Photo Proves THhere was no Huge Hole in Back of Head

[BOZ]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/29/2016 7:53 PM, BOZ wrote:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg
>


Silly, it's dark that you can't see anything.
Couldn't you find any worse quality to post?

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg



Looks like someone put a big blot on the photo.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg

The exact instant the Moorman photo was taken is critical to that
argument. We know it was taken ABOUT the time of the head shot, but we
don't know precisely when it was taken. JFK began rocking backward one
Z-frame after his head exploded. Since we don't see that rearward lurch in
the photo, the latest that photo was taken would be 1/18 of a second after
the head shot struck. Most likely it was taken a split second before the
head shot so there is no reason to think a blowout in the BOH would show
in that photo. The blowout extended all the way along the upper right side
of the head, from the occipital to the temporal regions. Had Moorman taken
her photo a split second later we would see JFK rocking back and we may or
may not see the blowout that extended to the BOH.

[BOZ]

It's so dark that you can't see Black Dog Man. Do you think there was a
large hole in the back of JFK's head MARSH? I'm going to explain why Marsh
always disagrees. Marsh tries to assert his importance by disagreeing with
others whenever he has the chance. By giving others a tough time each time
time Marsh disagrees with them Marsh believes that he becomes more
important.

[Robert Harris]

BOZ wrote:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg
>

YES!!

The BOH damage was not inflicted at 313. It happened after
that. READ THIS ARTICLE. It's not very long and not at all
complicated.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/30/2016 9:56 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg
>
> The exact instant the Moorman photo was taken is critical to that
> argument. We know it was taken ABOUT the time of the head shot, but we
> don't know precisely when it was taken. JFK began rocking backward one

Yes, we do. At Z-315.7.

> Z-frame after his head exploded. Since we don't see that rearward lurch in
> the photo, the latest that photo was taken would be 1/18 of a second after

How are you going to see motion on a stil photo?
I said JFK's head was already moving forward.

> the head shot struck. Most likely it was taken a split second before the
> head shot so there is no reason to think a blowout in the BOH would show
> in that photo. The blowout extended all the way along the upper right side
> of the head, from the occipital to the temporal regions. Had Moorman taken
> her photo a split second later we would see JFK rocking back and we may or
> may not see the blowout that extended to the BOH.
>

Try to pay attention for more than 5 seconds.
FWIW, The Moorman photo shows that his head is no longer tipped down.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The Z-film was altered right at and around the frame 313 point
and elsewhere. It is also missing frames at certain points. That was
proven by a witness to the original Z-film and independent analyses. It
can't be trusted for measurements or timings. Only a fool would use it
for any of those things.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 9:56:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

FWIW,

I agree with this observation made by John Corbett/bigdog:

"...Most likely it [the Moorman photo] was taken a split second before the
head shot..."

I've always thought that Mary Moorman's picture was *probably* snapped
just an instant *before* the fatal shot struck JFK's head. Because it's
always seemed logical to me that if that picture had been taken an instant
*after* the head shot, then I would think we would see at least a *little*
bit of proof of that fact in the photograph, such as a flap of scalp on
the President's head that is out of place....or perhaps at least a *hint*
of the blood spray which we know was surrounding Kennedy's head between
Z-frames 313 and 314.

But in addition to the fact that President Kennedy's head looks undamaged
and undisturbed in any manner in the famous Moorman Polaroid, there's also
not a trace of "spray" visible in the air around JFK's head in the
picture. (Although, granted, the Zapruder Film does, indeed, verify that
the blood spray had dissipated completely by about Z317. So if Moorman's
picture was taken, as some believe, a fraction of a second after Zapruder
frame 315, then no blood spray would be visible.)

It's just too bad that Mary Moorman had such a crappy (Polaroid) type of
camera, which was not capable of capturing a very high quality image
through its inexpensive lens.

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-038.html

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html

[mainframetech]

The BOH damage was done by being the exit wound matched to the small
1/4 inch diameter bullet hole in the right forehead/temples area. The
bullet went in the front of the face and blew out the BOH of JFK.
Finally an explanation for the blowout at the BOH, which was not
reasonably explained previously.

Chris

[BOZ]

It wasn't me. It was Bringham Young.

[BOZ]

The Moorman photo was taken between Zapruder frames Z-315 and 316.

