Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Headshots

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 23, 2008, 8:30:19 PM9/23/08
to
I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.

It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
the head. You can see the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc

In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
the autopsy photos.

As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
photos were taken.

When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.

Robert Harris

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:20:12 AM9/24/08
to

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc

Bob Harris, in his latest video, doesn't even seem to realize that his
theory contradicts the Parkland witnesses entirely.

Unless I missed a portion of the video when I had to excuse myself
from the computer to take a quick barf break (like I have to do when
viewing all videos of this nature that are authored by CT-Kooks like
Bob who have decided what the real evidence is going to be in this
case, without a lick of proof to substantiate their bold assertions),
Bob doesn't really seem to be advocating an exit wound at the location
of JFK's head where (admittedly) virtually all of the Dallas doctors
placed the wound -- that is, in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of the
head.

I say that because---

There's a section of Bob's video where he circles the fragmented,
displaced portion of skull at the VERY TOP of JFK's head as seen in
the lateral autopsy X-ray, and it's this same area that (I think) Bob
is saying caused the flap of head/scalp to protrude out the back of
the head at Z335/Z337.

But that's not at all where the Parkland people place ANY wound on
JFK's cranium. So, it seems to me Bob's still got a problem....because
in the video he seems to think his theory ALIGNS perfectly with the
"BOH" witnesses at Parkland, with Bob saying at one point
(paraphrasing): "This, of course, is why the doctors at Parkland all
saw a wound at the back of the head."

In any event, this "mythical BOH" ground has been trampled to death
over the years, but with each new sunrise, it seems to sprout new
legs, with some CTer eager to dredge it up yet again.

Also:

I find it interesting to note that Robert Harris, somewhat
surprisingly, even admits in his latest video incarnation that there
is no visible damage to the back of Kennedy's head at Z313 or in the
several Z-Film frames that follow Z313. Bob apparently thinks, then,
that a second gunshot from the front resulted in the so-called
"blowout" at the BOH.

Bob, of course, is forced to ignore (as all CTers must) the official
autopsy report, which states, in unambiguous language, that JFK was
hit in the head by just ONE bullet, with that bullet entering at the
back of the head and exiting at the right-front-top of the head
("chiefly parietal").

Now, if you're interested in much more entertaining and truth-based
YouTube video presentations, I invite everyone to flip channels, and
go from Bob's CT channel to my channel, which contains some rare JFK-
related documentaries and other radio and TV material:

www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=dvp1122


www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=dvp1122

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:23:48 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 1:17 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> Very unconvincing-not one of your better efforts.
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.

The larger particles that struck officer Hargis and stained his
uniform disproves your explanation.

Herbert

>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


John Canal

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:24:52 PM9/24/08
to
In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...

[...]

>[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony

[...]

>As Boswell confirmed,

[...]

Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever he
says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but his
repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......well, that
goes ignored as if he was in on a cover-up or so blind or incompetent he didn't
realize there were two entrance and exit wounds.

:-)

John Canal

>Robert Harris


thali...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:26:28 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 1:17 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Very unconvincing-not one of your better efforts.
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you the infamous "chiropractor" of the bunched up jacket fiasco?
Escuse me if I disregard everything you say.....

English

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:26:56 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 6:17 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.

I presume that you mean the first boundary exit of the entrance wound.

I would conclude the same if I were considering inorganic material but
not bone. "Conclusively" sounds a bit strong in this case.

If you could please provide a link or citation to one of these experts
to get me started in studying this, I would be most grateful.

Thank you in advance.

Brokedad

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 2:27:03 PM9/24/08
to
On Sep 24, 12:17�am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:30�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Very unconvincing-not one of your better efforts.
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which

> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Right Road!
Wrong Turn!

JFK was hit in the back of the head by two bullets.

The one striking at/approximately Z313 which struck in the upper/
cowlick area of the head/aka Survey Stationing 4+65.3
(second shot fired)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm

And then struck again by the last/third shot fired which impacted
approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. directly in front of the
James Altgens location at Survey Stationing 4+95 (what was actually
surveyed in for the SS as well as the FBI)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0464b.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it sounded like it was coming up from behind the
car from my position--I mean the first shot, and being fireworks--who
counts fireworks explosions? I wasn't keeping track of the number of
pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for
the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between.
There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the
head. That was the last shot--that much I will say with a great degree
of certainty.

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the
Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now,
just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very
instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I
wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's
why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused
in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened
and that's as far as I got with my camera.

There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my
direction from where I was standing,

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which, by the way, was the EOP entry point impact.


Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:49:22 PM9/24/08
to
In article
<05cbb30f-22e2-4822...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Sep 23, 7:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Very unconvincing-not one of your better efforts.
>
> Nice touch in posting the graphic disclaimer warning at the beginning,
> but I think we've all seen the Zfilm a billion times-although it is
> always shocking to see 313.
>
> There was blood and gore on the trunk of the car because the limo was
> moving forward...a fine spray of forward ejected particulate brain
> matter settled to the rear as the limo continued ahead. No mystery.
>
> There was no sewer or knoll shooter, Bob. If there was he/she/it
> missed. The autopsy showed that the back of JFK's head was hit by one
> bullet-from above and behind. The entrance wound is beveled, which
> according to the experts, proves conclusively that the shot was from
> behind.
>
> I'm feeling like we've gone down this road before...

I don't know how we could chuck since you obviously didn't watch the
entire video.

If you had, you would have had to make up an entirely different set of
unsupported assertions.

Watch it all, Chuck and discover that there REALLY was massive damage to
the BOH which did not happen at frame 313.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc


Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:54:51 PM9/24/08
to
In article <gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
> [...]
>
> >[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>
> [...]
>
> >As Boswell confirmed,
>
> [...]
>
> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
> he
> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but his
> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......


Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?

Robert Harris

John Canal

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 10:57:41 PM9/24/08
to
>Right Road!
>Wrong Turn!

