SBT Or Single Bullet Fact?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ca418f0dfa4cf352
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "I resist saying [that the SBT is a] "fact", because a theory is something that explains as a coherent whole a bunch of raw data. Gravity is a theory. It happens to be a very good theory. So is the SBT." <<<
DVP SAID:
John McAdams is wrong. The SBT is a known FACT (beyond all REASONABLE
doubt).
Mr. Bugliosi:
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
"single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
489-490 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C1BE7E1B8F16F8C2
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
aeffects
HIM (or his mysterious secretary) show up and say it!
You yeller-belly (no one knows who [nor ever met you] YOU are) copy &
paste, dipshit arteeeeeeeest!
David Von Pein
Can somebody get Healy some more drugs? He's awake. And everyone's
much better off when he remains high on his alley-purchased crack.
Thank you for any help you can provide Healy in this matter.
David Von Pein
>>> "[If] Vinnie has something to say have HIM (or his mysterious secretary) show up and say it!" <<<
You mean I'm NOT Vinnie today??
Tell me it ain't so, Mr. Crackpipe??!!
robc...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ca418...
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> >>> "I resist saying [that the SBT is a] "fact", because a theory is something that explains as a coherent whole a bunch of raw data. Gravity is a theory. It happens to be a very good theory. So is the SBT." <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> John McAdams is wrong. The SBT is a known FACT (beyond all REASONABLE
> doubt).
Dave is soooo clueless it isn't funny. A FACT can be proven, that is
why it is a fact in the first place. When was the SBT proven Dave?
It would seem hard to prove since you CAN'T even show the bullet
presented as the supposed bullet was ever INSIDE either victim. Then
of course you have the little problem of all those who saw and touched
the bullet found at PH saying CE399 was NOT the bullet they saw and
touched. I would guess the inability to show and prove the back wound
and the throat wound connected would put a damper on the "old proving
game" as well, but what do I know?
No Dave, you should have listened to your employer and said it is a
theory, and a quite a crazy one at that, but the SBT is NOT fact.
> Mr. Bugliosi:
>
> "With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
> "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
> stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is
> now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did
> not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
> 489-490 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
I would love to try a case with this evidence against Bugman in
court. Imagine how you could tear him a new one? Bugman would NEVER
go to court with a case so weak in evidence like this one.
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugman would NEVER go to court with a case so weak in evidence like this one." <<<
He already did. 23 years ago. And he got a conviction.
Let's watch the "Guilty" verdict together now, okay?:
lazu...@webtv.net
inane posts, primarily by lone nutters, you have taken the cake with
this gem"The SBT is a known fact beyond all reasonable doubt" just dwell
on that lurkers...nobody can top this utterance for sheer stupidity...
David Von Pein
>>> "You have taken the cake with this gem: "The SBT is a known fact beyond all reasonable doubt". Just dwell on that lurkers. Nobody can top this utterance for sheer stupidity." <<<
You must've missed Mr. Bugliosi's quote then. Here it is again:
"The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in
its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is
that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... No
sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that
the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of
his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
Pages 489-490 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
REPLAY:
>>> "Nobody can top this utterance for sheer stupidity." <<<
Did Vince's quote above "top" mine?
WORTHY OF AN INSTANT REPLAY:
"No sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the
case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right
part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- V.
Bugliosi
aeffects
hon, they're closing in..... no need for drugs, shithead... you
though? Well, that's another story-another chapter
aeffects
ROTFLMFAO! When you become a comedian, shithead?
a1e...@verizon.net
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ca418...
Nutdroppings!
Attributing the elliptical back wounds on President Kennedy and
Governor Connally to a single bullet requires one either to deny or to
ignore the accepted relationships between the shape of an entry wound
and the shape, direction and orientation of the striking bullet.
In fact, Mr. Edgar of the HSCA caught a self-proclaimed expert denying
the relationship between an elliptical wound and a tangential entry by
non yawed bullet.
Apparently, Larry Sturdivan was unprepared to have someone challenge
his unfounded assertion that a yawed bullet makes an elliptical wound.
He countered the challenged with an argument against the elliptical
wound on Connally's back that discredited the explanation of the
elliptical wound on entry on Kennedy's head.
Although this brief exchange between Mr. Edgar and Mr. Sturdivan was
highly embarrassing, the testimony of Dr. Baden relating to the entry
wound on Kennedy's back was far more damaging to the SBT.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093a.htm
"(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming
what
is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping
the
margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot
wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin
of
the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of
penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body."
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the shirt,
jacket, and tie, marked JFK F-25, F-26, and F-27, be received as
committee exhibits.
Mr. DODD. Without objection.
[The above-referred-to exhibits, JFK F-25, F-26, and F-27, were
received as committee exhibits and photographs made for the record.]
End of quotation.
Naturally, Dr. Baden did not explain how the same bullet could enter
the bullet while going in two different directions.
For these and other reasons, I conclude that the explanation of the
wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally by a single bullet
is neither theory nor fact.
Herbert
David Von Pein
WORTH A REPLAY (JUST FOR THE HUGE LAUGHS):
>>> "[Vincent Bugliosi, Esq.] would NEVER go to court with a case so weak in evidence like this [JFK] one." <<<
Can it possibly get any funnier from the "black is white" CT POV? I
ask you.
I'll quote VB once again (it seems fitting here, what with Rob's post
about there being virtually no evidence at all against poor sweet
LHO):
"OLIVER STONE, IN HIS MOVIE 'JFK', NEVER SAW FIT TO PRESENT FOR
HIS AUDIENCE'S CONSIDERATION ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD
KILLED KENNEDY! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where
there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against
the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one
where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law
against things like this." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 1386 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
aeffects
> >>> "I conclude that the explanation of the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally by a single bullet is neither theory nor fact." <<<
>
>
> That's really strange (even for a CTer).
>
> Conspiracy idiots, of course, are famous for sweeping all the LHO-Did-
> It evidence under the rug (along with their common sense as well), but
> Herbert now seems to want to deny that the SBT even exists as a
> "theory".
ya really need a different script, shithead. For your information up
to 90% of the American public Think and Believe a conspiracy did JFK
in.....So, what the fuck is the matter with you you okd SBT/LHO done
it all by his lonesome fucking IDIOT?