[BOZ]

I agree with Marsh. The Moorman photo was taken between z-315 and z 316.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/31/2016 8:59 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 9:56:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg
>>
>> The exact instant the Moorman photo was taken is critical to that
>> argument. We know it was taken ABOUT the time of the head shot, but we
>> don't know precisely when it was taken. JFK began rocking backward one
>> Z-frame after his head exploded. Since we don't see that rearward lurch in
>> the photo, the latest that photo was taken would be 1/18 of a second after
>> the head shot struck. Most likely it was taken a split second before the
>> head shot so there is no reason to think a blowout in the BOH would show
>> in that photo. The blowout extended all the way along the upper right side
>> of the head, from the occipital to the temporal regions. Had Moorman taken
>> her photo a split second later we would see JFK rocking back and we may or
>> may not see the blowout that extended to the BOH.
>
> FWIW,
>
> I agree with this observation made by John Corbett/bigdog:
>
> "...Most likely it [the Moorman photo] was taken a split second before the
> head shot..."
>

Physically impossible. Whose agenda do you serve by putting out false
information?

Are you another of the WC Zombies who can't tell the difference between
UP and DOWN? In the Zapruder film frame 312 JFK's head is DOWN.
In the Moorman photo his head is UP.

Simple photogrammetry allows us to compare the Zapruder film to the
Moorman photo.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/moorman.htm

[BOZ]

It looks to me like Kennedy has some hair missing on the right side of his
head.

[BOZ]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:59:03 PM UTC-3, David Von Pein wrote:

Zoom in on the skull fragment. He's already been hit.

[David Von Pein]

RE: The Moorman Photo....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1202.html

[bigdog]

I've heard that before but I would like to know how that was determined.
Looking at the photo and comparing it to the Z-frames is difficult to
determine by eye when the various angles would match up. I'm sure photo
analysts have ways of syncing up a photo to a motion picture just as they
did in determining that Altgens was taken at Z255. I'd just like to know
if the instant was pinpointed scientifically or was it just a scientific
wild assed guess.

[Anthony Marsh]

I agree that he's already been hit, but I am not sure what you see. Do you
see a skull fragment flying out of the head? Or do you see the dislocation
of a plate of the skull pushing up against the scalp higher than the
remaining skull fragment?

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think you can guess that by looking at the left side of his head
in the Moorman photo.
Just a reminder, when the right side of his head opened up the piece of
skull jutting out still had hair on it.

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, there was no BOH blowout, but the top of the head blowout was not the
path of the bullet. The head exploded regardless of where the bullet came
from.

> Chris
>

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:39:58 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> RE: The Moorman Photo....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1202.html

To take a Polaroid photo, you have to hold the camera with both hands.
In observing the Zapruder film frame by frame, it does appear that Moorman
starts to release her left hand from the camera at 311. At 313, it
appears that her left hand was completely off the camera, meaning she
would have had to take the photo before then.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2016 9:16 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 2:26:12 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-3, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Moorman_photo_of_JFK_assassination.jpg
>>>
>>> The exact instant the Moorman photo was taken is critical to that
>>> argument. We know it was taken ABOUT the time of the head shot, but we
>>> don't know precisely when it was taken. JFK began rocking backward one
>>> Z-frame after his head exploded. Since we don't see that rearward lurch in
>>> the photo, the latest that photo was taken would be 1/18 of a second after
>>> the head shot struck. Most likely it was taken a split second before the
>>> head shot so there is no reason to think a blowout in the BOH would show
>>> in that photo. The blowout extended all the way along the upper right side
>>> of the head, from the occipital to the temporal regions. Had Moorman taken
>>> her photo a split second later we would see JFK rocking back and we may or
>>> may not see the blowout that extended to the
>>
>> The Moorman photo was taken between Zapruder frames Z-315 and 316.
>
> I've heard that before but I would like to know how that was determined.

