Found on a street in Dallas
Herbert Blenner
Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
historical blunder.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0066a.htm
He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
were found in the street.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
I wonder how LN authors have dealt with the technical misconceptions,
inaccuracies and outright blunders published by Lattimer?
tomnln
Ain't that as Pisser?
Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
>Wasn't lattimer a Urologist?
>
>Ain't that as Pisser?
>
>Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
>
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
I'm guessing that was a misprint, although in theory he might have a
rifle with the same serial number for an armory *other then* Terni.
>
>
>
>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
>> historical blunder.
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0066a.htm
>>
>> He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
>> were found in the street.
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
>>
>> I wonder how LN authors have dealt with the technical misconceptions,
>> inaccuracies and outright blunders published by Lattimer?
>>
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Rossley knows damn well that the "C2766" notation in Lattimer's book
was an honest mistake. He's been told that several times in the past.
But, naturally, he must think that either Dr. Lattimer or John Canal
was lying when John Canal wrote this 5 years ago:
"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
"...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
Herbert Blenner
> On 7 Sep 2009 00:12:29 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Wasn't lattimer a Urologist?
>
> >Ain't that as Pisser?
>
> >Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
>
> >SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> I'm guessing that was a misprint, although in theory he might have a
> rifle with the same serial number for an armory *other then* Terni.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
> >> historical blunder.
>
>
> >> He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
> >> were found in the street.
>
> >>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
>
> >> I wonder how LN authors have dealt with the technical misconceptions,
> >> inaccuracies and outright blunders published by Lattimer?
Lattimer showed us the Dox drawing of President Kennedy's back wound
and called it a bullet hole.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/kennedybackwound.jpg
Doctors of the Clark Panel who saw the autopsy photographs described
Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm elliptical abrasion.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image07.htm
By contrast, Commander Humes described the bullet hole in the back,
inaccurately called a wound, as a 4 mm by 7 mm oval.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0180a.htm
Apparently Lattimer did not know an abrasion from a hole. Fortunately
no elbows were struck during the attack otherwise doc Lattimer could
have really embarrassed himself.
Herbert
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
Try to PROVE "might have".
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:s729a5de6m0oq7ff2...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
Carcano similar to Oswald's.
John F.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4aa4873a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
The man is a Raving maniac ! ! ! (and, he's 1 of YOURS )
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:s729a5de6m0oq7ff2...@4ax.com...
tomnln
Here's the page from the Pisser's book>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69a645b4-37ff-400f...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4aa52233$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 7, 12:17 am, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2009 00:12:29 -0400, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wasn't lattimer a Urologist?
>>
>>> Ain't that as Pisser?
>>
>>> Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
>>
>>> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>> I'm guessing that was a misprint, although in theory he might have a
>> rifle with the same serial number for an armory *other then* Terni.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Herbert Blenner"<a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
>>>> historical blunder.
>>
>>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>>
>>>> He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
>>>> were found in the street.
>>
>>>> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
>>
>>>> I wonder how LN authors have dealt with the technical misconceptions,
>>>> inaccuracies and outright blunders published by Lattimer?
>
> Lattimer showed us the Dox drawing of President Kennedy's back wound
> and called it a bullet hole.
>
Your innuendo suggests that you don't think it really was a back wound.
Is that what you intended to convey? Is that your theory?
You should know by now that Dox drew a cleaned up version of the autopsy
photo.
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/kennedybackwound.jpg
>
> Doctors of the Clark Panel who saw the autopsy photographs described
> Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm elliptical abrasion.
>
Yeah, so what?
I assume you mean the same wound.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image07.htm
>
> By contrast, Commander Humes described the bullet hole in the back,
> inaccurately called a wound, as a 4 mm by 7 mm oval.
>
Hume? Why the Hell would you believe anything that Humes said?
Anthony Marsh
>
> Rossley knows damn well that the "C2766" notation in Lattimer's book
> was an honest mistake. He's been told that several times in the past.
Yes, a simple mistake. But prove it is honest.
> But, naturally, he must think that either Dr. Lattimer or John Canal
> was lying when John Canal wrote this 5 years ago:
>
> "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
> notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
> used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
> found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
> letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
> "...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
> late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
>
I completely accept what John Canal says, but Lattimer does not call it an
honest mistake. He seems to blame it on the printer. Maybe the lack of any
proofreader was the cause.