<snip the remaining lone nutters lunacy>
David Von Pein
>>> "I conclude that the explanation of the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally by a single bullet is neither theory nor fact." <<<
????
That's really strange (even for a CTer).
Conspiracy idiots, of course, are famous for sweeping all the LHO-Did-
It evidence under the rug (along with their common sense as well), but
Herbert now seems to want to deny that the SBT even exists as a
"theory".
Weird.
What's next -- will Lee Oswald completely disappear from the
conspiracy theorists' radar screens too? He practically has
disappeared already for many CTers, since they want to pretend he
didn't shoot anybody on November 22nd.
The next crazy theory will probably be -- LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS NEVER
BORN AT ALL.
Maybe John Armstrong can write a "Harvey And Lee" sequel with the
above title.
David Von Pein
>>> "So we should just accept this [the SBT] as fact because the "bugman" [Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.] says it is so?" <<<
No, of course not. And why would you even think that I think such a
crazy thing, Mr. Blubaugh?
I certainly don't need Vince B. to tell me that the Single-Bullet
Theory is true. The SBT is true because the totality of evidence
indicates beyond all possible reasonable doubt that it's true.
In fact, I disagree strongly with VB's "Z210" timeline for the SBT,
and I still have a hard time believing that Dale Myers wasn't able to
convince Vince that Z223-Z224 is the correct SBT Z-Film timing.
Vince is a very smart person, and therefore he should have been able
to easily figure out the obviousness of the Z224 SBT timing.
Regarding that last sentence I just wrote, my guess is this -- Vincent
Bugliosi (being an "old school" type of man, and a person who has an
aversion to computers) has never once seen the following toggling
digital Z-Film clips which show the SBT in action. Because if Vince
HAS seen clips like these (and examined them closely), I cannot
understand how on Earth he could still endorse a Z210 timeline for the
SBT:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4540.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
==========================================
RELATED ARTICLES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
==========================================
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "I conclude that the explanation of the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally by a single bullet is neither theory nor fact." <<<
>
> ????
>
> That's really strange (even for a CTer).
>
> Conspiracy idiots, of course, are famous for sweeping all the LHO-Did-
> It evidence under the rug (along with their common sense as well), but
> Herbert now seems to want to deny that the SBT even exists as a
> "theory".
>
> Weird.
A speculation, such as a single bullet inflicted seven wounds upon
President Kennedy and Governor Connally, becomes a theory by proving
its consistency with all previously accepted and relevant knowledge or
by removing an inconsistency within the previous knowledge.
You must be having a slow decade, David, so let me spell it out to
you.
The Parkland doctors described five wounds, they mistakenly believed
that a single bullet would have inflicted upon a sitting victim.
Connally's back wound is the best-known example. Believing that a
bullet that had previously transited a victim would travel sideways,
Dr. Shaw initially described the back wound as 3 cm, the length of a
MC bullet. Apparently the ballistics people objected that a bullet
traveling sideways had insufficient kinetic energy to exit the chest,
so Shaw changed his description to an elliptical wound. The doctors
averaged the 21-degree declination angle of the bullet with the 27-
degree transit angle with the transverse plane of Connally's body to
give a 24-degree entry angle. They understood that elastic relaxation
of the skin would reduce the smaller dimension of a 6.5-mm elliptical
hole to about 6 mm. However, their calculation of the longer dimension
confused the entry angle with its complementary impact angle. They
calculated the longer axis as 6 mm / sin ( 24 degree ) = 14.8 or the
reported 15-mm length instead of a believable 6 mm / cos ( 24 degree )
= 6.6 mm.
Confront reality, David. The Parkland doctors cheated and got caught.
>
> What's next -- will Lee Oswald completely disappear from the
> conspiracy theorists' radar screens too? He practically has
> disappeared already for many CTers, since they want to pretend he
> didn't shoot anybody on November 22nd.
>
> The next crazy theory will probably be -- LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS NEVER
> BORN AT ALL.
>
> Maybe John Armstrong can write a "Harvey And Lee" sequel with the
> above title.
Do you wipe your mouth after posting?
Herbert
aeffects
> On May 4, 4:38 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
...
>
> Do you wipe your mouth after posting?
ROTFLMFAO!
> Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Confront reality, David." <<<
I have. Long ago.
Perhaps you, Herb, should confront a little common-sense reality by
asking yourself this:
What are the chances that THREE separate (vanishing) bullets
actually did what CE399 is said to have accomplished? (Or even TWO
bullets?)
I await Herbert's logical answer to that reasonable inquiry.
David Von Pein
BTW, Herbert, your "longer axis" calculations are nothing but an
attempt to avoid the obviousness of the SBT.
All anti-SBTers think they can overcome the logicality and doability
of the SBT with some fancy-sounding double-talk (similar to Herbert's
bullshit that he posted above).
But, unfortunately for anti-SBTers, they cannot overcome the fact that
ANY anti-SBT scenario they choose to insert in lieu of the SBT will
invariably collapse under the weight of its own absurdity (not to
mention the total lack of BULLETS that sinks any anti-SBT theory as
well).
Let's see if Herbert can knock down the logic of my last paragraph.
bigdog
No, he can't but he will pepper his reply with lots fo $50 words that
sound impressive but say absolutely nothing. Herbie speaks his own
language known as Blennerese.
a1e...@verizon.net
Source: Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime
James Girard, PhD, American University
ISBN-13: 9780763735296
ISBN-10: 0763735299
$102.95 (Sugg. US List)
Hardcover
482 Pages
© 2008
http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763735296/
See: Page 45 of chapter two or click the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Herbert
a1e...@verizon.net
> BTW, Herbert, your "longer axis" calculations are nothing but an
> attempt to avoid the obviousness of the SBT.
>
> All anti-SBTers think they can overcome the logicality and doability
> of the SBT with some fancy-sounding double-talk (similar to Herbert's
> bullshit that he posted above).
Source: Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime
a1e...@verizon.net
Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering
President Kennedy's back.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
"(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming
what
is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping
the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a
gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower
margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the
instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body."
