Lattimer
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Lattimer Destroys himself with the Bullshit in his book.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1166500599.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>I couldn't agree more . I purchased the book soon after publishing and it
> remains to this day the turning point in my having no doubt about a lone
> gunman , to a absolute and unshakable conviction of there being only one
> gunman. Dr. Lattimers tests have been and remain to this day a sticky
> proposition for CTer's , a heavy burden upon their shoulders , that grows
> daily by their inability to counter and last but not least and most
> important of all , a embarrassment to that ' Community ' for having
> damaged it's reputation , by experimentation , it's conclusions proved
> that what conspiracists had been saying for years , was a absolute lie and
> they've never regained they stature since his publication . The proofs in
> the pudding as they say , why , if the ' Critical Community ' spends a
> great deal of time and resources on and indeed does nothing else besides ,
> writings based on speculating , assuming , theorizing , analyzing ,
> postulating and catagorizing to reach it's conclusions of conspiracy ,
> with out any real world testing , should they be taken seriously ? This is
> without taking into consideration that they also jump to conclusions ,
> mis-use and mis-handle data and evidence , they misquote and by taking
> only sentences out of context of a broader based meaning , represent them
> to mean the opposite of the intended meaning stated . They've used all the
> tricks of the trade to prop up a failed conspiracy and BTW have been
> caught red handed in every attempt to do so
> ..............................................TL
>
>
>
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1166309907....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Reading Doctor Lattimer's descriptions of the wounds inflicted upon
>> > President Kennedy and Governor Connally reminds me of the quip, "If the
>> > facts don't fit your theory then change the facts." For example,
>> > Lattimer describes Kennedy's back wound as "almost round and
>> > approximately 6.5 mm. in diameter."
>>
>> It was almost round and it was just beyond 6.5mm in one dimension.
>>
>> >
>> > According to Commander Humes, Kennedy's oval back wound "measured 7 by
>> > 4 millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of
>> > vertical column."
>>
>> He may have been going on his own estimates after viewing the pictures.
>>
>> >
>> > The Clark Panel described the marginal abrasion surrounding Kennedy's
>> > back wound as approximately 10 by 7 millimeters. So the smaller
>> > dimensions reported by Humes represented the punched hole in the back.
>> > In both cases the eccentricity of the punched hole and the abraded
>> > margin shows that Lattimer changed the shape and sizes of Kennedy's
>> > back wound to fit his story.
>>
>> Not really. 10x7mm is "almost round". 7x4mm is "almost round".
>>
>> >
>> > Lattimer treated Connally's back wound in the same unsanitary manner as
>> > Kennedy's back wound. He doubled the reported 1.5 centimeter longest
>> > diameter of Connally's elliptical back wound to fit the exact length of
>> > bullet 399.
>>
>> That's because the operative report says that, Herbert. Many have made
>> that
>> mistake. It
>> continues today.
>>
>> Needless to say, Lattimer failed to mention the elliptical
>> > shape of Connally's back wound and shamelessly attributed its length to
>> > a bullet tumbling end over end.
>>
>> Do you think that most who know anything about ballistics would assume
>> that
>> any entrance wound
>> that is greater than 1.5cm in length might be elliptical? Or, since
>> Lattimer
>> says 3cm, do you think that
>> others feel that he was shot with a 30mm round?
>>
>> While you might disagree, I think it is plainly obvious that the wound
>> was
>> elliptical. In addition, his own
>> experimentation (along with mine) has shown that the bullets do tumble
>> upon
>> exit, Herbert.
>>
>> >
>> > They say that consistency is a virtue so Lattimer's discussions of
>> > Connally's wrist wounds reveal his saving grace. He omitted essential
>> > details, changed size of a wound and drew the wrong conclusions.
>>
>> Or you just don't like the conclusions.
>>
>> >
>> > Dr. Gregory described a wound on the back of Connally's wrist that was
>> > 5 centimeter from the wrist joint. On the front side of the wrist,
>> > Gregory reported another wound located 2 centimeter above the wrist
>> > crease. For a wrist thickness of 3 centimeter the positions of these
>> > wounds infer a tangential transit by a bullet with an approximate
>> > 45-degree angle of incidence.
>>
>> 3cm wrist? Mine is about 4.5-5cm in thickness.
>>
>> Coincidentally the ignored 7 by 4
>> > millimeter dimensions of Kennedy's oval back wound also infers an
>> > approximate 45-degree angle of incidence.
>>
>> Or not. Nobody has actually bothered to test the effect of abrasion
>> collars
>> on curved surfaces at different angles to the rifle. This is still an
>> oft-repeated
>> hypothesis.
>>
>> In both cases Lattimer failed
>> > to provide details to disclose that tangential strikes produced these
>> > wounds.
>>
>> Tangential strike? Is this the 'anything that isn't perfectly
>> perpendicular'
>> must
>> be tangential argument again?
>>
>> >
>> > Lattimer shaved 25 percent from the reported 2.5 centimeter length of
>> > the linear wound on the back of Connally's wrist and true to form
>> > omitted the 0.5 centimeter smaller dimension.
