Re: The 45 Questions - One by One (#16)
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
>accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
>front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
>of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
>Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
>back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
>described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
>
>When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
>connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
>that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine.
How in the world did it have to go through the spine if it entered to
the right of the midline.
>This path would have
>caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest
>X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.
>Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse
>processes up and down the entire cervical spine
Sorry, but not "impenetrable."
Get a skeleton. Get a dowel.
You can put the dowel right through, between the transverse processes.
This is who the HSCA said the entrance was at C7/T1. Below C7 (and
it's transverse process) and above T1 (and it's transverse process).
>and because of the total width
>of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere
>in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the
>upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another
>problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung.
You are just making stuff up.
The autopsists said the bullet bruised the tip of the right lung.
If I have to choose to believe you or the HSCA FPP on this, you can
guess whom I believe.
>But no lung
>damage of this type was seen by the pathologists and none is seen on the X-rays
>either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then
>exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major
>lung trauma.
Sorry. When we discuss evidence, you are not allowed to just make up
your own "evidence."
>It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact
>measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves
>direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at
>the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158
>
Crackpot book.
>Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that
>this *is* possible?
Get a skeleton and a dowel.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
>> accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
>> front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
>> of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
>> Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
>> back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
>> described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
>>
>> When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
>> connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
>> that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine.
>
>
> How in the world did it have to go through the spine if it entered to
> the right of the midline.
>
His point would be that it seems to not be far enough to the right of
the midline to miss it. As Mantik points out. But I think that assumes
T-3. C-7 is not as wide and the bullet can hit just to the right of it
and miss hitting it by fractions of an inch.
Herbert Blenner
> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
> >accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
> >front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
> >of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
> >Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
> >back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
> >described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
>
> >When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
> >connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
> >that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine.
>
> How in the world did it have to go through the spine if it entered to
> the right of the midline.
Source: HSCA testimony of Dr. Michael Baden, Vol I p. 192
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
The 7 mm by 10 mm dimensions of the elliptical abrasion places the bullet
on a course of one unit inward for one unit to the left. This result comes
from calculation of the incidence angle of the entering bullet as the
inverse cosine of ( 7 mm / 10 mm ).
Herbert
pjsp...@aol.com
John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
But that's just one of your errors. The HSCA's medical panel placed
the back wound at T-1 and the exit a little higher at T-1. This "C-7/
T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
off by two inches.
http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 5:03=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>
Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
class, I might.
>http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
What is your point here?
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>
I don't follow this either.
You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
possible to see what your point is.
The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
See 7 HSCA 84-85.
Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>But that's just one of your errors. The HSCA's medical panel placed
>the back wound at T-1 and the exit a little higher at T-1. This "C-7/
>T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
>the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>
Frankly, I can't find a reference to "C7/T1" (although even
conspiracists quote this) but neither can I find the HSCA saying "T1."
So how about producing a cite.
If T1 is simply *your* interpretation, you need to admit that.
>As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
>half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
>exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
>almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
>why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
Oh, now I know where people get "C7/T1." The Dox drawing shows that.
Otherwise, I can't see what your point is.
>
>The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
>another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
>to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
>the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
>off by two inches.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>
The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
to see.
>http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>
That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
shows conspiracy.
On *this* planet, it does not.
>BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
>Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
>any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
>for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
>location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
>too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
>
Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5.
It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing
what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion.
To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at
a *much* smaller scale than the Dox drawing.
This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
drawing makes sense.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Herbert Blenner
The FPP based their analysis on the flawed assumption that a straight
line connecting the presumed entrance wound with the presumed exit
wound represents the trajectory of the bullet.
In reality, professionals can calculate incidence angles between the
direction of the bullet and the perpendicular to each presumed wound.
From their knowledge of anatomy they know the angle between the
perpendiculars to these wounds. So this information enables them to
calculate a net deflection angle for the presumed trajectory. On this
point the HSCA trajectory analysis collapses.
>
> As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
> half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
> exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
> almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
> why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
> another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
> to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
> the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
> off by two inches.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
Regardless of the location, the shape and dimensions of the entry
wound show that the missile entered with a 45-degree angle of
incidence. This fact placed the bullet on a course of one unit
directly into the back for one unit parallel to the surface.
Insurmountable problems arise from the recognition that the direction
of the longer axis of the wound coincides with the direction of the
parallel component of the trajectory. The reason being that FPP
described features of the bullet hole that confirmed the near
longitudinal orientation of the longer axis reported by Humes and
documented the near transverse orientation of the longer axis of the
surrounding abrasion. In short the Einsteins of the FPP implicitly
attributed two directions differing by sixty degrees to the trajectory
of a single bullet. Now that is what I call magic.
>
> BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
> Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
> any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
> for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
> location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
> too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
If you want to see crazies then watch them try to explain away Baden's
reports of the two differing trajectories for the bullet that entered
the back.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093a.htm
(465) A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming
what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's
scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic
of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the
lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at
the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the
body.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
You are misrepresenting. The HSCA medical panel did not say the exit was
at T-1. They placed the exit higher than the entrance which they placed
next to C-7, not next to T-1.
> T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
> the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>
I place the entrance wound just above T-1, next to C-7.
> As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
> half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
> exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
> almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
> why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
The HSCA got around that problem by imagining that JFK was leaning over
when he was hit.
> http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
> another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
> to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
> the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
> off by two inches.
>
Baden got around the problem by demonstrating how he thinks JFK was
leaning forward.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 9, 5:03=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
> >demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>
> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>
> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
> class, I might.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>
> What is your point here?
The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the location
pushed by the WC and Myers, and the trajectory leads right through the
transverse process of the spine.
>
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>
> I don't follow this either.
This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
transverse process of the spine. It should also be noted that the only
people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
to refute them.
>
> You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
> possible to see what your point is.
>
> The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
>
> See 7 HSCA 84-85.
>
> Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
> centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
It's pretty obvious it would hit the spine. The spine is not a two
dimensional object directly next to the back wound. It was near the middle
of the distance between the back wound and the throat wound. The bullet
exited (supposedly) to the left of the midline of the throat.
>
> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
I have presented actual evidence. Feel free to counter my argument by
presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>
> >But that's just one of your errors. The HSCA's medical panel placed
> >the back wound at T-1 and the exit a little higher at T-1. This "C-7/
> >T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
> >the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>
> Frankly, I can't find a reference to "C7/T1" (although even
> conspiracists quote this) but neither can I find the HSCA saying "T1."
>
> So how about producing a cite.
>
> If T1 is simply *your* interpretation, you need to admit that.
>
> >As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
> >half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
> >exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
> >almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
> >why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> Oh, now I know where people get "C7/T1." The Dox drawing shows that.
WRONG. Both Dox drawings absolutely positively show the bullet entering at
the level of T1. C7/T1, near as I can figure, is something made up by LNTs
to deceive their readers.
>
> Otherwise, I can't see what your point is.
>
>
>
> >The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
> >another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
> >to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
> >the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
> >off by two inches.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>
> The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
> to see.
So you acknowledge the trajectory panel lied. Now we're getting
somewhere, .
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>
> That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
> shows conspiracy.
>
> On *this* planet, it does not.
Actually, I think Canning's moving the back wound to fit a trajectory from
the sniper's nest was not part of some grand ongoing conspiracy, but part
of Blakey's compromise, in which he was willing to fake evidence
indicating Oswald fired the shots in exchange for his being allowed to say
he acted as part of a probable conspiracy.
>
> >BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
> >Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
> >any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
> >for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
> >location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
> >too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
> Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5.
>
> It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing
> what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion.
>
> To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at
> a *much* smaller scale than the Dox drawing.
John, you are 100% wrong. In order for you to claim the back wound in
Artwohl was not at C-5 and instead at T-1, you have to pretend the head in
the lateral photo at the left of my slide matches the size of the head in
the Dox drawing on the right of my slide. Is that possible? Really? If you
think this is wrong, then feel free to create a comparison of the left
lateral autopsy photo and Dox drawing that you believe accurately reflects
the relative size.
>
> This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
>
> Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
> drawing makes sense.
The Artwohl exhibit on your website is one of the most dishonest pieces of
"evidence" I've ever come across, and that says a lot considering how much
time I spend on CT websites. Your insistence that the wound location in
his exhibit is consistent with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP makes it
even worse. I mean, you are all alone on this. Other LNTs defending
Artwohl will at least admit they think the HSCA FPP was wrong, and that
the wound really was much higher on Kennedy's back than the HSCA proposed.
But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Since
the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit on
Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower. Is it your proposition that the
HSCA FPP was wrong about the exit location, and that it was really BELOW
T-1? If so, where? T-3?
Here is a lateral view of a ribcage:
http://reel.utsc.utoronto.ca/mboyer/Sawchuk/images/bones_LOWres/ribcage_lateral_labels.jpg
As you can see, T-1 is about as low as an exit can be on the neck without
piercing the sternum. If a bullet entered at T-1 and exited at T-3,
moreover, it would most certainly have pierced the lung. So, tell me, Was
the lung pierced? Or is it your position that a bullet can enter the back
at T-1 on a sharp descent and not injure the lung?
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 11, 10:26=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 9, 5:03=3DA0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>> >demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>>
>> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
>> class, I might.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>>
>> What is your point here?
>
>The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the location
>pushed by the WC and Myers, and the trajectory leads right through the
>transverse process of the spine.
>
You don't *begin* to have enough precision in your "analysis" to know
whether the trajectory goes through the transverse process.
Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
The wound was where the back photo shows it.
>>
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>>
>> I don't follow this either.
>
>This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
>transverse process of the spine.
You haven't proven any such thing.
As is usual, it's hard to make heads or tails of your graphics.
>It should also be noted that the only
>people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
>concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
>please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
>bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
>seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
>came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
>to refute them.
Maybe because it's obvious they are wrong.
You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
trust you or Mantik.
>
>>
>> You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
>> possible to see what your point is.
>>
>> The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
>>
>> See 7 HSCA 84-85.
>>
>> Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
>> centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>>
>> It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
>
>It's pretty obvious it would hit the spine. The spine is not a two
>dimensional object directly next to the back wound. It was near the middle
>of the distance between the back wound and the throat wound. The bullet
>exited (supposedly) to the left of the midline of the throat.
That's absurd.
There is a reason the spine is called the "backbone."
This is like your "faked bag" business. You simply make no attempt to
model these things with precision.
>
>>
>> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
>> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>
>I have presented actual evidence.
No you haven't. You have *assumed* that the bullet hit exactly at the
vertical midpoint of T1, in which case it would have hit the
transverse process.
But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>Feel free to counter my argument by
>presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
>pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>
Now you sound like Ben Holmes.
I'm sorry, but your claims are not assumed to be true until disproven.
In fact, it's obvious looking at your graphics that you aren't able to
model this stuff.
>>
>> >But that's just one of your errors. The HSCA's medical panel placed
>> >the back wound at T-1 and the exit a little higher at T-1. This "C-7/
>> >T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
>> >the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>>
>> Frankly, I can't find a reference to "C7/T1" (although even
>> conspiracists quote this) but neither can I find the HSCA saying "T1."
>>
>> So how about producing a cite.
>>
>> If T1 is simply *your* interpretation, you need to admit that.
>>
>> >As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
>> >half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
>> >exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
>> >almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
>> >why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>>
>> Oh, now I know where people get "C7/T1." The Dox drawing shows that.
>
>WRONG. Both Dox drawings absolutely positively show the bullet entering at
>the level of T1. C7/T1, near as I can figure, is something made up by LNTs
>to deceive their readers.
Pat, look at what you posted!!!
http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
The Dox drawing shows the trajectory a bit above T1.
>
>>
>> Otherwise, I can't see what your point is.
>>
>>
>>
>> >The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
>> >another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
>> >to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
>> >the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
>> >off by two inches.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>>
>> The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
>> to see.
>
>So you acknowledge the trajectory panel lied. Now we're getting
>somewhere, .
>
What???!!!
I acknowledge no such thing.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>>
>> That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
>> shows conspiracy.
>>
>> On *this* planet, it does not.
>
>Actually, I think Canning's moving the back wound to fit a trajectory from
>the sniper's nest was not part of some grand ongoing conspiracy, but part
>of Blakey's compromise, in which he was willing to fake evidence
>indicating Oswald fired the shots in exchange for his being allowed to say
>he acted as part of a probable conspiracy.
>
OMG. Why do you think that Blakey had to "compromise" on any of this?
>>
>> >BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
>> >Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
>> >any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
>> >for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
>> >location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
>> >too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>>
>> Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5.
>>
>> It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing
>> what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion.
>>
>> To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at
>> a *much* smaller scale than the Dox drawing.
>
>John, you are 100% wrong. In order for you to claim the back wound in
>Artwohl was not at C-5 and instead at T-1, you have to pretend the head in
>the lateral photo at the left of my slide matches the size of the head in
>the Dox drawing on the right of my slide. Is that possible? Really? If you
>think this is wrong, then feel free to create a comparison of the left
>lateral autopsy photo and Dox drawing that you believe accurately reflects
>the relative size.
>
The head in the middle panel (which is the one your use to claim C-5,
is much smaller than the one in the Artwohl diagram, and thus your
analysis is distorted with the purpose of pushing the wound up.
The right-hand panel seems to be a pretty good match, since certain
features line up fairly closely.
>>
>> This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
>>
>> Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
>> drawing makes sense.
>
>The Artwohl exhibit on your website is one of the most dishonest pieces of
>"evidence" I've ever come across, and that says a lot considering how much
>time I spend on CT websites. Your insistence that the wound location in
>his exhibit is consistent with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP makes it
>even worse. I mean, you are all alone on this. Other LNTs defending
>Artwohl will at least admit they think the HSCA FPP was wrong, and that
>the wound really was much higher on Kennedy's back than the HSCA proposed.
What planet are you living on.
Most LNs believe the wound was at C7/T1, just like the photo of the
back shows, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Since
>the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit on
>Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
>Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower.
It's where the lateral photo shows it to be!
Pat, somehow I think I'm living in the Twilight Zone when I discuss
with you.
