Halo in Z film -- please respond McAdams
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
and he didn't reply. I'm not sure whether he never read it or just
chose to ignore it.
So...I'll try again.
McAdams > & >>>
Schuck >>
>And what about the explosion? Is it or isn't it above and a bit
>forward of Kennedy's ear? And does or doesn't the bone and brain
>matter fly forward and upward?
In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the explosion is in fact a
halo with it's centre pointing towards Zapruders right.
The existence of this halo can be seen when you look at the film made
from JFK's left rear [the Muchmore film?] which in my mind clearly
shows a circular halo with is starting point JFK's head and the
direction being towards the stockade fence area.
[By the way, someone else on the net posts a much better description
of this halo every once in a while]
The exact starting point of the halo is hard to pin down because of
the 1/9 of a second between frames. However, remember that frame 313
is after JFK has been shot. A bullet hitting JFK from the right front
would send JFK backwards but leave the halo in place, making you think
the starting point is farther forwards.
>Why don't you get HTII, and look at the color photos following page
>320. They make it clear that the head shot showed in at least three
>frames of the Z film. The last of the three shows no flying brain
>matter, but rather what appear to be fragments of Kennedy's skull
>rocketing forward and upward.
Thats very simplistic. The "forward and upward" material is clearly
only the most visible part of a cone shaped halo emanating from the
right side of JFK's head. In fact, I would go so far as to call it a
splash of brain matter and bone. Try and imagine the scene in 3D. Use
the other JFK film -- taken from farther away to imagine it in 3D
instead of the 2D Z film. Clearly what you have is identical to a
splash -- the same type of splash you get when you drop or throw a
rock into a liquid medium. You get a roughly circular halo emanating
from the impact point *towards* the starting poing of the rock [ in
this case a bullet ]
If you imagine it in 3D it becomes clear. The starting point of the
bullet [or rock in my analogy ] is to Zapruders right -- the stockade
fence area -- and the blood bone and brain are the splash.
Mike Nantau
>shot it it too (not nearly as obvious as the Z-film). What I see
>there is perfectly consistent with the Z-film.
>
>But if you're trying to argue that the Z-film shows evidence of a hit
>from Kennedy's right front, you have to deal with issues like what the
>photos and X-rays of Kennedy's body show.
>
>But you probably believe those are faked, right?
>
>.John
John;
If you can prove to me, or at least show me, how the x-rays and photo's are
even REMOTELY consistant with each other, I will be prepared to re-evaluate
my view tht they are doctored, after the fact. They don't even support each
other, let alone anything else. If one view is true the other can't
possibly be.
John McAdams
>I posted part of this in a reply to McAdams,
>and he didn't reply. I'm not sure whether he never read it or just
>chose to ignore it.
>
>So...I'll try again.
>
>McAdams > & >>>
>Schuck >>
>
>>And what about the explosion? Is it or isn't it above and a bit
>>forward of Kennedy's ear? And does or doesn't the bone and brain
>>matter fly forward and upward?
>
>In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the explosion is in fact a
>halo with it's centre pointing towards Zapruders right.
>
>The existence of this halo can be seen when you look at the film made
>from JFK's left rear [the Muchmore film?] which in my mind clearly
>shows a circular halo with is starting point JFK's head and the
>direction being towards the stockade fence area.
>
I chose to ignore it.
It seems to me to be a *most* creative interpretation of the film.
John McAdams
>
>John;
>
>If you can prove to me, or at least show me, how the x-rays and photo's are
>even REMOTELY consistant with each other, I will be prepared to re-evaluate
>my view tht they are doctored, after the fact. They don't even support each
>other, let alone anything else. If one view is true the other can't
>possibly be.
>
>
If they're inconsistent, then why didn't the HSCA Medical Evidence
Panel notice this?
We're talking about people who know how to read x-rays here, not
conspiracy buffs.
Even Wecht, the conspiratorialist who dissented from the HSCA
conclusions, didn't make this claim at the time.
And don't you think The Conspiracy would be capable of forging x-rays
and photos that were consistent? After all, their forgeries fooled
the best experts the HSCA could find. How did they overlook so
obvious a thing as having the photos and x-rays match?
Why don't you post one or two things you think are "inconsistent."
I'll try to get you an answer as to why you're wrong.
.John
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca>,
>sch...@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>I posted part of this in a reply to McAdams,
>>and he didn't reply. I'm not sure whether he never read it or just
>>chose to ignore it.
>>
>>So...I'll try again.
>>
>>McAdams > & >>>
>>Schuck >>
>>
>>>And what about the explosion? Is it or isn't it above and a bit
>>>forward of Kennedy's ear? And does or doesn't the bone and brain
>>>matter fly forward and upward?
>>
>>In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the explosion is in fact a
>>halo with it's centre pointing towards Zapruders right.
>>
>>The existence of this halo can be seen when you look at the film made
>>from JFK's left rear [the Muchmore film?] which in my mind clearly
>>shows a circular halo with is starting point JFK's head and the
>>direction being towards the stockade fence area.
>>
>I chose to ignore it.
Why should I be surprised. You have a very closed mind to evidence
that would shake your beliefs in the WC religion.
>It seems to me to be a *most* creative interpretation of the film.
Really? If you started thinking of the Z film as a 2D rendering of a
3D event, you might actually start to figure out what was going on.
>I saw the Nix film just a couple of days ago, and you can see the head
>shot it it too (not nearly as obvious as the Z-film). What I see
>there is perfectly consistent with the Z-film.
I saw a circle of ejecta emanating from the right side of JFK's head,
which over time forms a cone. The centre of that cone is the Stockade
fence area. What did you see?
>But if you're trying to argue that the Z-film shows evidence of a hit
>from Kennedy's right front, you have to deal with issues like what the
>photos and X-rays of Kennedy's body show.
>But you probably believe those are faked, right?
We've been over this. The photos and X-Rays fail to show the existence
of the wound in the occipital parietal described by nearly all the
staff at Parkland, Jackie, Clint Hill, and Humes the autopsist.
Either they *all* were lying, or the photos and X-Rays were faked, or
are very selective or a combination of such.
Do *you* believe all the people who saw a large wound in the right
rear of JFK's head were lying or mistaken?
Mitchell S Todd
>John;
>If you can prove to me, or at least show me, how the x-rays and photo's are
>even REMOTELY consistant with each other, I will be prepared to re-evaluate
>my view tht they are doctored, after the fact. They don't even support each
>other, let alone anything else. If one view is true the other can't
>possibly be.
I assume that you are talking about the "face is missing" bit that
conspiratii keep on raving about.
It's really just a misunderstanding that results from a fateful piece
of broken bone, head alignment, and some wishful thinking.
As a preliminary, an x-ray of the skull shows images of both the
farand near sides of the skull superimposed upon each other.
This isn't always fully understood by "missing face" advocates.
Also, it isn't uncommon for parts of the skull (like the temple)
to not show up very well in the exposure.
The Anterior-posterior projection (it really isn't, but I'll get to
that later) shows that the right side of the face is indeed intact.
The confusion is caused by the fact that, in this view, the skull
defect overlaps the facial area, and that a piece of the right
eye socket is broken and displaced. That's what leads people to
misconstrue what the x-ray shows.
As I've already said, the projection is not a true AP job. In the
X-ray, you are looking at the face and upwards, so the rear of
the skull defect appears to be lower than it actaully is.
In the side views, the temple region looks like it's gone. This
area, however, generally doesn't show up well in x-rays. It
doesn't show up well in JFK's pre-mortem x-rays, either.
_____ _____
\\\\\\/ ___/___________________
Mitchell S Todd \\\\/ / _____/__________________________
________________ \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
\_____ \__ / / tamu.edu _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
\__________\__ / / _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
\_ / /__________/
\/____/\\\\\\
\\\\\\
------
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
--------
if anybody responds to this, make sure to get the attribution right...
wouldn't want anybody blaming bruce for my little weirdnesses...
>Article 6999 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:
>From: sch...@selkirk.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
>Subject: Re: Halo in Z film -- please respond McAdams
>
>6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>
>>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca>,
>>sch...@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>>>
>>>>And what about the explosion? Is it or isn't it above and a bit
>>>>forward of Kennedy's ear? And does or doesn't the bone and brain
>>>>matter fly forward and upward?
>>>
>>>In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the explosion is in fact a
>>>halo with it's centre pointing towards Zapruders right.
damn straght: it's a cone that disperses...
also, as a note to the guy who was doing the physical analysis of
the jet effect, it should be possible to get an estimate of the
velocity of ejecta by measuring the length of the "white lines" in
z313 and estimating the exposure time (probably 1/36 of a second
(half the cycle time). You can at least get x and y if not z
velocities. You can even make assumptions of what the angle was of
the jet with the midline of the head and further constrict its
velocity....a jet going almost straight up and forward, as macadams
seems to think the "lines" imply it did, would have all that much
less push back and to the left. good bye jet effect...
>>>
stuff deleted
>>>
>
>>I chose to ignore it.
>
>Why should I be surprised. You have a very closed mind to evidence
>that would shake your beliefs in the WC religion.
he's like that isn't he? he never responded to many of my
challenges for answers several months back...but weaseling out of
this sort of thing is a WC-supporter's specialty.
>>I saw the Nix film just a couple of days ago, and you can see the head
>>shot it it too (not nearly as obvious as the Z-film). What I see
>>there is perfectly consistent with the Z-film.
>
>I saw a circle of ejecta emanating from the right side of JFK's head,
>which over time forms a cone. The centre of that cone is the Stockade
>fence area. What did you see?
where was the nix film shot from? where did orville nix stand?
>
>>But if you're trying to argue that the Z-film shows evidence of a hit
>>from Kennedy's right front, you have to deal with issues like what the
>>photos and X-rays of Kennedy's body show.
>
>>But you probably believe those are faked, right?
>
>We've been over this. The photos and X-Rays fail to show the existence
>of the wound in the occipital parietal described by nearly all the
>staff at Parkland, Jackie, Clint Hill, and Humes the autopsist.