But it seems to me that any honest person could clear this up simply by
scanning in and uploading the letter from Lattimer. Or is it Top Secret
for reasons of National Security not be to be released until Lattimer's
death? Ooops, didn't he die a couple of years ago? Well then, maybe not
until 75 years after his death.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Sep 2009 00:12:29 -0400, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't lattimer a Urologist?
>>
>> Ain't that as Pisser?
>>
>> Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>
> I'm guessing that was a misprint, although in theory he might have a
> rifle with the same serial number for an armory *other then* Terni.
>
>
It was a simple mistake. What he meant to say was that he had a rifle
identical to Oswald's rifle. But I think Lattimer's rifle WAS also from
Terni. I wonder why it isn't in the National Archives for research and
comparison purposes. As a side note, it might be theoretically possible
that a Terni CARBINE could have had the serial number C2766.
Anthony Marsh
> Wasn't lattimer a Urologist?
>
> Ain't that as Pisser?
>
> Lattimer also said he had the exact same rifle with Serial Number C2766.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
Lattimer lied. Grown-ups do lie sometimes.
cdddraftsman
> On Sep 7, 12:17 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > >"Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > >news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
> > >> historical blunder.
>
> > >>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> > >> He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
> > >> were found in the street.
>
> > >>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
>
>
How about your historical and hysterically funny blunder in claiming LHO
didn't fire the shot that hit JFK in his back ? I know Tomln uses a
crystal ball to look into when conjuring criticisms , what do you use a
black kettle ?
>
>
>
> > >> I wonder how LN authors have dealt with the technical misconceptions,
> > >> inaccuracies and outright blunders published by Lattimer?
>
>
>
>
They've been verified as accurate by mag30th and others on You-Tube . BTW
ever done a live fire experiment using the same type of rifle and
ammunition ? Didn't think so .
>
>
>
>
> Lattimer showed us the Dox drawing of President Kennedy's back wound
> and called it a bullet hole.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/kennedybackwound.jpg
>
> Doctors of the Clark Panel who saw the autopsy photographs described
> Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm elliptical abrasion.
>
>
>
IOW's a "bullet hole" . Thanks for clearing up that "historic blunder" .
Here's your blunder Blenner : "described Kennedy's back as a 7 mm by 10 mm
elliptical abrasion". ? How could "Kennedy's back" look like a 7 mm by 10
mm elliptical abrasion" ? I suggest putting more water in it next time .
>
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/...
>
> By contrast, Commander Humes described the bullet hole in the back,
> inaccurately called a wound, as a 4 mm by 7 mm oval.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_018...
>
> Apparently Lattimer did not know an abrasion from a hole. Fortunately
> no elbows were struck during the attack otherwise doc Lattimer could
> have really embarrassed himself.
>
> Herbert
>
>
Yet everyone who has studied JFK's reactions agree it was from a
neurological reaction ! : WHICH IS EXACTELY WHAT JFK SUFFERED WHEN THE TIP
OF THE TRANSVERSE PROCESS OF ONE OF HIS VERTEBRE WAS STRUCK BY THE PASSAGE
OF CE-399 ! :
From .John :
"Is Kennedy "Clutching At His Throat" in the Zapruder Film?
Not according to Dr. John Lattimer, whose view is that Kennedy’s arms
are assuming a "Thorburn['s] position" after the Single Bullet passed near
his spine :
Kennedy & Lincoln
Page 244 Fig. 99 & 100
Dr. Robert Artwohl agrees that the position of Kennedy’s arms
represents an involuntary neurological reaction, but doesn’t agree
that it is a "Thorburn position." Click here :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/thorburn.txt
for Artwohl’s view of the issue, originally posted as messages on the
Compuserve JFK Forum.
Dr. Kenneth Strully, a neurosurgeon from New Hampshire, also has
addressed the issue of Kennedy’s arm movements, and also sees them as
the result of a neuromuscular reaction" : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/strully.txt
end ....
Now for all the criticism of Dr.Lattimers accurate description of JFK's
'Thorburn position' , with everyone agreeing that it's a "involuntary
neurological reaction" , which is exately what Lattimer described (Arms at
a 45 degree angle to body , fists clenched and under chin) whats all the
fuss and feathers about ?
tl
Herbert Blenner
> Excuses from the GRAVE ?????