>Is it your proposition that the
>HSCA FPP was wrong about the exit location, and that it was really BELOW
>T-1? If so, where? T-3?
>
Below the Adams Apple. Just where the photo shows it.
>Here is a lateral view of a ribcage:
>
>http://reel.utsc.utoronto.ca/mboyer/Sawchuk/images/bones_LOWres/ribcage_lat=
>eral_labels.jpg
>
>As you can see, T-1 is about as low as an exit can be on the neck without
>piercing the sternum. If a bullet entered at T-1 and exited at T-3,
>moreover, it would most certainly have pierced the lung. So, tell me, Was
>the lung pierced? Or is it your position that a bullet can enter the back
>at T-1 on a sharp descent and not injure the lung?
>
>
Pat, now I *know* I am in the Twilight Zone, discussing this with you.
The wound was where the lateral photo shows it. You can see it in the
lateral photo:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 5:03=A0pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>> demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>>
>
> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>
> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
> class, I might.
>
>
>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>
> What is your point here?
>
>
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>>
>
> I don't follow this either.
>
> You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
> possible to see what your point is.
>
His point is that people keep moving the back wound around.
> The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
>
> See 7 HSCA 84-85.
>
> Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
> centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
>
At what angle?
At what level?
> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>
Baden said it did and pointed to the hairline fracture and air in that
area. Some think there were bullet fragments in that area.
pjsp...@aol.com
You are correct, Tony, in that they never wrote T-1. But both Dox drawings
done for the FPP show the back wound location show it to be at T-1.
>
> > T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
> > the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>
> I place the entrance wound just above T-1, next to C-7.
>
> > As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
> > half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
> > exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
> > almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
> > why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
> The HSCA got around that problem by imagining that JFK was leaning over
> when he was hit.
As the HSCA FPP had the bullet entering and exiting at T-1, the forward
lean did not allow them to get around anything. They simply failed to
depict the first rib on any of their exhibits.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> > The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
> > another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
> > to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
> > the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
> > off by two inches.
>
> Baden got around the problem by demonstrating how he thinks JFK was
> leaning forward.
Baden and the FPP also insisted Kennedy must have leaned forward while
behind the sign. They presumably would not have signed off on the SBT if
they knew Blakey was gonna claim it happened at Z-190, when Kennedy was
not leaning forward.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 11, 10:26=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 9, 5:03=3DA0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> >> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
> >> >demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>
> >> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>
> >> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
> >> class, I might.
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>
> >> What is your point here?
>
> >The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the location
> >pushed by the WC and Myers, and the trajectory leads right through the
> >transverse process of the spine.
>
> You don't *begin* to have enough precision in your "analysis" to know
> whether the trajectory goes through the transverse process.
>
> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>
> The wound was where the back photo shows it.
Which, according to the Dox drawings, was at T-1.
>
>
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>
> >> I don't follow this either.
>
> >This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
> >transverse process of the spine.
>
> You haven't proven any such thing.
OK. Take me up on my challenge. Present an overhead view of Kennedy where
a bullet connecting his back wound and his throat wound does not pass
through the transverse processes of his spine. NO ONE has ever done this.
Will you be the first?
>
> As is usual, it's hard to make heads or tails of your graphics.
>
> >It should also be noted that the only
> >people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
> >concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
> >please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
> >bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
> >seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
> >came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
> >to refute them.
>
> Maybe because it's obvious they are wrong.
How, pray tell, is this obvious? As stated, not one proponent of the SBT
has ever demonstrated how a bullet track connecting Kennedy's back wound
and throat wound could miss his spine. Nichols wrote about it in the 70's.
Mantik wrote about it in the 90's. So where is the debunking of their
claims by Lattimer, or Artwohl, or Zimmerman? No such "debunking" has ever
occurred. Get on it, will ya?
>
> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>
> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
> trust you or Mantik.
What? I place the back wound where it is on the photo and Dox drawing.
Find me a citation in the FPP's report where they discuss the internal
passage of the bullet, and how it passed just to the right of the spine
and just over the first rib, etc. There is no such section in their
report. They deliberately avoided such discussion. The nearest they come
to mentioning it is when they push that Dr. Perry and everyone who saw the
throat wound in Dallas was wrong about the internal damage created by this
bullet. This is an acknowledgment that they knew the purported trajectory
of the bullet and the purported damage created by the bullet were
tremendously at odds. Once again, this is an opportunity for you to fill
in the blanks and show us just where this bullet passed, and how it was
able to squeak on through while entering and exiting just where the Dox
drawings show it entered and exited.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
> >> possible to see what your point is.
>
> >> The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
>
> >> See 7 HSCA 84-85.
>
> >> Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
> >> centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
> >> It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
>
> >It's pretty obvious it would hit the spine. The spine is not a two
> >dimensional object directly next to the back wound. It was near the middle
> >of the distance between the back wound and the throat wound. The bullet
> >exited (supposedly) to the left of the midline of the throat.
>
> That's absurd.
>
> There is a reason the spine is called the "backbone."
>
> This is like your "faked bag" business. You simply make no attempt to
> model these things with precision.
So prove me wrong! Show us just how easy it is to "model these things with
precision"! Your persistent complaints about what you to perceive to be
inaccuracies in my comparisons would be a lot easier to believe if 1)
others agreed with you, and 2) you were to make a better comparison, which
disproves my assertions. So do it!
>
>
>
> >> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
> >> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>
> >I have presented actual evidence.
>
> No you haven't. You have *assumed* that the bullet hit exactly at the
> vertical midpoint of T1, in which case it would have hit the
> transverse process.
I have assumed no such thing. The wound locations used in my slides are
the wound locations in the Dox drawings created under the supervision of
Dr. Baden. Once again, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can add a
section to your webpage about the lunacy of CTs who think the back wound
in the Dox drawings is at T-1, when we all know it's at C-7, etc.
>
> But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>
> >Feel free to counter my argument by
> >presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
> >pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>
> Now you sound like Ben Holmes.
>
> I'm sorry, but your claims are not assumed to be true until disproven.
> In fact, it's obvious looking at your graphics that you aren't able to
> model this stuff.
Only obvious to you, a man who thinks a bullet can enter the back at T-1
on a sharply downward trajectory and still exit on the throat.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >But that's just one of your errors. The HSCA's medical panel placed
> >> >the back wound at T-1 and the exit a little higher at T-1. This "C-7/
> >> >T-1" is something made up by single-assassin theorists afraid to admit
> >> >the HSCA FPP's trajectory doesn't work.
>
> >> Frankly, I can't find a reference to "C7/T1" (although even
> >> conspiracists quote this) but neither can I find the HSCA saying "T1."
>
> >> So how about producing a cite.
>
> >> If T1 is simply *your* interpretation, you need to admit that.
>
> >> >As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
> >> >half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
> >> >exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
> >> >almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
> >> >why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> >> Oh, now I know where people get "C7/T1." The Dox drawing shows that.
>
> >WRONG. Both Dox drawings absolutely positively show the bullet entering at
> >the level of T1. C7/T1, near as I can figure, is something made up by LNTs
> >to deceive their readers.
>
> Pat, look at what you posted!!!
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> The Dox drawing shows the trajectory a bit above T1.
Right. It EXITS slightly above T-1. But where does it enter... T-1. And
where is it when it passes the spine... Wait, I'll tell you...EXACTLY
where the first rib attaches the spine.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Otherwise, I can't see what your point is.
>
> >> >The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
> >> >another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
> >> >to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings,
> >> >the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
> >> >off by two inches.
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>
> >> The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
> >> to see.
>
> >So you acknowledge the trajectory panel lied. Now we're getting
> >somewhere, .
>
> What???!!!
>
> I acknowledge no such thing.
Dr. Baden testified that the back wound in the autopsy photo was two
inches lower on JFK's back than in the Rydberg drawings. Days later
Canning gave the committee a drawing showing the back wound to be exactly
where it is in the Rydberg drawings. His final report, in a footnote,
acknowledged that he was given permission to move the wounds to make the
trajectories work. Therefore...he lied.
>
>
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>
> >> That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
> >> shows conspiracy.
>
> >> On *this* planet, it does not.
>
> >Actually, I think Canning's moving the back wound to fit a trajectory from
> >the sniper's nest was not part of some grand ongoing conspiracy, but part
> >of Blakey's compromise, in which he was willing to fake evidence
> >indicating Oswald fired the shots in exchange for his being allowed to say
> >he acted as part of a probable conspiracy.
>
> OMG. Why do you think that Blakey had to "compromise" on any of this?
Uhhhh, you study politics. Do you honestly think the HSCA's conclusions
were purely scientific, and that politics played no role in their
incredibly weak conclusions?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
> >> >Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
> >> >any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
> >> >for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's proposed
> >> >location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
> >> >too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>
> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
> >> Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5.
>
> >> It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing
> >> what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion.
>
> >> To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at
> >> a *much* smaller scale than the Dox drawing.
>
> >John, you are 100% wrong. In order for you to claim the back wound in
> >Artwohl was not at C-5 and instead at T-1, you have to pretend the head in
> >the lateral photo at the left of my slide matches the size of the head in
> >the Dox drawing on the right of my slide. Is that possible? Really? If you
> >think this is wrong, then feel free to create a comparison of the left
> >lateral autopsy photo and Dox drawing that you believe accurately reflects
> >the relative size.
>
> The head in the middle panel (which is the one your use to claim C-5,
> is much smaller than the one in the Artwohl diagram, and thus your
> analysis is distorted with the purpose of pushing the wound up.
>
> The right-hand panel seems to be a pretty good match, since certain
> features line up fairly closely.
I matched the middle Artwohl image to the Dox drawing by their relative
head size. When these two match the wound is at C-5. The Artwohl image on
the left reveals the size of Kennedy needed in order to get Artwohl's
proposed entrance as low as T-1. To do this you have to make Kennedy's
head nearly twice the size it is in the Dox drawing. It's not a match.
>
>
>
> >> This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
>
> >> Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
> >> drawing makes sense.
How does having his head be nearly twice as large make sense?
>
> >The Artwohl exhibit on your website is one of the most dishonest pieces of
> >"evidence" I've ever come across, and that says a lot considering how much
> >time I spend on CT websites. Your insistence that the wound location in
> >his exhibit is consistent with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP makes it
> >even worse. I mean, you are all alone on this. Other LNTs defending
> >Artwohl will at least admit they think the HSCA FPP was wrong, and that
> >the wound really was much higher on Kennedy's back than the HSCA proposed.
>
> What planet are you living on.
>
> Most LNs believe the wound was at C7/T1, just like the photo of the
> back shows, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
Well, then round 'em up, so I can set 'em straight. Maybe one of them will
try to explain how a bullet can enter a back at T1 on a sharply downward
angle and exit the throat above the sternum.
>
> >But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Since
> >the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit on
> >Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
> >Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower.
>
> It's where the lateral photo shows it to be!
Nice dodge! So where is this on a skeleton? Are you really unable to see
the fallacy of your position? You simply can't have the slightly upwards
trajectory from T1 proposed by the HSCA FPP and the sharply downwards
trajectory from T1 proposed by Artwohl exit at the same point. Either they
were wrong about the back wound location or wrong about the exit location.
Pick one. But pretending you don't have to choose is as wacky as anything
I've encountered online.
>
> Pat, somehow I think I'm living in the Twilight Zone when I discuss
> with you.
>
> >Is it your proposition that the
> >HSCA FPP was wrong about the exit location, and that it was really BELOW
> >T-1? If so, where? T-3?
>
> Below the Adams Apple. Just where the photo shows it.
>
> >Here is a lateral view of a ribcage:
>
> >http://reel.utsc.utoronto.ca/mboyer/Sawchuk/images/bones_LOWres/ribca...
> >eral_labels.jpg
>
> >As you can see, T-1 is about as low as an exit can be on the neck without
> >piercing the sternum. If a bullet entered at T-1 and exited at T-3,
> >moreover, it would most certainly have pierced the lung. So, tell me, Was
> >the lung pierced? Or is it your position that a bullet can enter the back
> >at T-1 on a sharp descent and not injure the lung?
>
> Pat,...
>
> read more »
John Canal
>> back shows, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>
>Well, then round 'em up, so I can set 'em straight. Maybe one of them will
>try to explain how a bullet can enter a back at T1 on a sharply downward
>angle and exit the throat above the sternum.
Good gravy, Pat what's your philosophy when it comes to this case,
"S-M-A-C-C-O R-O-Z-A-R"? That's Occam's razor spelled backwards, BTW!
There was one back wound, right?
The transverse process at T1 was slightly fractured, right?
There were opacities (tiny bone fragments/debris) in that area [c7/T1],
Right?
The apex of the pleural sac was bruised, right?
The apex of the lung was bruised, Right?
There was air in the tissue between the back wound and the tracheostomy,
right?
His shirt collar had two slits that lined up behind the tracheostomy,
right?
The tie was nicked (and please don't say it was cut by a scalpel or was on
the wrong side, because they moved it before the pictures), right?
There was only one hole in the back of the jacket (sure it didn't line up
with the hole in the body, but no CT in the world can prove that bunching
of the jacket didn't account for that misalignment), right?
There was no bullet found anywhere in the body to explain a bullet hole in
his back, right?
There was a bullet hole below his Adam's apple over which a tracheostomy
had been performed with proof ever advanced by a CT there was a frontal
shooter, right?
So, even though you've got F8 ridiculously misorientated by 90 degrees so
the right front bone flap (the same one easily seen hanging off the right
front of his head in F3) sticks straight ### UP ### like a shark's dorsal
fin........
and even though you ridiculously opine that a bullet passed from an entry
wound in the back of his head through the thick bone at the base of the
skull and exited the throat WITH THE AUTOPSISTS NOT NOTICING AN EXIT-LIKE
BULLET HOLE IN HIS SKULL BASE,.......
you should, IN MY HUMBE OPINION, for once (in this case) apply
O-C-C-A-M'-S RAZOR--and not the reverse--and accept the fact that a bullet
hit JFK in the upper back and exited his throat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will not respond to any reply by you to this, because, IMHO, there is no
reply that would be worth taking the time to read.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 10:26=A0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 5:03=3DA0pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>>>> demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>>>
>>> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
>>> class, I might.
