Discussion:
Dr. Vincent DiMaio on the head shot
(too old to reply)
bigdog
2018-05-28 00:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.

http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-29 00:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
The moron is talking about an INTACT bullet exiting the head.
Then where did all those dozens of lead core fragments come from that
were left in the head?
mainframetech
2018-05-29 20:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-30 19:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 00:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
He is a blow=hard who doesn't always know what he is talking about.
Post by bigdog
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
You just mean that YOU can't see it.
Post by bigdog
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
Nonsense.
Post by bigdog
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
mainframetech
2018-06-01 03:02:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
WRONG! You have to learn to come out of your fantasy world now and
then and get a bearing on real life. The bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK was seen by a list of people in the case, as well as everyone from
here except you, and many outside of here that I can testify to. And if
you don't trust my word, there are still many folks that saw what you
can't see. You refuse to doubt your own lack of ability to see what
everyone else can see, and rather than check yourself and find out what
the problem is, you assume that you know all and can't make a mistake.
Well, you made one again!

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-02 17:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
WRONG! You have to learn to come out of your fantasy world now and
then and get a bearing on real life.
Damn, the irony is thick.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK was seen by a list of people in the case,
The people you have cited did not place it in the forehead. The forehead
is in the front. Hence the name fore-head. All of the people you cited
placed it in the side of the head as did the AR which placed it in the
parietal bone.
Post by mainframetech
as well as everyone from
here except you, and many outside of here that I can testify to.
Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said they see a bullet hole there. I'm not
the outlier.
Post by mainframetech
And if
you don't trust my word, there are still many folks that saw what you
can't see.
They don't see what you see.
Post by mainframetech
You refuse to doubt your own lack of ability to see what
everyone else can see,
Everyone else does not see a bullet hole. Just the three of you.
Post by mainframetech
and rather than check yourself and find out what
the problem is, you assume that you know all and can't make a mistake.
Well, you made one again!
Yes I did when I thought I could talk sense into you.
mainframetech
2018-06-04 00:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
WRONG! You have to learn to come out of your fantasy world now and
then and get a bearing on real life.
Damn, the irony is thick.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK was seen by a list of people in the case,
The people you have cited did not place it in the forehead. The forehead
is in the front. Hence the name fore-head. All of the people you cited
placed it in the side of the head as did the AR which placed it in the
parietal bone.
WRONG as usual! The use of the word 'forehead' is a quick way to
identify the wound in question, since no other wound is near that area.
You've played this game for months and gotten nowhere, why repeat it all
now? As the only person in the whole world that cannot see the bullet
hole in the photo that was pointed to, how can you even speak about it,
since you are in complete denial about its existence?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
as well as everyone from
here except you, and many outside of here that I can testify to.
Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said they see a bullet hole there. I'm not
the outlier.
Yup, you're the outlier. There is also a list of people in the case
that saw the same bullet hole, and described it so that there is no doubt
what they were speaking about.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And if
you don't trust my word, there are still many folks that saw what you
can't see.
They don't see what you see.
WRONG! Of course they do. But how would you know, since you can't
see it?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You refuse to doubt your own lack of ability to see what
everyone else can see,
Everyone else does not see a bullet hole. Just the three of you.
You keep trying to forget the list of people in the case that I've
named that also saw the bullet hole. Must be an attempt on your part to
cover it up or minimize it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and rather than check yourself and find out what
the problem is, you assume that you know all and can't make a mistake.
Well, you made one again!
Yes I did when I thought I could talk sense into you.
My words exactly, particularly after all the corrections your errors
that I've had to do.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-04 22:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
WRONG! You have to learn to come out of your fantasy world now and
then and get a bearing on real life.
Damn, the irony is thick.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK was seen by a list of people in the case,
The people you have cited did not place it in the forehead. The forehead
is in the front. Hence the name fore-head. All of the people you cited
placed it in the side of the head as did the AR which placed it in the
parietal bone.
WRONG as usual! The use of the word 'forehead' is a quick way to
identify the wound in question, since no other wound is near that area.
You seem to be the only one who placed the wound there. None of the
witnesses you cited put it there.
Post by mainframetech
You've played this game for months and gotten nowhere, why repeat it all
now?
Are you talking to yourself again?
Post by mainframetech
As the only person in the whole world that cannot see the bullet
hole in the photo that was pointed to, how can you even speak about it,
since you are in complete denial about its existence?
You must think there are only four people in the world. You, me, Marsh,
and Amy. You three are the only ones I know of who see a bullet hole
there.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
as well as everyone from
here except you, and many outside of here that I can testify to.
Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said they see a bullet hole there. I'm not
the outlier.
Yup, you're the outlier. There is also a list of people in the case
that saw the same bullet hole,
But now where you three claim to see it.
Post by mainframetech
and described it so that there is no doubt
what they were speaking about.
Yes, a bullet hole on the right SIDE of the head.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And if
you don't trust my word, there are still many folks that saw what you
can't see.
They don't see what you see.
WRONG! Of course they do. But how would you know, since you can't
see it?
So far you've got yourself, Marsh, and Amy. None of the other contributors
on this forum have said they see a bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You refuse to doubt your own lack of ability to see what
everyone else can see,
Everyone else does not see a bullet hole. Just the three of you.
You keep trying to forget the list of people in the case that I've
named that also saw the bullet hole. Must be an attempt on your part to
cover it up or minimize it.
They all place it on the side of the head, not the forehead. Someone
saying they saw a bullet hole in the side of the head does not support
your claim of seeing one in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and rather than check yourself and find out what
the problem is, you assume that you know all and can't make a mistake.
Well, you made one again!
Yes I did when I thought I could talk sense into you.
My words exactly, particularly after all the corrections your errors
that I've had to do.
Your time would be better spent correcting your errors.
mainframetech
2018-06-06 00:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
WRONG! You have to learn to come out of your fantasy world now and
then and get a bearing on real life.
Damn, the irony is thick.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in the forehead of
JFK was seen by a list of people in the case,
The people you have cited did not place it in the forehead. The forehead
is in the front. Hence the name fore-head. All of the people you cited
placed it in the side of the head as did the AR which placed it in the
parietal bone.
WRONG as usual! The use of the word 'forehead' is a quick way to
identify the wound in question, since no other wound is near that area.
You seem to be the only one who placed the wound there. None of the
witnesses you cited put it there.
LOL! Nitpicking again! My placement is within the forehead/temple
area I delineated before. You're doing your usual of trying to make a
mountain out of a molehill. And as you've ben advised many times, I'm
speaking of the wound that is about 1/4 inch in diameter.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You've played this game for months and gotten nowhere, why repeat it all
now?
Are you talking to yourself again?
Post by mainframetech
As the only person in the whole world that cannot see the bullet
hole in the photo that was pointed to, how can you even speak about it,
since you are in complete denial about its existence?
You must think there are only four people in the world. You, me, Marsh,
and Amy. You three are the only ones I know of who see a bullet hole
there.
WRONG! As usual you forget the list of people from the case that saw
the bullet wound being spoken about. I guess you need to try and minimize
the evidence as much as possible.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
as well as everyone from
here except you, and many outside of here that I can testify to.
Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said they see a bullet hole there. I'm not
the outlier.
Yup, you're the outlier. There is also a list of people in the case
that saw the same bullet hole,
But now where you three claim to see it.
Oh, but all the witnesses saw it within the same area I specified.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and described it so that there is no doubt
what they were speaking about.
Yes, a bullet hole on the right SIDE of the head.
Not necessarily. The head doesn't have a corner, so it goes around
from front to side around a curve making it more difficult to separate the
side and front of the head, and the forehead (if you bother to look) goes
partially around to the sides, even though it's called FORE-head. You
really have to think of these things so I don't have to keep wiping behind
your ears.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And if
you don't trust my word, there are still many folks that saw what you
can't see.
They don't see what you see.
WRONG! Of course they do. But how would you know, since you can't
see it?
So far you've got yourself, Marsh, and Amy. None of the other contributors
on this forum have said they see a bullet hole in the forehead.
But a few have said they see SOMETHING! Where you se nothing at all
out of normal. You showed me a photo enlargement that had the bullet hole
on it, and you were unable to determine that anything as there. So either
your mind is gone, or your eyes. And I'm not interested in trying to talk
to you about something you can't see. Try some other subject or quit.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You refuse to doubt your own lack of ability to see what
everyone else can see,
Everyone else does not see a bullet hole. Just the three of you.
You keep trying to forget the list of people in the case that I've
named that also saw the bullet hole. Must be an attempt on your part to
cover it up or minimize it.
They all place it on the side of the head, not the forehead. Someone
saying they saw a bullet hole in the side of the head does not support
your claim of seeing one in the forehead.
WRONG! Give up the stupid nitpicking. They all saw the bullet hole
in the same general area. You have no useful things to say about it,
since you can't see it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and rather than check yourself and find out what
the problem is, you assume that you know all and can't make a mistake.
Well, you made one again!
Yes I did when I thought I could talk sense into you.
My words exactly, particularly after all the corrections your errors
that I've had to do.
Your time would be better spent correcting your errors.
Try some evidence instead of opinion.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-03 03:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?


And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 23:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
Access to the body does no good when they are morons and they are ordered
to lie. The autopsy doctors couldn't even see the entrance hole in the
forehead, which honest people can see easily. Neither did the cover-up
experts in the HSCA, except for one honest man, Dr. Lawrence Angel.
Post by mainframetech
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-04 00:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut. They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH. That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
mainframetech
2018-06-04 23:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass. The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area. As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull. And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front. That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull. When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you. The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-06 00:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see. Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
mainframetech
2018-06-07 01:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see.
WRONG! Because you've decided that you can't see what all the
witnesses saw, doesn't man we're wrong, it means you have bad eyesight or
are scamming everyone. You don't dare admit that you saw the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area because you knew that it meant the complete
loss of everything you believed for years. Your mind couldn't take that.
Post by bigdog
Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You'll find reading through DiMaio that fracture lines can appear at
the rear and the front of a bullet strike. So if the bullet came in from
the front, the pressure would build up in the rear and crack the skull and
blow out a section. Physics. The pressure builds in front of the bullet:

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
WRONG! They did NOT have access to ALL the photos and X-rays as the
photographer and X-ray Technician stated. Many of each were missing. No
doubt the key photos. The bullet hole need only show in one photo
clearly, which it does, to prove that a bullet came in from the front, and
the wounds fit that scenario, and the path of tiny particles in the skull
fit a lead bullet, and not an FMJ type.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
I repeat, they could not have seen the photo with the bullet hole in
it ENLARGED. It's doubtful that any one thought to ENLARGE any of the
photos. After all, they had the phony AR which gave them all their
answers. They probably considered their job a fool's errand.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
Of course:

Loading Image...

And here's the caption on that X-ray:

"I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for
this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the
hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly
from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the
right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation
to the left frontal skull."
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
No, "trumping" is your choice of words. I simply put forward a photo
that was missed when they tried to cover up proofs and supplied
instructions to view the OBVIOUS bullet hole in it (that you can't see).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Not really. And after Humes and Boswell got at the skull, there's no
telling what was original fractures (if any) and what was man made by
them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
They could not possibly have had that opinion because they di not
have access to the proofs they need for an honest decision.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
WRONG! There were more than that here that saw 'something' which you
did NOT see, even though you showed me a photo ENLARGEMENT of the bullet
hole. And as usual, you've tried to forget the list of witnesses in the
case that also saw the bullet hole. some who described it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
WRONG! Don't give me that crap! The quality of the photo we have
looked at is plenty good to see the bullet hole clearly and the detail of
it as well. The difference s that we can ENLARGE it, and the OBVIOUSLY
didn't.

