Correct Location of BOH Wound Demonstrated in 18 Photos
lazu...@webtv.net
of Groden's TKOAP.
These photos of witnesses graphically illustrate the actual location of
the massive, avulsive BOH wound. In each of the 18 photos the witness
cups his, or her, right hand over the right posterior portion of his or
her own head. The right ear is visible in each photo, being only
partially obscured in only one photo. All the photos of these witnesses,
11 of whom are medical professionals, show the placement of the wound as
being BEHIND the right ear, i.e. in the POSTERIOR or occipital/parietal
region of the head. Not one witness describes the wound as being in
front of the ear.
Obviously, this placement of the major wound in the rear of the head is
completely at odds with the autopsy BOH photos which show no damage in
the rear of the head. So the nutters will be forced to claim that these
18 witnesses, plus the additional couple dozen wtnesses who also
describe the same BOH location, are either lying, or are grossly
mistaken, ALL IN THE SAME MANNER! What are the odds that they are all
identically so wrong?
Virtually all the witnesses to the president's headwounds say it was in
the rear. I have yet to find a witness who agrees with the immaculate
BOH photo. No matter if this photo was taken after so-called
"reconstruction", it completely misrepresents the true condition of the
rear of the head at autopsy, and is therefore fraudulent.
lazu...@webtv.net
BOH wound, Dr. Robert McClelland stated:
"It (the large wound) was in the right back part of the head-very
large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table as we were
doing the tracheotomy."
The cerebellum portion of the brain is located in the lower rear.. It
could only extrude from a wound which extended into the occipital region
of the head. It would not come out from a temporal wound, nor even a
purely parietal wound---it had to be primarily occipital, and it would
necessarilly be a wound much larger than an entry wound. The cerebellum
tissue is easilly distinguished from that of the cerebrum by its finer
striations. Medical doctors would not mistake the two different types of
brain tissue. Besides, several other Parkland physicians, including the
Chief Neurosurgeon, reported "cerebellum" being clearly visible.
lazu...@webtv.net
his right hand in the right posterior portion of his own head, and
stating that the major headwound was..."right there, occipital
parietal."
Anthony Marsh
Wrong, and those doctors admitted they were wrong about cerebellum.
lazu...@webtv.net
Carrico, who stated: "There was a large...quite a large-- defect about
here (pointing to the upper right posterior of his own head) on his
skull."
lazu...@webtv.net
hand behind her right ear and stating: "There was a massive wound in the
back of his head."
lazu...@webtv.net
behind his right ear, indicating the posterior location of the
headwound, added; "The wound was the size of a baseball."
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RZGdnVAW9N5BpjrZ...@comcast.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
photographed individually, all pointing to the right rear of the head as
the location for the large wound. He says it all very simply: "...a
massive wound in the right rear."
lazu...@webtv.net
above his right ear, signifying where the headwound was located. In
addition to the occipital, he states: "...this wound extended into the
parietal area."
tomnln
the single bullet theory".
AND, HE WAS THERE
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7442-44A...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
lazu...@webtv.net
view, clearly placing his hand behind his right ear, his fingers
encompassing an area about three inches in diameter. He states "My
impression was there was a wound in this area of the head." After being
shown an autopsy X ray he went on to say, "There was no damage to the
face that was visible....The X rays are incompatible with the
photographs, which shiows no injury to the face."
lazu...@webtv.net
photo'ed in the Groden book, is Dr. Richard Dulaney, who placed the
wound higher in the rear of the head, " It was up in this area.", his
hand held over the upper right occipital/parietal region but certainly
not on the top of the head, and certainly in an area of the rear that
should have been visible in the BOH photo.
lazu...@webtv.net
JFK's body into the casket. He is photo'ed showing his right hand cupped
above and behind his right ear. He states: "You could feel the sharp
edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of his head."
The wound was described by seveal witnesses as a jagged orange-sized
defect missing both scalp and bone. Why don't we see this obvious damage
in the BOH photo? Fakery, that's why.
lazu...@webtv.net
primarily in the rear. Jerrol Custer, Xray tech, is another of the 18
witnesses photo'ed, showing his right hand held behind his right ear,
well inside the occipital region. He states: "From the top of the head;
almost to the base of the skull, you could see where that part was
gone." He could see a massive defect which has remarkably disappeared
by the time the BOH photo was taken (by whom? Stringer has disclaimed
it). No witness has ever agreed with the BOH photo.
cdddraftsman
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> O'Neill is from my home state and I have him on video saying "don't believe
> the single bullet theory".
>
> AND, HE WAS THERE
What about all those witnesses who selected Oz as the man who killed
Officer Tippit. Surely you will take what they say at face value,
seeing as they were there.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> It's been awhile since anyone called attention to the photos on pp.86-88
> of Groden's TKOAP.
> These photos of witnesses graphically illustrate the actual location of
> the massive, avulsive BOH wound. In each of the 18 photos the witness
> cups his, or her, right hand over the right posterior portion of his or
> her own head. The right ear is visible in each photo, being only
> partially obscured in only one photo. All the photos of these witnesses,
> 11 of whom are medical professionals, show the placement of the wound as
> being BEHIND the right ear, i.e. in the POSTERIOR or occipital/parietal
> region of the head. Not one witness describes the wound as being in
> front of the ear.
>
> Obviously, this placement of the major wound in the rear of the head is
> completely at odds with the autopsy BOH photos which show no damage in
> the rear of the head. So the nutters will be forced to claim that these
> 18 witnesses, plus the additional couple dozen wtnesses who also
> describe the same BOH location, are either lying, or are grossly
> mistaken, ALL IN THE SAME MANNER! What are the odds that they are all
> identically so wrong?
Kennedy`s head was no longer a solid object, but a mass of shifting
plates of skull held together by skin. What happens to these plates
when JFK`s head is laid on a gurney? Isn`t it a mass of broken china in
a sack? Why would you expect a hole in the side to appear as it was
created under these conditions?
> Virtually all the witnesses to the president's headwounds say it was in
> the rear. I have yet to find a witness who agrees with the immaculate
> BOH photo. No matter if this photo was taken after so-called
> "reconstruction", it completely misrepresents the true condition of the
> rear of the head at autopsy, and is therefore fraudulent.
Of course it is, it`s information kooks don`t want to accept.
cdddraftsman
more sense now , then the five hundreth time ! Recycled factoids from
the factoid furnace doesn't make it any more suspicious , now matter
how hard you try to stoke the furnace ! See Nova ' Who Killed JFK ' ,
HSCA , etc. etc. All these people are talking about different times JFK
head was exposed ( Blasted open ) Z-313 , Jackie hold his head back
together in route to hospital , the head is fractured in multiple
places and he's lying flat on his back at Parkland with no one getting
a very good view of injury . Autopsy begins , people coming in and out
of room , observing various stages of dismantling of skull . Bottom
line , the time to start worring about conspiracy is when there are no
discrepancies , not the opposite . Please try thinking a little ,
before spewing gastromics . Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
lazu...@webtv.net
wrote:
cdddraftsman
cdddraftsman
cdddraftsman
ferret out his photo showing where kennedy's head wound was ? Agenda
anyone ? Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
wrong " . Nice try though . Tom Lowry
lazu...@webtv.net
helping keep this thread front and center. You guys are big on
photographic evidence. Why don't you accept the photographic evidence
I've presented? Oh, I see, you think all those witnesses to a BOH
wound, demonstrating with their own hands, and all pointing to the same
area in the right rear of the head are just conspiracy kooks, is that
about it? Pathetic!
Here's another one for you to sneer at, Paul O'Connor, dismissed by your
ilk as a mere "janitor". He participated in about fifty autopsies, which
is about fifty more than any of his detractors. He is photographed
showing his right hand spread out behind his right ear and in the back
of his head. He had this to say about the massive wound: "There was an
open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."
O'Connor made a drawing of the rear of JFK's head showing that a large
part of the skull in the right rear was missing. Intriguingly, this
drawing coincides quite closely with the autopsy photo, F8, which the
nutters claim is an anterior view, but this photo has several landmarks
revealing that it is indeed a posterior view.
Sam
the rear exit wound is noted in the first graphic, on dr. mcclelland's
drawing and in an unadulterated copy of zap frame 313
lazu...@webtv.net
"How about one of the best witnesses, Abraham Zapruder, why don't you
ferret out his photo showing where kennedy's head wound was? Agenda
anyone?"
So you don't hate all witnesses after all. I'm surprised. Why don't you
ferret out his picture, since you're making the claim that he would
dispute what all the others said? Btw, is this the same Mr. Z who heard
shot(s) coming from over his right shoulder, and saw the president
struck in the head? Agenda anyone?
Anthony Marsh
Where have you been? McClelland did not draw that diagram.
Anthony Marsh
> Citation Please Marsh??
>
>
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
Amazingly, in an interview with author Gerald Posner on March 3, 1992,
Jenkins' recollection had changed dramatically. "The description of the
cerebellum was my fault," Jenkins insisted, "When I read my report over
I realized there could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with
the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is
the way I remember it. I never did say occipital." (Gerald Posner, Case
Closed", p. 312) Jenkins has obviously forgotten that in his own note
prepared, typed, and signed on the day of the assassination, Jenkins
said, "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and
occipital) (sic)", and HSCA's Purdy reported that Jenkins said
"occipital or temporal bone" was blown out.
lazu...@webtv.net
assassination firsthand. In another of the above photos, he is shown
placing his right hand, well behind his right ear and pointing with
three fingers to the rear of his head.
His graphic comment: "It took the back of his head off."
It's very telling that the Nutters haven't countered these nearly two
dozen witnesses to a wound in the BOH with even one witness who claims
the BOH was completely undamaged, and in effect agreeing with the BOH
photo.
lazu...@webtv.net
his right hand cupped over the rear of his head, affirming that there
was "....a big gaping hole in the back of his head."
lazu...@webtv.net
photo'ed with her right hand held over the rear of her head, repeating
what her husband had observed, adding:
"A red halo. Matter (was) coming out the back of his head."
This is consistent with Patrolman Billy Hargis'
comments of being forcibly struck by blood and brains following the
headshot(s). He was, of course, to the left rear of JFK, and belies the
strange notion that he rode into a "cloud" of debris blown by the wind
and originating somehow from the right temporal wound depicted in the Z
film. Ah, the nutty things nutters have to believe in order to hang
onto their nutty theory.
David VP
And if ANY pro-CT witness is MORE worthy of being sneered at and called
a fool than Mr. Paul O'Connor, I've yet to hear about such a witness.
CTers put faith in O'Connor, even though (to my knowledge) he is THE
ONLY WITNESS on the planet who said he saw ALL four of these loopy
pro-CT things on 11/22/63:
1.) No brain at all in JFK's head when Kennedy was brought into
Bethesda.
2.) A huge BOH wound on JFK's head.
3.) Kennedy was in a body bag (instead of being wrapped merely in
sheets, as all the autopsy doctors have said).
4.) JFK arrived at Bethesda in a gray "shipping" casket.
Can anyone name one other witness who said ALL 4 of these things?
That #1 item alone makes O'Connor out to be an enormous
fraud/kook/nutcase, IMO. There was a whole lot of brain left inside
Kennedy's head when he arrived at Bethesda. And O'Connor's ridiculous
assertion that the entire brain (save a few small "bits and pieces")
was gone is reason enough right there to dismiss everything else this
kook had to say.
Bud
You are welcome, drivel is my speciality.
> You only serve one purpose.
To raise points you neglect to address, like my pointing out that
the shifting nature of the wound might make it difficult for the casual
observer to place it.
> You're
> helping keep this thread front and center.
The position it deserves.
> You guys are big on
> photographic evidence.
You guys aren`t. The photos often dispute your silly notions.
> Why don't you accept the photographic evidence
> I've presented?
You think photographs of the impressions people had lend them
credence? Does film of Brennan saying he saw Oz shooting add credence
to his claims?
> Oh, I see, you think all those witnesses to a BOH
> wound, demonstrating with their own hands, and all pointing to the same
> area in the right rear of the head are just conspiracy kooks, is that
> about it? Pathetic!
How about this one of nurse Doris Nelson?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nelson
Or this illustration by Dr. Charles Carrico?
http://mcadams.posc.mu/images/carrico_skull.GIF
> Here's another one for you to sneer at, Paul O'Connor, dismissed by your
> ilk as a mere "janitor". He participated in about fifty autopsies,
He cleaned up autopsy rooms fifty times? That makes the man an
expert.
> which
> is about fifty more than any of his detractors. He is photographed
> showing his right hand spread out behind his right ear and in the back
> of his head. He had this to say about the massive wound: "There was an
> open area all the way across into the rear of the brain."
Didn`t he also say the brain was gone?
> O'Connor made a drawing of the rear of JFK's head
On a cocktail napkin?
>showing that a large
> part of the skull in the right rear was missing. Intriguingly, this
> drawing coincides quite closely with the autopsy photo, F8, which the
> nutters claim is an anterior view, but this photo has several landmarks
> revealing that it is indeed a posterior view.
Is that the conclusion the HSCA experts drew?
lazu...@webtv.net
wound. The photo showing his placement of the wound in the rear of the
head, and the fact that it was massive, is entirely consistent with all
the other 17 witnesses photo'ed for the Groden book, and is also
consistent with several additional witnesses, medical doctors included,
who were not included in the above group. As for his "no brains" remark,
it is an exaggeration, I agree, but he's only one-third off, according
to other medical witnesses, who claimed massive brain loss. The brain
that was weighed, not at autopsy, but at the special "brain examination"
three days later, and was of normal (!!!) weight, was not JFK's brain.
His real brain, which easily slipped out of the wound at autopsy without
benefit of the usual craniotomy ( indicating how small it was indeed),
was destroyed. Read Doug Horne, and educate yourself---and then pass it
on to your alter ego, Vince Bugliosi.
lazu...@webtv.net
massive blowout in the rear of the head, Beverly Oliver. She is photo'ed
spreading her right hand over the rear of her head. Incidentally, all
these wtnesses use their right hand, signifying that the wound in the
rear was more towards the right. She said: "The whole back of his head
went flying out the back of the car."
lazu...@webtv.net
head, photo'ed bending over with his right hand placed over that very
familiar area in the right rear of the head, well behind the ear. He
stated; "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
David VP
Perhaps Bev ought to be introduced to this revealing footage (which, of
course, totally debunks Beverly's dramatic claim):
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net
What else is new?
lazu...@webtv.net
"To raise points you neglect to address, like my pointing out that the
shifting nature of the wound might make it difficult for the casual
observer to place it."
Obviously that "point" came right off the top of your head. The
"shifting nature of the wound" certainly did not deter all these
witnesses from placing the wound in the same place, the rear of the
head. The Parkland physicians were not "casual observers". They viewed
the body for at least 20 minutes and all agreed on a posterior
headwound. Your other "points" are just as inane, and unworthy of
comment.
Btw, have you come up with a witness who agrees with the BOH photo yet?
All I'm asking for is just one measley witness! You may disappear now,
as nutters always do when I ask that question.
David VP
Sorry, laz, but you're stuck with ALL of Paul's silliness (lack of
brain, body bag, gray casket...the whole crazy nine yards). You can't
just accept one part (or "two-thirds"), and simply ignore the
"ridiculous" factor surrounding the rest of it. (Well, a CTer can...I
forgot. Sorry.)
Tell me, doesn't the FACT that even you admit he was wrong re. the "No
Brains In His Head" remark make a CTer a bit suspect about Mr.
O'Connor's OTHER observations re. the casket, body wrappings, and BOH
wound?
Or are you happy with "two-thirds" right out of 4?
BTW....I'd like to interject a personal observation/comment re. Paul
O'Connor. It's my opinion that there just MIGHT be a tad bit of mental
disturbance surrounding Paul O'Connor. Yes, this is just a guess on my
part, I admit. But he gives me the impression that he has been
pressured into believing EVERY kooky CT-ism under the sky (body bag,
casket switch, no brain, et al).
This massive OVERLOAD of pro-CT nonsense (with NO other witness in this
"All Or Nothing" category that I can think of), IMO, tends to make me
think that Paul is mentally off-balance in some respect. It's my
further guess that he's been TOLD by OTHER PEOPLE that XX and XX took
place on 11/22....and Paul has made himself actually believe these
theories.
I truly feel sorry for Paul. He seems to really believe the nonsense
he's told numerous people (including my "alter ego" ~wink~, Vincent
Bugliosi, in 1986). He's dead-wrong of course, but HE believes it.
BTW....Mr. Bugliosi was generally pretty kindly toward this
(disturbed?) kook of a witness (O'Connor) at the 1986 Mock Oswald Trial
in England. Except when Vince sailed into Paul with VB's vigorous (and
hilarious) style when he (Vince) wondered why in hell Paul had not told
of all these oddball CT-leaning things to the HSCA in 1978. .....
"You thought these things should have been investigated, correct Mr.
O'Connor? .... But if they didn't ask you the MAGIC QUESTION {re. these
strange things at JFK's autopsy}, then BY GOLLY YOU'RE NOT ABOUT TO
TELL THEM!!" -- V. Bugliosi; 1986
LOL!
>>> "His {JFK's} real brain...was destroyed." <<<
Sure it was. That's no mystery. Even the HSCA (which believed in
"conspiracy"), didn't think the "missing brain" was a relevant "CT"
issue:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt
>>> "Read Doug Horne, and educate yourself---and then pass it on to your alter ego, Vince Bugliosi." <<<
Not necessary (that's for sure). My "a-ego" knows all about JFK's
"missing brain", and VB has undoubedly dealt with the matter in a
reasoned and common-sense manner (as per the VB norm). But thanks
anyway. :)
David VP
Keep marching 'em out for debunking, Laz.
Everybody knows that Hoffman's viewing location on Stemmons Freeway is
a tad bit on the suspect side. Esp. for viewing the exact location of
JFK's head wound....which he said was "shaking like red jello" as the
President's car came whizzing past him.
Ask yourself HOW in hell Hoffman could have POSSIBLY seen the
right-rear of JFK's head "blasted out" at the time he said he saw it --
i.e., when the President was ALREADY hunkered down in the back seat
with Jackie (and probably Clint Hill) potentially blocking Hoffman's
view of the President's head?
It's just a nutty-sounding observation.
Can anybody tell me if Hoffman EVER told his "shaking like red jello"
tale to anybody prior to the 1980s? That'd be an interesting stat to
have handy.
David VP
It must be "faked" then, right laz? No other possible way to account
for all of those pesky "HE'S BEEN SHOT FROM THE REAR" elements within
the footage ---
i.e.,
Head goes forward at 313....and not a speck of blood/spray at the BOH
(where CT-kooks think a LARGE EXIT WOUND was located).
I guess the blood and ooze just conveniently WAITED until AFTER Kennedy
disappeared under the Triple Underpass to show up on the rear part of
the head (so that it wouldn't appear on Zapruder's movie).
David VP
Besides Zapruder and Sitzman you mean? And nearly ALL other Dealey
Plaza witnesses who gave an opinion as to where the head wound was
located? Very, very few DP people said it was located at the BOH.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud makes a "point";
>
> "To raise points you neglect to address, like my pointing out that the
> shifting nature of the wound might make it difficult for the casual
> observer to place it."
>
> Obviously that "point" came right off the top of your head.
Actually, I pulled it out of my ass.
> The
> "shifting nature of the wound" certainly did not deter all these
> witnesses from placing the wound in the same place, the rear of the
> head.
Exactly my point, the wound openning could have shifted back,
revealing the back of the brain, due to the unstable nature of
Kennedy`s skull.
> The Parkland physicians were not "casual observers".
Are you saying all of those witnesses you mention gave the wound a
careful examination?
> They viewed
> the body for at least 20 minutes and all agreed on a posterior
> headwound.
You think all these people you named stood around for 20 minutes,
examining and discussing this wound?
> Your other "points" are just as inane, and unworthy of
> comment.
You were thanking me for them earlier.
> Btw, have you come up with a witness who agrees with the BOH photo yet?
Does the photo have an opinion that needs corroboration?
> All I'm asking for is just one measley witness! You may disappear now,
> as nutters always do when I ask that question.
Do you really think they cease to exist when you ask them questions?
Interesting theory.
tomnln
McClelland Also Wrote on that Drawing.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6cSdnfFPt7aYjjXZ...@comcast.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
"Ask yourself HOW in hell Hoffman could have POSSIBLY seen the
right-rear of JFK's head "blasted out" at the time he said he saw
it--i.e. when the President was ALREADY hunkered down in the back seat
with Jackie (& probably Clint Hill) potentially blocking Hoffman's view
of the President's head?"
Hoffman has been much-maligned by you guys over the years, and of course
ignored by the authorities. But I think he was telling the truth. His
story can be found in the book about him by Sloan, the title of which
escapes me at the moment. Right after the assassination he went to the
police and was brushed off, because they couldn't understand his sign
language. He endured a lot of misery because of what he reported seeing
that day. I'm glad you brought up Clint Hill, because Hoffman's
description of the President's headwound matches that of Hill's. Clint
also said there was a massive hole in the right rear of the head, and a
piece of scalp lying in the back seat. JFK was lying on his left side
with his head in his wife's lap. The rear headwound was therefore
immediately visible to Hill, and I don't see why not to Hoffman as well.
How ya comin' with my request for that solitary witness who agrees with
the BOH photo? Any luck?
lazu...@webtv.net
Lady, and can produce the film she shot that day, I'm going with
Beverly.
I'd bet the farm that if that film had incriminated LHO in any way, the
authorities would have trumpeted it from on high. But unfortunately it's
still missing, and from B.L.'s vantage point, she might have caught
someone shooting from a different window in the TSBD than the SN window.
Now that would have been interesting. The film didn't show LHO, I'm
sure, or we would have heard about it by now. Maybe someone can pry it
loose from the FBI some day, or who ever has it sequestered away from
the American people. My hope is that it happens during my lifetime.
lazu...@webtv.net
there is any forward motion it occurred at 312. You neglected to mention
a small detail that followed ; at 313 the head and upper torso start to
go violently rearward, not from a stupid "jet effect", or a stupid
"neuromuscular reaction", but from simple physics called "transfer of
momentum", caused clearly by a shot from the right front.
The "volcano effect" with hair extending straight out from the rear of
the head is perceptible in good enlargements of succeeding frames. This
indicates that something has exited the rear of the head. These frames
have been posted in this forum some time ago. Unfortunately, I don't
have the capability (with Web tv) to do this.
Bud
You might have a better chance of someone landing Nessie.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Btw, Bud, until someone else steps forward and claims to be the Babushka
> Lady, and can produce the film she shot that day, I'm going with
> Beverly.
>
> I'd bet the farm that if that film had incriminated LHO in any way, the
> authorities would have trumpeted it from on high. But unfortunately it's
> still missing, and from B.L.'s vantage point, she might have caught
> someone shooting from a different window in the TSBD than the SN window.
> Now that would have been interesting. The film didn't show LHO, I'm
> sure, or we would have heard about it by now.
This is the thinking we are supposed to try reason against?
lazu...@webtv.net
You give me Zapruder, Sitzman and most of Dealey Plaza, which is
utterly ridiculous. I doubt if either of the first two names you
mentioned ever saw the BOH photo. There's no way, of course, of knowing
which, if any, of the DP witnesses ever saw or commented upon the BOH
photo. I didn't ask about wound location. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Let me rephrase the question:
Of those witnesses to the president's body, who saw the BOH photo, can
you name one who agrees with the photo, i.e. that the complete lack of
damage seen therein is exactly like he remembered seeing the condition
of the rear of the President's head?
Go for it with a single medical witness. Be careful if you mention
Humes, Boswell or Finck.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1151938444.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Btw, Bud, until someone else steps forward and claims to be the Babushka
>> Lady, and can produce the film she shot that day, I'm going with
>> Beverly.
>>
>> I'd bet the farm that if that film had incriminated LHO in any way, the
>> authorities would have trumpeted it from on high. But unfortunately it's
>> still missing, and from B.L.'s vantage point, she might have caught
>> someone shooting from a different window in the TSBD than the SN window.
>> Now that would have been interesting. The film didn't show LHO, I'm
>> sure, or we would have heard about it by now.
=========================================================================
> This is the thinking we are supposed to try reason against?
The Same reasoning that allowed you to accept the SBT.
=========================================================================
David VP
Brilliant CT reasoning!
The forward motion definitely occurs at the EXACT MOMENT OF IMPACT
(indicating, without any question the INITIAL MOMENTUM OF THE
GUNSHOT)....but Laz(y)-boy wants to argue about which exact Z-Frame it
occurs in...312 vs. 313.
Beautiful!
And I don't think I'm incorrect at all....the forward motion is first
seen at Z313. Perhaps (technically) it begins a millisecond prior to
313...but who the hell cares?! The primary point is...the head
initially goes FORWARD BEFORE MOVING BACKWARD.
>>> "If there is any forward motion..." <<<
"If"???
Are you going to call your own eyes "conspirators" in the JFK murder
now? Are your own eyeballs lying to you when they can easily see that
JFK's head moves initially FORWARD prior to the backward movement.
And the backward movement, btw, is not at all likely to have been from
THE IMPACT OF A BULLET, seeing as how the forward movement occurs at a
much-faster rate of speed than does the backward motion that follows
it. Following the initial forward movement, it takes JFK's head approx.
twice as many Z-Frames to get back to where it was at the last pre-shot
Z-Frame (Z312). .......
David VP
Besides Zapruder and many other DP witnesses, you mean?
lazu...@webtv.net
number of researchers, including M.D.'s, is that there were at least two
shots which struck JFK's head, the first from the rear and the second
from the front. This accounts reasonably with what is seen in the Z
film, instead of the unreasonable fabrications the nutters have
concocted to maintain their lone gunman from the rear scenario.
Additionally, there is the medical evidence for an exploding bullet
leaving fine particles in the brain on X ray, something no FMJ has been
shown to produce, plus the many BOH wound witnesses, all pointing to at
least one other gunman. There have been other factors indicating more
than one shooter, which have been presented, but to which you have no
intelligent response, so I won't waste any more of my time or yours on
this. Maybe the lurkers will derive something useful out of this
discussion.
lazu...@webtv.net
but it may be the first sign of enlightenment for you.
p.s. I've already explained about my request to name a witness who
agrees with the BOH photo to those, mostly medical professionals, who
have actually seen the BOH photo. All the ones I know about say the
photo does not truthfully represent the rear of JFK's head as they
remember viewing it. They all recall damage where none is shown in the
photo.
Since Diana Bowron got a good look at the back of JFK's head while she
was cleaning up the blood matting in the hair, etc. and packing the
large wound with gauze, you might ask her about that photo. Or maybe you
have someone better in mind?
David VP
No, Lazuli....the "simple" explanation (Occam's style) is the LN
version of events...i.e., the ONLY version of events which is supported
by the preponderance of the physical evidence (e.g.,
ballistics-style...plus the autopsy report, which states there was ONE
and only ONE entry hole in the President's cranium...this is not even
debatable, my CT friend...JFK was shot ONE time in the back of the
head, without a sliver of a doubt...CT shit notwithstanding).
>>> "The explanation...endorsed by a number of researchers, including M.D.'s..." <<<
And just as many people (including MDs and ballistics experts) have
said the "two head shots" theory is pure bunk...which it is (based on
the Official Autopsy Report and the autopsists comments ALONE).
What makes the pro-CT doctors and researchers more correct than experts
like Sturdivan and Lattimer (plus Humes, Boswell, and Finck, who were
the ones who signed off on the "One Head Shot" AR)?
David VP
Quite obviously, my "Stupid Shit" topic header was referring to "CTers'
Stupid Shit"....not mine.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"David, you mentioned wrongly that "the head goes forward at 313". If there is
>>>>any forward motion it occurred at 312." <<<
>
>
>Brilliant CT reasoning!
>
>The forward motion definitely occurs at the EXACT MOMENT OF IMPACT
>(indicating, without any question the INITIAL MOMENTUM OF THE
>GUNSHOT)....but Laz(y)-boy wants to argue about which exact Z-Frame it
>occurs in...312 vs. 313.
>
>Beautiful!
>
>And I don't think I'm incorrect at all....the forward motion is first
>seen at Z313. Perhaps (technically) it begins a millisecond prior to
>313...but who the hell cares?! The primary point is...the head
>initially goes FORWARD BEFORE MOVING BACKWARD.
And Z-312 is before Z-313.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"David, the simple explanation is that there were at least two shots which
>>>>struck JFK's head..." <<<
>
>
>No, Lazuli....the "simple" explanation (Occam's style) is the LN
>version of events...i.e., the ONLY version of events which is supported
>by the preponderance of the physical evidence (e.g.,
>ballistics-style...plus the autopsy report, which states there was ONE
>and only ONE entry hole in the President's cranium...this is not even
>debatable, my CT friend...JFK was shot ONE time in the back of the
>head, without a sliver of a doubt...CT shit notwithstanding).
Unfortunately, the evidence indicates otherwise.
>>>>"The explanation...endorsed by a number of researchers, including M.D.'s..." <<<
>
>
>And just as many people (including MDs and ballistics experts) have
>said the "two head shots" theory is pure bunk...which it is (based on
>the Official Autopsy Report and the autopsists comments ALONE).
You can't, of course, *believe* the Autopsy report.
For LNT'ers are forbidden from admitting that the large wound on the back of the
head *was* located on the back of the head.
David VP
Gee, will wonders never cease?
Did you need a calculator to figure out that one?
Is there a point to your math post here?
David VP
Who gives a damn what CT-Kook "evidence" indicates?
Sam
> The "volcano effect" with hair extending straight out from the rear of
> the head is perceptible in good enlargements of succeeding frames. This
> indicates that something has exited the rear of the head.
http://www.sammcclung.com/temp.html
the "volcano effect" shown in zap frames 313 and 335
David VP
Or .... That Mr. Kennedy's hair is simply being considerably displaced
due to having his entire head thrown around violently as a result of
having Oswald's approx. 2,000fps bullet enter the back of the head.
That kind of activity just MIGHT tend to affect one's hair as well.
Don't ya think?
But to a rabid CT-Kook, "Hair moving around" = A "'Volcano Effect' From
Exiting Head Material".
Sure wish some astute CTer, though, could tell the world WHERE the
blood spray and massive gore (that oughta be visible) are located at
the BOH area of JFK's head here.....
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif
Where's the "BOH" exit hole there?
Where's the blood and spray pattern at the BOH area there?
Where?
And WHY isn't it there on the Z-Film if JFK has just had a massive hole
torn in his head at that "BOH" area? A totally-"bloodless" hole it
would appear. Remarkable!
Did the plotters just "get lucky" again, re. this lack of visible
Z-Film BOH spray? Or is the film "altered"?
One of those two has to be correct...if the "BOH"-favoring CTers are.
lazu...@webtv.net
enhancement. These demonstrate the cavitation in the rear of the head,
not consistent with a bullet entry in that area, and certainly not
compatible with the BOH photo.
lazu...@webtv.net
"Who gives a damn what CT-Kook "evidence" indicates?"
Well, I'll be diddley-dadburned, I always thought that in this world
that evidence was evidence, that there was only one kind of evidence,
like there is only one kind of truth, but I guess you nutters live in a
different world from the rest of us.
David VP
LOL. :) :)
You actually think a CT-kook's "evidence" is the same as "actual
evidence"??
Somebody tell me Laz-boy is merely playing with me here.
~Additional Massive Laughter Ensues~
lazu...@webtv.net
"Quite obviously, my 'Stupid Shit' topic header was referring to 'CT'ers
Stupid Shit'...not mine."
Oh, I don't know about that. Haven't you heard that shit is in the eye
of the beholder?
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
In article <1151972560.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Ben Holmes
says...
Absolutely! But you snipped it. Rather cowardly of you, isn't it?
lazu...@webtv.net
what he said- he talked about Dr. Pepper Jenkins changing his mind on
visible cerebellum tissue in Posner's Case Closed.
1. Why would someone who doesn't believe the SBT, or headshot from the
rear, nor his treatment of numerous witnessess, put any faith at all in
Posner?
2.It doesn't matter what Jenkins said later, you have to go with the
Doctors earliest statements unfettered before peer pressure to change
their minds and conform-Dr. Malcolm Perry said 3 times 11-22-63 the
throat wound was one of entrance. He apparently, denied to the WC saying
this. His own visual observation did not get any better over the years.
3.There are at least 5 Doctors who saw cerebellar tissue extruding.
These were trained medical pro's, and as Dr. Crenshaw says in Trauma
Room One -all the Trauma room surgeons we're top notch with extensive
training, unlike the the 3 Bethesda cover up charlatans. The odds of all
5 being mistaken are extremely low. Gotta do a helluva lot better than
that, lone nutters and Tony.
Anthony Marsh
> Did anybody notice Anthony Marsh's response? 3 major things wrong with
> what he said- he talked about Dr. Pepper Jenkins changing his mind on
> visible cerebellum tissue in Posner's Case Closed.
>
> 1. Why would someone who doesn't believe the SBT, or headshot from the
> rear, nor his treatment of numerous witnessess, put any faith at all in
> Posner?
>
I never made any claim about what Posner said. I only quote it because
it is handy.
> 2.It doesn't matter what Jenkins said later, you have to go with the
> Doctors earliest statements unfettered before peer pressure to change
That can be true in some cases, but not in all. Sometimes people change
their opinion when they see new evidence.
> their minds and conform-Dr. Malcolm Perry said 3 times 11-22-63 the
> throat wound was one of entrance. He apparently, denied to the WC saying
> this. His own visual observation did not get any better over the years.
>
Several people said that the throat wound was an entrance. That has
nothing to do with the cerebellum issue. Even well trained doctors can
make mistakes.
> 3.There are at least 5 Doctors who saw cerebellar tissue extruding.
> These were trained medical pro's, and as Dr. Crenshaw says in Trauma
> Room One -all the Trauma room surgeons we're top notch with extensive
All that you just said is meaningless. Argument by Authority. I notice
that you do not use the same tact to prove that the opposite view is
correct just because the other half of the doctors said the opposite.
lazu...@webtv.net
The combined weight of the evidence of 18 photos of witnesses pointing
to the same general area of the head, the right rear, plus the
statements of an additional 20 or so witnesses who also saw a massive
wound in the right rear of the head, trumps the bogus BOH photo showing
no damage, and I believewould do so in a court of law. The BOH is not
even compatible with the other autopsy photos of the head. Both the
lateral and superior views show long bloody strands of hair extending
from the top of the head towards the rear well into the occipital area,
which may be out of view, nevertheless the length of the bloody hair is
quite evident, and would definitely fall into the rear of the head and
should therefore be clearly noticeable in the BOH photo. But not a sign
of dishevelment in the BOH photo. The hair is short and well-groomed,
definitely not in keeping with the other photos. That makes the BOH
photo douby suspect.
So some of you nutters use the lame excuse that the scalp had been
pulled over the area for a "reconstruction" view. Well, keep in mind
that autopsy photographs of gunshot victims are supposed to show the
true nature of wounds, not disguise them.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "David, you mentioned wrongly that "the head goes forward at 313". If there is any forward motion it occurred at 312." <<<
>
>
> Brilliant CT reasoning!
>
> The forward motion definitely occurs at the EXACT MOMENT OF IMPACT
> (indicating, without any question the INITIAL MOMENTUM OF THE
> GUNSHOT)....but Laz(y)-boy wants to argue about which exact Z-Frame it
> occurs in...312 vs. 313.
>
> Beautiful!
>
> And I don't think I'm incorrect at all....the forward motion is first
> seen at Z313. Perhaps (technically) it begins a millisecond prior to
> 313...but who the hell cares?! The primary point is...the head
> initially goes FORWARD BEFORE MOVING BACKWARD.
>
>
Everyone in the limo goes forward initially. Is that proof that they
were all shot in the back of the head?
>>>> "If there is any forward motion..." <<<
>
>
> "If"???
> Are you going to call your own eyes "conspirators" in the JFK murder
> now? Are your own eyeballs lying to you when they can easily see that
> JFK's head moves initially FORWARD prior to the backward movement.
>
> And the backward movement, btw, is not at all likely to have been from
> THE IMPACT OF A BULLET, seeing as how the forward movement occurs at a
> much-faster rate of speed than does the backward motion that follows
> it. Following the initial forward movement, it takes JFK's head approx.
> twice as many Z-Frames to get back to where it was at the last pre-shot
> Z-Frame (Z312). .......
>
Wrong.
Anthony Marsh
> David V.P. (or V.B.) wrote (excerpted):
>
> "Ask yourself HOW in hell Hoffman could have POSSIBLY seen the
> right-rear of JFK's head "blasted out" at the time he said he saw
> it--i.e. when the President was ALREADY hunkered down in the back seat
> with Jackie (& probably Clint Hill) potentially blocking Hoffman's view
> of the President's head?"
>
Hoffman could have been there and could have seen something, but he is
telescoping memories.
> Hoffman has been much-maligned by you guys over the years, and of course
> ignored by the authorities. But I think he was telling the truth. His
I don't think he is intentionally lying.
> story can be found in the book about him by Sloan, the title of which
> escapes me at the moment. Right after the assassination he went to the
> police and was brushed off, because they couldn't understand his sign
> language. He endured a lot of misery because of what he reported seeing
> that day. I'm glad you brought up Clint Hill, because Hoffman's
> description of the President's headwound matches that of Hill's. Clint
I don't think it is significant that his account would match Clint
Hill's account because his story came out much later and he could have
read about it or been coached.
> also said there was a massive hole in the right rear of the head, and a
> piece of scalp lying in the back seat. JFK was lying on his left side
> with his head in his wife's lap. The rear headwound was therefore
> immediately visible to Hill, and I don't see why not to Hoffman as well.
>
> How ya comin' with my request for that solitary witness who agrees with
> the BOH photo? Any luck?
>
Anthony Marsh
> WRONG Again Marsh.
>
> McClelland Also Wrote on that Drawing.
>
>
SO? That doesn't change my point that I am correct about. McClelland did
not draw that diagram. That was my sentence which you said is wrong. You
are wrong to claim that I am wrong.
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:6cSdnfFPt7aYjjXZ...@comcast.com...
>> Sam wrote:
>>> http://www.sammcclung.com/exitwound.html
>>> the rear exit wound is noted in the first graphic, on dr. mcclelland's
>>> drawing and in an unadulterated copy of zap frame 313
>>
>> Where have you been? McClelland did not draw that diagram.
>
>
tomnln
wrote on & signed?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s4WdnUMBP5kyQjfZ...@comcast.com...
David VP
No. Not all limo occupants. Only the one man who just happened to be
smacked in the head by a bullet at the EXACT SAME INSTANT the CT-Kooks
claim that everybody else is moving forward in the limo too.
Just a coincidence I guess....another beautiful co-inky for those
plotters...to have everyone else move forward in the car just exactly
when JFK's head moves forward when the bullet hits him...so that
CT-Kooks can then (later) say that "everybody's moving forward at this
same rate".
Similar to the fantastically-lucky break the plotters got when the
SECOND HEAD SHOT plowed into JFK's brain at the very instant the first
shot did, masking # 2's presence. (Not to mention the incredible luck
of having no blood or ooze at the BOH in the Z-Film, further masking
the frontal head shot).
Remarkable Copperfield-like assassins indeed. Sleight-of-hand was
definitely their forte. .... Perfect head-shot synchronization, plus
perfect "Greer Hits The Brakes" coordination with the assassins, to
"fool" the LNers re. the "forward head movement" thing.
Kook Logic. Ya gotta love it. It never fails to entertain.
But it does fail to .... convince.
Sam
no reason to fall into the marsh or be puzzled by a palace, there's already
enough confusion sewn into this case from those who carried out the plot
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_5Hqg.24429$8q.11867@dukeread08...
Sam
lazu...@webtv.net
lazu...@webtv.net
did not personally make the BOH drawing, it was done at his behest and
he okayed it as being an accurate representation of what he saw. It
shows a large hole in the right occipital area. That's the real point
here.
Sam
Subject: Re: JFK's Brain
Date: 1999/11/19
<begin quote>
I think President Kennedy's brain is in a vault in downtown Boston. I
believe Robert Kennedy gave it to Cardinal Cushing so that it could be
kept safe from the government. Cushing would have placed it in the Holy
Relics collection, which is off-limits to any governmental controls.
<end quote>
"Sam" <jfk...@sammcclung.com> wrote in message
news:E_Iqg.14636$Uc3....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Even if Dr. McClelland
> did not personally make the BOH drawing, it was done at his behest and
No, again that is the point. It was not done at his behest. That's why I
cited the interview with Josiah Thompson which you refuse to read. Tink
explained that HE commissioned someone else to draw the diagram based on
McClelland's description.
The only drawing McClelland made in his own hand is the one I pointed
out and uploaded from The Men Who Killed Kennedy. That drawing is
NOTHING like the one in Six Seconds in Dallas.
> he okayed it as being an accurate representation of what he saw. It
> shows a large hole in the right occipital area. That's the real point
> here.
>
Yes, the point being that people have always misrepresented this issue.
Anthony Marsh
> seeing your quotes of marsh remind me why he's on my blocked senders list,
> no reason to fall into the marsh or be puzzled by a palace, there's already
> enough confusion sewn into this case from those who carried out the plot
>
Which explains why you posted a bizarre reply to one of my messages.
Anthony Marsh
> WHO made the drawing of the back of the head being Blown Out that McClelland
> wrote on & signed?
>
>
I am not at liberty to tell you. I believe his name starts with an "S"
and that he lives in New York. I believe I once talk to him on the phone.