>>>
>>>> http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>>>
>>> What is your point here?
>>
>> The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the location
>> pushed by the WC and Myers, and the trajectory leads right through the
>> transverse process of the spine.
>>
>
> You don't *begin* to have enough precision in your "analysis" to know
> whether the trajectory goes through the transverse process.
>
> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>
> The wound was where the back photo shows it.
>
Then why don't you complain when Boswell and Ford change the location?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>>>
>>> I don't follow this either.
>>
>> This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
>> transverse process of the spine.
>
> You haven't proven any such thing.
>
> As is usual, it's hard to make heads or tails of your graphics.
>
>
>> It should also be noted that the only
>> people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
>> concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
>> please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
>> bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
>> seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
>> came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
>> to refute them.
>
> Maybe because it's obvious they are wrong.
>
> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>
> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
> trust you or Mantik.
>
Trust? Never trust. Verify.
Sure, but the photos do not show C7/T1.
>
>> But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Since
>> the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit on
>> Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
>> Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower.
>
> It's where the lateral photo shows it to be!
>
> Pat, somehow I think I'm living in the Twilight Zone when I discuss
> with you.
>
>
>> Is it your proposition that the
>> HSCA FPP was wrong about the exit location, and that it was really BELOW
>> T-1? If so, where? T-3?
>>
>
> Below the Adams Apple. Just where the photo shows it.
>
I thought Jean said Adam's Apple. You know anything about tracheal
rings? Can you feel them on your own neck?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 11, 10:26 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 9, 5:03=A0pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>> John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>>> demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>>
>> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
>> class, I might.
>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>>
>> What is your point here?
>
> The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the location
> pushed by the WC and Myers, and the trajectory leads right through the
> transverse process of the spine.
>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>>
>> I don't follow this either.
>
> This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
> transverse process of the spine. It should also be noted that the only
> people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
> concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
No. You are assuming the bullet entered at around T-3. If the bullet
entered just above T-1 then it would hit the top of T-1.
> please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
> bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
> seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
> came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
> to refute them.
>
Maybe because they assumed T-3. And yes I did refute them.
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> > As you can see, T-1 is about as low as an exit can be on the neck without
> > piercing the sternum. If a bullet entered at T-1 and exited at T-3,
> > moreover, it would most certainly have pierced the lung. So, tell me, Was
> > the lung pierced? Or is it your position that a bullet can enter the back
> > at T-1 on a sharp descent and not injure the lung?
>
> >> .John
>
> >> --
> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
Tony, I studied cross-sections of human torsos, taken at the T-1
level, before determining the bullet would hit the spine. I am not a
T-3er, and have been called a traitor to the CT religion for
expressing my belief the wound was at T-1, and not T-3. If you studied
the trajectory, and came to the conclusion the bullet passed outside
T-1 and the first rib before exiting to the left of the midline of the
throat, I'd appreciate your posting whatever illustrations you created
while coming to this conclusion. As I'm sure you know, none of the
"experts" to have studied this case have ever created such an
illustration.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>
>Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
>back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>
Translation: instead of focusing on where the wound really *was,* you
are going to bitch about where various LGTs have put it.
But where it *really was* is consistent with the SBT.
>>
>> The wound was where the back photo shows it.
>
>Which, according to the Dox drawings, was at T-1.
>
The Dox drawing puts it alightly *above* T1.
Look at the right-hand drawing, from your own website.
http://www.patspeer.com/HSCAsingle.jpg/HSCAsingle-full.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>>
>> >> I don't follow this either.
>>
>> >This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
>> >transverse process of the spine.
>>
>> You haven't proven any such thing.
>
>OK. Take me up on my challenge. Present an overhead view of Kennedy where
>a bullet connecting his back wound and his throat wound does not pass
>through the transverse processes of his spine. NO ONE has ever done this.
>Will you be the first?
>
You are a Ben Holmes clone!
You think you can just assert stuff, and until somebody refutes it
it's true.
I don't have the time right now to do that, so the burden in on you to
prove the SBT trajectory would not work.
>>
>> As is usual, it's hard to make heads or tails of your graphics.
>>
>> >It should also be noted that the only
>> >people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
>> >concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
>> >please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
>> >bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
>> >seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
>> >came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
>> >to refute them.
>>
>> Maybe because it's obvious they are wrong.
>
>How, pray tell, is this obvious? As stated, not one proponent of the SBT
>has ever demonstrated how a bullet track connecting Kennedy's back wound
>and throat wound could miss his spine. Nichols wrote about it in the 70's.
>Mantik wrote about it in the 90's. So where is the debunking of their
>claims by Lattimer, or Artwohl, or Zimmerman? No such "debunking" has ever
>occurred. Get on it, will ya?
>
Pat, I simply don't *believe* people like Mantik and Nichols.
Mantik is a certified crackpot.
>>
>> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
>> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>>
>> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
>> trust you or Mantik.
>
>What? I place the back wound where it is on the photo and Dox drawing.
No, you don't.
>Find me a citation in the FPP's report where they discuss the internal
>passage of the bullet, and how it passed just to the right of the spine
>and just over the first rib, etc. There is no such section in their
>report.
They didn't think any such was *needed* since they had no idea
crackpots like Mantik would raise the issue.
Simple fact about the HSCA: they refuted conspiracy notions that were
on the table in the late 70s. They could not know what people like
Mantik would claim.
>They deliberately avoided such discussion. The nearest they come
>to mentioning it is when they push that Dr. Perry and everyone who saw the
>throat wound in Dallas was wrong about the internal damage created by this
>bullet. This is an acknowledgment that they knew the purported trajectory
>of the bullet and the purported damage created by the bullet were
>tremendously at odds.
What?
That doesn't follow at all.
You are just engaged on a wild flight of fancy.
>Once again, this is an opportunity for you to fill
>in the blanks and show us just where this bullet passed, and how it was
>able to squeak on through while entering and exiting just where the Dox
>drawings show it entered and exited.
>
It entered above the transverse process of T1, brused the tip of the
right lung, and exited below the Adams Apple.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You seem to have all kinds of graphics, but it typically isn't
>> >> possible to see what your point is.
>>
>> >> The back wound was plainly visible in a sterro pair of autopsy photos.
>>
>> >> See 7 HSCA 84-85.
>>
>> >> Oddly enough, they don't specify how far to the right of the
>> >> centerline the wound was, although anybody can look for themselved.
>>
>> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>>
>> >> It's pretty obvious that would not hit the spine.
>>
>> >It's pretty obvious it would hit the spine. The spine is not a two
>> >dimensional object directly next to the back wound. It was near the midd=
>le
>> >of the distance between the back wound and the throat wound. The bullet
>> >exited (supposedly) to the left of the midline of the throat.
>>
>> That's absurd.
>>
>> There is a reason the spine is called the "backbone."
>>
>> This is like your "faked bag" business. You simply make no attempt to
>> model these things with precision.
>
>So prove me wrong! Show us just how easy it is to "model these things with
>precision"!
It's not necessarily easy to do it.
Which is why people like should probably avoid trying, at least until
you learn a bit about modelling.
>Your persistent complaints about what you to perceive to be
>inaccuracies in my comparisons would be a lot easier to believe if 1)
>others agreed with you, and 2) you were to make a better comparison, which
>disproves my assertions. So do it!
>
Already answered.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
>> >> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>>
>> >I have presented actual evidence.
>>
>> No you haven't. You have *assumed* that the bullet hit exactly at the
>> vertical midpoint of T1, in which case it would have hit the
>> transverse process.
>
>I have assumed no such thing. The wound locations used in my slides are
>the wound locations in the Dox drawings created under the supervision of
>Dr. Baden.
Again, you don't even look at your own graphics.
One of the ones you posted has the bullet entering just above T1.
>Once again, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can add a
>section to your webpage about the lunacy of CTs who think the back wound
>in the Dox drawings is at T-1, when we all know it's at C-7, etc.
>
You aren't worth refuting.
>>
>> But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>>
>> >Feel free to counter my argument by
>> >presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
>> >pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>>
>> Now you sound like Ben Holmes.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but your claims are not assumed to be true until disproven.
>> In fact, it's obvious looking at your graphics that you aren't able to
>> model this stuff.
>
>Only obvious to you, a man who thinks a bullet can enter the back at T-1
>on a sharply downward trajectory and still exit on the throat.
>
It can enter at C7/T1 at a 21 degree angle and exit below the Adams
Apple.
Artwohl showed that.
>>
>> >> Frankly, I can't find a reference to "C7/T1" (although even
>> >> conspiracists quote this) but neither can I find the HSCA saying "T1."
>>
>> >> So how about producing a cite.
>>
>> >> If T1 is simply *your* interpretation, you need to admit that.
>>
>> >> >As revealed in the slide below, the first rib attaches to the upper
>> >> >half of T-1. If the bullet passed above the rib it wouldn't have
>> >> >exited at T-1. If the bullet passed below the rib, however, it would
>> >> >almost certainly have pierced the lung, which it did not do. This is
>> >> >why the HSCA FPP left the first rib off their diagrams.
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>>
>> >> Oh, now I know where people get "C7/T1." The Dox drawing shows that.
>>
>> >WRONG. Both Dox drawings absolutely positively show the bullet entering at
>> >the level of T1. C7/T1, near as I can figure, is something made up by LNTs
>> >to deceive their readers.
>>
>> Pat, look at what you posted!!!
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>>
>> The Dox drawing shows the trajectory a bit above T1.
>
>Right. It EXITS slightly above T-1. But where does it enter... T-1. And
>where is it when it passes the spine... Wait, I'll tell you...EXACTLY
>where the first rib attaches the spine.
>
Look at the right-hand drawing, from your own website.
http://www.patspeer.com/HSCAsingle.jpg/HSCAsingle-full.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Otherwise, I can't see what your point is.
>>
>> >> >The trajectory panel, however, decided to deal with the first rib in
>> >> >another way. They just moved the back wound back above the first rib
>> >> >to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings=
>,
>> >> >the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
>> >> >off by two inches.
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>>
>> >> The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
>> >> to see.
>>
>> >So you acknowledge the trajectory panel lied. Now we're getting
>> >somewhere, .
>>
>> What???!!!
>>
>> I acknowledge no such thing.
>
>Dr. Baden testified that the back wound in the autopsy photo was two
>inches lower on JFK's back than in the Rydberg drawings. Days later
>Canning gave the committee a drawing showing the back wound to be exactly
>where it is in the Rydberg drawings. His final report, in a footnote,
>acknowledged that he was given permission to move the wounds to make the
>trajectories work. Therefore...he lied.
>
Nonsense.
Post citations for that.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>>
>> >> That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
>> >> shows conspiracy.
>>
>> >> On *this* planet, it does not.
>>
>> >Actually, I think Canning's moving the back wound to fit a trajectory fr=
>om
>> >the sniper's nest was not part of some grand ongoing conspiracy, but par=
>t
>> >of Blakey's compromise, in which he was willing to fake evidence
>> >indicating Oswald fired the shots in exchange for his being allowed to s=
>ay
>> >he acted as part of a probable conspiracy.
>>
>> OMG. Why do you think that Blakey had to "compromise" on any of this?
>
>
>Uhhhh, you study politics. Do you honestly think the HSCA's conclusions
>were purely scientific, and that politics played no role in their
>incredibly weak conclusions?
>
Not the kind of politics you are talking about.
As for "I study politics:" yes I do, unlike the conspiracists here.
>>
>> The head in the middle panel (which is the one your use to claim C-5,
>> is much smaller than the one in the Artwohl diagram, and thus your
>> analysis is distorted with the purpose of pushing the wound up.
>>
>> The right-hand panel seems to be a pretty good match, since certain
>> features line up fairly closely.
>
>I matched the middle Artwohl image to the Dox drawing by their relative
>head size. When these two match the wound is at C-5.
But the head in your middle photo simply isn't scaled to match the
Artwold diagram.
http://www.patspeer.com/hunch2.jpg/hunch2-full;init:.jpg
The right-hand side photo appears to be scaled correctly.
>he Artwohl image on
>the left reveals the size of Kennedy needed in order to get Artwohl's
>proposed entrance as low as T-1. To do this you have to make Kennedy's
>head nearly twice the size it is in the Dox drawing. It's not a match.
>
Pat, you seem to just make stuff up.
I know you believe it, but it seems to have been pulled out of your
ass.
Look at your own diagram:
http://www.patspeer.com/hunch2.jpg/hunch2-full;init:.jpg
The right-hand photo seems to match the left-hand side photo, and the
photo in the middle is obviously much smaller.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
>>
>> >> Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
>> >> drawing makes sense.
>
>How does having his head be nearly twice as large make sense?
>
You really can't see it, can you?
>>
>> >The Artwohl exhibit on your website is one of the most dishonest pieces =
>of
>> >"evidence" I've ever come across, and that says a lot considering how mu=
>ch
>> >time I spend on CT websites. Your insistence that the wound location in
>> >his exhibit is consistent with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP makes it
>> >even worse. I mean, you are all alone on this. Other LNTs defending
>> >Artwohl will at least admit they think the HSCA FPP was wrong, and that
>> >the wound really was much higher on Kennedy's back than the HSCA propose=
>d.
>>
>> What planet are you living on.
>>
>> Most LNs believe the wound was at C7/T1, just like the photo of the
>> back shows, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>
>Well, then round 'em up, so I can set 'em straight. Maybe one of them will
>try to explain how a bullet can enter a back at T1 on a sharply downward
>angle and exit the throat above the sternum.
>
See the Artwohl diagram.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>>
>> >But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Sin=
>ce
>> >the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit =
>on
>> >Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
>> >Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower.
>>
>> It's where the lateral photo shows it to be!
>
>Nice dodge! So where is this on a skeleton? Are you really unable to see
>the fallacy of your position? You simply can't have the slightly upwards
>trajectory from T1 proposed by the HSCA FPP and the sharply downwards
>trajectory from T1 proposed by Artwohl exit at the same point.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>ither they
>were wrong about the back wound location or wrong about the exit location.