>
>Either they *all* were lying, or the photos and X-Rays were faked, or
>are very selective or a combination of such.
>
>Do *you* believe all the people who saw a large wound in the right
>rear of JFK's head were lying or mistaken?
>
this is the key issue that WC-supporters will not face. they will
pull 30 experts out of their assholes but can't offer any really
good reason why such a total contradiction can exist and be seen by
anybody who isn't a handpicked expert....
good luck getting an answer bruce, but i applaud you and paul and
several others whose recent efforts that have been far above the
norm in quality of argument. the coverup is tottering these days,
so don't be too surprised when martial law is declared in a couple
years...
ah apocalypticness...apocalypticality?
dennis.a.truxal
drawn by Dr. Boswell states "globe rt, eye - Fracture through floor".
I gather from what you say that you are suggesting the apparent damage
to the facial area as seen in the X-ray is really on the rear and
becomes superimposed on the front, or is it the other way around? Do
some people transfer frontal damage to the rear because of the same
superimposition? It doesn't look that mysterious to me, because you
have the lateral view to cross-reference.
I agree that the view (A/P) extends only about down to nostril level,
but referencing the lateral view shows (to me at least) that bone
damage is about even (with respect to the horizontal) in the front
and rear.
Dennis A. Truxal
John McAdams
>>>
>>>>And what about the explosion? Is it or isn't it above and a bit
>>>>forward of Kennedy's ear? And does or doesn't the bone and brain
>>>>matter fly forward and upward?
>>>
>>>In my opinion, and the opinion of others, the explosion is in fact a
>>>halo with it's centre pointing towards Zapruders right.
>>>
>>>The existence of this halo can be seen when you look at the film made
>>>from JFK's left rear [the Muchmore film?] which in my mind clearly
>>>shows a circular halo with is starting point JFK's head and the
>>>direction being towards the stockade fence area.
>>>
>
>>I chose to ignore it.
>
>Why should I be surprised. You have a very closed mind to evidence
>that would shake your beliefs in the WC religion.
>
I chose to ignore it because it was such a weak argument that I didn't
think it worth my time.
>>It seems to me to be a *most* creative interpretation of the film.
>
>Really? If you started thinking of the Z film as a 2D rendering of a
>3D event, you might actually start to figure out what was going on.
>
>>I saw the Nix film just a couple of days ago, and you can see the head
>>shot it it too (not nearly as obvious as the Z-film). What I see
>>there is perfectly consistent with the Z-film.
>
>I saw a circle of ejecta emanating from the right side of JFK's head,
>which over time forms a cone. The centre of that cone is the Stockade
>fence area. What did you see?
>
I saw Kennedy's brains being blown out forward and upward.
>>But if you're trying to argue that the Z-film shows evidence of a hit
>>from Kennedy's right front, you have to deal with issues like what the
>>photos and X-rays of Kennedy's body show.
>
>>But you probably believe those are faked, right?
>
>We've been over this. The photos and X-Rays fail to show the existence
>of the wound in the occipital parietal described by nearly all the
>staff at Parkland, Jackie, Clint Hill, and Humes the autopsist.
>
>Either they *all* were lying, or the photos and X-Rays were faked, or
>are very selective or a combination of such.
>
>Do *you* believe all the people who saw a large wound in the right
>rear of JFK's head were lying or mistaken?
>
We've been over this before. Conspiratorialists consistently
interpret any statement about a wound to the "back of the head" to
mean an occipital wound. In English usage, the "back of the head" can
very well be "on the side of the head toward the back."
So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
conspiratorialists.
Since some brain matter splattered the motorcycle cop to Kennedy's
left, and since some skull fragments fell on Kennedy's left side, your
theory requires *another* exit wound besides the one shown in the
Z-film (the one you interpret as a cone pointing toward the GK).
But somehow the Z-film doesn't show it. Neither do Nix or Muchmore.
Somehow the x-rays and photos don't show it.
I guess you believe *all* of this photographic evidence has been
faked.
The there is the fact that four of the Dallas doctors, brought to the
National Archives by NOVA, said that the wounds in the photos and
x-rays were the same ones they saw that day in Dallas.
But you probably believe The Conspiracy got to these doctors, right?
.John
John McAdams
>
> In the side views, the temple region looks like it's gone. This
> area, however, generally doesn't show up well in x-rays. It
> doesn't show up well in JFK's pre-mortem x-rays, either.
>
>
Another thing to keep in mind here is that the x-rays that the
conspiracy buffs reprint are computer enhanced.
The thinning out of the bone in the temple region, which looks
*gradual* in unenhanced x-rays, looks like a sharp break in the
computer enhanced x-rays.
This effect is obvious if you simply compare the two versions side by
side.
.John
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca>,
>sch...@selkirk.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>>I saw a circle of ejecta emanating from the right side of JFK's head,
>>which over time forms a cone. The centre of that cone is the Stockade
>>fence area. What did you see?
>>
>I saw Kennedy's brains being blown out forward and upward.
Forward and upward only? Why argue about 3D with someone who thinks
only in 2D? What a waste of time arguing with you.
>>Do *you* believe all the people who saw a large wound in the right
>>rear of JFK's head were lying or mistaken?
>>
>We've been over this before. Conspiratorialists consistently
>interpret any statement about a wound to the "back of the head" to
>mean an occipital wound. In English usage, the "back of the head" can
>very well be "on the side of the head toward the back."
You are *selective* in the extreme aren't you!
Here are the quotes again.
Do any say "side of the head toward the back"????
Do you know where occipitoparietal is????
SS Agent Clint Hill testified "The right rear portion of his head
was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain
was exposed."
Jackie Kennedy said "But from the front there was nothing. I
suppose their must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
[no wound visible from the front, back of head falling off]
Nurse Hutton "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on
the back of his head."
Nurse Hutton testified in her WC deposition that she "observed
one large hole" in "the back of the head."
Dr Carrico said "The wound I saw was a large gaping wound,
located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate
it to be about 5 to 7cm in size, more or less circular."
[occipital is the bone at the back of the skull, parietal is
the bone at the side]
Dr Ronald Jones said the head wound was "a large wound in the
right posterior....a large defect in the back side of the head."
Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
Dr Akin said "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding."
Dr. McClelland testified "I noted that the right posterior
portion of the skull had been exteremely blasted."
Humes said:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and
skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
regions."
"There was a large wound in the occipito-parietal region from which
profuse bleeding was occurring. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue
were extruding from the wound"
Dr Kemp Clark -- Medical Report in WR p. 484
>So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
>conspiratorialists.
No, you are the one with a filter that misquotes and misinterprets.
Do you have *any* quotes from medical personnel that say "side of the
head near the back"?
Mitchell S Todd
>> >If you can prove to me, or at least show me, how the x-rays and photo's are
>> >even REMOTELY consistant with each other, I will be prepared to re-evaluate
>> >my view tht they are doctored, after the fact. They don't even support each
>> >other, let alone anything else. If one view is true the other can't
>> >possibly be.
>> As a preliminary, an x-ray of the skull shows images of both the
>> farand near sides of the skull superimposed upon each other.
>> This isn't always fully understood by "missing face" advocates.
>> Also, it isn't uncommon for parts of the skull (like the temple)
>> to not show up very well in the exposure.
>> The Anterior-posterior projection (it really isn't, but I'll get to
>> that later) shows that the right side of the face is indeed intact.
>> The confusion is caused by the fact that, in this view, the skull
>> defect overlaps the facial area, and that a piece of the right
>> eye socket is broken and displaced. That's what leads people to
>> misconstrue what the x-ray shows.
>> As I've already said, the projection is not a true AP job. In the
>> X-ray, you are looking at the face and upwards, so the rear of
>> the skull defect appears to be lower than it actaully is.
>> In the side views, the temple region looks like it's gone. This
>> area, however, generally doesn't show up well in x-rays. It
>> doesn't show up well in JFK's pre-mortem x-rays, either.
> I don't quite get what you are saying here. The famous bloody diagram
> drawn by Dr. Boswell states "globe rt, eye - Fracture through floor".
Actually, it's mentioned in the autopsy report-- "an abnormal mobility
of the right supraorbital region." That is, there was a piece of
broken bone floating around just over the right eye. The enhanced
x-rays clearly show this as being a triangular piece of the right
eye socket that has been knocked out by a fairly large crescent-shaped
fragment.
> I gather from what you say that you are suggesting the apparent damage
> to the facial area as seen in the X-ray is really on the rear and
> becomes superimposed on the front, or is it the other way around?
If you look carefully, you can see the margin of the head wound,
and it is not in the facial area. Judging from the comments of
Lattimer, the HSCA's outside contact reports, and Artwohl, the
actual x-ray is much clearer and less ambiguous than the copies
found in books. Artwohl and the HSCA note that the facial sinuses
are present and intact in the original x-rays, which wouldn't be
true if the damage was to the front of the face.
> some people transfer frontal damage to the rear because of the same
> superimposition? It doesn't look that mysterious to me, because you
> have the lateral view to cross-reference.
> I agree that the view (A/P) extends only about down to nostril level,
> but referencing the lateral view shows (to me at least) that bone
> damage is about even (with respect to the horizontal) in the front
> and rear.
I think I've already noted that the "missing area" shown in the
side view is normal in a head x-ray. When you look at JFK's
pre mortem x-rays, this becomes clear.
John McAdams
>
>>We've been over this before. Conspiratorialists consistently
>>interpret any statement about a wound to the "back of the head" to
>>mean an occipital wound. In English usage, the "back of the head" can
>>very well be "on the side of the head toward the back."
>
>You are *selective* in the extreme aren't you!
>
"The back of the head" to most English speakers would be anything
behind the ear.
>Here are the quotes again.
>
>Do any say "side of the head toward the back"????
>Do you know where occipitoparietal is????
>
I'm sitting here looking at my trusty ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY.
Occipital would be "the back of the head" as *you* are using "back of
the head."
"Parietal" or "temporal" would be the side of the head, although both
could be toward the back.
