The autopsy photo that PROVES a frontal shot
Gil Jesus
gaping exit wound at the rear of the skull:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyBHXirWsef5v4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Gil Jesus
> Photo F8 shows an entrance wound in the front of the skull and a large
> gaping exit wound at the rear of the skull:
>
They added a "black square" to the frontal stare photo to hide the
entrance wound:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L165WN4FV4tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
the following videos are of witnesses who saw a small entrance wound
in the front of the skull and/or a large exit wound in the rear of the
skull:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJP_m5mv0IU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9LTOhTU84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPOObPve3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A
Gil Jesus
1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyBHXirWsef5v4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
the skull:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8P29j9PFZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdJP_m5mv0IU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_F9LTOhTU84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DksPOObPve3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DOpBDuSJeH14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpweuPLTVfl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dsh0-2Sthn9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJhWJowvbtxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbmfqDOnZu_Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd4PcJLdiZhM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWVhZdryIs_A
4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L165WN4FV4=
tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7rYZWpxjQvBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L0mOV*2pBlZbv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
This is what the evidence seems to indicate.
YoHarvey
> So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
>
> 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> the skull:
>
>
> 4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
> square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
>
> tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
>
> If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
> skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
>
>
> When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
>
Statement by Humes in an interview with the Journal of the American
Medical Association, October, 1991:
"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy
was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of
the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed
here until hell freezes over, nothing on earth will change this
proof. It hapens 100 times out of 100 and I will defend it until the
day I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme
ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics
(referring to the fact that with a through and through wound of the
cranium it is ALWAYS the patten he said, that the beveling or crater
effect appears on the inside of the skyull at the entrance wound and
on the outside of the skull at the ext wound...and it is foolproof -
absolutely, unequivocally and without question. The conspiracy crowd
has totally ignored this central scientific fact and everything else
is hogwash".
What out resident pathological liar Gil Chico Jesus DOESN'T tell you
is that this has been substantiated by numerous independent foresnsic
pathoogists, wound ballistic experts and the American Academy of
Science.
Case closed....again!
bigdog
> So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
>
> 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> the skull:
>
>
> 4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
> square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
>
> tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
>
> If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
> skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
>
>
> When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
>
Chico, why don't you tell us just what qualifications you have for
interpreting the medicial evidence. What makes you more qualified than
all the forensic pathologist assembled by the HSCA who reviewed the
same photos you have referenenced and a whole lot more and concluded
with absolute certainty that JFK was struck twice from behind, once in
the upper back and once in the back of the head. Name one QUALIFIED
forensic pathologist who has reviewed this same material who has
disputed that finding. It is only incompetent meddling amateurs such
as yourself, who wouldn't know an entrance wound from a rectum even
though they spend most of the time with their heads shoved way up the
latter, who think the medical evidence indicates a frontal shot.
Kelley Eidem
> On Nov 23, 8:08 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> > 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> > 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyB...
>
> > 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> > wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> > the skull:
>
Hmm. Humes does an autopsy on a body that has had prior post-mortem
surgery and declares his findings are "foolproof - absolutely,
unequivocally and without question"?? Just how did Humes think the
brain got excised?
Face the facts - Humes was scared of getting the JFK treatment,
particularly after Fitzer, the lefthanded Bethesda Naval Officer who
shot himself with his right hand.
Kelley Eidem
> On Nov 23, 8:08 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> > 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> > 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyB...
>
> > 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> > wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> > the skull:
>
>
> > 4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
> > square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L16...
> > tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
>
> > If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
> > skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7r...
>
> > When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L0m...
>
> > This is what the evidence seems to indicate.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> Chico, why don't you tell us just what qualifications you have for
> interpreting the medicial evidence. What makes you more qualified than
> all the forensic pathologist assembled by the HSCA who reviewed the
> same photos you have referenenced and a whole lot more and concluded
> with absolute certainty that JFK was struck twice from behind, once in
> the upper back and once in the back of the head. Name one QUALIFIED
> forensic pathologist who has reviewed this same material who has
> disputed that finding. It is only incompetent meddling amateurs such
> as yourself, who wouldn't know an entrance wound from a rectum even
> though they spend most of the time with their heads shoved way up the
> latter, who think the medical evidence indicates a frontal shot.