Wrong road, wrong turn.

>JFK was hit in the back of the head by two bullets.

Really.

Ok, We've been down this road before but it was so long ago I can't recall
if you think whether the three autopsy docs reported that there was only
one hit to his head because they were in on a cover-up, or were so
incompetent that they missed seeing a second entrance and exit wound.
Refresh my memory will ya--which was it.

In any case, if there was a hit to the cowlick where did the tiny pieces
of bone, beveled out from the inside of the skull around the entry wound,
go? There was a small trail of these bone chips extending from the EOP
entry, but none seen at your proposed upper entry--why? What happened to
that bone--did it go poof?

There was a base portion and a nose portion of the bullet found in the
front of the limo and the dent in the trim and impact point on the glass
track very nicely with an EOP entry and the longitudinal laceration
through the brain....so, if a bullet entered in the cowlick, where did the
major pieces of that bullet go? Poof, again?

Almost all of the bone from the anterior edge of the Harper fragment all
the way back (and that includes the cowlick area) was recovered or present
at autopsy and there was no entry wound, except for the one near the EOP,
seen on any of that bone...how would you exlain that?

Dr. David Mantick, who has examined the original photos and X-rays no less
than six times, used an Optical Density Scanner to look for a hole in the
skull at the level of the cowlick---guess what--even this hard core CT
said there was NO HOLE there, nada, zero, nothing. Care to explain that?
Maybe he believed in a conspiracy, but just not yours...and lied to
dismiss your "two-shot-to-the-head" entry conspiracy theory--is that it?

John Canal

>The one striking at/approximately Z313 which struck in the upper/
>cowlick area of the head/aka Survey Stationing 4+65.3
>(second shot fired)

[...]

>And then struck again by the last/third shot fired which impacted
>approximately 30-feet farther down Elm St. directly in front of the
>James Altgens location at Survey Stationing 4+95 (what was actually
>surveyed in for the SS as well as the FBI)

[...]

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 24, 2008, 11:21:26 PM9/24/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b9d860e495ad8eef


>>> "There REALLY was massive damage to the BOH which did not happen at frame 313." <<<


You're not purporting any such thing in your video, Bob. You're
claiming the nasty "protrusion" at Z335/337 is the result of a piece
of "hinged" skull/scalp that is coming from the VERY TOP of John
Kennedy's head--not the "BOH" at all.

In fact, your theory could conceivably have a tad bit of merit
(although it's far from being provable at all; it's mostly still
subjective in nature, by way of different people analyzing the blurry
post-Z313 frames of Mr. Zapruder's home movie and trying to decide
what they're seeing), in that any so-called "protrusion" that some
researchers think is visible at the back of Kennedy's head at Z337
could possibly have been caused by the damage sustained to the TOP or
RIGHT-FRONT portions of his head.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/pix/backofhead.jpg

But any such damage to the top or right-front portions of JFK's head
was, of course, caused by the ONE and ONLY bullet that struck Mr.
Kennedy in the head -- and that was most certainly a bullet fired by
Lee Harvey Oswald and his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Book
Depository Building.

In other words -- The so-called "protrusion" at Z337 is most certainly
not a massive "hole" caused by a bullet that struck JFK from the front
of his car after Z-frame 313 (as Bob Harris wants to believe). That
scenario, of course, is totally impossible, since we know that JFK was
hit in the head by only one bullet, which came from above and behind
the President.

==========================

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

==========================

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

John Canal

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 12:36:58 AM9/25/08
to
In article <reharris1-70C28...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...

You wrote these statements:


1. "As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back

in place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
photos were taken."

2. "It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which

confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown out
and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of the
head".

My point is that, as shown above, you are clearly using statements made by
Boswell that you think are credible and support your theory....but when he
states repeatedly that only one bullet hit the President in the
BOH....evidently, you think he put on his liar's or dufus hat or
something, meaning he is suddenly no longer credible.

John Canal

Message has been deleted

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:56:20 AM9/25/08
to


On 9/25/08 12:36 AM, in article gbf1h...@drn.newsguy.com, "John Canal"
<John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> In article <reharris1-70C28...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>>
>> In article <gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>>> Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> [...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> As Boswell confirmed,
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
>>> he
>>> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
>>> his
>>> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......
>>
>>
>> Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?


I guess I wasn't clear.

Would you mind citing his verbatim statements, insisting that there was only
one head shot?

Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:57:50 AM9/25/08
to


On 9/25/08 12:38 AM, in article
40c6b46a-c8bd-4576...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Chuck
Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 9:49 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <05cbb30f-22e2-4822-9f30-7296d7cab...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

>> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

> Bob, I watched the whole thing. I think I've seen most of your videos.

Then how did you fail to comprehend that I said there were two shots fired,
one from the front and one from the rear?

In fact, how did you manage to forget that I have told you that numerous
times in the past??


>
> There was only one shot in the head-from behind.

That's a totally unsupported assertion.

>
> I'll bet you were the type of kid that could lay in a field and look up at
> the summer sky, full of cumulus clouds, and see Unicorns and Spanish
> Galleons and so on. I sometimes wish I had that kind of imagination.

Actually, I bought a telescope kit when I was a kid and my father helped me
build a stand to mount it on. Then I bought an ephemeris, and spent way too
much time at night studying the planets.

I never became an astronomer but Carl Sagan was one of my heroes and I read
every book he ever wrote. Scientists are my heroes Chuck. They are the
closest thing we have to gods, mainly because of their methodologies and
objectivity.


>
> But your not a kid, Bob

That's "you're" Chuck.


>...you're a grown man. Deal with the very simple
> reality of the autopsy report.

Why?

Even SA Hosty said in his book that the government covered up evidence of
potential conspiracy and we know that Hoover and Katzenbach declared the
government's agenda to be that "the public must be convinced" that there was
no more than one sniper.