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA...
"Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives."
So, David, how do you reconcile this medical evidence with any
explanation of the shooting?
Now do you care to discuss the elliptical entry wound on President
Kennedy's head that coincidence with the 15-mm elliptical wound on
Governor Connally's back?
Source: Clark Panel
"Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours
of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the
scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The
position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in
the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long
axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The
wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15
millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone
of abrasion."
Go ahead, Von Pein, and reenforce my prejudice that those who most
vigorously defend the SBT are the least qualified to discuss the
subject.
Herbert
com...@webtv.net
is asking him what is wrong, then "bang" he is shot in the head with
another shot..
so, if you hear some idiot say kennedy was hit by only one bullet , then
you know they are mentally sick or are part of the cover -up...
" HERE COMES WOLVERINE = X-MEN 4 "
aeffects
> BTW, Herbert, your "longer axis" calculations are nothing but an
> attempt to avoid the obviousness of the SBT.
you really should take those golf shoes off, dipshit -- that's gotta
hurt O-U-C-H!
aeffects
speaking of logic, how about some "collective" logic: 75% of ALL adult
Americans believe a conspiracy murdered JFK, 90% of thinking Americans
*know* a conspiracy murdered JFK... so, dipshit knock it down!
David Von Pein
>>> "Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President Kennedy's back." <<<
Bullshit. Baden and the HSCA fully supported the SBT.
Incredibly, the conspiracy lovers want to actually believe that BOTH
the Warren Commission AND the HSCA got it completely wrong when they
BOTH fully endorsed Bullet CE399 penetrating both JFK & JBC.
Now call Michael Baden a liar, Blenner. I'm sure the L word is on the
tip of your tongue right now, isn't it?
>>> "Go ahead, Von Pein, and reenforce my prejudice that those who most vigorously defend the SBT are the least qualified to discuss the subject." <<<
Common sense alone practically proves the SBT. And when the evidence
is added into the mix (on top of CS), it's a done deal and a Mark VII.
Quick Quiz --
If the SBT is a load of shit --- where are the two or three other
bullets that must replace CE399?
Go ahead, Blenner, and solidify my prejudice that conspiracy theorists
don't give a shit about the truth re. JFK's death....they merely want
to bash anything related to the Warren Commission.
David Von Pein
>>> "Go ahead, Von Pein, and reenforce my prejudice that those who most vigorously defend the SBT are the least qualified to discuss the subject." <<<
Does that remark apply to Vincent Bugliosi, Arlen Specter, Norman
Redlich, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg, too? ....
"The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in
its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is
that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And
no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case
that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part
of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally. ....
"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew
that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through
soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally
was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging
from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the
simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among
many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only
Specter saw it? ....
"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well."
-- Vincent Bugliosi
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President Kennedy's back." <<<
>
> Bullshit. Baden and the HSCA fully supported the SBT.
I have noticed that you have snipped the quotations that support my
claim and rather than repeat the text, I post working links to the
quoted paragraphs.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
So tell us whether you are afraid of the evidence or does it just go
over your head.
>
> Incredibly, the conspiracy lovers want to actually believe that BOTH
> the Warren Commission AND the HSCA got it completely wrong when they
> BOTH fully endorsed Bullet CE399 penetrating both JFK & JBC.
Your behavior is typically, LNer. You accept the conclusions and
ignore the underlying evidence that does not support the conclusion.
>
> Now call Michael Baden a liar, Blenner. I'm sure the L word is on the
> tip of your tongue right now, isn't it?
I have posted working links to the text that shows that "Dr. Baden
reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President
Kennedy's back." Now behave as a responsible person and retract your
charge of "Bullshit."
>
> >>> "Go ahead, Von Pein, and reenforce my prejudice that those who most vigorously defend the SBT are the least qualified to discuss the subject." <<<
>
> Common sense alone practically proves the SBT. And when the evidence
> is added into the mix (on top of CS), it's a done deal and a Mark VII.
>
> Quick Quiz --
>
> If the SBT is a load of shit --- where are the two or three other
> bullets that must replace CE399?
>
> Go ahead, Blenner, and solidify my prejudice that conspiracy theorists
> don't give a shit about the truth re. JFK's death....they merely want
> to bash anything related to the Warren Commission.
Do you mean bash as in criticizing the three Parkland doctors and one
ballistic "expert" who agreed that a bullet fired with an approximate
45-degree declination angle from a range of between 160 ft and 250 ft
could have inflicted the wounds upon President Kennedy and Governor
Connally? Candidly, David, I believe that you and your LN cohorts are
too ignorant to even comprehend the absurdity of what the WC presented
as its explanation of the shooting.
Herbert
David Von Pein
What's even more "absurd", Mr. Blenner, is ANY theory that the CTers
need to replace the SBT.
You do realize, don't you Mr. Blenner, that the two victims WERE both
shot IN THE BACK from behind on 11/22/63, right?
And you do realize, don't you, that CE399 is the only bullet that can
be connected to ANY of JFK's or JBC's wounds (save Kennedy's head
wounds), right?
And you do realize, don't you, that if the SBT is a pile of excrement,
that would mean that some OTHER theory/scenario is correct, right?
Now....what might that alternate non-SBT theory be, Herb?
Take a crack at it. I'll bet your scenario won't sound any more
ridiculous than any other loopy CTer's.
Or don't you think you need to supply an alternative to the SBT? Is
merely saying the SBT is shit good enough...despite your lack of
bullets and your lack of substantial enough injuries inside JFK's neck/
back to account for TWO stopped-on-a-dime missiles?
I love doing this. You anti-SBT kooks make this so easy. You DO
realize that fact...don't you Blenner?
David Von Pein
>>> "I have posted working links to the text that shows that "Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President Kennedy's back." Now behave as a responsible person and retract your charge of "Bullshit." " <<<
I will retract nothing. In fact I'll add another "Bullshit" to the one
I previously posted, because your silliness about the bullet "going
two different ways" is just dumb. Obviously, Baden didn't think the
ONE bullet that entered JFK's back was "going two different ways" when
it entered JFK's upper back. That's just retarded. Not to mention
physically impossible.