I'm really getting tired of you repeating all this silly business of
yours.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
No. It was only a crack not a hole.
What caused the smashing in of the rearview mirror? Another bullet from
the front?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see.
WRONG! Because you've decided that you can't see what all the
witnesses saw, doesn't man we're wrong, it means you have bad eyesight or
are scamming everyone. You don't dare admit that you saw the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area because you knew that it meant the complete
loss of everything you believed for years. Your mind couldn't take that.
Post by bigdog
Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You'll find reading through DiMaio that fracture lines can appear at
the rear and the front of a bullet strike. So if the bullet came in from
the front, the pressure would build up in the rear and crack the skull and
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usaft/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/04091822/Stopping-power-balistics-gel-1024x572.jpg
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
WRONG! They did NOT have access to ALL the photos and X-rays as the
photographer and X-ray Technician stated. Many of each were missing. No
doubt the key photos. The bullet hole need only show in one photo
clearly, which it does, to prove that a bullet came in from the front, and
the wounds fit that scenario, and the path of tiny particles in the skull
fit a lead bullet, and not an FMJ type.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
I repeat, they could not have seen the photo with the bullet hole in
it ENLARGED. It's doubtful that any one thought to ENLARGE any of the
photos. After all, they had the phony AR which gave them all their
answers. They probably considered their job a fool's errand.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A-Review-of-the-JFK-Cranial-x-Rays-and-Photographs-18.png
"I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for
this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the
hairline. If you notice the location, I???ve moved it up slightly
from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the
right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation
to the left frontal skull."
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
No, "trumping" is your choice of words. I simply put forward a photo
that was missed when they tried to cover up proofs and supplied
instructions to view the OBVIOUS bullet hole in it (that you can't see).
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Not really. And after Humes and Boswell got at the skull, there's no
telling what was original fractures (if any) and what was man made by
them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
They could not possibly have had that opinion because they di not
have access to the proofs they need for an honest decision.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
WRONG! There were more than that here that saw 'something' which you
did NOT see, even though you showed me a photo ENLARGEMENT of the bullet
hole. And as usual, you've tried to forget the list of witnesses in the
case that also saw the bullet hole. some who described it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
WRONG! Don't give me that crap! The quality of the photo we have
looked at is plenty good to see the bullet hole clearly and the detail of
it as well. The difference s that we can ENLARGE it, and the OBVIOUSLY
didn't.
I'm really getting tired of you repeating all this silly business of
yours.
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-08 01:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see.
WRONG! Because you've decided that you can't see what all the
witnesses saw, doesn't man we're wrong, it means you have bad eyesight or
are scamming everyone. You don't dare admit that you saw the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area because you knew that it meant the complete
loss of everything you believed for years. Your mind couldn't take that.
I have to keep pointing out to you that none of your witnesses placed the
wound where you claim to see it. San Francisco and Los Angeles are both in
the state of California but that doesn't mean they are in the same place.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You'll find reading through DiMaio that fracture lines can appear at
the rear and the front of a bullet strike. So if the bullet came in from
the front, the pressure would build up in the rear and crack the skull and
Pay attention. We are talking about RADIATING fracture lines. Do you
understand what that means. Those are fracture lines that radiate out from
the point of entry.
Post by mainframetech
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usaft/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/04091822/Stopping-power-balistics-gel-1024x572.jpg
What does that have to do with the fracture pattern in the skull?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
WRONG! They did NOT have access to ALL the photos and X-rays as the
photographer and X-ray Technician stated. Many of each were missing. No
doubt the key photos. The bullet hole need only show in one photo
clearly, which it does, to prove that a bullet came in from the front, and
the wounds fit that scenario, and the path of tiny particles in the skull
fit a lead bullet, and not an FMJ type.
They based their opinions on the photos and the x-rays they did see and
those materials left no doubt in their minds that both bullets that struck
JFK were fired from behind him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
I repeat, they could not have seen the photo with the bullet hole in
it ENLARGED.
Oh they couldn't. Because they didn't see what you THINK you see. I would
be willing to bet the photos they had were plenty large and were of much
higher quality than the photos you saw. Do you think they were looking at
4x6 prints?
Post by mainframetech
It's doubtful that any one thought to ENLARGE any of the
photos. After all, they had the phony AR which gave them all their
answers. They probably considered their job a fool's errand.
What an absurd statement. Nothing but a lame excuse you cooked up to
dismiss findings that don't conform with your beliefs.

Here's a photo of Dr. Michael Baden making his presentation to the HSCA.
Do you see the size of the x-ray. You don't think they made similar blow
ups of the photos as well?

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A-Review-of-the-JFK-Cranial-x-Rays-and-Photographs-18.png
Where do you see lead fragments in that x-ray?
Post by mainframetech
"I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for
this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the
hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly
from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the
right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation
to the left frontal skull."
Why don't you identify the schmuck making this comment so we can judge his
credentials?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
No, "trumping" is your choice of words. I simply put forward a photo
that was missed when they tried to cover up proofs and supplied
instructions to view the OBVIOUS bullet hole in it (that you can't see).
Just because they didn't see what you think you see doesn't mean they
missed anything. How were they supposed to see something you imagine?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Not really.
Oh really. I suppose you think your opinion trumps that of Dr. Peter
Cummings, one of the leading experts in the country in the area of
neurological wound ballistics. That's the fancy term for gunshot wounds to
the head.
Post by mainframetech
And after Humes and Boswell got at the skull, there's no
telling what was original fractures (if any) and what was man made by
them.
So now you're going to tell us they created those radiating fracture
lines. Is their no limit to your absurdity.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
They could not possibly have had that opinion because they di not
have access to the proofs they need for an honest decision.
<chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
WRONG! There were more than that here that saw 'something' which you
did NOT see,
Something does not mean a bullet hole. Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said
they see one there.
Post by mainframetech
even though you showed me a photo ENLARGEMENT of the bullet
hole. And as usual, you've tried to forget the list of witnesses in the
case that also saw the bullet hole. some who described it.
I showed you an enlargement. There was no bullet hole in it. The witnesses
who saw the bullet hole didn't place it there.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
WRONG! Don't give me that crap!
It's not crap. It's true.
Post by mainframetech
The quality of the photo we have
looked at is plenty good to see the bullet hole clearly and the detail of
it as well. The difference s that we can ENLARGE it, and the OBVIOUSLY
didn't.
Oh, the quality of photos we see are good enough but you don't think the
photos the review panels saw were good enough.
Post by mainframetech
I'm really getting tired of you repeating all this silly business of
yours.
You don't seem to tire of spouting your nonsense.
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
testimony:

"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."

Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside! As with
beveling in the skull from a bullet, windshields work the same way. Now
too that Kellerman says he looked at the windshield after the funeral,
which was Monday. He didn't see anything before the 27th.

It has been shown that the limousine was taken to Michigan to a Ford
plant for repairs on Monday the 25th, and the garage log shows that there
was no access to the limo on that day. There were 6 eyewitnesses to a
hole through that windshield, 2 of them knew about the rule of beveling
tempered glass when hit with something. They both said the windshield was
hit from the front of the limo, just as Kellerman had said. The
difference is that when the limo was in Michigan for repairs, the
windshield was removed and destroyed to get rid of the evidence, and a new
windshield was put on. When the limo was brought back to the W.H. garage,
someone slammed the new windshield with something causing a crack. Then
repairmen were called and they had to replace the cracked windshield and
they saved the cracked on under lock and key.

All this effort was for the same thing that much effort was spent on,
protecting the scenario of the 'lone nut' killer. If the windshield had
been seen by too many people, it would become obvious that there was a
shooter from the front, which would ruin the 'lone nut' theory. That
would mean the plotters would have to look over their shoulders for the
cops to come.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see.
WRONG! Because you've decided that you can't see what all the
witnesses saw, doesn't man we're wrong, it means you have bad eyesight or
are scamming everyone. You don't dare admit that you saw the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area because you knew that it meant the complete
loss of everything you believed for years. Your mind couldn't take that.
I have to keep pointing out to you that none of your witnesses placed the
wound where you claim to see it. San Francisco and Los Angeles are both in
the state of California but that doesn't mean they are in the same place.
Make a list of your complaints as to where you think each witness saw
the wound in question. You'll find they all land right in the specific
area I told you about.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You'll find reading through DiMaio that fracture lines can appear at
the rear and the front of a bullet strike. So if the bullet came in from
the front, the pressure would build up in the rear and crack the skull and
Pay attention. We are talking about RADIATING fracture lines. Do you
understand what that means. Those are fracture lines that radiate out from
the point of entry.
You decided that radiating fracture lines can ONLY come for a bullet
wound in the skull? High pressure in the skull can't force a blowout that
would also cause radiating fracture lines? and think about it, the
fracture line origination would go right through the blowout that was seen
at the BOH by over 39 eyewitnesses! DiMaio thinks the pressure can cause
a blowout. I think that might make for a problem in your thinking.

And thinking about it, all those fake images of the skull with
radiating lines on it have to be wrong, since there was a 5 inch hole in
the skull at the BOH that didn't appear on any of them!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usaft/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/04091822/Stopping-power-balistics-gel-1024x572.jpg
What does that have to do with the fracture pattern in the skull?
That's to show you the blow out from pressure at the BOH, where you
want there to be radiating fracture lines. The blowout itself probably
caused the lines if at all.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
WRONG! They did NOT have access to ALL the photos and X-rays as the
photographer and X-ray Technician stated. Many of each were missing. No
doubt the key photos. The bullet hole need only show in one photo
clearly, which it does, to prove that a bullet came in from the front, and
the wounds fit that scenario, and the path of tiny particles in the skull
fit a lead bullet, and not an FMJ type.
They based their opinions on the photos and the x-rays they did see and
those materials left no doubt in their minds that both bullets that struck
JFK were fired from behind him.
Of course! The right photos and X-rays left for them to look at would
show only what was wanted to show. Any others would be destroyed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
I repeat, they could not have seen the photo with the bullet hole in
it ENLARGED.
Oh they couldn't. Because they didn't see what you THINK you see. I would
be willing to bet the photos they had were plenty large and were of much
higher quality than the photos you saw. Do you think they were looking at
4x6 prints?
Please stop with this baloney. You can't see something that EVERYONE
can see, and yet you continue to basically say that everyone else is crazy
and you're sane! Ridiculous! Not to mention that the photo quality of
the bullet hole photo was just fine. And your willingness to bet doesn't
make a hill of beans next to evidence that everyone can see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's doubtful that anyone thought to ENLARGE any of the
photos. After all, they had the phony AR which gave them all their
answers. They probably considered their job a fool's errand.
What an absurd statement. Nothing but a lame excuse you cooked up to
dismiss findings that don't conform with your beliefs.
I don't need to dismiss anything. The evidence itself does that.
We have an object in a photo that YOU can't see, and you are still saying
everyone else is crazy and YOU'RE OK! Trump has that kind of delusions!
Post by bigdog
Here's a photo of Dr. Michael Baden making his presentation to the HSCA.
Do you see the size of the x-ray. You don't think they made similar blow
ups of the photos as well?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/26/National-Enterprise/Images/JFK_131024_0021382825941.jpg
Size is not the problem, since the computer can enlarge anything to
any size. We have a photo that EVERYONE can see something in, and you
can't, so you say everyone else is crazy and you're OK! The problem here
is YOU, not the photo.