So, given those facts, why would you be surprised that military doctors
deliberately covered up massive damage to the back of JFK's head? And how
hard do you suppose they looked for evidence of additional shots??


> Quibble all you want on some of the
> verbiage, drawings and so on, and whether the autopsy was as good as it
> could've been, but the autopsy report is extremely simple and clear on the
> larger matter of one head shot...fired from a position behind the POTUS.
> Every investigation has concluded the same thing.

Putting your money on the autopsy is just silly, Chuck. Even if you set
aside the obvious fact that they were told to hide evidence of conspiracy,
they were under enormous time pressure and didn't carry out anything even
close to being a thorough procedure.

We already know that they were unable to determine that a bullet passed
through JFK and apparently, exited the neck. How would you expect them to
figure out that another bullet passed through the already devastated brain
and countless metal fragments before it exited in the upper rear of the
head?

Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.

More importantly Chuck, the autopsists didn't have the advantage we have, of
being able to not just see the massive damage to the BOH, but to be able to
determine that it happened well after the explosion at frame 313.


Robert Harris

>
> Please read the autopsy report.
>
> Try to look past the Spanish Galleons and Unicorns in the clouds.
>


David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 2:56:59 PM9/25/08
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b9d860e495ad8eef/bee8ece42b15331e?hl=en&#bee8ece42b15331e


>>> "...Trying to accurately pinpoint the location of the damage, as they [the Parkland witnesses] were asked to do, would be pretty much impossible. What they were very consistent about though, was that it was massive. But are you actually arguing that because some witnesses might have misplaced the damage..." <<<

Therefore, in your opinion, Bob, all of the Parkland Hospital people
GOT IT WRONG with respect to where the wound truly was located. Right?

In other words, that's pretty much the exact same boat that LNers are
in -- i.e., for some inexplicable reason, the Parkland witnesses did
not accurately describe the location of the large exit wound on JFK's
head.

Thanks, Bob, for confirming the fact that a conspiracy theorist can
also believe that all of the Parkland personnel could have made an in-
unison mistake with respect to the precise location of the exit wound
on the President's head.

David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Message has been deleted

John Canal

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 5:19:08 PM9/25/08
to
In article <C500A085.135%bobha...@gmail.com>, Robert Harris says...

>
>
>
>
>On 9/25/08 12:36 AM, in article gbf1h...@drn.newsguy.com, "John Canal"
><John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <reharris1-70C28...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>> Robert Harris says...
>>>
>>> In article <gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>>> John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
>>>> Robert Harris says...
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> [...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> As Boswell confirmed,
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell whenever
>>>> he
>>>> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
>>>> his
>>>> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......
>>>
>>>
>>> Would you mind citing those statements, verbatim John?
>
>
>I guess I wasn't clear.
>
>Would you mind citing his verbatim statements, insisting that there was only
>one head shot?

You're being downright silly now. He signed the autopsy
report....hopefully, that should be sufficient for you.

John Canal

John Canal

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 5:22:36 PM9/25/08
to
[....]

Robert wrote:

>Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
>1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.

That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
where they said it was.

>More importantly Chuck, the autopsists didn't have the advantage we have,=
> of
>being able to not just see the massive damage to the BOH, but to be able =


>to
>determine that it happened well after the explosion at frame 313.

Tell me the truth, Robert, do you really expect anyone but CTs desperate
for any ev. whatsoever to support a conclusion there was a conspiracy to
believe that? Seriously, don't you think the autopsists had the
"advantage" over you and all their other doubters---after all they
examined the body---and don't forget, Finck was a board certified forensic
pathologist.

John Canal

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:19:43 PM9/25/08
to

>>> "We already know that they [the autopsists] were unable to determine

that a bullet passed through JFK and apparently, exited the neck. How
would you expect them to figure out that another bullet passed through the
already devastated brain and countless metal fragments before it exited in
the upper rear of the head?" <<<

LOL.

Bob can't REALLY believe this shit....can he?

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 8:22:28 PM9/25/08
to

CHUCK SAID:

>>> "There was only one shot in the head-from behind." <<<


ROBERT HARRIS THEN SAID:

>>> "That's a totally unsupported assertion." <<<


DVP NOW SAYS:

And yet Bob Harris thinks that his "2 Head Shots" theory is totally
"supported" (and supportable)....despite the fact that there isn't a
stitch of evidence ANYWHERE to substantiate Robert's claims.

Right, Bob?

Incredible.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 25, 2008, 10:32:11 PM9/25/08
to
On Sep 25, 2:22 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> [....]
>
> Robert wrote:
> >Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
> >1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>
> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
> the background. The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was just as off the
> mark when they wrote that they identified the semicircular beveled defect
> in F8 as the entry....and said it was in the cowlick. Cripes, a six year
> old can see that that defect is near the EOP. Even McAdams, a diehard
> cowlick entry theorist, said that defect appeared to be deep inside the
> cranial cavity....he just refused to admit that defect was the
> entry....even when Fiorentino advised him it was. To be sure, though,
> replications of F8 were performed, using human, computer generated and
> plastic models, independently by four individuals---all of the
> replications scientifically proved that defect was near the EOP. So, ya
> sure your HSCA "experts" found the defect in the photo, but it wasn't
> where they said it was.

Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?

Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
“The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
Injuries,” The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1–15), and of course I
believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
well.

Thanks!

John Canal

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 1:28:45 AM9/26/08
to
>Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
>man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?

If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".

>Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,

>=93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
>Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I

>believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
>in one shot from behind. So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
>entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
>us. Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
>well.

Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.

The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment. Tiny debris resulting
from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual. Larry
Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
when the bullet ruptured.

I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.

John Canal


robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2008, 1:55:43 PM9/26/08
to
On Sep 25, 10:28 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
> >man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
> >of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>
> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>
> >Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
> >=93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
> >Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I
> >believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
> >in one shot from behind.  So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
> >entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
> >us.  Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
> >well.
>
> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
> the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>
> The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.

Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick
bullet" there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense
bone in the rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?


> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.

This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to
fragment according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat.
How can a FMJ bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT
fragment at all when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far
more dense?


> Tiny debris resulting
> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.

In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much
debris in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body
(or more to the point, that was admitted to as we know there was
debris in the throat area as they ordered tissue samples).


> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.

John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on
the premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still
doesn't explain a "horizontal" trail of debris. See if the bullet
deflected up it would have hit the top of the head and came downward
again, there is NO way to prove it deflected UP and then went
horizontal, now is there? Try shooting at the ceiling and see if it
does NOT come back down. It will, it will NOT go horizontal after
this.

The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make
the change, but then again neither did Ford but he also made the
change to the back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final
verdict with all this dubious stuff going on?

Thanks for your reply.

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 12:35:32 AM9/27/08
to
In article <gbgbs...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:


You said he made "repeated insistances that there was only one shot to
the head".

Why can't you produce even a single verbatim citation in which he said
such a thing??

But OK, let's make it easy for you then. Cite the autopsy report saying
there was no more than one head shot.


Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 12:36:38 AM9/27/08
to
In article <gbgg1...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> [....]
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> >Fortunately, far more experienced experts analyzed the Xrays back in the
> >1990's and confirmed the existence of the two headshots.
>
> That B/S reminds me of that series of Internet ads in which Bill Kurtis
> says, "We've just found the internet"---and Emilia Erhart's plane is in
> the background.

I don't understand the analogy.

How were the studies of Riley, Mantik and Robertson like those
commercials?

The bottom line is, that the upper BOH was blown out. We don't NEED anyone
to tell us that, though most of the doctors and nurses who examined the
damage, confirmed it, as did Boswell in that very candid interview with
the ARRB.

All we have to do, is look at it ourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc

And we can see very easily, that this damage did not happen during the 313
explosion.


Robert Harris

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:09:06 AM9/27/08
to
On Sep 25, 10:28 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how a
> >man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
> >of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>
> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>
> >Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
> >=93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the
> >Injuries,=94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=9615), and of course I
> >believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believe
> >in one shot from behind.  So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD and
> >entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head for
> >us.  Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris as
> >well.
>
> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
> the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such as
> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>
> The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) and
> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.

Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick bullet"

there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense bone in the
rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?

> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.

This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment

according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?

> Tiny debris resulting
> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.

In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris

in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
area as they ordered tissue samples).

> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.

John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the

John Canal

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:12:33 AM9/27/08
to
In article <reharris1-3F650...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,

I didn't try because I don't have time to play your silly games. IMHO, to
even suggest that Boswell believed there were two shots to the head takes
an imagination that is consistent with one possesed by someone who was
capable of conjuring up a theory like yours.

I doubt the lurkers will blame me for not responding to your posts any
more. BTW, I know a practically life-long, highly respected and
intelligent CT who has forgotten more about this case than most here will
ever know about it......who has killfiled you--and now I know why.

John Canal

John Canal

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:05:53 AM9/27/08
to
In article <reharris1-4C4A1...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris says...

Just when you think you've heard everything, I read this nonsense. Do you
actually think you can get anyone over the age of six to believe, after millions
of people have seen the Z-film and hundreds have closely examined it, that you,
Robert Harris, can see eneough "proof" in that film to make the astounding
charge that the three autopsy doctors have been disengenous all their
professional lives regarding their adamant assertion there was only one shot to
the head of President Kennedy?

And don't bother to ask me where and when they said that, because, I won't be
reading your posts any more....I'm going to follow the lead of that CT whom I
highly respect and add you to my killfile along with Marsh.

John Canal

>Robert Harris


John Canal

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:09:27 AM9/27/08
to
In article <8bda3ef0-b4ce-4485...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Sep 25, 10:28=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >Since you brought up Dr. Mantik earlier why don't you explain for us how=

> a
>> >man shot at the EOP level can have a trail of metallic debris at the TOP
>> >of the head as is seen in the lateral X-ray?
>>
>> If my reply to Dr. McAdams makes it on the board, please read my
>> explanation to him re. that so-called "trail".
>>
>> >Dr. Mantik has pointed this out, (along with Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D.,
>> >=3D93The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for t=
>he
>> >Injuries,=3D94 The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1=3D9615), and of cour=
>se I
>> >believe in a second shot but you DON'T have that luxury since you believ=
>e
>> >in one shot from behind. =A0So explain how a bullet traveling DOWNWARD a=
>nd
>> >entering at the EOP can leave a trial of debris at the TOP of the head f=
>or
>> >us. =A0Also, I'm curious how a FMJ bullet can leave this type of debris =

>as
>> >well.
>>
>> Dr. Mantik and I have discussed the headwounds thoroughly. We disagree on
>> the number of hits to the head but agree on a lot of other issues, such a=

>s
>> the 6.5 mm opacity being a plant.
>>
>> The bullet entered near the EOP (Mantik agrees a bullet entered there) an=

>d
>> deflected upwards (about 20 degrees) as it penetrated the rear skull.
>
>Why such a drastic deflection? I mean if we look at the "magick bullet"
>there is nothing as drastic as this and that it far more dense bone in the
>rib area, yet it continued forward into the wrist. Why?

First the bullet was traveling at max speed when it hit the skull...when it hit
JBC's rib it had slowed dramatically. Fackler's tests showed that the higher the
bullet's velocity the more it will fragment when it hits something hard enough
to break it up (and also hits at an angle that will cause the break up).

>> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
>> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
>This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
>according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
>bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
>when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?

See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
questions like yours very well.

>> Tiny debris resulting
>> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
>In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
>in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
>the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
>area as they ordered tissue samples).

Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
fragmentation, no metallic debris.

>> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
>> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
>> when the bullet ruptured.
>>
>> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
>John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
>premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
>explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.

