I just don't understand
Dreitzes
>From: Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>Date: 3/4/99 7:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>
>I have have read many of the CT'ers claims that JFK's head wound was much
>lower than the autopsy photos show, but I have never seen a good
>explination for what this means to them. Of course there is the obvious,
>if the autopsey photos are fake, there must be a conspiracy, but I am more
>interested in an actual explination of how this wound came to be.
>
>I have seen several drawings depicting how a bullet could have entered
>JFK's skull in the Cowlick area and the blown out the top of his head, but
>I have never seen a depiction of how it was possible for a massive head
>wound in the location described by Dr. Crenshaw and others.
>
>It seems to me for an exit wound in this location the shot would have had
>to have come from the front left, but CT'ers usually claim this shot came
>from the GK which was th JFK's right.
>
This is precisely why I do not believe the fatal shot came from the grassy
knoll, but most likely from the area where the triple underpass meets the south
knoll. There was a manhole leading to a storm drain there -- now paved over --
though this should not be confused with the more common theories of a shooter
at the north storm drain or in one of the sewers alongside Elm Street itself. I
can't think of any prominent researcher but possibly Harrison Livingstone who
supports this theory (see *Killing the Truth*).
As Livingstone points out, the trajectory of a shot from the knoll would have
been practically perpendicular to Elm Street and the limousine, thus -- if one
credits Newton's laws over jet effects and neuromuscular spasms -- sending JFK
directly to his left, into Jackie, rather than predominantly back. (I dissent
from the obvious consensus that the shot sent Kennedy "back and to the left."
Rather, JFK was turned towards his left at the time of the shot, and I theorize
that a shot from in front and possibly towards his left -- depending on whether
the limousine swerved slightly left as it braked, as has been reported --
propelled him backwards, causing him to pivot slightly towards his left,
creating an illusory "back and to the left" motion.)
Go ahead . . . laugh it up . . .
>I often get lost in the medical lingo that usually accompanies a
>discussion of the head wound, so I would be interested if somebody could
>point me to a drawing of this suspected bullet path, or could explain it
>to me in laymen's terms.
>
>Thanks, Mike
I don't see how it can be done from the knoll. I've traced it easily enough
from the area of the south manhole by the underpass, as described above. Who
knows, though -- maybe Bob Vernon can upload a perfectly reasonable model to
his highly publicized Web site.
On the other hand -- as described in my Dealey Plaza article at the URL below
-- I have serious doubts that the theoretical frontal shot to JFK's neck around
Z 210 came from the same weapon, which is why I suspect if there WAS a grassy
knoll shooter, he was responsible for a neck shot, not the fatal head shot.
Dave Reitzes
For my series on Lee Harvey Oswald, spotlighting the research and theory of
John Armstrong, please see:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
jer...@my-dejanews.com
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.edu>,
Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> I have have read many of the CT'ers claims that JFK's head wound was much
> lower than the autopsy photos show, but I have never seen a good
> explination for what this means to them.
The reason they push this so hard is twofold: they wish to rule out Oswald
as the shooter and secondarily to argue that the shot likely came from the
front. We see these trends very clearly in Dr Aguilar's writing.
Of course there is the obvious,
> if the autopsey photos are fake, there must be a conspiracy, but I am more
> interested in an actual explination of how this wound came to be.
>
> I have seen several drawings depicting how a bullet could have entered
> JFK's skull in the Cowlick area and the blown out the top of his head, but
> I have never seen a depiction of how it was possible for a massive head
> wound in the location described by Dr. Crenshaw and others.
>
> It seems to me for an exit wound in this location the shot would have had
> to have come from the front left, but CT'ers usually claim this shot came
> from the GK which was th JFK's right.
Dale Meyers came to the same conclusion - namely that if we trace the in-
and out-shoot locations forward, we arrive at a point on the southern end
of the TU about 20 feet in the air.
A shot from the GK would have struck JFK in the right side of the head and
surely would have blown out the left side of the head. The Clark Panel
pointed out that there is absolutely no damage to JFK's skull/brain to the
left of a midline projected from rear to front.
