not the only film showing the head shot.
All the films corroborate each other.
>
>>> there is NO
>>> way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
>> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
>> prove that the bullet deflected up.
>
> No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy
> prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
> part.
>
>
>>> Try
>>> shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
>>> it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>> Can I pass on that?
>
> Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot
> something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.
>
Why not a real bullet? It has been done before and can be done again.
>
>>> The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
>>> wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
>>> change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
>>> support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
>>> change,
>> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
>> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
>> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
>> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
>> obvious reasons.
>
>
> What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location of
> the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a wound
> without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you have to
> "change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their reasons, they
> had NO right to change the wound, now did they?
>
Canal has let his imagine run wild. No one was thinking it was a ground
level shooter. No one.
>
>>> but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
>>> back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
>>> this dubious stuff going on?
>> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
>> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
>> put it all together.
>
> LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder
> case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
> volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?
>
>
>>> Thanks for your reply.
>> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.
>
> I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me
> more sure of a conspiracy every time I hear it.
>
Canal is not even sure which side he is on. He wants to be a WC
defender, but he knows the evidence does not fit and suspects it was a
huge conspiracy.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
More nonsense. You don't know why the photograph was taken and can not
point out what you claim is the thing being shown.
If they really wanted to document a hole in the back of the head, where
is the photo of the back of the head with a rule marking the hole on the
skull?
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0032b.htm
>
>
> *It is a "mystery photograph" to those such as Pat Speer who have been
> studying a "reverse image" print of this photograph and have been
> under the erroneous impression that the photo was taken from the rear
> of the skull.
Reverse image?
> When in fact, it was taken from the front, and have thereafter
> launched into entire scenario's of frontal shooters, etc;, based on
> what is merely a "reverse image" photograph.
>
>
> 2. And, Dr. Boswell insists that there was only "One" entry into the
> skull. That being the EOP entry, as found; examined; and measured by
> all three of those present who were engaged in the autopsy.
>
And ruled out by the FPP.
You cite Boswell, a known liar.
>
> 3. P.S. This is the Survey Station 4+95/aka second shot impact to
> the head of JFK which occurred directly in front of James Altgens
> position.
>
>
>
Silly.
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Yes.
>
> And don't bother to ask me where and when they said that, because, I won't be
> reading your posts any more....I'm going to follow the lead of that CT whom I
> highly respect and add you to my killfile along with Marsh.
ROFLMAO!
You didn't killfile me John. And this is a pretty lame way to evade
having to document your phony claims about what Boswell said:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
LOL!!
No, you didn't try because he never in his life said such a thing. Let's
review your statement claiming he made,
"repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head".
The key word here, John is "ONLY".
Yes, he signed the autopsy report which described one shot to the head,
but neither he nor that report excluded the possibility that there could
have been others.
And even if it had, it is ludicrous to believe that this report, which
would have omitted even the throat wound if Humes hadn't talked to Perry
the next day, was infallible.
> IMHO, to
> even suggest that Boswell believed there were two shots to the head takes
> an imagination that is consistent with one possesed by someone who was
> capable of conjuring up a theory like yours.
That is correct, because he never to my knowledge, ever said there were
two headshots.
And of course, I never claimed he did.
>
> I doubt the lurkers will blame me for not responding to your posts any
> more. BTW, I know a practically life-long, highly respected and
> intelligent CT who has forgotten more about this case than most here will
> ever know about it......who has killfiled you--and now I know why.
I will try to get over it:-)
But did your mystery buff also make a lot of bogus claims:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Sigh.. tony, you never seem to get it.
Reporting one headshot is NOT the same as claiming, "there was no more
than one headshot", which is equivalent to denying the possibility that
there could have been more than one headshot.
No responsible doctor would make such a claim unless he spent a LOT more
time examining the corpse than these guys did.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "Again DVP tooting his own horn." <<<
And we must remember, folks, that Mr. Marsh NEVER does anything like
that himself, right?