You actually showed me the photo in question with a mark around the
bullet hole, so I think you're either deluding yourself, or your playing a
game. The problem in either event rests with you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A-Review-of-the-JFK-Cranial-x-Rays-and-Photographs-18.png
Where do you see lead fragments in that x-ray?
Post by mainframetech
"I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for
this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the
hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly
from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the
right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation
to the left frontal skull."
Why don't you identify the schmuck making this comment so we can judge his
credentials?
Why don't you go to the link and see for yourself? How lazy can you
get?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
No, "trumping" is your choice of words. I simply put forward a photo
that was missed when they tried to cover up proofs and supplied
instructions to view the OBVIOUS bullet hole in it (that you can't see).
Just because they didn't see what you think you see doesn't mean they
missed anything. How were they supposed to see something you imagine?
You keep forgetting that YOU are the problem, since all can see
something, and you can't.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Not really.
Oh really. I suppose you think your opinion trumps that of Dr. Peter
Cummings, one of the leading experts in the country in the area of
neurological wound ballistics. That's the fancy term for gunshot wounds to
the head.
When Cummings shows skulls without the blowout in them that was seen
by over 39 people, and measured 5 inches across, and was right at the
center of the radiating fracture lines, I have doubts about his ability to
offer an expert advice.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And after Humes and Boswell got at the skull, there's no
telling what was original fractures (if any) and what was man made by
them.
So now you're going to tell us they created those radiating fracture
lines. Is their no limit to your absurdity.
Did you see me saying that? I suggested a possibility, don't go nuts
over it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
They could not possibly have had that opinion because they did not
have access to the proofs they need for an honest decision.
<chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
WRONG! There were more than that here that saw 'something' which you
did NOT see,
Something does not mean a bullet hole. Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said
they see one there.
That's all! I'm done with trying to correct you on that item where you
try to forget all those that are in a list that saw the wound in question,
and don't give me any of your crap about different positions. I'm outa
here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-10 00:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Post by mainframetech
As with
beveling in the skull from a bullet, windshields work the same way. Now
too that Kellerman says he looked at the windshield after the funeral,
which was Monday. He didn't see anything before the 27th.
It has been shown that the limousine was taken to Michigan to a Ford
plant for repairs on Monday the 25th, and the garage log shows that there
was no access to the limo on that day.
There is no evidence the limo ever went to Michigan and it would have been
logistically impossible for the alleged work to have been done there and
the limo returned to Washington in the allotted time. Add to that the fact
that the Ford plant does mass production. It doesn't do custom work on
limousines. That's why both the original customization and the
refurbishment was done by a company in Cincinnati. But disregard all that
because some clown told you years later that he saw the limo being
refurbished in Michigan.
Post by mainframetech
There were 6 eyewitnesses to a
hole through that windshield,
If you read their words, only 3 of the 6 said the bullet hole went through
the windshield and one of those 3 was the clown from Michigan who made up
the story.
Post by mainframetech
2 of them knew about the rule of beveling
tempered glass when hit with something. They both said the windshield was
hit from the front of the limo, just as Kellerman had said.
Kellerman said no such thing. He said the outer surface of the windshield
was smooth. That wouldn't be the case if the bullet had struck the
windshield from the outside. There would have been a small entry hole on
the outside of the windshield. Glass doesn't heal itself when a bullet
passes through it.
Post by mainframetech
The difference is that when the limo was in Michigan for repairs, the
windshield was removed and destroyed to get rid of the evidence, and a new
windshield was put on. When the limo was brought back to the W.H. garage,
someone slammed the new windshield with something causing a crack. Then
repairmen were called and they had to replace the cracked windshield and
they saved the cracked on under lock and key.
Pure fantasy.
Post by mainframetech
All this effort was for the same thing that much effort was spent on,
protecting the scenario of the 'lone nut' killer. If the windshield had
been seen by too many people, it would become obvious that there was a
shooter from the front, which would ruin the 'lone nut' theory. That
would mean the plotters would have to look over their shoulders for the
cops to come.
It's amazing the things you will believe and the things you will dream up
to try to make your beliefs seem plausible. It's not working.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see.
WRONG! Because you've decided that you can't see what all the
witnesses saw, doesn't man we're wrong, it means you have bad eyesight or
are scamming everyone. You don't dare admit that you saw the bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area because you knew that it meant the complete
loss of everything you believed for years. Your mind couldn't take that.
I have to keep pointing out to you that none of your witnesses placed the
wound where you claim to see it. San Francisco and Los Angeles are both in
the state of California but that doesn't mean they are in the same place.
Make a list of your complaints as to where you think each witness saw
the wound in question. You'll find they all land right in the specific
area I told you about.
You mean like Jenkins who placed the hole he saw in the temporal bone?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You'll find reading through DiMaio that fracture lines can appear at
the rear and the front of a bullet strike. So if the bullet came in from
the front, the pressure would build up in the rear and crack the skull and
Pay attention. We are talking about RADIATING fracture lines. Do you
understand what that means. Those are fracture lines that radiate out from
the point of entry.
You decided that radiating fracture lines can ONLY come for a bullet
wound in the skull?
No, highly trained people in the field of wound ballistics have decided
that. People like Dr. Peter Cummings. But why listen to him when you can
offer your own analysis?
Post by mainframetech
High pressure in the skull can't force a blowout that
would also cause radiating fracture lines? and think about it, the
fracture line origination would go right through the blowout that was seen
at the BOH by over 39 eyewitnesses! DiMaio thinks the pressure can cause
a blowout. I think that might make for a problem in your thinking.
What you think is just so much doo-doo. I'll go with what competent people
like Cummings, DiMaio, and all those review panels concluded. JFK was shot
in the back of the head and they have no doubt about that.
Post by mainframetech
And thinking about it, all those fake images of the skull with
radiating lines on it have to be wrong, since there was a 5 inch hole in
the skull at the BOH that didn't appear on any of them!
Of course that have to be wrong because they conflict with your beliefs.
There's no way your beliefs could be wrong. It has to be that all the
evidence is fraudulent.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usaft/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/04091822/Stopping-power-balistics-gel-1024x572.jpg
What does that have to do with the fracture pattern in the skull?
That's to show you the blow out from pressure at the BOH, where you
want there to be radiating fracture lines. The blowout itself probably
caused the lines if at all.
So now you are pretending to be an expert in wound ballistics rather than
listening to what realy experts have told you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
WRONG! They did NOT have access to ALL the photos and X-rays as the
photographer and X-ray Technician stated. Many of each were missing. No
doubt the key photos. The bullet hole need only show in one photo
clearly, which it does, to prove that a bullet came in from the front, and
the wounds fit that scenario, and the path of tiny particles in the skull
fit a lead bullet, and not an FMJ type.
They based their opinions on the photos and the x-rays they did see and
those materials left no doubt in their minds that both bullets that struck
JFK were fired from behind him.
Of course! The right photos and X-rays left for them to look at would
show only what was wanted to show. Any others would be destroyed.
How could the photos show them a different reality?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
I repeat, they could not have seen the photo with the bullet hole in
it ENLARGED.
Oh they couldn't. Because they didn't see what you THINK you see. I would
be willing to bet the photos they had were plenty large and were of much
higher quality than the photos you saw. Do you think they were looking at
4x6 prints?
Please stop with this baloney. You can't see something that EVERYONE
can see,
I can't see a bullet hole. Do you think you, Marsh, and Amy constitute
EVERYONE?
Post by mainframetech
and yet you continue to basically say that everyone else is crazy
and you're sane!
No I don't because I don't think the newgroups rules would allow me to say
that about you THREE.
Post by mainframetech
Ridiculous! Not to mention that the photo quality of
the bullet hole photo was just fine. And your willingness to bet doesn't
make a hill of beans next to evidence that everyone can see.
Oh, the quality of the online copy of the photo is just fine but the
original photo the review panels saw wasn't fine. Strange.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's doubtful that anyone thought to ENLARGE any of the
photos. After all, they had the phony AR which gave them all their
answers. They probably considered their job a fool's errand.
What an absurd statement. Nothing but a lame excuse you cooked up to
dismiss findings that don't conform with your beliefs.
I don't need to dismiss anything.
Then why do you keep doing it.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence itself does that.
We have an object in a photo that YOU can't see, and you are still saying
everyone else is crazy and YOU'RE OK! Trump has that kind of delusions!
Why do you keep insisting everyone but me sees a bullet hole when there
are just three people on this newsgroup who have said they see one?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Here's a photo of Dr. Michael Baden making his presentation to the HSCA.
Do you see the size of the x-ray. You don't think they made similar blow
ups of the photos as well?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/10/26/National-Enterprise/Images/JFK_131024_0021382825941.jpg
Size is not the problem,
Then why do you keep telling us we have to enlarge the SOD photo to see
your bullet hole?
Post by mainframetech
since the computer can enlarge anything to
any size. We have a photo that EVERYONE can see something in,
Something does not equal a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
and you
can't, so you say everyone else is crazy and you're OK! The problem here
is YOU, not the photo.
No, I don't have to say that about everyone because not everyone sees a
bullet hole where you think you do.
Post by mainframetech
You actually showed me the photo in question with a mark around the
bullet hole, so I think you're either deluding yourself, or your playing a
game. The problem in either event rests with you.
I showed you a photo with arrows which some schmuck claimed were pointing
to bullet holes. Now that guy was nuts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A-Review-of-the-JFK-Cranial-x-Rays-and-Photographs-18.png
Where do you see lead fragments in that x-ray?
Post by mainframetech
"I am just one of many who believe that the entry site responsible for
this particle trail was in the right frontal region, at or just above the
hairline. If you notice the location, I’ve moved it up slightly
from the skull defect which I think represents the entry site, because the
right side of the frontal bone had separated and had dropped in relation
to the left frontal skull."
Why don't you identify the schmuck making this comment so we can judge his
credentials?
Why don't you go to the link and see for yourself? How lazy can you
get?
I did go to YOUR link. There is nothing but an uncaptioned copy of an
x-ray. No name. No credentials.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
No, "trumping" is your choice of words. I simply put forward a photo
that was missed when they tried to cover up proofs and supplied
instructions to view the OBVIOUS bullet hole in it (that you can't see).
Just because they didn't see what you think you see doesn't mean they
missed anything. How were they supposed to see something you imagine?
You keep forgetting that YOU are the problem, since all can see
something, and you can't.
All do not see a bullet hole. Only three. Why do you keep pretending
everyone sees what you think you see?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Not really.
Oh really. I suppose you think your opinion trumps that of Dr. Peter
Cummings, one of the leading experts in the country in the area of
neurological wound ballistics. That's the fancy term for gunshot wounds to
the head.
When Cummings shows skulls without the blowout in them that was seen
by over 39 people, and measured 5 inches across, and was right at the
center of the radiating fracture lines, I have doubts about his ability to
offer an expert advice.
Your doubts mean absolutely nothing. They do nothing to diminish Cummings
stature as one of the leading experts in the country in the field of
neurological wound ballistics. He knows what he is talking about and you
don't. He has seen the original photos and x-rays and you haven't. His
opinions carry weight and yours don't.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And after Humes and Boswell got at the skull, there's no
telling what was original fractures (if any) and what was man made by
them.
So now you're going to tell us they created those radiating fracture
lines. Is their no limit to your absurdity.
Did you see me saying that? I suggested a possibility, don't go nuts
over it.
You suggest lots of silly things.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
They could not possibly have had that opinion because they did not
have access to the proofs they need for an honest decision.
<chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
WRONG! There were more than that here that saw 'something' which you
did NOT see,
Something does not mean a bullet hole. Only you, Marsh, and Amy have said
they see one there.
That's all! I'm done with trying to correct you on that item where you
try to forget all those that are in a list that saw the wound in question,
and don't give me any of your crap about different positions. I'm outa
here.
So you're going to take your ball and go home.
mainframetech
2018-06-11 01:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer. I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.

The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.

Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-12 02:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
mainframetech
2018-06-12 21:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door. No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-13 03:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because you
have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You must
need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-13 19:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important. No record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo. It would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again. On top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work. But you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head. The geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one. It would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory. That would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car. Altgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.

Loading Image...

The other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door. No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
It's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
mainframetech
2018-06-14 19:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important.
We've ben over all this before, but you need recognition, so you'll
plow through it all over again. Forcing me to show you up again.

Forget for a moment how silly YOU think it is, and see if it works
mechanically. Actually, it does, which was my first test. Second, you
fell for it all over again with your saying that George Whitaker wanted to
"make himself sound important". In reality, which you forgot, Whitaker
wanted the lawyer to never mention his name or give him away for fear he
might lose his job with the Ford Company. The lawyer (Douglas Weldon, JD)
kept Whitaker anonymous until his death per his wishes. So you go wrong
once again. In fact, the wish to remain anonymous is even a strengthening
of his story of repair and replacement of parts on the limo.
Post by bigdog
No record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo.
Naturally! Think it through. The plotters didn't want anyone to know
they were fixing the windshield, so that later they could say the
windshield did NOT have a hole through it, but only a tiny crack. It
would ne good client service for Ford to do a favor for the W.H. and keep
no records. But there is a record of the limo not being visited during a
very busy time, for the one day that the limo was gone from the W.H.
garage. The log tells it all. A day after the limo was back, they called
for a repair crew to come and replace the windshield which had only a
small crack in it at that time.
Post by bigdog
It would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again.
Oh? You know these things, eh? :) They had a C-130 available that
had nothing else to do and it normally transported the limo and other
vehicles when the president traveled. It easily could take the limo off
to Michigan and lose very little time. Then bring it back. As to
stripping the interior and replacing the windshield with a standard
windshield from that model car from stock, I don't se a problem.
Post by bigdog
On top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work.
How silly of you. That's exactly the argument you made the last time
we went through this foolishness. You see, Ford had a shop for just that
problem. They made interiors to order for new models to get measurements
of the individual parts of the limo for later manufacture. They could
easily do it in a day or less. I've watched a lady called 'Sue' on a
fixit program on TV make seat covers in no time.
Post by bigdog
But you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
That's the second time you've tried to minimize the statements of
George Whitaker by insulting him. first you call him a "clown" and then a
"bozo", yet you never knew him and didn't know he was a manager of the
glass shop for Ford. He got his orders from a VP of Ford when the call
came in. Gee, I don't feel too "desperate" but I do feel a chuckle coming
on at you floundering around having forgotten this whole argument, and
falling into the same old traps.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head.
WRONG again! Missing Greer And Kellerman would be easy since the
bullet hole in the windshield was a bit to the left of the centerline of
the windshield and would also pass between Connally and Nellie to strike
JFK in the forehead/temple area. The shooter would have to be at about
the other side of the overpass, kneeling on the left side of the road.
But there is a straight line from that point through the windshield
between Greer and Kellerman and between Connally and Nellie, and strike
JFK. It's a straight line, but I know you are unable to image something
of that type. Some people can and some can't.

However, that isn't the only path a bullet could take to reach the
point on JFK where the final bullet struck. If his head was slightly to
the right, it could come from the GK, or similar. And the hole through
the limo windshield would just be lost somewhere.
Post by bigdog
The geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one.
WRONG! Saying it won't make it so. You have no ability to picture the
path which is straight.
Post by bigdog
It would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory.
WRONG! There wasn't a "crack" in the windshield. There was a clear
bullet hole THROUGH it. There were witnesses that knew it and saw it.
They corroborate each other.
Post by bigdog
That would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car.
Well, you're doing better at imaging, but you're not there yet. The
shooter would probably have to be kneeling at the left side of Elm street
on the other side of the overpass firing slightly upward. He might have
also been in the sewer system on the left, that was like the one on the
right, but just past the overpass.
Post by bigdog
Altgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.
Of course not. You think he's going to fire a shot at the POTUS and
just sit there waiting to be recognized? One shot and he was out of there
probably through the rain relief system.
Post by bigdog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eu5YzrXO6s4/UpGwXKe6s1I/AAAAAAAAM8E/uRnFfTscapc/s1600/1459135_10201976501189652_821677783_n.jpg
Try and use your head. With that photo you couldn't see a thing past
the overpass.
Post by bigdog
The other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
WRONG yet again! So tiring correcting your errors, you make so many
of them! The shooter was probably on the left of Elm street. From far
enough away the is a shot at the limo. And now the anonymous man in
Michigan has to be insulted one again in your desperate quest to cover up
the bullet hole in the front of the forehead/temple area, that you can't
even see!