In the final analysis, Baden and the HSCA (like the Warren Commission
15 years before it) utilized the common sense that God gave each of
them and they came to the ONLY possible conclusion given the sum total
of evidence (and the lack of evidence, i.e., there are NO OTHER
BULLETS in evidence besides CE399 that could account for the double-
man wounding of Kennedy and Connally)....and that conclusion is, of
course, the S.B.T.
As Vince said -- a child could author the SBT due to its obvious
correctness.
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "I have posted working links to the text that shows that "Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President Kennedy's back." Now behave as a responsible person and retract your charge of "Bullshit." " <<<
>
> I will retract nothing. In fact I'll add another "Bullshit" to the one
> I previously posted, because your silliness about the bullet "going
> two different ways" is just dumb. Obviously, Baden didn't think the
> ONE bullet that entered JFK's back was "going two different ways" when
> it entered JFK's upper back. That's just retarded. Not to mention
> physically impossible.
You are really slow, David. The quoted reports show that two objects
applied forces with substantially different directions upon the back
and produced a composite wound. One object produced the hole and
margins while the second object caused the oval abrasion. In other
words, the Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an
altered wound.
Do you really expect Doctor Baden to have ruined his career or those
of his colleagues by explicitly stating the proper conclusion from the
reports of the outside experts? Under the circumstances, Baden acting
as spokesperson for the Forensic Pathology Panel did the proper thing.
The panel protected their members by clearly disclosing evidence of an
altered back wound and allowed the reader to reach their own
conclusions.
Since I am in a mischievous mood, I will give you another opportunity
to make a fool of yourself. I dare you to deny or attempt to reconcile
the following contradictory statements describing Kennedy's back
wound, which the FPP published.
1. "The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound,
evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration
was slightly upward in relation to the body."
2. "The abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9
o'clock, which would indicate a directionality from right to left and
toward the middle part of the body, which was the impression of the
doctors on reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives."
BTW, you missed Baden's error in the second quoted paragraph in which
he call the abrasion an abrasion collar.
>
> In the final analysis, Baden and the HSCA (like the Warren Commission
> 15 years before it) utilized the common sense that God gave each of
> them and they came to the ONLY possible conclusion given the sum total
> of evidence (and the lack of evidence, i.e., there are NO OTHER
> BULLETS in evidence besides CE399 that could account for the double-
> man wounding of Kennedy and Connally)....and that conclusion is, of
> course, the S.B.T.
>
> As Vince said -- a child could author the SBT due to its obvious
> correctness.
An overdose of childhood naiveness makes the SBT easier to swallow.
Intellectually mature individuals recognize that your argument for the
SBT assumes and is totally dependent upon having all the surrounding
physical evidence standing without contradiction. Without doubt, the
failure of the medical evidence to satisfy this requirement
invalidates your procedure.
If we accept the firearm identification that placed the shooter on the
sixth floor of the TSBD and if we accept the filmed and eyewitness
evidence that placed the victims at known locations with close to
upright postures when shot then knowledgeable people can synthesize
the wounds.
To make a long discussion short, I will simply paraphrase a key result
of the synthesis. The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round
with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle.
Why even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4
mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle.
Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back
and thigh. I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable
time.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "You are really slow, David." <<<
And you have no common sense it would appear, Herbert.
>>> "The quoted reports show that two objects applied forces with substantially different directions upon the back and produced a composite wound. One object produced the hole and margins while the second object caused the oval abrasion. In other words, the Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an altered wound." <<<
Correct, the upper-back wound was "altered". And it was "altered" by
Dr. James Joseph Humes (via his silly pinky probe).
~Mark VII~
And Herbert's next silly argument against the SBT will be....?
~envelope please~
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Bugman would NEVER go to court with a case so weak in evidence like this one." <<<
>
> He already did. 23 years ago. And he got a conviction.
LOL!! So Dave is equating a rigged "Law & Order" like trial to a real
one???? YOU make a mockery of our country's principles with every
post! It is funny how he had to got to jolly old England for this
"trial", huh?
> Let's watch the "Guilty" verdict together now, okay?:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FiTHZutGw
>
> www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1993B641DFC1CB06
robc...@netscape.com
> WORTH A REPLAY (JUST FOR THE HUGE LAUGHS):
>
> >>> "[Vincent Bugliosi, Esq.] would NEVER go to court with a case so weak in evidence like this [JFK] one." <<<
>
> Can it possibly get any funnier from the "black is white" CT POV? I
> ask you.
NOTICE how Dave SKIPPED the part about NO proof being offered for the
SBT, thus it CAN'T be a FACT???? Funny how he latched on to this part
of my statement while totally IGNORING the other part, huh?
This guy is kookier than McAdams as even he knows the SBT is hardly
FACT!!!
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "You are really slow, David." <<<
>
> And you have no common sense it would appear, Herbert.
Commander Humes verbally described a 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole in
President Kennedy's back whose longer axis was roughly parallel to the
vertical column. Humes directed Rydberg in drawing a picture of this
and the head wound. The commission published the drawing as CE 386.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501a.htm
The FPP showed us the Dox drawing of the back wound with the longer 10
mm axis of the surrounding abrasion nearly perpendicular to the
vertical column.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm
Discussions by the FPP of the lacerations, tears and suggested
undermine of tissues confirmed Humes placement of the longer axis of
the bullet hole as approximately parallel to the vertical column.
>
> >>> "The quoted reports show that two objects applied forces with substantially different directions upon the back and produced a composite wound. One object produced the hole and margins while the second object caused the oval abrasion. In other words, the Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an altered wound." <<<
>
> Correct, the upper-back wound was "altered". And it was "altered" by
> Dr. James Joseph Humes (via his silly pinky probe).
No reasonable person would even attempt to insert a 12-mm pinky into a
4-mm hole. Instead, a physician or a prosector may use the finger to
probe around the bullet hole in search of a tunneling wound track or a
bullet beneath the surface.
>
> ~Mark VII~
>
> And Herbert's next silly argument against the SBT will be....?