You could start with the doctors in attendance at Parkland. To a man,
they all said both wounds were entrance wounds in the front, with an
exit wound in the BACK of the head.
The photos were fake. Period. Hell, the fake photos don't even agree
with the fake x-rays, because the x-rays show a large defect on the
front of the skull including the orbital bones, while the photo of JFK
indicates his forehead, eyes and face are unmarked.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmm. Humes does an autopsy on a body that has had prior post-mortem
surgery and declares his findings are "foolproof - absolutely,
unequivocally and without question"?? Just how did Humes think the
brain got excised?
Ah, my favorite comment to a loony CT: AND YOU CAN PROVE THIS?
Despite the FACT it is impossible to alter wounds and make them
undetectable? Wow, you really are "way out there" even by CT
standards lol.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW, I'm getting tired of quoting the foremost authority on wound
ballistics ON EARTH: Duncan MacPherson, who said...(yawn yet again)
"Anybody believing in a frontal shot knows little about physics and
even less about ballistics". Now, I suggest you imbide your loony
theories on a CT newsgroup. This is an LN newsgroup. We've earned it.
Gil Jesus
eyes, IDIOT.
Gil Jesus
Humes LIED. just like you do.
Gil Jesus
�Now, I suggest you imbide your loony
> theories on a CT newsgroup. �This is an LN newsgroup. �We've earned it.- Hide quoted text -
I LOVE it when you post OPINION.
Did Duncan McPherson examine JFK's body ?
And when you have time, find someone who has the brains to read the
name of the newsgroup to you.
aeffects
she/he/it is not allowed to read newsgroup name[s]... the $25 dollar
monthly stipend YoHavey receives send shivers up and down he/she/it's
spine.... provocateurs the lot! LMAO!
aeffects
Hon... gotta read the WCR and all those volumes first.... lest wise
you'll be whispering in a dykes ear.... Do you know what to do with
one of those?
Toot's you can't even pound PUD, you've earned nothing...... you're a
legend in your own feeble mind...
Gil Jesus
> BTW, I'm getting tired of quoting the foremost authority on wound
> ballistics ON EARTH: Duncan MacPherson, who said...(yawn yet again)
> "Anybody believing in a frontal shot knows little about physics and
> even less about ballistics". Now, I suggest you imbide your loony
> theories on a CT newsgroup. This is an LN newsgroup. We've earned it.-
Hey troll crap, ask McPherson about these:
Is it possible that a bullet was lodged in JFK's throat ?
Consider the following:
William Jay Gaynor
94th Mayor of New York City, 1910--1913
[1848-1913]
A one time member of the Christian Brothers order, William Jay Gaynor
would disappoint Tammany Hall when they nominated him for mayor in
1909. Although Gaynor abandoned the Christian order in 1869, later
becoming a crusading reporter and Brooklyn attorney, he retained his
righteous temperament. Elected to the New York Supreme Court in 1893,
and appointed to the Appellate Division, Second Department in 1905,
Gaynor's rulings were often cited around the country. His reputation
as an honest reformer helped win him election as mayor in 1909.
On January 1, 1910, he walked to City Hall from his home in Brooklyn --
it was the first time he had ever visited the seat of city government
-- and addressed the 1,500 people gathered to greet him:"I enter upon
this office with the intention of doing the very best I can for the
City of New York. That will have to suffice; I can do no more."
Gaynor's marriage with Tammany Hall was short-lived; soon after taking
office, he filled high level government posts with experts and city
employees were chosen from civil service lists in the order they
appeared, effectively curbing patronage and nepotism. As mayor, he
railed against efforts to thwart the further development of the New
York City subway system. A strong willed but compassionate mayor,
Gaynor once remarked, "The world does not grow better by force or by
the policeman's club."
Early in his first term, Gaynor was shot in the throat by a discharged
city employee, the only New York City mayor to suffer an assassination
attempt. Although he quickly recovered, the bullet remained lodged in
his throat for the next three years. During his term as mayor, Gaynor
was widely considered a strong candidate for Governor or President.