>
> Here's the page from the Pisser's book>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rossley knows damn well that the "C2766" notation in Lattimer's book
> > was an honest mistake. He's been told that several times in the past.
> > But, naturally, he must think that either Dr. Lattimer or John Canal
> > was lying when John Canal wrote this 5 years ago:
>
> > "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
> > notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
> > used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
> > found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
> > letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
> > "...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
> > late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
>
I have found four Lattimer factual errors on the page that you have
posted.
1. "By contrast, we know that President Kennedy was hit by smaller 6.5 mm,
bullets traveling at only 2,200 feet per second (muzzle velocity) . . . "
Edgewood Arsenal documented that air fiction slowed the bullets that
struck Kennedy by more than one hundred feet per second below muzzle speed
of the MC rifle.
2." . . . and that two bullets - which were recovered and presented to
the Warren Commission - had intact jackets and were fully jacketed
military bullets . . . "
The Warren Commission received one bullet with an intact jacket and two
fragments. One fragment was a deformed piece of a jacket with minor pieces
of attached lead and the other fragment was lead with a few bits from a
copper bearing jacket.
3. "The wound of entry into the back of Kennedy's neck was almost round
and approximately 6.5 mm in diameter, with a black rim characteristic of a
wound of entry."
Commander Humes described the bullet hole in Kennedy's as an oval with
dimensions of 4 mm by 7 mm. The Clark Panel discussed the 7 mm by 10 mm
elliptical abrasion that surrounded the bullet hole.
4. "The wound of entry into Connally's back was 3 cm long and was
approximately twenty-eight inches away from Kennedy's neck, indicating
that the bullet was tumbling end over end."
Doctor Shaw testified that Connally's back wound had a longer "diameter"
of 1.5 cm and had a roughly elliptical, not a rectangular shape that would
have shown entry by a tumbled bullet.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
> On Sep 7, 8:52 am, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 12:17 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >"Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:53b73174-36eb-4611...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> Besides somewhat excusable technical errors, Doctor Lattimer made a
> > > >> historical blunder.
>
> > > >>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> > > >> He claimed that the three skull fragments recovered from the limousine
> > > >> were found in the street.
>
> > > >>http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limofragments.jpg
>
> How about your historical and hysterically funny blunder in claiming LHO
> didn't fire the shot that hit JFK in his back ? I know Tomln uses a
> crystal ball to look into when conjuring criticisms , what do you use a
> black kettle ?
I call you claim untrue and for almost tow years have a posted web
page that shows you have made up a false charge.
Herbert
tomnln
I told you...."Lattimer was a Pisser".
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:25b08095-2195-4b13...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Squinty Magoo
And what is Lattimer talking about on the posted page (p. 250) in the
reference to bullets recovered from JFK's body at Parkland? Which bullet
in evidence was recovered from JFK's body at Parkland? And from what part
of his body was it recovered?
Squinty Magoo
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 7, 8:56 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Excuses from the GRAVE ?????
>>
>> Here's the page from the Pisser's book>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>> "David Von Pein"<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:69a645b4-37ff-400f...@y36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rossley knows damn well that the "C2766" notation in Lattimer's book
>>> was an honest mistake. He's been told that several times in the past.
>>> But, naturally, he must think that either Dr. Lattimer or John Canal
>>> was lying when John Canal wrote this 5 years ago:
>>
>>> "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
>>> notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
>>> used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
>>> found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
>>> letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
>>> "...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
>>> late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
>
> I have found four Lattimer factual errors on the page that you have
> posted.
>
> 1. "By contrast, we know that President Kennedy was hit by smaller 6.5 mm,
> bullets traveling at only 2,200 feet per second (muzzle velocity) . . . "
>
> Edgewood Arsenal documented that air fiction slowed the bullets that
> struck Kennedy by more than one hundred feet per second below muzzle speed
> of the MC rifle.
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course almost any bullet can be slowed
down by more than 100 fps depending on the distance. Are you trying to
refute something he said? Then deal with the exact numbers. His 2,200 fps
is wrong, only rounding it out. The average muzzle velocity was 2,165, but
we do not yet know the exact muzzle velocity for each shot in Dealey
Plaza. The rate at which a WCC bullet will lose velocity is 1.05 fps for
every foot traveled.