There's an old phrase you've heard before...methinks he protesteth
too much. All your slaps at the poor guy in Michigan just because he
though what he had seen might be important to someone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because
you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You
must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by bigdog
It's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
Yep, but it's me correcting you. Over and over.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-15 21:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important.
We've ben over all this before, but you need recognition, so you'll
plow through it all over again. Forcing me to show you up again.
Forget for a moment how silly YOU think it is, and see if it works
mechanically. Actually, it does, which was my first test. Second, you
fell for it all over again with your saying that George Whitaker wanted to
"make himself sound important". In reality, which you forgot, Whitaker
wanted the lawyer to never mention his name or give him away for fear he
might lose his job with the Ford Company. The lawyer (Douglas Weldon, JD)
kept Whitaker anonymous until his death per his wishes. So you go wrong
once again. In fact, the wish to remain anonymous is even a strengthening
of his story of repair and replacement of parts on the limo.
Still no corroboration for this clown's story. Of course we should give
him the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility it was his
lawyer who made the story up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo.
Naturally! Think it through. The plotters didn't want anyone to know
they were fixing the windshield, so that later they could say the
windshield did NOT have a hole through it, but only a tiny crack. It
would ne good client service for Ford to do a favor for the W.H. and keep
no records. But there is a record of the limo not being visited during a
very busy time, for the one day that the limo was gone from the W.H.
garage. The log tells it all. A day after the limo was back, they called
for a repair crew to come and replace the windshield which had only a
small crack in it at that time.
The fact that there is no record of anyone using the limo during the time
in question is a far cry from evidence the limo was in Michigan. There is
zero corroboration for this cockamamie story. There is no record of where
my car was this past weekend. Is that evidence it was in Michigan?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again.
Oh? You know these things, eh? :) They had a C-130 available that
had nothing else to do and it normally transported the limo and other
vehicles when the president traveled.
Fair enough. Show us the record that the C-130 flew to Michigan.
Post by mainframetech
It easily could take the limo off
to Michigan and lose very little time. Then bring it back. As to
stripping the interior and replacing the windshield with a standard
windshield from that model car from stock, I don't se a problem.
What about the interior. They couldn't use stock components because it was
a stretch limo. Stock components would not fit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work.
How silly of you. That's exactly the argument you made the last time
we went through this foolishness.
You had no answer for it then either.
Post by mainframetech
You see, Ford had a shop for just that
problem. They made interiors to order for new models to get measurements
of the individual parts of the limo for later manufacture. They could
easily do it in a day or less. I've watched a lady called 'Sue' on a
fixit program on TV make seat covers in no time.
The assembly plant is where all the various components were assembled.
Many of the components are fabricated at plants elsewhere in the country
and shipped to the plant where the assembly line is. It was Ford that
created the assembly line manufacturing process. The car moves down the
line and the various pieces are installed from STOCK parts. Again I point
out Ford does not fabricate non-standard parts. That is the reason
specialized companies are used to do that type of work. If Ford did that
kind of work, there would be no reason to have sent the car to Cincinnati
for either the original customization or the refurbishment.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
That's the second time you've tried to minimize the statements of
George Whitaker by insulting him. first you call him a "clown" and then a
"bozo", yet you never knew him and didn't know he was a manager of the
glass shop for Ford. He got his orders from a VP of Ford when the call
came in.
Really. If you know that you should know who that VP was.
Post by mainframetech
Gee, I don't feel too "desperate" but I do feel a chuckle coming
on at you floundering around having forgotten this whole argument, and
falling into the same old traps.
You still have zero corroborating evidence for this story. Whether it was
concocted by Whitaker or his lawyer, it is a cockamamie story with
absolutely no supporting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head.
WRONG again! Missing Greer And Kellerman would be easy since the
bullet hole in the windshield was a bit to the left of the centerline of
the windshield and would also pass between Connally and Nellie to strike
JFK in the forehead/temple area.
Such a shot would be traveling on a diagonal line from the driver's side
to the passenger side. On such a line, it would not exit the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
The shooter would have to be at about
the other side of the overpass, kneeling on the left side of the road.
But there is a straight line from that point through the windshield
between Greer and Kellerman and between Connally and Nellie, and strike
JFK. It's a straight line, but I know you are unable to image something
of that type. Some people can and some can't.
You do know there was a lead car between that location and the limo, don't
you. How did this shooter manage to miss that car? Why doesn't he show up
in the Altgens photo?
Post by mainframetech
However, that isn't the only path a bullet could take to reach the
point on JFK where the final bullet struck. If his head was slightly to
the right, it could come from the GK, or similar. And the hole through
the limo windshield would just be lost somewhere.
The three films and the Moorman photo show JFK was turned slightly left,
not to the right.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one.
WRONG! Saying it won't make it so. You have no ability to picture the
path which is straight.
You obviously can't picture it either because you have never even
attempted to diagram it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory.
WRONG! There wasn't a "crack" in the windshield. There was a clear
bullet hole THROUGH it. There were witnesses that knew it and saw it.
They corroborate each other.
It still would have required an upward trajectory.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car.
Well, you're doing better at imaging, but you're not there yet. The
shooter would probably have to be kneeling at the left side of Elm street
on the other side of the overpass firing slightly upward. He might have
also been in the sewer system on the left, that was like the one on the
right, but just past the overpass.
How did he manage to miss the lead car?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Altgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.
Of course not. You think he's going to fire a shot at the POTUS and
just sit there waiting to be recognized? One shot and he was out of there
probably through the rain relief system.
So he immediately vanished after firing the shot. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eu5YzrXO6s4/UpGwXKe6s1I/AAAAAAAAM8E/uRnFfTscapc/s1600/1459135_10201976501189652_821677783_n.jpg
Try and use your head. With that photo you couldn't see a thing past
the overpass.
Because there is no one on the other side of the overpass. Even if there
was, it should be obvious even to you that a shot from that location
through the impact point on the windshield would not have come anywhere
near JFK. It would have been moving on a right to left diagonal and you
need a left to right diagonal to make the geometry work. LOOK AT THE DAMN
PHOTO!!!
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
WRONG yet again! So tiring correcting your errors, you make so many
of them! The shooter was probably on the left of Elm street. From far
enough away the is a shot at the limo. And now the anonymous man in
Michigan has to be insulted one again in your desperate quest to cover up
the bullet hole in the front of the forehead/temple area, that you can't
even see!
Even a child can see in the Altgens photo that there is no place you can
position that shooter that would allow him to fire a shot through the
impact point on the windshield that would come anywhere near JFK.
Post by mainframetech
There's an old phrase you've heard before...methinks he protesteth
too much. All your slaps at the poor guy in Michigan just because he
though what he had seen might be important to someone.
What that story claims is completely impossible. The photo alone shows
your theoretical shot is impossible. You still have never attempted to
diagram this theoretical shot because even you know it is impossible but
are too stubborn to admit it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because
you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You
must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by bigdog
It's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
Yep, but it's me correcting you. Over and over.
If only you could find somebody to correct yourself.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 21:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important.
We've ben over all this before, but you need recognition, so you'll
plow through it all over again. Forcing me to show you up again.
Forget for a moment how silly YOU think it is, and see if it works
mechanically. Actually, it does, which was my first test. Second, you
fell for it all over again with your saying that George Whitaker wanted to
"make himself sound important". In reality, which you forgot, Whitaker
wanted the lawyer to never mention his name or give him away for fear he
might lose his job with the Ford Company. The lawyer (Douglas Weldon, JD)
kept Whitaker anonymous until his death per his wishes. So you go wrong
once again. In fact, the wish to remain anonymous is even a strengthening
of his story of repair and replacement of parts on the limo.
Still no corroboration for this clown's story. Of course we should give
him the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility it was his
lawyer who made the story up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo.
Naturally! Think it through. The plotters didn't want anyone to know
they were fixing the windshield, so that later they could say the
windshield did NOT have a hole through it, but only a tiny crack. It
would ne good client service for Ford to do a favor for the W.H. and keep
no records. But there is a record of the limo not being visited during a
very busy time, for the one day that the limo was gone from the W.H.
garage. The log tells it all. A day after the limo was back, they called
for a repair crew to come and replace the windshield which had only a
small crack in it at that time.
The fact that there is no record of anyone using the limo during the time
in question is a far cry from evidence the limo was in Michigan. There is
zero corroboration for this cockamamie story. There is no record of where
my car was this past weekend. Is that evidence it was in Michigan?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again.
Oh? You know these things, eh? :) They had a C-130 available that
had nothing else to do and it normally transported the limo and other
vehicles when the president traveled.
Fair enough. Show us the record that the C-130 flew to Michigan.
You mean the kept records of all Top-Secret cover-up activities?
Show me ANY record that the limo was flown anywhere other than
Washington or the motorcade cities.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It easily could take the limo off
to Michigan and lose very little time. Then bring it back. As to
stripping the interior and replacing the windshield with a standard
windshield from that model car from stock, I don't se a problem.
What about the interior. They couldn't use stock components because it was
a stretch limo. Stock components would not fit.
The stretch did not affect the standard parts fore and aft. But yes they
did customize it with additional non-Ford parts. Arlington Glass replaced
the windshield with a stock replacement inside the WH garage.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work.
How silly of you. That's exactly the argument you made the last time
we went through this foolishness.
You had no answer for it then either.
Post by mainframetech
You see, Ford had a shop for just that
problem. They made interiors to order for new models to get measurements
of the individual parts of the limo for later manufacture. They could
easily do it in a day or less. I've watched a lady called 'Sue' on a
fixit program on TV make seat covers in no time.
The assembly plant is where all the various components were assembled.
Many of the components are fabricated at plants elsewhere in the country
and shipped to the plant where the assembly line is. It was Ford that
created the assembly line manufacturing process. The car moves down the
line and the various pieces are installed from STOCK parts. Again I point
out Ford does not fabricate non-standard parts. That is the reason
specialized companies are used to do that type of work. If Ford did that
kind of work, there would be no reason to have sent the car to Cincinnati
for either the original customization or the refurbishment.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
That's the second time you've tried to minimize the statements of
George Whitaker by insulting him. first you call him a "clown" and then a
"bozo", yet you never knew him and didn't know he was a manager of the
glass shop for Ford. He got his orders from a VP of Ford when the call
came in.
Really. If you know that you should know who that VP was.
Post by mainframetech
Gee, I don't feel too "desperate" but I do feel a chuckle coming
on at you floundering around having forgotten this whole argument, and
falling into the same old traps.
You still have zero corroborating evidence for this story. Whether it was
concocted by Whitaker or his lawyer, it is a cockamamie story with
absolutely no supporting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head.
WRONG again! Missing Greer And Kellerman would be easy since the
bullet hole in the windshield was a bit to the left of the centerline of
the windshield and would also pass between Connally and Nellie to strike
JFK in the forehead/temple area.
Such a shot would be traveling on a diagonal line from the driver's side
to the passenger side. On such a line, it would not exit the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
The shooter would have to be at about
the other side of the overpass, kneeling on the left side of the road.
But there is a straight line from that point through the windshield
between Greer and Kellerman and between Connally and Nellie, and strike
JFK. It's a straight line, but I know you are unable to image something
of that type. Some people can and some can't.
You do know there was a lead car between that location and the limo, don't
you. How did this shooter manage to miss that car? Why doesn't he show up
in the Altgens photo?
Depends on where he was. His shooter would have to be in front of the limo
and the followup car was behind. The lead car was far enough ahead for a
clear shot from Main Street. But Tague was standing right there. Why
should this mystery shooter show up on any photo? Your shooter doesn't
show up on any photo, Hypocrite.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
However, that isn't the only path a bullet could take to reach the
point on JFK where the final bullet struck. If his head was slightly to
the right, it could come from the GK, or similar. And the hole through
the limo windshield would just be lost somewhere.
The three films and the Moorman photo show JFK was turned slightly left,
not to the right.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one.
WRONG! Saying it won't make it so. You have no ability to picture the
path which is straight.
You obviously can't picture it either because you have never even
attempted to diagram it.
Diagram which shot? I diagrammed the head shot.

Loading Image...

I think Cutler diagrammed other shots.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory.
WRONG! There wasn't a "crack" in the windshield. There was a clear
bullet hole THROUGH it. There were witnesses that knew it and saw it.
They corroborate each other.
It still would have required an upward trajectory.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car.
Well, you're doing better at imaging, but you're not there yet. The
shooter would probably have to be kneeling at the left side of Elm street
on the other side of the overpass firing slightly upward. He might have
also been in the sewer system on the left, that was like the one on the
right, but just past the overpass.
How did he manage to miss the lead car?
It was close to the triple underpass and Elm Street was curved.
Why not look at the official maps and check the angles yourself?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Altgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.
Of course not. You think he's going to fire a shot at the POTUS and
just sit there waiting to be recognized? One shot and he was out of there
probably through the rain relief system.
So he immediately vanished after firing the shot. <chuckle>
Where are you looking?

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eu5YzrXO6s4/UpGwXKe6s1I/AAAAAAAAM8E/uRnFfTscapc/s1600/1459135_10201976501189652_821677783_n.jpg
Try and use your head. With that photo you couldn't see a thing past
the overpass.
Because there is no one on the other side of the overpass. Even if there
Not a very good way to argue. Deny a fact and then admit it. Of course
there were people beyond the triple underpass, but they weren't
shooters, just spectators.