Tammany Hall refused to nominate him for reelection to a second term,
but after accepting the nomination from an independent group of
voters, he set sail for Europe. Six days later, on September 10, 1913,
Gaynor died suddenly from the lingering effects of the shooting.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nyc100/html/classroom/hist_info/mayors.html#gaynor
--------------------------------------------------
Bullet in neck for more than a week Jul 26 2005
By Ben Ashford, South London Press
SURGEONS were yesterday waiting to remove a bullet lodged in a gunshot
victim's throat for more than a week.
The 29-year-old was blasted at close range in a mystery ambush.
The bullet tore through his flesh and embedded itself at the base of
his neck - missing major arteries supplying blood to the brain by
millimetres.
He was rushed to hospital where surgeons saved his life. But despite a
lengthy operation they failed to dislodge the bullet.
The victim has been unable to speak since the attack in Windrush
Square, Brixton, on Friday, July 15, and has had to rely on facial
expressions and written notes to communicate with loved ones.
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/tm_objectid=15781293&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=bullet%2Din%2Dneck%2Dfor%2Dmore%2Dthan%2Da%2Dweek-name_page.html
-----------------------------------------------------
HARDY DEE CUMBY was born on 10 Jun 1864 in (probably ) Cooksville,
Tenn. He died on 14 Mar 1928 in Sherman, Tx. He was buried in Sherman,
Tx. Hardy Dee was a lawyer and a judge.
While coming out of the Sherman courthouse, was hit by a stray bullet,
which lodged in his throat. for quite sometime, he was unable to
speak. He recovered but did die as a result of this bullet some years
later.
http://members.fortunecity.com/bdlamb/d16.htm
------------------------------------------------------
Coughing Up a Bullet
Clifford Johnson, 27, was shot by E.M. Pigg on Sept. 12, 1913. Pigg
thought Johnson was a burglar. Johnson was from Wister, Okla., and
after a night of drinking in Fort Smith, he decided to walk to Van
Buren. Johnson got lost and at about 2 a.m. went up to Pigg's home to
ask for someone to call him a cab to take him to Van Buren so he could
catch a train back to Wister.
Pigg said he had listened to noises of Johnson outside his home for
about a half hour. When Johnson tried to open his back door, Pigg said
he opened fire with his revolver. One bullet lodged in his neck.
For several days, Johnson recovered at Sparks Memorial Hospital, but
the bullet was in such a place that the physicians couldn't safely
operate on Johnson to remove it. In late September, Johnson took a
train from Wister to testify against Pigg at trial. While on the
train, Johnson was seized by a violent cough. After he finished
coughing, Johnson felt something heavy in his handkerchief. One
examining it, he found the bullet.
According to doctors, the bullet worked its way near the lining of
Johnson throat from just below his right ear. An abcess formed on the
outer lining of his throat which brought the bullet closer to the
surface. Discharge from the abcess caused Johnson to cough up the
bullet. The bullet had severed several nerves in his neck and cut a
tonsil in two.
Pigg originally was charged with assault with intent to kill but the
charge was reduced to aggravated assault. He was fined $50 but wasn't
jailed.
Sources:
"Bullet In Neck of Man Is Expelled by Violent Cough," Fort Smith
Times Record, Sept. 26, 1913, p. 1;
"Oklahoman Is Badly Shot, Two Stories Told of Case," Fort Smith Times
Record, Sept. 12, 1913, p. 1.
http://fortsmithhistory.com/archive/cough.html
WAS JFK TRYING TO COUGH UP A BULLET ?
"Wound of Entry" -- The truth behind President Kennedy's throat wound.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QLFOzwsYSM
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sl6V-0nK3c
After he was shot in the throat, was JFK trying to cough up a
bullet ?
See the videos that have the trolls "choking" on them and decide for
yourself.
At Normal Speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ
With Slow Motion added:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSov5IA4N8A
With Blowup Frames:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd1o0UTb3oc
Post EVIDENCE, brainless, not OPINION.
Gil Jesus
photos.
They're trying to change the subject.