>SS Agent Clint Hill testified "The right rear portion of his head
>was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain
>was exposed."
>
>Jackie Kennedy said "But from the front there was nothing. I
>suppose their must have been. But from the back you could see,
>you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
>[no wound visible from the front, back of head falling off]
>
>Nurse Hutton "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on
>the back of his head."
>
>Nurse Hutton testified in her WC deposition that she "observed
>one large hole" in "the back of the head."
>
>Dr Carrico said "The wound I saw was a large gaping wound,
>located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate
>it to be about 5 to 7cm in size, more or less circular."
>[occipital is the bone at the back of the skull, parietal is
>the bone at the side]
>
>Dr Ronald Jones said the head wound was "a large wound in the
>right posterior....a large defect in the back side of the head."
>
>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>
Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
occipitoparietal area."
>Dr Akin said "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
>of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding."
>
>Dr. McClelland testified "I noted that the right posterior
>portion of the skull had been exteremely blasted."
>
And then he added that "parietal bone [and some] occipital bone" was
sticking up.
Where's Baxter? Is his testimony an embarrassment? He said "the
wound was in [the] temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the
side."
>Humes said:
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and
> skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
> but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
> regions."
>
Wait a minute! Humes said the wound was chiefly parietal. That would
mean chiefly on the *side* of the head.
>"There was a large wound in the occipito-parietal region from which
>profuse bleeding was occurring. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue
>were extruding from the wound"
> Dr Kemp Clark -- Medical Report in WR p. 484
>
>>So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
>>conspiratorialists.
>
>No, you are the one with a filter that misquotes and misinterprets.
>
You're the one who, in Humes case, interprets a wound discribed as
"chiefly parietal" as being really on the back of the head.
You're the one who left Baxter out.
On net I do think the Dallas doctors described a wound a bit further
back that it really was. But conspiracy buffs are "cleaning up" the
actual testimony to make it more consistent with their theories.
Have you ever bothered to get that NOVA documentary? The one where
four of the Dallas doctors go to the national archives and say that
the wounds they see on the photos and x-rays there are the same ones
they saw on Nov. 22 in Dallas?
Have you every considered what The Conspiracy would have to do to fool
the HSCA panel that authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photos?
I understand that Groden is now saying that The Conspiracy was going
around the country before the HSCA panel went to work, going into
hospitals and doctors offices to substitute fake photos and x-rays for
the real Kennedy photos and x-rays, so that the forensic
anthropologists who authenticated the autopsy materials would find
that they matched the "Kennedy" materials.
Do you actually take this possibility seriously?
.John
dennis.a.truxal
referring to "missing area" but "damaged area", and I want to make
the distinction clear. There are many fractures visible, and they
are not difficult to discern. The only difficulty is in determining
whether they are on the "near side" or "far side" when viewing the
X-rays. So when I made the statement that damage was about even
front and rear, I was referring to visible fractures, not missing
bone. That is quite another matter.
Dennis A. Truxal
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca>,
>sch...@selkirk.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
>>
>>>We've been over this before. Conspiratorialists consistently
>>>interpret any statement about a wound to the "back of the head" to
>>>mean an occipital wound. In English usage, the "back of the head" can
>>>very well be "on the side of the head toward the back."
>>
>>You are *selective* in the extreme aren't you!
>>
>
>"The back of the head" to most English speakers would be anything
>behind the ear.
Really? So you do agree there was a wound in "the back of the head"
right?
Remind me, where does the WC and HSCA say the exit wound was -- did
they say it was behind the ear? If so, then the "Panel of Experts"
contradict the medical personnel who actually saw the wound -- which
is my point.
>
>
>>Here are the quotes again.
>>
>>Do any say "side of the head toward the back"????
>>Do you know where occipitoparietal is????
>>
>
>I'm sitting here looking at my trusty ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY.
>Occipital would be "the back of the head" as *you* are using "back of
>the head."
>
>"Parietal" or "temporal" would be the side of the head, although both
>could be toward the back.
So....occipitoparietal would be a wound in the right rear corner of
JFK's head -- a wound extending from the back of the head to the side
of the head near the back. Anybody see such a wound in the photos or
X-Rays?
>
>>SS Agent Clint Hill testified "The right rear portion of his head
>>was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain
>>was exposed."
>>
>>Jackie Kennedy said "But from the front there was nothing. I
>>suppose their must have been. But from the back you could see,
>>you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
>>[no wound visible from the front, back of head falling off]
>>
>>Nurse Hutton "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on
>>the back of his head."
>>
>>Nurse Hutton testified in her WC deposition that she "observed
>>one large hole" in "the back of the head."
>>
>>Dr Carrico said "The wound I saw was a large gaping wound,
>>located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate
>>it to be about 5 to 7cm in size, more or less circular."
>>[occipital is the bone at the back of the skull, parietal is
>>the bone at the side]
>>
>>Dr Ronald Jones said the head wound was "a large wound in the
>>right posterior....a large defect in the back side of the head."
>>
>>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>>
>
>Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
>occipitoparietal area."
Yes? Thats what I said. Occipitoparietal is what he testified to the WC.
>
>
>>Dr Akin said "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
>>of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding."
>>
>>Dr. McClelland testified "I noted that the right posterior
>>portion of the skull had been exteremely blasted."
>>
>
>And then he added that "parietal bone [and some] occipital bone" was
>sticking up.
Right. The occipital is the back of the head, and if occipital bone is
sticking up then there must of been a wound in the back of the head.
>
>Where's Baxter? Is his testimony an embarrassment? He said "the
>wound was in [the] temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the
>side."
Oh right. Baxter. This is the Doctor who said on the 20/20 interview
[when Crenshaws book came out] that he was going to ruin the career of
any Doctor who attempted to make a dime off the JFK assassination,
which was a very potent threat for the Doctors to keep quiet.
I quote from Crenshaws book:
"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>
>>Humes said:
>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and
>> skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
>> but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
>> regions."
>>
>
>Wait a minute! Humes said the wound was chiefly parietal. That would
>mean chiefly on the *side* of the head.
You keep arguing that there was no wound on the back of the head, and
here you leap on the word chiefly and try and ignore that Humes said
it extended into the occipital. Wow. How sad.
>
>>"There was a large wound in the occipito-parietal region from which
>>profuse bleeding was occurring. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue
>>were extruding from the wound"
>> Dr Kemp Clark -- Medical Report in WR p. 484
>>
>>>So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
>>>conspiratorialists.
>>
>>No, you are the one with a filter that misquotes and misinterprets.
>>
>
>You're the one who, in Humes case, interprets a wound discribed as
>"chiefly parietal" as being really on the back of the head.
Quit misquoting me. I've said all along that the wound was on the
right rear corner of the head. I use the term occipitalparietal
because almost all the Parkland staff as well as Humes used it.
Occipitalparietal is the rear corner of the head, which is *below* the
entrance wound claimed by Humes.
>
>On net I do think the Dallas doctors described a wound a bit further
>back that it really was. But conspiracy buffs are "cleaning up" the
>actual testimony to make it more consistent with their theories.
What drivel!!!!!!!!!!
There was an occipitalparietal wound, a wound that doesn't show up on
the x rays or the photos. How is that "cleaning up"
You are psychotic.
>Have you ever bothered to get that NOVA documentary? The one where
>four of the Dallas doctors go to the national archives and say that
>the wounds they see on the photos and x-rays there are the same ones
>they saw on Nov. 22 in Dallas?
I also remember one of the Doctors placing his hands on the right rear
corner of his head, which is where the wound was.
Even after all the years and all the pressure, thats where he saw the
wound.
>
>Have you every considered what The Conspiracy would have to do to fool
>the HSCA panel that authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photos?
Pretty easy actually.
>
>I understand that Groden is now saying that The Conspiracy was going
>around the country before the HSCA panel went to work, going into
>hospitals and doctors offices to substitute fake photos and x-rays for
>the real Kennedy photos and x-rays, so that the forensic
>anthropologists who authenticated the autopsy materials would find
>that they matched the "Kennedy" materials.
>
>Do you actually take this possibility seriously?
During the HSCA investigation, a known CIA officer was caught rigling
the safe where the phots and x rays were kept. Its on the record.
dennis.a.truxal
> In article <009724D1...@vms.csd.mu.edu> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> >In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca>,
> >sch...@selkirk.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
> >
>
> >
> >Where's Baxter? Is his testimony an embarrassment? He said "the
> >wound was in [the] temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the
> >side."
>
> Oh right. Baxter. This is the Doctor who said on the 20/20 interview
> [when Crenshaws book came out] that he was going to ruin the career of
> any Doctor who attempted to make a dime off the JFK assassination,
> which was a very potent threat for the Doctors to keep quiet.
>
> I quote from Crenshaws book:
>
> "Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
> issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
> who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
> what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>
(deleted)
*This statement just screams out for an explanation. Why in the world
would Baxter issue an edict of this nature? There is just no
shortage of material for us to pounce on and see evil intent. If
this statement is indeed factual, I for one would be very interested
in knowing the reasoning behind it.
Dennis A. Truxal
Tommy Usher
6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams writes:
JM> Another thing to keep in mind here is that the x-rays that the
JM> conspiracy buffs reprint are computer enhanced..
You mean, like in "High Treason," which has both?
JM> The thinning out of the bone in the temple region, which looks
JM> *gradual* in unenhanced x-rays, looks like a sharp break in the
JM> computer enhanced x-rays.
Uh, why is this "effect" only visible on one side, in either X-ray?
JM> This effect is obvious if you simply compare the two versions side by
JM> side.
Now I can begin to see why you are such a fan of Posner...
---
. SLMR 2.1a . Windows is a pane in the glass!
John McAdams
>>
>>"The back of the head" to most English speakers would be anything
>>behind the ear.
>
>Really? So you do agree there was a wound in "the back of the head"
>right?
>
>Remind me, where does the WC and HSCA say the exit wound was -- did
>they say it was behind the ear? If so, then the "Panel of Experts"
>contradict the medical personnel who actually saw the wound -- which
>is my point.
