I can tell right now that Dr. Lattimer's experiments were all above board
I think its despicable when someone is called a "liar" who isn't.
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:40:21 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:Thanks, John, for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with
> On 20 Oct 2012 20:33:32 -0400, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
> >On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:36:13 PM UTC-7, John Reagor King wrote:
> >> In article <email@example.com>,
> >It appears you have much to learn.
> >From patspeer.com, chapter 11.
> >Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the
> >Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound
> >as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was
> >spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size
> >and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw
> >concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the
> >large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which
> >was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a
> >tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating
> >that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing,
> >Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its
> >largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small
> >and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was
> >the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd
> >cut away the damaged skin along its edge.
> >By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of
> >back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as
> >conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the
> >influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times,
> >cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the
> >single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden
> >testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the
> >entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling
> >when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the
> >Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that
> >when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent
> >the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President
> >Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the
> >Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was
> >the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the
> >bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid
> >is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or
> >glanced off an intervening object."
> >The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the
> >significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as
> >discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a
> >Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the
> >Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8
> >centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around
> >this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr.
> >Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm
> >Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second
> >measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual
> >size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of
> >Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not
> >merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As
> >demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.
> The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. on its
> longest dimension.
> This sort of thing isn't worthy of you. You are not Mark Lane.
Badens' testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded
Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking
something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a
bullet hitting the back while out of alinement. That's quite the
difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while
others were not.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.