>
> ~envelope please~
Further, a pinky consists of soft tissues whose strength is comparable
with the soft tissues of the back. Common sense would tell us that if
the pinky permanently deformed the bullet hole then the stresses would
have similarly twisted the pinky. In other words, your silly excuse
that the pinky twisted the bullet hole about ninety degrees requires
that the common stresses severely twisted the probing pinky out of
shape.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "Your silly excuse that the pinky twisted the bullet hole..." <<<
The theory of Dr. Humes' pinky probe possibly distorting the entry
wound makes a heck of a lot more sense than your theory about the
wound being "altered".
BTW, I'm curious to know HOW the super-fast team of covert surgeons at
Walter Reed "altered" that back wound?
And furthermore, WHY would they have wanted to "alter" it? It's
obviously an ENTRY wound (which could lead back to the TSBD and
everybody's favorite "patsy" named Oswald).
Or do you, Herb, want to pretend that the covert surgeons at Walter
Reed "altered" that wound in order to turn an EXIT wound in JFK's
upper back into a perfect-looking small ENTRY wound?
Say hi to David Lifton for me, will ya?
a1e...@verizon.net
Challenging you to post evidence that I accept the Lifton theory would
be a waste of my time. Instead being fully confident of my rejection
of Lifton, I unequivocally state that being a pathological liar, Mr.
Von Pein, does not qualify you to discuss forensics.
Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein
>>> "Challenging you to post evidence that I accept the Lifton theory would be a waste of my time." <<<
You said as plain as day in a previous post that you think the back
wound was "altered", Herb. That certainly places you into David S.
Lifton's kooky "The Body Was Altered Before The Autopsy" territory.
What the heck was I supposed to think when you said that the FPP was
describing an "altered [upper-back] wound"? That's a Lifton-esque
comment if I ever heard one.
Or would you like to retract this statement?.....
"The Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an
altered wound." -- Herbert Blenner; 05/05/09
>>> "I unequivocally state that being a pathological liar, Mr. Von Pein, does not qualify you to discuss forensics." <<<
I challenge you, Mr. Blenner, to quote one "lie" in any of my forum
posts.
I'll save you the time -- you won't find one.
And yet (somehow) I'm supposedly a "pathological liar". That
incredibly-stupid comment about me by Blenner gains ol' Herb
admittance into the very crowded "Kook Club" here at the acj asylum
full of conspiracy-thirsty nutcases.
Congratulations, Mr. Blenner. You made it. The "pathological liar"
hunk of hilarity pushed you over the top (way over).
aeffects
Mr. Von Pein can't help himself... besides, he's off stage when he
begins to tell the truth. And, .john won't have any of that!
> Herbert Blenner
David Von Pein
>>> "The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle." <<<
LOL.
And just exactly HOW on this green Earth of ours does Herbert "Mr.
Forensics" Blenner think he's going to go about the task of proving
that last silly statement of his?
How does Mr. Blenner KNOW for a fact that the hole in Kennedy's back
"HAD TO BE ROUND"?
And Blenner's "with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a
perfect circle" comment just might make the "CT-Kook Hall-Of-Fame" of
speculative, idiotic statements.
Hint for Blenner -- The bullet entered at a 17.43-degree downward
angle from Oswald's 6th-Floor TSBD window. I.E., it didn't enter JFK's
back 'straight on'.
And yet Blenner thinks the bullet hole "had to be round".
Talk about egotistical bluster. Herb's got it down cold.
>>> "Even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle." <<<
Just two words are needed in response here:
So what?
>>> "Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back and thigh." <<<
The bullet was tumbling into Connally's back, of course, after exiting
Kennedy's throat. Given these parameters, if you think that you can
apply geometric precision and your own silly brand of "The Bullet
Holes In The Victims MUST Have Been A Certain Size Because I Say So"
logic to both Kennedy's and Connally's wounds, then you're farther off
the deep end of the CT scale than I thought.
>>> "I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable time." <<<
Yeah. Me too. Definitely.
Your analytical mumbo-jumbo is a total waste of anybody's time, mainly
because your mumbo-jumbo doesn't prove anything, and it most certainly
does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5-mm. Carcano bullet as
having been the bullet that struck both JFK and JBC, and your mumbo-
jumbo (aka: bullshit) most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey
Oswald as the gunman who fired Bullet CE399 into the bodies of both
John Kennedy and John Connally.
In short -- Herbert Blenner's nonsensical mumbo-jumbo/BS doesn't go
anywhere (as per the norm for conspiracy-happy theorists).
Just ask James DiEugenio. He's one of the kings of propping up
meaningless chaff and pretending it actually means something
substantial.
It looks like Herb's in the same league as chaff-happy DiEugenio. And
that's not a league that anyone should have a desire to be in.
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> And just exactly HOW on this green Earth of ours does Herbert "Mr.
> Forensics" Blenner think he's going to go about the task of proving
> that last silly statement of his?
>
> How does Mr. Blenner KNOW for a fact that the hole in Kennedy's back
> "HAD TO BE ROUND"?
>
> And Blenner's "with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a
> perfect circle" comment just might make the "CT-Kook Hall-Of-Fame" of
> speculative, idiotic statements.
>
> Hint for Blenner -- The bullet entered at a 17.43-degree downward
> angle from Oswald's 6th-Floor TSBD window. I.E., it didn't enter JFK's
> back 'straight on'.
>
> And yet Blenner thinks the bullet hole "had to be round".
>
> Talk about egotistical bluster. Herb's got it down cold.
Hey, Mister know-it-all. Take a look at what real forensic analysts
do. They relate the cosine of the incidence angle of the bullet to the
length of the minor axis divided by the length of the major axis.
Cosine ( 17.43 degree ) = 0.954 = 6.0 mm / x mm.
Solving gives x = 6.3 mm.
By the way 17 degree 43 minute does not equal 17.43 degree and more
important you have ignored curvature of the back that made the
incidence or striking angle of the bullet less than its declination
angle.
Alternately the incidence angle associated with a 6 mm by 6.5 mm
elliptical bullet hole becomes the inverse cosine of 6 mm / 6.5 mm or
22.6 degree.
>
> >>> "Even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle." <<<
>
> Just two words are needed in response here:
>
> So what?
The incidence angle associated with the 7 mm by 4 mm bullet hole in
Kennedy's back becomes about 42 degree after accounting for elastic
relaxation and swell of tissue.