<chuckle time>
Anthony Marsh
I said ONLY. That means no other shots.
> No responsible doctor would make such a claim unless he spent a LOT more
> time examining the corpse than these guys did.
>
They were incompetent. I am just correcting your false version of what
they said.
>
> Robert Harris
Brokedad
>
> *It is a "mystery photograph" to those such as Pat Speer who have been
> studying a "reverse image" print of this photograph and have been
> under the erroneous impression that the photo was taken from the rear
> of the skull.
> When in fact, it was taken from the front, and have thereafter
> launched into entire scenario's of frontal shooters, etc;, based on
> what is merely a "reverse image" photograph.
>
> 2. And, Dr. Boswell insists that there was only "One" entry into the
> skull. That being the EOP entry, as found; examined; and measured by
> all three of those present who were engaged in the autopsy.
>
> 3. P.S. This is the Survey Station 4+95/aka second shot impact to
> the head of JFK which occurred directly in front of James Altgens
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12164&hl=Headshots
The "Headshots"/aka plural of Headshot!
David Von Pein
>>> "They [the autopsists] were incompetent." <<<
And, as we all know, Tony The Super Pathologist, would have done a
whole lot better if he'd been one of the three autopsy surgeons at
JFK's autopsy, instead of the "Incompetent 3" of H,B,&F.
Right, Tony?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, we know what *you* said Tony.
But this is about what the autopsists said. And as usual you and reality
don't get along too well.
Neither the doctors nor the autopsy report denied the possibility of other
headshots. It's just that simple.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Dr. Earl Rose would have done a much better job if they hadn't have
stolen the body.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dr. Earl Rose would have done a much better job if they hadn't have
stolen the body." <<<
Yeah...but the person who would have done an even better job is Dr. Tony
"Pathologist Extraordinaire" Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
There were many fine forensic pathologists then who could have done a
competent job.
Robert Harris
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
> [...]
>
>>[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>
> [...]
>
>>As Boswell confirmed,
>
> [...]
>
> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell
> whenever he
> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
> his
> that
> goes ignored as if he was in on a cover-up or so blind or incompetent he
> didn't
> realize there were two entrance and exit wounds.
The only problem is John, that he NEVER said that there was "only" one
headshot - not once and certainly, not "repeatedly". And even the autopsy
report did not deny the possibility of other headshots.
I am still waiting for you to post a citation proving otherwise.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
You have to get up to speed. We are pointing out things they said after
the autopsy report.
SatansMamma
2ADDC0.075...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:
> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>
> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
> the head. You can see the video here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
> the autopsy photos.
>
> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
> photos were taken.
>
> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Robert,
As you're aware I recently posted a lengthy series of comments to this
video on You Tube, challenging the existence of a "protrusion" as
suggested by the stills from the Zapruder film that you show in the video.
I suggested that what you refer to as an obvious, large protrusion was
really nothing more than the president's thick hair, possibly displaced by
an entrance wound to the back of Kennedy's skull.
I went on to further suggest the possibility that you may have somehow
"ehnanced" the stills to more clearly highlight this supposed protrusion
and invited your audience to compare the color, brightness and contrast of
the Zapruder footage you show at the beginning of the film with the stills
of frames 335 and 337, and then compare your frames 335 and 337 to those
found in the digital reproductions of the original Zapruder film.
Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again took
the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and blocking me
from posting.
The fact that you took these steps leads me to conclude that I was correct
and that you are afraid that this could damage any credibility you have
with your audience.
Do you delete all inconvenient comments and block all posters who disagree
with you? I'm sure you're aware that there are two sides to every story,
Bob. The remaining comments are clearly very one-sided.
I've asked you repeatedly to explain yourself, sir. Your silence speaks
volumes.
SM
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>
> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
> the head. You can see the video here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
> the autopsy photos.
>
> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
> photos were taken.