>Pick one. But pretending you don't have to choose is as wacky as anything
>I've encountered online.
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
John McAdams
He claims that the back photo shows an entrance wound at T1.
He says this would have hit the transverse process.
But the transverse process is not shattered.
Therefore, no bullet hit the transverse process!
But then, accurding to Speer, the bullet hit at T1 and had to shatter
the transverse process.
So no bullet hit Kennedy in the back!
On 12 Jan 2010 13:48:26 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:
>On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 11, 10:26=3DA0am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote=
>:
>> >> On 11 Jan 2010 07:53:16 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 9, 5:03=3D3DA0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wr=
>ote:
>> >> >> On 9 Jan 2010 08:06:00 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >John, you are the one making stuff up. Please upload a video
>> >> >demonstrating your dowel theory asap. This should prove interesting.
>>
>> >> Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you.
>>
>> >> If some student has an cell-phone video camera next time I do this in
>> >> class, I might.
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>>
>> >> What is your point here?
>>
>> >The point is obvious. The HSCA's back wound location is below the locati=
>> >dimensional object directly next to the back wound. It was near the midd=
>le
>> >of the distance between the back wound and the throat wound. The bullet
>> >exited (supposedly) to the left of the midline of the throat.
>>
>> That's absurd.
>>
>> There is a reason the spine is called the "backbone."
>>
>> This is like your "faked bag" business. You simply make no attempt to
>> model these things with precision.
>
>So prove me wrong! Show us just how easy it is to "model these things with
>precision"! Your persistent complaints about what you to perceive to be
>inaccuracies in my comparisons would be a lot easier to believe if 1)
>others agreed with you, and 2) you were to make a better comparison, which
>disproves my assertions. So do it!
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
>> >> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>>
>> >I have presented actual evidence.
>>
>> No you haven't. =A0You have *assumed* that the bullet hit exactly at the
>> vertical midpoint of T1, in which case it would have hit the
>> transverse process.
>
>I have assumed no such thing. The wound locations used in my slides are
>the wound locations in the Dox drawings created under the supervision of
>Dr. Baden. Once again, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can add a
>section to your webpage about the lunacy of CTs who think the back wound
>in the Dox drawings is at T-1, when we all know it's at C-7, etc.
>
>>
>> But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>>
>> >Feel free to counter my argument by
>> >presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
>> >pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>>
>> Now you sound like Ben Holmes. =A0
>> >> >to the location used by the Warren Commission in the Rydberg Drawings=
>,
>> >> >the very drawings the HSCA's Dr. Baden testified were incorrect, and
>> >> >off by two inches.
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/cunning.jpg
>>
>> >> The truth is the photo, which you reproduce it too small for anybody
>> >> to see.
>>
>> >So you acknowledge the trajectory panel lied. Now we're getting
>> >somewhere, .
>>
>> What???!!!
>>
>> I acknowledge no such thing.
>
>Dr. Baden testified that the back wound in the autopsy photo was two
>inches lower on JFK's back than in the Rydberg drawings. Days later
>Canning gave the committee a drawing showing the back wound to be exactly
>where it is in the Rydberg drawings. His final report, in a footnote,
>acknowledged that he was given permission to move the wounds to make the
>trajectories work. Therefore...he lied.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>>
>> >> That's the usual conspiracist problem. You think every discrepancy
>> >> shows conspiracy.
>>
>> >> On *this* planet, it does not.
>>
>> >Actually, I think Canning's moving the back wound to fit a trajectory fr=
>om
>> >the sniper's nest was not part of some grand ongoing conspiracy, but par=
>t
>> >of Blakey's compromise, in which he was willing to fake evidence
>> >indicating Oswald fired the shots in exchange for his being allowed to s=
>ay
>> >he acted as part of a probable conspiracy.
>>
>> OMG. =A0Why do you think that Blakey had to "compromise" on any of this?
>
>
>Uhhhh, you study politics. Do you honestly think the HSCA's conclusions
>were purely scientific, and that politics played no role in their
>incredibly weak conclusions?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >BTW, while you complain about the "crazies" over at the Education
>> >> >Forum, you continue to push one of the craziest things ever pushed by
>> >> >any theorist, LN or CT. And that's that Artwohl's proposed location
>> >> >for the back wound entrance is consistent with the HSCA FPP's propose=
>d
>> >> >location. Can you really not see how wrong this is? Or are you just
>> >> >too stubborn to admit that a CT is right about something?
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>>
>> >> Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5.
>>
>> >> It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing
>> >> what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion.
>>
>> >> To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at
>> >> a *much* smaller scale than the Dox drawing.
>>
>> >John, you are 100% wrong. In order for you to claim the back wound in
>> >Artwohl was not at C-5 and instead at T-1, you have to pretend the head =
>in
>> >the lateral photo at the left of my slide matches the size of the head i=
>n
>> >the Dox drawing on the right of my slide. Is that possible? Really? If y=
>ou
>> >think this is wrong, then feel free to create a comparison of the left
>> >lateral autopsy photo and Dox drawing that you believe accurately reflec=
>ts
>> >the relative size.
>>
>> The head in the middle panel (which is the one your use to claim C-5,
>> is much smaller than the one in the Artwohl diagram, and thus your
>> analysis is distorted with the purpose of pushing the wound up.
>>
>> The right-hand panel seems to be a pretty good match, since certain
>> features line up fairly closely.
>
>I matched the middle Artwohl image to the Dox drawing by their relative
>head size. When these two match the wound is at C-5. The Artwohl image on
>the left reveals the size of Kennedy needed in order to get Artwohl's
>proposed entrance as low as T-1. To do this you have to make Kennedy's
>head nearly twice the size it is in the Dox drawing. It's not a match.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly.
>>
>> >> Ignore your misscaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's
>> >> drawing makes sense.
>
>How does having his head be nearly twice as large make sense?
>
>>
>> >The Artwohl exhibit on your website is one of the most dishonest pieces =
>of
>> >"evidence" I've ever come across, and that says a lot considering how mu=
>ch
>> >time I spend on CT websites. Your insistence that the wound location in
>> >his exhibit is consistent with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP makes it
>> >even worse. I mean, you are all alone on this. Other LNTs defending
>> >Artwohl will at least admit they think the HSCA FPP was wrong, and that
>> >the wound really was much higher on Kennedy's back than the HSCA propose=
>d.
>>
>> What planet are you living on.
>>
>> Most LNs believe the wound was at C7/T1, just like the photo of the
>> back shows, 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
>
>Well, then round 'em up, so I can set 'em straight. Maybe one of them will
>try to explain how a bullet can enter a back at T1 on a sharply downward
>angle and exit the throat above the sternum.
>
>>
>> >But you amazingly try to have it both ways. Well, then explain this. Sin=
>ce
>> >the HSCA FPP proposed that both the entrance on Kennedy's back and exit =
>on
>> >Kennedy's throat were at the level of T-1, why is it that the exit on
>> >Kennedy's throat in Artwohl is far lower.
>>
>> It's where the lateral photo shows it to be!
>
>Nice dodge! So where is this on a skeleton? Are you really unable to see
>the fallacy of your position? You simply can't have the slightly upwards
>trajectory from T1 proposed by the HSCA FPP and the sharply downwards
>trajectory from T1 proposed by Artwohl exit at the same point. Either they
>were wrong about the back wound location or wrong about the exit location.
>Pick one. But pretending you don't have to choose is as wacky as anything
>I've encountered online.
>
>
>>
>> Pat, somehow I think I'm living in the Twilight Zone when I discuss
>> with you.
>>
>> >Is it your proposition that the
>> >HSCA FPP was wrong about the exit location, and that it was really BELOW
>> >T-1? If so, where? T-3?
>>
>> Below the Adams Apple. =A0Just where the photo shows it.
>>
>> >Here is a lateral view of a ribcage:
>>
>> >http://reel.utsc.utoronto.ca/mboyer/Sawchuk/images/bones_LOWres/ribca...
>> >eral_labels.jpg
>>
>> >As you can see, T-1 is about as low as an exit can be on the neck withou=
>t
>> >piercing the sternum. If a bullet entered at T-1 and exited at T-3,
>> >moreover, it would most certainly have pierced the lung. So, tell me, Wa=
>s
>> >the lung pierced? =A0Or is it your position that a bullet can enter the =
>back
>> >at T-1 on a sharp descent and not injure the lung?
>>
>> Pat,...
>>
>> read more =BB
pjsp...@aol.com
> Try to follow his argument.
>
> He claims that the back photo shows an entrance wound at T1.
>
> He says this would have hit the transverse process.
>
> But the transverse process is not shattered.
>
> Therefore, no bullet hit the transverse process!
>
> But then, accurding to Speer, the bullet hit at T1 and had to shatter
> the transverse process.
>
> So no bullet hit Kennedy in the back!
>
>
> read more »
Sorry to overtax your brain to such an extent you have a total meltdown
and make stuff up.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 12 Jan 2010 13:48:26 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>
> >Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
> >back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>
> Translation: instead of focusing on where the wound really *was,* you
> are going to bitch about where various LGTs have put it.
>
> But where it *really was* is consistent with the SBT.
Nonsense. I agree with the HSCA's position the throat wound was at C7.
I'll even concede it may have been at T1. What you keep running from,
however, is the obvious fact that Artwohl has the bullet heading sharply
downwards from what you claim is C7/T1, and that therefore, the bullet
could not possibly have exited at C7, as asserted by the HSCA FPP in the
Dox drawing. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Are you really so resistant to new
thoughts that you can't see that a bullet descending through a neck from a
vertical location can not exit at that same location? Now, the HSCA tried
to get around this by insisting Kennedy must have been leaning over. But
Artwohl says no such thing, and depicts the bullet descending within the
neck. His depiction is therefore at odds with the HSCA's trajectory and at
least one of its wound locations. This isn't rocket science. It is
incredibly obvious to most every single-assassin theorist that Artwohl and
the HSCA FPP cannot both be correct.
>
>
> >> The wound was where the back photo shows it.
>
> >Which, according to the Dox drawings, was at T-1.
>
> The Dox drawing puts it alightly *above* T1.
>
> Look at the right-hand drawing, from your own website.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/HSCAsingle.jpg/HSCAsingle-full.jpg
>
The exit wound in the Dox drawing is most certainly at C7 or T1 on the
body. Are you trying to measure the exit location without taking into
account the forward lean?
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/smokingspine2.jpg
>
> >> >> I don't follow this either.
>
> >> >This reinforces the same point. The SBT trajectory leads right through the
> >> >transverse process of the spine.
>
> >> You haven't proven any such thing.
>
> >OK. Take me up on my challenge. Present an overhead view of Kennedy where
> >a bullet connecting his back wound and his throat wound does not pass
> >through the transverse processes of his spine. NO ONE has ever done this.
> >Will you be the first?
>
> You are a Ben Holmes clone!
>
> You think you can just assert stuff, and until somebody refutes it
> it's true.
I'm sorry. But I have presented slides depicting wound locations and
trajectories. I am not just blowing smoke, That would be you. You called
my examination of the paper bag a crackpot photo analysis, and yet have
never offered your interpretation of the correct sizing of the photos. You
have also claimed my comparison of Artwohl to Dox is incorrect, and that
the proper sizing was the one where the back wound in Artwohl is at T1,
even though this makes Kennedy's head almost twice as big as it in the Dox
drawing. I dare you to create a similar comparison, and place it on your
website in defense of Artwohl's analysis. This, I know, you will never do,
because doing so would make you a laughing stock even among the
single-assassin theorist faithful.
>
> I don't have the time right now to do that, so the burden in on you to
> prove the SBT trajectory would not work.
READ my chapters on the single-bullet theory, The theory has been totally
dismantled and destroyed. Will you be the one to resuscitate it by showing
how a bullet could enter at T1 and exit at C7 or lower without hitting the
spine or the first rib? I thought not.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> As is usual, it's hard to make heads or tails of your graphics.
>
> >> >It should also be noted that the only
> >> >people to ever study the overhead trajectory in regards to the spine have
> >> >concluded the bullet would hit the spine. If you disagree with this point
> >> >please show me ONE overhead depiction of the SBT demonstrating how the
> >> >bullet would miss the spine and its transverse processes. Nichols in the
> >> >seventies and Mantik in the nineties both spent some time on this, and
> >> >came to the same conclusion. No one, to my knowledge, has even attempted
> >> >to refute them.
>
> >> Maybe because it's obvious they are wrong.
>
> >How, pray tell, is this obvious? As stated, not one proponent of the SBT
> >has ever demonstrated how a bullet track connecting Kennedy's back wound
> >and throat wound could miss his spine. Nichols wrote about it in the 70's.
> >Mantik wrote about it in the 90's. So where is the debunking of their
> >claims by Lattimer, or Artwohl, or Zimmerman? No such "debunking" has ever
> >occurred. Get on it, will ya?
>
> Pat, I simply don't *believe* people like Mantik and Nichols.
>
> Mantik is a certified crackpot.
Yeah, okay, I don't agree with everything he has to say either. But NO
scientist has ever refuted his work regarding the trajectory and the
spine.
>
>
>
> >> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
> >> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>
> >> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
> >> trust you or Mantik.
>
> >What? I place the back wound where it is on the photo and Dox drawing.
>
> No, you don't.
Wrong, You're just making stuff up to be arbitrary.
>
> >Find me a citation in the FPP's report where they discuss the internal
> >passage of the bullet, and how it passed just to the right of the spine
> >and just over the first rib, etc. There is no such section in their
> >report.
>
> They didn't think any such was *needed* since they had no idea
> crackpots like Mantik would raise the issue.
>
> Simple fact about the HSCA: they refuted conspiracy notions that were
> on the table in the late 70s. They could not know what people like
> Mantik would claim.
This reveals your utter lack of knowledge on this aspect of the case.
Nichols's study coming to the same conclusion was published in the
Maryland State Medical Journal in 1977. Everyone on the HSCA FPP would
have known about it. Nichols, by the way, was well known to Lattimer, and
provided Lattimer with the M/C ammo used in his studies. No one, and I
mean no one, considered Nichols a crackpot.