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
was, it should be obvious even to you that a shot from that location
through the impact point on the windshield would not have come anywhere
near JFK. It would have been moving on a right to left diagonal and you
need a left to right diagonal to make the geometry work. LOOK AT THE DAMN
PHOTO!!!
Again it depends on how kooky his theory is.
Do you even have a map?
Few maps show the limo and the lead car. Mainly Cutler maps.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
WRONG yet again! So tiring correcting your errors, you make so many
of them! The shooter was probably on the left of Elm street. From far
enough away the is a shot at the limo. And now the anonymous man in
Michigan has to be insulted one again in your desperate quest to cover up
the bullet hole in the front of the forehead/temple area, that you can't
even see!
Even a child can see in the Altgens photo that there is no place you can
position that shooter that would allow him to fire a shot through the
impact point on the windshield that would come anywhere near JFK.
That makes no sense. You don't put in any qualifiers. Any child can
simply draw a straight line through his imaginary hole to JFK. But where
would it hit and when? And just doing that does not make it a practical
location.
Some people put snipers in the storm drains.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's an old phrase you've heard before...methinks he protesteth
too much. All your slaps at the poor guy in Michigan just because he
though what he had seen might be important to someone.
What that story claims is completely impossible. The photo alone shows
Not completely. Maybe just impractical.
Post by bigdog
your theoretical shot is impossible. You still have never attempted to
diagram this theoretical shot because even you know it is impossible but
are too stubborn to admit it.
You've never diagrammed anything in your life.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because
you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You
must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by bigdog
It's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
Yep, but it's me correcting you. Over and over.
If only you could find somebody to correct yourself.
mainframetech
2018-06-17 01:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here. Chris
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Of all the silly things you have chose to believe, this has to be in the
top 3 for absurdity. There is absolutely no evidence the limo was ever
sent to Michigan for refurbishment. Just the story some clown made up 30
years later to try to make himself sound important.
We've ben over all this before, but you need recognition, so you'll
plow through it all over again. Forcing me to show you up again.
Forget for a moment how silly YOU think it is, and see if it works
mechanically. Actually, it does, which was my first test. Second, you
fell for it all over again with your saying that George Whitaker wanted to
"make himself sound important". In reality, which you forgot, Whitaker
wanted the lawyer to never mention his name or give him away for fear he
might lose his job with the Ford Company. The lawyer (Douglas Weldon, JD)
kept Whitaker anonymous until his death per his wishes. So you go wrong
once again. In fact, the wish to remain anonymous is even a strengthening
of his story of repair and replacement of parts on the limo.
Still no corroboration for this clown's story. Of course we should give
him the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility it was his
lawyer who made the story up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No record of the limo
being shipped to Michigan. No record by the Ford Motor Co. that they did
any work on the limo.
Naturally! Think it through. The plotters didn't want anyone to know
they were fixing the windshield, so that later they could say the
windshield did NOT have a hole through it, but only a tiny crack. It
would ne good client service for Ford to do a favor for the W.H. and keep
no records. But there is a record of the limo not being visited during a
very busy time, for the one day that the limo was gone from the W.H.
garage. The log tells it all. A day after the limo was back, they called
for a repair crew to come and replace the windshield which had only a
small crack in it at that time.
The fact that there is no record of anyone using the limo during the time
in question is a far cry from evidence the limo was in Michigan. There is
zero corroboration for this cockamamie story. There is no record of where
my car was this past weekend. Is that evidence it was in Michigan?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have been logistically impossible to
transport the limo to Michigan, completely strip and replace the interior
and the windshield and return it to Washington in time to have the
windshield cracked again and replaced again.
Oh? You know these things, eh? :) They had a C-130 available that
had nothing else to do and it normally transported the limo and other
vehicles when the president traveled.
Fair enough. Show us the record that the C-130 flew to Michigan.
Post by mainframetech
It easily could take the limo off
to Michigan and lose very little time. Then bring it back. As to
stripping the interior and replacing the windshield with a standard
windshield from that model car from stock, I don't se a problem.
What about the interior. They couldn't use stock components because it was
a stretch limo. Stock components would not fit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
On top of that, since it was
a stretch limo, the stock interior pieces would not have fit the limo.
Ford did mass production. They didn't do customization work which is why
the original modification and the refurbishments were done by the company
in Cincinnati which specialized in that kind of work.
How silly of you. That's exactly the argument you made the last time
we went through this foolishness.
You had no answer for it then either.
Post by mainframetech
You see, Ford had a shop for just that
problem. They made interiors to order for new models to get measurements
of the individual parts of the limo for later manufacture. They could
easily do it in a day or less. I've watched a lady called 'Sue' on a
fixit program on TV make seat covers in no time.
The assembly plant is where all the various components were assembled.
Many of the components are fabricated at plants elsewhere in the country
and shipped to the plant where the assembly line is. It was Ford that
created the assembly line manufacturing process. The car moves down the
line and the various pieces are installed from STOCK parts. Again I point
out Ford does not fabricate non-standard parts. That is the reason
specialized companies are used to do that type of work. If Ford did that
kind of work, there would be no reason to have sent the car to Cincinnati
for either the original customization or the refurbishment.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But you are willing
to overlook all that simply because some bozo claimed many years later
that he saw the limo in Michigan. You are willing to do that because you
are so desperate to believe his cockamamie story.
That's the second time you've tried to minimize the statements of
George Whitaker by insulting him. first you call him a "clown" and then a
"bozo", yet you never knew him and didn't know he was a manager of the
glass shop for Ford. He got his orders from a VP of Ford when the call
came in.
Really. If you know that you should know who that VP was.
Post by mainframetech
Gee, I don't feel too "desperate" but I do feel a chuckle coming
on at you floundering around having forgotten this whole argument, and
falling into the same old traps.
You still have zero corroborating evidence for this story. Whether it was
concocted by Whitaker or his lawyer, it is a cockamamie story with
absolutely no supporting evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
It is equally absurd to think that a shooter could have fired a bullet
from the front through that spot in the windshield missing Greer,
Kellerman, and Connally, struck JFK where you claim to see an entrance
wound and then exit the rear of his head.
WRONG again! Missing Greer And Kellerman would be easy since the
bullet hole in the windshield was a bit to the left of the centerline of
the windshield and would also pass between Connally and Nellie to strike
JFK in the forehead/temple area.
Such a shot would be traveling on a diagonal line from the driver's side
to the passenger side. On such a line, it would not exit the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
The shooter would have to be at about
the other side of the overpass, kneeling on the left side of the road.
But there is a straight line from that point through the windshield
between Greer and Kellerman and between Connally and Nellie, and strike
JFK. It's a straight line, but I know you are unable to image something
of that type. Some people can and some can't.
You do know there was a lead car between that location and the limo, don't
you. How did this shooter manage to miss that car? Why doesn't he show up
in the Altgens photo?
Post by mainframetech
However, that isn't the only path a bullet could take to reach the
point on JFK where the final bullet struck. If his head was slightly to
the right, it could come from the GK, or similar. And the hole through
the limo windshield would just be lost somewhere.
The three films and the Moorman photo show JFK was turned slightly left,
not to the right.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The geometry doesn't work and
you can't make it work which is why you have never even attempted to show
a plausible path for that bullet. There isn't one.
WRONG! Saying it won't make it so. You have no ability to picture the
path which is straight.
You obviously can't picture it either because you have never even
attempted to diagram it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have required
the mother of all magic bullets. A line from the crack in the windshield
to your imagined entry wound on JFK's forehead would have been on an
upward trajectory.
WRONG! There wasn't a "crack" in the windshield. There was a clear
bullet hole THROUGH it. There were witnesses that knew it and saw it.
They corroborate each other.
It still would have required an upward trajectory.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That would have required a shooter to be below, in
front of and slightly to the driver's side of the limo. That would have
meant he was on Elm St as the motorcade approached and not be seen by
either the lead motorcycles or the lead car.
Well, you're doing better at imaging, but you're not there yet. The
shooter would probably have to be kneeling at the left side of Elm street
on the other side of the overpass firing slightly upward. He might have
also been in the sewer system on the left, that was like the one on the
right, but just past the overpass.
How did he manage to miss the lead car?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Altgens last photo taken from
behind the limo as it approached the underpass shows no shooter where you
need him to be.
Of course not. You think he's going to fire a shot at the POTUS and
just sit there waiting to be recognized? One shot and he was out of there
probably through the rain relief system.
So he immediately vanished after firing the shot. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eu5YzrXO6s4/UpGwXKe6s1I/AAAAAAAAM8E/uRnFfTscapc/s1600/1459135_10201976501189652_821677783_n.jpg
Try and use your head. With that photo you couldn't see a thing past
the overpass.
Because there is no one on the other side of the overpass. Even if there
was, it should be obvious even to you that a shot from that location
through the impact point on the windshield would not have come anywhere
near JFK. It would have been moving on a right to left diagonal and you
need a left to right diagonal to make the geometry work. LOOK AT THE DAMN
PHOTO!!!
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The other problem which should be painfully obvious to even you is the
lead car would have been between your phantom shooter and the limo making
the shot completely impossible, even if somehow you could work out the
geometry which you can't. But you go on believing somebody shot JFK from
in front of the limo and through the windshield just because one schmuck
in Michigan said he saw a bullet hole.
WRONG yet again! So tiring correcting your errors, you make so many
of them! The shooter was probably on the left of Elm street. From far
enough away the is a shot at the limo. And now the anonymous man in
Michigan has to be insulted one again in your desperate quest to cover up
the bullet hole in the front of the forehead/temple area, that you can't
even see!
Even a child can see in the Altgens photo that there is no place you can
position that shooter that would allow him to fire a shot through the
impact point on the windshield that would come anywhere near JFK.
Post by mainframetech
There's an old phrase you've heard before...methinks he protesteth
too much. All your slaps at the poor guy in Michigan just because he
though what he had seen might be important to someone.
What that story claims is completely impossible. The photo alone shows
your theoretical shot is impossible. You still have never attempted to
diagram this theoretical shot because even you know it is impossible but
are too stubborn to admit it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door.
No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because
you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You
must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Post by bigdog
It's funny that you think this horseshit you present could correct
anybody.
Yep, but it's me correcting you. Over and over.
If only you could find somebody to correct yourself.
bigdog
2018-06-17 20:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
mainframetech
2018-06-18 18:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-19 01:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.

Loading Image...

Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?

Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.

You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
mainframetech
2018-06-20 01:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
You should listen more when I speak. You'd learn a helluva lot. I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-20 19:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
You should listen more when I speak.
Why?
Post by mainframetech
You'd learn a helluva lot.
I've learned how silly your theories are.
Post by mainframetech
I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
It was a lousy place to shoot from. The History Channel's Daniel Martinez
showed how ludicrous the theory was. He could barely squeeze into one of
those storm sewers and it is ludicrous to think a shooter could wield a
rifle in such a cramped space. But that's just the beginning of the
problem. As the last Altgens photo shows, a shooter firing from anywhere
beyond the underpass would be firing on a right to left diagonal. A bullet
fired on that trajectory striking the windshield where the hole was would
have been moving away from JFK, not toward him. The bullet would have to
have made a sharp left hand turn to move from where the hole was to where
JFK was. Very basic geometry. You really should drop this turkey of an
idea. It just gets sillier the more you try to advance it.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
You should listen more when I speak.
Why?
Post by mainframetech
You'd learn a helluva lot.
I've learned how silly your theories are.
Post by mainframetech
I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
It was a lousy place to shoot from. The History Channel's Daniel Martinez
showed how ludicrous the theory was. He could barely squeeze into one of
those storm sewers and it is ludicrous to think a shooter could wield a
rifle in such a cramped space.
Wrong! The test with the sewer on the fight side of the road allowed a
shooter to take aim and fire.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
But that's just the beginning of the
problem. As the last Altgens photo shows, a shooter firing from anywhere
beyond the underpass would be firing on a right to left diagonal. A bullet
fired on that trajectory striking the windshield where the hole was would
have been moving away from JFK, not toward him. The bullet would have to
have made a sharp left hand turn to move from where the hole was to where
JFK was. Very basic geometry. You really should drop this turkey of an
idea. It just gets sillier the more you try to advance it.
To help you out of your quandary, I found an extremely interesting
analysis of the shooting, that has all the geometry you could want, and
angles and all sorts of things that completely explain my points. It
explains a few things I didn't realize myself, and will change my thinking
slightly. It shows the explanations for BOTH frontal shots to the throat
and to the Forehead of JFK.

It has 31 images, but the important ones showing the details of the
throat and head shots are in images 5, 7, 8, 10,14, 18, 22, 24, 26, 29.

This analysis says that the shots came from the parking lot on the
south side of Dealey Plaza and it explains the shot through the windshield
and the head shot which came from the south knoll. Here it is:

https://tinyurl.com/y6vxed6d

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
You should listen more when I speak.
Why?
Post by mainframetech
You'd learn a helluva lot.
I've learned how silly your theories are.
Post by mainframetech
I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
It was a lousy place to shoot from. The History Channel's Daniel Martinez
showed how ludicrous the theory was. He could barely squeeze into one of
those storm sewers and it is ludicrous to think a shooter could wield a
rifle in such a cramped space.
Wrong! The test with the sewer on the fight side of the road allowed a
shooter to take aim and fire.
Yes, but you keep ignoring the fact that it was impossible to hit JFK in
the head from that position. You have a pattern of ignoring simple facts.
Post by mainframetech
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9IvdyF0gYHI/hqdefault.jpg
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesA/drain4.jpg
Post by bigdog
But that's just the beginning of the
problem. As the last Altgens photo shows, a shooter firing from anywhere
beyond the underpass would be firing on a right to left diagonal. A bullet
fired on that trajectory striking the windshield where the hole was would
have been moving away from JFK, not toward him. The bullet would have to
have made a sharp left hand turn to move from where the hole was to where
JFK was. Very basic geometry. You really should drop this turkey of an
idea. It just gets sillier the more you try to advance it.
To help you out of your quandary, I found an extremely interesting
analysis of the shooting, that has all the geometry you could want, and
angles and all sorts of things that completely explain my points. It
explains a few things I didn't realize myself, and will change my thinking
slightly. It shows the explanations for BOTH frontal shots to the throat
and to the Forehead of JFK.
It has 31 images, but the important ones showing the details of the
throat and head shots are in images 5, 7, 8, 10,14, 18, 22, 24, 26, 29.
This analysis says that the shots came from the parking lot on the
south side of Dealey Plaza and it explains the shot through the windshield
https://tinyurl.com/y6vxed6d
Whose analysis?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
You should listen more when I speak.
Why?
Post by mainframetech
You'd learn a helluva lot.
I've learned how silly your theories are.
Post by mainframetech
I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
It was a lousy place to shoot from. The History Channel's Daniel Martinez
showed how ludicrous the theory was. He could barely squeeze into one of
Silly. Maybe he only pretendeed it was difficult. Ken Rahn had no
problem going into the storm drain.
Post by bigdog
those storm sewers and it is ludicrous to think a shooter could wield a
rifle in such a cramped space. But that's just the beginning of the
The theory is silly, but not physically impossible. Learn the difference.
Post by bigdog
problem. As the last Altgens photo shows, a shooter firing from anywhere
beyond the underpass would be firing on a right to left diagonal. A bullet
fired on that trajectory striking the windshield where the hole was would
have been moving away from JFK, not toward him. The bullet would have to
have made a sharp left hand turn to move from where the hole was to where
JFK was. Very basic geometry. You really should drop this turkey of an
idea. It just gets sillier the more you try to advance it.
Yeah, but I know one kook who says the bullet actually went through the
windshield. But the big problem is that the side glass supporting the
parade bar blocks a shot to JFK's head.