>
> >>> "Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back and thigh." <<<
>
> The bullet was tumbling into Connally's back, of course, after exiting
> Kennedy's throat. Given these parameters, if you think that you can
> apply geometric precision and your own silly brand of "The Bullet
> Holes In The Victims MUST Have Been A Certain Size Because I Say So"
> logic to both Kennedy's and Connally's wounds, then you're farther off
> the deep end of the CT scale than I thought.
Nobody reported seeing a 15-mm rectangular wound on Connally's back.
Instead the Parkland doctors reported an elliptical wound with a 15-mm
longer axis. So the visual evidence disallows entry by a tumbling
bullet and requires a tangential entry by a properly aligned bullet.
>
> >>> "I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable time." <<<
>
> Yeah. Me too. Definitely.
>
> Your analytical mumbo-jumbo is a total waste of anybody's time, mainly
> because your mumbo-jumbo doesn't prove anything, and it most certainly
> does not eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's 6.5-mm. Carcano bullet as
> having been the bullet that struck both JFK and JBC, and your mumbo-
> jumbo (aka: bullshit) most certainly does not eliminate Lee Harvey
> Oswald as the gunman who fired Bullet CE399 into the bodies of both
> John Kennedy and John Connally.
>
> In short -- Herbert Blenner's nonsensical mumbo-jumbo/BS doesn't go
> anywhere (as per the norm for conspiracy-happy theorists).
What you call "mumbo-jumbo/BS" appears in college textbooks on crime
scene analysis.
Source: Criminalistics: Forensic Science and Crime
James Girard, PhD, American University
http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763735296/
See: Page 45 of chapter two or click the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/holegeometry.jpg
Herbert
>
a1e...@verizon.net
> >>> "I have posted working links to the text that shows that "Dr. Baden reported a bullet going two different ways while entering President Kennedy's back." Now behave as a responsible person and retract your charge of "Bullshit." " <<<
>
> I will retract nothing. In fact I'll add another "Bullshit" to the one
> I previously posted, because your silliness about the bullet "going
> two different ways" is just dumb. Obviously, Baden didn't think the
> ONE bullet that entered JFK's back was "going two different ways" when
> it entered JFK's upper back. That's just retarded. Not to mention
> physically impossible.
You are really slow, David. The quoted reports show that two objects
applied forces with substantially different directions upon the back
and produced a composite wound. One object produced the hole and
margins while the second object caused the oval abrasion. In other
words, the Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an
altered wound.
Do you really expect Doctor Baden to have ruined his career or those
of his colleagues by explicitly stating the proper conclusion from the
reports of the outside experts? Under the circumstances, Baden acting
as spokesperson for the Forensic Pathology Panel did the proper thing.
The panel protected their members by clearly disclosing evidence of an
altered back wound and allowed the reader to reach their own
conclusions.
Since I am in a mischievous mood, I will give you another opportunity
to make a fool of yourself. I dare you to deny or attempt to reconcile
the following contradictory statements describing Kennedy's back
wound, which the FPP published.
1. "The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound,
evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration
was slightly upward in relation to the body."
2. "The abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9
o'clock, which would indicate a directionality from right to left and
toward the middle part of the body, which was the impression of the
doctors on reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives."
BTW, you missed Baden's error in the second quoted paragraph in which
he call the abrasion an abrasion collar.
>
> In the final analysis, Baden and the HSCA (like the Warren Commission
> 15 years before it) utilized the common sense that God gave each of
> them and they came to the ONLY possible conclusion given the sum total
> of evidence (and the lack of evidence, i.e., there are NO OTHER
> BULLETS in evidence besides CE399 that could account for the double-
> man wounding of Kennedy and Connally)....and that conclusion is, of
> course, the S.B.T.
>
> As Vince said -- a child could author the SBT due to its obvious
> correctness.
An overdose of childhood naiveness makes the SBT easier to swallow.
Intellectually mature individuals recognize that your argument for the
SBT assumes and is totally dependent upon having all the surrounding
physical evidence standing without contradiction. Without doubt, the
failure of the medical evidence to satisfy this requirement
invalidates your procedure.
If we accept the firearm identification that placed the shooter on the
sixth floor of the TSBD and if we accept the filmed and eyewitness
evidence that placed the victims at known locations with close to
upright postures when shot then knowledgeable people can synthesize
the wounds.
To make a long discussion short, I will simply paraphrase a key result
of the synthesis. The bullet hole in Kennedy's back had to be round
with not more than a half millimeter deviation from a perfect circle.
Why even a naive child could tell you that the medically documented 4
mm by 7 mm oval hole was not even close to a circle.
Similar considerations apply to the entry wounds on Connally's back
and thigh. I would continue but I have depleted my supply of wasteable
time.
Herbert
lazu...@webtv.net
fact" so, Von Pein, Myers, Russo..have all said this, didn't Vince state
this too? I know he has in so many words, but if so brazenly, and
arrogantly stating this dubious expedient solution to conspiracy as
fact..that's all you need to know....
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've asked you this before, Herbie. Just what are your qualifications
to discuss forensic medicine? The word amateur comes to mind whenever
I read your pontifications.
bigdog
Does any CT have the stones to accept this challenge. If you reject
the SBT, step up to the plate and provide a shot specific scenario as
an alternative. Unless you want to offer an alternate SBT, you have to
explain at least two shots to account for all the wounds except for
JFK's head wound. It's really very simple. Just provide the specifics
for each of the non-head wounds suffered by JFK and JBC.
The LN version goes something like this:
"At or about Zapruder frame 223, a shot fired from the 6th floor of
the TSBD struck JFK in the upper back just to the right of his spine,
exited from the center of his throat and tumbled into the back of JBC
just below his right armpit. The bullet exited just below his right
nipple, blowing out a section of his rib. That bullet then smashed
through his right wrist and went on to cause a superficial wound in
JBC's left thigh but did not imbed."
