Message from discussion Arlen Specter dies
Received: by 10.66.79.40 with SMTP id g8mr978339pax.45.1351192593367;
Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter dies
Date: 25 Oct 2012 15:16:32 -0400
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
X-Original-Trace: 24 Oct 2012 23:32:59 -0500, 220.127.116.11
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1351192592 18.104.22.168 (25 Oct 2012 14:16:32 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 25 Oct 2012 14:16:32 -0500, 22.214.171.124
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
On 10/24/2012 10:21 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> On Oct 24, 5:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2012 1:08 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 22, 4:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> [snip by HB]
>>>> The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:
>>>> The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to
>>>> be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly
>>>> the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the
>>>> back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the
>>>> entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-
>>>> shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/
>>>> south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width
>>>> of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and
>>>> is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the
>>>> measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice
>>>> but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't
>>>> look that egg-shaped to me):
>>>> So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound
>>>> being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper
>>>> back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling
>>>> when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head
>>>> was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet
>>>> almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of
>>>> Kennedy's head.
>>>> So the retort made by CTers over the years has been --- Why are you so
>>>> certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you
>>>> certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had
>>>> NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that
>>>> was the exact same size?
>>> Knowledgeable people explain that the shapes of President Kennedy?s
>>> scalp wound and Governor Connally?s back wound were elliptical. This
>>> match shows that both bullets were not ?tumbling? when they entered
>>> the victims. Instead the long axes of the missiles were aligned with
>>> their direction of motions when they tangentially entered Kennedy and
>>>> It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer.
>>>> Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment
>>>> when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.
>>> Professionals have the answer. The spatial orientation, not the
>>> possible, of the struck victim and the direction of the tangentially
>>> striking bullet determine the dimensions of the wound when
>>>> Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:
>>>> "It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute
>>>> angle?as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in
>>>> Connally's back]?from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy
>>>> theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy?s and Connally?s left
>>>> rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of
>>>> Connally?s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward
>>>> direction immediately after entering the governor?s body.
>>> The location of Connally?s back wound is disputed. Dr. Shaw placed the
>>> wound between the right backbone and the nearer armpit. This position
>>> causes a problem for an exit beneath and the right nipple since the
>>> back at the position of entry is nearly parallel to the flat of the
>>> Based upon the Connally?s jacket, the FPP placed the entry wound in
>>> the right armpit. This location has surfaces whose directions differ
>> As Robert Groden showed, the entrance hole was in Connally's right
>> sleeve, not on the back of the jacket.
> As Robert Frazier testified the transverse angles measured from the
> jacket and the shirt had different values which were substantially
> larger than the approximate 20-degree declination angle of the bullet.
> These results show the uselessness of the Governor Connally?s clothing
> to determine trajectory angles of the bullet through his body.
> Source: - Warren Commission Testimony of Robert A. Frazier on May 13,
> 1964 - 5H, 72
> Mr. SPECTER. Referring back for just a moment to the coat identified
> as that worn by Governor Connally, Mr. Frazier, was there any
> observable angle of elevation or declination from the back side of the
> Governor?s coat to the front side of the Governor?s coat?
> Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir ; there was, approximately a 35-degree downward
> Mr. SPECTER. Measuring from -
> Mr. FRAZIER. That is -
> Mr. SPECTER. Back to front or front to back?
> Mr. FRAZIER. From back towards the front.
> Mr. SPECTER. How about the same question as to the Governor?s shirt?
> Mr. FRAZIER. I would say it was approximately the same angle or
> slightly less. I think we measured approximately 30 degrees.
> Mr. SPECTER. Was that from the front to back or from the back to front
> of the Governor?s shirt?
> Mr. FRAZIER. That would be from the back towards the front. Downward
> from back towards the front.
> Doctor Shaw examined Governor Connally and measured a 25-degree transverse
> angle. He signed a document that placed the entry wound in the back
> between the right shoulder blade and the nearer armpit. This document
> gives a 11-degree sagittal (right to left) angle through the body.
As usual you ignore what I said and change the subject because you can't
deal with reality.