Cutler diagrammed this:

Loading Image...

But it can miss the windshield.
claviger
2018-06-20 19:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
You should listen more when I speak. You'd learn a helluva lot. I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
Chris
Cite please.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should listen more when I speak. You'd learn a helluva lot. I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
Chris
Cite please.
No problem. The book:

"The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy" by Harrison
Livingstone

Page 163 - top of page

https://tinyurl.com/y6vxed6d

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should listen more when I speak. You'd learn a helluva lot. I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
Chris
Cite please.
"The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy" by Harrison
Livingstone
Page 163 - top of page
https://tinyurl.com/y6vxed6d
Chris
I know Harry and have talked to him several times.
I disagree with that theory.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You should listen more when I speak. You'd learn a helluva lot. I had
said to you that there was a sewer entry on the left side of the road just
past the overpass similar to the one on the right by the GK. It led to a
place where flood water could flow away from the roads. It was removed a
couple weeks after the shooting. It was a large tunnel in effect and a
great getaway.
Chris
Cite please.
The storm sewer is a good hidden location, one that a military sniper
would choose. Penn Jones crawled through the pipes and discovered that
going west along Elm leads to the vertical pipe that opens behind the
Grassy Knoll fence near the overpass, and going across Elm and to the east
leads to a grate in the basement of the Dallas jail. He yelled out when he
got there, but no one responded.

https://www.google.com/search?q=JFK+assassination+storm+drain+theory+grassy+knoll+Penn+Jones&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN6ae6iubbAhWK7YMKHdfJDDQQ_AUICigB&biw=1144&bih=654#imgrc=S32tQd25G1Yh0M:

First time on the big bad InterNet? Don't use Google, use Bing. Never
use Yahoo.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 00:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Hello!!! Of course it didn't show anything. There wasn't anything to see.
Here's another photo taken just seconds after the last Altgens photo. It's
from the other side of the overpass. It's from a distance but there is
nothing fuzzy about it. It clearly shows nobody on the far side of the
overpass other than a small cluster of spectators on either side of
Elm.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4109/4974451392_9a27894811_b.jpg
Do you see a gunman in this photo? Don't you think those spectators on
More childish straw man arguments. I have not seen anyone claim that a
sniper was there on that part of the road.

The kook won't even diagram his angle. Maybe others have. Why not upload
some of the diagrams of the other conspiracy theories? Maybe Cutler did
one.
Post by bigdog
either side of the road would have seen a gunman on that side of the
underpass? And what about the spectators on top of the underpass. Don't
you think they would have heard a shot coming from behind them?
I suspect that most people on the overpass were looking at the limo, not
looking for assassins on the other side of the bridge. Only I would do a
thing like that.
Post by bigdog
Also note the lead motorcycles and the lead car which seems to have pulled
over to allow the limo to pass. Those people would have been in perfect
position to see a shooter on that side of the underpass. and they would
have been between the shooter and the limo blocking any frontal shot.
Yes, but the fact that they didn't see a shooter does not mean there was
no shooter there. How many people saw the assassin shoot at President Chen?
Post by bigdog
You really should consider cutting your losses and drop this silly idea.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-19 17:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is another 'swamp post' raked over and over to repeat many times
over, a particular part of the case. Google Groups doesn't work well with
these sizable files, and I'm not interested in the repetition, so I'm outa
here.
Kind of funny how you seem to tire of a thread about the time you get
boxed into a corner and have no answer. The Altgens photo pretty much shot
down your theory of a shot from beyond the overpass and rather than deal
with that inconvenient piece of evidence, you chose to check out. Good
move.
Ah, good! A nice small post. You're welcome to your odd opinion of
me. But of course I've answered all these points many times over in the
past, so you can't legitimately catch me on them. And BTW, the Altgens
photo didn't show me anything nor was there anything to see. It was a
case of fuzzy and bad images.
Chris
Then you're not looking at the best images.
John Hun matched up the cracks in the windshield as seen in the Altgens
photo an the WH garage photo that night.


http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/JosiahThompson/media/bWVkaWFJZDo2ODE2NjgwNQ==/?ref=


I think he even made a GIF.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 00:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
Which proves the case for the shot through the windshield was from the
front as per at least 2 witnesses.
The SSA who actually felt the surface of the glass said the outer surface
of the windshield was smooth indicating the missile that struck if from
the inside did NOT penetrate through the windshield. But he doesn't count
as a witness because his story doesn't support your beliefs.
WRONG again! He's a very good witness for my purposes. Here's his
"Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.
Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?
Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield,
there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that
I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the
inside of the car."
Note that the outside was smooth and the inside was not. This denotes
that there was a blow to the windshield from the outside!
Just one question. Are you freaking serious???!!! Do you really think the
bullet struck the windshield from the outside and then the outer surface
healed itself so that it felt smooth to the touch.
Don't go getting ridiculous again! No, I don't think that and you
know it. The suggestion is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
You quote a witness who felt the outer surface of the glass and saw that
it was smooth and yet you still contend a bullet went through the
windshield from the outside. How do you reconcile that with a smooth outer
surface of the glass?
Post by mainframetech
I've laid out what I think in the last post on this same repeated
subject. The limo had a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield seen by 6
witnesses. It was from the outside that the bullet struck using the
beveling rule we spoke of. The limo was sent to Michigan to a Ford plant
for repairs and refurbishment to remove the sight and smell of blood and
replace the windshield with a hole in it. The windshield wit ha hole in
it was destroyed.
You keep quoting these dubious witnesses and yet you refuse to address the
issue of why the outer surface of the glass was smooth.
Are you blind? I just explained that. when the windshield was
replaced the first time in Michigan, it was smooth on the outside because
it was a new windshield. Is That simple enough for you? When the limo
got back to the W.H. garage, someone hit with something causing a crack,
but not a hole through it. THEN Kellerman checked it, and found the
outside smooth, and the inside cone shaped. The beveling rule says that
means it was cracked from the outside, which is not the 'official' story
which suggests a fragment from inside made the crack. Is that clear
enough for you?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The limo was returned and when it came back someone struck the new
windshield with a hammer or some similar tool and caused a crack FROM THE
OUTSIDE, and then they called a repair company and had 4 people come and
Physically impossible. We can see the cracks in Dealey Plaza and they
match the photo taken that night. It is impossible to duplicate the
pattern exactly by hitting ist with a hammer.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
replace the windshield, this time saving the cracked one for later show to
offset the 6 witnesses to the hole in the windshield which would ruin the
all important 'lone nut' theory. Only the cracked windshield remained to
show people to fool them into thinking there was NO hole through the
windshield which would prove there was another shooter and therefore a
conspiracy.
Do you think any sensible person could read the above scenario and not
laugh his/her ass off?
Of course. But since you think otherwise, you have to say stuff like
that. It makes perfect sense if the intent was to prove the crack was the
damage and not the hole through the glass. The hole from outside would
have said there was a conspiracy with a second shooter firing from in
front of the limo. That 'lone nut' scenario was to be protected at all
costs'.
How does the bullet cause a hole and then smash in the back of the
rearview mirror? Please diagram the angle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since this is another swamp post that you keep raking over to sell the
same old baloney, I'm outa here, as I previously told you.
Apparently you keep leaving these threads through a revolving door. No, you keep trying to resurrect old repeated conversations because you have nothing new to say, forcing me to correct you every time. You must need the coverage so folks don't forget you.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 13:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
No. I have shown you examples where the beveling is on the outside on an
entrance wound.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see. Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You can't even look at the autopsy photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
No, they were either stupid or lied.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-08 21:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
No. I have shown you examples where the beveling is on the outside on an
entrance wound.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see. Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You can't even look at the autopsy photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
No, they were either stupid or lied.
Some people do/are both, Anthony "Makes It Up As He Goes" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 01:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
DiMaio knows more about this subject than you could ever hope to. He
didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area because there isn't one.
He knows enough about forensic pathology and wound ballistics to know
there couldn't have been one. Such a wound would have telltale signs which
are non-existent. Such telltale signs do exist for the entry wound in the
BOH and they are easily identifiable for people who know what they are
talking about like DiMaio.
Since you think you know that DiMaio has outlined these "telltale
signs", why not let us all know what they are? Or don't you know?
Not just DiMaio but forensic pathologists every where. It's pretty basic
stuff for them. A bullet entering a skull will exhibit inward beveling in
the skull wall. There will also be radiating fracture lines from the point
of entry. Both were present in the back of JFK's skull which was enough to
convince EVERT forensic pathologist who has seen the evidence that JFK was
shot in the BOH.
Remember that the beveling is also something that happens with
tempered glass like with automotive glass.
Yes it does and the same way it does with a skull wall. The hole is
smaller on the entry side than one the exit side.
No. I have shown you examples where the beveling is on the outside on an
entrance wound.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Autopsy Report (AR)
mentions beveling, which could be what Humes wanted to put there. They
may also modified the body during their clandestine work on the body to
make it look like a shooting from above and behind. So is that it?
Those "telltale signs" were just the beveling? That's it? Not very
competitive with a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
There was no bullet hole in the forehead/temple. That is something only
you and a few others have convinced yourself you see. Are you claiming
Humes used a Dremel to bevel out the hole in the BOH. Beveling wasn't the
only telltale sign the bullet entered in the BOH. There are the radiating
fracture lines. There is the cone shaped dispersal of tiny lead fragments
fanning out from the entry point in the BOH. All proof positive of a rear
entry.
You can't even look at the autopsy photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And remember, Dimaio had the same problem the medical panels had
looking into this murder. They had no access to the body which showed the
false information that was in the AR, they had no access to the enlisted
eyewitnesses to the autopsy, and they had limited access to the photos and
X-rays which were missing. There is no way DiMaio or the panels could
make a decent decision in that environment.
That problem exists only in your head. They are knowledgeable enough that
they can look at photos and x-rays and determine a great deal from them,
especially when the evidence is so clear cut.
WRONG! When the evidence is hidden from them, and they didn't get to
access the many bits of evidence in this case, they couldn't make a decent
decision. They just parroted the AR.
It wasn't hidden from them. They had access to the photos and x-rays and
it was enough to convince them without a doubt that the bullet entered the
BOH. But why should we take their word for it when we have you to tell us
what you think you see in one photo?
No, they were either stupid or lied.
Some people do/are both, Anthony "Makes It Up As He Goes" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They saw the photos which
showed them inward beveling of the skull wall in the BOH. They saw the
x-rays showing the radiating fracture lines from the entry point in the
BOH. They saw the x-rays which revealed lead fragments fanning out from
the entry wound in the BOH.
You have no clue what photos they saw, other than the phony autopsy
'leaked' ones, but OBVIOUSLY they didn't see the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area.
I know they saw a hell of a lot more than either you or I. The few photos
and x-rays that were made public are a small subset of all the photos and
x-rays which the review panels had available to them.
Post by mainframetech
As to the X-rays, the ones we saw did NOT "fan out"
but made a path through the skull, which could have come from either front
or back of the skull.
Which x-ray showed that. None of the x-rays that were made public that I
have seen show the lead fragments. Can you cite a link to one?
Post by mainframetech
And given the bullet hole in the forehead/temple
area, had to be from the front.
So we are back to your interpretation of a single photo and that is
supposed to trump what teams of highly qualified medical examiners
determined who got to see far more than what has been made public.
Post by mainframetech
That would also fit the radiating
fractures which showed more to the rear of the skull.
It wouldn't fit that pattern at all. The fracture lines radiate out from
the point of entry. Those radiating fracture lines are in the BOH. That is
the only place the bullet could have entered the skull.
Post by mainframetech
When the bullet
came in from the forehead area, it went into the brain and began building
up pressure, and as it reached the rear of the skull, it had built up
enough to blow out the BOH which was in front of the bullet and its gas
bubble.
I suppose your think this opinion of yours is more compelling than the
unanimous one reached by people who are far more qualified than you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That was proof positive for them that a bullet
hit JFK in the BOH. But we are supposed to disregard all that because you
looked at one photo and think you see a bullet hole. We are supposed to
believe that every qualified medical examiner who has seen the photos and
x-rays not only misinterpreted what they saw but also failed to see your
bullet hole in the "forehead temple". We are supposed to believe that
because you have declared it to be so. What kind of idiot would accept
your opinion over that of all those qualified medical examiners?
Apparently you're sticking with your faulty belief that there was no
bullet hole that many can see, except you.
By many, you mean you, Amy, and Marsh.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence fits perfectly
with a bullet coming in from the front, but without seeing the bullet
hole, the panels could not know the truth and so they went with the AR.
So you are going to continue to insist that you are able to see a bullet
hole that they missed even though they were working with many more and
Who says they missed it. And prove that they where working with MUCH
HIGHER QUALITY. They were working with copies.
I saw the original Fox set.
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
much higher quality photos and x-rays. The funniest part is that you are
always chastising me for offering my opinions yet you act as if your
opinions in an area in which you have no training constitutes compelling
evidence.
Dr. Lawrence Angel does. Go attack him.
claviger
2018-05-31 02:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
Chris
You keep promoting this myth. There never were 39 eyewitnesses to a
blowout on the back of the head, because there was no blowout on the
back of the skull.
mainframetech
2018-06-01 03:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
Chris
You keep promoting this myth. There never were 39 eyewitnesses to a
blowout on the back of the head, because there was no blowout on the
back of the skull.
You keep promoting that myth. So you have decided to go with the age
old LN whine that 'they all lied'? Tell me how you managed to discredit
over 39 eye witnesses that corroborate each other to a massive degree.
Some of whom were medically trained, and had looked down at the body AFTER
the shooting and had their hands INSIDE that large hole. What tells you
that the person that put their hands in that large hole s lying or as
mistaken? Did you read the Autopsy Report (AR)? It also mentions the
large hole. Was that also a lie? It says there as a large hole in the
skull that was about 13 cm. in diameter.