>
> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>
> Robert Harris
***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head.
***Ron Judge
John Canal
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>On Sep 23, 4:30=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
>> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>>
>> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
>> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
>> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
>> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
>> the head. You can see the video here:
>>
>>
>> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
>> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
>> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
>> the autopsy photos.
>>
>> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
>> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
>> photos were taken.
>>
>> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
>Kennedy's head.
Are you absolutely 100% positive that the 312 bullet didn't fragment the BOH and
that brain tissue didn't begin exuding out between one or two of those
fragmented pieces after the Z-frames? If you are you must find it at least a
tiny bit puzzeling why all those PH docs and Bethesda witnesses said they saw a
BOH wound...or why Humes would testify that they saw that part of the cerebellum
was severely lacerated? Do you think it was collective fanaticizing among the PH
and Bethesda docs?
John Canal
>***Ron Judge
>
>
Gary Combs
"***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head.
Yet we do know about the Harper fragment, now, don't we?
gc
***Ron Judge
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:633a070b-1e9f-4eca...@h23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> r2bjudge wrote,
> "***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
> Kennedy's head.
>
> Yet we do know about the Harper fragment, now, don't we?
>
Yes, we know that the Harper fragment did NOT come from the occipital.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, exactly. They all saw the oozing brain tissue and matted blood at
the top of the head extending backward and assumed it came up from a
wound underneath.
> John Canal
>
>
>
>> ***Ron Judge
>>
>>
>
>
John Canal
>> that brain tissue didn't begin exuding out between one or two of those
>> fragmented pieces after the Z-frames? If you are you must find it at least a
>>tiny bit puzzeling why all those PH docs and Bethesda witnesses said they saw a
>>BOH wound...or why Humes would testify that they saw that part of the cerebellum
>>was severely lacerated? Do you think it was collective fanaticizing among the PH
>> and Bethesda docs?
>>
>
>Yes, exactly. They all saw the oozing brain tissue and matted blood at
>the top of the head extending backward and assumed it came up from a
>wound underneath.
LOL! So the cerebellum they saw oozed out the top of the head...Ha ha ha,
thanks again Anthony...I needed the humor.
John Canal
Grizzlie Antagonist
"SatansMamma" <eadgbe6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B56D98B5BFC...@194.177.96.26...
I wonder if this would make him a "runner", by his own definition.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:reharris1-
> 2ADDC0.07570523092...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:
"There is NO question that an honest man will evade".
Anthony Marsh
They did not see cerebellum and I said nothing about cerebellum. You
think your only available tactic any more is strawman arguments.
> John Canal
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> There is an avulsion to the boh when you see enhanced Z frame 335
Good point of course, but avulsion does not mean exit wound. Can you see
the skull bone hanging out on the right temple? Does that prove a bullet
exited there?
>
> <r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:633a070b-1e9f-4eca...@h23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Canal
So they lied? Why on earth would they? Of course you said nothing about
cerebellum...you wouldn't because, if they saw it, that'd conflict with
your grossly silly theory, i.e. no BOH hits.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> In article <4923...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> John Canal wrote:
>>>>> Are you absolutely 100% positive that the 312 bullet didn't fragment the BOH and
>>>>> that brain tissue didn't begin exuding out between one or two of those
>>>>> fragmented pieces after the Z-frames? If you are you must find it at least a
>>>>> tiny bit puzzeling why all those PH docs and Bethesda witnesses said they saw a
>>>>> BOH wound...or why Humes would testify that they saw that part of the cerebellum
>>>>> was severely lacerated? Do you think it was collective fanaticizing among the PH
>>>>> and Bethesda docs?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, exactly. They all saw the oozing brain tissue and matted blood at
>>>> the top of the head extending backward and assumed it came up from a
>>>> wound underneath.
>>> LOL! So the cerebellum they saw oozed out the top of the head...Ha ha ha,
>>> thanks again Anthony...I needed the humor.
>>>
>> They did not see cerebellum and I said nothing about cerebellum.
>
> So they lied? Why on earth would they? Of course you said nothing about
No one said they lied.