>
The photos and x-rays show a massive defect centered over the ear.
The autopsy describes a massive defect in the same location.
On net, the Dallas ER staff described a wound further back than the
one the autopsy describes, and the one the photos and x-rays show.
On net, they describe a wound on the side of the head near the back,
further back than the autopsy and x-rays, but not far enough to allow
a jet of bones and brain matter out to Kennedy's left. Particularly
considering that Kennedy was looking a bit left when the head shot
hit.
Given that none of the Dallas doctors were paying much attention to
the head wound, and given that when Nova showed the Dallas doctors the
photos and x-rays in 1988, the said they reflected the wounds they
saw, I'll go with the photos and x-rays.
>>
>>
>>>Here are the quotes again.
>>>
>>>Do any say "side of the head toward the back"????
>>>Do you know where occipitoparietal is????
>>>
>>
>>I'm sitting here looking at my trusty ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY.
>>Occipital would be "the back of the head" as *you* are using "back of
>>the head."
>>
>>"Parietal" or "temporal" would be the side of the head, although both
>>could be toward the back.
>
>So....occipitoparietal would be a wound in the right rear corner of
>JFK's head -- a wound extending from the back of the head to the side
>of the head near the back. Anybody see such a wound in the photos or
>X-Rays?
>
How about explaining how the photos and x-rays were faked so well that
they fooled the forensic anthropoligists of the HSCA?
>
>>
>>>SS Agent Clint Hill testified "The right rear portion of his head
>>>was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain
>>>was exposed."
>>>
>>>Jackie Kennedy said "But from the front there was nothing. I
>>>suppose their must have been. But from the back you could see,
>>>you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
>>>[no wound visible from the front, back of head falling off]
>>>
>>>Nurse Hutton "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on
>>>the back of his head."
>>>
>>>Nurse Hutton testified in her WC deposition that she "observed
>>>one large hole" in "the back of the head."
>>>
>>>Dr Carrico said "The wound I saw was a large gaping wound,
>>>located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate
>>>it to be about 5 to 7cm in size, more or less circular."
>>>[occipital is the bone at the back of the skull, parietal is
>>>the bone at the side]
>>>
>>>Dr Ronald Jones said the head wound was "a large wound in the
>>>right posterior....a large defect in the back side of the head."
>>>
>>>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>>>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>>>
>>
>>Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
>>occipitoparietal area."
>
>Yes? Thats what I said. Occipitoparietal is what he testified to the WC.
>
No, you apparently haven't read his WC testimony, but are taking this
from some conspiracy book. What I quoted above is *from* his WC
testimony.
>>
>>
>>>Dr Akin said "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
>>>of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding."
>>>
>>>Dr. McClelland testified "I noted that the right posterior
>>>portion of the skull had been exteremely blasted."
>>>
>>
>>And then he added that "parietal bone [and some] occipital bone" was
>>sticking up.
>
>Right. The occipital is the back of the head, and if occipital bone is
>sticking up then there must of been a wound in the back of the head.
>
But he's describing mostly parietal bone with some occipital bone.
>>
>>Where's Baxter? Is his testimony an embarrassment? He said "the
>>wound was in [the] temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the
>>side."
>
>Oh right. Baxter. This is the Doctor who said on the 20/20 interview
>[when Crenshaws book came out] that he was going to ruin the career of
>any Doctor who attempted to make a dime off the JFK assassination,
>which was a very potent threat for the Doctors to keep quiet.
>
No, just not to exploit the assassination monetarily.
>I quote from Crenshaws book:
>
>"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
>issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
>who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
>what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>
Apparently nobody paid any attention, since they've been talking their
heads off ever since.
BTW, do you actually find Crenshaw a credible source?
>>
>>>Humes said:
>>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and
>>> skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
>>> but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
>>> regions."
>>>
>>
>>Wait a minute! Humes said the wound was chiefly parietal. That would
>>mean chiefly on the *side* of the head.
>
>You keep arguing that there was no wound on the back of the head, and
>here you leap on the word chiefly and try and ignore that Humes said
>it extended into the occipital. Wow. How sad.
>
The photo and x-rays show nasty fractures extending into the occipital
area. So does the Dox drawing which became HSCA Figure 29.
But let's review how this got started.
You wanted to claim that the motorcycle cop to Kennedy's left got
splattered with brain matter when a GK shot took off the right rear of
Kennedy's head and blew the brain matter back on him.
You can't point to any film that shows such a wound. Zapruder
doesn't, Nix doesn't, and Muchmore doesn't. The photos and x-rays
don't.
Look at Kennedy's head about Z-312 in the Z film. He's looking to his
left. There is no way a bullet, fired from the GK just a few degrees
to the right of Zapruder, could take off the back of his head without
taking off occipital, and probably parietal, bone on the *left* side
of his head.
You've got to move the wound around *that far* to make the point
you're trying to make.
>>
>>>"There was a large wound in the occipito-parietal region from which
>>>profuse bleeding was occurring. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue
>>>were extruding from the wound"
>>> Dr Kemp Clark -- Medical Report in WR p. 484
>>>
>>>>So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
>>>>conspiratorialists.
>>>
>>>No, you are the one with a filter that misquotes and misinterprets.
>>>
>>
>>You're the one who, in Humes case, interprets a wound discribed as
>>"chiefly parietal" as being really on the back of the head.
>
>Quit misquoting me. I've said all along that the wound was on the
>right rear corner of the head. I use the term occipitalparietal
>because almost all the Parkland staff as well as Humes used it.
>Occipitalparietal is the rear corner of the head, which is *below* the
>entrance wound claimed by Humes.
>
>>
>>On net I do think the Dallas doctors described a wound a bit further
>>back that it really was. But conspiracy buffs are "cleaning up" the
>>actual testimony to make it more consistent with their theories.
>
>What drivel!!!!!!!!!!
>
Drivel? See above for a couple of instances where you omitted
testimony inconsistent with your thesis.
>There was an occipitalparietal wound, a wound that doesn't show up on
>the x rays or the photos. How is that "cleaning up"
>
>You are psychotic.
>
And you are reinforcing my stereotype of conspiracy buffs as people
who simply loose it when they find that people disagree with them.
>>Have you ever bothered to get that NOVA documentary? The one where
>>four of the Dallas doctors go to the national archives and say that
>>the wounds they see on the photos and x-rays there are the same ones
>>they saw on Nov. 22 in Dallas?
>
>I also remember one of the Doctors placing his hands on the right rear
>corner of his head, which is where the wound was.
>
>Even after all the years and all the pressure, thats where he saw the
>wound.
>
That's what he did *before* he looked at the photos and x-rays.
Can't you consider the possibility that people *misperceive* things?
I'll bet you can where their perceptions support the lone gunman
theory.
>>
>>Have you every considered what The Conspiracy would have to do to fool
>>the HSCA panel that authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photos?
>
>Pretty easy actually.
>
>>
>>I understand that Groden is now saying that The Conspiracy was going
>>around the country before the HSCA panel went to work, going into
>>hospitals and doctors offices to substitute fake photos and x-rays for
>>the real Kennedy photos and x-rays, so that the forensic
>>anthropologists who authenticated the autopsy materials would find
>>that they matched the "Kennedy" materials.
>>
>>Do you actually take this possibility seriously?
>
>During the HSCA investigation, a known CIA officer was caught rigling
>the safe where the phots and x rays were kept. Its on the record.
>
But many of the photos, and indeed many of the x-rays, were obviously
of Kennedy. Have you seen those in HT and HTII?
So are you saying The Conspiracy faked the pre-assassination photos
and x-rays of JFK, also faked the autopsy photos and x-rays of JFK,
and did this so well that the photographic evidence panel was fooled?
Did they get a JFK ringer and shot him in order to create the wounds
The Conspiracy wanted?
.John
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
Schuck >> & >>>>
>>>
>>>"The back of the head" to most English speakers would be anything
>>>behind the ear.
>>
>>Really? So you do agree there was a wound in "the back of the head"
>>right?
>>
>>Remind me, where does the WC and HSCA say the exit wound was -- did
>>they say it was behind the ear? If so, then the "Panel of Experts"
>>contradict the medical personnel who actually saw the wound -- which
>>is my point.
>>
>The photos and x-rays show a massive defect centered over the ear.
Certainly not a 13cm wound.
>The autopsy describes a massive defect in the same location.
The autopsy describes a 13cm wound going from Occipital thru Parietal
to Temporal. Such a wound is nowhere to be seen in photos or the
x-rays.
>On net, the Dallas ER staff described a wound further back than the
>one the autopsy describes, and the one the photos and x-rays show.
Different size and way back on the head.
>On net, they describe a wound on the side of the head near the back,
>further back than the autopsy and x-rays, but not far enough to allow
>a jet of bones and brain matter out to Kennedy's left. Particularly
>considering that Kennedy was looking a bit left when the head shot
>hit.
What? Of course it is far enough back if the bullet struck JFK behind
the ear and exitted out the occipital. Such a wound, coming from a
tangential strike would have taken off the right rear corner of the
head and certainly *would* have allowed blood and bone to go the left
and rear, which would have been impossible if the wound is where you
want it to be.
>Given that none of the Dallas doctors were paying much attention to
>the head wound,
What? Kemp Clark , a neurosurgeon, clearly examined the wound and took
note of which parts of the brain were damaged and testified as such to
the WC in 1964. Of course they were paying attention to the head, what
self-respecting Doctors would ignore a massive head wound leaking
blood and cerebellum tissue onto the operating table.
>>>
>>>>Here are the quotes again.
>>>>
>>>>Do any say "side of the head toward the back"????
>>>>Do you know where occipitoparietal is????
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sitting here looking at my trusty ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY.
>>>Occipital would be "the back of the head" as *you* are using "back of
>>>the head."
>>>
>>>"Parietal" or "temporal" would be the side of the head, although both
>>>could be toward the back.