"MISSILE WOUNDS

1. 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. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

From: JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

All the bones mentioned there are fully or partially at the BOH. And 13
cm. is equal to 5.1 inches. A 'large hole'.

Are you now going to say the AR and the pathologists lied?

Chris
Steve BH
2018-06-10 22:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
Chris
You keep promoting this myth. There never were 39 eyewitnesses to a
blowout on the back of the head, because there was no blowout on the
back of the skull.
You keep promoting that myth. So you have decided to go with the age
old LN whine that 'they all lied'? Tell me how you managed to discredit
over 39 eye witnesses that corroborate each other to a massive degree.
Some of whom were medically trained, and had looked down at the body AFTER
the shooting and had their hands INSIDE that large hole. What tells you
that the person that put their hands in that large hole s lying or as
mistaken? Did you read the Autopsy Report (AR)? It also mentions the
large hole. Was that also a lie? It says there as a large hole in the
skull that was about 13 cm. in diameter.
"MISSILE WOUNDS
1. 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. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
From: JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
All the bones mentioned there are fully or partially at the BOH. And 13
cm. is equal to 5.1 inches. A 'large hole'.
Are you now going to say the AR and the pathologists lied?
Chris
No. If the wound is chiefly parietal, and the parietal bone is chiefly at
the side of the head, that makes the wound chiefly at the side of the
head, which is just where Zapruder, Nix, and Moorman place it (the latter
inasmuch as you can't see it at all). If the wound extends occiputally
(true back of the head) it also extends temporally (front-side).

Many witnesses in your 39 said the wound was at the right-rear of the
head, but "rear" here is to be understood as being in the plane behind the
one passing between the ears. It doesn't mean "back" of the head as in
what you see looking at the back of somebody.
mainframetech
2018-06-13 02:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Though DiMaio didn't see the wound in the forehead/temple area, his
description is still cogent and should be looked at carefully as to the
pressure built up in the skull when a rifle bullet hits the head. As
relates to the blowing out of the BOH seen by over 39 eye witnesses.
Chris
You keep promoting this myth. There never were 39 eyewitnesses to a
blowout on the back of the head, because there was no blowout on the
back of the skull.
You keep promoting that myth. So you have decided to go with the age
old LN whine that 'they all lied'? Tell me how you managed to discredit
over 39 eye witnesses that corroborate each other to a massive degree.
Some of whom were medically trained, and had looked down at the body AFTER
the shooting and had their hands INSIDE that large hole. What tells you
that the person that put their hands in that large hole s lying or as
mistaken? Did you read the Autopsy Report (AR)? It also mentions the
large hole. Was that also a lie? It says there as a large hole in the
skull that was about 13 cm. in diameter.
"MISSILE WOUNDS
1. 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. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
From: JFK Autopsy Report
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
All the bones mentioned there are fully or partially at the BOH. And 13
cm. is equal to 5.1 inches. A 'large hole'.
Are you now going to say the AR and the pathologists lied?
Chris
No. If the wound is chiefly parietal, and the parietal bone is chiefly at
the side of the head, that makes the wound chiefly at the side of the
head, which is just where Zapruder, Nix, and Moorman place it (the latter
inasmuch as you can't see it at all). If the wound extends occiputally
(true back of the head) it also extends temporally (front-side).
The wound was "chiefly parietal" at Bethesda, but not just after
Parkland. Humes and Boswell expanded the BOH wound to go around the right
side and some of the top of the head when they did their clandestine work
on the body. The 'Parietal' (if you check a diagram of the head) is on
top, sides, and BOH. That work made the AR describe the wound as being
more on the side, though at the BOH also.
Post by Steve BH
Many witnesses in your 39 said the wound was at the right-rear of the
head, but "rear" here is to be understood as being in the plane behind the
one passing between the ears. It doesn't mean "back" of the head as in
what you see looking at the back of somebody.
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
includes that of the mortician Tom Robinson:

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

Saundra Spencer:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679

James Sibert (FBI):
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719

Nurse Audrey Bell:
Loading Image...

Nurse Diana Bowron:
Loading Image...

Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.

Chris
claviger
2018-06-14 00:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
mainframetech
2018-06-15 01:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.

Chris
claviger
2018-06-16 05:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
mainframetech
2018-06-17 01:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.

Chris
claviger
2018-06-18 00:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.


alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors


alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors


alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors


alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors


alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
mainframetech
2018-06-18 18:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.

Chris
claviger
2018-06-19 16:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
You corrected one mistake, but ignored many others.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts.
They prove nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
What do you mean by "counts"? These are past discussion
topics. You were probably in most of them.
mainframetech
2018-06-21 15:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
You corrected one mistake, but ignored many others.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts.
They prove nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
What do you mean by "counts"? These are past discussion
topics. You were probably in most of them.
You didn't notice that they included counts? And back to my question,
why are you showing titles of previous discussion topics?

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
You corrected one mistake, but ignored many others.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ???
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ???
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ???
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ???
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ???
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts.
They prove nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
What do you mean by "counts"? These are past discussion
topics. You were probably in most of them.
You didn't notice that they included counts? And back to my question,
why are you showing titles of previous discussion topics?
Chris
It's called bringing you up to speed.

When someone visits a new group for the first time it is recommended that
they read some of the old messages to get a feel for how the newsgroup
operates, what they have discussed before and what issues have been
resolved.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-19 17:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
claviger
2018-06-20 17:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
SWAMP POSTING sounds like Posting in a Swamp, which is somewhat
appropriate. What you are alluding to is SWAMPING as in swamping a
boat. I would think it OK to give several examples in reply to a long list
of alleged witnesses to a head wound. If that list includes 39 people is
is that a case of Swamping? By contrast my referencing only 5 previous
discussions by title, why is that a case of Swamping?

I only gave the title of each thread so any interested person can do their
own research at their own convenience, not one of those looong tedious
posts your are notorious for clogging up the discussion board, and by so
doing you are the undeniable Swamp Monster on this Newsgroup! So the
question should be, why are you, the reigning Swampologist complaining?
claviger
2018-06-21 16:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
SWAMP POSTING sounds like Posting in a Swamp, which is somewhat
appropriate. What you are alluding to is SWAMPING as in swamping a
boat. I would think it OK to give several examples in reply to a long list
of alleged witnesses to a head wound. If that list includes 39 people is
that a case of Swamping? By contrast my referencing only 5 previous
discussions by title, why is that a case of Swamping?
I only gave the title of each thread so any interested person can do their
own research at their own convenience, not one of those looong tedious
posts your are notorious for clogging up the discussion board, and by so
doing you are the undeniable Swamp Monster on this Newsgroup! So the
question should be why are you the reigning Swampologist complaining?
You are notorious for some long boring cholesterolic posts clogging
up the discussion arteries of this Newsgroup. So as you like to say
when pointing a finger at someone three are pointing back at you!
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
SWAMP POSTING sounds like Posting in a Swamp, which is somewhat
appropriate. What you are alluding to is SWAMPING as in swamping a
boat. I would think it OK to give several examples in reply to a long list
of alleged witnesses to a head wound. If that list includes 39 people is
is that a case of Swamping? By contrast my referencing only 5 previous
discussions by title, why is that a case of Swamping?
I only gave the title of each thread so any interested person can do their
own research at their own convenience, not one of those looong tedious
posts your are notorious for clogging up the discussion board, and by so
doing you are the undeniable Swamp Monster on this Newsgroup! So the
question should be, why are you, the reigning Swampologist complaining?
An example of a 'swamp post' is where a person makes a post with
various points in it, then day after day goes back to it and rakes through
it trying to pick out more to say, or even duplication of things in the
post. In time for the other persons, it becomes like a swamp trying to
wade through the repetition and constant blatting until the post get's so
long that Google Groups has trouble handling it when writing to disk to
save it.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-23 03:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
SWAMP POSTING sounds like Posting in a Swamp, which is somewhat
appropriate. What you are alluding to is SWAMPING as in swamping a
boat. I would think it OK to give several examples in reply to a long list
of alleged witnesses to a head wound. If that list includes 39 people is
is that a case of Swamping? By contrast my referencing only 5 previous
discussions by title, why is that a case of Swamping?
I only gave the title of each thread so any interested person can do their
own research at their own convenience, not one of those looong tedious
posts your are notorious for clogging up the discussion board, and by so
doing you are the undeniable Swamp Monster on this Newsgroup! So the
question should be, why are you, the reigning Swampologist complaining?
An example of a 'swamp post' is where a person makes a post with
various points in it, then day after day goes back to it and rakes through
it trying to pick out more to say, or even duplication of things in the
post. In time for the other persons, it becomes like a swamp trying to
wade through the repetition and constant blatting until the post get's so
long that Google Groups has trouble handling it when writing to disk to
save it.
I know you would much prefer to have your silly claims go unchallenged.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
Yes, your inability to learn from it. Make a note...it fits with the
over 39 that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH.
Chris
You never came close to 39 witnesses. Your list is full of errors.
We've been through your baloney before. I challenged you and you gave
me a couple of examples of what you're talking about, and I showed you
where you were wrong. Want to try another example of your concern?
Otherwise the list is right.
Chris
I pointed out several flaws in your list the first time you
posted it but refuse to read them. You are still in denial.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I answered your list, which I remember was full of
errors. You found ONE mistake where I put the same name in the list
twice, and I corrected that. But you had no other intelligent things to
point out, so I gave you a list back of every point you were mistaken on.
And the 2 cases where you have tried to point out recently, I also showed
you the error in. The denial is yours.
Post by claviger
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Autopsy Photos
56 posts by 7 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
AR-15 head wounds
235 posts by 15 authors
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Robinson confirms Stroble
18 posts by 4 authors
I don't understand why you keep showing these counts. They prove
nothing and you fail to say what they're for.
Chris
It's called SWAMP POSTING. It is designed to bog down a newsgroup.
SWAMP POSTING sounds like Posting in a Swamp, which is somewhat
appropriate. What you are alluding to is SWAMPING as in swamping a
boat. I would think it OK to give several examples in reply to a long list
No, not exactly. Swamp and in filled with weeds that make it hard to
walk through or navigate.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
of alleged witnesses to a head wound. If that list includes 39 people is
is that a case of Swamping? By contrast my referencing only 5 previous
discussions by title, why is that a case of Swamping?
No, I said nothing about that. I was talking only about one troll who
posts hundreds of unrelated links.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
I only gave the title of each thread so any interested person can do their
own research at their own convenience, not one of those looong tedious
posts your are notorious for clogging up the discussion board, and by so
doing you are the undeniable Swamp Monster on this Newsgroup! So the
question should be, why are you, the reigning Swampologist complaining?
An example of a 'swamp post' is where a person makes a post with
various points in it, then day after day goes back to it and rakes through
it trying to pick out more to say, or even duplication of things in the
Nope. That's not swamp. It's just repetition.
Post by mainframetech
post. In time for the other persons, it becomes like a swamp trying to
wade through the repetition and constant blatting until the post get's so
long that Google Groups has trouble handling it when writing to disk to
save it.
Chris
claviger
2018-06-16 05:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.

That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
bigdog
2018-06-17 01:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
mainframetech
2018-06-18 14:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-19 01:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
mainframetech
2018-06-20 01:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.