>
> >They deliberately avoided such discussion. The nearest they come
> >to mentioning it is when they push that Dr. Perry and everyone who saw the
> >throat wound in Dallas was wrong about the internal damage created by this
> >bullet. This is an acknowledgment that they knew the purported trajectory
> >of the bullet and the purported damage created by the bullet were
> >tremendously at odds.
>
> What?
>
> That doesn't follow at all.
>
> You are just engaged on a wild flight of fancy.
If you read the HSCA report you will see that they claim Perry was wrong
about the amount of damage in the neck--an acknowledgment that they knew
there should have been more damage,
You mean avoided. All you have to do is say the HSCA was wrong or that
Artwohl was wrong. Your trying to have both of them be correct reveals you
as a crackpot, IMO. Which is most disappointing. Unlike most CTs, I want
there to be credible LNs, if for no other reason than to keep the wacky
tendencies of the CT crowd in check.
>
>
>
> >> >> If you want to insist that it would have to hit the transverse
> >> >> process, you need to present actual evidence to that effect.
>
> >> >I have presented actual evidence.
>
> >> No you haven't. You have *assumed* that the bullet hit exactly at the
> >> vertical midpoint of T1, in which case it would have hit the
> >> transverse process.
>
> >I have assumed no such thing. The wound locations used in my slides are
> >the wound locations in the Dox drawings created under the supervision of
> >Dr. Baden.
>
> Again, you don't even look at your own graphics.
>
> One of the ones you posted has the bullet entering just above T1.
>
> >Once again, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can add a
> >section to your webpage about the lunacy of CTs who think the back wound
> >in the Dox drawings is at T-1, when we all know it's at C-7, etc.
>
> You aren't worth refuting.
Hogwash. You're afraid to admit you're wrong about anything. I'd hoped
you were bigger than that.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>
> >> >Feel free to counter my argument by
> >> >presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
> >> >pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>
> >> Now you sound like Ben Holmes.
>
> >> I'm sorry, but your claims are not assumed to be true until disproven.
> >> In fact, it's obvious looking at your graphics that you aren't able to
> >> model this stuff.
>
> >Only obvious to you, a man who thinks a bullet can enter the back at T-1
> >on a sharply downward trajectory and still exit on the throat.
>
> It can enter at C7/T1 at a 21 degree angle and exit below the Adams
> Apple.
OK. Now we're getting somewhere. If you draw this on an anatomy
drawing you will see this isn't possible and that I am correct.
Here is the footnote.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0020a.htm
While it does not say WHY Canning was allowed to move the wounds to
locations at odds with the HSCA FPP's conclusions, a careful study of
Canning's work and provable lies makes it more than clear. If you suck it
up and read Chapter 15 at patspeer.com, you will learn a great deal about
the problems with the trajectory analysis. And no, my analysis is not
crackpot nor easily debunked.
>
>
>
> ...
>
> read more »
John McAdams
wrote:
You said that the bullet hit Kennedy's back at T1.
You said that it would have hit the transverse process.
But the transverse process was not smashed.
If a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, it either made it past the spine
(say at C7/T1) or it did not.
Your position is that it could not.
But the transverse process is not smashed.
So how do you reconcile your claims?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 13, 12:49�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2010 13:48:26 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>>
>> >Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
>> >back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>>
>> Translation: �instead of focusing on where the wound really *was,* you
>> are going to bitch about where various LGTs have put it.
>>
>> But where it *really was* is consistent with the SBT.
>
>Nonsense. I agree with the HSCA's position the throat wound was at C7.
>I'll even concede it may have been at T1.
It makes no sense to use "C7" or "T1" when talking about the throat
wound.
>What you keep running from,
>however, is the obvious fact that Artwohl has the bullet heading sharply
>downwards from what you claim is C7/T1, and that therefore, the bullet
>could not possibly have exited at C7, as asserted by the HSCA FPP in the
>Dox drawing.
The HSCA did not say "C7" or "T1" or any such thing with regard to the
*throat* wound.
If you are saying that the HSCA thought the bullet passed in a flat or
even slightly upward trajectory, IF THE BODY WAS IN THE ANATOMICAL
POSITION, you are right.
I think they were wrong about that.
>It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Are you really so resistant to new
>thoughts that you can't see that a bullet descending through a neck from a
>vertical location can not exit at that same location?
Where did you get "same location?"
Your problem is that you arrive at an *opinion* and then start to
treat your opinion as fact.
>Now, the HSCA tried
>to get around this by insisting Kennedy must have been leaning over. But
>Artwohl says no such thing,
He wasn't "leaning," although his torso is slouched.
But I don't think that's necessary to support the SB trajectory.
>and depicts the bullet descending within the
>neck. His depiction is therefore at odds with the HSCA's trajectory and at
>least one of its wound locations.
HSCA trajectory: yes.
Wound location: no.
>This isn't rocket science. It is
>incredibly obvious to most every single-assassin theorist that Artwohl and
>the HSCA FPP cannot both be correct.
>
Artwohl is correct.
>>
>> >OK. Take me up on my challenge. Present an overhead view of Kennedy where
>> >a bullet connecting his back wound and his throat wound does not pass
>> >through the transverse processes of his spine. NO ONE has ever done this.
>> >Will you be the first?
>>
>> You are a Ben Holmes clone!
>>
>> You think you can just assert stuff, and until somebody refutes it
>> it's true.
>
>I'm sorry. But I have presented slides depicting wound locations and
>trajectories.
But they are self-contradictory and confusing.
>I am not just blowing smoke, That would be you. You called
>my examination of the paper bag a crackpot photo analysis, and yet have
>never offered your interpretation of the correct sizing of the photos.
I've told you that you need to photograph an exemplar bad with the
same camera lens that Dillard used, and *tilt* the bag toward the
camera the way Montgomery tilted it.
>You
>have also claimed my comparison of Artwohl to Dox is incorrect, and that
>the proper sizing was the one where the back wound in Artwohl is at T1,
>even though this makes Kennedy's head almost twice as big as it in the Dox
>drawing.
You are just making stuff up.
You own composite shows that the "right photo" (the larger one)
corresponds with the Artwohl analysis
Your "middle photo" shows the head much smaller than in the Artwohl
analysis.
>I dare you to create a similar comparison, and place it on your
>website in defense of Artwohl's analysis. This, I know, you will never do,
>because doing so would make you a laughing stock even among the
>single-assassin theorist faithful.
>
I don't need to.
Your own analysis shows Artwohl to be correct!
>>
>> I don't have the time right now to do that, so the burden in on you to
>> prove the SBT trajectory would not work.
>
>READ my chapters on the single-bullet theory, The theory has been totally
>dismantled and destroyed. Will you be the one to resuscitate it by showing
>how a bullet could enter at T1 and exit at C7 or lower without hitting the
>spine or the first rib? I thought not.
>
So you think the bullet entered at T1?
What happened to it?
Did it smash the transverse process?
>>
>> Pat, I simply don't *believe* people like Mantik and Nichols.
>>
>> Mantik is a certified crackpot.
>
>Yeah, okay, I don't agree with everything he has to say either. But NO
>scientist has ever refuted his work regarding the trajectory and the
>spine.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
>> >> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>>
>> >> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
>> >> trust you or Mantik.
>>
>> >What? I place the back wound where it is on the photo and Dox drawing.
>>
>> No, you don't.
>
>Wrong, You're just making stuff up to be arbitrary.
>
The back photo is the back photo. It shows where the wound is.
You can throw out all the red herrings you want, but it can't change
the wound location.
>>
>> >Find me a citation in the FPP's report where they discuss the internal
>> >passage of the bullet, and how it passed just to the right of the spine
>> >and just over the first rib, etc. There is no such section in their
>> >report.
>>
>> They didn't think any such was *needed* since they had no idea
>> crackpots like Mantik would raise the issue.
>>
>> Simple fact about the HSCA: they refuted conspiracy notions that were
>> on the table in the late 70s. They could not know what people like
>> Mantik would claim.
>
>
>This reveals your utter lack of knowledge on this aspect of the case.
>Nichols's study coming to the same conclusion was published in the
>Maryland State Medical Journal in 1977. Everyone on the HSCA FPP would
>have known about it. Nichols, by the way, was well known to Lattimer, and
>provided Lattimer with the M/C ammo used in his studies. No one, and I
>mean no one, considered Nichols a crackpot.
>
OK, so Kennedy was not shot in the back.
>>
>> >They deliberately avoided such discussion. The nearest they come
>> >to mentioning it is when they push that Dr. Perry and everyone who saw the
>> >throat wound in Dallas was wrong about the internal damage created by this
>> >bullet. This is an acknowledgment that they knew the purported trajectory
>> >of the bullet and the purported damage created by the bullet were
>> >tremendously at odds.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> That doesn't follow at all.
>>
>> You are just engaged on a wild flight of fancy.
>
>If you read the HSCA report you will see that they claim Perry was wrong
>about the amount of damage in the neck--an acknowledgment that they knew
>there should have been more damage,
>
I don't follow you here.
How could Perry know much about the damage to the neck? He never
dissected it.
>>
>> >So prove me wrong! Show us just how easy it is to "model these things with
>> >precision"!
>>
>> It's not necessarily easy to do it.
>>
>> Which is why people like should probably avoid trying, at least until
>> you learn a bit about modelling.
>>
>> >Your persistent complaints about what you to perceive to be
>> >inaccuracies in my comparisons would be a lot easier to believe if 1)
>> >others agreed with you, and 2) you were to make a better comparison, which
>> >disproves my assertions. So do it!
>>
>> Already answered.
>
>You mean avoided. All you have to do is say the HSCA was wrong or that
>Artwohl was wrong.
The HSCA was wrong about the trajectory through the torso.
>Your trying to have both of them be correct reveals you
>as a crackpot, IMO.
I probably should have voted to reject this.
>Which is most disappointing. Unlike most CTs, I want
>there to be credible LNs, if for no other reason than to keep the wacky
>tendencies of the CT crowd in check.
>
>> >Once again, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can add a
>> >section to your webpage about the lunacy of CTs who think the back wound
>> >in the Dox drawings is at T-1, when we all know it's at C-7, etc.
>>
>> You aren't worth refuting.
>
>Hogwash. You're afraid to admit you're wrong about anything. I'd hoped
>you were bigger than that.
>
You're afraid to admit you're wrong about anything. I'd hoped you
were bigger than that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> But you haven't proven that it hit at that point!
>>
>> >> >Feel free to counter my argument by
>> >> >presenting an overhead view of the SBT trajectory in which the bullet wold
>> >> >pass to the outside of the transverse process.
>>
>> >> Now you sound like Ben Holmes.
>>
>> >> I'm sorry, but your claims are not assumed to be true until disproven.
>> >> In fact, it's obvious looking at your graphics that you aren't able to
>> >> model this stuff.
>>
>> >Only obvious to you, a man who thinks a bullet can enter the back at T-1
>> >on a sharply downward trajectory and still exit on the throat.
>>
>> It can enter at C7/T1 at a 21 degree angle and exit below the Adams
>> Apple.
>
>OK. Now we're getting somewhere. If you draw this on an anatomy
>drawing you will see this isn't possible and that I am correct.
>
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>>
>> Look at the right-hand drawing, from your own website.
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/HSCAsingle.jpg/HSCAsingle-full.jpg
As anybody can see in this graphic (right-hand photo) the bullet is
shown as passing between the C7 and T1 transverse processes.
>>
>> >Dr. Baden testified that the back wound in the autopsy photo was two
>> >inches lower on JFK's back than in the Rydberg drawings. Days later
>> >Canning gave the committee a drawing showing the back wound to be exactly
>> >where it is in the Rydberg drawings. His final report, in a footnote,
>> >acknowledged that he was given permission to move the wounds to make the
>> >trajectories work. Therefore...he lied.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Post citations for that.
>
>
>
>Here is the footnote.
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0020a.htm
>
All this shows is that Canning used various kinds of data to locate
the wound.
He apparently did his own measurements, rather than blindly following
the FPP.
And you, in a very mean spirited way, say this was a "lie."
You are beginning to sound like Tony Marsh.
>While it does not say WHY Canning was allowed to move the wounds to
>locations at odds with the HSCA FPP's conclusions, a careful study of
>Canning's work and provable lies makes it more than clear.
Your constant "lies" cry does not add to your credibility.
>If you suck it
>up and read Chapter 15 at patspeer.com, you will learn a great deal about
>the problems with the trajectory analysis. And no, my analysis is not
>crackpot nor easily debunked.
>
It is hard to debunk, since it's hard to know what it is.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 13 Jan 2010 21:38:59 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 12:49 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan 2010 13:48:26 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
>>>> back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>>>
>>> Translation: instead of focusing on where the wound really *was,* you
>>> are going to bitch about where various LGTs have put it.
>>>
>>> But where it *really was* is consistent with the SBT.
>>
>> Nonsense. I agree with the HSCA's position the throat wound was at C7.
>> I'll even concede it may have been at T1.
>
> It makes no sense to use "C7" or "T1" when talking about the throat
> wound.
>
>
Correct. Can you speak in terms of trachial rings?
>> What you keep running from,
>> however, is the obvious fact that Artwohl has the bullet heading sharply
>> downwards from what you claim is C7/T1, and that therefore, the bullet
>> could not possibly have exited at C7, as asserted by the HSCA FPP in the
>> Dox drawing.
>
> The HSCA did not say "C7" or "T1" or any such thing with regard to the
> *throat* wound.
>
> If you are saying that the HSCA thought the bullet passed in a flat or
> even slightly upward trajectory, IF THE BODY WAS IN THE ANATOMICAL
> POSITION, you are right.
>
> I think they were wrong about that.
>
So, you think you know better? Only by moving the back wound higher.
>
>
>> It is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Are you really so resistant to new
>> thoughts that you can't see that a bullet descending through a neck from a
>> vertical location can not exit at that same location?
>
> Where did you get "same location?"
>
> Your problem is that you arrive at an *opinion* and then start to
> treat your opinion as fact.
>
>
>> Now, the HSCA tried
>> to get around this by insisting Kennedy must have been leaning over. But
>> Artwohl says no such thing,
>
> He wasn't "leaning," although his torso is slouched.