What a bunch of LOSERS
ROFLMAO
Gil Jesus
> So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
>
> 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> the skull:
>
>
> 4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
> square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
>
> tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
>
> If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
> skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
>
>
> When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
>
Any LNers care to explain the autopsy photos ? Or are you all just
going to run ?
YoHarvey
> On Nov 23, 8:08�am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > So F8 is significant for several reasons:
>
> > 1. It shows an entrance wound in the FRONT of the skull
>
> > 2. It shows an exit wound at the REAR of the skull
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyB...
>
> > 3. It supports the accounts of eyewitnesses that there was an entrance
> > wound in the front of the skull and/or an exit wound at the rear of
> > the skull:
>
>
> > 4. And the entrance wound was "covered up" by the addition of a "black
> > square" in the "frontal stare" photograph:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L16...
> > tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=3D/large/
>
> > If we take the locations of these wounds and apply them to Kennedy's
> > skull in its position at Z-312, we get this configuration:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L7r...
>
> > When we add trajectory to that configuration, we get this bullet path:
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L0m...
>
> > This is what the evidence seems to indicate.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> Any LNers care to explain the autopsy photos ? Or are you all just
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no interpretation needed for photographs. Just a pair of
eyes, IDIOT.
Even by the absurdly low standards set by our resident loon, Chico
Jesus, this statement EXPLAINS why this idiot has no clue about what
research is!! Read it and weep CT's. He's ONE of you.
muc...@gmail.com
> There is no interpretation needed for photographs. Just a pair of
> eyes, IDIOT.
Huh? In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about your
*interpretation* of a certain autopsy photograph. An interpretation
not shared by a lot of people, btw.
Gil Jesus
> Huh? In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about your
> *interpretation* of a certain autopsy photograph. An interpretation
> not shared by a lot of people, btw.
still can't explain the small hole in the front and the large hole in
the rear, huh ?
Even when faced with the OBVIOUS, you people are still in denial.
Comments and insults. Running from the evidence. Running from the
obvious.
You make real fools out of yourselves.
And you call us the Kooks.
ROFLMAO
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/
http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
Gil Jesus
here's a better look for the lurkers:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2JIsDgyC6WBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
muc...@gmail.com
> On Nov 25, 6:44�am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Huh? In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about your
> > > *interpretation* of a certain autopsy photograph. An interpretation
> > > not shared by a lot of people, btw.
>
> > still can't explain the small hole in the front and the large hole in
> > the rear, huh ?
It's your interpretation, so "explaining" it is your job.
> > Even when faced with the OBVIOUS, you people are still in denial.
To most people, your interpretation of F8 is *obviously* wrong.
> > Comments and insults. Running from the evidence. Running from the
> > obvious.
Dishonest as you are, you snipped the paragraph that I responded to,
didn't you?
You said that there's *no* interpretation needed for photographs, just
a pair of eyes, and I pointed out that this thread is *about* your
interpretation of a certain photograph. It seems that you missed the
point.
> > You make real fools out of yourselves.
>
> > And you call us the Kooks.
>
> > ROFLMAO
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> here's a better look for the lurkers:
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2J...
Here's another interpretation:
What you call "skull bevelled outward" is scalp.
What you call "entrance wound" is a tear in the scalp.
What you call "rear of skull" is front of skull.
Tell the lurkers why they should "obviously" prefer your
interpretation.
Take your time.
-Mark
justm...@gmail.com
WTG Mark, is it any surprise that Chico is misleading again with his
description of this photo? This is the way Chico interpets the photo,
therefore everyone should see it the same way. All CT'ers see it as
Chico does...it's their "proof" when they gang together and all agree
on one thing. Funny, they very seldom agree on anything in the CT
world, other then the fact they think they've been lied too and there
is a conspiracy.
Chico of all people is laughed at more then any CT I've come across
with his idiotic theories.
John or Nellie Connally shot JFK, JFK coughing up a bullet...blah blah
blah...you know the rest of the story.
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yeah, he is somehow able to shoot himself in the foot with almost
every post he makes :-)
Many (or most) CT'ers are probably inclined to believe that F8
represents a rear view, but only Gil is stupid enough to confuse scalp
with skull. Also, his trajectory does little to inspire confidence in
his ability to interpret the autopsy photographs:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L0mOV*2pBlZbv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
-Mark
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Yep... this is why I stay away from questions relating to photographs - for the
most part.