For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?

>See if the bullet deflected up it
>would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,

Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.

>there is NO
>way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?

The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
prove that the bullet deflected up.

>Try
>shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
>it will NOT go horizontal after this.

Can I pass on that?

>The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
>wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
>change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
>support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
>change,

We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
obvious reasons.

>but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
>back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
>this dubious stuff going on?

Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
put it all together.

>Thanks for your reply.

I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.

John Canal


Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 11:12:38 AM9/27/08
to
In article
<a7c51e42-1444-4d13...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> CHUCK SAID:
>
> >>> "There was only one shot in the head-from behind." <<<
>
>
> ROBERT HARRIS THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "That's a totally unsupported assertion." <<<
>
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> And yet Bob Harris thinks that his "2 Head Shots" theory is totally
> "supported" (and supportable)....despite the fact that there isn't a
> stitch of evidence ANYWHERE to substantiate Robert's claims.


ROFLMAO!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc&watch_response

Robert Harris

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 1:38:10 PM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:09 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8bda3ef0-b4ce-4485-a776-92eeff15c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Has Fackler proven this in any real-life scenarios? I ask because we
see to see one set of "standards" for the JFK case and then one for
the rest of the cases in the country.

John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through
flesh?


> >> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> >> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> >This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> >according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
> >bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> >when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.

I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic
wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as
they agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could
ever happen) in time of war.

A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a
FMJ can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out
practically intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far
less dense) and shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain
this for us? Even if you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.


> >> Tiny debris resulting
> >> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> >In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> >in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> >the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> >area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.

But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it
virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit
the spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there?
There should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick"
in the spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the
throat level.


> >> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> >> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> >> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> >> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> >John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> >premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> >explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?

Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail"
of debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a
thin skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the
possiblility of what could actually happen. Especially, when we
compare this bullet to the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read
all of Dr. Mantik's work and this is an issue for your side, again,
that is WHY the Clark Panel changed the location of the entry site.


> >See if the bullet deflected up it
> >would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.

You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK
was leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you
conclude he was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why
could NO witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was
forward "26 degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention
here his back brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible,
and that is why he was such a "sitting duck."

Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning
"26 degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?


> >there is NO
> >way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.

No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy
prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
part.


> >Try
> >shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
> >it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?

Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot
something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.


> >The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> >wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> >change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
> >support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
> >change,
>
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.


What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location
of the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a
wound without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you
have to "change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their
reasons, they had NO right to change the wound, now did they?


> >but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
> >back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
> >this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.

LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder
case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?


> >Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.

I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me
more sure of a conspiracy every time I hear it.


Message has been deleted

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:20:01 PM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:09 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8bda3ef0-b4ce-4485-a776-92eeff15c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Has Fackler proven this in any real-life scenarios? I ask because we see

to see one set of "standards" for the JFK case and then one for the rest
of the cases in the country.

John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through flesh?

> >> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> >> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> >This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> >according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
> >bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> >when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.

I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic

wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as they
agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could ever
happen) in time of war.

A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a FMJ
can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out practically
intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far less dense) and
shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain this for us? Even if
you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.

> >> Tiny debris resulting
> >> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> >In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> >in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> >the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> >area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.

But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it

virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit the
spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there? There
should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick" in the
spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the throat
level.

> >> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> >> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> >> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> >> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> >John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> >premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> >explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?

Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail" of

debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a thin
skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the possiblility of
what could actually happen. Especially, when we compare this bullet to
the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read all of Dr. Mantik's work and

this is an issue for your side, again, that is WHY the Clark Panel changed

the location of the entry site.

> >See if the bullet deflected up it
> >would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.

You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK was

leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you conclude he
was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why could NO
witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was forward "26
degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention here his back
brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible, and that is why he
was such a "sitting duck."

Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning "26
degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?

> >there is NO
> >way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.

No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy


prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
part.

> >Try
> >shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down.  It will,
> >it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?

Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot


something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.

> >The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> >wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> >change in the medical evidence.  They knew the trial of debris did NOT
> >support a EOP wound.  This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
> >change,
>
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.

What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location of
the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a wound
without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you have to
"change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their reasons, they
had NO right to change the wound, now did they?

> >but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
> >back wound.  How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
> >this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.

LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder


case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?

> >Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.

I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:20:58 PM9/27/08
to
On Sep 27, 8:09 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <8bda3ef0-b4ce-4485-a776-92eeff15c...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Has Fackler proven this in any real-life scenarios? I ask because we see

to see one set of "standards" for the JFK case and then one for the rest
of the cases in the country.

John, you know this is theory, right? What slowed the bullet down
dramatically? I ask because the official theory does NOT conclude the
bullet would have hit the spine as Dr. Mantick (and others) have
concluded, so what made it slow so much if it simply when through flesh?

> >> While Dr. Lattimer demonstrated that FMJ bullets will often deflect, Dr.
> >> Fackler demonstrated how FMJ bullets can fragment.
>
> >This is NOT their intended purpose as they are designed NOT to fragment
> >according to the "Geneva Convention" rules governing combat. How can a FMJ
> >bullet fragment sooooo much when it hits skull, but NOT fragment at all
> >when it hits a rib bone and a wrist bone which are far more dense?
>
> See above. Do you have Larry Sturdivan's, "The JFK Myths"? He is a highly
> credentialed wound-ballistics expert and one chapter in his book addresses
> questions like yours very well.

I'm afraid I don't, but I have read the beliefs of many other forensic

wound-ballistic experts and they came to very different conclusions.
Furthermore, I know the "Geneva Convention" aspect is 100% correct as they
agreed to these terms to kill more "humanely" (like that could ever
happen) in time of war.