>
> 2." . . . and that two bullets - which were recovered and presented to
> the Warren Commission - had intact jackets and were fully jacketed
> military bullets . . . "
>
> The Warren Commission received one bullet with an intact jacket and two
> fragments. One fragment was a deformed piece of a jacket with minor pieces
Not as deformed as you think and as pictured.
> of attached lead and the other fragment was lead with a few bits from a
> copper bearing jacket.
>
Where do you get your information? The base fragment had absolutely no
lead attached.
> 3. "The wound of entry into the back of Kennedy's neck was almost round
> and approximately 6.5 mm in diameter, with a black rim characteristic of a
> wound of entry."
>
> Commander Humes described the bullet hole in Kennedy's as an oval with
> dimensions of 4 mm by 7 mm. The Clark Panel discussed the 7 mm by 10 mm
> elliptical abrasion that surrounded the bullet hole.
>
Yeah, so what?
> 4. "The wound of entry into Connally's back was 3 cm long and was
> approximately twenty-eight inches away from Kennedy's neck, indicating
> that the bullet was tumbling end over end."
>
> Doctor Shaw testified that Connally's back wound had a longer "diameter"
> of 1.5 cm and had a roughly elliptical, not a rectangular shape that would
> have shown entry by a tumbled bullet.
>
Wrong. It does not have to indicate tumbling.
> Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "And what is Lattimer talking about on the posted page (p. 250) in the
reference to bullets recovered from JFK's body at Parkland?" <<<
That was a poorly-worded statement made by Dr. Lattimer on Page #250 (I
just checked it). It gives the impression that CE399 was recovered from
JFK's body instead of Connally's.
But Lattimer (quite obviously) was referring to Bullet CE399 in that
misworded passage on page 250, since CE399 undoubtedly did travel through
Kennedy on its way to striking Gov. Connally.
So, even doctors named Lattimer weren't immune to making a few errors from
time to time (and Lattimer made two of them on page 250 alone).
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "And what is Lattimer talking about on the posted page (p. 250) in the
>
> reference to bullets recovered from JFK's body at Parkland?" <<<
>
> That was a poorly-worded statement made by Dr. Lattimer on Page #250 (I
> just checked it). It gives the impression that CE399 was recovered from
> JFK's body instead of Connally's.
Has Lattimer given you the impression that they recovered CE399 from
Governor Connally or is we know who the source of the blunder, which
you have just posted?
>
> But Lattimer (quite obviously) was referring to Bullet CE399 in that
> misworded passage on page 250, since CE399 undoubtedly did travel through
> Kennedy on its way to striking Gov. Connally.
>
> So, even doctors named Lattimer weren't immune to making a few errors from
> time to time (and Lattimer made two of them on page 250 alone).
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
Lattimer equated the "muzzle velocity" with the striking speeds of the
bullets.
>
>
>
> > 2." . . . and that two bullets - which were recovered and presented to
> > the Warren Commission - had intact jackets and were fully jacketed
> > military bullets . . . "
>
> > The Warren Commission received one bullet with an intact jacket and two
> > fragments. One fragment was a deformed piece of a jacket with minor pieces
>
> Not as deformed as you think and as pictured.
See below.
>
> > of attached lead and the other fragment was lead with a few bits from a
> > copper bearing jacket.
>
> Where do you get your information? The base fragment had absolutely no
> lead attached.
I quote an appendix of the WCR.
"The fragment designated as Commission Exhibit No. 567 is a mutilated
piece of lead and copper very similar to a mutilated piece of copper
recovered from the bullet which struck the skull depicted in Commission
Exhibit No. 860. The other fragment, designated as Commission Exhibit No.
569 which was found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine, is
the copper end of the bullet. Commission Exhibit No. 569 is very similar
to a copper fragment of the end of the bullet which struck the test
skull."
>
> > 3. "The wound of entry into the back of Kennedy's neck was almost round
> > and approximately 6.5 mm in diameter, with a black rim characteristic of a
> > wound of entry."
>
> > Commander Humes described the bullet hole in Kennedy's as an oval with
> > dimensions of 4 mm by 7 mm. The Clark Panel discussed the 7 mm by 10 mm
> > elliptical abrasion that surrounded the bullet hole.