>>
>>So....occipitoparietal would be a wound in the right rear corner of
>>JFK's head -- a wound extending from the back of the head to the side
>>of the head near the back. Anybody see such a wound in the photos or
>>X-Rays?
>>
>How about explaining how the photos and x-rays were faked so well that
>they fooled the forensic anthropoligists of the HSCA?
The forensic anthropologists never saw the actual wounds , so how
would they know what they were seeing when they saw the photos and
x-rays?
Huh? Occipitoparietal is what he testified. Where is the discrepancy?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dr Akin said "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
>>>>of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding."
>>>>
>>>>Dr. McClelland testified "I noted that the right posterior
>>>>portion of the skull had been exteremely blasted."
>>>>
>>>
>>>And then he added that "parietal bone [and some] occipital bone" was
>>>sticking up.
>>
>>Right. The occipital is the back of the head, and if occipital bone is
>>sticking up then there must of been a wound in the back of the head.
>>
>But he's describing mostly parietal bone with some occipital bone.
Yes? There was a wound involving occipital bone, and that is in the
back of the head. WHere is such a wound in the photos or x-rays?
>>>
>>>Where's Baxter? Is his testimony an embarrassment? He said "the
>>>wound was in [the] temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the
>>>side."
>>
>>Oh right. Baxter. This is the Doctor who said on the 20/20 interview
>>[when Crenshaws book came out] that he was going to ruin the career of
>>any Doctor who attempted to make a dime off the JFK assassination,
>>which was a very potent threat for the Doctors to keep quiet.
>>
>No, just not to exploit the assassination monetarily.
>>I quote from Crenshaws book:
>>
>>"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
>>issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
>>who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
>>what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>>
>Apparently nobody paid any attention, since they've been talking their
>heads off ever since.
Since when? Crenshaws is the first book written by the ER staff, and
there other testimony is usually in front of government panels.
>BTW, do you actually find Crenshaw a credible source?
He describes the same wound most other Parkland staff saw.
JAMA tried to smear him by claiming he wasn't there, but all you have
to do is read vol 6 of the WCH and 4 other Doctors note his prescence.
>>>
>>>>Humes said:
>>>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and
>>>> skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
>>>> but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital
>>>> regions."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Wait a minute! Humes said the wound was chiefly parietal. That would
>>>mean chiefly on the *side* of the head.
>>
>>You keep arguing that there was no wound on the back of the head, and
>>here you leap on the word chiefly and try and ignore that Humes said
>>it extended into the occipital. Wow. How sad.
>>
>The photo and x-rays show nasty fractures extending into the occipital
>area. So does the Dox drawing which became HSCA Figure 29.
>But let's review how this got started.
>You wanted to claim that the motorcycle cop to Kennedy's left got
>splattered with brain matter when a GK shot took off the right rear of
>Kennedy's head and blew the brain matter back on him.
>You can't point to any film that shows such a wound. Zapruder
>doesn't, Nix doesn't, and Muchmore doesn't. The photos and x-rays
>don't.
>Look at Kennedy's head about Z-312 in the Z film. He's looking to his
>left. There is no way a bullet, fired from the GK just a few degrees
>to the right of Zapruder, could take off the back of his head without
>taking off occipital, and probably parietal, bone on the *left* side
>of his head.
You are real dense aren't you. I *never* said the bullet took off the
back of his head!!!!!!!
I said it took off the right rear corner of his head, and doing that
from the Stockade Fence area is easy, and it would still allow the
bullet to exit to the left.
Of course, looking at JFK's location, you claim a bullet fired from
the TSBD could enter the back of his head and exit out the right side
going downwards and not take off JFK's face. Ha.
>>>
>>>>"There was a large wound in the occipito-parietal region from which
>>>>profuse bleeding was occurring. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue
>>>>were extruding from the wound"
>>>> Dr Kemp Clark -- Medical Report in WR p. 484
>>>>
>>>>>So they were not "all lying." They have been misinterpreted by
>>>>>conspiratorialists.
>>>>
>>>>No, you are the one with a filter that misquotes and misinterprets.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're the one who, in Humes case, interprets a wound discribed as
>>>"chiefly parietal" as being really on the back of the head.
>>
>>Quit misquoting me. I've said all along that the wound was on the
>>right rear corner of the head. I use the term occipitalparietal
>>because almost all the Parkland staff as well as Humes used it.
>>Occipitalparietal is the rear corner of the head, which is *below* the
>>entrance wound claimed by Humes.
>>
>>>
>>>On net I do think the Dallas doctors described a wound a bit further
>>>back that it really was. But conspiracy buffs are "cleaning up" the
>>>actual testimony to make it more consistent with their theories.
>>
>>What drivel!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>Drivel? See above for a couple of instances where you omitted
>testimony inconsistent with your thesis.
You on the other prefer to omit *all* the testimony contradicting you
thesis.
>>There was an occipitalparietal wound, a wound that doesn't show up on
>>the x rays or the photos. How is that "cleaning up"
>>
>>You are psychotic.
>>
>And you are reinforcing my stereotype of conspiracy buffs as people
>who simply loose it when they find that people disagree with them.
Disagree? You lie about what I said, and lie about what other
witnesses said.
>>>Have you ever bothered to get that NOVA documentary? The one where
>>>four of the Dallas doctors go to the national archives and say that
>>>the wounds they see on the photos and x-rays there are the same ones
>>>they saw on Nov. 22 in Dallas?
>>
>>I also remember one of the Doctors placing his hands on the right rear
>>corner of his head, which is where the wound was.
>>
>>Even after all the years and all the pressure, thats where he saw the
>>wound.
>>
>That's what he did *before* he looked at the photos and x-rays.
>Can't you consider the possibility that people *misperceive* things?
Ahhh. The mass hallucination explanation. Everybody at Parkland and
Bethesda who saw a wound extending into the Occipital "misperceived".
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are psychotic.
>>>
>>>Have you every considered what The Conspiracy would have to do to fool
>>>the HSCA panel that authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photos?
>>
>>Pretty easy actually.
>>
>>>
>>>I understand that Groden is now saying that The Conspiracy was going
>>>around the country before the HSCA panel went to work, going into
>>>hospitals and doctors offices to substitute fake photos and x-rays for
>>>the real Kennedy photos and x-rays, so that the forensic
>>>anthropologists who authenticated the autopsy materials would find
>>>that they matched the "Kennedy" materials.
>>>
>>>Do you actually take this possibility seriously?
>>
>>During the HSCA investigation, a known CIA officer was caught rigling
>>the safe where the phots and x rays were kept. Its on the record.
>>
>But many of the photos, and indeed many of the x-rays, were obviously
>of Kennedy. Have you seen those in HT and HTII?
Yes I did. None of the photos show a wound where the Parkland staff
and Humes said there was. None. Neither do the x-Rays.
By the way, the x-rays show a piece of lead on the outside of the
skull where the HSCA claims entrance wound. Lead only appears on the
outside of a skull wound when the bullet is a lead bullet or a
soft-nosed bullet and the hard bone of the skull shaves off lead. Such
"shaving" never occurs on the tougher copper jacketed bullets such as
a 6.5mm MC.
For you to beleive the x-rays are real, you must explain how JFK was
shot by a soft-nosed or frangible lead round, when the HSCA and WC claim
he was shot by a copper jacketed round.
Read Lattimers "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a description of such a lead
ring on Lincolns wound and then read the Clark Panel Report which
found such a ring, and then explain how JFK was shot by a lead or
soft-nosed bullet when Oswald wasn't firing them????
John, if the x-rays are genuine, then you have to believe JFK was shot
by a soft-nosed or frangible round which left lead on the outside and
dozens of lead fragments inside JFK's skull. That lets Oswald off the
hook.
John McAdams
>>>
>>>Remind me, where does the WC and HSCA say the exit wound was -- did
>>>they say it was behind the ear? If so, then the "Panel of Experts"
>>>contradict the medical personnel who actually saw the wound -- which
>>>is my point.
>>>
>
>>The photos and x-rays show a massive defect centered over the ear.
>
>Certainly not a 13cm wound.
>
Easily 13 cm.
>>The autopsy describes a massive defect in the same location.
>
>The autopsy describes a 13cm wound going from Occipital thru Parietal
>to Temporal. Such a wound is nowhere to be seen in photos or the
>x-rays.
>
It's true that the photos I've seen don't show occipital involvement.
The HSCA Panel (which saw all the photos and x-rays) showed the
blasted out area to be entirely parietal, with massive fractures
extending into the occipital area.
>>On net, the Dallas ER staff described a wound further back than the
>>one the autopsy describes, and the one the photos and x-rays show.
>
>Different size and way back on the head.
>
>>On net, they describe a wound on the side of the head near the back,
>>further back than the autopsy and x-rays, but not far enough to allow
>>a jet of bones and brain matter out to Kennedy's left. Particularly
>>considering that Kennedy was looking a bit left when the head shot
>>hit.
>
>What? Of course it is far enough back if the bullet struck JFK behind
>the ear and exitted out the occipital. Such a wound, coming from a
>tangential strike would have taken off the right rear corner of the
>head and certainly *would* have allowed blood and bone to go the left
>and rear, which would have been impossible if the wound is where you
>want it to be.
>
Work out the angles. Kennedy was looking a bit to his left at the
time of the head shot. The Badgeman position is just a few degrees to
Zapruder's right. The HSCA acoustic position just a few degrees
further.
If the shooter was way up the fence toward the Underpass, the sort of
strike you want might be possible.
But why do you think the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brains blowing
out the top of his head, forward of his ear, if the shot was as you
describe it?
Do you think the Z film was faked?
>>Given that none of the Dallas doctors were paying much attention to
>>the head wound,
>
>What? Kemp Clark , a neurosurgeon, clearly examined the wound and took
>note of which parts of the brain were damaged and testified as such to
>the WC in 1964. Of course they were paying attention to the head, what
>self-respecting Doctors would ignore a massive head wound leaking
>blood and cerebellum tissue onto the operating table.
>
>
Self respecting trauma surgeons who were concerned with the presidents
vital signs, which weren't very vital at that point.