Chris
Mark
2018-06-20 19:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Speak for yourself only. Mark
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Speak for yourself only. Mark
Nope, I'm speaking for all the people I've heard here that saw the
bullet hole, and the many people outside of this forum that I've shown the
photo to with no hint what it was, that immediately figured out that it
was a bullet hole, and knew right away the implications of that. As well,
there is a list of witnesses in the case that also saw the bullet hole and
knew what it was.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-23 03:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Speak for yourself only. Mark
Nope, I'm speaking for all the people I've heard here that saw the
bullet hole, and the many people outside of this forum that I've shown the
photo to with no hint what it was, that immediately figured out that it
was a bullet hole, and knew right away the implications of that. As well,
there is a list of witnesses in the case that also saw the bullet hole and
knew what it was.
Why do you keep insisting all these witnesses saw your bullet hole when
they all placed it lower and farther back on the side of the head?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Speak for yourself only. Mark
Nope, I'm speaking for all the people I've heard here that saw the
bullet hole, and the many people outside of this forum that I've shown the
photo to with no hint what it was, that immediately figured out that it
was a bullet hole, and knew right away the implications of that. As well,
there is a list of witnesses in the case that also saw the bullet hole and
knew what it was.
Please. It's not just wacky conspiracy believers who can see it. Dr.
Lawrence Angel could see it and pointed it out to the HSCA.
I didn't read any dissent which denied the bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-20 19:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
The SOD photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years. If it is so
obvious that there is a bullet hole in it, why hasn't it been presented as
proof positive of a second shooter firing from in front of JFK. Why are
their so few proponents of the idea it shows an entry wound in JFK's
forehead.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
The SOD photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years. If it is so
obvious that there is a bullet hole in it, why hasn't it been presented as
proof positive of a second shooter firing from in front of JFK. Why are
their so few proponents of the idea it shows an entry wound in JFK's
forehead.
There are more "proponents" than you realize based on my travels here
and there on the topic of JFK. But you apparently don't leave here often
anymore and might not have encountered the info elsewhere. And of course,
there are the rock headed LN people that cannot allow themselves to
contemplate anything new, as they have invested a lifetime in the
silliness of the SBT and the 'lone nut' killer.

I can also tell you that many people just walking around don't know
about the bullet hole, as I've found out by showing it to people. They
are surprised right away, and realize what it is and what it means.

There is a problem in that the media goes along with any standard
explanation the government puts out, and won't often entertain other
viewpoints, except programs like Alex Jones, which have no credibility.
Another reason is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has been used to
describe anything that is silly, so that the average person becomes
unaware of the real conspiracies around them. As if humans never
conspired. And once the topic has been labeled as CT, then the rest of
the LN world become rock hard in their heads, and won't listen to anything
or consider any other possibilities.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-23 00:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
The SOD photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years. If it is so
obvious that there is a bullet hole in it, why hasn't it been presented as
proof positive of a second shooter firing from in front of JFK. Why are
their so few proponents of the idea it shows an entry wound in JFK's
forehead.
There are more "proponents" than you realize based on my travels here
and there on the topic of JFK. But you apparently don't leave here often
anymore and might not have encountered the info elsewhere. And of course,
there are the rock headed LN people that cannot allow themselves to
contemplate anything new, as they have invested a lifetime in the
silliness of the SBT and the 'lone nut' killer.
The first time I heard anyone claim there was a bullet in JFK's forehead
was from Marsh shortly after I discovered this group. Oliver Stone never
bothered to use that claim in his movie. If your bullet hole was as
obvious as you claim, it would be proof positive of a second shooter by
itself yet I never heard anyone make such a claim until almost 50 years
after the crime and even then the number of proponents have been limited
to you, Marsh, and Amy. I've never seen it claimed on any other forum.
Post by mainframetech
I can also tell you that many people just walking around don't know
about the bullet hole, as I've found out by showing it to people. They
are surprised right away, and realize what it is and what it means.
I'm sure that is true. <chuckle>
Post by mainframetech
There is a problem in that the media goes along with any standard
explanation the government puts out, and won't often entertain other
viewpoints, except programs like Alex Jones, which have no credibility.
Even Alex Jones to the best of my knowledge hasn't pushed the bullet hole
in the forehead theory. That would make him sound crazy.
Post by mainframetech
Another reason is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has been used to
describe anything that is silly, so that the average person becomes
unaware of the real conspiracies around them. As if humans never
conspired. And once the topic has been labeled as CT, then the rest of
the LN world become rock hard in their heads, and won't listen to anything
or consider any other possibilities.
There are lots of conspiracies and there is evidence of them. There is no
evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. That requires imagination.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 16:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
The SOD photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years. If it is so
obvious that there is a bullet hole in it, why hasn't it been presented as
proof positive of a second shooter firing from in front of JFK. Why are
their so few proponents of the idea it shows an entry wound in JFK's
forehead.
There are more "proponents" than you realize based on my travels here
and there on the topic of JFK. But you apparently don't leave here often
anymore and might not have encountered the info elsewhere. And of course,
there are the rock headed LN people that cannot allow themselves to
contemplate anything new, as they have invested a lifetime in the
silliness of the SBT and the 'lone nut' killer.
I can also tell you that many people just walking around don't know
about the bullet hole, as I've found out by showing it to people. They
are surprised right away, and realize what it is and what it means.
Again, more hypocrisy. You try to show it to the WC defenders and they
refuse to look. I try to show it to you and YOU refuse to look.
Post by mainframetech
There is a problem in that the media goes along with any standard
explanation the government puts out, and won't often entertain other
viewpoints, except programs like Alex Jones, which have no credibility.
Another reason is that the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has been used to
describe anything that is silly, so that the average person becomes
unaware of the real conspiracies around them. As if humans never
conspired. And once the topic has been labeled as CT, then the rest of
the LN world become rock hard in their heads, and won't listen to anything
or consider any other possibilities.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 23:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
The SOD photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years. If it is so
obvious that there is a bullet hole in it, why hasn't it been presented as
proof positive of a second shooter firing from in front of JFK. Why are
their so few proponents of the idea it shows an entry wound in JFK's
forehead.
FALSE. It was never released by the government.
You guys will never admit ANY fact.
claviger
2018-06-20 19:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
Jason Burke
2018-06-21 21:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
The "fact" that Chrissie fantasies about.
mainframetech
2018-06-22 04:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
The fact of the bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area of JFK.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-23 00:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
The fact of the bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area of JFK.
You can't produce a fact through imagination. claviger raised an
interesting point yesterday which I am embarrassed to have not thought of
myself. If the wound in JFK's forehead is as obvious as you claim, why
didn't any of the doctors or nurses at Parkland see it. You can't use the
excuse that they didn't see the body. I don't think even you would be
silly enough to say they needed to enlarge his head to see it. Even Nurse
Bowron who you like to point out washed his hair after he was pronounced
dead never saw that bullet hole. How could all those people have missed a
bullet hole that you say is so obvious in a black and white photo?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-24 00:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45?? from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
The fact of the bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area of JFK.
You can't produce a fact through imagination. claviger raised an
interesting point yesterday which I am embarrassed to have not thought of
myself. If the wound in JFK's forehead is as obvious as you claim, why
didn't any of the doctors or nurses at Parkland see it. You can't use the
That is a childish question. Why didn't Humes notice the throat wound?
Incompetence? Being ordered not to examine it?
At Parkland they were not doing an autopsy they were trying to save a
life so they never saw the BACK wound. They didn't turn the body over.
The head wound was covered by hair, blood, and brain matter.
The nurse had to wash the head to prepare the body for shipping and then
she could see the head wound.
Post by bigdog
excuse that they didn't see the body. I don't think even you would be
silly enough to say they needed to enlarge his head to see it. Even Nurse
He's talking about a photo. They were not allowed to look at the photos.
YOU are not allowed to look at the photos.
Post by bigdog
Bowron who you like to point out washed his hair after he was pronounced
dead never saw that bullet hole. How could all those people have missed a
bullet hole that you say is so obvious in a black and white photo?
She did not reflect the scalp to see the skull. You are not allowed to
see the skull.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
More like baffled by basic geometry.
Maybe he doesn't have the best map. I do.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
What fact?
The bullet hole.
claviger
2018-06-21 15:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Why did none of the earth Doctors in TR1 observe an entrance wound
on front of the head? Why did none of the ER Nurses see an entrance
wound on front of the head?
bigdog
2018-06-22 21:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Why did none of the earth Doctors in TR1 observe an entrance wound
on front of the head? Why did none of the ER Nurses see an entrance
wound on front of the head?
They failed to enlarge JFK's head or surely they would have seen it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 21:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Why did none of the earth Doctors in TR1 observe an entrance wound
on front of the head? Why did none of the ER Nurses see an entrance
wound on front of the head?
They failed to enlarge JFK's head or surely they would have seen it.
Lack of experience.
Why did Humes miss the bullet wound in JFK's throat?
Lack of experience.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Why did none of the earth Doctors in TR1 observe an entrance wound
on front of the head? Why did none of the ER Nurses see an entrance
wound on front of the head?
COvered up by hair, blood and brain matter.
Why did none of the ER [SIC] doctors notice your hole in the back of the
head?
mainframetech
2018-06-23 03:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Chris
Why did none of the earth Doctors in TR1 observe an entrance wound
on front of the head? Why did none of the ER Nurses see an entrance
wound on front of the head?
It was small, about a quarter of an inch or less in diameter, and may
not have appeared dangerous next to the massive hole in the BOH, and it
also may have been mostly hidden by hair hanging down on the forehead.
That is the case in the 'stare-of-death' photo. However, it was noticed
by others, and was noticed by 2 of the autopsy team members, but since it
was not to be mentioned in the Autopsy Report (AR), it wasn't mentioned
after that. Here's part of an interview with James Jenkins, Technologist:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

It was clearly a 'missile wound' yet Humes did NOT put it in his
Autopsy Report (AR) which was a serious error, since it was very possibly
a bullet wound in the front of the body, changing the cause of death.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-21 16:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Are you really going to take the position that I am the only person on
this earth who doesn't see a bullet hole in JFK's forehead? Seriously? You
could have put a period after "There is no need for 'evidence'." because
that seems to be your approach.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-22 22:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Are you really going to take the position that I am the only person on
this earth who doesn't see a bullet hole in JFK's forehead? Seriously? You
could have put a period after "There is no need for 'evidence'." because
that seems to be your approach.
We take the position that you see the hole, but can't admit it's a
bullet hole. Maybe you think JFK was born that way.
mainframetech
2018-06-23 03:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Are you really going to take the position that I am the only person on
this earth who doesn't see a bullet hole in JFK's forehead? Seriously? You
could have put a period after "There is no need for 'evidence'." because
that seems to be your approach.
Hmm. We're feeling a little left out I see. Not one other person has
stated in front of me that they saw nothing of interest of out of normal.
Even Claviger saw a black spot. YOU on the other hand said you saw
nothing. Want to take another shot at it?

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-24 00:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
There is no need for "evidence" since the fact can be witnessed by
anyone on the earth except you.
Are you really going to take the position that I am the only person on
this earth who doesn't see a bullet hole in JFK's forehead? Seriously? You
could have put a period after "There is no need for 'evidence'." because
that seems to be your approach.
Hmm. We're feeling a little left out I see. Not one other person has
stated in front of me that they saw nothing of interest of out of normal.
Even Claviger saw a black spot. YOU on the other hand said you saw
nothing. Want to take another shot at it?
Why do you misrepresent what I have said? I have said I see hair and skin.
I see a black spot. That black spot appears to me to be nothing more than
a tuft of hair hanging down. It is exactly the same shade as the rest of
the hair it is attached to. On the other hand, there are just three
members of this forum who are on record as saying they believe the black
spot is a bullet hole. You three are the outliers.

Anthony Marsh
2018-06-23 00:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Chris seems to be challenged by basic geometry.
Sadly, you seem unaware of my belief from evidence that the kill shot
struck the forehead/temple area on the FRONT of the head. The passage
above couldn't be from me.
There is no such evidence. Your FUBAR analysis isn't evidence.
And bullying does not mean you are right.
mainframetech
2018-06-17 01:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Here are drawings of the skull done by some the eyewitnesses, and you
can see the placement of the wound in the BOH, where they placed it. It
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=679
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
Bowron was the last person to see the body before it left for Bethesda.
She washed the head and hair, so she was in a perfect position to see and
describe the wound in the BOH.
Chris
There is one big problem with all the above. Do you know what it is?
The major problem is President Kennedy was not facing forward, his face
was turned to the left when the head shot punctured the back of his skull.
If the shot came from the front it was not 45° from the picket fence.
That shot would have to come from the Left side of the Limousine to blow
out the back of the head indicated by these sketches. That was the open
area of the lawn on the south side of Elm St.
Not really. Go check the Z-film which I know you put great stock in.
You will find he is looking downward some, but not that much to the left.
And if a bullet came in from the front, it could do what was done, which
is blow out the BOH from internal pressure. Think about that. A bullet
comes in from the front, it does not immediately blow out the front of the
head because no pressure has built up yet (same for the BOH being hit
first). The bullet had to pass through the skull to the rear to build up
that pressure and blow out the BOH.

If the head was more to the left, then the shooter might have been on
the other side of the plaza to the left of the limo.


One problem with trying to figure these things out is that the best
aid is the Z-film which can't be trusted, particularly around frame 312.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-06-12 02:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Hold the DiMaio!
bigdog
2018-06-12 21:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Hold the DiMaio!
<groan>

Go to your room.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 19:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Courtesy of Ken Rahn's website.
http://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/Wound_ballistics/How_a_high-speed.html
Hold the DiMaio!
Learn the slang. "The" is unnecessary.
Loading...