>
> Yeah, so what?
OK, Marsh, explain to us how either the 4 mm by 7 mm hole or the 7 mm
by 10 mm abrasion qualifies as being "almost round."
>
> > 4. "The wound of entry into Connally's back was 3 cm long and was
> > approximately twenty-eight inches away from Kennedy's neck, indicating
> > that the bullet was tumbling end over end."
>
> > Doctor Shaw testified that Connally's back wound had a longer "diameter"
> > of 1.5 cm and had a roughly elliptical, not a rectangular shape that would
> > have shown entry by a tumbled bullet.
>
> Wrong. It does not have to indicate tumbling.
That's correct, Tony. A square bullet could have tangentially struck
Connally in the back and made a rectangular wound.
Herbert
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4cad98bf-680d-474d...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
That does not refute my point. CE 569 was only the copper jacket. It had
no lead.
>
>>
>>> 3. "The wound of entry into the back of Kennedy's neck was almost round
>>> and approximately 6.5 mm in diameter, with a black rim characteristic of a
>>> wound of entry."
>>
>>> Commander Humes described the bullet hole in Kennedy's as an oval with
>>> dimensions of 4 mm by 7 mm. The Clark Panel discussed the 7 mm by 10 mm
>>> elliptical abrasion that surrounded the bullet hole.
>>
>> Yeah, so what?
>
> OK, Marsh, explain to us how either the 4 mm by 7 mm hole or the 7 mm
> by 10 mm abrasion qualifies as being "almost round."
>
Almost round is close enough for an unqualified autopsy doctor.
Oval is not round, but for some it might appear almost round.
>>
>>> 4. "The wound of entry into Connally's back was 3 cm long and was
>>> approximately twenty-eight inches away from Kennedy's neck, indicating
>>> that the bullet was tumbling end over end."
>>
>>> Doctor Shaw testified that Connally's back wound had a longer "diameter"
>>> of 1.5 cm and had a roughly elliptical, not a rectangular shape that would
>>> have shown entry by a tumbled bullet.
>>
>> Wrong. It does not have to indicate tumbling.
>
> That's correct, Tony. A square bullet could have tangentially struck
> Connally in the back and made a rectangular wound.
>
>
Square bullet? What are you mumbling about. You know nothing about
ballistics.
> Herbert
ShutterBun
> Lattimer equated the "muzzle velocity" with the striking speeds of the
> bullets.
Oh, please! BZZZZZZT! Wrong! Good lord. He specifically pointed
out that he was merely refering to muzzle velocity as a point of
*reference* to other bullets. He did NOT say that the bullet struck
Kennedy at that speed, and it reflects poorly on you that you would
even conclude as such (not that you care what I think; but seriously,
that's a bunch of CRAP right there)
> See below.
Will do.
> > > Commander Humes described the bullet hole in Kennedy's [back? -ed. note] as an oval with
> > > dimensions of 4 mm by 7 mm. The Clark Panel discussed the 7 mm by 10 mm
> > > elliptical abrasion that surrounded the bullet hole.
>
> > Yeah, so what?
>
> OK, Marsh, explain to us how either the 4 mm by 7 mm hole or the 7 mm
> by 10 mm abrasion qualifies as being "almost round."
How? Through the magic of subjectivity.
> > > 4. "The wound of entry into Connally's back was 3 cm long and was
> > > approximately twenty-eight inches away from Kennedy's neck, indicating
> > > that the bullet was tumbling end over end."
>
> > > Doctor Shaw testified that Connally's back wound had a longer "diameter"
> > > of 1.5 cm and had a roughly elliptical, not a rectangular shape that would
> > > have shown entry by a tumbled bullet.
>
> > Wrong. It does not have to indicate tumbling.
>
> That's correct, Tony. A square bullet could have tangentially struck
> Connally in the back and made a rectangular wound.
I'm sure you're trying to make a point here, but I'll be damned if I
know what it is. You're still hung up on that word "elliptical"
aren't you? I bet you are! I knew it!
Tell you what, let's ask 100 people to describe the shape of a Tylenol
capsule in one word, and see how many of them say "elliptical."
Anthony Marsh
I love the way you make excuses for the WC defenders.
So none of them ever just lie. They misquote themselves.