Dishonest people will simply assert that *THEY* see or don't see what is needed
in the photo.
The corroboration of F8 with the 'Stare of Death' photo, and with the early "It
was a simple matter of a bullet to the head" (Quoted as best as I recall it),
simply overwhelming to the average person.
But it's not to those who try to hold on to their faith in spite of the
evidence... such as Martin asserting that *HE* can see a limo slowdown in the
extant Z-film, despite my assertion that it's simply not visible to the casual
viewer.
My 45 questions tend to revolve around areas of evidence where there's simply no
non-conspiratorial answer possible - and to prove this, no-one has been able to
supply one.
Gil Jesus
> Here's another interpretation:
>
> What you call "skull bevelled outward" is scalp.
> What you call "entrance wound" is a tear in the scalp.
> What you call "rear of skull" is front of skull.
>
> Tell the lurkers why they should "obviously" prefer your
> interpretation.
>
> Take your time.
>
> -Mark
LOL front of the skull ? You see eyes there ? You see a nose there ?
Where's the mouth ? The chin ? Any landmarks of the face ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyBHXirWsef5v4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
The autopsy photos show no large hole in the front of the skull. Here
they are :
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L165WN4FV4tAv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzRAQAnSXzPuv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L3Vw72Kgpwsv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L8JI428B*Lqyv4xQp5Fd3Ig=
/large/
That "interpretation" is wrong. And it is proven wrong by your own
evidence.
Gil Jesus
> > Here's another interpretation:
>
> > What you call "skull bevelled outward" is scalp.
> > What you call "entrance wound" is a tear in the scalp.
> > What you call "rear of skull" is front of skull.
>
> > Tell the lurkers why they should "obviously" prefer your
> > interpretation.
>
> > Take your time.
>
> > -Mark
>
> LOL front of the skull ? You see eyes there ? You see a nose there ?
> Where's the mouth ? The chin ? Any landmarks of the face ?
>
>
> The autopsy photos show no large hole in the front of the skull. Here
> they are :
>
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzR...
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L3V...
>
> http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L8J...
>
> That "interpretation" is wrong. And it is proven wrong by your own
> evidence.
One of the links to the pics didn't come out right on the last
posting. The pic is here:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L-3Vw72Kgpwsv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
If photo F8 was of the FRONT of the skull, that would mean that the
large exit wound was in the LEFT part of the skull, as we are looking
directly at it and it is to the viewer's right.
There is no evidence ANYWHERE that there was a gaping hole in the
front of the face on the LEFT side.
muc...@gmail.com
> On Nov 25, 5:58�pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Here's another interpretation:
>
> > > What you call "skull bevelled outward" is scalp.
> > > What you call "entrance wound" is a tear in the scalp.
> > > What you call "rear of skull" is front of skull.
>
> > > Tell the lurkers why they should "obviously" prefer your
> > > interpretation.
>
> > > Take your time.
>
> > > -Mark
>
> > LOL front of the skull ? You see eyes there ? You see a nose there ?
> > Where's the mouth ? The chin ? Any landmarks of the face ?
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LyB...
>
> > The autopsy photos show no large hole in the front of the skull. Here
> > they are :
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L16...
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzR...
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L3V...
>
> >http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L8J...
>
> > That "interpretation" is wrong. And it is proven wrong by your own
> > evidence.
>
> One of the links to the pics didn't come out right on the last
> posting. The pic is here:
>
>
> If photo F8 was of the FRONT of the skull, that would mean that the
> large exit wound was in the LEFT part of the skull, as we are looking
> directly at it and it is to the viewer's right.
>
> There is no evidence ANYWHERE that there was a gaping hole in the
> front of the face on the LEFT side.
Why do I get the impression that you haven't studied this at all?
You'll have to rotate the picture counter clockwise by some 90
degrees, of course. According to your interpretation of F8, the right
side of the face (including the ear) is missing. How do you explain
that?
-Mark