By me, silly.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/moorman.htm

A Photogrammetric Method to Calculate When the Moorman 5 Photo Was Exposed


Some researchers have expressed interest in determining exactly when
the Moorman Polaroid of the grassy knoll was exposed in relation to the
Zapruder film. A few careless researchers have even claimed that the
Moorman photo was exposed BEFORE the head shot at Z-313. In the past I
have shown by examination of the Presidential limousine that the Moorman
photo was taken at about Z-315.7. I can also prove when the Moorman
photo was exposed by examining objects other than the limousine.
In this case, we can see DPD motorcyclist Hargis' white helmet in
the sprocket hole area of Z-313 and also at the extreme right of a full
frame copy of the Moorman Polaroid. The fixed object in the background
to use as a tie point is Mary Moorman, who can also be seen in the
sprocket hole area of Z-313. She did not move while taking her
photograph.
First we place the limousine in the proper position on Elm Street.
Due to the blurring of Z-313 and the inherent inaccuracy of most maps,
we can only get the limousine close to its true location with a margin
of error of about 6 inches. 6 inches is also the size of each pixel on
my computer map, so I have placed the limousine to within 6 inches of
its true location in the file named PLAZA313.GIF . One key to locating
the position of the limousine is to draw a straight line from the right
front bumper at approximately a 45 degree angle towards the pergola. The
line should intersect the east edge of the north run of the retaining wall
before the retaining wall intersects (like an upside down Y) with the
adjoining wall. The limousine is about 6 and 1/2 feet wide and about 21
feet long. At Z-313 the right front edge of the limousine is about 15 feet
away from the north curb of Elm Street. The right rear edge of the
limousine is about 15 and 1/2 feet away from the north curb.
Now that the limousine has been placed on the map, a straight line can
be drawn from Zapruder's camera position to Mary Moorman's camera
position. In the file named ZAP313P.GIF that line is represented by a
purple line in the sprocket hole area. Hargis' white helmet is just to
the left of that line, or generally east of the line. Mary Moorman was
standing about 3 feet away from the curb. The line just barely falls
behind the left rear edge of the trunk of the limousine. Hargis is about
11 feet away from the south curb of Elm Street. A small dot on the map
touching the line from Zapruder to Moorman represents Hargis' helmet.
Next, the Moorman photo is examined. When a line if drawn from
Moorman to the point of intersection of the retaining wall with the
adjoining wall, the line touches the back of Hargis' helmet. In the file
named MOORMANP.GIF that line is represented by a purple line. Thus in
the Moorman photo, we see that Hargis is to the west of the line. Thus
Hargis' helmet is farther to the west in the Moorman Polaroid than in
Z-313. I will not argue the scientific proof here to prove that when an
object is in a different place at a different time that it has traveled
a certain distance. See Euclid for that.
If the line from Moorman to the retaining wall intersection had been
to the east of the line from Zapruder to Moorman, then the Moorman photo
would have been taken before or at approximately the same time as Z-313,
as Hargis is clearly seen in all films moving in the same direction as
the motorcade at this point, generally east to west. But we know that
the line from Moorman to the retaining wall intersection is to the west
of the line from Zapruder to Moorman. Thus, Hargis' position in the
Moorman photo is at a time later than Z-313.
But, how much later? A rough estimate can be made by measuring the
distance between the lines at 11 feet from the curb, which measures the
travel path of Hargis's helmet from Z-313 to the Moorman photo. This
distance is approximately 18 inches. Hargis's helmet is approximately 1
foot long, so the total distance covered is about 2.5 feet. Although the
Alvarez study showed that the Presidential limousine slowed from
approximately 12 MPH to approximately 8 MPH at about Z-300, the escort
motorcycles kept traveling at about 12 MPH, which is equal to about 17.6
FPS. In fact, in the Nix film we see that Hargis keeps pace with the
limousine, staying ahead of Martin to his left and gaining on the
limousine.

2.5 ft/17.6 fps = 0.142 secs.
0.142 secs. * 18.3 frames per sec. = 2.6 frames
313 + 2.6 = 315.6

Thus it has been shown that the Moorman photo was taken at about Z-315.6
QED

[David Von Pein]

That's an interesting angle on this subject I haven't heard discussed
before. Thanks, Allan.

[stockma...@gmail.com]

Interesting Marsh. Sincerely!

[stockma...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 9:18:47 PM UTC-3, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Do you see a big chunk of white bone or flesh above JFK's head? Zoom in.

[Anthony Marsh]

WTF are you babbling about?
You've never used a Polaroid camera.
You just blab away.


So you say "it appears" which means you don't have any decent Zapruder
frames. You don't dare show us what images you used to draw that
inference.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not in the Moorman photo.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't see it. What is his source material?

IN frames 311 to 313 Mary Moorman can only be seen in the sprocket hole
area. Two problems with that. It will look a little darker so it's not so
easy to see her hands clearly. And because of the double exposure in the
sprocket hole are you do not have a CLEAR view. And there will be jiggling
in the sprocket hole area versuse the main frame and vice versa. A lot of
people see optical illusions in the sprocket hole area.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:41:12 PM UTC-4, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

Hard to say since Moorman appears in the sprocket hole area of the frame
and it is pretty fuzzy. Pretty much any camera from that era would
typically be held with two hands. They were nothing like the compact
digital cameras of today. If you are right about her hand being off the
camera, it is likely it was taken before Z313.