> I often get lost in the medical lingo that usually accompanies a
> discussion of the head wound, so I would be interested if somebody could
> point me to a drawing of this suspected bullet path, or could explain it
> to me in laymen's terms.
>
> Thanks, Mike
Let me give it a try.
The shot hits high. We see it skid a bit before penetrating. The nature of
the entry strongly suggests it is on a curved surface - ie, not near the
EOP. Also, this correlates to the eventual fragmentation of the
projectile.
It travels thru - high - from right to left. The skull absorbs energy from
the slowing bullet which is creating a pressure cavity behind it. The
skull is moving forward now and will for a frame and move a few inches.
This can only be explained by a shot from the rear.
The inshoot causes stellate fractures which radiate down to near the EOP.
The bullet exits near the coroneal suture. Sometime later, the pressure
cavity expands and causes the skull to explode. Brain and blood go out in
every direction - released under pressure they shoot out.
Two brain matter largely proceeds forward - as the Connallys said - it
struck them like spent buckshot. And the fragments go forward and strike
the windshield. It causes the "double bang, like bang-bang" that Kellerman
reports. It causes the damage to the limo - the best evidence, as Tony
Marsh puts it.
Two skull fragments shoot out of the top of the skull. The Harper is one
of them. We see them depicted in one of the HSCA FPP drawings - it is
reprinted in Mortal Error.
The explosion of the right side of the head - forward and to the rear and
above JFK's right ear - causes flaps of bone to hang down. This bone has
been separated from the skull, but, attached to the scalp, which is
elastic. We see this clearly in the Zapruder film.
On the ride to Parkland, Jackie pushes the 'flaps' in place. Or some of
them.
At Parkland, they don't examine the headwound and indirect observations
are made difficult by the massive amounts of blood dripping down and at
least one of the flaps hanging towards the table, ie, rearward. In
descriptions of the wound, the doctors encounter a vocabulary that is
ambiguous and inexact. With JFK lying on his back, the top of his head is
most rearward. And seeing areas more rearward that the back of his ear is
very difficult. Blood is drying in his thick hair causing.
At Bethesda, and hear I am most indebted to Judy, the doctors place all
the flaps back before they take the x-rays. This is why the defect we see
in the x- rays seems to extend only just behind the ear. The flap
containing that piece of skull has been placed back in its location.
In fact, the scalp is very elastic and a lot of bone adheres to it.
Therefore, we come to a key area of confusion: how large was the defect?
What is the extent of the area labled "missing"?
Judy's explaination allows me to reconcile two statements which seemed
incompatable: Dr Artwohl's which was - the area forward of the inshoot got
blown off. From that point to the outshoot is the extent of what's
missing, and the photo which shows there to be a section of bone between
the inshoot and the area of missing (ie gone, not on any piece of scalp)
bone.
This is a first draft. Emendations are sought.
Jerry
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
doug weldon
The shot from the south knoll to Kennedy's throat was the subject of my
presentation at Lancer last November. There is no question that a shot was fired
from that location. Lancer will probably be publishing an article in the near
future,
Doug Weldon
Dreitzes wrote:
> >Subject: I just don't understand
> >From: Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
> >Date: 3/4/99 7:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
> >
> >I have have read many of the CT'ers claims that JFK's head wound was much
> >lower than the autopsy photos show, but I have never seen a good
> >explination for what this means to them. Of course there is the obvious,
> >if the autopsey photos are fake, there must be a conspiracy, but I am more
> >interested in an actual explination of how this wound came to be.
> >
> >I have seen several drawings depicting how a bullet could have entered
> >JFK's skull in the Cowlick area and the blown out the top of his head, but
> >I have never seen a depiction of how it was possible for a massive head
> >wound in the location described by Dr. Crenshaw and others.
> >
> >It seems to me for an exit wound in this location the shot would have had
> >to have come from the front left, but CT'ers usually claim this shot came
> >from the GK which was th JFK's right.