A question NO LNer can ever answer in terms of making sense, is how a FMJ
can cause 7 wounds and break two dense bones and come out practically
intact, yet the same type of ammo hits the skull bone (far less dense) and
shatters into a bunch of fragments? Can you explain this for us? Even if
you Larry Sturdivan's answer that is fine.

> >> Tiny debris resulting
> >> from the break-up of the missile should not be considered unusual.
>
> >In a FMJ it is, but even if we concede this, why is there so much debris
> >in the head yet really nothing similar in the rest of the body (or more to
> >the point, that was admitted to as we know there was debris in the throat
> >area as they ordered tissue samples).
>
> Because the bullet that transited his neck did not break apart. IOW, no
> fragmentation, no metallic debris.

But, you must know from you discussion with Dr. Mantik, that is it

virtually impossible for a bullet to transit the neck area and NOT hit the
spinal bone, so how can you say there was NO fragmentation there? There
should have been, and according to Dr. Mantik there is a "nick" in the
spinal bone from the bullet coming in through the front at the throat
level.

> >> Larry Sturdivan who was a wound-ballistics consultant for the HSCA totally
> >> agrees that the tiny, high metal fragments represent metallic debris from
> >> when the bullet ruptured.
>
> >> I doubt that that explanation will satisfy you, but such is life.
>
> >John, you are right, it doesn't, because even if I agree with you on the
> >premise of all you said above (and of course I don't) it still doesn't
> >explain a "horizontal" trail of debris.
>
> For Pete's sake, it's not a trail. Look at the AP film and you can see the
> fragments widely dispersed in the horizontal plane....what the heck kind of a
> bullet would leave a trail like that? Oh, I know--perhaps one that a life-long,
> forever committed CT like yourself might imagine? Ya think?

Don't change this to what I think, the lateral X-ray shows a "trail" of

debris, this is the X-ray you have to live with. Your premise of a thin
skull bone causing a major defelection is just out the possiblility of
what could actually happen. Especially, when we compare this bullet to
the "magick bullet's" behavior. I have read all of Dr. Mantik's work and
this is an issue for your side, again, that is WHY the Clark Panel changed
the location of the entry site.

> >See if the bullet deflected up it
> >would have hit the top of the head and came downward again,
>
> Excuse me--are we taliking about the same case here? read this closely, will ya.
> The bullet taveled down from the sixth floor along a trajectory of about neg. 16
> degrees (relative to true horizontal). Then, as it penetrated the rear skull
> near the EOP, it deflected upwards on a new trajectry of about plus 4
> degrees....for a total change of course [deflection] of about 20 deg. Now,
> because he was leaning forward about 26 degrees, the bullet entered near the EOP
> and exited just forward of the coronal suture (top/right/front of his
> head)...and continued to the windshield area. Take Z312 and draw a line from the
> EOP to the windshield damage....and you'll see roughly where the two large
> bullet fragments exited his head. Ya sure, like you're about to do that.

You are forgetting one thing, NO witness could be found that said JFK was

leaning forward at the time of the head shot. So how do you conclude he
was leaning forward? (Let me guess, the extant Z-film) Why could NO
witness be found to corroborate the fact JFK's head was forward "26
degrees" at the time of impact? In fact, I would mention here his back
brace made that kind of leaning virtually impossible, and that is why he
was such a "sitting duck."

Beyond the extant Z-film, how do you prove your premise he was leaning "26
degrees" forward at the time of the head shot?

> >there is NO
> >way to prove it deflected UP and then went horizontal, now is there?
>
> The proof comes from determining where the bullet was fired from, where it
> entered, and where it exited.....it's about as simple as adding 2 + 2 + 2 to
> prove that the bullet deflected up.

No it isn't, and I have NOT seen any proof from you or the autopsy


prosectors for this conclusion. This is theory, NOT fact on your
part.

> >Try
> >shooting at the ceiling and see if it does NOT come back down. It will,
> >it will NOT go horizontal after this.
>
> Can I pass on that?

Sure, I meant, and I admit I was in error for not saying, shoot


something like a play dart at the ceiling, NOT a real bullet.

> >The authorities knew this and that is why the Clark Panel changed the
> >wound to the cowlick area (which I agree is NOT a wound) without any
> >change in the medical evidence. They knew the trial of debris did NOT
> >support a EOP wound. This is dishonesty as they had NO proof to make the
> >change,
>
> We disagree. It's not all that important to know exactly why they changed the
> entry location, but, FWIW, I believe they were paranoid that an EOP entry was
> more consistent with a shot fired from ground-level than one fired from six
> floors up. And they didn't hardly want to report a conspiracy....for all the
> obvious reasons.

What??? Why is it NOT important to know why they changed the location of
the entry wound? How can a "panel" up and change the location of a wound
without having access to the body, and this NOT matter? When you have to
"change" the "facts" you are left with lies. Whatever their reasons, they
had NO right to change the wound, now did they?

> >but then again neither did Ford but he also made the change to the
> >back wound. How can anyone have any faith in the final verdict with all
> >this dubious stuff going on?
>
> Know the evidence in the case and figure out what few parts of it were
> minipulated (I'm positive their minipulations were well-intended, BTW) and then
> put it all together.

LOL!!! There is NO allowance for "manipulating" evidence in a murder


case (really any case) and the fact you are "alright" with it speaks
volumes as to their conclusions, now doesn't it?

> >Thanks for your reply.
>
> I'm sure you appreciated hearing explanations you think are grossly flawed.

I always like to hear the thinking of the other side as it makes me

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 27, 2008, 9:46:43 PM9/27/08
to

Dr. Charles S. Petty of the HSCA:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkMnSla7E20&fmt=18


Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:49:05 PM9/28/08
to
In article <gbkfb...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

Yes.

>
> And don't bother to ask me where and when they said that, because, I won't be
> reading your posts any more....I'm going to follow the lead of that CT whom I
> highly respect and add you to my killfile along with Marsh.

ROFLMAO!

You didn't killfile me John. And this is a pretty lame way to evade
having to document your phony claims about what Boswell said:-)


Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Sep 28, 2008, 10:49:50 PM9/28/08
to
In article <gbke2...@drn.newsguy.com>,
John Canal <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

LOL!!

No, you didn't try because he never in his life said such a thing. Let's
review your statement claiming he made,

"repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head".

The key word here, John is "ONLY".

Yes, he signed the autopsy report which described one shot to the head,
but neither he nor that report excluded the possibility that there could
have been others.

And even if it had, it is ludicrous to believe that this report, which
would have omitted even the throat wound if Humes hadn't talked to Perry
the next day, was infallible.


> IMHO, to
> even suggest that Boswell believed there were two shots to the head takes
> an imagination that is consistent with one possesed by someone who was
> capable of conjuring up a theory like yours.

That is correct, because he never to my knowledge, ever said there were
two headshots.

And of course, I never claimed he did.

>
> I doubt the lurkers will blame me for not responding to your posts any
> more. BTW, I know a practically life-long, highly respected and
> intelligent CT who has forgotten more about this case than most here will
> ever know about it......who has killfiled you--and now I know why.

I will try to get over it:-)

But did your mystery buff also make a lot of bogus claims:-)


Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 29, 2008, 1:15:10 AM9/29/08
to


www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b9d860e495ad8eef/4c014c0638f6a415?hl=en%04c014c0638f6a415

>>> "Reporting one headshot is NOT the same as claiming, "there was no more than one headshot", which is equivalent to denying the possibility that there could have been more than one headshot." <<<


LOL.
LOL.

Here's part of the autopsy report that Boswell attached his signature
to (i.e., stuff that people like Robert Harris must either totally
ignore, or must re-interpret in a very kooky fashion, like Bob did via
the quote I just supplied above):

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of TWO
perforating gunshot wounds [not three, as Robert Harris advocates]
inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons
unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat
above the level of the deceased. The observations and available
information do not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence
of the TWO wounds." [DVP's emphasis.]

It's nice when a CTer just gets to make up stuff, isn't it Robert H.?

Bob Harris wants a second gunshot wound to have been inflicted upon
the head of President Kennedy....so, by cracky, he's going to
manufacture a second gunshot wound to John Kennedy's head. And to hell
with the above paragraph that appears in JFK's official autopsy report
(signed by Humes, Finck, and Boswell).

Right, Bobby?

Pathetic.

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 30, 2008, 2:05:42 AM9/30/08
to

Robert Harris

unread,
Oct 16, 2008, 12:15:38 AM10/16/08
to

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gbdbm...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article
> <reharris1-2ADDC...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
> [...]
>
>>[...] citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony
>
> [...]
>
>>As Boswell confirmed,
>
> [...]
>
> Bob, what I love most about your arguments is that you cite Boswell
> whenever he
> says something that you think you can use as support for your theory, but
> his
> repeated insistance that there was only one shot to the head......well,
> that
> goes ignored as if he was in on a cover-up or so blind or incompetent he
> didn't
> realize there were two entrance and exit wounds.

The only problem is John, that he NEVER said that there was "only" one
headshot - not once and certainly, not "repeatedly". And even the autopsy
report did not deny the possibility of other headshots.

I am still waiting for you to post a citation proving otherwise.

Robert Harris

SatansMamma

unread,
Nov 15, 2008, 1:13:02 AM11/15/08
to
Robert Harris <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:reharris1-
2ADDC0.075...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:

> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>
> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
> the head. You can see the video here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
> the autopsy photos.
>
> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
> photos were taken.
>
> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

Robert,

As you're aware I recently posted a lengthy series of comments to this
video on You Tube, challenging the existence of a "protrusion" as
suggested by the stills from the Zapruder film that you show in the video.
I suggested that what you refer to as an obvious, large protrusion was
really nothing more than the president's thick hair, possibly displaced by
an entrance wound to the back of Kennedy's skull.

I went on to further suggest the possibility that you may have somehow
"ehnanced" the stills to more clearly highlight this supposed protrusion
and invited your audience to compare the color, brightness and contrast of
the Zapruder footage you show at the beginning of the film with the stills
of frames 335 and 337, and then compare your frames 335 and 337 to those
found in the digital reproductions of the original Zapruder film.

Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again took
the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and blocking me
from posting.

The fact that you took these steps leads me to conclude that I was correct
and that you are afraid that this could damage any credibility you have
with your audience.

Do you delete all inconvenient comments and block all posters who disagree
with you? I'm sure you're aware that there are two sides to every story,
Bob. The remaining comments are clearly very one-sided.

I've asked you repeatedly to explain yourself, sir. Your silence speaks
volumes.

SM


Gil Jesus

unread,
Nov 15, 2008, 4:30:32 AM11/15/08
to
On Nov 15, 1:13�am, SatansMamma <eadgbe68NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again took
> the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and blocking me
> from posting.

It's not up to him to "disprove" what you say. It's up to you to PROVE
it.

>
> The fact that you took these steps leads me to conclude that I was correct
> and that you are afraid that this could damage any credibility you have
> with your audience.

ooooo..good one. Troll him into a response with insults.

> Do you delete all inconvenient comments and block all posters who disagree
> with you? I'm sure you're aware that there are two sides to every story,
> Bob.

And yet, not one word complaining about McAdams' same tactics at
a.a.j..

> The remaining comments are clearly very one-sided.

> I've asked you repeatedly to explain yourself, sir. Your silence speaks
> volumes.
>

> SM-

as does your screenname, Steve.

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Nov 16, 2008, 11:06:22 PM11/16/08
to
On Sep 23, 4:30 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>
> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
> the head. You can see the video here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
>
> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
> the autopsy photos.
>
> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
> photos were taken.
>
> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>
> Robert Harris


***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
Kennedy's head.

***Ron Judge


Ben Holmes

unread,
Nov 17, 2008, 10:08:36 AM11/17/08
to
In article <633a070b-1e9f-4eca...@h23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net says...

>
>On Sep 23, 4:30=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
>> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>>
>> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
>> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
>> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
>> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
>> the head. You can see the video here:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrYaoBB1rwkc

>>
>> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
>> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
>> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
>> the autopsy photos.
>>
>> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
>> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
>> photos were taken.
>>
>> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
>Kennedy's head.
>
>***Ron Judge

There are none so blind as those blinded by faith...

John Canal

unread,
Nov 17, 2008, 11:05:32 AM11/17/08
to
>On Sep 23, 4:30=A0pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I recently posted a video at Youtube which resolves several important
>> issues related to the final shots during the attack on President Kennedy.
>>
>> It includes citations from Dr. Thornton Boswell's ARRB testimony which
>> confirm the fact that the upper rear of the President's head was blown
>> out and that a large piece of skull fell back to the rear which remained
>> suspended in the scalp, forming a grotesque protrusion in the back of
>> the head. You can see the video here:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrYaoBB1rwkc

>>
>> In addition to confirming the unanimous conclusion of nongovernment
>> experts that two shots struck the head, it resolves the question of why
>> the Parkland medical staff saw massive damage which did not appear in
>> the autopsy photos.
>>
>> As Boswell confirmed, the blownout scalp and bone was simply put back in
>> place and the scalp was pulled back up over the top of the head before
>> photos were taken.
>>
>> When you watch, be sure to first click on the "high quality" option.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>***The Zapruder film clearly shows there was no damage to the back of
>Kennedy's head.

Are you absolutely 100% positive that the 312 bullet didn't fragment the BOH and
that brain tissue didn't begin exuding out between one or two of those
fragmented pieces after the Z-frames? If you are you must find it at least a
tiny bit puzzeling why all those PH docs and Bethesda witnesses said they saw a
BOH wound...or why Humes would testify that they saw that part of the cerebellum
was severely lacerated? Do you think it was collective fanaticizing among the PH
and Bethesda docs?

John Canal

>***Ron Judge
>
>


Bud

unread,
Nov 17, 2008, 3:25:46 PM11/17/08
to
On Nov 15, 4:30 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:13 am, SatansMamma <eadgbe68NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again took
> > the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and blocking me
> > from posting.
>
> It's not up to him to "disprove" what you say. It's up to you to PROVE
> it.

You are such a fucking idiot, Gil. Harris made the claims. SM
pointed out that the evidence does not conclusively support Harris`s
claims.

> > The fact that you took these steps leads me to conclude that I was correct
> > and that you are afraid that this could damage any credibility you have
> > with your audience.
>
> ooooo..good one. Troll him into a response with insults.

Seems Harris censored his comments on YouTube, so he raised the
issues with him here in the newsgroups. Idiot.

> > Do you delete all inconvenient comments and block all posters who disagree
> > with you? I'm sure you're aware that there are two sides to every story,
> > Bob.
>
> And yet, not one word complaining about McAdams' same tactics at
> a.a.j..

You don`t see SM complaining that apples taste different than
oranges either.

Bud

unread,
Nov 17, 2008, 3:27:18 PM11/17/08
to
On Nov 17, 10:08 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <633a070b-1e9f-4eca-9476-8d7da0980...@h23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> r2bzju...@sbcglobal.net says...

Are you claiming you can see damage to the back of Kennedy`s head in
the z-film, Ben. Or are you relying on faith that it is there?

SatansMamma

unread,
Nov 17, 2008, 7:53:00 PM11/17/08
to
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in
news:1edcfe3f-53fe-4611...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 15, 4:30 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 1:13 am, SatansMamma <eadgbe68NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again
>> > took the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and
>> > blocking me from posting.
>>
>> It's not up to him to "disprove" what you say. It's up to you to PROVE
>> it.
>
> You are such a fucking idiot, Gil. Harris made the claims. SM
> pointed out that the evidence does not conclusively support Harris`s
> claims.

I don't think Gil is an idiot, but that is correct. Harris made the claims
and I challenged them. If he is right then he had everything to gain by
debating my comments, but by deleting them it's clear to me that I was
probably right and he doesn't want his viewers to see the truth.

>> ooooo..good one. Troll him into a response with insults.

I didn't intend anything I wrote to be an insult. If Harris took them that
way, then I might suggest that his skin is a little too thin to be involved
in this. He doesn't expect *everyone* to just blindly agree with him, does
he?

Do you, Bob?

Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 12:25:27 AM11/18/08
to

"SatansMamma" <eadgbe6...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B56D98B5BFC...@194.177.96.26...

I wonder if this would make him a "runner", by his own definition.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/391871979a472966/039d43e984741f18?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=runner+harris#039d43e984741f18


SatansMamma

unread,
Nov 15, 2008, 4:11:17 PM11/15/08
to
Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in
news:398ba6f8-eef8-4b70...@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

>> Instead of making an effort to disprove my assertions, you once again
>> took
>> the drastic step of deleting these inconvenient comments and blocking
>> me from posting.
>
> It's not up to him to "disprove" what you say. It's up to you to PROVE
> it.

Not quite. Harris posted the video and thereby opened it up to scrutiny. I
challenged it. I think he had no response to my challenge so he just
decided to pretend that it didn't happen.


>> The fact that you took these steps leads me to conclude that I was
>> correct and that you are afraid that this could damage any credibility

>> you havewith your audience.


>
> ooooo..good one. Troll him into a response with insults.


I didn't mean for that to be taken as an insult. If Harris takes it that
way then I think his skin is too thin for the hobby he's chosen.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Nov 18, 2008, 7:39:28 PM11/18/08
to
On Nov 14, 10:13 pm, SatansMamma <eadgbe68NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:reharris1-
> 2ADDC0.07570523092...@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net:

"There is NO question that an honest man will evade".

0 new messages