[mainframetech]

Calculations can be made as fine as possible and will be worth nothing,
since the Z-film has been proven to have been altered. Especially at the
frame 313 area. But it is also missing frames from various places. A
witness that saw the original film stated that the film had been altered,
and he had spent many views of the film before it was modified, so that he
knew when he saw it changed. But there was also a couple of independent
analyses showing alteration too. ?This means that timings and
measurements using the Z-film will be wrong.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

I didn't say I necessarily *agreed* with Allan Johnson's above comments,
Tony. I merely said he made a unique and interesting observation.

I, myself, can't tell whether Miss Moorman's left hand is still touching
her camera in Z313 and Z314 or not.

Here are the Z-Film frames in questions (Z311-Z314, in high quality):

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8t_GcE5_3bY/WBteQDfCNdI/AAAAAAABK18/oaUYPORyjXQmGJbO4ee0b6gyr3e-yE0IQCLcB/s1600/Z311.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EFtdlNN1xQE/WBtgec0cr_I/AAAAAAABK2Q/7fApKvoj0HsUaWoSODk8uRG9GhX4I5PMQCLcB/s1600/Z312.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sTkkaDu8NS8/WBteQKQS6kI/AAAAAAABK2A/kpw84PSE32IaJC_MGlauvqpLUhn8AiUOwCLcB/s1600/Z313.jpg

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o8w1VHjCCts/WBtgeaWbu0I/AAAAAAABK2M/pA_6DjzYPz0F_k6d7DZCIWb721Xb4s19QCLcB/s1600/Z314.jpg

[Allan G. Johnson]

I HAVE used a Polaroid camera! Why would you make an ignorant comment
like that without asking me first? (the strap is on the left side, the
finger button is on the right). My source is the frame by frame Zapruder
film on digital and film. Everyone must have access to that. Just check
the frames (she is in the sprocket section, but still a good picture).
It just appears to me that her left hand is coming off the camera in those
frames.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I'm sure it will chewed on from other contributors, let's see.

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? 2 errors in one sentence. First, my acoustical study does not
rely on the Zapruder film. Second, I proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. Anytime you find evidence you don't like you call it fake. Very
immature.

> frame 313 area. But it is also missing frames from various places. A

So you stipulate that any time not close to 313 is genuine.

> witness that saw the original film stated that the film had been altered,

Baloney. You keep repeating things that you never bothered to prove.

> and he had spent many views of the film before it was modified, so that he
> knew when he saw it changed. But there was also a couple of independent

He saw different COPIES of the Zapruder film where were indeed different
in quality. That is exactly why the film lab in Dallas made 3 copies.

> analyses showing alteration too. ?This means that timings and
> measurements using the Z-film will be wrong.
>

Enough of your alterationist guessing. If you don't like the Zapruder
film, make your own.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, it's cute, but it's silly.
You can't be sure what the images in the sprocket hole area show without
very careful research.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/4/2016 9:52 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:13:04 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/2/2016 7:41 PM, Allan G. Johnson wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:39:58 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> RE: The Moorman Photo....
>>>>
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1202.html
>>>
>>> To take a Polaroid photo, you have to hold the camera with both hands.
>>> In observing the Zapruder film frame by frame, it does appear that Moorman
>>> starts to release her left hand from the camera at 311. At 313, it
>>> appears that her left hand was completely off the camera, meaning she
>>> would have had to take the photo before then.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WTF are you babbling about?
>> You've never used a Polaroid camera.
>> You just blab away.
>>
>>
>> So you say "it appears" which means you don't have any decent Zapruder
>> frames. You don't dare show us what images you used to draw that
>> inference.
>
> I HAVE used a Polaroid camera! Why would you make an ignorant comment
> like that without asking me first? (the strap is on the left side, the
> finger button is on the right). My source is the frame by frame Zapruder
> film on digital and film. Everyone must have access to that. Just check

Are you talking about the MPI video tape? No, not everyone has it.

> the frames (she is in the sprocket section, but still a good picture).

Of course she's in the sprocket hole area. I've written about that many
times. So what? You are alleging something about what YOU see.

> It just appears to me that her left hand is coming off the camera in those
> frames.
>

I don't see that.