> >
>
> This is precisely why I do not believe the fatal shot came from the grassy
> knoll, but most likely from the area where the triple underpass meets the south
> knoll. There was a manhole leading to a storm drain there -- now paved over --
> though this should not be confused with the more common theories of a shooter
> at the north storm drain or in one of the sewers alongside Elm Street itself. I
> can't think of any prominent researcher but possibly Harrison Livingstone who
> supports this theory (see *Killing the Truth*).
>
> As Livingstone points out, the trajectory of a shot from the knoll would have
> been practically perpendicular to Elm Street and the limousine, thus -- if one
> credits Newton's laws over jet effects and neuromuscular spasms -- sending JFK
> directly to his left, into Jackie, rather than predominantly back. (I dissent
> from the obvious consensus that the shot sent Kennedy "back and to the left."
> Rather, JFK was turned towards his left at the time of the shot, and I theorize
> that a shot from in front and possibly towards his left -- depending on whether
> the limousine swerved slightly left as it braked, as has been reported --
> propelled him backwards, causing him to pivot slightly towards his left,
> creating an illusory "back and to the left" motion.)
>
> Go ahead . . . laugh it up . . .
>
> >I often get lost in the medical lingo that usually accompanies a
> >discussion of the head wound, so I would be interested if somebody could
> >point me to a drawing of this suspected bullet path, or could explain it
> >to me in laymen's terms.
> >
> >Thanks, Mike
>
Vern Pascal
Photo -313 ZFilm
Tangential Kill Shot.............................Jeff
L. C. Sheppard
concept. Pictures of the overpass show a very shallow area over the
roadway, (Elm Street). It would appear that such a storm drain would
have to be crossing Elm in the fill overhead or are these manholes
situated between the traveled lanes in what might be called the median,
thereby permitting them to connect to the main 6 feet or more below the
level of the surface of Elm Street?
In the latter case, you would have manholes over 20 feet deep which
would mean a shooter would have to stand on one rung of the built in
ladder, hang on to another upper rung for support while firing over the
top "ring" with one hand! That's rather difficult.
Does anyone have a drawing showing the location of these manholes?
Also, has anyone checked with the Dallas Department of Public Works
regarding the apparent "modification" of the "manhole"? The
Department should have complete "as built" drawings of the "overpass"
area. Since manholes are installed at considerable expense to provide
access to facilities below ground, it is not reasonable to assume that
they would "pave over" existing manholes without providing detailed
explanations in the maintenance records.
Also, the few existing sketchs of the "overpass" seem to suggest that
the overpass structure was primarily designed to accomodate railroad
tracks. If these manhole(s) are in railroad right-of-way or easments,
any modification of the original structure would be a real "bucket of
worms" !
/s/ L. C. Sheppard
Dreitzes
>From: doug weldon <dwe...@kalamazoo.net>
>Date: 3/5/99 8:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <36E089C1...@kalamazoo.net>
>
>Dave:
> The shot from the south knoll to Kennedy's throat was the subject of my
>presentation at Lancer last November. There is no question that a shot was
>fired
>from that location. Lancer will probably be publishing an article in the
>near
>future,
>
>Doug Weldon
>
People don't seem to understand that there were literally hundreds of positions
from which a rifleman could fire in Dealey Plaza, most of which offered far
more cover than the knoll. Anyone with knowledge of the medical evidence and a
little commonsense should be able to see that a shot from the knoll would have
exited the left side of JFK's head, and any SBT would be more likely to involve
Jackie than Gov. Connally. If there was a gunman on the knoll, he didn't fire
the famous Z 313 headshot -- and unless your name happens to be Bob Vernon, you
can take that to the bank.
>> >Subject: I just don't understand
>> >From: Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>> >Date: 3/4/99 7:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>> >
>> >I have have read many of the CT'ers claims that JFK's head wound was much
>> >lower than the autopsy photos show, but I have never seen a good
>> >explination for what this means to them. Of course there is the obvious,
>> >if the autopsey photos are fake, there must be a conspiracy, but I am more
>> >interested in an actual explination of how this wound came to be.