Apparently, Perry was pumping on Kennedy's chest, and another doctor
was primed to cut open the chest to do heart massage, and the doctors
who *had* gotten around to looking at the wound (Clark,
Jenkins) told them "forget it. It's too late."
>
>>How about explaining how the photos and x-rays were faked so well that
>>they fooled the forensic anthropoligists of the HSCA?
>
>The forensic anthropologists never saw the actual wounds , so how
>would they know what they were seeing when they saw the photos and
>x-rays?
>
The weren't much concerned with the wounds. Their job was to find out
if the photos and x-rays were really of John F. Kennedy. They
concluded they were.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>>>>>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
>>>>occipitoparietal area."
>>>
>>>Yes? Thats what I said. Occipitoparietal is what he testified to the WC.
>>>
>
>>No, you apparently haven't read his WC testimony, but are taking this
>>from some conspiracy book. What I quoted above is *from* his WC
>>testimony.
>
>Huh? Occipitoparietal is what he testified. Where is the discrepancy?
>
The point is that he said parietal first, and only later said
occipitoparietal.
>
>>>I quote from Crenshaws book:
>>>
>>>"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
>>>issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
>>>who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
>>>what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>>>
>
>>Apparently nobody paid any attention, since they've been talking their
>>heads off ever since.
>
>Since when? Crenshaws is the first book written by the ER staff, and
>there other testimony is usually in front of government panels.
>
>>BTW, do you actually find Crenshaw a credible source?
>
>He describes the same wound most other Parkland staff saw.
>JAMA tried to smear him by claiming he wasn't there, but all you have
>to do is read vol 6 of the WCH and 4 other Doctors note his prescence.
>
I'll check that out. I remember that *most* of the Dallas doctors don't
remember him being there.
Probably he just came in at the end.
But do you believe that story about Johnson calling and wanting a
deathbed confession from Oswald?
>
>>Look at Kennedy's head about Z-312 in the Z film. He's looking to his
>>left. There is no way a bullet, fired from the GK just a few degrees
>>to the right of Zapruder, could take off the back of his head without
>>taking off occipital, and probably parietal, bone on the *left* side
>>of his head.
>
>You are real dense aren't you. I *never* said the bullet took off the
>back of his head!!!!!!!
>
>I said it took off the right rear corner of his head, and doing that
>from the Stockade Fence area is easy, and it would still allow the
>bullet to exit to the left.
>
Look at the Z-film.
Kennedy is looking to the left. Taking off the right rear corner of
his head would require a shooter far up the stockade fence, many yards
removed from the Badgeman position, and many yards from the HSCA
acoustic position.
>
>Of course, looking at JFK's location, you claim a bullet fired from
>the TSBD could enter the back of his head and exit out the right side
>going downwards and not take off JFK's face. Ha.
>
I don't follow.
>
>>>There was an occipitalparietal wound, a wound that doesn't show up on
>>>the x rays or the photos. How is that "cleaning up"
>>>
>>>You are psychotic.
>>>
>
>>And you are reinforcing my stereotype of conspiracy buffs as people
>>who simply loose it when they find that people disagree with them.
>
>Disagree? You lie about what I said, and lie about what other
>witnesses said.
>
You're engaging in a childish tantrum. If you want to continue to
debate me on this or any other issue, you're going to have to show a
bit more self-restraint.
>
>>Can't you consider the possibility that people *misperceive* things?
>
>Ahhh. The mass hallucination explanation. Everybody at Parkland and
>Bethesda who saw a wound extending into the Occipital "misperceived".
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are psychotic.
>
I'll overlook that *one last time.* And this is that time.
>>But many of the photos, and indeed many of the x-rays, were obviously
>>of Kennedy. Have you seen those in HT and HTII?
>
>Yes I did. None of the photos show a wound where the Parkland staff
>and Humes said there was. None. Neither do the x-Rays.
>
Well . . . I suppose between believing forensic pathologists about
what the x-rays show and believing conspiracy authors, we'll go with
the conspiracy authors, won't we.
>By the way, the x-rays show a piece of lead on the outside of the
>skull where the HSCA claims entrance wound. Lead only appears on the
>outside of a skull wound when the bullet is a lead bullet or a
>soft-nosed bullet and the hard bone of the skull shaves off lead. Such
>"shaving" never occurs on the tougher copper jacketed bullets such as
>a 6.5mm MC.
>
Says who?
>For you to beleive the x-rays are real, you must explain how JFK was
>shot by a soft-nosed or frangible lead round, when the HSCA and WC claim
>he was shot by a copper jacketed round.
>
He wasn't shot with a soft-nosed or frangible round.
You do understand, don't you, that even FMJ rounds can fragment when
they hit something hard enough?
>Read Lattimers "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a description of such a lead
>ring on Lincolns wound and then read the Clark Panel Report which
>found such a ring, and then explain how JFK was shot by a lead or
>soft-nosed bullet when Oswald wasn't firing them????
>
Does the Clark Report say that? I don't have it handy. Would you
post relevant portions?
You know, I trust, that the Clark Panel said that two bullets hit
Kennedy from behind?
.John
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
Schuck >> & >>>>
>>The autopsy describes a 13cm wound going from Occipital thru Parietal
>>to Temporal. Such a wound is nowhere to be seen in photos or the
>>x-rays.
>>
>It's true that the photos I've seen don't show occipital involvement.
You admit then that the photos contradict the attending physicians and
the autopsy staff. Good. A starting point.
>The HSCA Panel (which saw all the photos and x-rays) showed the
>blasted out area to be entirely parietal, with massive fractures
>extending into the occipital area.
The descriptions say the occipital was blasted out.
The HSCA Panel never saw the wounds, never got to do an autopsy, so
how do they know what the wounds actually looked like. They are at the
mercy of the photos.
>>What? Of course it is far enough back if the bullet struck JFK behind
>>the ear and exitted out the occipital. Such a wound, coming from a
>>tangential strike would have taken off the right rear corner of the
>>head and certainly *would* have allowed blood and bone to go the left
>>and rear, which would have been impossible if the wound is where you
>>want it to be.
>>
>Work out the angles. Kennedy was looking a bit to his left at the
>time of the head shot. The Badgeman position is just a few degrees to
>Zapruder's right. The HSCA acoustic position just a few degrees
>further.
>If the shooter was way up the fence toward the Underpass, the sort of
>strike you want might be possible.
So let me see, your argument against me is that the actual shooting
location is too far back to have caused the wound described?
I find it tiresome to have you arguing against the physical evdience
by using evidnece you don't believe in.
>>>Given that none of the Dallas doctors were paying much attention to
>>>the head wound,
>>
>>What? Kemp Clark , a neurosurgeon, clearly examined the wound and took
>>note of which parts of the brain were damaged and testified as such to
>>the WC in 1964. Of course they were paying attention to the head, what
>>self-respecting Doctors would ignore a massive head wound leaking
>>blood and cerebellum tissue onto the operating table.
>>
>>
>Self respecting trauma surgeons who were concerned with the presidents
>vital signs, which weren't very vital at that point.
Clark was the Chief Neurosurgeon at Parkland. He described the wound
location and the lobes destroyed. He said the whole occiptial lobe was
destroyed and only part off the occipital.
Read his testimony. He saw the wound.
>>
>>>How about explaining how the photos and x-rays were faked so well that
>>>they fooled the forensic anthropoligists of the HSCA?
>>
>>The forensic anthropologists never saw the actual wounds , so how
>>would they know what they were seeing when they saw the photos and
>>x-rays?
>>
>The weren't much concerned with the wounds.
Let me see, you are saying that the forensic anthropologists weren't
concerned with the wounds. Thanks for pointing that out, but we in the
anti-WC forces already knew that. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>>>>>>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
>>>>>occipitoparietal area."
>>>>
>>>>Yes? Thats what I said. Occipitoparietal is what he testified to the WC.
>>>>
>>
>>>No, you apparently haven't read his WC testimony, but are taking this
>>>from some conspiracy book. What I quoted above is *from* his WC
>>>testimony.
>>
>>Huh? Occipitoparietal is what he testified. Where is the discrepancy?
>>
>The point is that he said parietal first, and only later said
>occipitoparietal.
His testimony to the WC said avulsive wound to the occipitalparietal.
WHen did he say parietal, and why are you ignoring his official
testimony to the WC?
Testimony which mathces the official autopsy report description by the
way!
>>
>>>>I quote from Crenshaws book:
>>>>
>>>>"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
>>>>issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
>>>>who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
>>>>what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>>>>
>>
>>>Apparently nobody paid any attention, since they've been talking their
>>>heads off ever since.
>>
>>Since when? Crenshaws is the first book written by the ER staff, and
>>there other testimony is usually in front of government panels.
>>
>>>BTW, do you actually find Crenshaw a credible source?
>>
>>He describes the same wound most other Parkland staff saw.
>>JAMA tried to smear him by claiming he wasn't there, but all you have
>>to do is read vol 6 of the WCH and 4 other Doctors note his prescence.
>>
>I'll check that out. I remember that *most* of the Dallas doctors don't
>remember him being there.
Four do. Read vol 6.
>Probably he just came in at the end.
Nope. He participated in a cutdown on the Presidents leg.
>But do you believe that story about Johnson calling and wanting a
>deathbed confession from Oswald?
Since attempts to discredit Crenshaw failed, yes I do.
>>
>>>Look at Kennedy's head about Z-312 in the Z film. He's looking to his
>>>left. There is no way a bullet, fired from the GK just a few degrees
>>>to the right of Zapruder, could take off the back of his head without
>>>taking off occipital, and probably parietal, bone on the *left* side
>>>of his head.
>>
>>You are real dense aren't you. I *never* said the bullet took off the
>>back of his head!!!!!!!
>>
>>I said it took off the right rear corner of his head, and doing that
>>from the Stockade Fence area is easy, and it would still allow the
>>bullet to exit to the left.
>>
>Look at the Z-film.