[BOZ]

Marsh anytime you find evidence you don't like you call people stupid,
Nazis, ignorant etc.

[Allan G. Johnson]

I never said I was sure, it just appears that way if you compare the
frames on 311, 312 and 313. The left hand is farther away from her face
in 313 than the previous frames. Also, if you observe Moorman on the
Muchmore film, you can see her start to drop her arms and camera down just
after the fatal shot, meaning she didn't take any more photo's after that.

As far as I am aware of, there is no clear, definitive film or photo
taken of the "back" of the head blowing out, even though there is film and
photo evidence available that shows the fatal shot. Until that happens, I
can only conclude the blowout wound was on the right rear and side above
the ear, as seen on film and photo.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. Some are Nazis, some are stupid, some are ignorant. Not all.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are probably confused by the jiggle.

> in 313 than the previous frames. Also, if you observe Moorman on the

Frame 313 has the jiggle in the sprocket hole area.

> Muchmore film, you can see her start to drop her arms and camera down just
> after the fatal shot, meaning she didn't take any more photo's after that.
>

Yeah, so what?

> As far as I am aware of, there is no clear, definitive film or photo
> taken of the "back" of the head blowing out, even though there is film and

There is no blowout of the back of the head.

> photo evidence available that shows the fatal shot. Until that happens, I
> can only conclude the blowout wound was on the right rear and side above
> the ear, as seen on film and photo.
>

Something like that. That location is not the site of an exit wound.

[mainframetech]

Aside from the Over 39+ witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH of
JFK, there are drawings from many people, some medically trained. As
well, there is a bullet hole that can be seen with some difficulty in the
stare-of-death photo where the wound is in the right forehead/temple area.
That matches up neatly with the 'large blowout at the BOH as an exit
wound. Small entry, large exit. It explains the blowout at the BOH which
was an anomaly before that, and there were much gyrations trying to make
that look like it was caused by a bullet from above and behind.

Here's a couple of the drawings of the head wound:

This one was done by the mortician, Tom Robinson, who lad to put his hands
down in the hole in the BOH to fill the skull with plaster and he also had
to place a patch over the hole. No one got closer to the body and the
hole than him:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

This one is drawn by James Sibert, FBI agent, who observed the whole autopsy:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719


There are other drawings.

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

Were Robinson and Sibert given the opportunity to draw their locations
of the wound from a SIDE view of the skull? Also, do you have ANY film or
photo confirmation from the time of the shooting to verify theses DRAWINGS
made over 30 years later? "Back of the head" are just words that could be
used to describe a location to distinguish it from the front of the head
or used to describe a wound that extends to the back. It's all in the
interpretation, just trying to describe what you saw and the impression it
left with you.

[mainframetech]

I recognize an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion in the
drawings, but they are clearly from the BOH, and have borders showing that
they stop before going around to the right side as the wound later did.
After Humes and Boswell extended the wound at the BOH they made it go
around the right side and a bit on the top of the head. There is not a
side view from these 2 witnesses that I know of. There are other side
views, for instance from Boswell, who was one of the men that created the
extended wound to the side and top. His drawing shows a loss of half of
the head. Boswell was one of the prosectors who had to lie at trials
about the wounds. Here's his drawing:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG

Notice that he has put in where the bullet hit the skull of JFK. And
when you look and see the large line outlining most of the top of the
head, that's his line showing the borders of the wound...after he and
Humes got through extending it. He basically said that that whole area
was missing from the skull!!!

He also said that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH, while Over 39+
witnesses saw the hole there, corroborating each other and proving him a
liar.

If any questions, or need for cites and links, let me know.

Chris

[BOZ]

You disagree with everything. NO I DON'T.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, because you are an alterationist you have to claim that all the
autopsy phots and X-rays are fakes. Because they do not see your hole in
the back of the head. The answer is that it is YOU who has the hole in
the back of his head and all your brains fell out.

> Notice that he has put in where the bullet hit the skull of JFK. And
> when you look and see the large line outlining most of the top of the
> head, that's his line showing the borders of the wound...after he and
> Humes got through extending it. He basically said that that whole area
> was missing from the skull!!!
>
> He also said that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH, while Over 39+
> witnesses saw the hole there, corroborating each other and proving him a
> liar.
>
> If any questions, or need for cites and links, let me know.
>

Bullshit. You never do.

> Chris
>

[quan...@yahoo.com]

Both of Moorman's hands are on the camera.


https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif