The LNer Rallying Cry!
Robert Harris
"Shut up about the evidence."
Bud 6-11-2006
Robert Harris
"Shut up about the evidence." Bud 6-12-2006
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> "Shut up about the evidence."
> Bud 6-11-2006
Yah, Harris, you kooks should shut up about the evidence. The CT
posters here are demonstratably the worst people on the planet to be
looking into anything deeper than thier belly buttons. Forty plus years
of making positive assertions from blurry photographs and even blurrier
testimony has produced what, other than a hobby to keep kooks occupied?
You`re kin to the Bigfoot hunters, they claim to have convincing
evidence also. They say they have footprints, hair, spoor, even
recordings of it`s howls. But they will never produce a Bigfoot. Any
idea why not?
Cliff
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > "Shut up about the evidence."
> > Bud 6-11-2006
>
> Yah, Harris, you kooks should shut up about the evidence. The CT
> posters here are demonstratably the worst people on the planet
You take this too personally.
> to be
> looking into anything deeper than thier belly buttons. Forty plus years
> of making positive assertions from blurry photographs
Ain't nothing blurry about this photo, Bud.
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/altgens2.jpg
Anybody can see that JFK's jacket collar was right
below his hairline, no visible shirt collar.
Enlarge it if you can't see it, Bud.
And anybody can see JFK's shirt collar in this photo,
taken right before he was first shot:
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri4/Betzner_Large.jpg
Enlarge the photo if you can't see the shirt collar.
The jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.
Now, according to you, Bud, there were 6 inches of JFK's
shirt and jacket fabric occupying the same physical space
as JFK's jacket collar -- at the same time, the moment JFK
was shot.
Bud, anybody is going to tell you that solid objects don't
occupy the same physical space at the same time.
That's why they're called "solid."
Now, if you want to believe otherwise -- go right ahead.
But it must take a whole lotta Kool-Aid to get *that* down.
Cliff Varnell
David VP
Kennedy's Back" theory again. Wonderful.
Don't CTers ever get sick of peddling this garbage?
Guess not....a "pet project" MUST be followed through with vigor, ya
know. (Look up "Bob Harris" and "Z285" in Merriam-Webster's 2006
edition for further proof of my last assertion.)
Cliff
David VP wrote:
> Oh grand! The "Let's Prove Conspiracy Based On Movable Clothing On
> Kennedy's Back" theory again. Wonderful.
You admit the clothing moved but you can't admit that it
moved down.
Ask Bugliosi the difference between up and down, David.
>
> Don't CTers ever get sick of peddling this garbage?
I never get sick of rubbing the evidence in the face
of those who unwittingly take part in the cover up of
the murder of JFK.
>
> Guess not....a "pet project" MUST be followed through with vigor, ya
> know. (Look up "Bob Harris" and "Z285" in Merriam-Webster's 2006
> edition for further proof of my last assertion.)
Said VP he of the ludicrous Mass Hallucination Theory:
everyone who saw the body suffered terrible delusions.
I can't wait for Mr. Bugliosi to emerge with his "simple"
1500 page tome readily debunked by the easily observed
fact that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.
Cliff Varnell
Bud
Cliff wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > Oh grand! The "Let's Prove Conspiracy Based On Movable Clothing On
> > Kennedy's Back" theory again. Wonderful.
>
> You admit the clothing moved but you can't admit that it
> moved down.
>
> Ask Bugliosi the difference between up and down, David.
>
>
> >
> > Don't CTers ever get sick of peddling this garbage?
>
>
> I never get sick of rubbing the evidence in the face
> of those who unwittingly take part in the cover up of
> the murder of JFK.
<snicker> "unwittingly"? Thats more slack than most of the kooks
give, I think most think we are in the active employ of *them*. Of
course, they consider locks on thier thermoses "prudent".
> > Guess not....a "pet project" MUST be followed through with vigor, ya
> > know. (Look up "Bob Harris" and "Z285" in Merriam-Webster's 2006
> > edition for further proof of my last assertion.)
>
> Said VP he of the ludicrous Mass Hallucination Theory:
> everyone who saw the body suffered terrible delusions.
>
> I can't wait for Mr. Bugliosi to emerge with his "simple"
> 1500 page tome readily debunked by the easily observed
> fact that JFK's jacket dropped an inch in Dealey Plaza.
I meant to ask you Cliff, is it your position that if JFK`s clothes
were put on his body, and the cloth pulled down so that no bunching
occurred, that all the holes (jacket, shirt, body) would align?
>
> Cliff Varnell
Cliff
There *was* bunching. Fraction of an inch here, fraction
of an inch there.
The BS you're pushing here, Bud, is the standard LNer
non-sequitar, which "reasons" thusly:
The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
the neck.
The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
Cliff Varnell
David VP
victim would totally trump the photos, the doctors, the autopsy report
and the WR (featuring the precise "Mastoid" measurements right there
for all to see AND TEST ON THEMSELVES), and the general overall common
sense that makes the SBT the obvious and only "truth" in this murder
case.
And WHO in their right mind would have any desire to look like THAT big
of a "kook".*
* = Key words .... "Right" "Mind". :)
Bud
Oh, ok, we`ve determined what you are, we are only haggling over
price.
> The BS you're pushing here, Bud, is the standard LNer
> non-sequitar, which "reasons" thusly:
I was curious about your position, so I asked you a question about
it.
> The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
> jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
> clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
> the neck.
>
> The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
>
> Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
> bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
>
> Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
Jeez, ask a kook a simple question and you get more squealing than a
pig at a barbecue.
>
> Cliff Varnell
>
>
> > occurred, that all the holes (jacket, shirt, body) would align?
Is that a "no", Cliff?
> >
> > >
> > > Cliff Varnell
Robert Harris
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > Robert Harris wrote:
> > > "Shut up about the evidence."
> > > Bud 6-11-2006
> >
> > Yah, Harris, you kooks should shut up about the evidence. The CT
> > posters here are demonstratably the worst people on the planet
>
>
> You take this too personally.
No, he isn't!!
He isn't taking it personally enough in fact:-)
Robert Harris
Cliff
Talk is cheap.
> > The BS you're pushing here, Bud, is the standard LNer
> > non-sequitar, which "reasons" thusly:
>
> I was curious about your position, so I asked you a question about
> it.
And I answered you. I guess you need a diagram.
The hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar.
The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar.
Maybe they didn't teach you fractions in school.
>
> > The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
> > jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
> > clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
> > the neck.
> >
> > The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
> >
> > Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
> > bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
> >
> > Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
>
> Jeez, ask a kook a simple question and you get more squealing than a
> pig at a barbecue.
I know why you're crying about my answer -- you ran out
of Kool Aid.
When you can't talk facts, talk shit. It's all you got.
>
> >
> > Cliff Varnell
> >
> >
> > > occurred, that all the holes (jacket, shirt, body) would align?
>
> Is that a "no", Cliff?
The differences were measured in fractions of an inch,
like I said.
Maybe concepts like "solid" and "fraction" are over your head.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cliff Varnell
Bud
Much of it worthless.
> > > The BS you're pushing here, Bud, is the standard LNer
> > > non-sequitar, which "reasons" thusly:
> >
> > I was curious about your position, so I asked you a question about
> > it.
>
> And I answered you. I guess you need a diagram.
>
> The hole in the shirt is 4" below the collar.
>
> The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8" below the collar.
>
> Maybe they didn't teach you fractions in school.
I guess you skipped English class. I asked you about the lining up
of three holes (jacket, shirt, body). How the clothes were killed
isn`t really the issue here.
> > > The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
> > > jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
> > > clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
> > > the neck.
> > >
> > > The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
> > >
> > > Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
> > > bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
> > >
> > > Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
> >
> > Jeez, ask a kook a simple question and you get more squealing than a
> > pig at a barbecue.
>
> I know why you're crying about my answer -- you ran out
> of Kool Aid.
>
> When you can't talk facts, talk shit. It's all you got.
I got you to agree with my position. That the holes in the clothes
can`t be used to give an accurate location of where the bullet entered
the body.
> > >
> > > Cliff Varnell
> > >
> > >
> > > > occurred, that all the holes (jacket, shirt, body) would align?
> >
> > Is that a "no", Cliff?
>
>
> The differences were measured in fractions of an inch,
> like I said.
>
> Maybe concepts like "solid" and "fraction" are over your head.
Feel free to talk down to me. In fact, to be sure I have position
firmly in my grasp, perhaps you`ll answer one more question for me. If
I were to put the shirt and jacket in question on a mannequin of JFK`s
size, and marked the position of the holes onto it, would that be an
accurate and precise way to determine where the bullet entered JFK?
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cliff Varnell
Cliff
I answered you, Bud.
Here it is for the 3rd time: the differences between
the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jacket and the
hole in the body can be measured in small fractions
of an inch.
> How the clothes were killed
> isn`t really the issue here.
>
> > > > The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
> > > > jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
> > > > clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
> > > > the neck.
> > > >
> > > > The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
> > > > bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
> > > >
> > > > Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
> > >
> > > Jeez, ask a kook a simple question and you get more squealing than a
> > > pig at a barbecue.
> >
> > I know why you're crying about my answer -- you ran out
> > of Kool Aid.
> >
> > When you can't talk facts, talk shit. It's all you got.
>
> I got you to agree with my position.
That there was a 3-inch difference between
the holes in the clothes and the body?
No, Bud, I don't agree that 1/8 = 3.
That is typical LN math, however.
> That the holes in the clothes
> can`t be used to give an accurate location of where the bullet entered
> the body.
Accurate to within a small fraction of an inch
Go back to school, Bud, there were a whole lotta
classes you missed in English and Math.
Cliff
> And only a bigger kook would claim that the movable clothing of the
> victim
And the photos that showed the clothing moving DOWN...
> would totally trump the photos,
The HSCA concluded that the photos of the back
wound were "more confusing than informative";
that it was "difficult or impossible" to get relevant
information from those photos; that the photos
were "deficient as scientific evidence"; that the
photos could not be readily authenticated as
JFK autopsy photos.
Add to that the lack of a chain of possession
for these photos you cite.
That's your evidence, David -- a pure guess
as to the wound location based on an improperly
produced autopsy photo of poor quality and
questionable authenticity.
What a joke the LN is!
> the doctors,
A dozen people -- medical staff and lawmen -- all had
prolonged looks at the back wound and all described
it around T3.
Only a kook would claim all these people suffered
mass hallucinations!
> the autopsy report
Which one? The initial autopsy report by Humes
put the back wound at T2, too low for the SBT.
The FBI autopsy report put the back wound lower.
Humes initially determined that the wound was
"below the shoulder," according to the FBI guys.
Then Humes moved it up to around T2 in his
initial autopsy report. Then he moved it again
for the final autopsy report.
LNers move that back wound around all the time
trying to match the evidence to their conclusion.
It's fun to watch you guys chase your tails, David.
> and the WR (featuring the precise "Mastoid" measurements right there
> for all to see AND TEST ON THEMSELVES),
The mastoid process is a moveable landmark, and
any measurement taken from a moveable anatomical
landmark is in violation of proper autopsy protocol.
The measurements from this improperly chosen
anatomical landmark were written in pen on the
autopsy face sheet. According to autopsy
protocol, all measurements must be written in
pencil.
The autopsy face sheet itself -- filled out properly in
pencil and marked "verified" -- contradicts the
measurements taken from the mastoid process.
You don't have a single piece of uncompromised
evidence to support the SBT, David. Nothing.
> and the general overall common
> sense
It's common sense to claim that 5 or 6 inches
of JFK's shirt and jacket fabric occupied the
same physical space at the same time as his
jacket collar?
Solid objects cannot occupy the same physical
space at the same time, David, that's why we have
car crashes.
:->
Cliff
Bud
No, you really didn`t. Look above and you won`t see anything about
the hole in the body.
> Here it is for the 3rd time: the differences between
> the hole in the shirt and the hole in the jacket and the
> hole in the body can be measured in small fractions
> of an inch.
I`ll overlook for the moment that you can demonstrate no such thing
without first having a fixed and precise location of the bullet entry
with which to work .
> > How the clothes were killed
> > isn`t really the issue here.
> >
> > > > > The SBT needs 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of JFK's
> > > > > jacket to have elevated in tandem to align the
> > > > > clothing holes with the SBT inshoot at the base of
> > > > > the neck.
> > > > >
> > > > > The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket bunched.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, 3" of JFK's shirt and 3" of jacket were
> > > > > bunched up above the inshoot at the base of the neck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a kook would try to pass this as "logic."
> > > >
> > > > Jeez, ask a kook a simple question and you get more squealing than a
> > > > pig at a barbecue.
> > >
> > > I know why you're crying about my answer -- you ran out
> > > of Kool Aid.
> > >
> > > When you can't talk facts, talk shit. It's all you got.
> >
> > I got you to agree with my position.
>
> That there was a 3-inch difference between
> the holes in the clothes and the body?
No, that the holes in the clothing can`t accurately be used to
determine the location of the hole in the body.
> No, Bud, I don't agree that 1/8 = 3.
The only thing you have established is that there is an 1/8th inch
difference between the hole in the shirt, and the hole in the jacket
(if that... measuring down from the collar of one article of clothing
and comparing that result with measuring down from the collar of
another assumes that both collars are identicle starting points).
> That is typical LN math, however.
All right, you don`t like my math, how about some logic? When you
have 3 holes, one static and fixed (the wound), and two flexible and
unfixed (the clothing), which should be used to determine the precise
location of the others? You have jacket (" A"), shirt (B) and wound
(C). You use "A" and "B" to determine "C", when you really need "C" to
determine "A" and "B".
> > That the holes in the clothes
> > can`t be used to give an accurate location of where the bullet entered
> > the body.
>
> Accurate to within a small fraction of an inch
From the jacket to the shirt. You said there was bunching. This
must skew an accurate positioning of the wound using the clothing holes
to determine it`s location.
> Go back to school, Bud, there were a whole lotta
> classes you missed in English and Math.
Just how smart do you suppose a person needs to be to recognize the
flaws in your thinking?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cliff Varnell
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > occurred, that all the holes (jacket, shirt, body) would align?
> > > >
> > > > Is that a "no", Cliff?
> > >
> > >
> > > The differences were measured in fractions of an inch,
> > > like I said.
> > >
> > > Maybe concepts like "solid" and "fraction" are over your head.
> >
> > Feel free to talk down to me. In fact, to be sure I have position
> > firmly in my grasp, perhaps you`ll answer one more question for me. If
> > I were to put the shirt and jacket in question on a mannequin of JFK`s
> > size, and marked the position of the holes onto it, would that be an
> > accurate and precise way to determine where the bullet entered JFK?
Good answer.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cliff Varnell
Bud
Cliff wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > And only a bigger kook would claim that the movable clothing of the
> > victim
>
>
> And the photos that showed the clothing moving DOWN...
>
>
> > would totally trump the photos,
>
> The HSCA concluded that the photos of the back
> wound were "more confusing than informative";
> that it was "difficult or impossible" to get relevant
> information from those photos; that the photos
> were "deficient as scientific evidence"; that the
> photos could not be readily authenticated as
> JFK autopsy photos.
What did the HSCA think about using how JFK`s clothing looks in
pictures to determine where the bullet entered? If they couldn`t bring
themselves to use a photo of the back wound itself, I can`t imagine
them opting for Cliff`s clothing conjurations.
> Add to that the lack of a chain of possession
> for these photos you cite.
There isn`t any other reasonable possibility other than it being a
real autopsy photo of JFK`s back wound. I`d say if anything is faked,
it`s the photos showing JFK`s collar dropping <snicker>.
> That's your evidence, David -- a pure guess
> as to the wound location based on an improperly
> produced autopsy photo of poor quality and
> questionable authenticity.
Anything can be questioned, thats what kooks are for. Tell us again
how the perspective in that picture os so horribly distorted that
nothing can be determined from the photo even if by some miracle it
actually is a photo of the back wound. Then start threads about
"intellectual dishonesty".
> What a joke the LN is!
And CT are the punchline.
> > the doctors,
>
> A dozen people -- medical staff and lawmen -- all had
> prolonged looks at the back wound and all described
> it around T3.
Using what as a reference point?
> Only a kook would claim all these people suffered
> mass hallucinations!
Only a kook would try to use these to trump the autopsy.
> > the autopsy report
>
> Which one? The initial autopsy report by Humes
> put the back wound at T2, too low for the SBT.
>
> The FBI autopsy report put the back wound lower.
>
> Humes initially determined that the wound was
> "below the shoulder," according to the FBI guys.
> Then Humes moved it up to around T2 in his
> initial autopsy report. Then he moved it again
> for the final autopsy report.
>
> LNers move that back wound around all the time
> trying to match the evidence to their conclusion.
Then it`s a muddle, and everyone should use the photo of the actual
wound to draw thier own conclusions.
> It's fun to watch you guys chase your tails, David.
Kooks have been chasing the tail of conspiracy for decades. They
even claim to have caught it, which begs the question of why they
continue the chase.
> > and the WR (featuring the precise "Mastoid" measurements right there
> > for all to see AND TEST ON THEMSELVES),
>
>
> The mastoid process is a moveable landmark, and
> any measurement taken from a moveable anatomical
> landmark is in violation of proper autopsy protocol.
Could this account for a 3 inch descrepancy?
> The measurements from this improperly chosen
> anatomical landmark were written in pen on the
> autopsy face sheet. According to autopsy
> protocol, all measurements must be written in
> pencil.
If you agreed with the measurements, you wouldn`t care if they were
in crayon.
> The autopsy face sheet itself -- filled out properly in
> pencil and marked "verified" -- contradicts the
> measurements taken from the mastoid process.
Neatness counts.
> You don't have a single piece of uncompromised
> evidence to support the SBT, David. Nothing.
Are you saying that if the truth can be disputed, that makes it
untrue?
> > and the general overall common
> > sense
>
>
> It's common sense to claim that 5 or 6 inches
> of JFK's shirt and jacket fabric occupied the
> same physical space at the same time as his
> jacket collar?
JFK was shot below the collar. JFK wasn`t shot through the collar.
Why not use the cuffs of his shirt to determine where in the back he
was shot?
> Solid objects cannot occupy the same physical
> space at the same time, David, that's why we have
> car crashes.
Some of those could be avoided, if we made cars out of cloth.
> :->
>
>
> Cliff
David VP
Bullshit. .........
JAMES HUMES (ARRB Testimony; 1996) ----
QUESTION -- "When you recorded it a being from the right mastoid
process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a
fixed body landmark?"
HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're
really in trouble if it does."
QUESTION -- "Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with
respect to the thoracic cavity?"
HUMES -- "It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it
respected to."
QUESTION -- "Well, if your head turns to the right or to the left, does
the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--"
HUMES -- "Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly."
~~~~~~~
Dr. Humes is/was a fraud, a liar, and totally incompetent.....right?
Or do you think that his "millimeter or two" comment re. the movement
of the Mastoid Process location on any given individual means that the
Kennedy "5.5 inch" measurement is to be completely thrown out the
window as unreliable?*
* = Keep in mind the word "approximately" was always used re. the
autopsy measurements too, indicating that the doctors felt that a
"TO-THE-EXACT-MILLIMETER" measurement was not required.
And WHY would they think it would be "required" (in ANY criminal case),
even the President's murder case? The doctors couldn't possibly have
foreseen at the autopsy in '63 that a band of dedicated kooks in the
late 20th and early 21st century would be scrutinizing {to the
millimeter} the precise locality of the wounds, the clothing, the ONE
AND ONLY entry hole on JFK's head, and a million other hunks of
minutiae that are only ultra-important to conspiracy kooks bent on
having every T crossed, even though it's not reasonable to think that
every last T will be crossed in every murder investigation.
And furthermore, I'm doubting there would have been ANY measurement or
measuring-taking device that would have sufficed the rabid CT kooks. No
way that could have happened...not to a kook's satisfaction. Because
the level of demands made by these kooks is too high....for ANYONE to
meet.
And even if such "measuring" demands WERE satisfied....then the same
kooks would pull out the proverbial "Everything's Been Faked After The
Fact" ploy.
Nothing will "satisfy" kooks. ..... Until Vince Bugliosi's CS&L arrives
on the scene at any rate. ;)
>> "The measurements were written in pen on the autopsy face sheet. According to autopsy protocol, all measurements must be written in pencil."
Dear God! Say it isn't so!!!
I can see the "conspiracy" and "cover-up" so much more plainly now!
The whole thing is due to the type of writing instrument utilized on
the Face Sheet! Fabulous discovery! Congrats!
~~Reminder to self ---- Contact Vince B.: tell him book must be
cancelled. Cliff V. has solved case. Breakthrough involves writing
implements. Will explain in full later.~~
>> "The autopsy face sheet itself -- filled out properly in pencil and marked "verified" -- contradicts the measurements taken from the mastoid process."
The Boswell "dot" on the diagram contradicts the mastoid stat, yes. But
that's been fully explained by Dr. Boswell a thousand times. He was not
drawing "to scale" on the stick figure. The WRITTEN-IN MEASUREMENTS are
still there to verify precisely where the wound was.
But, keep trying.....you kooks might be able to find some little piece
of bullshit you can use to convince others (and yourself) that the
doctors were all eithers boobs, liars, or both.
>> "You don't have a single piece of uncompromised evidence to support the SBT, David. Nothing."
Yeah....thank God in heaven that you discovered that "Pen vs. Pencil"
gaffe! That's gonna break the conspiracy WIDE open! (And probably cause
the "Bic" company a lot in potential sales too. Because nobody's gonna
trust their ball-points anymore after reading your last post re. the
illegalities of pen use.)
>> "Solid objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time, David, that's why we have car crashes."
And CTers can't stop isolating relatively-unimportant minutiae in their
everlasting quest to prove something that never happened.
That's why we have CT Kooks.
Robert Harris
David, are you still trying to convince us that this doesn't exist?
http://jfkhistory.com/protrusion.jpg
Robert Harris
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
Something "exists" there in the picture, but it's certainly not a big
ol' hole. Can't be, for a number of reasons.
For one (big) thing -- WHERE is the blood spray coming out of this
large so-called "avulsion"? Where? It's not there....and yet we DO see
considerable spray on the OTHER (front) side. Why?
And more importantly -- How is this lack of "BOH Spray" possible if the
larger exit hole is in the REAR, which would/should have produced much
more spray/ejecta than the entry wound?
Shouldn't common sense enter the "BOH" equation at some point in time?