>> >
>> >I have seen several drawings depicting how a bullet could have entered
>> >JFK's skull in the Cowlick area and the blown out the top of his head, but
>> >I have never seen a depiction of how it was possible for a massive head
>> >wound in the location described by Dr. Crenshaw and others.
>> >
>> >It seems to me for an exit wound in this location the shot would have had
>> >to have come from the front left, but CT'ers usually claim this shot came
>> >from the GK which was th JFK's right.
>> >
DR responded:
My theory of what occurred in Dealey Plaza can be found at the URL below.
DR
Dreitzes
>Date: 3/5/99 6:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990305...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>
DR wrote:
>> This is precisely why I do not believe the fatal shot came from the grassy
>> knoll, but most likely from the area where the triple underpass meets the
>> south knoll. There was a manhole leading to a storm drain there -- now
>> paved over -- though this should not be confused with the more common
>> theories of a shooter at the north storm drain or in one of the sewers
>> alongside Elm Street itself. I can't think of any prominent researcher but
>> possibly Harrison Livingstone who supports this theory (see *Killing the
>> Truth*).
>>
>
>I still don't understand.
>
>Are you saying this shot was from street level?
No, the triple underpass is a fair bit higher than street level. The south
sewer drain is pictured in the scale drawing of Dealey Plaza on the inside
cover of Trask's *Pictures of the Pain.*
>If that is true, how did it get through the limo window? And if it exited
>low in the back of JFK's head, and was level wouldn't that mean it entered
>in the middle of his face?
>
See above.
>> As Livingstone points out, the trajectory of a shot from the knoll would
>> have been practically perpendicular to Elm Street and the limousine, thus
>> -- if one credits Newton's laws over jet effects and neuromuscular spasms
>> -- sending JFK directly to his left, into Jackie, rather than
>> predominantly back. (I dissent from the obvious consensus that the shot
>> sent Kennedy "back and to the left." Rather, JFK was turned towards his
>> left at the time of the shot, and I theorize that a shot from in front and
>> possibly towards his left -- depending on whether the limousine swerved
>> slightly left as it braked, as has been reported -- propelled him
>> backwards, causing him to pivot slightly towards his left, creating an
>> illusory "back and to the left" motion.)
>>
>> Go ahead . . . laugh it up . . .
>>
[snip]
>>
>> I don't see how it can be done from the knoll. I've traced it easily
>> enough from the area of the south manhole by the underpass, as described
>> above.
>
>Can you please explain how you traced this to that spot. In order to
>trace bacward from JFK you would need two known points on the bullets
>path. What two known points did you use?
>
>Mike
The suspected entrance wound (the right temple, where a few key witnesses place
it) and suspected exit wound (the lower back of the head, where virtually all
eyewitnesses place it), which -- given the direction the President appears to
be facing at the time of the Z 313 head shot -- lines up with the south sewer
drain by the underpass.
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>Date: 3/6/99 1:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <18130-36...@newsd-164.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Look at the angle from the HSCA Location- perfect alignment- Moorman
>Photo -313 ZFilm
>Tangential Kill Shot.............................Jeff
You're going to have to cite some medical evidence to back that up. All the
evidence I've seen indicates anything but a tangential shot.
And do you believe the Zapruder film is evidence of the direction from which
the Z 313 head shot came? If so, a few simple tests with a billiard ball and
cuestick should show you that the Z film doesn't support your theory either.
DR
Dreitzes
>Date: 3/6/99 1:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <29939-36E...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>Manholes leading to storm drains in the overpass is a very confusing
>concept. Pictures of the overpass show a very shallow area over the
>roadway, (Elm Street). It would appear that such a storm drain would
>have to be crossing Elm in the fill overhead or are these manholes
>situated between the traveled lanes in what might be called the median,
>thereby permitting them to connect to the main 6 feet or more below the
>level of the surface of Elm Street?