>
> But I don't think that's necessary to support the SB trajectory.
>
It was necessary for the HSCA. Your solution is to move the back wound
higher.
>
>> and depicts the bullet descending within the
>> neck. His depiction is therefore at odds with the HSCA's trajectory and at
>> least one of its wound locations.
>
> HSCA trajectory: yes.
>
> Wound location: no.
>
>
>> This isn't rocket science. It is
>> incredibly obvious to most every single-assassin theorist that Artwohl and
>> the HSCA FPP cannot both be correct.
>>
>
> Artwohl is correct.
>
Artwohl is an idiot.
Hairline fracture.
>
>>>
>>> Pat, I simply don't *believe* people like Mantik and Nichols.
>>>
>>> Mantik is a certified crackpot.
>>
>> Yeah, okay, I don't agree with everything he has to say either. But NO
>> scientist has ever refuted his work regarding the trajectory and the
>> spine.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You have to posit that it hit at a certain exact point in order to hit
>>>>> the transverse process, and you don't know that it hit at that point.
>>>
>>>>> I frankly trust the HSCA FPP to know surface anatomy much more than I
>>>>> trust you or Mantik.
>>>
>>>> What? I place the back wound where it is on the photo and Dox drawing.
>>>
>>> No, you don't.
>>
>> Wrong, You're just making stuff up to be arbitrary.
>>
>
> The back photo is the back photo. It shows where the wound is.
>
> You can throw out all the red herrings you want, but it can't change
> the wound location.
>
But you can change the wound location by verbal plastic surgery.
Show what you think it was.
You can't get a SBT trajectory unless you move the back wound higher.
And that is your only goal. Not to follow the evidence, but to CHANGE it
to fit your pet theories.
It is a lie when he deliberately changes the data.
Anthony Marsh
>>
>> Sorry to overtax your brain to such an extent you have a total meltdown
>> and make stuff up.
>
> You said that the bullet hit Kennedy's back at T1.
>
> You said that it would have hit the transverse process.
>
> But the transverse process was not smashed.
False logic. The transverse process does not have to be smashed to be
hit. There was a hairline fracture, a slight displacement.
>
> If a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, it either made it past the spine
> (say at C7/T1) or it did not.
>
As Baden says, the bullet grazed the transverse process of T-1.
> Your position is that it could not.
>
> But the transverse process is not smashed.
>
It doesn't have to be smashed. Wake up.
Anthony Marsh
> Try to follow his argument.
>
> He claims that the back photo shows an entrance wound at T1.
>
> He says this would have hit the transverse process.
>
> But the transverse process is not shattered.
>
> Therefore, no bullet hit the transverse process!
>
False logic. Something does not have to be smashed when it is hit.
Anthony Marsh
> On 12 Jan 2010 13:48:26 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 5:03=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2010 19:27:08 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Your bringing in Myers and the Rydberg drawing is just a red herring.
>>
>> Nonsense. It shows that LNTers, from day one, have habitually moved the
>> back wound upwards in order to support the SBT.
>>
>
> Translation: instead of focusing on where the wound really *was,* you
> are going to bitch about where various LGTs have put it.
>
> But where it *really was* is consistent with the SBT.
>
If it was consistent with the SBT then why would so many people need to
lie about its location? Boswell, Ford, Myers, Lattimer, et al.
Anthony Marsh
I didn't say outside. I said above and I have diagrammed it here many times.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/back_entry.jpg
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Which would be consistent with the pressure cavity that a bullet would
produce.
The point is: Speer does not think the bullet could pass without
smashing the transverse process.
But apparently it did.
>>
>> If a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, it either made it past the spine
>> (say at C7/T1) or it did not.
>>
>
>As Baden says, the bullet grazed the transverse process of T-1.
>
Possible. But Speer says that "grazing" the transverse process
doesn't work.
>> Your position is that it could not.
>>
>> But the transverse process is not smashed.
>>
>
>It doesn't have to be smashed. Wake up.
>
Pat is arguing against the SBT.
He is arguing he bullet literally could not have passed through
Kennedy's torso.
Take that up with him.
.John
Anthony Marsh
> On 14 Jan 2010 08:32:14 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2010 9:46 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 13 Jan 2010 21:28:28 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to overtax your brain to such an extent you have a total meltdown
>>>> and make stuff up.
>>>
>>> You said that the bullet hit Kennedy's back at T1.
>>>
>>> You said that it would have hit the transverse process.
>>>
>>> But the transverse process was not smashed.
>>
>> False logic. The transverse process does not have to be smashed to be
>> hit. There was a hairline fracture, a slight displacement.
>>
>
> Which would be consistent with the pressure cavity that a bullet would
> produce.
>
> The point is: Speer does not think the bullet could pass without
> smashing the transverse process.
>
> But apparently it did.
Apparently it did NOT, as anyone can see on the X-rays.
>
>>>
>>> If a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, it either made it past the spine
>>> (say at C7/T1) or it did not.
>>>
>>
>> As Baden says, the bullet grazed the transverse process of T-1.
>>
>
> Possible. But Speer says that "grazing" the transverse process
> doesn't work.
>
He's wrong. He's basing that on the bullet hitting T-3.
>
>>> Your position is that it could not.
>>>
>>> But the transverse process is not smashed.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't have to be smashed. Wake up.
>>
>
> Pat is arguing against the SBT.
>
> He is arguing he bullet literally could not have passed through
> Kennedy's torso.
>
> Take that up with him.
>
Every day.
pjsp...@aol.com
we'd get anywhere. What I have been trying to understand, however, is how
you can claim you believe the HSCA and Artwohl placed the back wound and
throat wound in the same location. The HSCA said the bullet traveled
slightly upwards in the body. Artwohl claimed the bullet traveled
downwards on a 21 degree descent. It is therefore impossible they'd end up
in the same location. So why won't you admit this? Is it against your
nature to admit you disagree with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP? Then
why admit you think they were wrong about the trajectory?
Here is the anatomy of the area in question.
http://www.anatomyatlases.org/atlasofanatomy/plate03/images/3-1_static.jpg
As you can see, the first rib protrudes from the side of T1.
Here is the HSCA's depiction of the bullet's passage.
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm
It goes right through where this rib would be. Tony says he thinks the
bullet went over this rib. Fine. But he must have moved the bullet
entrance to do this. Still, close enough. But what does this look like
on an overhead view? CE399, it is clear, did not hit any bone straight
on. So how did it make it through this maze of ribs and spine and exit
from the left side of the throat without hitting any bone?
That remains unanswered. None of your heroes--Lattimer, Artwohl,
Zimmerman, etc, have ever addressed this issue.
But I digress. We don't need to discuss the SBT today. What I'd like,
however, is for you to explain why EVERY medical diagram I've found online
depicts T1 at or below the level of the throat wound, and demonstrates to
a certainty that a bullet entering at T1 (or even C7) and descending 21
degrees through the body would exit far BELOW the throat wound, on the
sternum.
http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/LIF/LIF124/lateral-view-male_~3D404034.jpg
http://www.popovic.com.au/imgs/spine.gif
http://www.infovisual.info/03/012_en.html
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/752047190_28b3b0625a.jpg?v=0
On Jan 14, 12:53 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2010 08:32:14 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 1/13/2010 9:46 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 13 Jan 2010 21:28:28 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John McAdams
wrote:
You are not getting this, Pat.
Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
vertebra. Yes or no?
If no, what happened to it?
Kindly answer the questions.
>http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/752047190_28b3b0625a.jpg?v=3D0
>
>
>
>On Jan 14, 12:53=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2010 08:32:14 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>
>>
>>
>> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On 1/13/2010 9:46 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 13 Jan 2010 21:28:28 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Sorry to overtax your brain to such an extent you have a total meltdo=
>wn
>> >>> and make stuff up.
>>
>> >> You said that the bullet hit Kennedy's back at T1.
>>
>> >> You said that it would have hit the transverse process.
>>
>> >> But the transverse process was not smashed.
>>
>> >False logic. The transverse process does not have to be smashed to be
>> >hit. There was a hairline fracture, a slight displacement.
>>
>> Which would be consistent with the pressure cavity that a bullet would
>> produce.
>>
>> The point is: =A0Speer does not think the bullet could pass without
>> smashing the transverse process.
>>
>> But apparently it did.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> If a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, it either made it past the spine
>> >> (say at C7/T1) or it did not.
>>
>> >As Baden says, the bullet grazed the transverse process of T-1.
>>
>> Possible. =A0But Speer says that "grazing" the transverse process
David Von Pein
Interjection for Pat Speer.....
John McAdams already admitted in an earlier post that he does not agree
with the HSCA's conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the
back wound, which is a conclusion that these two photos easily debunk:
John McAdams
wrote:
Pat seems to think he can debunk the SBT simply by picking any one of
the statements of any one of the supporters of the SBT, and harping on
that.
pjsp...@aol.com
days now. You say the bullet in the Artwohl exhibit hit at C7/T1 and
descended 21 degrees in the body. You refuse to say at what level it
exited. Fine. But you have also said it exited where it is shown in the
autopsy photos, which the HSCA FPP claimed was C7.
So it is a 100% obvious fact that you believe the HSCA FPP was wrong, and
that the bullet exited far lower than C7. Okay. So why won't you say so?
Are you forbidden by contract from ever saying the HSCA FPP was wrong? I
mean, what gives?
Perhaps you took a quick look at an anatomy drawing, and realized a bullet
descending 21 degrees from C7/T1 would end up on the sternum, and are
afraid to admit as much.
Perhaps you looked at my slides and realized I was right, and that there
was no possible way the back wound location used by Artwohl was actually
at C7/T1, and are afraid to admit as much.
If not, well then it's time to get out your magnifying glass and
protractor and study some anatomy drawings...because you are as wrong
about this as wrong can be. The wound location in the Artwohl exhibit is
not at C7/T1, and everyone knows it but you...
On Jan 14, 6:10 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2010 20:55:45 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> You are not getting this, Pat.
>
> Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
>
> If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
> vertebra. Yes or no?
>
> If no, what happened to it?
>
> Kindly answer the questions.
>
>
>
> >John, while I could argue against the SBT all day long, I don't suspect
> >we'd get anywhere. What I have been trying to understand, however, is how
> >you can claim you believe the HSCA and Artwohl placed the back wound and
> >throat wound in the same location. The HSCA said the bullet traveled
> >slightly upwards in the body. Artwohl claimed the bullet traveled
> >downwards on a 21 degree descent. It is therefore impossible they'd end up
> >in the same location. So why won't you admit this? Is it against your
> >nature to admit you disagree with the conclusions of the HSCA FPP? Then
> >why admit you think they were wrong about the trajectory?
>
> >Here is the anatomy of the area in question.
>
> >http://www.anatomyatlases.org/atlasofanatomy/plate03/images/3-1_stati...
>
> >As you can see, the first rib protrudes from the side of T1.
>
> >Here is the HSCA's depiction of the bullet's passage.
>
> >http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_...
>
> >It goes right through where this rib would be. Tony says he thinks the
> >bullet went over this rib. Fine. But he must have moved the bullet
> >entrance to do this. Still, close enough. But what does this look like
> >on an overhead view? CE399, it is clear, did not hit any bone straight
> >on. So how did it make it through this maze of ribs and spine and exit
> >from the left side of the throat without hitting any bone?
>
> >That remains unanswered. None of your heroes--Lattimer, Artwohl,
> >Zimmerman, etc, have ever addressed this issue.
>
> >But I digress. We don't need to discuss the SBT today. What I'd like,
> >however, is for you to explain why EVERY medical diagram I've found online
> >depicts T1 at or below the level of the throat wound, and demonstrates to
> >a certainty that a bullet entering at T1 (or even C7) and descending 21
> >degrees through the body would exit far BELOW the throat wound, on the
> >sternum.
>
> >http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/LIF/LIF124/lateral-view-male_~3D4040...
pjsp...@aol.com
for some very simple questions:
1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
On Jan 14, 9:06 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Interjection for Pat Speer.....
>
> John McAdams already admitted in an earlier post that he does not agree
> with the HSCA's conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the
> back wound, which is a conclusion that these two photos easily debunk:
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
John McAdams
wrote:
Sashay(tm)!!
Answer my questions, Pat.
Here they are again:
>>
>> You are not getting this, Pat.
>>
>> Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
>>
>> If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
>> vertebra. Yes or no?
>>
>> If no, what happened to it?
>>
>> Kindly answer the questions.
>>
It's obvious why you won't.
You've been huffing and puffing for a long time about this, and you
have never thought through the implications of your postion.
If you are intellectually honest, you will answer the questions.
You think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis, and never
have to ask what the alternative theory is.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Thanks for the laugh, Dave. I debunked that nonsense years ago.
You've never debunked anything, Pat.
>Now,
>for some very simple questions:
I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>
>1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
C7/T1
>2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>
Below the Adams Apple.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
Pat, get intellectually engaged.
There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
trachestomy.
Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
>On Jan 14, 9:06=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Interjection for Pat Speer.....
>>
>> John McAdams already admitted in an earlier post that he does not agree
>> with the HSCA's conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the
>> back wound, which is a conclusion that these two photos easily debunk:
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>>
>> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
It's just fun pointing out that the WC defenders can't ever seem to
agree on anything.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 15 Jan 2010 15:56:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the laugh, Dave. I debunked that nonsense years ago.
>
> You've never debunked anything, Pat.
Hogwash. You've never even read my webpage and are assuming, as a tenet of
your religion, that I couldn't possibly have come up with anything.
>
> >Now,
> >for some very simple questions:
>
> I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>
>
>
> >1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
>
> C7/T1
>
> >2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>
> Below the Adams Apple.
That's not an honest answer. That's like saying the head wound was on the
head. The HSCA's drawings have the exit at the level of C7. This is
consistent with their depiction of an entrance at T1, and their claim the
bullet rose slightly within the body. Were they incorrect in their
depiction of the exit location? If not, would you care to explain how the
Artwohl exhibit can be correct, and how a bullet can enter at T1, descend
21 degrees within a body, and end up at C7?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>
> Pat, get intellectually engaged.
>
> There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
> trachestomy.