That wasn't so hard, was it? Can any CT provide the same sort of
specificity to explain the above wounds. Feel free to place your
shooter(s) anywhere you want. Feel free to use as many shots as you
deem necessary. Feel free to place the shots at whatever frames of the
Zapruder film you think appropriate. Feel free to postulate these
shots without any evidence to support them. You don't have to prove it
happened any particular way. Just tell us how you think it could have
happened. Just be specific about where the shots were fired from and
at about when in the Z-film they were fired.
Having made similar challenges numerous times in the past, I think I
can safely say that no CT will take this on. There might be some who
will offer some very nebulous scenario with as few specifics as
possible, but no one will offer an explaination as specific as the one
I gave to describe the SBT.
Come on, CTs. Anyone up to the challenge?
aeffects
bigdog-little dickie, how are you hon? How is Justme1952 the wifey?
Now who the fuck are you to ask anyone their qualifications regarding
ANYTHING shithead? A two-bit piece of human detirus such as you asking
questions?
Shithead, you're here to support the WCR and ANSWER questions, you
fucking moron. Now get on the fucking ball, was that tuna bullshit off
of ya and get busy shithead, YoHarvey needs your sorry ass.....
a1e...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Applying mathematics to solve physical problems was my profession of
thirty years. So this background places my work in the category of
professional.
More important my knowledge of physics enables me to place the
forensic level of the assassination literature beneath amateur and on
par with sophomoric. The title,
"Summary of the Forensic Pathologists' Perspective on Wound
Ballistics" comes to mind.
The last time that I posted my critique of the perspective you ran
away without even trying to defend your false gods. Do you care for a
rematch, bigdog?
Herbert
bigdog
called on to present an analysis dealing with forensic medicine. Or is
this your first stab at it?
> More important my knowledge of physics enables me to place the
> forensic level of the assassination literature beneath amateur and on
> par with sophomoric. The title,
> "Summary of the Forensic Pathologists' Perspective on Wound
> Ballistics" comes to mind.
>
> The last time that I posted my critique of the perspective you ran
> away without even trying to defend your false gods. Do you care for a
> rematch, bigdog?
>
Just when would that be, Herbie? As I recall the last time we
discussed the medical evidence I asked you to explain how a bullet
striking JBC tangentially below his right armpit could exit below his
right nipple? Did you ever answer that question? Did I miss it?
a1e...@verizon.net
Obviously you fail to understand that the highly unusual circumstances
of the assassination demanded far more in the way of analytical skills
than processed by even the leading forensic analysts. Despite these
circumstances the WC and the HSCA employed medical doctors and
"Madison Avenue" specialists who did not even know the difference
between a speed and a velocity.
My professional experience has included the design of tools for
punching holes in deformable composites. Given the substantial costs
of tool making, an engineer does not get a second try at the design.
They either get it correct the first time or accede to the request for
their resignation.
>
> > More important my knowledge of physics enables me to place the
> > forensic level of the assassination literature beneath amateur and on
> > par with sophomoric. The title,
> > "Summary of the Forensic Pathologists' Perspective on Wound
> > Ballistics" comes to mind.
>
> > The last time that I posted my critique of the perspective you ran
> > away without even trying to defend your false gods. Do you care for a
> > rematch, bigdog?
>
> Just when would that be, Herbie? As I recall the last time we
> discussed the medical evidence I asked you to explain how a bullet
> striking JBC tangentially below his right armpit could exit below his
> right nipple? Did you ever answer that question? Did I miss it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You did not miss my answer and expressed extreme dislike for my
conclusion that Shaw doctored his report of the 15-mm elliptical back
wound. Do you want me to rub your nose in the tantrum you had after I
showed you up on this point?
Herbert
bigdog
about tools. We aren't talking about rigid metal objects. We are
talking about a flexible human body. It is not going to behave in the
same manner as the materials you spent your professional life dealing
with. There are a number of factors you fail to take into account.
Primarily, JFK's upper back was not vertical when struck. Elm St.
itself had a 3 degree slope. Even if JFK were sitting bolt upright on
a level surface, his upper back would not be vertical. There is a
natural slope above the shoulder blades on any normal human being. The
amount of that slope will vary slightly from one person to another,
but it is most certainly there. In short, without establishing the
tilt of JFK's upper back at the instant the bullet struck, your
calculations are worthless. Take a hint, Herbie. Leave the medical
analysis to the pros. As for the "Madison Avenue" specialists you
refer to, I have no idea who you are talking about.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > More important my knowledge of physics enables me to place the
> > > forensic level of the assassination literature beneath amateur and on
> > > par with sophomoric. The title,
> > > "Summary of the Forensic Pathologists' Perspective on Wound
> > > Ballistics" comes to mind.
>
> > > The last time that I posted my critique of the perspective you ran
> > > away without even trying to defend your false gods. Do you care for a
> > > rematch, bigdog?
>
> > Just when would that be, Herbie? As I recall the last time we
> > discussed the medical evidence I asked you to explain how a bullet
> > striking JBC tangentially below his right armpit could exit below his
> > right nipple? Did you ever answer that question? Did I miss it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You did not miss my answer and expressed extreme dislike for my
> conclusion that Shaw doctored his report of the 15-mm elliptical back
> wound. Do you want me to rub your nose in the tantrum you had after I
> showed you up on this point?
>
statement again. I wanted to see you resort to the time honored CT
tactic of claiming the evidence is fraudulent when the evidence
doesn't fit your theory.
a1e...@verizon.net
What part of "deformable composites" do you fail to understand. These
materials are not rigid nor simple. They are as flexible as body parts
and behave in a similar manner. The reason for this should be obvious.
Engineers use deformable composites to design, evaluate and test
replacement parts for the body.
> There are a number of factors you fail to take into account.
> Primarily, JFK's upper back was not vertical when struck.
My calculations did not assume that JFK's upper back was vertical or
made any specified angle with the vertical when shot. Instead, I
calculated the angle between the tangent plane at the entry wound and
the vertical from knowledge of two other angles.
> Elm St. itself had a 3 degree slope.
The slope of Elm Street was included in the surveyor's measurement of
the declination angle of the bullet.
> Even if JFK were sitting bolt upright on
> a level surface, his upper back would not be vertical. There is a
> natural slope above the shoulder blades on any normal human being. The
> amount of that slope will vary slightly from one person to another,
> but it is most certainly there. In short, without establishing the
> tilt of JFK's upper back at the instant the bullet struck, your
> calculations are worthless.
I have posted my calculations at the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
In particular I calculated the lean angle between the tangent plane at
the back wound and the vertical as the declination angle of the bullet
minus the incidence angle of the striking bullet.
The declination angle depends upon the location of the victim in
relation to the shooter. A surveyor in the sniper's nest placed the
crosshairs of their scope on a particular spot on Elm Street and read
the declination angle from the calibrated circle of the instrument.
This angle included the effect of the slope of Elm and required no
adjustment. Further the remoteness of the shooter from the victim
renders the declination angle practically independent of the victim
tilt
For an oval or elliptical bullet hole, the angle of incidence depends
upon the major axis, minor axis and the diameter of the bullet. So the
incidence angle being determined by the medically documented shape and
dimensions of the bullet hole is unaffected by the tilt of JFK's back
when shot.
The bottom line is neither the declination nor the incidence angles
depend upon the tilt. So the relationship between the three angles,
namely tilt equals declination minus incidence, gives the tilt angle
and shows the fallacy of your claim.
> Take a hint, Herbie. Leave the medical
> analysis to the pros. As for the "Madison Avenue" specialists you
> refer to, I have no idea who you are talking about.
>
Do you mean that I should leave the analysis to Doctors Carrico or
Perry who agreed that a bullet with a declination angle of about 45
degree at a range of between 160 and 250 foot could have inflicted
President Kennedy's back and throat wounds?
Or were you suggesting that I should become a follower of Doctor
Gregory who allowed a bullet with a declination angle of about 45
degree at a range of between 160 to 250 ft to have inflicted all the
wounds upon Governor Connally?
Go ahead bigdog and show us that you know what you are talking about
by calculating the span of heights of the shooter above their victims
in the previous two scenarios approved by the medical doctors.
>
>
>
>
> > > > More important my knowledge of physics enables me to place the
> > > > forensic level of the assassination literature beneath amateur and on
> > > > par with sophomoric. The title,
> > > > "Summary of the Forensic Pathologists' Perspective on Wound
> > > > Ballistics" comes to mind.
>
> > > > The last time that I posted my critique of the perspective you ran
> > > > away without even trying to defend your false gods. Do you care for a
> > > > rematch, bigdog?
>
> > > Just when would that be, Herbie? As I recall the last time we
> > > discussed the medical evidence I asked you to explain how a bullet
> > > striking JBC tangentially below his right armpit could exit below his
> > > right nipple? Did you ever answer that question? Did I miss it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You did not miss my answer and expressed extreme dislike for my
> > conclusion that Shaw doctored his report of the 15-mm elliptical back
> > wound. Do you want me to rub your nose in the tantrum you had after I
> > showed you up on this point?
>
> No, I was just trying to bait you into making that ridiculous
> statement again. I wanted to see you resort to the time honored CT
> tactic of claiming the evidence is fraudulent when the evidence
> doesn't fit your theory.
Doctor Shaw made the case for "fraudulent" evidence when he told the
HSCA of the small tunneling wound beneath the surface of the
previously reported elliptical surface wound with a 15-mm longer
axis.
A MC bullet tumbled at an angle of about 30 degree makes a 15-mm wound
whose shape resembles a rectangle with rounded corners. Further the
wound track beneath the surface is at least as large as the surface
wound. So both criteria of the reported shape and size exclude a
tumbled and demands a tangential entry by a non tumbled bullet.
Of course, we all recognize the incompatibility of the locations of
the exit and entry wounds for a tangential strike. No wonder the
defenders of the faith must contradict the forensic crowd by
pretending that a tumbled bullet makes an elliptical wound.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
You are so full of shit is is a joke. You have to move the fucking
exit wound in Connally's chest to make your ridiculous theory work.
The bullet exited below Connally's right nipple. The bullet hole in
his jacket was on the right side. If you say otherwise, you are a
fucking fool. You are truly fucked up. When people have to change the
evidence to make their case, there is simply no point in trying to
talk sense to them. You have convinced yourself you are right and the
evidence be damned. If the evidence doesn't fit your theory, it is the
evidence that is wrong. Go on living in your ridiculous fantasy world.
a1e...@verizon.net
bigdog is so full of shxt. He has to pretend that I moved the fxcking
exit wound
in Connally's chest in order to misrepresent my critique of the
evidence as a "ridiculous theory."
My paragraph immediately above bigdog's outburst recognized the
incompatibility of the locations of the exit and entry wounds for a
tangential strike. I wrote:
"Of course, we all recognize the incompatibility of the locations of
the exit and entry wounds for a tangential strike. No onder the
defenders of the faith must contradict the forensic crowd by
pretending that a tumbled bullet makes an elliptical wound."
If you believe people do not notice your disgraceful tactics then you
a truly fxcked up fool. Certainly, I recognize conversing with you is
pointless and reply to your oral diarrhea for the sole benefit of
readers. Well not quite, I have also enjoyed manipulating you to
publicly post another tantrum.
Herbert
aeffects
Herb....
bigdog is a simpleminded troll (not even a lone nut) that Gil Jesus
recently outed as a fraud.
Your research has his mind spinning, he even needs others to create
thread responses which he then copies and posts as his own.
If you're going to feed the asshole, feed him birdseed, the asshole
hasn't has a decent bowel movement in months..... where, oh WHERE is
Justme1952 when her hubby (bigdog-little dickee) is in dire
straights...
bigdog
Okay, let's try this again. You made the following statement earlier
in the thread:
"> > > Of course, we all recognize the incompatibility of the
locations of
> > > the exit and entry wounds for a tangential strike. No wonder the
> > > defenders of the faith must contradict the forensic crowd by
> > > pretending that a tumbled bullet makes an elliptical wound."
So what exactly are you saying? Are you saying it was not a tangential
strike? Are you saying the entrance wound was mislocated? Are you
saying the exit wound was mislocated? You have recognized the
incompatibility of the entrance/exit wound locations with a tangential
strike. So which part of the equation do you believe is wrong?
Anyone want to bet Herbie won't give a straight forward answer?