>>
>> Gregory's report lists the wound at 2.0cm in length.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm
>>
>> >By doing so he concealed
>> > the problem of a tangential strike with yaw producing a wound whose
>> > smaller dimension was less than the diameter of the bullet. This
>> > occurrence requires an angular coincidence of yaw and incidence on both
>> > sides of Connally's wrist since the transverse wound on the front side
>> > also had a smaller dimension of 0.5 centimeter.
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't require your interpretation.
>>
>> >
>> > Undaunted by the facts, Lattimer asserts that the bullet was still
>> > turning upon exit from the front side of the wrist.
>>
>> Which it could've been...
>>
>> So in reality the
>> > physically necessary angular coincidence of yaw and incidence now
>> > requires a deflection of the bullet in proper direction and magnitude
>> > to cancel the assumed change in yaw. Lattimer should have heeded the
>> > advice of Mark Twain. Fiction must make sense.
>>
>> Sometimes, your intepretations, while steeped with a healthy portion of
>> scientific *lingo*...don't make sense.
>>
>> >
>> > Wisely, Lattimer evaded the contradictory descriptions of Connally's
>> > thigh wound. This maneuver spared him the difficulty of apologizing for
>> > Dr. Gregory who called the wound almost round a centimeter in diameter
>> > and also described it as about equal to a pencil eraser, about 6 mm.
>> >
>> > In fairness to Doctor Lattimer, I am compelled to acknowledge the value
>> > of his description of the seven wounds on two victims. He has produced
>> > a foolproof test of pig handedness. Just find anyone who praises or
>> > even accepts his nonsense and you have identified someone whose mind is
>> > made up and will not be changed by the facts.
>>
>> Actually, Lattimer's ballistics work is, and remains, unparalleled in the
>> annals
>> of JFK research. He made some mistakes here and there, but if looked upon
>> as a whole, he did a good job with much of it.
>>
>> Chad
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
David Von Pein
I love the CT-Kook (aka Tom-Kook) mindset re. Dr. Lattimer....
It would seem that the mere fact that Lattimer misspoke re. using
"C2766", Oswald's exact rifle (CE139), completely negates EVERY SINGLE
THING that Lattimer did re. his JFK experiments in a certain kook's
mind.
Just because JKL misspoke re. "C2766", NOTHING he ever does again is to
ever be trusted or believed by a nut named "Sack"! Amazing
short-sidedness.
And Lattimer's mention of C2766 was obviously an innocent error. Why?
Because he proves it was merely an innocent error in the very same book
("Kennedy And Lincoln"). This is proven by way of several other
mentions of the rifle he used in his tests NOT being the same rifle as
CE139! That's brought out multiple times in that same publication. I
guess Tom-Sack doesn't realize that, huh?
Or The Sack just ignores those additional rifle references because JKL
said, ONE time, that he used "C2766", which, btw, was during a passage
re. the rifle's other detailed "specs" too -- e.g., "MC; Model 91-38;
Italian; 6.5mm; bolt-action; etc.". Lattimer obviously put in the specs
for LHO's weapon without realizing the exact serial number was being
mentioned too.
But it's obvious from other mentions that Lattimer did not mean he was
shooting with Oswald's exact gun, CE139.
But, let's just assume for the sake of kooky argument that Lattimer WAS
using CE139, LHO's C2766 rifle. What real difference would THAT fact
have made ANYWAY?!
Would using Oswald's exact weapon have suddenly CHANGED any of the
WC-favoring experiments that Dr. Lattimer performed with said weapon
(or any other similar MC weapon)?
So, as can be seen, Tom-Kook is arguing just for the sake of arguing
(about nothing, really).
Because REGARDLESS OF EXACT CARCANO BEING USED -- Lattimer's tests WERE
conducted WITH A CARCANO RIFLE, and ALL of those tests favored the
"single-assassin-firing-from-the-rear" scenario. Period.
So, get a new "Lattimer Line", Mr. Tom-Kook. The stupid one you're
using now is just too flimsy to hold an ounce of H20.
(Can this nutcase GET any nuttier, btw?)
tomnln
I know you support Felons.
I know you support Liars.
I know you support Murderers.
Kook Suckers are prone to ALL that.
How about Lattimer's Dishonesty when he used an 1940's type jacket with a
Gigantic
Lapel to Bolster the Lapel Flap "Theory"?
See JBC's jacket Lapel from the official Record.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166511709.7...@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
ALL of Lattimer's tests are to be dismissed due to the two weak-sister
excuses posted on Tom-Kook's "website" -- the "C2766" mistake and the
fact that Lattimer didn't check with a kook named Tom R. to see just
exactly what type of suit he should have used for his jacket test.
(Assuming that he really did that lapel test, because it's not in his
book, K&L, even though Tom-Kook says it is...but it's not.)
Ya gotta love KL (Kook Logic)....it's like no other logic around (thank
heavens).
BTW...I sure don't see any huge difference in lapel size there either.
Another mountain out of a mole hill I see.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166514494....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Don't ya just love kooks......