>Kennedy is looking to the left. Taking off the right rear corner of
>his head would require a shooter far up the stockade fence, many yards
>removed from the Badgeman position, and many yards from the HSCA
>acoustic position.
Again you counter my argument by using evidence of a shooter that you
don't believe in. If there was a shooter where the HSCA says there
was, then you belief in the lone nut theory is kinda dumb isn't it. If
you don't believe he was there, then why couldn't he have been closer
towards the overpass?
>>>>There was an occipitalparietal wound, a wound that doesn't show up on
>>>>the x rays or the photos. How is that "cleaning up"
>>>>
>>>>You are psychotic.
>>>>
>>
>>>And you are reinforcing my stereotype of conspiracy buffs as people
>>>who simply loose it when they find that people disagree with them.
>>
>>Disagree? You lie about what I said, and lie about what other
>>witnesses said.
>>
>You're engaging in a childish tantrum. If you want to continue to
>debate me on this or any other issue, you're going to have to show a
>bit more self-restraint.
"childish" whne you misrepresent what I said?
>>
>>>Can't you consider the possibility that people *misperceive* things?
>>
>>Ahhh. The mass hallucination explanation. Everybody at Parkland and
>>Bethesda who saw a wound extending into the Occipital "misperceived".
>>
>>Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You are psychotic.
>>
>I'll overlook that *one last time.* And this is that time.
It's psychotic to argue mass hallucinations as a refutation for on the
record wound descriptions.
>>>But many of the photos, and indeed many of the x-rays, were obviously
>>>of Kennedy. Have you seen those in HT and HTII?
>>
>>Yes I did. None of the photos show a wound where the Parkland staff
>>and Humes said there was. None. Neither do the x-Rays.
>>
>Well . . . I suppose between believing forensic pathologists about
>what the x-rays show and believing conspiracy authors, we'll go with
>the conspiracy authors, won't we.
I prefer the testimony of the people who saw the wound over those who
looked at x-rays 15 years later.
>>By the way, the x-rays show a piece of lead on the outside of the
>>skull where the HSCA claims entrance wound. Lead only appears on the
>>outside of a skull wound when the bullet is a lead bullet or a
>>soft-nosed bullet and the hard bone of the skull shaves off lead. Such
>>"shaving" never occurs on the tougher copper jacketed bullets such as
>>a 6.5mm MC.
>>
>Says who?
Experts. Do you have any who say otherwise?
>>For you to beleive the x-rays are real, you must explain how JFK was
>>shot by a soft-nosed or frangible lead round, when the HSCA and WC claim
>>he was shot by a copper jacketed round.
>>
>He wasn't shot with a soft-nosed or frangible round.
The fragmentation pattern says so.
>You do understand, don't you, that even FMJ rounds can fragment when
>they hit something hard enough?
The skull isn't that hard.
The fragmentation pattern is consistent with a frangible round, not a
tough round like the FMJ round.
>>Read Lattimers "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a description of such a lead
>>ring on Lincolns wound and then read the Clark Panel Report which
>>found such a ring, and then explain how JFK was shot by a lead or
>>soft-nosed bullet when Oswald wasn't firing them????
>>
>Does the Clark Report say that? I don't have it handy. Would you
>post relevant portions?
Read it yourself. The Clark Report describes the ring of material on
the outside of the skull.
>You know, I trust, that the Clark Panel said that two bullets hit
>Kennedy from behind?
Conclusions are one thing, evidence uncovered is another.
The Clark Panel also found a big chunk of lead in the brain, that
everyone else seems to have missed.
John McAdams
>
>>Work out the angles. Kennedy was looking a bit to his left at the
>>time of the head shot. The Badgeman position is just a few degrees to
>>Zapruder's right. The HSCA acoustic position just a few degrees
>>further.
>
>>If the shooter was way up the fence toward the Underpass, the sort of
>>strike you want might be possible.
>
>So let me see, your argument against me is that the actual shooting
>location is too far back to have caused the wound described?
>
>I find it tiresome to have you arguing against the physical evdience
>by using evidnece you don't believe in.
>
But *you* believe in a GK shooter.
Where do you think he was? The Badgeman position and the HSCA
"acoustic" position don't work out, given the way you think the shot
hit Kennedy.
>>>>Given that none of the Dallas doctors were paying much attention to
>>>>the head wound,
>>>
>>>What? Kemp Clark , a neurosurgeon, clearly examined the wound and took
>>>note of which parts of the brain were damaged and testified as such to
>>>the WC in 1964. Of course they were paying attention to the head, what
>>>self-respecting Doctors would ignore a massive head wound leaking
>>>blood and cerebellum tissue onto the operating table.
>>>
>>>
>
>>Self respecting trauma surgeons who were concerned with the presidents
>>vital signs, which weren't very vital at that point.
>
>Clark was the Chief Neurosurgeon at Parkland. He described the wound
>location and the lobes destroyed. He said the whole occiptial lobe was
>destroyed and only part off the occipital.
>
>Read his testimony. He saw the wound.
>
I've read his testimony and think he is mistaken.
>>>
>>>>How about explaining how the photos and x-rays were faked so well that
>>>>they fooled the forensic anthropoligists of the HSCA?
>>>
>>>The forensic anthropologists never saw the actual wounds , so how
>>>would they know what they were seeing when they saw the photos and
>>>x-rays?
>>>
>
>>The weren't much concerned with the wounds.
>
>Let me see, you are saying that the forensic anthropologists weren't
>concerned with the wounds. Thanks for pointing that out, but we in the
>anti-WC forces already knew that. :)
You need to understand the distinction between a forensic
*anthropologist* and a forensic *pathologist.*
The former were only interested in the question "Are these pictures of
JFK?" Their conclusion was that they were. Forensic *pathologists*
were concerned with the nature of the wounds.
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dr Perry said the head wound was located in the "right posterior
>>>>>>>cranium." For the WC he said "the right occipitoparietal."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, he first labelled the wound "parietal" and later said "right
>>>>>>occipitoparietal area."
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes? Thats what I said. Occipitoparietal is what he testified to the WC.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>No, you apparently haven't read his WC testimony, but are taking this
>>>>from some conspiracy book. What I quoted above is *from* his WC
>>>>testimony.
>>>
>>>Huh? Occipitoparietal is what he testified. Where is the discrepancy?
>>>
>
>>The point is that he said parietal first, and only later said
>>occipitoparietal.
>
>His testimony to the WC said avulsive wound to the occipitalparietal.
>WHen did he say parietal, and why are you ignoring his official
>testimony to the WC?
>
I'm quoting *from* his official testimony to the WC.
>>>>
>>>>>I quote from Crenshaws book:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Dr. Charles Baxter, director of the emergency room at Parkland, had
>>>>>issued an edict of secrecy just after JFK was pronounced dead. No one
>>>>>who had attended the dying President would be permitted to talk about
>>>>>what he or she did or saw in Trauma Room 1."
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Apparently nobody paid any attention, since they've been talking their
>>>>heads off ever since.
>>>
>>>Since when? Crenshaws is the first book written by the ER staff, and
>>>there other testimony is usually in front of government panels.
>>>
>>>>BTW, do you actually find Crenshaw a credible source?
>>>
>>>He describes the same wound most other Parkland staff saw.
>>>JAMA tried to smear him by claiming he wasn't there, but all you have
>>>to do is read vol 6 of the WCH and 4 other Doctors note his prescence.
>>>
>
>>I'll check that out. I remember that *most* of the Dallas doctors don't
>>remember him being there.
>
>Four do. Read vol 6.
>
>>Probably he just came in at the end.
>
>Nope. He participated in a cutdown on the Presidents leg.
>
>>But do you believe that story about Johnson calling and wanting a
>>deathbed confession from Oswald?
>
>Since attempts to discredit Crenshaw failed, yes I do.
>
You're saying LBJ would call and, instead of talking to the people who
were actually in charge, talk to a junior resident?
And it turns out that the White House phone logs are in the LBJ
Library in Austin, TX. They don't show any such call.
Indeed, the actual transcripts of LBJ's phone conversations in the
wake of his taking office will be released soon.
In fact, wasn't LBJ in plain view of millions of TV watchers and
dozens of foreign dignitaries at Kennedy's funeral?
>
>>Look at the Z-film.
>
>>Kennedy is looking to the left. Taking off the right rear corner of
>>his head would require a shooter far up the stockade fence, many yards
>>removed from the Badgeman position, and many yards from the HSCA
>>acoustic position.
>
>Again you counter my argument by using evidence of a shooter that you
>don't believe in. If there was a shooter where the HSCA says there
>was, then you belief in the lone nut theory is kinda dumb isn't it. If
>you don't believe he was there, then why couldn't he have been closer
>towards the overpass?
>
>
I don't believe in *any* GK shooter. But you do. Are you saying you
don't believe the Badgeman/Jean Hill accounts? Are you saying you
don't believe the HSCA acoustic "evidence?"
If you don't believe either, then say so and we can discuss the
question of what evidence puts a shooter far up the fence near the
overpass.
>
>>>By the way, the x-rays show a piece of lead on the outside of the
>>>skull where the HSCA claims entrance wound. Lead only appears on the
>>>outside of a skull wound when the bullet is a lead bullet or a
>>>soft-nosed bullet and the hard bone of the skull shaves off lead. Such
>>>"shaving" never occurs on the tougher copper jacketed bullets such as
>>>a 6.5mm MC.
>>>
>
>>Says who?
>
>Experts. Do you have any who say otherwise?
>
You're going to need to point me to the precise experts who said that.
>>>For you to beleive the x-rays are real, you must explain how JFK was
>>>shot by a soft-nosed or frangible lead round, when the HSCA and WC claim
>>>he was shot by a copper jacketed round.
>>>
>
>>He wasn't shot with a soft-nosed or frangible round.
>
>The fragmentation pattern says so.
>
It's interesting that *you* think it does, but forensic pathologists
don't.
There were, to start with, no bullet fragments in the left half of
Kennedy's brain.
But's let's back up just a minute.
Are you saying the hit that is so obvious on the Z-film was made by a
soft-point or frangible round?