>
>In the latter case, you would have manholes over 20 feet deep which
>would mean a shooter would have to stand on one rung of the built in
>ladder, hang on to another upper rung for support while firing over the
>top "ring" with one hand! That's rather difficult.
>
>Does anyone have a drawing showing the location of these manholes?
Again, you may find both pictured on the inside cover of Trask's *Pictures of
the Pain.* Livingstone's *Killing the Truth* also has a photograph of the paved
over area where the south drain used to be. This book also has numerous photos
showing Livingstone's fellow researcher standing in the north drain, having no
difficulty whatsoever standing and aiming a shot through a slat in the picket
fence. One can only presume that the south drain was built similarly.
Livingstone points out that a car parked over the manhole would have provided
all the cover a gunman would need. And -- hypothetically -- should something
occur on the north knoll to draw the crowd's attention there, so much the
better.
>Also, has anyone checked with the Dallas Department of Public Works
>regarding the apparent "modification" of the "manhole"? The
>Department should have complete "as built" drawings of the "overpass"
>area. Since manholes are installed at considerable expense to provide
>access to facilities below ground, it is not reasonable to assume that
>they would "pave over" existing manholes without providing detailed
>explanations in the maintenance records.
>
That rings a bell, but I don't remember whether Livingstone turned up such
records or not. I can check.
>Also, the few existing sketchs of the "overpass" seem to suggest that
>the overpass structure was primarily designed to accomodate railroad
>tracks. If these manhole(s) are in railroad right-of-way or easments,
>any modification of the original structure would be a real "bucket of
>worms" !
>
> /s/ L. C. Sheppard
>
What are you saying? There's no question this storm drain was there.
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
>From: Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>Date: 3/6/99 12:01 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.990305...@freenet.buffalo.edu>
>
>On 5 Mar 1999, freenet.buffalo.edu wrote:
[snip]
>I don't have Pictures of pain, but I do have TKOAP, and I'm looking at the
>pictures on page 16 and 17 and I do see a knoll on the south side of the
>overpass. It seems pretty exposed though. Is there some kind of cover
>there that I can't see?
>
As noted elsewhere in this thread, a car parked over the drain would be all the
cover a gunman would need.
>Unless I am looking in the wrong place, the south side of the overpass is
>well to the left of JFK.
Of course.
>I don't see how a shot from there could hit Him
>in the right temple unless he was facing backwards.
No, it would line up perfectly if he happened to be turned towards his left,
which the Zapruder film shows very clearly that he was.
Vern Pascal
There is important material in each of Livingstone's Books. I'm well
aware of the pictures in Killing The Truth- though, am not certain they
were applicable for 1963....Jeff
L. C. Sheppard
help me to find.out "who's on first".
I'm assuming that the "manhole" I'm looking for is illustrated at:
http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/stormd1/index.htm
And the "Triple Underpass" may be seen at:
http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/tu/index.htm
Using these illustrations, could some one please describe the
approximate area of the "Triple Underpass" where this manhole,catch
basin, or surface water inlet might be found?
"Confused in the Emerald City"
/s/ L. C. Sheppard
Clark Wilkins
>Hi Mike,
>
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.
These fracture lines are important because the radiate from the point of
entry. IMO, if JFK had been hit in the head from the right, there should
be similar fracture lines radiating across the top of the skull traveling
from right to left and originating from the point of entry.
There are none.
Zero.
Zip.
Nada.
This is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
>
>In fact, the scalp is very elastic and a lot of bone adheres to it.
>
>Therefore, we come to a key area of confusion: how large was the defect?
>What is the extent of the area labled "missing"?
>
>Judy's explaination allows me to reconcile two statements which seemed
>incompatable: Dr Artwohl's which was - the area forward of the inshoot
got
>blown off. From that point to the outshoot is the extent of what's
>missing, and the photo which shows there to be a section of bone
between
>the inshoot and the area of missing (ie gone, not on any piece of
scalp)
>bone.
>
>This is a first draft. Emendations are sought.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
A good post, Jerry.
Well worded, easy to follow, and fits the facts as well as the
conclusions of the experts.
I vote for your explanation.
If somebody fired from the grassy knoll/underpass/Seattle SpaceNeedle
they missed.
IMO.
.Clark
Dreitzes
>Message-id: <14386-36...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
>This is beginning to resemble an old Abbott and Costello routine! Please
>help me to find.out "who's on first".
>I'm assuming that the "manhole" I'm looking for is illustrated at:
>http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/stormd1/index.htm
No, that's the north drain. The south drain, since paved over, was on the south
side of the underpass. Look at any aerial view of Dealey Plaza (Groden's TKOAP
has several): the north and south sides are mirror images of each other; it was
designed that way. The north storm drain is located behind the picket fence
where the underpass meets the north knoll (the famous one). Look at where the
underpass meets the south knoll -- that's where the south storm drain was.
Again, it is pictured (though not labeled) on the inside cover of Trask's
*Pictures of the Pain,* and the area where it used to be is pictured in
Livingstone's *Killing the Truth.*
Dave Reitzes
>And the "Triple Underpass" may be seen at:
>http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/tu/index.htm
>=A0=A0
>Using these illustrations, could some one please describe the
>approximate area of the "Triple Underpass" where this manhole,catch
>basin, or surface water inlet might be found?
>
>"Confused in the Emerald City"
>
> /s/ L. C. Sheppard
For my series on Lee Harvey Oswald, spotlighting the research and theory of
doug weldon
one the man is standing in but on the south side.
L. C. Sheppard wrote:
> This is beginning to resemble an old Abbott and Costello routine! Please
> help me to find.out "who's on first".
> I'm assuming that the "manhole" I'm looking for is illustrated at:
> http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/stormd1/index.htm
> And the "Triple Underpass" may be seen at:
> http://www.flash.net/~jaynes/tu/index.htm
>
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990304...@freenet.buffalo.edu>,
> Michael Russ <ck...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> > I have have read many of the CT'ers claims that JFK's head wound was much
> > lower than the autopsy photos show, but I have never seen a good
> > explination for what this means to them.
>
> The reason they push this so hard is twofold: they wish to rule out Oswald
> as the shooter and secondarily to argue that the shot likely came from the
> front. We see these trends very clearly in Dr Aguilar's writing.
>
> Of course there is the obvious,
> > if the autopsey photos are fake, there must be a conspiracy, but I am more
> > interested in an actual explination of how this wound came to be.
> >
> > I have seen several drawings depicting how a bullet could have entered
> > JFK's skull in the Cowlick area and the blown out the top of his head, but
> > I have never seen a depiction of how it was possible for a massive head
> > wound in the location described by Dr. Crenshaw and others.
> >
> > It seems to me for an exit wound in this location the shot would have had
> > to have come from the front left, but CT'ers usually claim this shot came
> > from the GK which was th JFK's right.
>
> Dale Meyers came to the same conclusion - namely that if we trace the in-
> and out-shoot locations forward, we arrive at a point on the southern end
> of the TU about 20 feet in the air.
>
Remember that the bullet fragmented into several pieces. So you can not
simply connect the supposed entrance point and exit point and then work
out a straight line trajectory.
> A shot from the GK would have struck JFK in the right side of the head and
> surely would have blown out the left side of the head. The Clark Panel
> pointed out that there is absolutely no damage to JFK's skull/brain to the
> left of a midline projected from rear to front.
>
That is a common fallacy. A bullet wound to the right side of the head
does not have to exit the left side of the head. Also, the newly
released depositions and drawings made by the autopsy doctors make it
clear that there was damage to the skull extending into the left side of
the head. And there were scores of minute, dustlike bullet fragments in
the left side of the head.
> > I often get lost in the medical lingo that usually accompanies a
> > discussion of the head wound, so I would be interested if somebody could
> > point me to a drawing of this suspected bullet path, or could explain it
> > to me in laymen's terms.
> >
> > Thanks, Mike
>
> Let me give it a try.
>
> The shot hits high. We see it skid a bit before penetrating. The nature of
> the entry strongly suggests it is on a curved surface - ie, not near the
> EOP. Also, this correlates to the eventual fragmentation of the
> projectile.
>
> It travels thru - high - from right to left. The skull absorbs energy from
> the slowing bullet which is creating a pressure cavity behind it. The
> skull is moving forward now and will for a frame and move a few inches.
> This can only be explained by a shot from the rear.
>
Wrong. You can not on the one hand claim that the impact of a bullet from
the rear would move the head forward and then deny that the impact of a
bullet from the front would move the head backwards. That is an illogical
and inconsistent position. The small forward movement of JFK's head from
Z-312 to Z-313 can also be accounted for by inertia, due to the driver
suddenly slowing down the limousine. Everyone else in the rear compartment
also moved forward at about the same rate during this time. So, using your
logic, all of them would have to be hit in the back of the head by bullets
to account for their forward movement.
> The inshoot causes stellate fractures which radiate down to near the EOP.
>
"Stellate"? Who said that? Show me.
> The bullet exits near the coroneal suture. Sometime later, the pressure
> cavity expands and causes the skull to explode. Brain and blood go out in
> every direction - released under pressure they shoot out.
>
Not every direction. Only in the directions possible due to the opening of
the skull at the top right area of the head.
> Two brain matter largely proceeds forward - as the Connallys said - it
> struck them like spent buckshot. And the fragments go forward and strike
> the windshield. It causes the "double bang, like bang-bang" that Kellerman
> reports. It causes the damage to the limo - the best evidence, as Tony
> Marsh puts it.
>
I can not disprove the notion that fragments from the headshot caused the
damage to the limousine. But the pattern of damage looks to me more likely
to have come from fragments originating from the LEFT side of the
limousine, while JFK's head was still on the right side of the limousine.
I would agree with most of the rest of your post, but would also point out
that the newly released ARRB depositions give us additional clues. For
example, it appears that almost no scalp was blown away, even though
several skull fragments were blown away. So the "missing" area applies
ONLY to skull bone. When the scalp was closed up, no one could identify
the extent of the head wound.
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Tony Pitman
The Bethesda autopsy doctors have allways stuck firmly to their discovery
of an "inshoot" wound through the skull just to the right and fractionally
above the EOP. That is a very low location. They also said this wound was
between 1 and 2 ins below the large wound which reached down into the
occipital bone at that point. Kellerman had told the WC (I think) that it
was in the hairline and Humes pointed it out to the HSCA as the tissue
that appears as a peice of fatty tissue in the photo and is also in the
hairline The HSCA medical panel tried to shift this wound up 10cm (4 ins)
but none saw it and no one has seen the photos of it that were taken at
Bethesda because they have vanished. I wonder why. Humes, Boswell and
Finck told the HSCA that the medical panel was wrong and they saw the
wound.
Tony
L. C. Sheppard
it becomes more apparent when viewing the photos on P 16 of Groden's
"TKoaP".
Further, this location coincides with the testimony of Julia Ann Mercer
who was WEST bound on Elm St. after passing through the Underpass and
was stopped by a standing pickup truck. A young man got out of the truck
and removed a long paper bag showing the outlines of a rifle, from the
bed of the pickup. The man then walked up on the knoll and was lost to
her sight. In "Crossfire" Jim Marrs calls this "The Grassy Knoll" on
P 18, and this has been a source of confusion since that would imply
the NORTH drain. Ms Mercer would have had to be going the wrong
direction on a one way street. Further confusion has accrued from the
use of the term "manhole" by several authors. A true "manhole" may
be seen on P41 of Groden's "TKoaP". Note that the cover is round
and of solid metal so as to be as water resistant as possible. The
purpose of a "manhole" is to provide access to public utilities below
ground level. They are very common and usually found between the wheel
tracks of a lane of traffic on any public street..
One more question, ie; does anyone know when the SOUTH drain was
"obliterated" or "paved over"? Proximity of this "paving over" to the
time of the assassination may bear on the possible reason(s) for
"covering it up".
/s/ L. C. Sheppard