>
> Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
Exactly. The HSCA FPP--consisting of 9 forensic pathologists, did just
that, and determined the bullet rose within the body. And then along comes
an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison. And now you're feeling so
compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
Pretty bizarre, IMO.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 15, 1:04=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 15 Jan 2010 15:56:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for the laugh, Dave. I debunked that nonsense years ago.
>>
>> You've never debunked anything, Pat.
>
>Hogwash. You've never even read my webpage and are assuming, as a tenet of
>your religion, that I couldn't possibly have come up with anything.
>
You are the Jack White for a new generation.
>>
>> >Now,
>> >for some very simple questions:
>>
>> I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
>>
>> C7/T1
>>
>> >2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>>
>> Below the Adams Apple.
>
>That's not an honest answer. That's like saying the head wound was on the
>head. The HSCA's drawings have the exit at the level of C7. This is
>consistent with their depiction of an entrance at T1, and their claim the
>bullet rose slightly within the body. Were they incorrect in their
>depiction of the exit location? If not, would you care to explain how the
>Artwohl exhibit can be correct, and how a bullet can enter at T1, descend
>21 degrees within a body, and end up at C7?
>
Pat, things like "C7" and "T1" have no meaning when we are talking
about the *neck* injury.
It was at the level of the knot of the tie.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>>
>> Pat, get intellectually engaged.
>>
>> There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
>> trachestomy.
>>
>> Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
>
>Exactly. The HSCA FPP--consisting of 9 forensic pathologists, did just
>that, and determined the bullet rose within the body.
Do you believe them or not?
>And then along comes
>an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
>him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
these issues.
>And now you're feeling so
>compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
>analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
>Pretty bizarre, IMO.
>
Are you saying you believe the HSCA?
Yes or no?
Or is it the case that you will use one LN trajectory analysis to
attack another LN trajectory analysis, and then turn around and treat
as bogus the one you were happy to use?
>
>> >On Jan 14, 9:06=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Interjection for Pat Speer.....
>>
>> >> John McAdams already admitted in an earlier post that he does not agre=
>e
>> >> with the HSCA's conclusion about the throat wound being higher than th=
>e
>> >> back wound, which is a conclusion that these two photos easily debunk:
>>
>> >>http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO..=
>.
>>
>> >>http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO..=
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 15 Jan 2010 17:26:45 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 15, 1:04=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On 15 Jan 2010 15:56:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Thanks for the laugh, Dave. I debunked that nonsense years ago.
>
> >> You've never debunked anything, Pat.
>
> >Hogwash. You've never even read my webpage and are assuming, as a tenet of
> >your religion, that I couldn't possibly have come up with anything.
>
> You are the Jack White for a new generation.
>
A ludicrous statement. A large percentage of Jack White's claims are
rapidly debunked or called into question by other CTs within hours of his
"find". Which of my photo comparisons and/or analyses have been rejected
by the bulk my fellow CTs?
>
>
>
>
> >> >Now,
> >> >for some very simple questions:
>
> >> I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>
> >> >1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
>
> >> C7/T1
>
> >> >2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>
> >> Below the Adams Apple.
>
> >That's not an honest answer. That's like saying the head wound was on the
> >head. The HSCA's drawings have the exit at the level of C7. This is
> >consistent with their depiction of an entrance at T1, and their claim the
> >bullet rose slightly within the body. Were they incorrect in their
> >depiction of the exit location? If not, would you care to explain how the
> >Artwohl exhibit can be correct, and how a bullet can enter at T1, descend
> >21 degrees within a body, and end up at C7?
>
> Pat, things like "C7" and "T1" have no meaning when we are talking
> about the *neck* injury.
Where do you get this from? Wounds of the neck are classified by where
they lie in relation to the cervical vertebrae. Care to try again?
> It was at the level of the knot of the tie.
>
>
>
> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>
> >> Pat, get intellectually engaged.
>
> >> There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
> >> trachestomy.
>
> >> Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
>
> >Exactly. The HSCA FPP--consisting of 9 forensic pathologists, did just
> >that, and determined the bullet rose within the body.
>
> Do you believe them or not?
Have you read my webpage? I thought not. In it I make it perfectly
clear where I stand on this issue.
>
> >And then along comes
> >an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
> >him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
>
> Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
> these issues.
What a disingenuous statement. An ER doctor contradicts 9 forensic
pathologists and you side with him, and when I ask why you say that I have
no business disagreeing with him because he's better qualified.
>
> >And now you're feeling so
> >compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
> >analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
> >Pretty bizarre, IMO.
>
> Are you saying you believe the HSCA?
>
> Yes or no?
I can't possibly see what difference it makes in re this discussion. But
yes, on this point, I agree with the HSCA's identification of the back
wound location. Now, you tell me, at what level of the neck--
approximately--did the bullet exit? The HSCA's FPP depicted the exit wound
at C7. Do you agree with their assessment?
cdddraftsman
> On 1/13/2010 3:49 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one was lying about anything !
Interpreting the unique physique of JFK is upon the beholder to judge and
not armchair retro-historians who are out to defame the names of others !
tl
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 15, 2:31�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 15 Jan 2010 17:26:45 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 15, 1:04=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 15 Jan 2010 15:56:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Now,
>> >> >for some very simple questions:
>>
>> >> I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>>
>> >> >1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
>>
>> >> C7/T1
>>
>> >> >2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>>
>> >> Below the Adams Apple.
>>
>> >That's not an honest answer. That's like saying the head wound was on the
>> >head. The HSCA's drawings have the exit at the level of C7. This is
>> >consistent with their depiction of an entrance at T1, and their claim the
>> >bullet rose slightly within the body. Were they incorrect in their
>> >depiction of the exit location? If not, would you care to explain how the
>> >Artwohl exhibit can be correct, and how a bullet can enter at T1, descend
>> >21 degrees within a body, and end up at C7?
>>
>> Pat, things like "C7" and "T1" have no meaning when we are talking
>> about the *neck* injury.
>
>Where do you get this from? Wounds of the neck are classified by where
>they lie in relation to the cervical vertebrae. Care to try again?
>
I don't need to.
I gave you an answer: the bullet exited where it is shown to exit in
the lateral autopsy photo.
The bullet edited at the knot in the tie.
>> It was at the level of the knot of the tie.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>>
>> >> Pat, get intellectually engaged.
>>
>> >> There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
>> >> trachestomy.
>>
>> >> Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
>>
>> >Exactly. The HSCA FPP--consisting of 9 forensic pathologists, did just
>> >that, and determined the bullet rose within the body.
>>
>> Do you believe them or not?
>
>Have you read my webpage? I thought not. In it I make it perfectly
>clear where I stand on this issue.
>
Pat, your web page is very hard to read. You have no business jumping
in here unless you are willing to explain what you believe *here.*
>>
>> >And then along comes
>> >an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
>> >him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
>>
>> Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
>> these issues.
>
>What a disingenuous statement. An ER doctor contradicts 9 forensic
>pathologists and you side with him, and when I ask why you say that I have
>no business disagreeing with him because he's better qualified.
>
OK, so you believe the HSCA.
Good. So you believed the bullet went through the ribs at C7/T1, and
then existed the throat.
Do you believe that?
If so, do you believe the SBT?
>>
>> >And now you're feeling so
>> >compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
>> >analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
>> >Pretty bizarre, IMO.
>>
>> Are you saying you believe the HSCA?
>>
>> Yes or no?
>
>I can't possibly see what difference it makes in re this discussion. But
>yes, on this point, I agree with the HSCA's identification of the back
>wound location.
Do you agree with the *other* conclusions of the HSCA?
Or are they absolutely authoritative if you agree, and a bunch of
liars when you don't.
>Now, you tell me, at what level of the neck--
>approximately--did the bullet exit? The HSCA's FPP depicted the exit wound
>at C7. Do you agree with their assessment?
>
PLEASE QUIT ASKING ME TO USE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
I've told you about 15 times where the throat wound was.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >On Jan 14, 9:06=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Interjection for Pat Speer.....
>>
>> >> >> John McAdams already admitted in an earlier post that he does not agre=
>> >e
>> >> >> with the HSCA's conclusion about the throat wound being higher than th=
>> >e
>> >> >> back wound, which is a conclusion that these two photos easily debunk:
>>
>> >> >>http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO..=
>> >.
>>
>> >> >>http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO..=
>> >.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis,
and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.
The conspiracy theorists think they're home free by nitpicking every last
centimeter on JFK's back, or by using the old dodge: 'No bullet in history
has ever emerged in this near-pristine condition..', blah- blah. (And, of
course, they completely ignore Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test with a
WC/MCC bullet which emerged in perfect shape after breaking a human wrist
at 1100fps, seen below.)....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
But I'm still waiting for some CTer (somewhere) to reasonably answer the
basic $64K questions regarding the SBT:
1.) If TWO separate bullets entered President Kennedy's back and throat
and neither bullet exited out the other side of JFK's body (as nearly all
conspiracy theorists seem to believe, at least on the forums I've
visited), then WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE TWO BULLETS? Where did they go? And
where's the internal damage to JFK's innards that would prompt anyone (the
autopsists or anybody else) to conclude that TWO bullets went into Kennedy
and then just STOPPED their forward progress altogether?
2.) If only ONE bullet passed through JFK's upper back and exited his
throat, and if that missile did NOT go on to hit Governor Connally, then
WHERE DID THE BULLET GO? And HOW did that bullet end up missing Connally
AND the whole limousine?
The Single-Bullet Theory is as true today as it was 40+ years ago. It's
even "truer" in a sense, due to the very good re-creations supporting the
theory that have been done in recent years by The Discovery Channel and
Dale Myers. (And also by Dr. John Lattimer in the 1970s, too.)
Every Government panel that has studied the JFK case supports the SBT
(i.e., the WC and the HSCA both supported the conclusion that ONE
bullet--CE399--passed through both JFK and JBC).
But for conspiracy theorists who are determined to avoid the obvious truth
that is the SBT, apparently a DOUBLE stamp of endorsement from both the
Warren boys and House Select Committee means absolutely NOTHING.
http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
============================================
"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory
until we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
----------
"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the
Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE
difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then
we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged
at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle
of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.
"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a
second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose
bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that
second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.
"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems
to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.
"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." -- Walter
Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967)
----------
"It's a straight line....it [the Single-Bullet Theory] is the only
way it COULD have happened." -- Dale Myers; 2004
----------
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the
"single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient
stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a
proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that
is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck
President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit
Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
----------
"As can be seen in Warren Commission Exhibit #903 [pictured below;
captioned by DVP], the "Single-Bullet Theory" trajectory works just fine.
In fact, it works absolutely perfectly. Which would be virtually
impossible if MULTIPLE bullets had actually done the damage to the two
victims (JFK and John Connally) that the Warren Commission said was very
likely caused by only one single bullet (CE399).
"And the pointer/rod in Exhibit 903 is just where the autopsy photo
of John Kennedy's back shows the wound to be located, with the exit wound
exactly at the tie knot, just exactly where JFK sustained damage from the
flight of a bullet. .... In short: CE903 = S.B.T. PERFECTION!" -- David
Von Pein; March 26, 2007
============================================
John Canal
>Good. So you believed the bullet went through the ribs at C7/T1, and
>then existed the throat.
>
>Do you believe that?
Unless he's changed his theory, he believes a bullet hit JFK in the back
of his head, passed through the base of the skull and exited the throat.
Hasn't he unveiled that theory to you yet?
I'll butt out of this.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> On 15 Jan 2010 15:56:32 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the laugh, Dave. I debunked that nonsense years ago.
>
> You've never debunked anything, Pat.
>
>> Now,
>> for some very simple questions:
>
> I've answered this multiple times for you, and you ignore it.
>
>
>>
>> 1. At what level did the bullet enter the back of Kennedy's neck?
>
> C7/T1
>
>> 2. At what level did it exit on his throat?
>>
>
> Below the Adams Apple.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
>
> Pat, get intellectually engaged.
>
> There is a photo of the back. There is a lateral photo showing the
> trachestomy.
>
> Connect the two and you have the trajectory.
>
And in your mind every trajectory has to be a perfectly straight line.
Take a look at the Dox trajectory, or Canning, or Myers and see where that
bullet would go if it stayed on your perfectly straight line. What would
it hit, going downward at about 13 degrees? Not the chrome topping.
pjsp...@aol.com
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> >>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis,
>
> and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.
EXACTLY? DAVID, this is not true, and you know it. I have always said not
only what I don't believe happened, but what I suspect may have happened.
But even if I didn't, so what? You and your ilk are the ones claiming you
KNOW what happened. So why do you melt down when I ask the simple
question--AT WHAT LEVEL OF THE NECK DID THE BULLET EXIT?
Will you have more spine than McAdams and actually answer this question?
Or will you, too, reveal yourself one not interested in the truth, but in
preaching the one true religion...whether or not it makes sense?
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/119.+CE903?gda=eaRfaDw...
>
> ============================================
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 15, 6:29�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>
>> >>> "You [Pat Speer] think you are free to "debunk" this or that analysis,
>>
>> and never have to ask what the alternative theory is." <<<
>>
>> DVP SAYS:
>>
>> Exactly. All anti-SBTers do this, every day.
>
>EXACTLY? DAVID, this is not true, and you know it. I have always said not
>only what I don't believe happened, but what I suspect may have happened.
>
OK, what do you think happned?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 15 Jan 2010 19:41:23 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
This is a ridiculous statement coming from someone who refuses to show the
single-bullet trajectory he proposes, and instead relies upon the presumed
expertise of Dr. Robert Artwohl, who high-tailed it to the hills years ago
rather than face the obvious fact his exhibit supporting the SBT is total
nonsense.
>
>
>
> >> >And then along comes
> >> >an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
> >> >him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
>
> >> Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
> >> these issues.
>
> >What a disingenuous statement. An ER doctor contradicts 9 forensic
> >pathologists and you side with him, and when I ask why you say that I have
> >no business disagreeing with him because he's better qualified.
>
> OK, so you believe the HSCA.
>
> Good. So you believed the bullet went through the ribs at C7/T1, and
> then existed the throat.