What about the *other* hit you believe in: the one that's nowhere
visible in the Z-film (nor in the Nix nor the Muchmore film). The one
that took off the right rear of Kennedy's head.
Do you think there were two *different* head wounds?
>>You do understand, don't you, that even FMJ rounds can fragment when
>>they hit something hard enough?
>
>The skull isn't that hard.
>
>The fragmentation pattern is consistent with a frangible round, not a
>tough round like the FMJ round.
>
According to conspiracy authors, but not according to forensic
pathologists nor wound ballistics experts.
>>>Read Lattimers "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a description of such a lead
>>>ring on Lincolns wound and then read the Clark Panel Report which
>>>found such a ring, and then explain how JFK was shot by a lead or
>>>soft-nosed bullet when Oswald wasn't firing them????
>>>
>
>>Does the Clark Report say that? I don't have it handy. Would you
>>post relevant portions?
>
>Read it yourself. The Clark Report describes the ring of material on
>the outside of the skull.
>
IOW, you don't actually have access to it, you've just read some
conspiracy author who asserted that.
>>You know, I trust, that the Clark Panel said that two bullets hit
>>Kennedy from behind?
>
>Conclusions are one thing, evidence uncovered is another.
>
>The Clark Panel also found a big chunk of lead in the brain, that
>everyone else seems to have missed.
>
>
That's in Marrs too. I guess I'm going to have to dig up the Clark
Panel report.
I still find it very interesting that you think you, and some
conspiracy authors with no medical training, are better equipped to
evaluate the evidence than forensic pathologists.
.John
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
Schuck >> & >>>>
>>>If the shooter was way up the fence toward the Underpass, the sort of
>>>strike you want might be possible.
>>
>>So let me see, your argument against me is that the actual shooting
>>location is too far back to have caused the wound described?
>>
>>I find it tiresome to have you arguing against the physical evdience
>>by using evidnece you don't believe in.
>>
>But *you* believe in a GK shooter.
>Where do you think he was? The Badgeman position and the HSCA
>"acoustic" position don't work out, given the way you think the shot
>hit Kennedy.
Let's see....your argument against ballistic evidence and other
evidence such as blood and brain matter being caused by a GK shooter
is that the actual GK shooter was too far from the triple overpass?
>>>Self respecting trauma surgeons who were concerned with the presidents
>>>vital signs, which weren't very vital at that point.
>>
>>Clark was the Chief Neurosurgeon at Parkland. He described the wound
>>location and the lobes destroyed. He said the whole occiptial lobe was
>>destroyed and only part off the occipital.
>>
>>Read his testimony. He saw the wound.
>>
>I've read his testimony and think he is mistaken.
"mistaken"?????
About what?
The lobes destroyed? The size of the wound? The location?
That he was there?
Is that it? Is that your only rebuttal to the Chief of Neurosurgery
at Parkland Hospital, that he was mistaken?????
I take it you are a Neurosurgeon yourself?
>>>>
>>>>Huh? Occipitoparietal is what he testified. Where is the discrepancy?
>>>>
>>
>>>The point is that he said parietal first, and only later said
>>>occipitoparietal.
>>
>>His testimony to the WC said avulsive wound to the occipitalparietal.
>>WHen did he say parietal, and why are you ignoring his official
>>testimony to the WC?
>>
>I'm quoting *from* his official testimony to the WC.
Please quote then.
I'll quote "avulsive wound to the occipitalparietal" from vol. 6 of
the WCH, made in 1964.
>>
>>Nope. He participated in a cutdown on the Presidents leg.
>>
>>>But do you believe that story about Johnson calling and wanting a
>>>deathbed confession from Oswald?
>>
>>Since attempts to discredit Crenshaw failed, yes I do.
>>
>You're saying LBJ would call and, instead of talking to the people who
>were actually in charge, talk to a junior resident?
>And it turns out that the White House phone logs are in the LBJ
>Library in Austin, TX. They don't show any such call.
Maybe he dialled direct. :)
>Indeed, the actual transcripts of LBJ's phone conversations in the
>wake of his taking office will be released soon.
>In fact, wasn't LBJ in plain view of millions of TV watchers and
>dozens of foreign dignitaries at Kennedy's funeral?
From "Death of a President" by Manchester
Sunday, Nov 24, 1963.
Eastern Standard Time
12.21 pm Ruby shoots LHO
...
12.44 pm Operation on LHO begins
...
12.55 pm Kennedys meet Johnson in Blue Room
...
1.08 pm Caisson leaves White House
...
2.07 pm LHO dies at Parkland
According to Crenshaw, Johnson called soon after the operation began.
Since Johnson was in the White House at 12.55, and the operation began
at 12.44, he *could* have called when Crenshaw says he did.
Do a little research before impugning someone John!
>>
>>>Look at the Z-film.
>>
>>>Kennedy is looking to the left. Taking off the right rear corner of
>>>his head would require a shooter far up the stockade fence, many yards
>>>removed from the Badgeman position, and many yards from the HSCA
>>>acoustic position.
>>
>>Again you counter my argument by using evidence of a shooter that you
>>don't believe in. If there was a shooter where the HSCA says there
>>was, then you belief in the lone nut theory is kinda dumb isn't it. If
>>you don't believe he was there, then why couldn't he have been closer
>>towards the overpass?
>>
>>
>I don't believe in *any* GK shooter. But you do. Are you saying you
>don't believe the Badgeman/Jean Hill accounts? Are you saying you
>don't believe the HSCA acoustic "evidence?"
>If you don't believe either, then say so and we can discuss the
>question of what evidence puts a shooter far up the fence near the
>overpass.
Quit changing the subject. I say the location of JFK's head would
allow a shooter from the right front to take off the right rear corner
of his head. Your counter argument is the shooter was too far away from
the Stemmons Overpass?
>>
>>>>By the way, the x-rays show a piece of lead on the outside of the
>>>>skull where the HSCA claims entrance wound. Lead only appears on the
>>>>outside of a skull wound when the bullet is a lead bullet or a
>>>>soft-nosed bullet and the hard bone of the skull shaves off lead. Such
>>>>"shaving" never occurs on the tougher copper jacketed bullets such as
>>>>a 6.5mm MC.
>>>>
>>
>>>Says who?
>>
>>Experts. Do you have any who say otherwise?
>>
>You're going to need to point me to the precise experts who said that.
Lattimer is the one who pointed out that lead gets shaved off of balls
fired through skulls. I thought you liked his "expertise"?
There are others who point out that copper is too tough for this to
happen. I'm sure if it had, Lattimer's "tests" would have trumpeted
this finding!
>>>>For you to beleive the x-rays are real, you must explain how JFK was
>>>>shot by a soft-nosed or frangible lead round, when the HSCA and WC claim
>>>>he was shot by a copper jacketed round.
>>>>
>>
>>>He wasn't shot with a soft-nosed or frangible round.
>>
>>The fragmentation pattern says so.
>>
>It's interesting that *you* think it does, but forensic pathologists
>don't.
>There were, to start with, no bullet fragments in the left half of
>Kennedy's brain.
>But's let's back up just a minute.
>Are you saying the hit that is so obvious on the Z-film was made by a
>soft-point or frangible round?
>What about the *other* hit you believe in: the one that's nowhere
>visible in the Z-film (nor in the Nix nor the Muchmore film). The one
>that took off the right rear of Kennedy's head.
>Do you think there were two *different* head wounds?
I'm saying the JFK head wound shows a fragmentation pattern consistent
with a frangible round. I'm saying that lead on the outside of the
skull points to a soft-nosed or frangible round hitting JFK, at least
according to the Clark Report.
By the way, the lead shaving is clearly visible on the x-rays.
Take a look. A half-moon shape where they claim a copper jacketed
bullet entered the skull!
They should have done there homework before attempting to pass this
off as a skull hit by an FMJ round.
>>>You do understand, don't you, that even FMJ rounds can fragment when
>>>they hit something hard enough?
>>
>>The skull isn't that hard.
>>
>>The fragmentation pattern is consistent with a frangible round, not a
>>tough round like the FMJ round.
>>
>According to conspiracy authors, but not according to forensic
>pathologists nor wound ballistics experts.
Look, there *is* evidence the jacket can separate from the core of an
FMJ round. This is caused by the passage of the round through large
amounts of material, such as a brain filled skull [or a gelatin one
for testing] Nobody on the WC side has every offered any evidence the
round fragments on impact with the skull!
>>>>Read Lattimers "Kennedy and Lincoln" for a description of such a lead
>>>>ring on Lincolns wound and then read the Clark Panel Report which
>>>>found such a ring, and then explain how JFK was shot by a lead or
>>>>soft-nosed bullet when Oswald wasn't firing them????
>>>>
>>
>>>Does the Clark Report say that? I don't have it handy. Would you
>>>post relevant portions?
>>
>>Read it yourself. The Clark Report describes the ring of material on
>>the outside of the skull.
>>
>IOW, you don't actually have access to it, you've just read some
>conspiracy author who asserted that.
Look, the half-moon shape, discovered by the Clark Panel is visible on
both the x-rays taken from front and back and is clearly visible if
you look at the enhanced versions.
>>>You know, I trust, that the Clark Panel said that two bullets hit
>>>Kennedy from behind?
>>
>>Conclusions are one thing, evidence uncovered is another.
>>
>>The Clark Panel also found a big chunk of lead in the brain, that
>>everyone else seems to have missed.
>>
>>
>That's in Marrs too. I guess I'm going to have to dig up the Clark
>Panel report.
>I still find it very interesting that you think you, and some
>conspiracy authors with no medical training, are better equipped to
>evaluate the evidence than forensic pathologists.
A trained forensic pathologist by the name of Wilber, wrote a book on
the forensic shambles that make up the JFK autopsy.
I forget the title, but he clearly mentions *all* the obvious mistakes
and he clearly indicates the presences of metal on the *outside* of
JFK's skull indicates the used of lead, soft-nosed , or frangible
ammunition.
Copper is too tough. Especially an FMJ round with very thick copper.