By "through the ribs" do you mean "between the ribs"? Because they
never said that. As demonstrated here
http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
the HSCA FPP's trajectories have the bullet heading straight through
the first rib. And as demonstrated here
http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
the trajectory panel got around this problem by simply moving the back
wound upwards on the body, back to where it was depicted in the drawings
created for the WC.
>
> Do you believe that?
>
> If so, do you believe the SBT?
Which SBT? While it is conceivable a SBT could be created that actually
made sense, the ones proposed so far have not made sense, and are accepted
only by those willing to swallow most anything, as long as they don't have
to consider the obvious.
I mean, look at Arlen Specter in this slide.
http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg
Do you honestly believe he thinks the chalk mark on the jacket is in line
with the trajectory rod? If so, you are in the vast minority, and among
only the die-hard faithful.
>
> >> >And now you're feeling so
> >> >compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
> >> >analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
> >> >Pretty bizarre, IMO.
>
> >> Are you saying you believe the HSCA?
>
> >> Yes or no?
>
> >I can't possibly see what difference it makes in re this discussion. But
> >yes, on this point, I agree with the HSCA's identification of the back
> >wound location.
>
> Do you agree with the *other* conclusions of the HSCA?
>
> Or are they absolutely authoritative if you agree, and a bunch of
> liars when you don't.
I long ago realized that the "experts" in this case are in opposition, and
sought to educate myself as much as possible--even reading your
website--before coming to a conclusion on which, if any, of them are
correct. I suspect most contributors to this discussion group have done
the same. It is your entirely bizarre insistence that the Artwohl exhibit
is not in opposition to the HSCA's conclusions that I find so intriguing.
>
> >Now, you tell me, at what level of the neck--
> >approximately--did the bullet exit? The HSCA's FPP depicted the exit wound
> >at C7. Do you agree with their assessment?
>
> PLEASE QUIT ASKING ME TO USE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
>
> I've told you about 15 times where the throat wound was.
But you haven't answered. If the SBT is not just a theory, and is an
accepted fact, as many of your fellow LNTs now claim, then it should all
be quite simple: the bullet entered here, and exited here, the end. So why
are you so afraid to commit to an exit location?
It's not because you're afraid to admit I'm right and that the back wound
location used on the Artwohl exhibit is most definitely NOT at C7/T1 as
you claim, is it? Because that would be too obvious.
Still, if so, then why not just admit it? It's not that big a deal. You
can still say the HSCA was right and that Kennedy was leaning over, or
that the bullet was deflected,etc. You can even hop on the Lattimer train
and claim the back wound was really much higher than T1... So why not just
admit it? It would make you and your website a lot more credible, IMO, and
prove your sincere interest in the truth.
I would think an educator would want to demonstrate as much to his
students. But I could be wrong.
John McAdams
wrote:
I have done that a half-dozen times.
>and instead relies upon the presumed
>expertise of Dr. Robert Artwohl, who high-tailed it to the hills years ago
>rather than face the obvious fact his exhibit supporting the SBT is total
>nonsense.
>
He decided to get on with his life as an ER doctor, a decision that
saved him having to deal with people like you.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >And then along comes
>> >> >an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
>> >> >him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
>>
>> >> Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
>> >> these issues.
>>
>> >What a disingenuous statement. An ER doctor contradicts 9 forensic
>> >pathologists and you side with him, and when I ask why you say that I have
>> >no business disagreeing with him because he's better qualified.
>>
>> OK, so you believe the HSCA.
>>
>> Good. So you believed the bullet went through the ribs at C7/T1, and
>> then existed the throat.
>
>By "through the ribs" do you mean "between the ribs"? Because they
>never said that. As demonstrated here
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
Pat, the Dox drawing on the right of that panel shows the trajectory
going between T1 and C7, and exiting the throat.
Do you accept that or not?
>the HSCA FPP's trajectories have the bullet heading straight through
>the first rib. And as demonstrated here
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>
>the trajectory panel got around this problem by simply moving the back
>wound upwards on the body, back to where it was depicted in the drawings
>created for the WC.
>
Pat, that assertion of yours assumes you know how to scale these
drawings.
It's obvious that you don't.
And all this is just you fussing and fuming about something to evade
telling me what *you* think about the wounds.
>
>>
>> Do you believe that?
>>
>> If so, do you believe the SBT?
>
>Which SBT? While it is conceivable a SBT could be created that actually
>made sense, the ones proposed so far have not made sense, and are accepted
>only by those willing to swallow most anything, as long as they don't have
>to consider the obvious.
>
OK, you don't believe the SBT.
But you admitted a bullet struck JFK in the back.
What happened to it?
>I mean, look at Arlen Specter in this slide.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg
>
>Do you honestly believe he thinks the chalk mark on the jacket is in line
>with the trajectory rod? If so, you are in the vast minority, and among
>only the die-hard faithful.
Pat, you are among the die-hard faithful. Only people like Di Eugenio
accept your claims.
In fact, Specter pretty much had it nailed.
The rod he has placed is very close to the true trajectory, probably
as close as it can be without getting a rapier and running through the
guys in the car.
>
>>
>> >> >And now you're feeling so
>> >> >compromised you aren't even able to admit Artwohl's crackpot photo
>> >> >analysis is at odds with the HSCA's interpretation of the wound location.
>> >> >Pretty bizarre, IMO.
>>
>> >> Are you saying you believe the HSCA?
>>
>> >> Yes or no?
>>
>> >I can't possibly see what difference it makes in re this discussion. But
>> >yes, on this point, I agree with the HSCA's identification of the back
>> >wound location.
>>
>> Do you agree with the *other* conclusions of the HSCA?
>>
>> Or are they absolutely authoritative if you agree, and a bunch of
>> liars when you don't.
>
>I long ago realized that the "experts" in this case are in opposition, and
>sought to educate myself as much as possible--even reading your
>website--before coming to a conclusion on which, if any, of them are
>correct. I suspect most contributors to this discussion group have done
>the same. It is your entirely bizarre insistence that the Artwohl exhibit
>is not in opposition to the HSCA's conclusions that I find so intriguing.
>
Quit misrepresenting what I said.
I said that the bullet took a downward trajectory through JFK's torso,
not the flat or slight upward one the HSCA claimed.
You simply have trouble reading and responding to what I say.
You are obsessed with certain of your talking points, and can't debate
except to repeat the same talking points.
>>
>> >Now, you tell me, at what level of the neck--
>> >approximately--did the bullet exit? The HSCA's FPP depicted the exit wound
>> >at C7. Do you agree with their assessment?
>>
>> PLEASE QUIT ASKING ME TO USE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
>>
>> I've told you about 15 times where the throat wound was.
>
>But you haven't answered. If the SBT is not just a theory, and is an
>accepted fact, as many of your fellow LNTs now claim, then it should all
>be quite simple: the bullet entered here, and exited here, the end. So why
>are you so afraid to commit to an exit location?
>
THE GODDAMN LOCATION IS SHOWN IN THE LATERIAL PHOTO!
Pat, I feel like I'm debating with somebody with no ability to read
and assimilate information.
You ignore what I say, refuse to respond to my arguments, and just
blather on.
>It's not because you're afraid to admit I'm right and that the back wound
>location used on the Artwohl exhibit is most definitely NOT at C7/T1 as
>you claim, is it?
>
And you know this how?
>Still, if so, then why not just admit it? It's not that big a deal. You
>can still say the HSCA was right and that Kennedy was leaning over, or
>that the bullet was deflected,etc. You can even hop on the Lattimer train
>and claim the back wound was really much higher than T1... So why not just
>admit it? It would make you and your website a lot more credible, IMO, and
>prove your sincere interest in the truth.
>
>I would think an educator would want to demonstrate as much to his
>students. But I could be wrong.
>
>
You have exactly zero credibility to lecture me on those points.
You are in the Jack White tradition of photo analysis.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "AT WHAT LEVEL OF THE NECK DID THE BULLET EXIT?" <<<
At the level of the tracheostomy, of course. (The LOWER level of the
trach.)
And that LEVEL is seen in these pictures (slightly below the Adam's
Apple):
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 16 Jan 2010 23:13:07 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
On an anatomy drawing, John. On an anatomy drawing..
>
> >and instead relies upon the presumed
> >expertise of Dr. Robert Artwohl, who high-tailed it to the hills years ago
> >rather than face the obvious fact his exhibit supporting the SBT is total
> >nonsense.
>
> He decided to get on with his life as an ER doctor, a decision that
> saved him having to deal with people like you.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >And then along comes
> >> >> >an emergency room doctor, Artwohl, to tell you different, and you believe
> >> >> >him, based upon a crackpot photo comparison.
>
> >> >> Pat, an ER doctor has vastly better credentials than you to discuss
> >> >> these issues.
>
> >> >What a disingenuous statement. An ER doctor contradicts 9 forensic
> >> >pathologists and you side with him, and when I ask why you say that I have
> >> >no business disagreeing with him because he's better qualified.
>
> >> OK, so you believe the HSCA.
>
> >> Good. So you believed the bullet went through the ribs at C7/T1, and
> >> then existed the throat.
>
> >By "through the ribs" do you mean "between the ribs"? Because they
> >never said that. As demonstrated here
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/T1is.jpg
>
> Pat, the Dox drawing on the right of that panel shows the trajectory
> going between T1 and C7, and exiting the throat.
>
> Do you accept that or not?
No, of course I don't accept that, because it's totally untrue. The
drawing clearly portrays the bullet passing the spine at the upper part of
T1, precisely where the first rib attaches the spine. This isn't hard to
see.
>
> >the HSCA FPP's trajectories have the bullet heading straight through
> >the first rib. And as demonstrated here
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>
> >the trajectory panel got around this problem by simply moving the back
> >wound upwards on the body, back to where it was depicted in the drawings
> >created for the WC.
>
> Pat, that assertion of yours assumes you know how to scale these
> drawings.
>
> It's obvious that you don't.
>
> And all this is just you fussing and fuming about something to evade
> telling me what *you* think about the wounds.
Rubbish. the Dox drawing has the bullet hole beside T1, the level of the
first rib. The trajectory panel drawing has the bullet hole above the
first rib. How I scale the drawings has nothing to do with it, now does
it?
>
>
>
> >> Do you believe that?
>
> >> If so, do you believe the SBT?
>
> >Which SBT? While it is conceivable a SBT could be created that actually
> >made sense, the ones proposed so far have not made sense, and are accepted
> >only by those willing to swallow most anything, as long as they don't have
> >to consider the obvious.
>
> OK, you don't believe the SBT.
>
> But you admitted a bullet struck JFK in the back.
>
> What happened to it?
I don't know. You tell me.
>
> >I mean, look at Arlen Specter in this slide.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/arlen.jpg
>
> >Do you honestly believe he thinks the chalk mark on the jacket is in line
> >with the trajectory rod? If so, you are in the vast minority, and among
> >only the die-hard faithful.
>
> Pat, you are among the die-hard faithful. Only people like Di Eugenio
> accept your claims.
The die-hard faithful of what? The vast majority of my findings are in
opposition to those of the vast majority of CTs. You yourself have
mentioned how thoughtful you thought my analysis was of the Parkland
witnesses, where I claimed the position of Kennedy on the table could have
confused them about the head wound location. I went my own way and looked
at the case through my own eyes. On that there is no doubt.
>
> In fact, Specter pretty much had it nailed.
>
> The rod he has placed is very close to the true trajectory, probably
> as close as it can be without getting a rapier and running through the
> guys in the car.
It's inches above the back wound, John. Maybe that's close enough for you
but even Specter knew it wasn't close enough for America. Not only did he
allow no photos from the back of the re-enactment into evidence--a bit
strange seeing as he had Shaneyfelt describe how closely it matched--he
had Kelley claim the back wound they used in the re-enactment was derived
from the Rydberg drawings (which showed the wound to be at the base of the
neck, inches higher)... They both knew this to be untrue. Specter's
chapter in the Warren report, moreover, claimed the back wound trajectory
at the re-enactment closely matched the trajectory in the Rydberg
drawings... Seeing as Specter later admitted that Kelley had shown him the
back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment and that he knew the
drawings to be "rough" this was a deliberate deception.
You would know all this already, of course, if you'd ever watched my
videos, which are far from unviewable.
And at what level in the neck is that location? The third and fourth
tracheal rings? Are they at or below C7, where the HSCA FPP placed the
exit.
>
> Pat, I feel like I'm debating with somebody with no ability to read
> and assimilate information.
>
> You ignore what I say, refuse to respond to my arguments, and just
> blather on.
>
> >It's not because you're afraid to admit I'm right and that the back wound
> >location used on the Artwohl exhibit is most definitely NOT at C7/T1 as
> >you claim, is it?
>
> And you know this how?
Numerous comparisons and tests, and simple common sense. You simply cannot
claim the HSCA FPP had the entrance level right but the trajectory wrong,
without moving the throat wound lower on the body. You similarly cannot
claim they had the throat wound right but the trajectory wrong without
moving the back wound. If you acknowledge that the throat wound was on the
neck, which was at lowest T1, it follows then that the back wound must
have been higher.
>
> >Still, if so, then why not just admit it? It's not that big a deal. You
> >can still say the HSCA was right and that Kennedy was leaning over, or
> >that the bullet was deflected,etc. You can even hop on the Lattimer train
> >and claim the back wound was really much higher than T1... So why not just
> >admit it? It would make you and your website a lot more credible, IMO, and
> >prove your sincere interest in the truth.
>
> >I would think an educator would want to demonstrate as much to his
> >students. But I could be wrong.
>
> You have exactly zero credibility to lecture me on those points.
So invite me to speak before your class then. And then we'll see who's
credible.
>
> You are in the Jack White tradition of photo analysis.
What exactly does that mean? That I come up with wild stuff that is
rapidly debunked? Because no one is debunking my stuff, John...
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> >>> "AT WHAT LEVEL OF THE NECK DID THE BULLET EXIT?" <<<
>
> At the level of the tracheostomy, of course. (The LOWER level of the
> trach.)
>
> And that LEVEL is seen in these pictures (slightly below the Adam's
> Apple):
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009b.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOT...
And what level is that? On an anatomy drawing...